968 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

As I said many pages back, whether it was the devs' intent to make her anti-mage or not is irrelevant because her dialogue conveys an anti-mage attitude.

If the intent was to just make her a neutral agent of the Divine, her dialogue should've been more specific on certain issues.

"If Kirkwall falls to the Resolutionists"

"I understand Meredith is to blame for much of what's happening"

and of course, Hawke should've at least brought it up, even if she already knew. He couldn't even handle a meeting with the Divine's agent.

[IanPolaris]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Given all that, there was no need to be coy or generic.  If Lelianna had wanted to refer to a specific group of mages or type of magical power, she had the ability to do so and could have.  She didn't.  She lumped ALL mages and magic into one lump catagory with the Resolutionists and called it bad (bad enough to justify an exalted march even).

-Polaris

I think You're attaching more weight to her words than is warranted. It was unnesseary to speak of all the individual types of bad things mages could do to Krikwall.

No.  I don't agree.  People that are opposed viscerally to one thing, group, etc tend to lump that dislike into generalities, i.e. well now that "they" have moved in the neighborhood is going to pot where "they" is a group that the person doesn't like.  It's lazy thinking at best.  At worst it leads to war crimes and I'll leave that at that.

If Lelianna wasn't anti-mage or at least anti-magic, she could easily (and with greater accuracy) said what specific types of mages she feels Kirkwall is about to "fall" to lest it become another "Imperium".  She doesn't. She lumps all magic, all mages, and everything anti-chantry into "magic".  classical thinking of frankly a bigot and totally unlike the Lelianna we were presented in DAO (which is the point).

Given that, it's very fair to call her "anti-mage" or at least apparently so given the evidence we have.

-Polaris

[Xilizhra]

I wouldn't call Gaider anti-mage. I'd say he's trying to reconcile himself with a work that, while quite good, was flawed in certain important respects, and not wanting to retcon anything in the game itself.

[IanPolaris]

Filament wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Except you don't get that quote every time.  The only time I've seen (or remember it) is when the Fereldan circle is freed which makes me conclude (and I haven't been told I'm wrong on this anyway...and prior conversations with DG and others incline me to believe I am largely correct) that it's the Fereldan pro-magic stance that's bothering the "new" Lelianna, not the fact the circle was almost overrun.

-Polaris

As I recall, the Ferelden Circle was not freed. Ferelden asked, the Chantry said "No." You'll forgive me if I don't take your shaky memory and questionable interpretation of said shaky memory at face value...

Also, even if that were what she was referring to, she's against magic ruling over man, per Chantry dogma. She's against the Circles being free of Chantry oversight, yes. These do not make her anti-mage. Magic and mages are not one and the same-- you're the one lumping them together, not her.

Except not once does Lelianna say anything like that in DA2.  Certainly in DAO she is greatly understanding of mages and magic even to the point of wanting redemption of Jowan and the bloodmage prisoner.  I do recall that she only says "especially after what happened in Fereldan" after you "freed" the Fereldan circle.  Yes the Chantry says "no", but that's not how the game flags it.

-Polaris

[whykikyouwhy]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

As I said many pages back, whether it was the devs' intent to make her anti-mage or not is irrelevant because her dialogue conveys an anti-mage attitude.

If the intent was to just make her a neutral agent of the Divine, her dialogue should've been more specific on certain issues.

"If Kirkwall falls to the Resolutionists"

"I understand Meredith is to blame for much of what's happening"

and of course, Hawke should've at least brought it up, even if she already knew. He couldn't even handle a meeting with the Divine's agent.

Aside from padding out that conversation, I think Leliana's choice of words makes it clear that she is talking about specific mages - or rather, a specific group - the Resolutionists.

The codex entry that you get for that scene states this:

"The Resolutionists changed all that. Splitting from the main Libertarian fraternity, the Resolutionists are open apostates who support freedom for mages at all costs. They engaged in acts of terror and sabotage against the Chantry throughout Thedas, and many are connected to Kirkwall's mage underground. They have declared that unless mages are freed to rule themselves, they will show every person in Thedas how little protection the Circle of Magi actually offers. "

They are a faction. That doesn't imply, at least to me, that she is anti-mage. She's anti-extremism. Kirkwall falling to extremism would be a fair and legitimate warning.

It really all boils down to interpretation, sure. And head canon. But aside from maybe adding more to the dialogue, I didn't see anything wrong, or rather anything anti-mage, in that conversation. I didn't walk away thinking "my, the years have been unkind to you, Sister Nightingale. You have changed."

[Cody]

Xilizhra wrote...

I wouldn't call Gaider anti-mage. I'd say he's trying to reconcile himself with a work that, while quite good, was flawed in certain important respects, and not wanting to retcon anything in the game itself.

