1207 réponses à ce sujet

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

"Moses a terrorist for killing all the firstborn of Egypt."

If we want to nit pick, I'm not sure Moses is responsible for that. That was the angel of Death acting on God's orders. Its not like Moses has control over the angel of death. Moses didn't actually do that himself or even order it. He was kind of swept up in the events. Like the Templers.

Anyway. I don't like it when people use words like 'epic' or 'genocide' or 'terrorist' for minor things. Killing a hundred or even three hundred people is not genocide. It devalues the word and further, the act. Genocide is massive and hard to contemplate.

Terrorist though. I certainly think fits Anders. And V from V for Vendeta for that matter. You can still love a terrorist. Buck up CGG you can still love a terrorist. You can even think he's noble.

But Anders started a war, killed innocent people, and incited a lot of fear and suffering... do you deny that? Answer that question first before we get into semantics.

Can no one in this thread remember more than five minutes in the past? Seriously. I should just stop... I've stated that I believe that Anders fits the definition of terrorist. I've said this many times, but no one seems to be able to remember anything past the most recent post. Ryzaki claimed there was no definition of terrorist that Anders did not fit, which is patently ridiculous because there are hundreds of definitions of the word terrorist. But I should just stop responding to obviously false generalizations, because no one will remember the context of my statements ever.

I just don't believe that the term "terrorist" is relevant until society has reached a level approximately equivalent to that the late 1800s or early 1900s, when it first developed its modern meaning. Before that, it applied only to a government or movement that used systematic attacks of this kind to instill terror (See the new French government after the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution of the 1860s, etc). (See this entry from the etemology dictionary: terrorist did not acquire its modern meaning until around 1944.) 

But hey, by your argument, the Angel of Death and Moses are BOTH terrorists... because Moses made the threat, you see, and the Angel of Death carried it out.

If the Angel of Death can't be a terrorist, than neither can Anders... because he is posessed with the Thedan equivalent of an angel: a beneficial spirit of the Fade.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 04 juin 2011 - 05:19 .

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Plaintiff wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Plaintiff:"People do not commit crimes without motivation. Remove the motivation and the crime will not occur."

And this actually gets to the crux of my point. Thank you. Abuse may provide a motivation but it is hardly the prevailing reason people use blood magic in my opinion. Motivation is a slippery thing to pinpoint... but lets follow my thoughts for a moment.

Why do people turn to blood magic in the first place? What, is essentially unique about blood magic? Power. Blood magic is powerful. Incredibly so. Blood mages do not need lyrium. And they can accomplish amazing feats.

Why does an abused person turn to blood magic? Because it gives them the POWER to fight back. Removing the abuse does not remove the power. And power is the motivation.

You can not solve the blood mage problem in the same way that you can not solve the problem of theft. Humans are drawn to the quick and easy. As long as blood magic is powerful there will be blood mages. And as long as demons provide quick and easy access to this power there will be abominations.

Is this a fair assertion to make?

To a point, yes. But not everyone just wants power for power's sake. In my experience, power is rarely the end goal. Mages we meet in both games want power specifically to free themselves or to get revenge, or they might just be curious, like Jowan was.

And the fact is, the mages who want freedom don't actually have a lot of options. There is no system through which they could earn their freedom by proving themselves to be responsible. Chantry dogma pretty much ensures that they will never, ever be "good enough". Phylacteries make escape attempts mostly futile, which means they have to force their way out and be willing to straight-up kill any templars that come after them (especially given that what we know of the Templar Order as a whole indicates a disturbing tendency to kill first and ask questions never). Except templars can nullify regular magic with their abilities, which leaves Blood Magic as the only option.

As for people being drawn to the "quick and easy", there's also the point that, while powerful, Blood Magic is difficult and dangerous to obtain and use in and of itself. It requires you to be willing to injure yourself and kill others in cold blood, which most people are not willing to do. I remain confident that a large number of the blood mages we see would not take that avenue to power if the system allowed them other options.

Well that is all perfectly fair and reasonable.  So... now what?  What do you do to make the system more reasonable?

And if Mage freedon means letting people who can burn down a house with a misspoken word go untrained I think we are creating more problems than we are fixing them...

