1207 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Wait...so its okay to call the RoA genocide according to present day definitions but not to call Anders actions terrorism on the same definitions?  

I think Anders' act is terrorism personally.

 

So do I. I'm just referring to the whole "Anders isn't at terrorist because of it being in a fictional universe! But the RoA despite being in the same fictional universe is totally genocide!" mindset. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juin 2011 - 05:01 .

[GavrielKay]

Ryzaki wrote...

Wait...so its okay to call the RoA genocide according to present day definitions but not to call Anders actions terrorism on the same definitions?  

No, I'm not saying that at all.  There are definitions of both words that fit the situation.  Most people who use either word are more concenred with its connotations than the vocabulary lesson, but they certainly both apply by various modern legalities.

What I was trying to say is that labeling it "terrorism" and thus always evil, unforgiveable and unjustified isn't any better than saying there is never an objectively moral reason to commit genocide.  Genocide, for example, would probably be excused by most in an immediate "us or them" scenario. 

[Ryzaki]

GavrielKay wrote...
No, I'm not saying that at all.  There are definitions of both words that fit the situation.  Most people who use either word are more concenred with its connotations than the vocabulary lesson, but they certainly both apply by various modern legalities.

What I was trying to say is that labeling it "terrorism" and thus always evil, unforgiveable and unjustified isn't any better than saying there is never an objectively moral reason to commit genocide.  Genocide, for example, would probably be excused by most in an immediate "us or them" scenario. 

Ah I agree with you then. Anything can really be justified in the right circumstances. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

GavrielKay wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

A false dichotomy, implying that what Anders did was the only way possible. A notion I utterly reject.

I wasn't so much saying that I thought it was the only way...  I was saying that the opposite claim that it could NEVER be justified ever never ever it's always bad to blow up a church no matter what etc...  was just as bad in the other extreme. 

There are justifications.   Each player will have to decide whether they think the situation warranted what happened, but I think the moral absolutism of "it can't possibly be right, ever" is just as wrong as saying "get the marshmallows, the Chantry, she's a burnin'!"

Something I never use. At all, I am quite allergic to that.

I would not mind Anders' act that much if he was not insane, was sober, was a leader who has support and legitimacy at least amongst mages and actually had some idea of what he was doing and some plan, even if not as sophisticated as it should be (but something a bit more concret than rethoric).

To provide two other examples from fiction. I do not look as unkindly on Magneto for instance. Because he has legitimacy amongst mutants and at one point, becomes very popular (and the leader of a nation that he rules quite well). And most of the time, he has an idea of what he is doing, though his arrogance gets in the way. Magneto is amongst other things a terrorist, but one I can look at more more favorably (and ultimately sympathise with) than Anders. 

Another example is Yaevinn from The Witcher 1. That guy is obsessed by hatred and has the quick tendency to see everyone not with him, including his own nonhuman kin as traitors. But he is a charismatic enough leader to be popular and command the respect and admiration of nonhuman youth. He too is a terrorist. But I still prefer him over Anders because, barring his hatred, he was for the most part sane and sober and had some real notion of what he was doing, and had legitimacy with nonhumans.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 05:08 .

[JusticarDoom]

Hell yeah, If I could, I would have sprinkled a bit of gunpowder on the statue of Andraste, telling Anders that "he missed a spot"

[steelfire_dragon]

it was unfortunate that the head cleric was murdered, I was not upset at it though... well not terribly upset at it.

all through the game, all she did was try to be nuetral.
she did nothing,
and becuase she did nothing when given the chance to stop merdith, all she did was order her back.

she did not want war, but the war was already brewing and at her very door.

she asked for her death by not stopping it at the begining, and thus got it.


tragic but there you go.

when one chooses not to act, one still chooses .


the shackles are off, and nobody wants to talk.....

Modifié par steelfire_dragon, 03 juin 2011 - 05:16 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Addai67 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Sorry, but I have to laugh at this.  Anders is Exhibit A why mages should be locked up and, if they're even suspected of being abominations or blood mages, killed outright before they kill many others.  At least, that is what people are going to say after the bomb.  A lot of people.  And those people have a very good point.

Only for people who refuse to examine WHY Anders chose to allow himself to be possessed in the first place, which is entirely relevant to the question.  

I'll concede that a lot of people won't look that deeply into the matter, that's a given.  But people's perceptions won't change that fact. 

