1927 réponses à ce sujet

[Anarcala]

Oneiropolos wrote...

Frankly, what I find fascinating as a historian, and the charge that the Thedas historians will find Anders justified, is how LOADED The word 'justified' is! Did you ever look at the definition of the word "Vindicated"? It's a word we historians love to use. You see, we often use it to mean that we're clearing someone of crime or the ill spoken against them. Except Vindicated has a SECOND meaning (as most words do) which reads: Show or prove to be right, reasonable, or justified.

Look at the three words put together, and the great 'or' there. Any of those words applied could VINDICATE a person. This made me pause. Right? No. Between 'right' or 'wrong', I can't find Anders -right-. Reasonable? I can see his reasons, but I don't find them CORRECT reasons. If we want to go 'full of reasons' or 'containing a reason' then... maybe. But that's not what most people think of when they sigh in exasperation and go, "Be reasonable!" In that context, blowing up a chantry with people inside will never be REASONABLE. So. That leaves with the last word. The "Or justified". Here we have a problem. It doesn't matter if you agree with right or reasonable... if you agree Anders is justified, by definition, you have vindicated him of what he did. You have basically given dismissal to a crime Anders himself saw as NECESSARY for what he needed, but Anders does intend to pay the price of death for it. His writer herself stated it. Anders viewed it as both the correct thing to do and that it was justice for him to die for it.

So, I looked up the word justified. Now, the second definition really amused me on that one. "Declared or made righteous in the sight of God". Somehow, even switching "God" out and putting in "The Maker", I don't think Anders meets that definition of Justified. Something about killing holy men and women is generally frowned upon by deities, even as far back as Ancient Greek myths. So the only definition one could argue Anders is 'justified' under is "Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason". Even that's a bit iffie. There's already huge debate over whether his reasons were legitimate...I think he believed they were. But it can also be argued they were not legitimate in the end because he viewed his way as the only way, and there were alternatives that could have led to an outcome that didn't involve an act of terrorism.

Here's where things click though. Anders did what he did for JUSTIFIABLE reasons, which has a second definition of "Defensible". And I would say yes, the reasons why Anders did what Anders did are entirely defensible. I get them. I still knife him for it and think he was wrong. But even I could play devil's advocate and DEFEND his reasons.

If the title were "Can Ander's actions be defended?" The answer is a whole-hearted yes. Wrongly or rightly, they can be defended. Was he JUSTIFIED which means he could be later VINDICATED (also defined:Clear (someone) of blame or suspicion, along with the showing someone to have had right, reasonable, or justified actions) uh... no. He admitted he did it. Perhaps even the best question to ask is are his REASONS justifiable? And then it's truly something up to debate.

But was Anders justified? No. Will some Historians find him so? Well, some historians find clauses for every action in history to be justified and every person to be vindicated. I can't say anything, I'm a Ricardian. I think there's enough outside evidence that Richard III didn't kill his nephews, or at least that what indicates he did is from incredibly biased sources (men who worked for the King after him, or actually men he dismissed from their positions who suddenly AFTERWARDS declared he was doing all this...after he was dead). Historians work on accounts written by others in most cases...and maybe, you could argue, Varric isn't giving us the full story. Maybe because we're hearing the story from Varric, Varric's REALLY hiding the fact that actually Hawke blew up the chantry. Who knows. But we're as close to first hand as we can get.

Some historians will find Anders justified. And they'll write the scrolls that will cause other Historians to throw them against the wall in irritation. Not that... I would.. have ever done.. anything like that... >.> *mumbles something about her apartment-mates laughing when they heard thuds and shouting into her room, "You're trying to read the book from the idiot historian that you swear should have never been taught to read let alone write again, aren't you?"*

Wow...this post is amazing.  Many, many thanks for writing it!

So, looking at this from a higher level we cannot decide whether to 'vindicate' Anders until we better understand the repercussions of his actions?  I like this view...though it leads to much speculation while we wait for an appropriate DLC or the next full installment.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

They are not wrong, they are not right either. They are simply opinions. What Gaider is trying to tell you is, that you thinking the codex is a medium for absolute truth, is wrong.

I get the feeling you didn't read what I wrote. I never said the codex entries were absolute truth. This isn't a debate over the Exalted March against the Dales here, after all. There's a difference between stating that there is bias in the codex entries, and then being told multiple sources are blatantly incorrect. If I base something I say on what multiple characters say (for instance, different characters saying the Chantry controlled Circles are slavery) and I read codex entries that add that mages are forced into servitude or forced to work for the Chantry, then I don't see what's speculative about it. Then Gaider says that the codex entries and characters are all wrong, then that's his call to make as Head Writer of the DA series.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 04 avril 2011 - 12:00 .