[Rifneno]

Ryzaki wrote...

It really is a shame. 

Though why on earth would they keep the mages where thousands of slaves were sacrificed, massive blood rituals happened and the veil was nearly shredded I'll never undestand. 

Someone probably thought it was funny. 

My guess, that will probably enrage you and while amusing is not my intent: Someone in the Chantry did it intentionally, knowing the mages would end up like they did so that they could hold up the psychotic mages of Kirkwall as an example of why mages need to be oppressed or just outright killed.  Everyone else was just too dumb to notice it.  Which is kind of odd when you think about it.  Mages like Alain that are from a normal Circle, they should be able to tell right off the bat that something is dreadfully wrong with Kirkwall.

I'm still curious what the Tevinters were trying to do by weakening the veil so.  They're evil bastards, but they're a different faction of evil bastards from the demons.  It's not in their best interest to basically turn the city over to the demons either.  There had to be something else they were trying and failed to do.

[Ryzaki]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

"Moses a terrorist for killing all the firstborn of Egypt."

If we want to nit pick, I'm not sure Moses is responsible for that. That was the angel of Death acting on God's orders. Its not like Moses has control over the angel of death. Moses didn't actually do that himself or even order it. He was kind of swept up in the events. Like the Templers.

Anyway. I don't like it when people use words like 'epic' or 'genocide' or 'terrorist' for minor things. Killing a hundred or even three hundred people is not genocide. It devalues the word and further, the act. Genocide is massive and hard to contemplate.

Terrorist though. I certainly think fits Anders. And V from V for Vendeta for that matter. You can still love a terrorist. Buck up CGG you can still love a terrorist. You can even think he's noble.

But Anders started a war, killed innocent people, and incited a lot of fear and suffering... do you deny that? Answer that question first before we get into semantics.

Can no one in this thread remember more than five minutes in the past? Seriously. I should just stop... I've stated that I believe that Anders fits the definition of terrorist. I've said this many times, but no one seems to be able to remember anything past the most recent post. Ryzaki claimed there was no definition of terrorist that Anders did not fit, which is patently ridiculous because there are hundreds of definitions of the word terrorist. But I should just stop responding to obviously false generalizations, because no one will remember the context of my statements ever.

I just don't believe that the term "terrorist" is relevant until society has reached a level approximately equivalent to that the late 1800s or early 1900s, when it first developed its modern meaning. Before that, it applied only to a government or movement that used systematic attacks of this kind to instill terror (See the new French government after the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution of the 1860s, etc).

But hey, in your argument, the Angel of Death and Moses are BOTH terrorists... because Moses made the threat, you see, and the Angel of Death carried it out.

 

An archanic usage. Though you're correct. Following that logic I'm pretty sure I can find plenty of definitions of rape that Alrik don't match up to. 

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Rifneno wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

It really is a shame. 

Though why on earth would they keep the mages where thousands of slaves were sacrificed, massive blood rituals happened and the veil was nearly shredded I'll never undestand. 

Someone probably thought it was funny. 

My guess, that will probably enrage you and while amusing is not my intent: Someone in the Chantry did it intentionally, knowing the mages would end up like they did so that they could hold up the psychotic mages of Kirkwall as an example of why mages need to be oppressed or just outright killed.  Everyone else was just too dumb to notice it.  Which is kind of odd when you think about it.  Mages like Alain that are from a normal Circle, they should be able to tell right off the bat that something is dreadfully wrong with Kirkwall.

I'm still curious what the Tevinters were trying to do by weakening the veil so.  They're evil bastards, but they're a different faction of evil bastards from the demons.  It's not in their best interest to basically turn the city over to the demons either.  There had to be something else they were trying and failed to do.

I'm pretty sure it was deliberate, yes. Leliana says that the Divine is aware of all the problems in Kirkwall, but they don't relocate the mages anywhere. I believe the Divine also wants to see what will happen, rather than actually caring for anyone's safety.

[Ryzaki]

Rifneno wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

It really is a shame. 

Though why on earth would they keep the mages where thousands of slaves were sacrificed, massive blood rituals happened and the veil was nearly shredded I'll never undestand. 