It doesn't matter why.  When demons lure people into possession, they always have either a plea ("I just want to be free, to experience life") or a bargain.  Anders may have had good intentions, but this is Magery 101 and the whole reason that mages are put through a Harrowing.  Hawke should have at least have had the option of killing him the minute he turns blue.

Now, this is interesting. Do you not believe there is such a thing as a non-demonic fade spirit? The Chantry teaches that such spirits exist, but do you deny their existence? Spirit healers do their work partially by calling upon the positive spirits of the fade, often working closely with one "spirit" for their entire career. Were you unaware of how spirit Healers operate?

When the Warden encounters Justice he does not seem to be a demon. Are you of the opinion that he was a demon all along? Or have you simply not ever played Awakenings? 

I am, I will admit, fascinated by the nature of Vengeance, but I do not doubt that he was Justice when he began. Unless you agree with Merril that demons and fade spirits are indistinguishable, it's hard to justify lumping Anders' situation in with ordinary posession. 

The reason that Anders believed that Justice was different from a demon is that the Chantry's teachings convinced him it was true. Merril, a mage trained without the Chantry, does not see a difference, this is true. Do you believe the Chantry is incorrect in their teachings about Fade spirits, and that they are inadvertently convincing mages to seek the help of demons, when they preach about the maker's first children?

[Addai]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Now, this is interesting. Do you not believe there is such a thing as a non-demonic fade spirit? The Chantry teaches that such spirits exist, but do you deny their existence? Spirit healers do their work partially by calling upon the positive spirits of the fade, often working closely with one "spirit" for their entire career. Were you unaware of how spirit Healers operate?

When the Warden encounters Justice he does not seem to be a demon. Are you of the opinion that he was a demon all along? Or have you simply not ever played Awakenings?

I did, and even in Awakening there is discussion that Justice's distinction between himself and demons is artificial.  By his own definition- a spirit who is corrupted by desires- he is already on his way in Awakening when he's expressing yearning and envy of mortal beings.  Joining yourself to such a being in a permanent way should have raised lots of red flags.  I think it would have, in fact.  I just don't buy it.  If Anders is that stupid, well... like I said, exhibit A.

Modifié par Addai67, 03 juin 2011 - 05:27 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
When the Warden encounters Justice he does not seem to be a demon. Are you of the opinion that he was a demon all along?

He was clearly becoming a demon or was very close to being one.

See Justice's angry reaction, most likely reflecting fear and confusion, when ironically Anders asks him if he can become a demon.

The reason that Anders believed that Justice was different from a demon is that the Chantry's teachings convinced him it was true.

He was pretty reckless. It became obvious in Awakening that Justice is no longer a "normal" spirit.

But just the concept of justice alone determining Justice's state of being and raison d'etre, applied to a worl full of injustice, is enough to raise alarm bells as justice implies fixing an injustice.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 05:30 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Thanks for the clarification. I do agree that merging with Justice was unwise and incautious, however I don't believe it was functionally identical to making a deal with a demon.

Anders' banters with Izzy are very illustrative of this... pretty much any "virture" is difficult to wrangle outside the fade. As I've said before, humans have a lot of coping mechanisms that prevent us from breaking ourselves upon the rocks of our virtures, and Anders has lost those.

Still, a substantial part of me believes there never would have been a mage revolution without Anders. While he didn't know how big a sacrifice he was making at the time, I feel like he sold his sanity and humanity for mage freedom. He knows he's doomed, broken, and insane, but he will pay any price, even his life, even his identity, to give future mages a chance to not suffer as he did.

Sometimes the only person who can cause change is the person who is too crazy to realize it is impossible.

[Rifneno]

Ryzaki wrote...

Yet instead of dropping it you keep bringing it up? How is that dropping the issue?

My God. It's like a parade by the pots about how the kettle is black. Unbelievable.

Ryzaki wrote...

And yes we were. Riferno was the one who originally compared Anders' actions to the Civil War. I don't feel the two actions are comparable. (for multiple reasons far more than slavery only one of many facets in the CW).

Oh goodie gumdrops, this all goes back to my Lincoln remark? Well then. I suggest you get off the soapbox and stop trying to "educate" everyone about your vast knowledge of history. The analogy was only in regards to the absurd notion that Anders was a scumbag because he didn't have permission from every mage in every Circle before attacking the Chantry. And I used Lincoln's name instead of one a bit more apt (like, say, the John Brown analogy that Silfren brought up) because I didn't want it to devolve into a history class in having to explain their part of history. Little did I know you and KoP would get up on your soapboxes and try to turn this into a Civil War History forum because heaven forbid someone associate Lincoln with freeing the slaves. Good God.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

But it must be said that Anders spefically refers to Tevinter as his ideal. And I doubt he even understands a quarter of it.

