728 réponses à ce sujet

[Felene]

Deadmac wrote...

After reading through the first few chapters, I threw the book into the trash. It has extensive grammar issues.

My English teacher will love you if you two ever meet, but I dislike my English teacher not because she is a horrible teacher but too rigid for someone with a passion on literature.

BubbleDncr wrote...

I finished reading Asunder last night, and my one gripe with it is that it kind of made me feel like DA2 didn't really matter. 

I
mean, everyone kept mentioning "what that mage Anders did in Kirkwall,"
but here it was, a year later, and all the circles still hadn't
rebelled. Things were just "more tense" than they otherwise would have
been, though that could be argueable in itself, since everything in
Kirkwall still probably would have eventually gotten out of control
without Anders. Afterall, their Knight Commander was going insane and
their First Enchanter was helping research blood magic. 

I guess
after DA2 ended, I felt like all the circle towers would revolt when
they heard the news, the mage templar war would begin, and Cassandra was
looking for Hawke because she was there at the event that started it
all - the annulment of the Kirkwall Circle. 

But instead, it
seems like the Conclave in Asunder is what caused the mages to revolt
and start the mage/templar war. So it seems more logical, to me, that if
Cassandra were looking for someone who was there at a piviotal moment,
she would look for Rhys. He clearly played a much larger role in the
beginnings of the war than Hawke, who frankly, just had to stand by and
react to everything going on around her. 

Anyone else get similar feelings, or am I misinterpretting things?

At the moment Rhys definetely feels a lot more close to the heart of the Mage/Templar conflict while Hawke is just someone happens to be in the wrong place at wrong time that start a chain-reaction across the world of Thedas.

But unlike Rhys who is indisputably pro-Mage, Hawke can be either pro-Mage or pro-Templar so it is possible the Seekers look for him/her in order to make a stand or act as a medium with Mage/Templar.

[LobselVith8]

Gervaise wrote...

So the more I think about it, the more I find it inexplicable that she obtained the position. She actually says "I came to the Circle from the Grey Wardens because I saw that something had to be done." So this was all done with deliberate intent. Did the Grey Warden leadership know? Did they approve because they disliked the limits put on the number of mages they were allowed at any one time?

Despite what Wynne claims about the limitations to mage Wardens in a specific group, we see multiple mages in specific groups of Grey Wardens contradict the idea that there's a limit: Sophia Dryden had multiple mage Wardens with her in the flashbacks of Warden's Keep, and the Warden-Commander can recruit more than one mage in Amaranthine (and he can be a mage as well).

[Silfren]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Gervaise wrote...

So the more I think about it, the more I find it inexplicable that she obtained the position. She actually says "I came to the Circle from the Grey Wardens because I saw that something had to be done." So this was all done with deliberate intent. Did the Grey Warden leadership know? Did they approve because they disliked the limits put on the number of mages they were allowed at any one time?

Despite what Wynne claims about the limitations to mage Wardens in a specific group, we see multiple mages in specific groups of Grey Wardens contradict the idea that there's a limit: Sophia Dryden had multiple mage Wardens with her in the flashbacks of Warden's Keep, and the Warden-Commander can recruit more than one mage in Amaranthine (and he can be a mage as well).

I'm not sure either example exactly discredits what Wynne states.  It's the Chantry-sanctioned templars that insist upon limiting the number of mages permitted into Grey warden ranks, not the mages themselves.  It seems plausible that the civil war going on at the time of King Arland's reign would have influenced the situation.  Also, is it even clear how many of the mages among Dryden's team of Grey Wardens were Circle mages as opposed to apostates?

The case of the Warden-Commander of Amaranthine has similar circumstances.  Assuming particular player choices, of course, (and the choices I'd argue as being the most common of player outcomes), the Warden-Commander of Amaranthine (a position we're told is of equivalent rank to an arl) is also the Hero of Ferelden who slew the Archdemon of the Fifth Blight, a close ally, if not close personal friend or lover, of the monarch of Ferelden, at minimum.  In many cases he or she is also a Cousland, a scion of the second highest-ranking noble family in the realm, possibly married to the monarch of Ferelden, and may even be either the Chancellor to the monarch or possibly also the Teyrn(a) of Gwaren.  This is to say nothing of the fact that they also will be a friend and ally to the Arl of Redcliffe for, y'know, services rendered, and an ally to the King of Orzammar, for whatever value that alliance may hold.