Someone probably thought it was funny. 

My guess, that will probably enrage you and while amusing is not my intent: Someone in the Chantry did it intentionally, knowing the mages would end up like they did so that they could hold up the psychotic mages of Kirkwall as an example of why mages need to be oppressed or just outright killed.  Everyone else was just too dumb to notice it.  Which is kind of odd when you think about it.  Mages like Alain that are from a normal Circle, they should be able to tell right off the bat that something is dreadfully wrong with Kirkwall.

I'm still curious what the Tevinters were trying to do by weakening the veil so.  They're evil bastards, but they're a different faction of evil bastards from the demons.  It's not in their best interest to basically turn the city over to the demons either.  There had to be something else they were trying and failed to do.

 

I'm a fallout fan. And I don't get enraged over pixel people. (Unless they're name happens to be Morrigan or Reaver. Damn Karma Houdini's.). The Chantry running an experiments like the vault would interest me. I love manipulative bastards. Sadly Kirkwall is more of fools in charge. 

The Divine just watches but she never really reacts. Maybe she was running an experiment but if she was it massively backfired. Defintely not manipulative bastard material. 

...Unless of course everything's going according to plan. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juin 2011 - 05:24 .

[Ryzaki]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

@Ryzaki: A shame to let a huge and perfectly usable city go to waste, I guess. Those things take a lot of time and effort to build.

Then they could've left everyone there *but* the mages! Surely that wouldn't have been too difficult! 

Normal people shouldn't be living there either.

May I present this Codex entry from DA2, referring to the Enigma of Kirlwall Series, specifically the red text:

It is well known that the Veil is thin in Kirkwall, small wonder given the suffering in the city. But we've discovered the magisters were deliberately thinning it even further. Beneath the city, demons can contact even normal men. Did they seek the Black City to compound the madness of their previous efforts? Or was it something else? We've found a chamber where the Veil is at its thinnest, long-since looted, but the power is still there. Tonight we will go there. Pray for us. Pray for us all.

—Hidden behind a rock with curious markings and signed, "The Band of Three"

 

Okay defintely fallout experiments. 

Unlike the vault guys though the Chantry doesn't seem to bright. Even the FO guys understood when it was getting to dangerous to carry on with the experiment. 

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

But hey, by your argument, the Angel of Death and Moses are BOTH terrorists... because Moses made the threat, you see, and the Angel of Death carried it out.

If the Angel of Death can't be a terrorist, than neither can Anders... because he is posessed with the Thedan equivalent of an angel: a beneficial spirit of the Fade.

You're getting ridiculous here

In defence of Moses, he was a messenger. He warned the Egyptians what was coming and how to avoid it. He had nothing to do with killing the first born personally. The Egyptians had heard his warnings several times previously, ignored each one, and suffered progressively disastrous consequences. The plagues started out small and moved on to big.

Anders and Justice started with 'big'. There was no specific warning, and freedom for the mages of Kirkwall  wasn't his only goal. He wanted to make a statement that would spread across the world and let all mages everywhere know the templars and Chantry couldn't compete with them if they rose up and used their powers.

Whether or not you sided with the mages, he has accomplished this.

[Plaintiff]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Well that is all perfectly fair and reasonable.  So... now what?  What do you do to make the system more reasonable?

And if Mage freedon means letting people who can burn down a house with a misspoken word go untrained I think we are creating more problems than we are fixing them...

Oh wow, you shouldn't have asked me that. My plans for overhauling the circle system are quite detailed. I'll be the first to admit that it's not going to be at all easy and would likely result in bloodshed, but I do in fact have ideas for how to create a free Circle and allow the mages to integrate into human society.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Rifneno wrote...

I'm still curious what the Tevinters were trying to do by weakening the veil so.  They're evil bastards, but they're a different faction of evil bastards from the demons.  It's not in their best interest to basically turn the city over to the demons either.  There had to be something else they were trying and failed to do.

The Band of Three theorised that the Tevinters were attempting to make it so that Kirkwall could be a portal through which powerful demons could be easily summoned, and then controlled.