And you do? Please. We've got a handful of second-hand accounts from extremely biased sources like Fenris and the Chantry. He (Anders) also expresses a distaste for their blood magic and slavery, but far be it from you to leave out a few crucial details.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Because you trust that the writers actually understand the analogies they are making?
I certainly don't.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact there's a pro-mage sidequest called "The Underground Railroad" and you just spent 2 pages trying to "educate" us on how this is different from the US Civil War. Total coincidence.

Ryzaki wrote...

Anders has allies depending on the player choice. (and at max seven allies) not to mention I wouldn't consider Aveline/Fenris his allies.

Ahh, if only he was part of a group of mages vying for their freedom...

Addai67 wrote...

I did, and even in Awakening there is discussion that Justice's distinction between himself and demons is artificial. By his own definition- a spirit who is corrupted by desires- he is already on his way in Awakening when he's expressing yearning and envy of mortal beings. Joining yourself to such a being in a permanent way should have raised lots of red flags. I think it would have, in fact. I just don't buy it. If Anders is that stupid, well... like I said, exhibit A.

Oh goodie, more half-truths. How about we look at this sniplet from the followup conversation where he clarifies that he (and Anders, for that matter) don't know jack about how or why demons are what they are:

Anders: I just wondered what relation there is between spirits and demons. Demons are a worry to any mage.
Justice: I do not know what makes demons as they are. Such evil angers me, but I do not understand it.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

He was clearly becoming a demon or was very close to being one.

Of course. Anders and Justice don't know what makes a demon as they are, but you do.

He was pretty reckless. It became obvious in Awakening that Justice is no longer a "normal" spirit.

Wow. We've seen ONE spirit with more than about 10 seconds of dialogue, ONE. And you're going to say it's "obvious" that he deviates from the norm, a norm you know absolutely nothing about.

[Silfren]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
I do hope you remember the difference between her and you at least. 

You know, you said that several times, and I don't really understand what you mean.

That was directed at me in regards to an old and stupid dispute.

[Silfren]

Addai67 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Sorry, but I have to laugh at this.  Anders is Exhibit A why mages should be locked up and, if they're even suspected of being abominations or blood mages, killed outright before they kill many others.  At least, that is what people are going to say after the bomb.  A lot of people.  And those people have a very good point.

Only for people who refuse to examine WHY Anders chose to allow himself to be possessed in the first place, which is entirely relevant to the question.  

I'll concede that a lot of people won't look that deeply into the matter, that's a given.  But people's perceptions won't change that fact. 

It doesn't matter why.  When demons lure people into possession, they always have either a plea ("I just want to be free, to experience life") or a bargain.  Anders may have had good intentions, but this is Magery 101 and the whole reason that mages are put through a Harrowing.  Hawke should have at least have had the option of killing him the minute he turns blue.

Yes, it does matter.  Justice was not a demon luring Anders into possession because he wanted to experience life through a mortal's eyes.  He agreed with Anders' view of the oppression of mages and wanted to help Anders achieve justice for his people.  Anders agreed to this, for that reason and also to help Justice have a means of surviving in the mortal world without having to haunt a corpse.  Neither one of them had any idea what would happen.  Whether that is a sign of their naivete or just plain shortsighted stupidity is beside the point.  Both had good intentions, and since Justice was not a demon, it didn't occur to them that the same rules would apply as concern a demon trying to possess a mage.  Justice no more believed he would be warped into a demon than Anders did.  

[Ryzaki]

Rifneno wrote...
Oh goodie gumdrops, this all goes back to my Lincoln remark? Well then. I suggest you get off the soapbox and stop trying to "educate" everyone about your vast knowledge of history. The analogy was only in regards to the absurd notion that Anders was a scumbag because he didn't have permission from every mage in every Circle before attacking the Chantry. And I used Lincoln's name instead of one a bit more apt (like, say, the John Brown analogy that Silfren brought up) because I didn't want it to devolve into a history class in having to explain their part of history. Little did I know you and KoP would get up on your soapboxes and try to turn this into a Civil War History forum because heaven forbid someone associate Lincoln with freeing the slaves. Good God.

