[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
You are wrong again. Sure the Protestant reformation didn't happen until the 16th century, but the Crusades never really ended prior to that, they simply petered out, and they petered out because the Church wasn't able to influence national states as much as they were and were having problems exercising influence.[/quote]
I'm sorry, but to say that over 300 years between the last crusade and the reformation, the period during which there wasn't any actual attempt made to call for new crusades.. is just them 'petering out but never really ending', it's too much spin for me to handle.
[/quote]
Actually there were several minor attempts during this period. All ended in disaster.
[quote]
Using this logic you could say the war for US independence just "petered out but never really ended", too, and the british monarchy just doesn't have enough influence with its own nation anymore to keep it active?
[/quote]
Read some history before you comment on it please. The British Crown explicitly recognized US independance by treaty in 1783 and was forced to recognize full sovereign US rights in the Treaty of Ghent in 1814.
[quote]
[quote]As for the middle east, read and listen to what a lot of the fanatics are saying and it's perfectly clear that they are in fact still fighting the crusades in many respects.[/quote]What are these "many respects"? Please elaborate, so we can both see how absurd these claims are.
[/quote]
Virtually ever Islamic terrorist pretty explicitly links their war as that of a continuation of the Crusades up to an including the (re)establishment of a global Islamic Caliphate.
[quote]
[quote]Wrong again. I state this option explicitly many times as about the only way such conflicts are truly be resolved rather than simply being put on hiatus.[/quote]The problem is, you refuse to accept the ability that a conflict can be in fact resolved rather than just "put on hiatus" if such process doesn't take place. In other words, you interpret the facts in a way which suits your theory, where there isn't any actual reason to interpret them in such way, other than doing so would prove the theory false. Effectively making it circular logic -- "A cannot happen without B. If A happens without B then we know it's not A because A can't happen without B".
[/quote]
No I'm not. I'm saying that as long as the Templars feel they have a direct line to the Maker, no real peace is possible. There is a lot of bloody history that backs this viewpoint.
[quote]
[quote]
I believe my context was very clear.[/quote]
You're free to believe it. Since i have in fact interpreted what you wrote differently, that demonstrates your belief to be false -- if you were very clear, i'd get your writing without issues.
[/quote]
No. You are searching for an excuse to deliberately misunderstand in a cheap attempt to score rhetorical points. Pretty much every other posters (including those inclined to agree with you) understand the distinction.
[quote]
[quote][quote]
Is that belief expressed by anyone else than Cullen?
[/quote]
By their actions, yes. Pretty much by every surviving Templar...and Cullen is protrayed as a moderate Templar leader.[/quote]
That's very much a "no" then, because you are only offering your personal interpretation of actions rather than actual, voiced opinions. And i don't care how many times you keep repeating "Cullen is portrayed as a moderate templar", that's still your personal interpretation of the character as well. Given without any argument to back it up, to boot.
[/quote]
It's pretty much a yes actually. The Templars as a whole had plenty of chances to show they Cullen was not a moderate and never did so. Not once.
[quote]
[quote]
Again play the game. Cullen is in fact protrayed as a moderate. If you can't even agree on what the game actually says, then there is no further discussion possible.[/quote]
Again, i have played the game and our impressions of Cullen and interpretations of his character differ. If the game indeed says explicitly Cullen is a moderate templar, please provide quotes to such effect because i have no recollections of such.
[/quote]
Cullen is protrayed as a moderate in the game. Saying otherwise is dishonest.
[quote]
Without it, it's not "what the game actually says" but what you say it says. And that's two different things.
And yes, without some actual evidence the further discussion is indeed not possible.
[/quote]
Cullen is frequently shown as the voice of reason and moderation. That makes him the game's example of a Templar moderate. Play the damn game.
[quote]
[quote]Actually you're wrong AGAIN. If Varric feels the Templars desire war and is the most neutral observer possible, then it's a sure bet that most people in Thedas do.
[/quote]
Again, no. If Varric is neutral observer and most of people in Thedas aren't (having solid reasons for pro-templar bias, e.g.) then Varric's stance is by no means reflection of what "the most people in Thedas" do think.
For all you know, "most people in Thedas" may be of firm belief the templars are going into this war largely against their will, and only to protect the general population from the mages gone crazy. Because that's what the game Codex actually says about views of people of Thedas -- that they view the templars "as saviors and holy warriors, champions of all that is good, armed with piety enough to protect the world from the ravages of foul magic."[/quote]
That doesn't mean the people in Thedas believe that the Templars want peace. The evidence we have is that they don't and the people as a whole don't believe they do either. We also know from Kirkwall that the Templar's reputation is a lot more fragile than you are the Templars want to believe.
-Polaris
I don't think a compromise between templars and mages is realistic.
Débuté par
LobselVith8
, oct. 27 2011 04:12
Retour en haut
#127
Posté 29 octobre 2011 - 10:23
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
tmp7704 wrote...
Yes. Please note this interpretation is also supported by some of the mages themselves, and is actually what led to forming of the circles in the first place -- the mages considered it an improvement of their previous situation, and an acceptable solution. One which involved concessions from both sides involved.GavrielKay wrote...
That's an interesting perception of "compromise"... It basically revolved around the mages submitting to total Chantry/Templar control.
Which does fit the idea of compromise.
At the time the only compromise was not having a nutty Divine try to exterminate all mages then and there. Things have changed. The mages have consistantly shown their willingness to comprise, the Templars have not (and the Circle was a Templar idea....it was the Templars that convinced the Divine not to exterminate all mages at the time....a policy that has clearly changed).
-Polari9s
#128
Posté 29 octobre 2011 - 10:31
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Doesn't he also still advocate for the Circle to be freed if that boon was chosen?
Yes, that's why Meredith and King Alistair are arguing during "King Alistair." Jedi Master is correct that King Alistair says he can't force the Circle of Ferelden to emancipate the mages because of the Fifth Blight (if Hawke asks him why he doesn't force the issue) but that's no longer an issue once all the Circles of Magi emancipated themselves from Chantry and templar control.
Given that even a moderate like First Enchanter Irving is grateful that the Hero of Ferelden asked the ruler of Ferelden to free the Circle (even going as far as to say they have been freed from their "shackles" when discussing the issue at the royal ceremony) it seems that there are mages who wanted to govern themselves long before the continental rebellion. I would imagine a mage savior asking for his people to be free would have repercussions among all the Chantry controlled Circles, which Meredith eludes to in her confrontation with King Alistair.
#129
Posté 29 octobre 2011 - 11:18
DPSSOC
-
- Members
- 3 033 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
tmp7704 wrote...
