189 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

(snipping the parts others tackled meantime)

IanPolaris wrote...

The British didn't think they had a direct line to divine favor.

At that time the british empire was at its prime, and its population generally did believe they are fully entitled to rule over other nations they considered inferior -- i.e. the very attitude you said yourself was crucial part of your argument. The way they treated their colonies should provide plenty examples of that.

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.

You keep repeating your claim, without providing any actual arguments to support it. This is getting increasingly pointless.

Using a conflict which ceased hundred years ago as moral justification to attack people in the present is simply madness. Now, if that means you're actually making an argument that it's not really possible to come to compromise with crazy people, then i'd be inclined to agree. But then that'd involve a change of the base argument of this thread to a claim that the majority of both the templars and the mages are insane. And i don't think it's possible to really prove that claim.

I don't accept it because it can't.  Until Templar attitudes change, peace is neither possible nor desirable.

The argument everyone who opposes you is making is basically, the resolution of conflict is possible because the attitudes of the templars and/or mages are going to change, as result of prolonged warfare. Because that's what wars tend to do with people's attitudes.

There are lots of templars around when Cullen makes that statement.  Not ONE of them disagrees with it.

The game has certain limitations when it comes to dialogue scenes -- it generally limits these to 'NPC that's player's target vs the player's group'.

As such, the lack of disagreement doesn't really mean anything. No templar disagrees with Thrask when he waxes lyrical about living together with the mages either, if i remember right. By your logic, it'd mean every templar actually thinks the same and is really a pacifist at heart.

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.

If Varric is to be our eyes and ears, then you can rather expect him to express the attitude and ask questions which the player would likely take and ask, in his place. As such i still think the idea of "whatever Varric says most of the Thedas says"... is a stretch.

[IanPolaris]

tmp7704 wrote...

(snipping the parts others tackled meantime)

IanPolaris wrote...

The British didn't think they had a direct line to divine favor.

At that time the british empire was at its prime, and its population generally did believe they are fully entitled to rule over other nations they considered inferior -- i.e. the very attitude you said yourself was crucial part of your argument. The way they treated their colonies should provide plenty examples of that.

You are wrong.  The British believed they had a "white man's burden" to help and civilize all societies 'inferior' to them.  To the British Empire at it's height, Imperialism was a noble calling, but at NO time did they deny the basic humanity or rights of their subject peoples (at least not intentionally) and at no time did they feel they could not make mistakes (only that lesser societies made more of them).  It was this sort of 'enlightened' attitude that made Ghandi's peaceful revolution possible.  That's completely difference from the blind religious fantacism and claims of divine right by the Templars.

They aren't even close to the same thing.

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.

You keep repeating your claim, without providing any actual arguments to support it. This is getting increasingly pointless.

Using a conflict which ceased hundred years ago as moral justification to attack people in the present is simply madness. Now, if that means you're actually making an argument that it's not really possible to come to compromise with crazy people, then i'd be inclined to agree. But then that'd involve a change of the base argument of this thread to a claim that the majority of both the templars and the mages are insane. And i don't think it's possible to really prove that claim.

I think the Templars are essentially insane if you view it in our modern lense.  They have the ear of the Maker.  Why compromise?  As for mages, they have nothing left to lose other than their lives so compromise simply isn't an option here.

I don't accept it because it can't.  Until Templar attitudes change, peace is neither possible nor desirable.

The argument everyone who opposes you is making is basically, the resolution of conflict is possible because the attitudes of the templars and/or mages are going to change, as result of prolonged warfare. Because that's what wars tend to do with people's attitudes.

I've never disputed that.  Until that change happens, peace is not an option.

There are lots of templars around when Cullen makes that statement.  Not ONE of them disagrees with it.

The game has certain limitations when it comes to dialogue scenes -- it generally limits these to 'NPC that's player's target vs the player's group'.

As such, the lack of disagreement doesn't really mean anything. No templar disagrees with Thrask when he waxes lyrical about living together with the mages either, if i remember right. By your logic, it'd mean every templar actually thinks the same and is really a pacifist at heart.

Actually Ser Kerras does openly disagree with Ser Thrask in front of strangers even.

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.

If Varric is to be our eyes and ears, then you can rather expect him to express the attitude and ask questions which the player would likely take and ask, in his place. As such i still think the idea of "whatever Varric says most of the Thedas says"... is a stretch.

I don't think so.  If Varric feels that the Templars want war (which even Cassandra implicitly admits is true for most Templars), then I think we can take it to the bank.

-Polaris

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Cullen is the Knight-Captain, he outranks everyone but Meredith. Besides, there weren't any templars that were actually part of any conversation that Cullen has with Hawke except for Kerran.

[KJandrew]

Nevermind

Modifié par KJandrew, 30 octobre 2011 - 11:05 .

[tmp7704]

IanPolaris wrote...