Only one on a soapbox here I'm afraid is you. Vast knowledge of history? Oh my. Someone doesn't like being pointed out the flaws in their arguement. Sadly I didn't claim to have a vast knowledge of history. Merely knowledged of the fact that the Civil War wasn't focused on freeing the slaves A fact I learned in middle school. 

Good god indeed. 

And yes I find Anders to be a scumbag for doing that. You getting on your "Lincoln didn't have the permission of the slaves!!!!" tangent didn't change that. Especially not when Lincoln wasn't codemning the slaves to fight in a war and said war wasn't fought for the express purpose of freeing them. 

Ahh, if only he was part of a group of mages vying for their freedom...

Too bad he doesn't mention their support of his blowing up the Chantry and forcing the mages into war plan. Or did he not bother to tell his allies about the Rite being his plan? 

Not to mention did you forget that in Act 3 "the mage underground is all but destroyed." tidbit? 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juin 2011 - 06:44 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Ryzaki wrote...

Ahh, if only he was part of a group of mages vying for their freedom...

Too bad he doesn't mention their support of his blowing up the Chantry and forcing the mages into war plan. Or did he not bother to tell his allies about the Rite being his plan? 

Not to mention did you forget that in Act 3 "the mage underground is all but destroyed." tidbit? 

The fact that he's the last remaining survivor of a fighting force means he should give up that force's cause? Isn't that contrary to the spirit of pretty much every story we have about a small minority vying against desperate odds? Isn't it when your movement is almost destroyed that you start taking more desperate measures? There are so many movies where the last surviving human, the last surviving free man, the last surviving X makes a big dramatic gesture thingummy to save their people, or the world, or the future.

In a world where it's a crime to be born different... only one man can stand against the forces of evil... So I guess he'd better give up, then, because he's only one guy right? 

As for forcing the mages to fight... that's a bit crap, yes, but part of the Chantry's whole methodology is breaking mages of their will to fight, brainwashing them to believe they are inherently evil and cannot be trusted with themselves. Fenris explains this, inadvertently... part of the way you keep a slave is by controlling them so they do not even consider freedom a viable possibility. I'm sure that when Andraste and Shartan freed the slaves, many died who would have rather lived as slaves than die free. Them's the breaks, when you're dealing with slavery and its inherent brainwashing qualities.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 03 juin 2011 - 07:32 .

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Hmm. I haven't weighed in on Anders because I'm not sure about it myself. What is the price of Freedom? Sure I think we all believe in the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, but what does that mean?

Can a citizen own a Nuclear weapon? Can a Feralden be a Mage without restriction? How much power is too much power? Should there be no entity to watch over and supervise mages?

These are weighty questions. I don't agree with Anders methods. Nor do I even agree with his cause exactly.

Mages NEED training. They need to be taught what possession means. They need to understand the dangers abominations pose. Free mages are not the same as a man with a concealed carry permit. A free mage is WMD waiting to be activated.

I am sympathic to mages to a point. But Anders crossed the line. Mages need a system that teaches them responsibility. And the Chantry is all they had. Now that Anders destroyed the Circle, what will happen to Thedas?

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Hmm. I haven't weighed in on Anders because I'm not sure about it myself. What is the price of Freedom? Sure I think we all believe in the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, but what does that mean?

Can a citizen own a Nuclear weapon? Can a Feralden be a Mage without restriction? How much power is too much power? Should there be no entity to watch over and supervise mages?

These are weighty questions. I don't agree with Anders methods. Nor do I even agree with his cause exactly.

Mages NEED training. They need to be taught what possession means. They need to understand the dangers abominations pose. Free mages are not the same as a man with a concealed carry permit. A free mage is WMD waiting to be activated.

I am sympathic to mages to a point. But Anders crossed the line. Mages need a system that teaches them responsibility. And the Chantry is all they had. Now that Anders destroyed the Circle, what will happen to Thedas?

The thing is, Anders didn't destroy the Circle. He inspired the Circles to rise up. That's different.

As much as I love my poor, broken, half-mad (half mad?) revolutionary, he's not going to be in charge of anything when this is over. He's going to be dead or crazy or locked up or barely keeping himself together somewhere. He's not going to be the person who puts things together again once the dust settles. It's going to be people like Hawke, or the Warden. That's why, as much as people like to **** that Anders is the protagonist of DA2, he isn't a real protagonist. He expended all of his agency already, and even then the events he set into motion are going to be steered by others. He is done as an effective force, at this point.