That's very much a "no" then, because you are only offering your personal interpretation of actions rather than actual, voiced opinions. And i don't care how many times you keep repeating "Cullen is portrayed as a moderate templar", that's still your personal interpretation of the character as well. Given without any argument to back it up, to boot.By their actions, yes. Pretty much by every surviving Templar...and Cullen is protrayed as a moderate Templar leader.Is that belief expressed by anyone else than Cullen?
It's pretty much a yes actually. The Templars as a whole had plenty of chances to show they Cullen was not a moderate and never did so. Not once.Again, i have played the game and our impressions of Cullen and interpretations of his character differ. If the game indeed says explicitly Cullen is a moderate templar, please provide quotes to such effect because i have no recollections of such.Again play the game. Cullen is in fact protrayed as a moderate. If you can't even agree on what the game actually says, then there is no further discussion possible.
Cullen is protrayed as a moderate in the game. Saying otherwise is dishonest.Without it, it's not "what the game actually says" but what you say it says. And that's two different things.
And yes, without some actual evidence the further discussion is indeed not possible.
Cullen is frequently shown as the voice of reason and moderation. That makes him the game's example of a Templar moderate. Play the damn game.
In what way is Cullen the voice of moderation? He supports the Tranquil Solution if you talk to him about it (or if you prefer he doesn't oppose it), he supports Meredith whole heartedly until the last fight, he supports torturing mages, assaulting recruits, he views mages as things, etc. At what time in the game does Cullen say, or even suggest, that the Templars should ease up a little? Aside from the last fight when do Cullen's actions suggest that he feels the Templars are going too far? Cullen is the least crazy of the bat-**** insane Templars that's it. Thrask and Kerran are portrayed as moderate Templars ("Hey let's not be monsters"), Cullen's a lunatic with cold feet.
#130
Posté 29 octobre 2011 - 11:19
tmp7704
-
- Members
- 11 156 messages
[citation needed]IanPolaris wrote...
Actually there were several minor attempts during this period. All ended in disaster.
So? That's by the very logic you use in this argument merely a temporary, few hundred years long truce, rather than sign the conflict itself actually ended.Read some history before you comment on it please. The British Crown explicitly recognized US independance by treaty in 1783 and was forced to recognize full sovereign US rights in the Treaty of Ghent in 1814.
That's a non-answer. I've asked how exactly the link between current fighting and the crusades is being justified, not for a repetition of mere statement that current terrorists claim to continue the crusades. Let's not forget from the islamic perspective these were wars fought in defense against invasion, so trying to link that to "establishment of a global islamic caliphate" only shows how far-fetched such attempts of making a link are.Virtually ever Islamic terrorist pretty explicitly links their war as that of a continuation of the Crusades up to an including the (re)establishment of a global Islamic Caliphate.
The problem is, you refuse to accept the ability that a conflict can be in fact resolved rather than just "put on hiatus" if such process doesn't take place. In other words, you interpret the facts in a way which suits your theory, where there isn't any actual reason to interpret them in such way, other than doing so would prove the theory false. Effectively making it circular logic -- "A cannot happen without B. If A happens without B then we know it's not A because A can't happen without B".No I'm not. I'm saying that as long as the Templars feel they have a direct line to the Maker, no real peace is possible. There is a lot of bloody history that backs this viewpoint.
(if that reply seems familiar, it's because it still applies to how you choose to interpret the bloody history to back this viewpoint)
(context: templars supposedly holding en masse the belief of divine right)
It's pretty much a yes actually.
If it was a yes, you would have no problems with providing me with actual quotes i asked in the first place. But you do.
They show he is not a moderate by not expressing the same, drastic views he does.The Templars as a whole had plenty of chances to show they Cullen was not a moderate and never did so. Not once.
And yet you can't actually back up this view in any way than telling me to play the game. Which i did.Cullen is protrayed as a moderate in the game. Saying otherwise is dishonest.
Come on, what's specifically so moderate about Cullen?
Like when? If he's frequently shown in such way, then there should be no problem with providing few examples, and it'll be far faster than if i had to play through the game looking for it.Cullen is frequently shown as the voice of reason and moderation.
So far the only explicit quote you've chosen to provide for Cullen is his claim the templars have "divine right" to govern over mages. Which is anything but the voice of reason and moderation.
And let's not forget that being a "voice of reason and moderation" in Kirkwall is hardly a proof one is moderate on overall scale. The one-eyed being king in the land of the blind, and all that.
No, we don't have evidence that "people as a whole don't believe". We have a quote from one dwarf who doesn't, which you insist is a proof that's what "most of Thedas" thinks, while ignoring the way this dwarf thinks is actually quite different from the way we're told people of Thedas think.That doesn't mean the people in Thedas believe that the Templars want peace. The evidence we have is that they don't and the people as a whole don't believe they do either.
#131
Posté 29 octobre 2011 - 11:41
AlexXIV
-
- Members
- 10 670 messages
Well the way you judge Cullen is just the way the 'bad' templars judge mages. I played DA:O with a (female) mage origin and thought Cullen is rather nice, if paranoid. And same thing in DA2. You can't really blame him for things being bad in Kirkwall, he is maybe a bit over tasked and not really having a good view on the big picture (ie. Hawke saves his live one time) but he is definately one of the sort that I wish all templars would be like. Not too much trusting to mages but not a lunatic/fanatic paranoid wreck like some either. Only thing you can really say negative about Cullen is that he is not acting against Meredith sooner, probably because he has too much respect, may be bad writing too, but ... whatever. Anyway, he is not supporting either the Tranquil solution or the Annulment actively. Though he probably is desperate enough to let it pass because he doesn't know a better option. If you can excuse a mage turning to bloodmagic out of desperation you have to give the same credit to desperate templars. Otherwise it's just double standard.DPSSOC wrote...
In what way is Cullen the voice of moderation? He supports the Tranquil Solution if you talk to him about it (or if you prefer he doesn't oppose it), he supports Meredith whole heartedly until the last fight, he supports torturing mages, assaulting recruits, he views mages as things, etc. At what time in the game does Cullen say, or even suggest, that the Templars should ease up a little? Aside from the last fight when do Cullen's actions suggest that he feels the Templars are going too far? Cullen is the least crazy of the bat-**** insane Templars that's it. Thrask and Kerran are portrayed as moderate Templars ("Hey let's not be monsters"), Cullen's a lunatic with cold feet.
#132
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 12:01
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Actually there were several minor attempts during this period. All ended in disaster.[/quote]
[citation needed]
[/quote]
There were various attempts such as many "children's crusades" that ended badly largely because of lack of political support. You also neglect one other major factor. The fall of Constantiople which made overland travel to the holy land virtually impossible. The conflict didn't end. The accessibility ended and by the time that didn't matter the Catholic Church had lost the politcal power needed. Read some history please.