Even the minimum choices amount to a Warden-Commander with an unprecedented amount of power and influence.  Requesting total autonomy for the Circle of Ferelden may be too far-reaching a demand even for someone with that kind of political pull, but I don't think it's at all implausible that the Hero of Ferelden could all but demand to have more mages brought into its ranks.  Not only is the Hero of Ferelden have a lot of power at their disposal, but this is also just following a Blight, where the destruction caused by darkspawn is fresh in the minds of everyone, noble and commoner alike.  A refusal by the Chantry would seem very strange to a people who know from first-hand experience how useful mages would be to the Grey Warden cause of destroying darkspawn.  

So I don't think those things contradict the assertion that the Chantry disallows more than a set small number of mages being permitted into the Grey Wardens; rather that circumstances occasionally force the Chantry to make allowances.

[Silfren]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Yeah...considering Anders had seen firsthand the RoT temporarily reversed thanks to Justice, you'd think he wouldn't be so quick to kill Karl like that. We either have to chalk it up to Anders being overly emotional (Karl is begging to die as the Tranquility returns, and they are friends/lovers), or Bioware not wanting to explore the possibility of a cure in the game. Probably the latter, considering you can never bring up the subject ever again, even where other Tranquil mages are concerned, which makes Anders the mage-crusader look like he gives up really easily...

Yes, you would think he'd be quick to kill Karl.  We know that Anders literally hates the Rite and view it as annhilation of a person's very self.  He had no reason whatsoever to believe that Karl's condition could be permanently reversed, and even you admit that he's faced with Karl literally begging to be mercy-killed.  Those are good, logical reasons for Anders to kill Karl, not something we just have to "chalk it up to." 

That scene makes it clear that it is the presence of Justice, flaring up in Anders, that temporarily reverses Karl's condition.  Anders has no reason at all to believe this means there's a cure, since he himself is under the impression that he has "unique circumstances."  I think it's probable that he didn't understand the sudden change, but grasped onto Karl's explanation of "its as if you brought a piece of the Fade into this world," since the RoT severs a mage's Fade connection.  And when he sees Karl reverting to a Tranquil state, what possible reason could he have to think there was a permanent fix?  At the time, the lore of the RoT asserted that the change was permanent, and this is what Anders believed.  Faced with the immediate situation, the only thing he probably had time to consider was that Karl would revert to a non-Tranquil state only when he was in the presence of Anders whenever Justice took over.  But, again, Anders is faced with Karl begging to be killed.  Why on earth would anyone classify Anders' decision to give Karl his wish as "giving up too easily"? 

It didn't even occur to KARL that his condition could be permanently cured, for cripes' sake.  If it didn't occur to him, why should it occur to anyone else?  And if he's not asking Anders to see if they can make the reversal permanent, but instead asking to be killed before he reverts back, why the hell should Anders be expected to?

[Silfren]

Selej wrote...

I'm rather surprised that so many people are mage sympathizers. Especially Adrian (spoiler) blasted Evangeline with a fireball. She should have been run through as she's a perfect example of why spoiled mages should not be granted autonomy.

Why?  Adrian was only one mage, against Wynne, Rhys, and others.  Why should Adrian be the deciding factor on whether people sympathize with mages?  And I rather thought that scene did more to illustrate how Evangeline is NOT the sort of templar who will simply respone to mage violence by running them through, no questions asked.  I was reminded of that scene when Rhys declared, "She's the best of them."  Too bad templars like her appear to be few and far between.

I've noticed a lot of people seem to dislike Adrian for being so one-dimensional.  I find that funny, because I've known quite a few crusaders in my life who have passions that tend to be the only thing they are ever able to focus on.  She might not be a likeable character, but I found her very real.

[Addai]

Deadmac wrote...
 "Dragon Age: Asunder" could very well contain a great story; however, the book's grammar lacks intellectual depth and stimulation. When you read a very written story, the front of your brain starts to feel tension. "Dragon Age: Asunder" does not make you feel intellectually fulfilled.

Drew Karpyshyn is another BioWare writer who makes the same mistakes. Karpyshyn's Darth Bane series was a wonderful read; nevertheless, his writing style prevents him from creating depth.

Read the novels "Heir to the Empire" and "Batman: Knightfall", and you will see exactly what I am talking about.

