1927 réponses à ce sujet

[Muddle]

After speaking to the Grand Cleric (the several times you can) and hearing her speak throughout the game, the Grand Cleric was definitely the root of the problem in Kirkwall and she had to go. Anders went about it the wrong way. He should have come up with a better way. His problem was that he was fully paranoid by Act 3.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Huh? The Root? She was so far from it that she might actually be the crown. You can argue that she should have acted instead of being neutral, but that does certainly not make her the root of the problems.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

there was a codex entry, though admittedly I don't know if it was a codex entry written by someone or if it was one of those plain fact codex entries. If it was the former, it could be false. COULD BE.[/quote]The primary codex entry differentiating demons and spirits is from the Chantry's religious teachings, and didn't differentiate the two as a basis of species.

[quote]
[quote]
How is appearance relevant? We've found plenty of abominations who maintain non-grotesque forms, even as Anders certainly does start to physically change when the Justice aspect emerges.
Flemeth, the Black Marsh ****, Connor, among others.
[/quote]
I was really just trying to make a joke with the deformed mound of flesh bit. But Anders is not an abomination because he doesn't fit the criteria you said. /quote]Anders does: he's a person who's soul has combined with a Fade being.

[quote]
And Flemeth isn't an Abomination. We don't know what she is.[/quote]We can't prove what she is. Our best guess, and the one we were largely told by Morrigan, is that Flemeth is an abomination.
[quote]
so condemn all for the shortcomings of the few? Great logic. When a mage is put into a corner, they see blood magic as their only way out. Does that mean that if they had freedom they wouldn't do BM? No, as I said earlier. Most likely most mages wouldn't, but inevitably some would.[/quote]We don't condemn all for the shortcomings of a few. We guard against what any can do.

This is the same reason we have police and the military: not because everyone is guilty, but anyone can be and when they are there needs to be a system dealing to deal with it. The requirements of the system being according to the needs facing it..

[quote]
Look at Grey Wardens. They are given abilities to combat the Darkspawn and they live relatively normal lives, and they're stronger than your average person. Of course they are a necessity against the Blights and Darkspawn, but I'll address more on this issue below.[/quote]Grey Wardens aren't stronger than the average person because they are Grey Wardens, Grey Wardens are stronger than the average person because Grey Wardens pick from the strongest. And even then, the difference between what a Grey Warden can do vis-a-vis a non-Grey Warden, and what a mage can do vis-a-vis are magnitudes apart.

[quote]
Where did I say blood magic is solely a Tevinter art?[/quote]Where did I imply you did? Answer for both: nowhere.

[quote]Most likely. I will not be so blind to reason to say it would never happen, but they would have no reason to, especially if they started killing citizens left and right. [/quote]Why wouldn't they have reason to? Would blood magic, or illegal magic in general be unable to bend the minds of people in their favor? Not convince people to buy from their store, or put them in power, or give them things they couldn't otherwise get?

Why on earth would they kill people left and right?

[quote]Blood Magic doesn't cater to every whim and indulgance. [/quote]Magic as a whole, however, can, or close enough, and the basis of blood magic is that you can use blood, anyone's blood, to do any sort of magic. Anything regular magic can do, blood magic can do easier.

[quote]
It has risks. Risks that far outweigh the skill of a mage, so by performing it you run a very high chance of becoming an Abomination. However, Tevinter is somehow able to keep their abominations down to a minimum, but we know very little of Tevinter so ignore this sentence.[/quote]Neither of these evaluations are established at all. Doing blood magic doesn't turn you into an abomination: submitting to a demon turns you into an abomination.

And we have no basis for saying the Tevinter's keep their abominations 'to a minimum', or that their methods of doing so are nicer, so why did you even make the claim?

[quote]

• Kid shows magical talent.
• Kid is taken to Circle and educated, where he is listed in the records of known Mages.
• Mage (he's grown up now) passes Harrowing with Templars present should the unwanted occur.
• Mage leaves tower to live relatively normal life
• Templars keep record of Mage.
  Mage checks in occasionally so that the Templars know he's not either A) doing something fishy or an abomination (similar to parole, but not quite the same)

[/quote]When was the last time a voluntary compliance system prevented crime? Your system doesn't stop mages from misbehaving. You system doesn't even have the instruments for finding out when a mage is using their power, and just presumes that mages want the same life normal people have, despite the presence of, well, magic.