[quote]
[quote]
Read some history before you comment on it please. The British Crown explicitly recognized US independance by treaty in 1783 and was forced to recognize full sovereign US rights in the Treaty of Ghent in 1814.[/quote]
So? That's by the very logic you use in this argument merely a temporary, few hundred years long truce, rather than sign the conflict itself actually ended.
[/quote]
The British didn't think they had a direct line to divine favor. Neither did the US revolutionaries. The revolutionaries felt their cause was just but not a divine mandate (and indeed looked with extreme distrust with those that were fanatics of this type).
After the war of 1812, the British accepted US independance as an acceptable fact. Bad feelings persisted until the 20th century, but those could be overcome because both accepted the others on a secular basis. A perspective notably lacking with the Templars.
[quote]
[quote]
Virtually ever Islamic terrorist pretty explicitly links their war as that of a continuation of the Crusades up to an including the (re)establishment of a global Islamic Caliphate.[/quote]
That's a non-answer. I've asked how exactly the link between current fighting and the crusades is being justified, not for a repetition of mere statement that current terrorists claim to continue the crusades. Let's not forget from the islamic perspective these were wars fought in defense against invasion, so trying to link that to "establishment of a global islamic caliphate" only shows how far-fetched such attempts of making a link are.
[/quote]
The crusades form the moral justification for modern terrorism if you ask the modern islamic radical. That's not a far fetched link at all. In fact this understanding is rather basic to understanding the modern middle east.
[quote]
[quote]
No I'm not. I'm saying that as long as the Templars feel they have a direct line to the Maker, no real peace is possible. There is a lot of bloody history that backs this viewpoint.[/quote]
The problem is, you refuse to accept the ability that a conflict can be in fact resolved rather than just "put on hiatus" if such process doesn't take place. In other words, you interpret the facts in a way which suits your theory, where there isn't any actual reason to interpret them in such way, other than doing so would prove the theory false. Effectively making it circular logic -- "A cannot happen without B. If A happens without B then we know it's not A because A can't happen without B".
(if that reply seems familiar, it's because it still applies to how you choose to interpret the bloody history to back this viewpoint)
[/quote]
I don't accept it because it can't. Until Templar attitudes change, peace is neither possible nor desirable. I am far from the only one saying so.
[quote]
[quote]
(context: templars supposedly holding en masse the belief of divine right)
It's pretty much a yes actually.[/quote]
If it was a yes, you would have no problems with providing me with actual quotes i asked in the first place. But you do.
[quote]The Templars as a whole had plenty of chances to show they Cullen was not a moderate and never did so. Not once.[/quote]
They show he is not a moderate by not expressing the same, drastic views he does.
[/quote]
There are lots of templars around when Cullen makes that statement. Not ONE of them disagrees with it. It's Kerran's sister that disagrees but not one templar does. Not even Aveline (if persent) who was married to a Templar disagrees with it. The facts as presented in the game back me on this.
[quote]
[quote]
Cullen is protrayed as a moderate in the game. Saying otherwise is dishonest.[/quote]
And yet you can't actually back up this view in any way than telling me to play the game. Which i did.
Come on, what's specifically so moderate about Cullen?
[/quote]
He is willing to work with an open apostate (Hawke). He is willing to admit that not everything Meredith does is perfect. He is willing to discuss things rationally (unlike say Alrik). He is very much presented as the model for a moderate Templar. Play the damn game.
[quote]
[quote]
Cullen is frequently shown as the voice of reason and moderation.[/quote]
Like when? If he's frequently shown in such way, then there should be no problem with providing few examples, and it'll be far faster than if i had to play through the game looking for it.
So far the only explicit quote you've chosen to provide for Cullen is his claim the templars have "divine right" to govern over mages. Which is anything but the voice of reason and moderation.
[/quote]
Others have shown that Cullen is indeed protrayed as a moderate.
[quote]
And let's not forget that being a "voice of reason and moderation" in Kirkwall is hardly a proof one is moderate on overall scale. The one-eyed being king in the land of the blind, and all that.
[/quote]
I don't see Aveline objecting to those comments (and even agreeing with them) and she was married to a Fereldan Templar (one of the most liberal branches). That tells me that it's pretty common for all templars.
[quote]
[quote]
That doesn't mean the people in Thedas believe that the Templars want peace. The evidence we have is that they don't and the people as a whole don't believe they do either.[/quote]
No, we don't have evidence that "people as a whole don't believe". We have a quote from one dwarf who doesn't, which you insist is a proof that's what "most of Thedas" thinks, while ignoring the way this dwarf thinks is actually quite different from the way we're told people of Thedas think.[/quote]
Varic is known for being our "eyes and ears" into what the people as a whole think or think they know anyway. The fact that Varric doesn't think that Templars desire peace is damning.
-Polaris
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Actually there were several minor attempts during this period. All ended in disaster.[/quote]
[citation needed]
[/quote]
There were various attempts such as many "children's crusades" that ended badly largely because of lack of political support. You also neglect one other major factor. The fall of Constantiople which made overland travel to the holy land virtually impossible. The conflict didn't end. The accessibility ended and by the time that didn't matter the Catholic Church had lost the politcal power needed. Read some history please.
[quote]
[quote]
Read some history before you comment on it please. The British Crown explicitly recognized US independance by treaty in 1783 and was forced to recognize full sovereign US rights in the Treaty of Ghent in 1814.[/quote]
So? That's by the very logic you use in this argument merely a temporary, few hundred years long truce, rather than sign the conflict itself actually ended.
[/quote]
The British didn't think they had a direct line to divine favor. Neither did the US revolutionaries. The revolutionaries felt their cause was just but not a divine mandate (and indeed looked with extreme distrust with those that were fanatics of this type).
After the war of 1812, the British accepted US independance as an acceptable fact. Bad feelings persisted until the 20th century, but those could be overcome because both accepted the others on a secular basis. A perspective notably lacking with the Templars.
[quote]
[quote]
Virtually ever Islamic terrorist pretty explicitly links their war as that of a continuation of the Crusades up to an including the (re)establishment of a global Islamic Caliphate.[/quote]
That's a non-answer. I've asked how exactly the link between current fighting and the crusades is being justified, not for a repetition of mere statement that current terrorists claim to continue the crusades. Let's not forget from the islamic perspective these were wars fought in defense against invasion, so trying to link that to "establishment of a global islamic caliphate" only shows how far-fetched such attempts of making a link are.
[/quote]
The crusades form the moral justification for modern terrorism if you ask the modern islamic radical. That's not a far fetched link at all. In fact this understanding is rather basic to understanding the modern middle east.
[quote]
[quote]
No I'm not. I'm saying that as long as the Templars feel they have a direct line to the Maker, no real peace is possible. There is a lot of bloody history that backs this viewpoint.[/quote]
The problem is, you refuse to accept the ability that a conflict can be in fact resolved rather than just "put on hiatus" if such process doesn't take place. In other words, you interpret the facts in a way which suits your theory, where there isn't any actual reason to interpret them in such way, other than doing so would prove the theory false. Effectively making it circular logic -- "A cannot happen without B. If A happens without B then we know it's not A because A can't happen without B".