And instead blames it on the fans for not getting it and accusing them to having wild imaginations.

[IanPolaris]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

When Lelianna supports an exalted march lest "Kirkwall fall to magic" [and if the circle was freed by the warden she adds, "especially after what happened in Fereldan"], I think it's very fair to call her "anti-mage" especially in contrast to her very understanding and accepting attitude towards magic in DAO which has been well documented.

-Polaris

Her very understanding and accepting attitude towards *individual mages* in DAO.  I don't remember her taking a stance on mages as a whole in DAO. Plus, we don't even know "what happened in Ferelden" after the mages were freed. You're assuming that the dismantling of the Circle is what she's referring to when all we know there might have been some kind of unmentioned riot.

Well, I know you lose approval with Lels in DAO if you agree with Cullen at the top of the Tower (i.e. everything must die) even though what Cullen is saying is the Chantry policy in such cases....since Gregoire has asked for a Right of Annulment in that case.  Seems to me that at best she never really thought about it, and from what I gather in her conversations in DAO isn't very happy with the official Chantry line (and isn't happy about the official chantry line in a lot of ways).

-Polaris

[Xilizhra]

We do know that whatever happened at the Circle isn't plot-vital, because it only happens if a mage Warden frees it. So in all likelihood, if it wasn't freeing the Circle, it wasn't that bad.

[IanPolaris]

If "Sister Nightengale" were afraid of Kirkwall falling to the resulolutionists she could and should have said so. No one would have interpreted that as anti-mage. She didn't. She lumped them in with all other mages and the Imperium and said that Kirkwall must not "fall to magic" which comes across honestly as bigoted. Sorry but it does.

Whether it was DG's intent or not, for a lot of us her words and actions DO scream that she is anti-mage or at least anti-magic which is a severe (apparent) change from DAO.

-Polaris

[Xilizhra]

What if she's just speaking the words of an anti-mage Divine that don't match her own feelings?

[Sylvianus]

phaonica wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

When Lelianna supports an exalted march lest "Kirkwall fall to magic" [and if the circle was freed by the warden she adds, "especially after what happened in Fereldan"], I think it's very fair to call her "anti-mage" especially in contrast to her very understanding and accepting attitude towards magic in DAO which has been well documented.

-Polaris

Her very understanding and accepting attitude towards *individual mages* in DAO.  I don't remember her taking a stance on mages as a whole in DAO. Plus, we don't even know "what happened in Ferelden" after the mages were freed. You're assuming that the dismantling of the Circle is what she's referring to when all we know there might have been some kind of unmentioned riot.

Yeah indeed.

Leliana is a woman who believes that every human being can find his place alongside the creator, so those with power too.

She is a woman who judges with the heart. She has never shown the slightest interest to mages because they are Mages. She wanted to save the mages of the circle in DAO because they were also humans, also the sons of the creator and that this would be unacceptable to exterminate them under her eyes, children, men and women. Not because she was pro-mage. For me she is a believer, a servant of the chantry, but not anti-mage. The resolutionist are clearly a threat to Kirkwall, yes  !

To think that magic is dangerous, a group of mage conspirators resolved  is dangerous. That is not being anti-mage. That is a fact that shouldn't be ignored.

Yes mages when they become uncontrollable can be a threat to the world.

I think that and I'm not anti-mage, I'm realistic. I almost always saved the circle of Ferelden for the memo.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 15 août 2011 - 12:08 .

[Zanallen]

IanPolaris wrote...

Well, I know you lose approval with Lels in DAO if you agree with Cullen at the top of the Tower (i.e. everything must die) even though what Cullen is saying is the Chantry policy in such cases....since Gregoire has asked for a Right of Annulment in that case.  Seems to me that at best she never really thought about it, and from what I gather in her conversations in DAO isn't very happy with the official Chantry line (and isn't happy about the official chantry line in a lot of ways).

-Polaris

All we really know about Leliana is that she doesn't agree with killing all of the mages if some can still be saved. She is more goody-goody in DA:O than pro-mage. Same with Jowan. She doesn't think he should be killed out of hand and should have a chance to redeem himself.

Anyway, as I have said before in this thread, I took her words as just telling it how it is. She was attacked by mages. When she tells the Divine about it, she will most likely order the march. Thus, they have condeemed themselves. I didn't read any of her own feelings into what she said, just what she thinks is most likely to happen.

[IanPolaris]

Xilizhra wrote...

What if she's just speaking the words of an anti-mage Divine that don't match her own feelings?

An interesting point that I've considered, but it doesn't quite fly with me no matter how hard I try.  Remember that Lels and the Divine were (and apparently are) BFFs.  That alone makes it seem unlikely that their fundament personalitioes would be that different.  Not only that, but if Lels didn't agree with her friend, there were other ways of expressing that such as making it clear that "The Divine is afraid that Kirkwall will fall to 'magic'" which subtlely would clue the listener (and bards are subtle) that she personally might not agree.