I haven't read the book yet, but such style choices could well be deliberate.  You don't need to cast them as "anti-intellectual," sheesh.    Gamers are the ones who are going to read the books, so they may like to key their language to their audience.

Ever read The Road by Cormac McCarthy?  His choppy sentences and stream of consciousness style drove me nuts for the first 20 pages, until I got sucked in and was bawling by the end.  Whereas Jacqueline Carey's florid exaggerations never stopped being annoying until I finally gave up on her books (not only for that reason).  One of my favorite authors, Cecelia Holland, has a sparse, choppy style that drives some critics nuts, but I like that she's direct and writes medieval fiction in a plain style.  These are negotiations between the writer and reader.  You said "no deal" but that doesn't mean the writer is a bad writer, just that it's not for you.

[Gervaise]

One other problem that Asunder has raised is what happens to mage children now? Will parents just assume that they should keep them at home? If they do this will templars simply slay them if discovered?If the mage child is unwanted, will they still dump them on the Chantry? If so, what then? There is no Circle for them to be taken to, no senior mages available for guidance and a shortage of templars, assuming that a fair proportion are otherwise engaged. I would be interested to know what the devs imagine would be the situation.

[Deadmac]

Addai67 wrote...
I haven't read the book yet, but such style choices could well be deliberate.  You don't need to cast them as "anti-intellectual," sheesh. Gamers are the ones who are going to read the books, so they may like to key their language to their audience.

Who said he was anti-anything?
Do you know what the word 'anti' means?
Did I say he was against anything?

I did not.

Modifié par Deadmac, 11 janvier 2012 - 10:07 .

[Saile]

The grammar bothered me a bit, as well as Gaider's habit to overuse a word for a couple of chapters. I think somewhere around the journey to the Badlands, it was lest, which magically disappeared from everybody's vocabulary afterwards. A couple of chapters later I stopped noticing things like this, though, which made the book a lot more enjoyable.

In the end, I really liked the book. I spent more time reading it than I should have, but it was worth it! I loved all the references to the events in Origins ...and the lack of references to DA2, to be honest. Either way, the book has kind of convinced me to buy the next game, the plot was way more interesting than DA2's, in my opinion. I'd love to hear more about Rhys, Evangeline and Cole... just not about Adrian. Man, she became more and more annoying as the story progressed.

[HiroVoid]

Gervaise wrote...

One other problem that Asunder has raised is what happens to mage children now? Will parents just assume that they should keep them at home? If they do this will templars simply slay them if discovered?If the mage child is unwanted, will they still dump them on the Chantry? If so, what then? There is no Circle for them to be taken to, no senior mages available for guidance and a shortage of templars, assuming that a fair proportion are otherwise engaged. I would be interested to know what the devs imagine would be the situation.

I imagine if that happens, the chantry would take them in and place them somewhere where the mages won't be able to get to them.  They'll probably just do something similar to what they did with the circles except just for the kids.  If there're no mages to help teach them, they'll probably just take care of them.

[Silfren]

Deadmac wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
I haven't read the book yet, but such style choices could well be deliberate.  You don't need to cast them as "anti-intellectual," sheesh. Gamers are the ones who are going to read the books, so they may like to key their language to their audience.

Who said he was anti-anything?
Do you know what the word 'anti' means?
Did I say he was against anything?

I did not.

Unless I mistake your own meaning, he wasn't saying that anyone was anti-intellectual, but that the style of the books were anti-intellectual.  Do YOU understand what that means?  I'm guessing no, based on your response here, which just shows you completely missed Addai's point.

[Camenae]

I see a lot of hate for the Seeker dude, but I don't dislike him that much. In my opinion he's more multi-dimensional than Adriane, who was just a female and fiery-instead-of-emo version of Anders. I thought the Seeker's attitude was really just: Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice...

Plus it wasn't like his "fool me once" was something like he was nice to a mage and the mage forgot to write him a thank-you note. That guy got seriously screwed over when he was trying to be an Evangeline-type Templar.

[Deadmac]

@Silfren,
Awe... Defending your friend's honor? Its cute.

Hugs and kisses.

[Addai]

Deadmac wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
I haven't read the book yet, but such style choices could well be deliberate.  You don't need to cast them as "anti-intellectual," sheesh. Gamers are the ones who are going to read the books, so they may like to key their language to their audience.