(if that reply seems familiar, it's because it still applies to how you choose to interpret the bloody history to back this viewpoint)
[/quote]
I don't accept it because it can't. Until Templar attitudes change, peace is neither possible nor desirable. I am far from the only one saying so.
[quote]
[quote]
(context: templars supposedly holding en masse the belief of divine right)
It's pretty much a yes actually.[/quote]
If it was a yes, you would have no problems with providing me with actual quotes i asked in the first place. But you do.
[quote]The Templars as a whole had plenty of chances to show they Cullen was not a moderate and never did so. Not once.[/quote]
They show he is not a moderate by not expressing the same, drastic views he does.
[/quote]
There are lots of templars around when Cullen makes that statement. Not ONE of them disagrees with it. It's Kerran's sister that disagrees but not one templar does. Not even Aveline (if persent) who was married to a Templar disagrees with it. The facts as presented in the game back me on this.
[quote]
[quote]
Cullen is protrayed as a moderate in the game. Saying otherwise is dishonest.[/quote]
And yet you can't actually back up this view in any way than telling me to play the game. Which i did.
Come on, what's specifically so moderate about Cullen?
[/quote]
He is willing to work with an open apostate (Hawke). He is willing to admit that not everything Meredith does is perfect. He is willing to discuss things rationally (unlike say Alrik). He is very much presented as the model for a moderate Templar. Play the damn game.
[quote]
[quote]
Cullen is frequently shown as the voice of reason and moderation.[/quote]
Like when? If he's frequently shown in such way, then there should be no problem with providing few examples, and it'll be far faster than if i had to play through the game looking for it.
So far the only explicit quote you've chosen to provide for Cullen is his claim the templars have "divine right" to govern over mages. Which is anything but the voice of reason and moderation.
[/quote]
Others have shown that Cullen is indeed protrayed as a moderate.
[quote]
And let's not forget that being a "voice of reason and moderation" in Kirkwall is hardly a proof one is moderate on overall scale. The one-eyed being king in the land of the blind, and all that.
[/quote]
I don't see Aveline objecting to those comments (and even agreeing with them) and she was married to a Fereldan Templar (one of the most liberal branches). That tells me that it's pretty common for all templars.
[quote]
[quote]
That doesn't mean the people in Thedas believe that the Templars want peace. The evidence we have is that they don't and the people as a whole don't believe they do either.[/quote]
No, we don't have evidence that "people as a whole don't believe". We have a quote from one dwarf who doesn't, which you insist is a proof that's what "most of Thedas" thinks, while ignoring the way this dwarf thinks is actually quite different from the way we're told people of Thedas think.[/quote]
Varic is known for being our "eyes and ears" into what the people as a whole think or think they know anyway. The fact that Varric doesn't think that Templars desire peace is damning.
-Polaris
#133
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 12:43
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
tmp7704 wrote...
GavrielKay wrote...
That's an interesting perception of "compromise"... It basically revolved around the mages submitting themselves to total Chantry/Templar control.
Yes. Please note this interpretation is also supported by some of the mages themselves, and is actually what led to forming the circles in the first place.
Actually, Emperor Drakon I created the Chantry of Andraste, the Order of Templars, and the Circle of Magi during his conquest of neighboring city-states that established modern day Orlais and the Orlesian Empire. This is referenced in the History of the Chantry codex entries. The way that the Chantry controlled Circles are run in present day Thedas - with mages living in Circle Towers - is referenced in "History of the Circle," written by a Chantry scholar, during the time of Divine Ambrosia II. I don't recall any historic mage confirming the Chantry's version of events, that mages went "happily" to seclusion in a Circle Tower - do you have a reference for this?
#134
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 01:03
KJandrew
-
- Members
- 722 messages
The Children's crusade took place place in 1212, hardly after the crusades. The last crusade to the east ended on 1272, Acre fell in 1291. After this there was not a single crusade against Jerusalem or the middle east. You can't try and claim the Fall of Constantinople as a reason, it was lost in 1453.IanPolaris wrote...
There were various attempts such as many "children's crusades" that ended badly largely because of lack of political support. You also neglect one other major factor. The fall of Constantiople which made overland travel to the holy land virtually impossible. The conflict didn't end. The accessibility ended and by the time that didn't matter the Catholic Church had lost the politcal power needed. Read some history please.
Templars are soldiers, soldiers aren't supposed to disagree with their commanders in front of random strangers.There are lots of templars around when Cullen makes that statement. Not ONE of them disagrees with it. It's Kerran's sister that disagrees but not one templar does. Not even Aveline (if persent) who was married to a Templar disagrees with it. The facts as presented in the game back me on this.
Meredith is willing to work with an open apostate, Hawke, Anders and Merill. Is she also a moderate? Why should Alrik be expected to discuss thing with you? 1. He considered by Meredith to be too extreme 2. You are an armed group in a tunnel specifically used by gangs to smuggle things in and out of the circle, should he just politly enquire why you are there?He is willing to work with an open apostate (Hawke). He is willing to admit that not everything Meredith does is perfect. He is willing to discuss things rationally (unlike say Alrik). He is very much presented as the model for a moderate Templar. Play the damn game.
What others? Simply being kinder than Alarik and Meredith does not = Moderate. By that logic the presense of Thrask and all the other Templar who are working in alliance with the mage underground show that Cullen is a physco.Others have shown that Cullen is indeed protrayed as a moderate.
Where did you get it that Fereldan was one of the most liberal branches when of the two circle we've seen Kirkwall is said to be one of the most brutal?I don't see Aveline objecting to those comments (and even agreeing with them) and she was married to a Fereldan Templar (one of the most liberal branches). That tells me that it's pretty common for all templars.
#135
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 01:20
GavrielKay
-
- Members
- 1 336 messages
tmp7704 wrote...
GavrielKay wrote...
That's an interesting perception of "compromise"... It basically revolved around the mages submitting themselves to total Chantry/Templar control.
Yes. Please note this interpretation is also supported by some of the mages themselves, and is actually what led to forming the circles in the first place.
Yes, we've heard of a few mages who agree with the circle system. Of course few mages in the DA2 era have known anything other than being in a circle or hiding from them. It's hard to say that it's a decision made freely and the same one they'd make under other circumstances.
When the early mages agreed to enter a circle system rather than be exterminated by the Chantry which was unwilling to let them simply live freely... well, it doesn't sound like a compromise so much as a surrender.
#136
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 01:45
tmp7704
-
- Members
- 11 156 messages
I'm not aware of such texts, but at the same time i'm not aware of texts which would dispute that record, either.LobselVith8 wrote...