[Ryzaki]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

I'm still curious what the Tevinters were trying to do by weakening the veil so.  They're evil bastards, but they're a different faction of evil bastards from the demons.  It's not in their best interest to basically turn the city over to the demons either.  There had to be something else they were trying and failed to do.

The Band of Three theorised that the Tevinters were attempting to make it so that Kirkwall could be a portal through which powerful demons could be easily summoned, and then controlled.

 

So basically all that s*** in Kirkwall is because of bloodmages? 

I will resist...I must resist...:innocent:

[Shimmer_Gloom]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

"Moses a terrorist for killing all the firstborn of Egypt."

If we want to nit pick, I'm not sure Moses is responsible for that. That was the angel of Death acting on God's orders. Its not like Moses has control over the angel of death. Moses didn't actually do that himself or even order it. He was kind of swept up in the events. Like the Templers.

Anyway. I don't like it when people use words like 'epic' or 'genocide' or 'terrorist' for minor things. Killing a hundred or even three hundred people is not genocide. It devalues the word and further, the act. Genocide is massive and hard to contemplate.

Terrorist though. I certainly think fits Anders. And V from V for Vendeta for that matter. You can still love a terrorist. Buck up CGG you can still love a terrorist. You can even think he's noble.

But Anders started a war, killed innocent people, and incited a lot of fear and suffering... do you deny that? Answer that question first before we get into semantics.

Can no one in this thread remember more than five minutes in the past? Seriously. I should just stop... I've stated that I believe that Anders fits the definition of terrorist. I've said this many times, but no one seems to be able to remember anything past the most recent post. Ryzaki claimed there was no definition of terrorist that Anders did not fit, which is patently ridiculous because there are hundreds of definitions of the word terrorist. But I should just stop responding to obviously false generalizations, because no one will remember the context of my statements ever.

I just don't believe that the term "terrorist" is relevant until society has reached a level approximately equivalent to that the late 1800s or early 1900s, when it first developed its modern meaning. Before that, it applied only to a government or movement that used systematic attacks of this kind to instill terror (See the new French government after the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution of the 1860s, etc). (See this entry from the etemology dictionary: terrorist did not acquire its modern meaning until around 1944.) 

But hey, by your argument, the Angel of Death and Moses are BOTH terrorists... because Moses made the threat, you see, and the Angel of Death carried it out.

If the Angel of Death can't be a terrorist, than neither can Anders... because he is posessed with the Thedan equivalent of an angel: a beneficial spirit of the Fade.

That is a silly statement.  I missed it.  This thread is pretty crazy.  There are at least four conversations going on at once.  Forgive me if I miss some of the nuance.



Anyway.  Moses (or God acting through moses?  Now that is an odd thought) was definately a terrorist.  He terrorized the people of Egpyt till they had no choice but to give in to his demands.  There are pleanty of acts in the bible that would qualify for the word 'terrorism.'  It has a lot of warfare in it and it was not always very pretty..

I think what Anders did completely fits the modern connitations we assosiate with terroism.  And I assert that it was intentional.  The player is faced with a pretty bleak and grey picture of Kirkwall and its political struggles.  That moment was as much to terrorize the player as it was the populace.  "There can be no peace.  There is no comprimise."  Everyone makes their descisions right then and there.

And that was its purpose.  Both in and out of story.  To force an immediate and sweeping descision by all involved.

[Silfren]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Also, as my post earlier got sidestepped I'm gunna reiterate my point:

Deals with demons create blood mages. And even though the Templers seemed to be particularly cruel to their charges in Kirwall, I would say it was the thin veil, the thing that keeps the demons from interacting with mages, that led to the rampant blood mage problem in Kirkwall.

We keep going back to 'torturing mages creates blood mages!' 'Reform would stop the problem of blood magic!' 'Freedom for mages is safety for Kirkwall.'

I do not agree with this at all. Anders was tortured. Did he turn to blood magic? Blood magic comes from demons. Period. This is the source. Not Templers.

The blood mage problem and the freedom for mages problem are TWO different problems. Yet they are connected. But not with a straight line. Locking up mages does not keep them from blood magic (walls do not stop a demon). And neither does setting them free for that matter. Let us get that straight.