[Oneiropolos]

Darth Krytie wrote...

Oneiropolos wrote...

Not that... I would.. have ever done.. anything like that... >.> *mumbles something about her apartment-mates laughing when they heard thuds and shouting into her room, "You're trying to read the book from the idiot historian that you swear should have never been taught to read let alone write again, aren't you?"*

Reading Josephus again?

Wasn't the one in particular... but he totally works along those lines too. 

[Aldandil]

IanPolaris wrote...

I know I'm going against the grain when I say this but I actually like Meredith. Perhaps that makes me horribly biased and unfit for templar / mage debates. At least in the context of Kirkwall.

Frankly it does.  Meridith is designed to be a villian from the word "go" and a complete fruit-loop regardless of which side you take.

-Polaris

I've got to say that I agree with Polaris's interpretation of Meredith here. The explanation that would answer most questions about what happened is that Meredith is completely paranoid and believes that the entire Circle is corrupt. It's clear that she has been concerned for a long time, and responded to this by amping up the pressure against the mages. She's not entirely wrong initially, clearly some of the mages know or practice blood magic, so, if seen from her perspective, she's not entirely wrong. After all, finding mages who studies blood magic is a part of her job description, and both Grace and Orsino clearly do just that. We know for a fact that there are at least some mages in the circle who knows blood magic in act 1, so it's not that unreasonable to think that the knight-commander is suspicious.

After she gets hold of the idol, she gets even more paranoid. Ironically, the more paranoid she gets, the harder she pushes the mages and the templars, and the faster the opposition grows, kind of proving her "right". We as players get the impression that not every mage in the Circle is maleficarum, to use a templar term, but it's not unreasonable to assume that that is what Meredith believes. What would a KC do if she's got a circle full of blood mages and abominations? Call for the Rite of Annulment. What does she do if the Grand Cleric does not listen to her? Ask the Divine. Suddenly, the Grand Cleric is killed in a mage attack! To the KC, the course of action is clear. She now has the authority to act. It's all reasonable within her paranoid head. Why would she care about Anders? One maleficar, against a whole Circle of them?

Also, do we know that Anders acted alone? No, but he's not exactly the lying type. He does tell lies, but I get the impression that he's pretty much at the "villain's exposition" stage after he blew up the Chantry. While it's possible that he is trying to protect his accomplices, the fact that he's does what he does to force all mages into an open war where the stakes are freedom or death, I wouldn't say that it's the most plausible explanation.

This is my interpretation of what happened, and it makes the most sense to me. It's not the only way it could have possibly happened, but I think it seems likely.

[Aldandil]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

They are not wrong, they are not right either. They are simply opinions. What Gaider is trying to tell you is, that you thinking the codex is a medium for absolute truth, is wrong.

I get the feeling you didn't read what I wrote. I never said the codex entries were absolute truth. This isn't a debate over the Exalted March against the Dales here, after all. There's a difference between stating that there is bias in the codex entries, and then being told multiple sources are blatantly incorrect. If I base something I say on what multiple characters say (for instance, different characters saying the Chantry controlled Circles are slavery) and I read codex entries that add that mages are forced into servitude or forced to work for the Chantry, then I don't see what's speculative about it. Then Gaider says that the codex entries and characters are all wrong, then that's his call to make as Head Writer of the DA series.

We've been over this debate a few times, and I haven't seen any Codex entries that states that neither mages nor tranquil are forced into working for the Chantry.

Could it be possible that it is your interpretation of the Codex entries that is at fault, and not the entries themselves?

[LobselVith8]

I addressed the issue earlier in this thread, Aldandil, with David Gaider. He addressed that the codex entries were wrong.

[Aldandil]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I addressed the issue earlier in this thread, Aldandil, with David Gaider. He addressed that the codex entries were wrong.

Are you refering to where David Gaider said "[The codex entries] are not wrong, they are opinions"? 

[Herr Uhl]

Aldandil wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I addressed the issue earlier in this thread, Aldandil, with David Gaider. He addressed that the codex entries were wrong.

Are you refering to where David Gaider said "[The codex entries] are not wrong, they are opinions"? 

It is more that every codex has a bias in it, and they are not necessarily accurate either. Several entries contradict eachother for example.

[Aldandil]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I addressed the issue earlier in this thread, Aldandil, with David Gaider. He addressed that the codex entries were wrong.