I don't recall any historic mage confirming the Chantry's version of events, that mages went "happily" to seclusion in a Circle Tower - do you have a reference for this?
From the records we have available this isn't the alternative which the early mages faced -- the point of contention was supposedly whether they'd be allowed to practice magic, not allowed to live.GavrielKay wrote...
When the early mages agreed to enter a circle system rather than be exterminated by the Chantry which was unwilling to let them simply live freely... well, it doesn't sound like a compromise so much as a surrender.
#137
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 02:01
DPSSOC
-
- Members
- 3 033 messages
AlexXIV wrote...
Well the way you judge Cullen is just the way the 'bad' templars judge mages. I played DA:O with a (female) mage origin and thought Cullen is rather nice, if paranoid. And same thing in DA2. You can't really blame him for things being bad in Kirkwall, he is maybe a bit over tasked and not really having a good view on the big picture (ie. Hawke saves his live one time) but he is definately one of the sort that I wish all templars would be like. Not too much trusting to mages but not a lunatic/fanatic paranoid wreck like some either. Only thing you can really say negative about Cullen is that he is not acting against Meredith sooner, probably because he has too much respect, may be bad writing too, but ... whatever. Anyway, he is not supporting either the Tranquil solution or the Annulment actively. Though he probably is desperate enough to let it pass because he doesn't know a better option.
I played a mage in DA:O too, I liked Cullen and even after his predicament his behaviour was understandable. Even in DA2 he's not bad but you can't call him a voice of moderation if he never speaks or acts against the extremists. Never does he say, "Maybe we're going to far." It's not just that he doesn't oppose Meredith he doesn't oppose any of the "bad" Templars at all; not actively supporting them isn't enough to win the Moderate badge. I'll say again Cullen may be the sanest crazy Templar, but he's not a moderate one.
AlexXIV wrote...
If you can excuse a mage turning to bloodmagic out of desperation you have to give the same credit to desperate templars. Otherwise it's just double standard.
Can't and don't. Mage turns to blood magic out of desperation and starts harming innocent people, they die.
#138
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 02:08
HippeusOmega
-
- Members
- 504 messages
I hate Anders for what he did. But to be honest this has been a 1000 yrs coming. The chantry says the Tevinter Imperium is evil with their way of life. But the fact is the Chantry oppresses mages. Maybe Anders did what needed to be done to start a revolution.
Fact is after playing the first game again i don't think the chantry has the right to complain about mages since the templars are so easily corrupted.
Fact is after playing the first game again i don't think the chantry has the right to complain about mages since the templars are so easily corrupted.
#139
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 02:19
tevikolady
-
- Members
- 135 messages
I love what Anders did. I don't condone Terrorism, but he inadvertently hit the nail on the head. He wanted to force a solution to Mages and Templars, not realizing that the Chantry is the root cause here.
My feeling on this is, that every single one of those cloistered people were guilty. You either side with the Templars or you side with the Mages who are supposed to be your charges, and the Templars are supposed to be the Mages protectors and vigilant guardians.
It comes as no surprise to me that the Chantry brain-washes its templars to fear and hate mages like the common man, and give the POWER to rule and abuse the mages to the Templars and then let the situation fester on its own. Mages are not allowed to defend themselves if a templar forces himself on a mage, or attacks a mage unwontedly, or even declare them a maleficar without proof. They can do these things because they have the power over the mages, granted by the chantry who have corrupted the Chant to serve their distorted perversion of slavery. Then, add to that, lyrium.
This aside, had Elthina chosen a side, mage or Templar, every person in that Chantry would have been innocent and his life forefit. She denied either side, electing to step back and pretend as if the situation didn't exist. She didn't have the gall to choose a side and stand with it, come good or ill, depending on the Maker to bring about a resolution, and blindly ignoring the fact that the government doesn't have authority over the Chantry and the Chantry should have no authority over the government.
*sighs* Kudos Anders, for such a bold move.
My feeling on this is, that every single one of those cloistered people were guilty. You either side with the Templars or you side with the Mages who are supposed to be your charges, and the Templars are supposed to be the Mages protectors and vigilant guardians.
It comes as no surprise to me that the Chantry brain-washes its templars to fear and hate mages like the common man, and give the POWER to rule and abuse the mages to the Templars and then let the situation fester on its own. Mages are not allowed to defend themselves if a templar forces himself on a mage, or attacks a mage unwontedly, or even declare them a maleficar without proof. They can do these things because they have the power over the mages, granted by the chantry who have corrupted the Chant to serve their distorted perversion of slavery. Then, add to that, lyrium.
This aside, had Elthina chosen a side, mage or Templar, every person in that Chantry would have been innocent and his life forefit. She denied either side, electing to step back and pretend as if the situation didn't exist. She didn't have the gall to choose a side and stand with it, come good or ill, depending on the Maker to bring about a resolution, and blindly ignoring the fact that the government doesn't have authority over the Chantry and the Chantry should have no authority over the government.
*sighs* Kudos Anders, for such a bold move.
#140
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 02:24
tevikolady
-
- Members
- 135 messages
DPSSOC wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
If you can excuse a mage turning to bloodmagic out of desperation you have to give the same credit to desperate templars. Otherwise it's just double standard.
Can't and don't. Mage turns to blood magic out of desperation and starts harming innocent people, they die.
What makes blood magic so feared is not the entreat with demons, but that it is oftentimes, an uncontrolled and reckless pledge and the mage cannot resist. Those that seek out demons under controlled and well grounded measures, oftentimes have more control over the demon they pacted with.
Giving in as a hasty decision is what leads to abominations. That, and blood magic requires lifeforce to cast, not mana. You cannot stop a blood mage from casting (or your not supposed to) and he can manipulate your blood to force you to turn on a friend. It's scary, to say the least.
But not all blood mages should be condemned, inho. Jowan turned out fine. Merrill turned out fine. I could name a few others, but it CAN WORK, its just not something I agree with myself.
#141
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 02:31
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
tmp7704 wrote...
I'm not aware of such texts, but at the same time i'm not aware of texts which would dispute that record, either.
You said there were mages who "supported" that "interpretation." Who were you talking about, then? If we are addressing the status of the Chantry controlled Circles, Wynne (who is a member of the moderate group of one of the mage fraternities) seems to advocate the point of view that GavrielKay has espoused (in Amaranthine) about it being a matter of life and death for the mages not to break free from the Chantry, otherwise the mages would be killed (and she feared that it was a real possibility that the mages would vote in favor of breaking free at Cumberland). Was there someone else you had in mind when you stated that "this interpretation" is "supported" by some of the mages?
#142
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 02:44
AlexXIV
-
- Members
- 10 670 messages
tevikolady wrote...
DPSSOC wrote...