Who said he was anti-anything?
Do you know what the word 'anti' means?
Did I say he was against anything?

I did not.

You said the language doesn't satisfy intellectually.  In my post above, "them" refers to "style choices" and not to people.

[gaurdian9sunshine]

 I just got done reading asunder today. From the very beginning, I didn't like the Seeker, but without him, I don't think all of this would be possible. What suprised me the most is I really liked Evangeline the most out of all the characters. I wish more templars should be like her. As for the seeker and templars divorcing the chantry, I can't say I blame him. He is like Fenris, but in a higher position. 
As a gamer, I want my actions to impact the world I am playing in to be changed in some way. You can see that in Origins very clearly. Before Asunder, I always thought the mages heard what the templars did because of one apostate and rebelled because of that, but it was clearly not the case. I felt like my actions really didn't matter in DA:2. Sure, Cassandra came to Varric to ask about Hawke because he or she could set things right between the mages and templars, and in my opinion, the are grasping at straws at that point. I am glad at least one faction of the chantry remained loyal to the Divine. she needs someone to protect her. We still don't know how that one mage got to the party in the first place where Evangeline steped in.
After hearing stories about the Orlesian knights with Loghain, and the stories about the Game from Leliana, I already to began to form an opinion Orlais and then after reading the book, I really have no love for the country. At this point, I hope the mages run away to Tevinter or somewhere and the Qunari invade the country. 
As for Anders, I hope he is somewhere helping kittens escape from horrific blood magic rituals. 

Modifié par gaurdian9sunshine, 12 janvier 2012 - 10:37 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Silfren wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Yeah...considering Anders had seen firsthand the RoT temporarily reversed thanks to Justice, you'd think he wouldn't be so quick to kill Karl like that. We either have to chalk it up to Anders being overly emotional (Karl is begging to die as the Tranquility returns, and they are friends/lovers), or Bioware not wanting to explore the possibility of a cure in the game. Probably the latter, considering you can never bring up the subject ever again, even where other Tranquil mages are concerned, which makes Anders the mage-crusader look like he gives up really easily...

Yes, you would think he'd be quick to kill Karl.  We know that Anders literally hates the Rite and view it as annhilation of a person's very self.  He had no reason whatsoever to believe that Karl's condition could be permanently reversed, and even you admit that he's faced with Karl literally begging to be mercy-killed.  Those are good, logical reasons for Anders to kill Karl, not something we just have to "chalk it up to."

You are missing the point, which isn't about Anders and Karl at all.

It's about the Anders and Tranquil in general.

Whatever Anders' reasons for killing Karl and whether he acted too fast or not fast enough, for the first time ever we and he saw the RoT temporarily reversed. Yet despite the fact he hates the Rite, he makes no attempt ever to explore the possibilities of a cure later in the game.

Just because neither he nor Karl considered something more permanent might have been achieved doesn't mean Anders couldn't have considered it in retrospect. When I said it makes Anders look like he gives up too easily, I didn't mean with respect to Karl, I meant in respect to the Formari. Reversing the Rite would be a coup for mages, yet it's never brought up as a topic worth pursuing, ever, for the rest of the game. which makes no sense to me. A healer does not ignore something like that, and a mage like Anders definitely should have revisited it, hence my comment on Bioware (IMO) not wanting it to be explored in the game...presumably so it could be a big surprise in Asunder and/or a future title.

Which is great for the book/next game, but makes Anders look like he doesn't give a crap or is completely, stupidly apathetic to the very idea of chasing the chance of a massive breakthrough against a 'disease' he hates.

I hope that makes my comments clearer to you.

And I get the feeling you defend the whole Anders/Karl thing to too many people if you can go on about it as long as you did.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 12 janvier 2012 - 11:57 .

[Sylvianus]

I got the book and I read  it in one night.  I  really enjoyed it, but my favourite remains The Stolen Throne, ( ) with awesome guys like Marric, Rowan, and Loghain. But I thank David Gaider, I did feel many strong feelings in this book, that showed how I was interested.

A very good story. However, I am disappointed by the end. It is repeated several times that the Templars are a terror to the Mages, but I had the vague impression that the Mages could easily beat them, except Lord seeker, as well. That seemed odd enough to be honest. Templars also seem very few effective against the Mages except to be violent and to obey to their chief. Apart from Lord Seeker and Eveline, they look just obedient soldiers without any substance.