Are you refering to where David Gaider said "[The codex entries] are not wrong, they are opinions"? 

It is more that every codex has a bias in it, and they are not necessarily accurate either. Several entries contradict eachother for example.

I suppose Lob is right in saying that any codex entry stating that mages are slaves/forced to serve is inaccurate, rather expressing a point of view. I can't remember seeing one, and I keep looking for one.

[AshenEndymion]

IanPolaris wrote...

ddv.rsa wrote...

As it turns out Meredith was right and there was a conspiracy to oust her. Orsino was never implicated, but personally I think it entirely possible that he was involved. If he can hide blood magic and years of contact with maleficarum, he can hide his involvement in a conspiracy. I don't see where she's being paranoid here: the conspiracy was real. She was right!

You would be completely wrong then.  We know (if you don't take the hyper-pro templar side) when Orisino gives you the same quest, that he knows nothing about it.  He sends you on the same quest as a fact-finding mission because he's afraid that Meridith is going to hang something on him that he knows nothing about.

Orsino's fears are quite justified when you take both sides of the same quest together and get the complete meta-picture.  Yes there is a conspiracy against Meridith.  NO, Orsino had nothing to do with it....and her templars are NOT being controlled by bloodmagic to make them turn against her.  That's her own delusion and paranoia showing.  Many Templars are turning against Meridith because a growing number of Templars think (correctly it turns out) that she is a fruit-loop.

By not saying anything to Meredith, Orsino is complicit.  He knows the conspiracy is happening, and refuses to say anything to Meredith.  He knows enough to send Hawke because if he investigates by himself, and the Templars show up, they may think Orsino is involved.  That is enough to know that something sketchy is going on.  Orsino could have removed such doubts amongst the Templars by just turning in the mages in question.  Since all of them were blood mages, it wouldn't be such a bad thing.  Unless Orsino didn't want to turn in his fellow Maleficarum...

And it's debatable as to how many of the templars involved were under the control of a blood mage.  Thrask may not have been, but that doesn't mean that none of them were.  It cannot be proven either way.  But Templars working openly, and of their own power, with maleficarum?  Somehow I doubt that would happen.

Also, if you ask what happens should your investigation uncover nothing she replies "Then I'm wrong. I would never ask you to lie, Champion."

Yeah sure, but then why bother to have me (her best ally in this case) investigate at all if she is unwilling to hear an honest post-action report?  It's like saying, "Who are you going to believe?  Me or your lying eyes."

She hears the report.  She doesn't like the report(because it means an incompetant maleficar is still the First Enchanter), but that's not the same as refusing/unwilling to hear it.

Modifié par AshenEndemion, 04 avril 2011 - 02:51 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I addressed the issue earlier in this thread, Aldandil, with David Gaider. He addressed that the codex entries were wrong.

Except he did not say they were wrong. He said they weren't neccesarily true, and merely reflected the opinion of the author of the entries.

[Mnemnosyne]

Oneiropolos wrote...

So, I looked up the word justified. Now, the second definition really amused me on that one. "Declared or made righteous in the sight of God". Somehow, even switching "God" out and putting in "The Maker", I don't think Anders meets that definition of Justified. Something about killing holy men and women is generally frowned upon by deities, even as far back as Ancient Greek myths. So the only definition one could argue Anders is 'justified' under is "Having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason". Even that's a bit iffie. There's already huge debate over whether his reasons were legitimate...I think he believed they were. But it can also be argued they were not legitimate in the end because he viewed his way as the only way, and there were alternatives that could have led to an outcome that didn't involve an act of terrorism.

I think that killing false holy people is not generally frowned on, and it strongly seems to me that's what the Chantry has become over the last thousand years because even assuming everything about Andraste and Maferath and the Maker was actually true, actually happened, and so on, the Chantry has perverted it so far that it is likely that Andraste would be as appalled by the Chantry as she was by the Imperium.  Consider how the Chantry has removed verses from the Chant of Light, deciding they are 'dissonant verses'.  They invaded and destroyed the Dales, which according to some reports, were given to the elves by Andraste herself.  They used the 'magic was meant to serve man, not rule him' clause as an excuse to imprison all mages, and call magic a curse, when from what I can tell, there's no indication Andraste wanted any of that.

Not to mention Elthina talks about things being the Maker's will, when the Chant and the Chantry in general clearly state that the Maker has abandoned us and that he will only return if we prove ourselves worthy, so the Maker has nothing to do with the world or anything that happens, because he has abandoned it so her teachings that 'if the Maker wills' and such are in direct, even blasphemous, opposition to Chantry teachings.