AlexXIV wrote...
If you can excuse a mage turning to bloodmagic out of desperation you have to give the same credit to desperate templars. Otherwise it's just double standard.
Can't and don't. Mage turns to blood magic out of desperation and starts harming innocent people, they die.
What makes blood magic so feared is not the entreat with demons, but that it is oftentimes, an uncontrolled and reckless pledge and the mage cannot resist. Those that seek out demons under controlled and well grounded measures, oftentimes have more control over the demon they pacted with.
Giving in as a hasty decision is what leads to abominations. That, and blood magic requires lifeforce to cast, not mana. You cannot stop a blood mage from casting (or your not supposed to) and he can manipulate your blood to force you to turn on a friend. It's scary, to say the least.
But not all blood mages should be condemned, inho. Jowan turned out fine. Merrill turned out fine. I could name a few others, but it CAN WORK, its just not something I agree with myself.
@DPSSOC:
Well in my playthroughs all the zealot templars died too. I am neither supporting templars nor mages who go crazy.
@tevikolady
It was thanks to the Warden that Jowan's actions did not have more dire consequences. It could have caused all of Thedas being swallowed by the Blight. We can't say how and if it could have been stopped after swallowing all of Ferelden. The point about bloodmagic is not that it is inherently evil, but that it is many times more dangerous than any other magic, which means most mages are probably incapable of controlling it. Which means it should actually be forbidden for most. So far only Morrigan and Flemeth seem to be able to deal with it without getting into trouble of which they need help to get out. Merrill needed Hawke, Avernus needed the Warden.
Modifié par AlexXIV, 30 octobre 2011 - 02:46 .
#143
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 02:56
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
KJandrew wrote...
The Children's crusade took place place in 1212, hardly after the crusades. The last crusade to the east ended on 1272, Acre fell in 1291. After this there was not a single crusade against Jerusalem or the middle east. You can't try and claim the Fall of Constantinople as a reason, it was lost in 1453.IanPolaris wrote...
There were various attempts such as many "children's crusades" that ended badly largely because of lack of political support. You also neglect one other major factor. The fall of Constantiople which made overland travel to the holy land virtually impossible. The conflict didn't end. The accessibility ended and by the time that didn't matter the Catholic Church had lost the politcal power needed. Read some history please.
There were several "children's crusades" and other failed crusades actually, and the directive for the crusades was never lifted during the rest of the middle ages. Constantinople may have fallen in 1453 but the Ottoman Turks had taken large chunks of the Balkans effectively cutting off easy access by military ground forces to the middle east at least a hundred years prior to that which fits very nicely with the end of active military crusades. Again read your history.
Templars are soldiers, soldiers aren't supposed to disagree with their commanders in front of random strangers.There are lots of templars around when Cullen makes that statement. Not ONE of them disagrees with it. It's Kerran's sister that disagrees but not one templar does. Not even Aveline (if persent) who was married to a Templar disagrees with it. The facts as presented in the game back me on this.
We see plenty of other cases where templars disagree with other Templars in front of stangers even. What youa re discussing is the modern (Prussian) modern military ideal and it doesn't apply here.
Meredith is willing to work with an open apostate, Hawke, Anders and Merill. Is she also a moderate? Why should Alrik be expected to discuss thing with you? 1. He considered by Meredith to be too extreme 2. You are an armed group in a tunnel specifically used by gangs to smuggle things in and out of the circle, should he just politly enquire why you are there?He is willing to work with an open apostate (Hawke). He is willing to admit that not everything Meredith does is perfect. He is willing to discuss things rationally (unlike say Alrik). He is very much presented as the model for a moderate Templar. Play the damn game.
Cullen is specifically willing to discuss both sides and is open to other points of view. He is consistantly protrayed as a moderate and even as a moderate he feels that Templars have divine right. Meredith certainly thinks this.
What others? Simply being kinder than Alarik and Meredith does not = Moderate. By that logic the presense of Thrask and all the other Templar who are working in alliance with the mage underground show that Cullen is a physco.Others have shown that Cullen is indeed protrayed as a moderate.
The entire game goes out of it's way to protray Cullen as a moderate.
Where did you get it that Fereldan was one of the most liberal branches when of the two circle we've seen Kirkwall is said to be one of the most brutal?I don't see Aveline objecting to those comments (and even agreeing with them) and she was married to a Fereldan Templar (one of the most liberal branches). That tells me that it's pretty common for all templars.
We've been told repeatedly (even by the Devs as I recall) that the Fereldan Templars are the most liberal in Thedas.
-Polaris
#144
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 03:01
tmp7704
-
- Members
- 11 156 messages
I was thinking mainly of the Loyalist fraternity within the circles, and to some extent the Aequitarians. I suppose you could also include the Lucrosians here, since they advocate focus on increasing wealth of the Circles, which suggests they aren't against the existence of the Circles per se.LobselVith8 wrote...
You said there were mages who "supported" that "interpretation." Who were you talking about, then?
#145
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 03:02
tevikolady
-
- Members
- 135 messages
I love your sig!
That aside, Jowan's actions were not the result of Blood Magic. HE was hired by Loghain to poison and kill arl eamon, which he did not do with blood magic. It was Connor who made an entreay with a desire demon to keep his father alive. Conner who was too young to fully understand the workings of the Fade. He just wanted to save his father and was a mage. It was Jowan, tbh, that kept the boy in check while you went to teh tower. If you let him go, you will see another side of him truly wishing to repent his ways.
I do agree that blood magic is dangerous, and well, stupid. But it's possible that it can be controlled. I doubt Flemeth is a blood mage, and Morrigan surely wasn't.
*shrug* perhaps I view blood magic slightly different than many. Its a power of the blood, and the stronger the emotion that summons the magic, the more potent the magic (which explains why Jowan's love of Lilly was able to overcome so many Templars and the first enchanter himself.) but it doesn't have to result in being possessed.
Yes, it should be banned, and well, blood mages should be submitted to 'something' in the form of punishment. However...it should be at least taught, so people can learn the dangers of it. Its kinda like sex ed, you can teach people about the dangers and the consequences, but if they *really* wanna do it, your not going to stop them. (ok, not the best anology)
That aside, Jowan's actions were not the result of Blood Magic. HE was hired by Loghain to poison and kill arl eamon, which he did not do with blood magic. It was Connor who made an entreay with a desire demon to keep his father alive. Conner who was too young to fully understand the workings of the Fade. He just wanted to save his father and was a mage. It was Jowan, tbh, that kept the boy in check while you went to teh tower. If you let him go, you will see another side of him truly wishing to repent his ways.
I do agree that blood magic is dangerous, and well, stupid. But it's possible that it can be controlled. I doubt Flemeth is a blood mage, and Morrigan surely wasn't.