Also, the battle has not been sufficiently deepened. We do not know how many deaths, we do not know what were material consequences for both sides, the political upheveal was not even mentioned clearly in Orlais, I also personally found  the battle not really credible.

Mages are trapped, surrounded by templar, and they are not annihilated ?

And I do not understand, the 15 most powerful mages of Thedas ( First enchanter and among them Grand Enchanter, imagine all this power ) gathered in one area and revolted, and the decree of Annulation is not invoked ? They are simply trapped, they become after the first battle, only prisoners while any one of the angry mages desesperate, can become an abomination ? How can someone as smart as Lord Seeker may have committed this error ? That seems almost out of character.

All that being said, I felt this book was very pro-mage to be honest ( It doesn't bother me ), especially the end. Yet the example with Cole, has reinforced my opinion that the mages in total freedom are a threat to humanity, with intentions or not..

Now characters :

I do not like the Divine : <_< A traitor to the Chantry. Make reforms, okay, okay to help mages but to  support them to fight the Templars, to help them become an independent entity ? She screwed up.  A real treachery, she deserves to be stoned, executed by the Orlesian people. Isn't  she aware of the bomb she just let go ? And if the mages out of control decides to act like Anders ? No compromises like he said !  If they decide to explode all chanteries in Thedas, or many of them to make sure that never again mages will submite to Andraste or any religion, a threat to them? Fool woman.

Leliana :   I didn't really like her in the book, loyal, is she only useful to help the Divine ? What are really her thoughts ? I wait to see the future.

Evangeline :  But what a fool woman, I hate her. At first she seemed cool, but actually she is dumb. Naive, unconscious, blinded by a morality completely shifted and out of reality. A very bad leader, a good soldier yes, but she has no competence to hunt blood and bad mages,  master of lies and manipulation, to protect her people effectively, and see rationally where is the interest of the people in the heart of the action. She is blinded by something completely abstract in a war. If all the Templars were like her, the world would be completely lost.

She is a good soldier, but her role should not have been that of a Templar. She is a bad templar. A Templar must not only have compassion for mages, it must also be devoted to humanity, to all those innocent powerless against mages and demons. It should establish the perfect balance between the two to do its duty. She  supported Rhys in his will to fight the Templars, against the loyalist's thought, she is no longer a templar, she has betrayed the cause. If she is in the next game, I will kill her unless she proves me she knows sometimes make decisions that is anything other than just stupid compassion.

She's so stupid, inexperienced. We see that she has never experienced betrayal, some things tragic she does not know what it is having to need to act without hesitation, to avoid the worst against the odds. I do not even know if she has ever seen in her life, mages turn into demons, she seems so rooted in principles obsolete, learned only by heart. And the worst is that she continues to defend Cole, despite his murders, it is a demon,  bleh, she  disgusts me ! If it's justice, if it isn't important,  she can go to **** off.

I am so pissed off, she is alive finally at the end,  That was so bad, I Screamed. Even I am more pissed off, because of this fool, Wynn died. It makes me sick.

Fiona :  An idiot. She should have died, I do not understand why someone so dangerous like her was left alive. I Did facepalmed when she was unable to be smart at the good moment. Did she really think she was able to threaten, surrounded by an enemy powerful in a tower that appears to be a trap ? How was she able to show as little subtlety ? She thought she was invincible or what ?

Adrian :  The only new female protagonist that I respect in this book. Pragmatic, sometimes crazy, but she knows what she does, she fights for what she believes is right, and many things she says is right. I'm glad she lives at the end. Her thinking is entirely practical, and totally unprincipled fool. Lacks some moral, but it's not too serious; Thanks to her, I do not feel totally disconnected from the mages. I knew immediately that it was she who had killed the elf.

Wynn : <3 I loved her in DAO, I love her even more in this book. She is the reason why I respect and help mages. Smart, loyal, and I love her her character. Why did she had to die for HER ? LOL. That was tasteless to me. Bad end.

Lord Seeker : I did not like him at first, but I have come to appreciate this character, from the time he fought the mages. He knows his job, and it feels good that not everything is lost.

Rhys : Well, I liked him.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 12 janvier 2012 - 07:35 .