[Addai]

Conduit0 wrote...
Anders realized this and knew things would only continue to get worse for mages, not just in Kirkwall, but everywhere if the cycle wasn't broken. By blowing up the Chantry, the cycle was broken, no appeasements could be made, it came down to fight for freedom or die. Whether Anders will be remembered as a hero and liberator, or a monster and mass murderer, well that all depends on which side ultimately wins the war.

You're assuming that a mageocracy could be established or a peaceful co-existence even if the mages win.  Far more likely is you get a reversal of power relations much like the Tevinter Imperium, possibly with the Imperium itself ascendant and Orlais descendant, or the Qunari sweep in and it's all moot.  Hope Anders likes his new collar.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Anarcala wrote...
[/snip]
Some historians will find Anders justified. And they'll write the scrolls that will cause other Historians to throw them against the wall in irritation. Not that... I would.. have ever done.. anything like that... >.> *mumbles something about her apartment-mates laughing when they heard thuds and shouting into her room, "You're trying to read the book from the idiot historian that you swear should have never been taught to read let alone write again, aren't you?"*

First, good post!

What I am worried about personally is that if this massive revolution (if there is even one) brings up positive results, that historians and general opinion would vindicate anders for his act. Something that I believe would be undeserved.

Even if the revolution brings up positive results, the ones who should get all the credit are those who thought, planned, led and organized. Who tried to understand the roots of the problems (not just the symptoms) and tried their best to deal with it (a permament solution, I htink, is unfeasible).

Anders who did none of that should not recieve credits for doing something as simple as blowing **** up.

Is it possible that histroians in Thedas would vindicate him anyways? Yes, and I think that would be undeserved.
That said, studying Anders in isolation without understanding what was happening both within hin and on the outside would also be unfair.

[Sad Dragon]

David Gaider wrote...

Oh, absolutely. Just because something is legal does not necessarily make it right or moral. I suspect what Cullen would have argued, given the chance, was that the Divine would never have agreed to the Rite of Annulment in this case. Anyone, even a Grand Cleric, would still be responsible for their actions in calling such a desperate measure after the fact.

Hello,

Got a question for you David regarding the Right of Annulment and the legal view point of it. You seem to indicate a few times that the Right of Annulment that Meredith called for is legit which got me curious. If it is indeed legit -- and who am I to argue that point -- it would then follow that there are no rules for invocing the right itself. I base this assumption on that there are no connection between what anders (an appostate) did and the Circle that is to be annuld and as such there would be no basis for annulling the tower. If we take this assumtion and go even further with it, it would mean that a Grand Cleric, or a Knight Commander could wake up one day and out of the blue deside that today is a fine day to invoke the Right of Annulment.

Now as we know there are indeed rules that the templar must abide to -- such as who they can and can not make Tranquil -- I assum there are quite stric rules for under what circumstances the Right of Annulment can be invoked and if these criteria are not met, it would be invoked illegaly. That wouldnt mean they wouldnt follow through with the Annulment mind you, just that they are doing so illegaly.

Now I shall get to my question so to speak. I am assuming I am wrong about this, and probably in more ways then one, would you sate my curiosity and point out where I am wrong so I can better grasp the grand picture -- or is this one of those, you will learn later on things so you can't really say anything at this time?

Either way, good to see some devs back on the forum!

- The Sad Dragon

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Except he did not say they were wrong. He said they weren't neccesarily true, and merely reflected the opinion of the author of the entries.

But if Gaider addresses that mages aren't forced into servitude or service for the Chantry, then how is it an opinion if the codex entries are factually incorrect?

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

First, good post!

What I am worried about personally is that if this massive revolution (if there is even one) brings up positive results, that historians and general opinion would vindicate anders for his act. Something that I believe would be undeserved.

Considering how much leeway the "legends" of Hawke had with the actual truth, I wonder if anyone would actually attribute the attack to Anders (since Cassandra believes Hawke was trying to incite sedition against the Chantry). Varric makes it seem that the mages of the Circles rallied around Champion in the insurrection against the Chantry, and the mage ending addresses "many survivors" who would see Hawke as the one leading everyone. Given how the mages were mostly slaughtered (with the exception of the survivors who are referenced in the mage ending), would they have exaggerated the battle against the templars to make it seem as though it was more of a victory than a defeat?