*shrug* perhaps I view blood magic slightly different than many. Its a power of the blood, and the stronger the emotion that summons the magic, the more potent the magic (which explains why Jowan's love of Lilly was able to overcome so many Templars and the first enchanter himself.) but it doesn't have to result in being possessed.
Yes, it should be banned, and well, blood mages should be submitted to 'something' in the form of punishment. However...it should be at least taught, so people can learn the dangers of it. Its kinda like sex ed, you can teach people about the dangers and the consequences, but if they *really* wanna do it, your not going to stop them. (ok, not the best anology)
#146
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 03:05
tevikolady
-
- Members
- 135 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
The entire game goes out of it's way to protray Cullen as a moderate.
We've been told repeatedly (even by the Devs as I recall) that the Fereldan Templars are the most liberal in Thedas.
-Polaris
Cullen is loyal to his own. He is not a moderate Templar, but compared to the Kirkwall Templars, he is. He doesn't believe mages should be free or that they deserve second chances. If you recall, he wanted every mage in the circle tower eliminated, mainly because of the torture he'd been through. I get it, why he is the way he is, but he doesn't come out and say it, but you can tell he entertained the idea of the Tranquil solution. He's not crazy, but he sure wasn't a moderate.
#147
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 03:13
AlexXIV
-
- Members
- 10 670 messages
I am pretty sure they are both bloodmages or at least using bloodmagic. The Dark Ritual was bloodmagic. Morrigan performed it and Flemeth taught it to her. Well true, there is no hint that Jowan used bloodmagic in Redcliffe, however it was how the trouble started. I personally think it doesn't have to be a direct link. It is enough for me to see that someone is a bloodmage and bad things happen, without me exactly understanding how. After all I don't know enough about bloodmagic to judge. I see a bloodmage, I see bad things happen. With the exception of Morrigan and Flemeth so far even though they are supposed to be the most evil of all. Bit funny that.tevikolady wrote...
I love your sig!
That aside, Jowan's actions were not the result of Blood Magic. HE was hired by Loghain to poison and kill arl eamon, which he did not do with blood magic. It was Connor who made an entreay with a desire demon to keep his father alive. Conner who was too young to fully understand the workings of the Fade. He just wanted to save his father and was a mage. It was Jowan, tbh, that kept the boy in check while you went to teh tower. If you let him go, you will see another side of him truly wishing to repent his ways.
I do agree that blood magic is dangerous, and well, stupid. But it's possible that it can be controlled. I doubt Flemeth is a blood mage, and Morrigan surely wasn't.
*shrug* perhaps I view blood magic slightly different than many. Its a power of the blood, and the stronger the emotion that summons the magic, the more potent the magic (which explains why Jowan's love of Lilly was able to overcome so many Templars and the first enchanter himself.) but it doesn't have to result in being possessed.
Yes, it should be banned, and well, blood mages should be submitted to 'something' in the form of punishment. However...it should be at least taught, so people can learn the dangers of it. Its kinda like sex ed, you can teach people about the dangers and the consequences, but if they *really* wanna do it, your not going to stop them. (ok, not the best anology)
My sig is out of protest because of Bioware's habit to always kill my hero's family
Modifié par AlexXIV, 30 octobre 2011 - 03:14 .
#148
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 03:30
tevikolady
-
- Members
- 135 messages
Oh, in DA2, (or at least my character I am closely attached to) you can't say the word Blood Mage or White lilies without Khari going over the deep end. She lost her father, then her brother (whom would have been a friendship gain) and then bethany (rivalry, take that spoiled princess who gets whatever she wants. you can't have my man!) and then her mother.
Yeah, my PC rogue doesn't feel very generous to Blood Mages.
*I* on the other hand would like to explore more into Bioware's view on blood magic. It's...like a double edged sword, straight down to the hilt. Very dangerous, but a weapon, nonetheless
Yeah, my PC rogue doesn't feel very generous to Blood Mages.
*I* on the other hand would like to explore more into Bioware's view on blood magic. It's...like a double edged sword, straight down to the hilt. Very dangerous, but a weapon, nonetheless
#149
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 10:10
KJandrew
-
- Members
- 722 messages
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[quote]KJandrew wrote...
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
There were various attempts such as many "children's crusades" that ended badly largely because of lack of political support. You also neglect one other major factor. The fall of Constantiople which made overland travel to the holy land virtually impossible. The conflict didn't end. The accessibility ended and by the time that didn't matter the Catholic Church had lost the politcal power needed. Read some history please.
[/quote]
The Children's crusade took place place in 1212, hardly after the crusades. The last crusade to the east ended on 1272, Acre fell in 1291. After this there was not a single crusade against Jerusalem or the middle east. You can't try and claim the Fall of Constantinople as a reason, it was lost in 1453.
[/quote]
There were several "children's crusades" and other failed crusades actually, and the directive for the crusades was never lifted during the rest of the middle ages. Constantinople may have fallen in 1453 but the Ottoman Turks had taken large chunks of the Balkans effectively cutting off easy access by military ground forces to the middle east at least a hundred years prior to that which fits very nicely with the end of active military crusades. Again read your history.
[/quote]
Sorry unless my history teachers and my books all seem to be missing something there was only one proper children's crusade that tried to go to the middle east. Even the loss of land in the Balkan can not be used as a reason why the crusades never reignited. In the Third Crusade Richard and Philip sailed all the way to the middle east from italy, this happened in several of the other ones too.
[quote]
[quote]
There are lots of templars around when Cullen makes that statement. Not ONE of them disagrees with it. It's Kerran's sister that disagrees but not one templar does. Not even Aveline (if persent) who was married to a Templar disagrees with it. The facts as presented in the game back me on this.
[/quote]
Templars are soldiers, soldiers aren't supposed to disagree with their commanders in front of random strangers.
[/quote]
We see plenty of other cases where templars disagree with other Templars in front of stangers even. What youa re discussing is the modern (Prussian) modern military ideal and it doesn't apply here.
[/quote]
When do we see Templars disagree with a casual statement made by a superiour? Not arguing with your commander in public is hardly a modern (or prussian) ideal, so it does apply here.
[quote]
Others have shown that Cullen is indeed protrayed as a moderate.
[/quote]
What others? Simply being kinder than Alarik and Meredith does not = Moderate. By that logic the presense of Thrask and all the other Templar who are working in alliance with the mage underground show that Cullen is a physco.
[/quote]
The entire game goes out of it's way to protray Cullen as a moderate.
[/quote]
How? You keep on spouting this line even though you bring no evidence and even though plenty of people disagree with you.
[quote]
I don't see Aveline objecting to those comments (and even agreeing with them) and she was married to a Fereldan Templar (one of the most liberal branches). That tells me that it's pretty common for all templars.