Saying that templar abuses are causing mages to turn to blood magic isn't an attempt to say that mages are learning blood magic from the templars.  And that Anders doesn't turn to blood magic even though he was abused is hardly evidence against the fact that if you abuse people, many of them will turn to violent and desperate means to fight back.

Not all dogs will eventually attack you after being repeatedly kicked for a long time.  Some dogs are of a temperament that they will only ever cower in fear or try to flee from the abuse, no matter how often they are kicked.  But other dogs will, sooner or later, respond to abuse by attacking their tormentor.  And so it goes for people.  Not every mage in Thedas will resort to blood magic or demons in response to abuse, just as not every human being in the real world will respond to abuse by eventually lashing out at their abuser.  Nevertheless, it is WELL documented that abuse will eventually provoke many of its victims to violence. 

In other words, come up with a different argument, because mages who for whatever reason don't turn to blood magic as a response to abuse is not evidence against CulturalGeekGirl's point.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Ryzaki wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

I'm still curious what the Tevinters were trying to do by weakening the veil so.  They're evil bastards, but they're a different faction of evil bastards from the demons.  It's not in their best interest to basically turn the city over to the demons either.  There had to be something else they were trying and failed to do.

The Band of Three theorised that the Tevinters were attempting to make it so that Kirkwall could be a portal through which powerful demons could be easily summoned, and then controlled.

 

So basically all that s*** in Kirkwall is because of bloodmages? 

I will resist...I must resist...:innocent:

Can I say 'Hell, yes' loud enough?

You only have to read what the Band of Three discovered. Check out these bits:

For every thousand slaves that came to Kirkwall, a hundred disappeared. I checked the tax rolls, as well, and the discrepancy exists there, too, if one has the wit to see it: 203 slaves went missing in the Imperium's 312th year! That's just one year. Other records showed similar discrepancies. Over centuries, partically a whole civilization of slaves simply disappeared.

Access has not been easy, and I fear my disguise will not bear great scrutiny. But I saw the records the templars say do not exist. The blood of countless slaves was spilled beneath the city in sacrifice. Whole buildings were built upon lakes of blood. The sewers have grooves where blood would flow, all leading down. The scale is hard to fathom.

A blood mage can channel great power from a simple cut. At least a thousand unfortunates died here every year for centuries. For what ungodly purpose would one need so much power?

[Ryzaki]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Can I say 'Hell, yes' loud enough?

You only have to read what the Band of Three discovered. Check out these bits:

For every thousand slaves that came to Kirkwall, a hundred disappeared. I checked the tax rolls, as well, and the discrepancy exists there, too, if one has the wit to see it: 203 slaves went missing in the Imperium's 312th year! That's just one year. Other records showed similar discrepancies. Over centuries, partically a whole civilization of slaves simply disappeared.

Access has not been easy, and I fear my disguise will not bear great scrutiny. But I saw the records the templars say do not exist. The blood of countless slaves was spilled beneath the city in sacrifice. Whole buildings were built upon lakes of blood. The sewers have grooves where blood would flow, all leading down. The scale is hard to fathom.

A blood mage can channel great power from a simple cut. At least a thousand unfortunates died here every year for centuries. For what ungodly purpose would one need so much power?

 

*jaw drops* What...what the hell were they planning? Surely they didn't kill thousands just to summon demons! 

That's...horrible. No wonder demons are so eager to pop out there. Why would they do that? I really hope tha'ts answered in some point in time. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juin 2011 - 05:44 .

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Cool. I never got the Band of Three/Hybris connection. But that certainly makes him that much more freakin scary.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Anyway.  Moses (or God acting through moses?  Now that is an odd thought) was definately a terrorist.  He terrorized the people of Egpyt till they had no choice but to give in to his demands.  There are pleanty of acts in the bible that would qualify for the word 'terrorism.'  It has a lot of warfare in it and it was not always very pretty..

I think what Anders did completely fits the modern connitations we assosiate with terroism.  And I assert that it was intentional.  The player is faced with a pretty bleak and grey picture of Kirkwall and its political struggles.  That moment was as much to terrorize the player as it was the populace.  "There can be no peace.  There is no comprimise."  Everyone makes their descisions right then and there.