I think the Templars are essentially insane if you view it in our modern lense.  They have the ear of the Maker.  Why compromise?  As for mages, they have nothing left to lose other than their lives so compromise simply isn't an option here.

Excuse me, the compromise is not possible because "mages only have their lives to lose" if they keep fighting? A life is a lot to lose -- the fear of losing it has been enough to keep the mages from rebelling for hundreds of years, e.g. What makes you believe that if mages are given option to come back to the circles *or* die, they're largely going to pick the latter rather than the former, especially once they see enough of other mages die before their own eyes?

I've never disputed that.  Until that change happens, peace is not an option.

But in this case you're effectively disputing that it's the change of attitudes that isn't possible for either group involved. What reasoning do you use for this belief? After all the changes of mindsets do happen, especially when exposed to things like (prolonged) open warfare.

Heck, for all we know the 3rd game may have the protagonist actually meet the Maker himself and convince him to personally tell the templars to stop misinterpreting him. Hardly an impossible event in a fantasy realm.

Actually Ser Kerras does openly disagree with Ser Thrask in front of strangers even.

I stand corrected. One templar, explicitly mentioned to be "notorious for slaughtering magi" disagrees with the notion. Does the idea draw active disagreement from any other templars?

Cullen, for example, does he disagree on the spot? If you're to maintain that Cullen is example of "moderate templar and as such a display of what most of the templars think" then consequently this would mean 'most of the templars' also accept Set Thrask's ideas... would it not?

I don't think so.  If Varric feels that the Templars want war (which even Cassandra implicitly admits is true for most Templars), then I think we can take it to the bank.

I suppose we'll have to disagree then, because i don't for a moment believe something that's pure presumption can be "taken to the bank".

[KJandrew]

Sorry double post

Modifié par KJandrew, 30 octobre 2011 - 11:39 .

[KJandrew]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[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]

Actually the whole idea of a rigid rank structure, discipline in the ranks when it comes to public expression and more are all parts of the modern Prussian Military ideal.  Until Frederick the Great most armies were little more than loosely organized mobs with units under the loose control of "captains" and "sergeants" of widely varying ability.  The Templars are nothing like what a midaeval army was.
[/quote]
Apart from you know the real life Templars, or the Hospitallers or the Tuetonic Knights or hell even the Knights of Lazarus. These all had a rigid rank structure and discipline. Even in National armies a Knight does not argue with the lord he's in service to in public in front of random strangers. Neither would a common footsoldier argue with an order or a statement from his captain or Sergeant.
On top of this you claimed we've seen plenty of times Templars argue with superiors in front of random strangers, i asked when we've ever seen this and you have still not given a single example. 
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
[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]

Pleny of people agree with me too.  Better yet, Cullen is protrayed as the ideal Templar.  If the Ideal Templar believes that Templars control mages by divine right that makes my point even more I think.

-Polaris
[/quote]
-----------------------------------
When is it ever said that Cullen is a "moderate" or "ideal" Templar in the game or by the devs? These are just oppinions expressed by people on this forum not a fact that can be used as evidence.
As i said before if you can give me a quote from one of the writers that Cullen is moderate then i'll cede the point. 

[TEWR]

Cullen is a moderate among Kirkwall's Templars -- which doesn't really mean much -- and David Gaider himself said that he feels like he's been betrayed by both sides after the events of DAII.

Among Kirkwall, he's a moderate. If he were to go outside Kirkwall during DAII, he wouldn't be a moderate.

[EmperorSahlertz]

So basically he isn't a moderate Templar.

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So basically he isn't a moderate Templar.

During DAII at least. Since DG said somewhere that he feels like both sides have betrayed him, he may become a moderate Templar.

[EmperorSahlertz]

It was in a fan interview or some such. And I don't think he directly said that he could see Cullen become a moderate, but rather that he found Cullen interesting since he had now been betrayed by both sides.

[Urazz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

ghostbusters101 wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

The best explanation I can come up with for Thrask's death is that in his dedication to overthrowing Meredith, he foolishly neglected his duties as a templar and didn't guard his mage allies closely enough to watch for demons and blood magic. That doesn't explain why he'd order his followers to kidnap the Champions comrade in order to force Hawke to help him even though he "has nothing but respect" for them.

What I hate is that Thrask can say "I know you supported the First Enchanter. I hope you'll be ready to stand against Meredith should the time come" or something like that, and yet in BSC he acts like I'm supporting Meredith!

And then BSC has a bunch of Templars and Mages going "We know you're spying for Orsino!".

It's one of the biggest loads of fail I've seen in a quest (and most of the loads of fail come straight out of DAII itself).

Totally agree. I really did not care for ACT3. It was a waste.

Yea Act 3 was just horrendous, but imo much of Act 3's problems draw back to Act 1 and Act 2 and even the prologue.

For me, where DAII failed was that it told 3 individual stories within the game but didn't link them together to the real plot of DAII. The Mage-Templar conflict and Hawke's rise to Power.