[/quote]
Where did you get it that Fereldan was one of the most liberal branches when of the two circle we've seen Kirkwall is said to be one of the most brutal?
[/quote]
We've been told repeatedly (even by the Devs as I recall) that the Fereldan Templars are the most liberal in Thedas.
-Polaris[/quote]
Can you show me any of these Dev quotes? Because if you can then i'll hapilly cede the point. All i know is that mages from other circles (Starkhaven) all commented that Kirkwall was a horrible place compared to their old circle.
[quote]KJandrew wrote...
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
There were various attempts such as many "children's crusades" that ended badly largely because of lack of political support. You also neglect one other major factor. The fall of Constantiople which made overland travel to the holy land virtually impossible. The conflict didn't end. The accessibility ended and by the time that didn't matter the Catholic Church had lost the politcal power needed. Read some history please.
[/quote]
The Children's crusade took place place in 1212, hardly after the crusades. The last crusade to the east ended on 1272, Acre fell in 1291. After this there was not a single crusade against Jerusalem or the middle east. You can't try and claim the Fall of Constantinople as a reason, it was lost in 1453.
[/quote]
There were several "children's crusades" and other failed crusades actually, and the directive for the crusades was never lifted during the rest of the middle ages. Constantinople may have fallen in 1453 but the Ottoman Turks had taken large chunks of the Balkans effectively cutting off easy access by military ground forces to the middle east at least a hundred years prior to that which fits very nicely with the end of active military crusades. Again read your history.
[/quote]
Sorry unless my history teachers and my books all seem to be missing something there was only one proper children's crusade that tried to go to the middle east. Even the loss of land in the Balkan can not be used as a reason why the crusades never reignited. In the Third Crusade Richard and Philip sailed all the way to the middle east from italy, this happened in several of the other ones too.
[quote]
[quote]
There are lots of templars around when Cullen makes that statement. Not ONE of them disagrees with it. It's Kerran's sister that disagrees but not one templar does. Not even Aveline (if persent) who was married to a Templar disagrees with it. The facts as presented in the game back me on this.
[/quote]
Templars are soldiers, soldiers aren't supposed to disagree with their commanders in front of random strangers.
[/quote]
We see plenty of other cases where templars disagree with other Templars in front of stangers even. What youa re discussing is the modern (Prussian) modern military ideal and it doesn't apply here.
[/quote]
When do we see Templars disagree with a casual statement made by a superiour? Not arguing with your commander in public is hardly a modern (or prussian) ideal, so it does apply here.
[quote]
Others have shown that Cullen is indeed protrayed as a moderate.
[/quote]
What others? Simply being kinder than Alarik and Meredith does not = Moderate. By that logic the presense of Thrask and all the other Templar who are working in alliance with the mage underground show that Cullen is a physco.
[/quote]
The entire game goes out of it's way to protray Cullen as a moderate.
[/quote]
How? You keep on spouting this line even though you bring no evidence and even though plenty of people disagree with you.
[quote]
I don't see Aveline objecting to those comments (and even agreeing with them) and she was married to a Fereldan Templar (one of the most liberal branches). That tells me that it's pretty common for all templars.
[/quote]
Where did you get it that Fereldan was one of the most liberal branches when of the two circle we've seen Kirkwall is said to be one of the most brutal?
[/quote]
We've been told repeatedly (even by the Devs as I recall) that the Fereldan Templars are the most liberal in Thedas.
-Polaris[/quote]
Can you show me any of these Dev quotes? Because if you can then i'll hapilly cede the point. All i know is that mages from other circles (Starkhaven) all commented that Kirkwall was a horrible place compared to their old circle.
Modifié par KJandrew, 30 octobre 2011 - 10:10 .
#150
Posté 30 octobre 2011 - 10:32
Dave of Canada
-
- Members
- 17 484 messages
I'm drunk, time to type.
I'm going to admit that we're not going to see any compromise from the current situation, as the compromise happens to be the Circle and we're not seeing the mages wanting to accept it and the Templar are large enough of an army that they're not going to need to accept any. Without the compromise, the mages will learn the hard way how they treat with rebellions on Thedas. They want to be like everybody else? They better be ready to suffer the consequences just like everybody else, they aren't special little snowflakes.
All Mages will be culled and the rebellion will be eliminated, any survivors will be made tranquil and assist in the menial labour to repair the damage from the war. The Circles will be rebuilt and the mages will face true oppression, none of that sympathetic noble lifestyle they're currently used to. Give them something to truly complain about.
Mage Loyalists will be rewarded with the right of their former lifestyle for their loyalty, Mage collaberators will be locked in Aeonar along with the worst of the mages and any Monarchy or Nobility which didn't do their duty to the Maker shall be overthrown and placed with a proper King willing to do his duty to the Maker.
The Chantry, unwilling to do the hard decisions with treating with mages, shall be seperated from the Templar andthe Templar will form their own group which has full control of the mages with the Knight-Commander of each Circle being independent and only responding to the Knight-Vigiliant when absolutely required.
This is probably making the usual suspects cringing and instantly typing out "YOU'RE A PRO-RAPE, PRO-RACISM, PRO-MURDER, PRO-BRAINWASHING... ect ...MONSTER", I might as well work and deserve the title if you're going to take any dissenting opinion as such. In other words, go talk to somebody who cares.
I'm going to admit that we're not going to see any compromise from the current situation, as the compromise happens to be the Circle and we're not seeing the mages wanting to accept it and the Templar are large enough of an army that they're not going to need to accept any. Without the compromise, the mages will learn the hard way how they treat with rebellions on Thedas. They want to be like everybody else? They better be ready to suffer the consequences just like everybody else, they aren't special little snowflakes.
All Mages will be culled and the rebellion will be eliminated, any survivors will be made tranquil and assist in the menial labour to repair the damage from the war. The Circles will be rebuilt and the mages will face true oppression, none of that sympathetic noble lifestyle they're currently used to. Give them something to truly complain about.
Mage Loyalists will be rewarded with the right of their former lifestyle for their loyalty, Mage collaberators will be locked in Aeonar along with the worst of the mages and any Monarchy or Nobility which didn't do their duty to the Maker shall be overthrown and placed with a proper King willing to do his duty to the Maker.
The Chantry, unwilling to do the hard decisions with treating with mages, shall be seperated from the Templar andthe Templar will form their own group which has full control of the mages with the Knight-Commander of each Circle being independent and only responding to the Knight-Vigiliant when absolutely required.
This is probably making the usual suspects cringing and instantly typing out "YOU'RE A PRO-RAPE, PRO-RACISM, PRO-MURDER, PRO-BRAINWASHING... ect ...MONSTER", I might as well work and deserve the title if you're going to take any dissenting opinion as such. In other words, go talk to somebody who cares.
Modifié par Dave of Canada, 30 octobre 2011 - 10:57 .