And that was its purpose.  Both in and out of story.  To force an immediate and sweeping descision by all involved.

I apologize. It's late here and I should be in bed or working on something rather than arguing here. This thread is like cocaine in the water supply.

If you agree on Moses, then we're good. Because yes, if Moses (or the angel of death, or whatever actually killed those people) is a terrorist then Anders is a terrorist. I just think that saying either of those things is pretty functionally meaningless. At this point I just want to stop ever having to use or mention or see that word again.

The Wikipedia article on the definition of terrorism is basically all about how the word has become impossible to properly define due to its continued use as a political tool. The term is just used to evoke specific emotions now. Give me any definition of the word, and I can give you a hundred acts that fit that definition but which I do not think you would naturally classify as terror (this challenge is rhetorical. If you actually want to do this, we can talk in PMs). The use of the word as a catch-all pejorative for any violent act that we dislike has robbed it of any usefullness it may once have had. Hearing it now just leaves a dull ache in my chest, left by the death of a once-useful word, and despair at continuing a sane conversation once it has been invoked.

I think it's best for me if I just don't use the term anymore, and attempt to ignore its use in this thread. It serves no purpose other than to upset people.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 04 juin 2011 - 05:53 .

[CitizenThom]

Plaintiff wrote...

CitizenThom wrote...

Silfren wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...


Few people sympathize with terrorists now. But prior to 1795, there wasn't even a word for terrorist. It wasn't a concept, because, for the concept to represent the same idea it represents today, it must exist in a world where there are other ways for the common man to change governments and world institutions.

This is precisely why I don't have a problem with what Anders did.  Yes, he possibly killed innocent people and I'm not exactly all sunshine and roses over that prospect.  But he DID NOT HAVE OTHER VIABLE OPTIONS.

Anders could have fought Meredith. Like Hawke did. There really is only one way to deal with the problem...and that is to deal with the problem. Kill every sadistic or zealot templar, kill every blood mage. Start over with the scraps that remain. Anders did nothing about the problem, but instead indulged in some selfish raging. Did nothing about the problem, and removed people from the equation who were doing something about the problem.

Doing what about the problem, exactly? Elthina does nothing more than maintain the status quo, which is exactly what Anders is trying to change. Whether you like her or not, there's no real way around the fact that for him to get what he wants, she has to go.

Elthina had no power over the Blood Mages, and therefore was not preserving the status quo. 

Anders is the preserver of the status quo more than Elthina is:

1) He started with setting blood mages loose with his underground. He created the basis for Meredith's paranoia. As at least a shepard to the freed blood mages, he bears responsability for what they did with their freedom. He is as responsible as Orsino in the murder and defiling of mother Hawke's corpse.

2) Anders: Killed Elthina, didn't kill the blood mages, didn't kill the templars, didn't kill Meredith. So he killed the one party out of the four that wasn't a part of the problem. He preserved the three of those four that are a part of the status quo and all the problems inherent in that status quo. 

So, conflict between the Templars and the Blood Mages is the status quo that Anders acted to preserve. Elthina was trying to change the course of the status quo, and Anders murdered her along with several other people at the Chantry who were striving to alter the course of the status quo.

Modifié par CitizenThom, 04 juin 2011 - 05:52 .

[IanPolaris]

CitizenThom,

Mages are not all bloodmages no matter how much the writers want to try to deceive you into thinking otherwise. Fact is Anders despises bloodmages.

-Polaris

[Rifneno]

Ryzaki wrote...

*jaw drops* What...what the hell were they planning? Surely they didn't kill thousands just to summon demons! 

That's...horrible. No wonder demons are so eager to pop out there. Why would they do that? I really hope tha'ts answered in some point in time. 

Yep, that's exactly why I was musing over it a few posts ago.  Whatever they were doing, it was on an unimaginably huge scale.  Some have theorized that Kirkwall is where they actually went into the Fade physically and corrupted the golden city.  That's the only theory I've heard that held any water, but even it has a lot of unanswered questions.  The Chantry says they used mostly lyrium for that, while Kirkwall is mostly blood.  And more importantly, it seems that whatever they were trying in Kirkwall never got finished.