[KnightofPhoenix]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Given how the mages were mostly slaughtered (with the exception of the survivors who are referenced in the mage ending), would they have exaggerated the battle against the templars to make it seem as though it was more of a victory than a defeat?

I think they could embellish it to make it sound like a glorious last stand (it most certainly wasn't), with the Champion Hawke managing to break through the siege and save as many as he can.

[Camenae]

Yeah of course they could embellish it lol. In China my history books made it sound like the Korean War was glorious for us, even though my grandmother told me it was basically kids hiding in muddy foxholes starving to death and throwing wooden grenades at American warplanes. Really glorious

[Rifneno]

AshenEndemion wrote...

By not saying anything to Meredith, Orsino is complicit.  He knows the conspiracy is happening, and refuses to say anything to Meredith.  He knows enough to send Hawke because if he investigates by himself, and the Templars show up, they may think Orsino is involved.  That is enough to know that something sketchy is going on.  Orsino could have removed such doubts amongst the Templars by just turning in the mages in question.  Since all of them were blood mages, it wouldn't be such a bad thing.  Unless Orsino didn't want to turn in his fellow Maleficarum...

Seriously?  Orsino didn't do enough wrong, we have to make up wild paranoid theories too?  He tells you why he doesn't take it to Meredith, besides the fact that they might be doing something innocent and would be (at best) made tranquil.  Because the crazy witch will just use it as an excuse to come down even harder on all the innocent mages in the Circle.  And he's right too, the second she has the authority to and the flimsiest excuse, she tries to kill every single mage in Kirkwall.  He says that's the same reason he never turned in his Frankenwife-crafting necromancer buddy.  THAT is debatable.  Personally I think he's telling the truth but people can and have made good arguments why they don't think he is.

Your theory that he was in league with the blood mages on Best Served Cold holds absolutely no water however.  Why would he tell the Champion about them?  If there's one person besides Meredith who could deal with a bunch of blood mages, it's Hawke.  The entire quest is Grace's plot to kill Hawke.  If Orsino was part of it, it'd mean he was part of the plot and also wanted Hawke dead.  So why doesn't he show up at the beach and attack you with the rest of the blood mages?  Ever heard of "divide and conquer"?  It'd be 10 different kinds of stupid at once for him to have acted the way he did if he was part of it.

And it's debatable as to how many of the templars involved were under the control of a blood mage.  Thrask may not have been, but that doesn't mean that none of them were.  It cannot be proven either way.  But Templars working openly, and of their own power, with maleficarum?  Somehow I doubt that would happen.

There's no evidence to support this theory.  The fact that so many templars were willing to do whatever it takes to get rid of Meredith is about the only redeeming point about the entire templar order in DA2.  Meredith was killing/tranquilling innocent people by the truckload and very likely turning a blind eye to rapists like Ser Alrik.  Many templars understand that mages are not bad people as a whole, they just want to watch over them for public safety and they despise the evil power abusers among their own ranks.  The only shame is the fact that so many had to die because of Grace's vendetta about Decimus.

[Mnemnosyne]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Hello,

Got a question for you David regarding the Right of Annulment and the legal view point of it. You seem to indicate a few times that the Right of Annulment that Meredith called for is legit which got me curious. If it is indeed legit -- and who am I to argue that point -- it would then follow that there are no rules for invocing the right itself. I base this assumption on that there are no connection between what anders (an appostate) did and the Circle that is to be annuld and as such there would be no basis for annulling the tower. If we take this assumtion and go even further with it, it would mean that a Grand Cleric, or a Knight Commander could wake up one day and out of the blue deside that today is a fine day to invoke the Right of Annulment.

Now as we know there are indeed rules that the templar must abide to -- such as who they can and can not make Tranquil -- I assum there are quite stric rules for under what circumstances the Right of Annulment can be invoked and if these criteria are not met, it would be invoked illegaly. That wouldnt mean they wouldnt follow through with the Annulment mind you, just that they are doing so illegaly.

Now I shall get to my question so to speak. I am assuming I am wrong about this, and probably in more ways then one, would you sate my curiosity and point out where I am wrong so I can better grasp the grand picture -- or is this one of those, you will learn later on things so you can't really say anything at this time?

Either way, good to see some devs back on the forum!

- The Sad Dragon

It seems to me that since the Rite is designed to be used in extreme and likely unforseen circumstances, it wouldn't be particularly logical to have it be restricted to specific rules and circumstances.  The general requirement appears to be that the person with the authority - Grand Cleric, or Knight Commander if the Grand Cleric is dead - considers the Circle to be irredeemably corrupted.