The player doesn't get to meaningfully take a side nor does the player get to do a believable Rise to Power.

Act 1 and Act 2 had interesting stories on their own, but weren't utilized to their full extent for what happened in Kirkwall in the Gallows.

IMO of course.

Acts 1 and 2 were excellent in my opinion and it set up Hawke's origin and how he became the Champion quite well I think. Act 3 was when it all fell apart because it was a real rush job.

I personally, think if there was an extra act sandwiched in between Acts 2 and 3 that pretty much set things up to be as bad as they were in Act 3, and then Act 3 was worked on more thoroughly, it would've made for a much smoother story that made more sense.

It would've also been nice if you had options like allying with Thrask's group (after rooting out the blood mages like Grace who were nuts) and saving your sibling that you lose in the prologue.  Small things like that which wouldn't overall change the ending.  Well, allying with Thrask's group would've changed the ending some I think but only in a sense that you wouldn't be limited to only siding with Orsino and Meredith.  The end where there is war between the mages and templars would still happen regardless I think due to Ander's and Meredith's actions.

[LobselVith8]

AlexXIV wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Should Morrigan be considered a blood mage because of the 'dark ritual' she can perform? We never see her use blood instead of mana to power her spells, and she uses magic (i.e. shape-shifting) that is technically illegal already. Finn uses a spell that can be considered blood magic during Witch Hunt, but I wouldn't consider him a blood mage, either. I'd consider mages who use blood instead of mana for their spells, like Jowan and the Grey Warden mages mentioned by Duncan, blood mages.

I think 'blood mage' is a Chantry term and as such inaccurate. There is probably an old tome or something somewhere containing all spells and rituals which are considered bloodmagic in the eyes of the Chantry. Morrigan says herself that the warden would probably consider it bloodmagic.

I liked that Morrigan addresses that it wouldn't matter to "one such as [him]" if The Warden is a blood mage.

AlexXIV wrote...

Assuming the Warden goes with most people's prejudice who probably call all and any unknown or fobidden magic bloodmagic. If you look at Merrill for example, she is a Dalish Pariah. Not bloodmage. But everyone labels her bloodmage. So my guess is alot of ancient rituals and spells are offically labeled bloodmagic, while they in truth are each a different form of ancient magic, of which some require blood and some not. I only use the term bloodmage for Morrigan and Flemeth because Morrigan said so. If in the next game she says it is not really bloodmagic, then I basically believe it. Because I believe anything she told me. Not only because I like her, but simply because she is imo the most trustworthy source of knowledge when it comes to magic in general. Flemeth probably knows even more than Morrigan, but I don't trust her further than I could throw her in dragon form.

Aren't they generally considered maleficar if the mage in question is capable of performing magic that isn't sanctioned by the Chantry of Andraste, rather than blood mage? I know Wynne addresses Morrigan as a maleficar, including when she admonishes The Warden if he engages in a romantic relationship with Morrigan.

As for being a blood mage, I don't think Morrigan would view herself as one. When she discusses the 'dark ritual,' she points out that it's old magic, specifically pointing out that some "might call it blood magic," but she either discusses the label as something The Warden wouldn't care about because he is a blood mage, or says it's simply a name if he isn't a blood mage. I doubt she would view herself as a blood mage because of her ability to perform the dark ritual with The Warden. According to Morrigan, "It is old magic, from a time before the Circle of Magi was created." If The Warden isn't a blood mage, Morrigan states, "Some might call it blood magic, but that is but a name. There is far more to fear in this world than names."

[AlexXIV]

Yeah well I have decided that the term bloodmage is a bit blurry. Using blood as fuel doesn't really say much about the kind of magic you use. Actually from an economist view using blood would be alot more efficient than lyrium. After all you don't have to dig into the earth to get it.

I don't even know anymore why it is considered evil at all. I mean it's clear that my opinion is that it is dangerous, but not inherently evil, but what I wonder is why for example the Circle, templars and Chantry view it as evil. Because demons are the real threat, and they can take over normal mages just as well as bloodmages.

I guess it's because of the Tevinter Empire who insisted on sacrificing thousands of people to fuel their magic. But that's pretty much like with surgery. I think most people agree that transplanting organs isn't a bad or evil thing to do. But killing 1000 innocents to get the organs would be. So the 'ritual' as such is not evil, just what you are going to do to perform it may be.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 31 octobre 2011 - 03:15 .

[Gervaise]

In addition to the link with demons and the sacrifice of innocents, I believe the reason they outlawed blood magic was because it seems only blood mages are able to dominate minds with their spells. This has great implications when it comes to who is actually running things and the idea that someone can control you, or the ruler of the country, at will and without other people being aware of it, is quite scary. Look how rattled the Templars were at the thought that some of their own recruits might have been either forcibly possessed by demons or their minds manipulated through the use of blood magic. However, the fact that to do really powerful spells does require the sacrifice of innocents should have been the main motivation for the Chantry (even if it was not).