[CitizenThom]

IanPolaris wrote...

CitizenThom,

Mages are not all bloodmages no matter how much the writers want to try to deceive you into thinking otherwise. Fact is Anders despises bloodmages.

-Polaris

Anders did not once elicit Hawke's assistance in dealing with blood mages. He on several occasions asked for Hawke's help in dealing with Templars.

I didn't say that all mages are blood mages, I specifically delineated by using the words 'blood mages'.

There wasn't a single occasion in the game where a regular mage was responsible for committing any evil... save for Anders. But Anders is an Abomination, just as dangerous as any ill willed blood mage.

Modifié par CitizenThom, 04 juin 2011 - 05:57 .

[Silfren]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Switching gears, lets use your poverty analogy.  If you were able to somehow magically get rid of poverty would that eliminate theft?  Have there never been theives that did not suffer from poverty?  What is the price for not locking up a theif?  Well... I guess its more stolen property.  What is the price for not locking up an Abomination?  Well, we have seen that many times over.

The stakes are greater.  Blood magic and Theivery are not the same thing.  The analogy is fundementally flawed.

Way to miss the bloody point.  She wasn't talking about theft in general, but specifically about people who are driven to theft out of desperation.  Thieves who steal for reasons other than desperation do not figure into the discussion, so trying to twist it into a generalized discussion about thieves not motivated by desperate poverty is just flat out dishonest.  Why pull out this strawman unless you're just deliberately trying to ignore the argument she's making?

[IanPolaris]

CitizenThom wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

CitizenThom,

Mages are not all bloodmages no matter how much the writers want to try to deceive you into thinking otherwise. Fact is Anders despises bloodmages.

-Polaris

Anders did not once elicit Hawke's assistance in dealing with blood mages. He on several occasions asked for Hawke's help in dealing with Templars.

I didn't say that all mages are blood mages, I specifically delineated by using the words 'blood mages'.

There wasn't a single occasion in the game where a regular mage was responsible for committing any evil... save for Anders. But Anders is an Abomination, just as dangerous as any ill willed blood mage.

That was because of bad writing.  Even the Devs admit they went too far with the "everyone is an insane bloodmage" angle.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  Also in your original post, you use "bloodmage" when you really needed to say "mage" and that IMHO undercut the credibility of your whole post which was really my point.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 04 juin 2011 - 06:04 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Rifneno wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

*jaw drops* What...what the hell were they planning? Surely they didn't kill thousands just to summon demons! 

That's...horrible. No wonder demons are so eager to pop out there. Why would they do that? I really hope tha'ts answered in some point in time. 

Yep, that's exactly why I was musing over it a few posts ago.  Whatever they were doing, it was on an unimaginably huge scale.  Some have theorized that Kirkwall is where they actually went into the Fade physically and corrupted the golden city.  That's the only theory I've heard that held any water, but even it has a lot of unanswered questions.  The Chantry says they used mostly lyrium for that, while Kirkwall is mostly blood.  And more importantly, it seems that whatever they were trying in Kirkwall never got finished.

It definitely wasn't the Fade/Golden City incident. I'm pretty sure that happened in Minrathous, but don't want to go hunt for an obscure reference right now.

The question of Kirkwall was never answered, at least by the Band of Three, save that it looked to be connected to the Forgotton Ones.

There was this though:

Many ancient cities specialized in arcane research, but why did Kirkwall hide its efforts here? Why go to such great pains to keep it out of sight? Were they a cabal of renegade magisters? Or was this a special project of the archon?

Whatever they were doing and whoever was doing it, it was top secret.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 04 juin 2011 - 06:04 .

[IanPolaris]

My guess (Re Enigma of Kirkwall?):

I think the Magisters were using Kirkwall as a giant magical lab/proving ground as well as a test site to do magics and perform experiements that required a virtually non-existant veil....and so they 'enhanced' (thinned) the veil characteristics that made Kirkwall so valuable.

In short, everyone living in Kirkwall was a lab rat.

-Polaris