[quote]Basically a better version than just strip away almost all rights. If there are any flaws in there let me know and I'll try to address them.[/quote]Yeah. It really doesn't keep a lid on abuses, which is why people fear mages and would rather kill them if the Templars didn't keep them away.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 avril 2011 - 05:49 .

[Dean_the_Young]

nomadicmouse wrote...

After speaking to the Grand Cleric (the several times you can) and hearing her speak throughout the game, the Grand Cleric was definitely the root of the problem in Kirkwall and she had to go. Anders went about it the wrong way. He should have come up with a better way. His problem was that he was fully paranoid by Act 3.

I wasn't aware that the Grand Cleric was driving Meredith insane, pushing mages into blood magic, or employing external meddlers to exasperate tensions, or blew up a popular monument to spark a massacre.

[Hoogies123]

I think he picked the wrong building for his target. Should have blown up the Gallows.

[The Angry One]

Hoogies123 wrote...

I think he picked the wrong building for his target. Should have blown up the Gallows.

I think Anders' quest for mage freedom would be hindered by blowing up lots of mages.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The crux of the problem is that mages simply can't be left to their own devices. Otherwise you end with **** ups like Anders, who in his spectacular display of idiocy messes it up for everyone.

[sphinxess]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The crux of the problem is that mages simply can't be left to their own devices. Otherwise you end with **** ups like Anders, who in his spectacular display of idiocy messes it up for everyone.

The trouble with using Anders as an example is he has plot immunity - it's like holding up Merrill as proof that Blood Mages can easily and safely control their magic...

[EmperorSahlertz]

I'm using Anders as an example because if we imagine all mages were 100% free, how many of them would feel the need to blow up the local chantry for some "righteous" cause or another? Few, hopefully, but even one is too much.

[Dean_the_Young]

The Angry One wrote...

Hoogies123 wrote...

I think he picked the wrong building for his target. Should have blown up the Gallows.

I think Anders' quest for mage freedom would be hindered by blowing up lots of mages.

Anders doesn't have a quest for mage freedom. He has a quest to end Templar injustice. Whether the mages are free or just dead, either one works.

[Muddle]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

nomadicmouse wrote...

After speaking to the Grand Cleric (the several times you can) and hearing her speak throughout the game, the Grand Cleric was definitely the root of the problem in Kirkwall and she had to go. Anders went about it the wrong way. He should have come up with a better way. His problem was that he was fully paranoid by Act 3.

I wasn't aware that the Grand Cleric was driving Meredith insane, pushing mages into blood magic, or employing external meddlers to exasperate tensions, or blew up a popular monument to spark a massacre.

Meredith didn’t start going insane until act 2.  The Grand Cleric was Grand Cleric before Meredith became knight commander.  The Grand Cleric saw the problems occurring and basically said “Let’s leave it to The Maker”.  She did nothing but take the middle road and left everything else to the maker.   So the problems instead of being fixed became worse.  She had the power to make changes and failed to wield it.  She may have been a nice person, but she sucked as a leader.

[Dean_the_Young]

That doesn't make her the root of the problem, however. That just means that, from your view, she didn't do what she should have in response to the problems.

[Muddle]

Yes, "In my opinion", in Kirkwall she was the root of the problem. Better?

Modifié par nomadicmouse, 06 avril 2011 - 06:12 .

[Darth Krytie]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Hoogies123 wrote...

I think he picked the wrong building for his target. Should have blown up the Gallows.

I think Anders' quest for mage freedom would be hindered by blowing up lots of mages.

Anders doesn't have a quest for mage freedom. He has a quest to end Templar injustice. Whether the mages are free or just dead, either one works.

He wants mages to rise up and fight with him. Presumably, not as Arcane Horrors. You can't force war between Templars and Mages (both who live in the Gallows) if they're both dead.

[AshenEndymion]

nomadicmouse wrote...