-Polaris

[Jedi Master of Orion]

IanPolaris wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Given all that, there was no need to be coy or generic.  If Lelianna had wanted to refer to a specific group of mages or type of magical power, she had the ability to do so and could have.  She didn't.  She lumped ALL mages and magic into one lump catagory with the Resolutionists and called it bad (bad enough to justify an exalted march even).

-Polaris

I think You're attaching more weight to her words than is warranted. It was unnesseary to speak of all the individual types of bad things mages could do to Krikwall.

No.  I don't agree.  People that are opposed viscerally to one thing, group, etc tend to lump that dislike into generalities, i.e. well now that "they" have moved in the neighborhood is going to pot where "they" is a group that the person doesn't like.  It's lazy thinking at best.  At worst it leads to war crimes and I'll leave that at that.

If Lelianna wasn't anti-mage or at least anti-magic, she could easily (and with greater accuracy) said what specific types of mages she feels Kirkwall is about to "fall" to lest it become another "Imperium".  She doesn't. She lumps all magic, all mages, and everything anti-chantry into "magic".  classical thinking of frankly a bigot and totally unlike the Lelianna we were presented in DAO (which is the point).

Given that, it's very fair to call her "anti-mage" or at least apparently so given the evidence we have.

-Polaris

No, you're just inferring that she lumped them all together from a 1 minute conversation with her. Magic is dangerous, just because didn't go into detail about who specifically is or isn't a thrreat to to Kirkwall to a bunch of strangers she was having a short conversation with doesn't mean she believes all mages are evil. She could have said "blood magic" or "the resolutionists" but there are still other types of threats that mages are capable of posing. Anders was neither for example and he was ultimately the biggest threat of all. If she had said something like "All mages are the same, we need to teach them to get back in line" then I might agree. All she said is that magic can pose a threat to Kirkwall, which it does, which could manifest in any number of ways.

[IanPolaris]

Filament wrote...
... which is probably at least more correct than yours since DG has explicitly said your interpretation is wrong.

Reread DG's posts again.  He did NOT say I was wrong.  He was complaining that we were "reading too much" into things (which I've answered at length earlier) and said that there were answers but they were under 'double-top secret classification".  In short, what you say is incorrect.  DG never said I was incorrect....a point I find very interesting in fact.

-Polaris

[Rifneno]

Sylvianus wrote...

The only ones I've seen are those who are passionately pro-mage. Including many of them who see the chantry as " the devil ", without a minimum of pragmatism and rationality, blood mage as innocent victims who have a justification for murder, because of the templars. Who said that Anders was absolutely right, kill them all etc etc.

Those who didn't support the Magi at the end are treated in the same time genocidal murderers by the same people. So no wonder that Leliana was perceived negatively for just have said something against what she perceived as a threat, regardless of its nature.

Getting a little sick of this argument. Everyone who says she's different in DA2 is pro-mage? Shall I point out that nearly everyone who says she isn't is known pro-templar? Shall I point out that you yourself claimed Elthina shouldn't be blamed for letting her templars run amok because she's old? I can't even find the words to express how brainmeltingly absurd that is, and you have the unmitigated gall to rant about our bias?

I'm also growing mighty tired of the "woe is me" victim act people like yourself are putting on by claiming the mage supporters are constantly calling the templar supporters genocidal lunatics? I can't recall having seen that happen once. We call the templars, in the game, fictional characters, genocidal lunatics. If you can't distinguish the difference, that's your problem. Quit the victim act, it's as tiresome as it is baseless. When's the last time anyone has seen a mage supporter complain that they're being called demon-consorting nutcases who kill random women and stitch their corpses together? I sure don't recall having seen it, and it's certainly not because we're the only side that spews hate at fictional characters.

[Xilizhra]

IanPolaris wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

What if she's just speaking the words of an anti-mage Divine that don't match her own feelings?

An interesting point that I've considered, but it doesn't quite fly with me no matter how hard I try.  Remember that Lels and the Divine were (and apparently are) BFFs.  That alone makes it seem unlikely that their fundament personalitioes would be that different.  Not only that, but if Lels didn't agree with her friend, there were other ways of expressing that such as making it clear that "The Divine is afraid that Kirkwall will fall to 'magic'" which subtlely would clue the listener (and bards are subtle) that she personally might not agree.

-Polaris

I'll admit this. She preceded everything else in the conversation with "the Divine says," but didn't here. Given what Gaider said, I'm willing to accept it as a verbal slipup on her part, but it's quite an unfortunate one.

[_Aine_]

IanPolaris wrote...