[Gervaise]

Pretty strong views there but I have to admit what annoyed me about the Divine was that she authorised magical experimentation, kept it totally secret from the people who are meant to police these things and at least have some experience with dealing with it when it goes wrong, with minimum supervision by even other mages, who also might notice when things were getting out of hand, and as a result an entire settlement of I think it was a thousand people (correct me if I'm wrong) die horribly. It is to avoid such things that the Circle system was set up in the first place and normally individual Circles are placed some distance from major settlements. This is also the reason why the Right of Anulment exists, so if, as happened at Kinloch Hold, the templars lose control and the mages have mostly become possessed, they can act to stop it effecting anyone else.

And all the Divine does is make a brief prayer when informed what her actions have brought about. To be honest I thought Lambert was well within his rights to be angry. I am not sure of the exact oath a templar is meant to swear but Gregorie is quoted as saying he would willingly sacrifice his own life and that of any templar or mage in order to keep innocent people safe and so I would imagine that it is something along those lines. It is all very laudable trying to find an alternative to the Rite of Tranquility but that doesn't excuse complete disregard for normal measures that are put in place for everyone's safety.

[Silfren]

Sylvianus wrote...

Now characters :

I do not like the Divine : <_< A traitor to the Chantry. Make reforms, okay, okay to help mages but to  support them to fight the Templars, to help them become an independent entity ? She screwed up.  A real treachery, she deserves to be stoned, executed by the Orlesian people. Isn't  she aware of the bomb she just let go ? And if the mages out of control decides to act like Anders ? No compromises like he said !  If they decide to explode all chanteries in Thedas, or many of them to make sure that never again mages will submite to Andraste or any religion, a threat to them? Fool woman.

Leliana :   I didn't really like her in the book, loyal, is she only useful to help the Divine ? What are really her thoughts ? I wait to see the future.

Evangeline :  But what a fool woman, I hate her. At first she seemed cool, but actually she is dumb. Naive, unconscious, blinded by a morality completely shifted and out of reality. A very bad leader, a good soldier yes, but she has no competence to hunt blood and bad mages,  master of lies and manipulation, to protect her people effectively, and see rationally where is the interest of the people in the heart of the action. She is blinded by something completely abstract in a war. If all the Templars were like her, the world would be completely lost.

She is a good soldier, but her role should not have been that of a Templar. She is a bad templar. A Templar must not only have compassion for mages, it must also be devoted to humanity, to all those innocent powerless against mages and demons. It should establish the perfect balance between the two to do its duty. She  supported Rhys in his will to fight the Templars, against the loyalist's thought, she is no longer a templar, she has betrayed the cause. If she is in the next game, I will kill her unless she proves me she knows sometimes make decisions that is anything other than just stupid compassion.

She's so stupid, inexperienced. We see that she has never experienced betrayal, some things tragic she does not know what it is having to need to act without hesitation, to avoid the worst against the odds. I do not even know if she has ever seen in her life, mages turn into demons, she seems so rooted in principles obsolete, learned only by heart. And the worst is that she continues to defend Cole, despite his murders, it is a demon,  bleh, she  disgusts me ! If it's justice, if it isn't important,  she can go to **** off.

I am so pissed off, she is alive finally at the end,  That was so bad, I Screamed. Even I am more pissed off, because of this fool, Wynn died. It makes me sick.

Fiona :  An idiot. She should have died, I do not understand why someone so dangerous like her was left alive. I Did facepalmed when she was unable to be smart at the good moment. Did she really think she was able to threaten, surrounded by an enemy powerful in a tower that appears to be a trap ? How was she able to show as little subtlety ? She thought she was invincible or what ?

Adrian :  The only new female protagonist that I respect in this book. Pragmatic, sometimes crazy, but she knows what she does, she fights for what she believes is right, and many things she says is right. I'm glad she lives at the end. Her thinking is entirely practical, and totally unprincipled fool. Lacks some moral, but it's not too serious; Thanks to her, I do not feel totally disconnected from the mages. I knew immediately that it was she who had killed the elf.

Wynn : <3 I loved her in DAO, I love her even more in this book. She is the reason why I respect and help mages. Smart, loyal, and I love her her character. Why did she had to die for HER ? LOL. That was tasteless to me. Bad end.

Lord Seeker : I did not like him at first, but I have come to appreciate this character, from the time he fought the mages. He knows his job, and it feels good that not everything is lost.