Meredith didn’t start going insane until act 2.  The Grand Cleric was Grand Cleric before Meredith became knight commander.  The Grand Cleric saw the problems occurring and basically said “Let’s leave it to The Maker”.  She did nothing but take the middle road and left everything else to the maker.   So the problems instead of being fixed became worse.  She had the power to make changes and failed to wield it.  She may have been a nice person, but she sucked as a leader.

This assumes that there were any non-mage caused problems in the Kirkwall Circle to begin with.  And the only evidence of that is Anders' word....

[Dean_the_Young]

No, because she isn't the root, ie origin, of any of the problems. Your criticism is that she didn't deal with them, not that she caused them.

[Dean_the_Young]

Darth Krytie wrote...

He wants mages to rise up and fight with him. Presumably, not as Arcane Horrors. You can't force war between Templars and Mages (both who live in the Gallows) if they're both dead.

Anders' actions weren't based around helping the mages win a war: indeed, he disclaims all responsiblity for being the one to help them, and says he'll await the arrival of whoever would. Anders was fixated on starting, not winning, a war, and whether the mages won freedom or were massacred wasn't important because both were preferable to continuing with the status quo. That's his own admission.

[hoorayforicecream]

nomadicmouse wrote...

Yes, "In my opinion", in Kirkwall she was the root of the problem. Better?

Out of curiosity, a thought experiment. Let's say that there's a criminal who is holding a child hostage with a knife. There's a police officer with a gun on the criminal. The criminal says "Put the gun down, or I will stab this child." The police officer refuses to put the gun down. The criminal stabs the child.

Who is the root of the problem?

[Dean_the_Young]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

nomadicmouse wrote...

Yes, "In my opinion", in Kirkwall she was the root of the problem. Better?

Out of curiosity, a thought experiment. Let's say that there's a criminal who is holding a child hostage with a knife. There's a police officer with a gun on the criminal. The criminal says "Put the gun down, or I will stab this child." The police officer refuses to put the gun down. The criminal stabs the child.

Who is the root of the problem?

The police officer.

Because she didn't shoot the criminal, because she was afraid of shooting the child, but also didn't back down in favor of the criminal, the child died.

[TEWR]

We can't prove what she is. Our best guess, and the one we were largely told by Morrigan, is that Flemeth is an abomination.

Morrigan says in Witch Hunt that she is no Abomination and that she doesn't know what she even is

Where did I imply you did? Answer for both: nowhere

Blood magic isn't used because it's Tevinter.

Those were your words, which implies that it's solely a Tevinter art.

Why wouldn't they have reason to? Would blood magic, or illegal magic in general be unable to bend the minds of people in their favor? Not convince people to buy from their store, or put them in power, or give them things they couldn't otherwise get?

Why on earth would they kill people left and right?

Ok now you're forgetting some lore it seems. Blood magic, while not requiring you to kill people, enables blood magic spells to be stronger. Hence why in Tevinter there is still slavery. That's why they would start killing people left and right. If they kill random civilians for blood magic, word would eventually leak to the Templars and then the Blood Mage would get a sword of mercy shoved through their heart at some point. Thus a free mage would have no reason to bring that kind of unwarranted attention to themselves, because Blood Magic doesn't work on a Templar who is in the know. Take him by surprise and of course it will work.

There is no illegal magic, aside from Blood Magic, that can bend the minds of people. Where that came from I don't know.

And a Blood Mage cannot control the minds of the masses to put him/her in power. It's a very exhausting effort, having to keep a leash on so many minds. Eventually exhaustion would cause one mind to break free, and then a ripple effect might occur.

Tevinter Magisters are only in power because the Imperial chantry deemed that Magisters could rule.

Neither of these evaluations are established at all. Doing blood magic doesn't turn you into an abomination: submitting to a demon turns you into an abomination.

And we have no basis for saying the Tevinter's keep their abominations 'to a minimum', or that their methods of doing so are nicer, so why did you even make the claim?

I never said Blood Magic turns you into an abomination. Look at my comment to another poster where I said Demons use Blood Magic as a way to breach the very person of a mage.

As for the Tevinter note, that was mentioned in Codex in DA2 I believe. I'm not currently playing DA2 but I'll load up a save and find it for you.