Early in his crusade (And I can't remember where or when, but I think this is in DA2, act 1 maybe?) Anders says he wants to live in a world where mages are trained by the Circle but can go home to their families at night. That's it, and it's pretty reasonable. He gets less reasonable and coherent as time goes on, but that was the dream that drove him forward, and that's the dream that I hope the movement ultimately returns to.

It's not an insane concept at all, and one of the tragedies of Thedas is that something like this would have been easy for the Chantry to implement. They could have worked on a system to allow mages to have homes and families centuries ago, and that tiny bit of freedom would have kept people like Anders from going mad with hopelessness. Even if the homes and families are all within a "circle town" or whatever... there are so many easy ways to deal with this, to let mages feel human without giving them absolutely equal freedoms in every sense of the word. But the Chantry missed a thousand years of opportunities to be reasonable.

So now I guess the Mages have their thousand years to see if they can decide to be reasonable. I think there's a decent chance they will be, more of a chance that they'll be moderate than there was that the Chantry would suddenly decide to moderate themselves. I think there are more "I just want to be able to have a family, not have my kids ripped away from me and never see them again, be able to fall in love and get married without being held hostage," mages out there than "we need to be allowed to pretty much do whatever we want, Tevinter forever!" mages. Maybe I'm wrong about that. If I am wrong, it's because all the reasonable mages were broken on the wheel of the Chantry, like Anders was. Actually, I think that's one reason that triggering revolution in this way was good... because revolution was triggered when one of the sides (the mages) was still fairly moderate, rather than only erupting when both sides were populated solely by extremists.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

I tend to err on the side of humans being very barbaric and destructive by their very nature. So, I'm not entirely sure that it is the Chantry that drives mages to make deals with demons and kill hundreds of people.

Though they are hardly blameless. I think the temptation to acquire power for selfish reasons without really thinking through the consequences is pretty alluring regardless of the existence of a restrictive and oppressive system like the circle. Basically, I think the 'Tevinter forever!' mages and the 'I just want a family' mages are one and the same. Its starts with freedom and ends with the enslaving of non-mages. Power is a slippery slope. And my experience with life has not led me to believe that humans are all a bunch of pious cherubs.

Could the Chantry have been reformed through non-violent means? Did Anders really need to dismantle the one agency that keeps the nearly boundless power of mages in check? I say no. Anders started a War. A big one. And I think things are going to get a hell of a lot worse because of it before it EVER has a chance to get better.

There will be gnashing of teeth.

[Ryzaki]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
The fact that he's the last remaining survivor of a fighting force means he should give up that force's cause? Isn't that contrary to the spirit of pretty much every story we have about a small minority vying against desperate odds? Isn't it when your movement is almost destroyed that you start taking more desperate measures? There are so many movies where the last surviving human, the last surviving free man, the last surviving X makes a big dramatic gesture thingummy to save their people, or the world, or the future. 

In a world where it's a crime to be born different... only one man can stand against the forces of evil... So I guess he'd better give up, then, because he's only one guy right? 

As for forcing the mages to fight... that's a bit crap, yes, but part of the Chantry's whole methodology is breaking mages of their will to fight, brainwashing them to believe they are inherently evil and cannot be trusted with themselves. Fenris explains this, inadvertently... part of the way you keep a slave is by controlling them so they do not even consider freedom a viable possibility. I'm sure that when Andraste and Shartan freed the slaves, many died who would have rather lived as slaves than die free. Them's the breaks, when you're dealing with slavery and its inherent brainwashing qualities.

 

So the purpose of the mage underground was to free all mages from the Chantry?  Whether they wanted to be so or not? Since when? Last I checked everyone in the MU was there because they WANTED to be. His actions to me was comparable to taking a young child from an abusive home and then throwing them out on the street. It's...well it's not really helpful to me. Just giving them a heap full of different problems. 

Anders actions weren't saving anyone in my view. He threw his people into a war without a plan, without resources (so they could avoid using bloodmagic and being demonized even further) and without allies. 

As for the brainwashing where is it said the Chantry says the mages are taught that they're inherently evil? (well other than crazy Kirkwall because that isn't a measuring stick for average anywhere.) Only thing I see is "magic is a curse." which...is is true in a way. Magic makes demons come after you so they can hijack your body and turn you into a ugly fleshy heap sack. I'd consider myself pretty cursed in that situation. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juin 2011 - 11:31 .