It's very likely that there's supposed to be a thorough investigation after the fact, but it seems as though the Rite is something of an emergency measure, to be used at the discretion of those who have the authority to use it, and subject to review by the Divine later.  If it happened that they simply woke up one morning and thought this would be a fine day to use the Rite of Annulment, it wouldn't really fulfill the requirement that the person considers the Circle irredeemably corrupted.  Or, if they believed it to be so with no evidence, that they were completely unfit for their position.  At minimum the Divine would strip that person of their position, and at most probably have them executed for abuse of power.

An interesting thought occurs to me in the case of Kirkwall - if Meredith hadn't gone completely over the edge and needed to be killed, I suspect the Divine would have found the Rite justified in the end due to the evidence that turns up during the execution of the Rite.  The First Enchanter a blood mage that turns himself into a fleshy monstrosity, numerous other blood mages, abominations and demons popping up during the fighting, added on top of the already common occurrence of blood magic in Kirkwall and the conspiracy to overthrow Meredith consisting primarily of blood mages and templars (who could easily be argued in any after-action report to have been under the control of the blood mages, even if there is no evidence to support that accusation).  The report would basically have shown that Meredith tried everything she could to maintain control beforehand, and that when the Grand Cleric was assassinated and the Chantry destroyed, she had to act, and it would be entirely believable.

[LobselVith8]

Koyasha wrote...

The First Enchanter a blood mage that turns himself into a fleshy monstrosity,

Are we to infer that Quentin or Orsino got their hands on the information that the Warden obtained from the lost thaig of Amgarrak about the Harvesters?

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Koyasha wrote...

The First Enchanter a blood mage that turns himself into a fleshy monstrosity,

Are we to infer that Quentin or Orsino got their hands on the information that the Warden obtained from the lost thaig of Amgarrak about the Harvesters?

That information may also be found elsewhere. Like Tevinter, where the mage assisting the Dwarves in Amgarrak came from. No matter what information, the First Enchanter of the circle is a Maleficar, that alone is probably enough to warrant an annulment.

[Maria Caliban]

David Gaider wrote...

The subject of creativity with regards to Tranquil is an interesting one. There are all sorts of assumptions that people-- such as Templars-- make about Tranquil that are very likely quite off base. A Tranquil would no doubt be happy to explain the difference, if anyone cared to ask them. Few do.

Tranquil can be creative-- insofar as a very logical scientist might be. They pursue a means to an end, and are capable of coming up with alternate solutions to problems. They are, however, methodical to a fault. They will pursue the most reasonable solution at hand until it proves inviable. They will not change their methods or seek to create something different unless there is a clear reason to. They are not taken by inspiration, and some might say what they lack is intuition or the ability to act on hunches. The fact that they do not get bored and take no pleasure out creating (other than a certain satisfaction that comes from a task well-performed) takes much of the impetus away for them to change what they do. Some would mistake this for a lack of free will. Perhaps some day they will be surprised to learn how very wrong they are.

Does anyone else find it interesting how this mirrors what the Chantry says about the Maker's first children?

They were spirits unable to create but could only copy what they'd seen. You could say they lacked inspiration just like the Tranquil do.

[Herr Uhl]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Koyasha wrote...

The First Enchanter a blood mage that turns himself into a fleshy monstrosity,

Are we to infer that Quentin or Orsino got their hands on the information that the Warden obtained from the lost thaig of Amgarrak about the Harvesters?

That information may also be found elsewhere. Like Tevinter, where the mage assisting the Dwarves in Amgarrak came from. No matter what information, the First Enchanter of the circle is a Maleficar, that alone is probably enough to warrant an annulment.

Kirkwall was part of Tevinter at that time, wasn't it? One of their greatest cities.

[AlexXIV]

Herr Uhl wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Koyasha wrote...

The First Enchanter a blood mage that turns himself into a fleshy monstrosity,

Are we to infer that Quentin or Orsino got their hands on the information that the Warden obtained from the lost thaig of Amgarrak about the Harvesters?

That information may also be found elsewhere. Like Tevinter, where the mage assisting the Dwarves in Amgarrak came from. No matter what information, the First Enchanter of the circle is a Maleficar, that alone is probably enough to warrant an annulment.

Kirkwall was part of Tevinter at that time, wasn't it? One of their greatest cities.

There is no way for us to know what kind of knowledge Orsino had and where from. We have to assume he knew how to turn into a harvester and that he thought it was a good idea.

Also it may be that GoA and WH are not canon, so never really happened.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 04 avril 2011 - 07:06 .