When was the last time a voluntary compliance system prevented crime? Your system doesn't stop mages from misbehaving. You system doesn't even have the instruments for finding out when a mage is using their power, and just presumes that mages want the same life normal people have, despite the presence of, well, magic.

When was the last time locking up people prevented crime? A Circle (or in Kirkwall's case, a Prison) doesn't stop mages from misbehaving either.

Yeah. It really doesn't keep a lid on abuses, which is why people fear mages and would rather kill them if the Templars didn't keep them away.

I refer you to my previous statement. People can trust a mage. People don't always fear mages and don't always feel a death to an apostate should be executed. Ser Maarevar Carver, friend of Malcom Hawke, trusted him. People trust the Mage Warden (Murdock for example, as well as the Arl of Redcliffe). The citizens of Kirkwall care not that Hawke is an apostate, especially after the nobility witness him battling the Arishok with magic.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 06 avril 2011 - 06:25 .

[AshenEndymion]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

nomadicmouse wrote...

Yes, "In my opinion", in Kirkwall she was the root of the problem. Better?

Out of curiosity, a thought experiment. Let's say that there's a criminal who is holding a child hostage with a knife. There's a police officer with a gun on the criminal. The criminal says "Put the gun down, or I will stab this child." The police officer refuses to put the gun down. The criminal stabs the child.

Who is the root of the problem?

The police officer.

Because she didn't shoot the criminal, because she was afraid of shooting the child, but also didn't back down in favor of the criminal, the child died.

Incorrect.  The police officer caused the child's death by not shooting the criminal...  but the criminal created the problem (and is thus the root) by taking  the child hostage.

[Darth Krytie]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

He wants mages to rise up and fight with him. Presumably, not as Arcane Horrors. You can't force war between Templars and Mages (both who live in the Gallows) if they're both dead.

Anders' actions weren't based around helping the mages win a war: indeed, he disclaims all responsiblity for being the one to help them, and says he'll await the arrival of whoever would. Anders was fixated on starting, not winning, a war, and whether the mages won freedom or were massacred wasn't important because both were preferable to continuing with the status quo. That's his own admission.

And where in my statement did I use the word "win"?

[Dean_the_Young]

AshenEndemion wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

nomadicmouse wrote...

Yes, "In my opinion", in Kirkwall she was the root of the problem. Better?

Out of curiosity, a thought experiment. Let's say that there's a criminal who is holding a child hostage with a knife. There's a police officer with a gun on the criminal. The criminal says "Put the gun down, or I will stab this child." The police officer refuses to put the gun down. The criminal stabs the child.

Who is the root of the problem?

The police officer.

Because she didn't shoot the criminal, because she was afraid of shooting the child, but also didn't back down in favor of the criminal, the child died.

Incorrect.  The police officer caused the child's death by not shooting the criminal...  but the criminal created the problem (and is thus the root) by taking  the child hostage.

I'm sorry, I forgot how sarcasm isn't always obvious on the internet.

[Dean_the_Young]

Darth Krytie wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

He wants mages to rise up and fight with him. Presumably, not as Arcane Horrors. You can't force war between Templars and Mages (both who live in the Gallows) if they're both dead.

Anders' actions weren't based around helping the mages win a war: indeed, he disclaims all responsiblity for being the one to help them, and says he'll await the arrival of whoever would. Anders was fixated on starting, not winning, a war, and whether the mages won freedom or were massacred wasn't important because both were preferable to continuing with the status quo. That's his own admission.

And where in my statement did I use the word "win"?

Where did I say you used the word "win"?

[Darth Krytie]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

He wants mages to rise up and fight with him. Presumably, not as Arcane Horrors. You can't force war between Templars and Mages (both who live in the Gallows) if they're both dead.

Anders' actions weren't based around helping the mages win a war: indeed, he disclaims all responsiblity for being the one to help them, and says he'll await the arrival of whoever would. Anders was fixated on starting, not winning, a war, and whether the mages won freedom or were massacred wasn't important because both were preferable to continuing with the status quo. That's his own admission.

And where in my statement did I use the word "win"?

Where did I say you used the word "win"?

When you started arguing about a point I never made.