[What?]

I was. It finally gave me a reason to put a knife in him.

Modifié par VictorianTrash, 03 juin 2011 - 10:59 .

[AndreaDraco]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

He was clearly becoming a demon or was very close to being one.

See Justice's angry reaction, most likely reflecting fear and confusion, when ironically Anders asks him if he can become a demon.

I don't think he was becoming a demon. I only think that, being bound in a body, he found himself experiencing other emotions than pure, relentless justice, thanks to the memories of Kristoff. In a word, he was becoming more human.

[geoffsbg]

Overall I think it's a good game, but I feel like it totally falls apart with Anders blowing up the Chantry. It's like the writers knew where they wanted the story to go in the end, and were doing a great job of getting us closer and closer, but suddenly just gave up and waved a magic plot wand to get us there. Anders blowing up the Chantry in order to force a war has so many inconsistencies and gaps in logic that it makes me dizzy; most of them have been beaten to death already in this thread, but I want to rant about it anyway.

I get that they want the final choices to be moral conundrums, without an obvious moral high ground, but they go SOOO far out of their way to make the final choices morally ambiguous that it just stops being plausible, and it's pretty hard to keep role-playing. So far I've made two characters for the game, and I can't 'role-play' either of them through the ending without wanting to scream a lot. What would my witty/charming rogue do? Probably move back to Fereldan, or capitalize on the situation in some way without taking sides; sure as hell not duke it out to the death with Meredith or Orsino. And what would a virtuous/diplomatic warrior do? The only thing that resembles a moral high ground in the end is to punish Anders, then defend the 'innocent' mages. But then that choice gets muddled all to heck when the first enchanter sudddenly decides to become an abomination and kill everyone in sight, including his own mages. That part has to be the 2nd biggest jaw dropper for me. It just comes out of no where - you're winning the fight against the templars, and then as soon as there's a pause in the fighting he snaps and becomes a monster?? And why couldn't you have just fought Meredith when she didn't have her army with her? She tells you and Orsino to go 'prepare'?? Clearly they needed a chance for you to say goodbye to your friends, etc, but the plot had gotten too muddled to do so in a smooth manner, so you all just take a 'time out' to go 'prepare'.

Ultimately the end feels very awkward and it feels like no matter what you do, you just end up killing everyone, except a smattering of less-crazy templars, and non-demon mages. It's clear that the end is mostly decided at the beginning, so you're really not deciding the story as much as filling in details and going along for the ride. And it's still a pretty fun ride up until the Chantry exploding, so it's not at all a failure of a game, just in dire need of some serious DLC to patch together the flimsy third act.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Rifneno wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

But it must be said that Anders spefically refers to Tevinter as his ideal. And I doubt he even understands a quarter of it.

And you do? Please. We've got a handful of second-hand accounts from extremely biased sources like Fenris and the Chantry. He (Anders) also expresses a distaste for their blood magic and slavery, but far be it from you to leave out a few crucial details.

I am not part of the universe am I? Nor am I basing my political agenda on it.

David Gaider himself said that mages are not as free in TEvinter as some people think. It's dominated by a mage Oligarchy and IIRC, has Templars as well.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Because you trust that the writers actually understand the analogies they are making?
I certainly don't.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact there's a pro-mage sidequest called "The Underground Railroad" and you just spent 2 pages trying to "educate" us on how this is different from the US Civil War. Total coincidence.

Relying on the name of a sidequest as historical evidence?
Really? If you are not happy with me "educating" you (something that I did not do and quite frankly don't care about at all), then refute my argument with actual historical evidence and arguments.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

He was clearly becoming a demon or was very close to being one.

Of course. Anders and Justice don't know what makes a demon as they are, but you do.

Hence "Or close to being one". Aka, desiring to experience human emotions. Which Justiceh imself says.

He was pretty reckless. It became obvious in Awakening that Justice is no longer a "normal" spirit.

Wow. We've seen ONE spirit with more than about 10 seconds of dialogue, ONE. And you're going to say it's "obvious" that he deviates from the norm, a norm you know absolutely nothing about.

10 seconds? His entire conversations and banter make it obvious. He is either becoming a demon, or becoming something close to a demon.

And yes, Justice himself says that "normal spirits" do not desire anything and do not want to associate with mortals. The mere fact that he did, makes him outside the norm.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 12:36 .