If "Sister Nightengale" were afraid of Kirkwall falling to the resulolutionists she could and should have said so. No one would have interpreted that as anti-mage. She didn't. She lumped them in with all other mages and the Imperium and said that Kirkwall must not "fall to magic" which comes across honestly as bigoted. Sorry but it does.

Whether it was DG's intent or not, for a lot of us her words and actions DO scream that she is anti-mage or at least anti-magic which is a severe (apparent) change from DAO.

-Polaris

IF you take her minimal lines as the be-all and end-all to her entire personality and motivations sure.  I am not sure most people would be so black and white as to say one cameo = the entire crux of truth in her regard.  

Sometimes things aren't all that they seem, just like in RL people aren't always obvious, 100% in any regard or even remotely consistent.  If you want games to be realistic, you have to accept that you may not always like the direction characters move, even if you are the sort that has to categorize and understand everything.  Chances are good we don't have a clue.  Not because of what was said, rather because of what wasn't said.  We don't *need* to know or understand everything.  Right away.  Eventually, yes, of course it would be good to understand.  In time, we will.  Whether you will like the answers we get though, is questionable....

Modifié par shantisands, 15 août 2011 - 12:15 .

[IanPolaris]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

No, you're just inferring that she lumped them all together from a 1 minute conversation with her. Magic is dangerous, just because didn't go into detail about who specifically is or isn't a thrreat to to Kirkwall to a bunch of strangers she was having a short conversation with doesn't mean she believes all mages are evil. She could have said "blood magic" or "the resolutionists" but there are still other types of threats that mages are capable of posing. Anders was neither for example and he was ultimately the biggest threat of all. If she had said something like "All mages are the same, we need to teach them to get back in line" then I might agree. All she said is that magic can pose a threat to Kirkwall, which it does, which could manifest in any number of ways.

She didn't say "magic was dangerous" (which is sort of like saying the sky is blue).  She said that the Kirkwall must not fall to magic.  (And her tone was fairly nasty...for Lels...when she said it).  Not one word was said about the incompetance of the local templars.  Not one word was said for any loyalist mages (and there probably are more than a few).  Not one word was said about specifying which mages.  It was the accastion of an anti-magic bigot.  I feel that's fair because that IS how a narrow minded person thinks, and Lels came across (intended or not) as intensely narrow minded.

-Polaris

[phaonica]

IanPolaris wrote...

If "Sister Nightengale" were afraid of Kirkwall falling to the resulolutionists she could and should have said so. No one would have interpreted that as anti-mage. She didn't. She lumped them in with all other mages and the Imperium and said that Kirkwall must not "fall to magic"

Okay, I kind of do agree with this. But I didn't interpret as being anti-mage so much as pro-WhiteChantry, which perhaps are the same thing, after all. It could be interpreted that she isnt' against mage freedom, so much as she thinks that any war against the Chantry could potentially weaken the influence of the Chantry (not their influence over mages, but their influence to spread their message of the Maker).

which comes across honestly as bigoted. Sorry but it does.

Whether it was DG's intent or not, for a lot of us her words and actions DO scream that she is anti-mage or at least anti-magic which is a severe (apparent) change from DAO.

-Polaris

I remember some of the things Leliana said in DAO coming across as severely racist, too, so even if I agreed that her statements were bigoted, it's not that far of a stretch from how she was in DAO.

[Giggles_Manically]

Yes how dare Leliana say ANYTHING that is not rabidly supporting mages.
10 seconds after a horde of blood mages and their demons show up attempting to MURDER her.

There is good cause to fear mages by act 3, and its not all because the nasty wasty templars made them do it.

[Xilizhra]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Yes how dare Leliana say ANYTHING that is not rabidly supporting mages.
10 seconds after a horde of blood mages and their demons show up attempting to MURDER her.

There is good cause to fear mages by act 3, and its not all because the nasty wasty templars made them do it.

Actually... it kinda is. That's the motivation of the Resolutionists, at any rate, and Act 3 contains none of the Tarohne or Quentin types, unless you count the Crimson Weavers.

[Dave of Canada]

Rifneno wrote...

I'm also growing mighty tired of the "woe is me" victim act people like yourself are putting on by claiming the mage supporters are constantly calling the templar supporters genocidal lunatics? I can't recall having seen that happen once

• I've been called pro-rape because I support the Templar, therefore I supported corrupt officials raping their prisoners.
• I've been called racist because I support the Templar, where David Gaider and his anti-mage agenda apparently made Alain black so we'd subconsciously hate mages.
• I've been called a religious fanatic because I support the Templar, where I supposedly support the real life Templar and the Crusades.
• I've been called a **** because I support the Templar, where the Circles are mage "death camps" and that by supporting them ingame I must be a neo-****.

Want me to go on? If I'd go on my computer, I could likely track down every single above post. It's been happening since even before DA2 came out.