Rhys : Well, I liked him.

The Divine clearly wants to seek reform of the Circle for mages, but nowhere did I get any sense that she was campaigning for total mage freedom such that she was even supporting the mages against the templars in all-out war.  You say that reforms are okay, but then you blanket-condemn her when the we see NOTHING but that reform is all that the Divine wants.  Did you miss the bit where she refused to hear Wynne or any of the other mages' arguments against it when she decreed that the elf mage was to be made Tranquil again?  That alone should make it clear to you that the Divine is hardly in support of absolute, total mage freedom.

Nor do I get where your impression of Evangeline comes from.  There are plenty of examples within Asunder of Evangeline taking a hard-line with mages.   I seem to recall Evangeline being completely willing to throw a mage in a dungeon and leave him there without any hesitation.  I also saw her do her best to keep Adrian in line, short of running the woman through.  Oh, and she certainly didn't hestitate to knock sense into Wynne when it was needed.  Where on earth are you getting that she's unfit?  Given that you completely disregard all the book's references to Evangeline doing her level best to walk the line of balance between protecting mages from themselves and from protecting mages from unwarranted brutality from others, which is PRECISELY what templars are supposed to do, I can only guess that in your mind, any templar who doesn't choose to simply kill a mage on sight is a bad templar. How exactly is Evangeline not the ideal templar when the book demonstrates her doing, time and again, exactly what templars are trained to do: keeping mages in check, and protecting mages from mob violence? 

I have to find it hilarious that after castigating Evangeline, you actually call Adrian practical.  The book rather clearly paints her as far too impassioned about the cause of mage freedom to be practical.  Her actions in the inn?  Also not practical.  And "lacks some moral, but it's not too serious"?  Really?  Adrian is demonstrably willing to sacrifice anyone and anything for her cause.  Again, it's laughable that you call Evangeline naive and a fool but you actually laud Adrian as practical and not-too-seriously lacking in morals.  The entire point of her character is that she's so utterly blinded by her single-minded crusade for mage freedom that she isn't capable of practicality, or morality.  You did notice that she was only too willing to kill Evangeline?  That she was willing to frame Rhys, her one-time lover, for murder?  You call those "not-too-serious"?  You call her eagerness for all-out war, practical?  Shyeah, that's rich.

I don't think you read the same book the rest of us did.

Modifié par Silfren, 12 janvier 2012 - 10:55 .

[Morroian]

Sylvianus wrote...

Adrian : The only new female protagonist that I respect in this book. Pragmatic, sometimes crazy, but she knows what she does, she fights for what she believes is right, and many things she says is right. I'm glad she lives at the end. Her thinking is entirely practical, and totally unprincipled fool. Lacks some moral, but it's not too serious; Thanks to her, I do not feel totally disconnected from the mages. I knew immediately that it was she who had killed the elf.

Adrian practical? She's an ideologue who threw her best friend under a bus for a cause. She's essentially a terrorist like Anders. She framed her best friend for a murder that she knew would also lead to him being regarded as the one who committed the other murders and "she lacks some morals but its not serious"??

As for the rest Silfren said it better than I could.

Modifié par Morroian, 12 janvier 2012 - 11:05 .

[Sylvianus]

@ Silfren Actually,  ( yes I remember you, and I stil don't care to debate with you ) I don't really care what 's your thoughts about my view, but respect it, That's all what I ask. There are many reasons, why I have this thought for any character in this book. And not based necessarily on your standard or your reading.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 12 janvier 2012 - 11:05 .

[Sylvianus]

Morroian wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Adrian : The only new female protagonist that I respect in this book. Pragmatic, sometimes crazy, but she knows what she does, she fights for what she believes is right, and many things she says is right. I'm glad she lives at the end. Her thinking is entirely practical, and totally unprincipled fool. Lacks some moral, but it's not too serious; Thanks to her, I do not feel totally disconnected from the mages. I knew immediately that it was she who had killed the elf.

Adrian practical? She's an ideologue who threw her best friend under a bus for a cause. She's essentially a terrorist like Anders. She framed her best friend for a murder that she knew would also lead to him being regarded as the one who committed the other murders and "she lacks some morals but its not serious"??

As for the rest Silfren said it better than I could.

That's the war, and the situation is desesperate, She knows what she has to do, to go where she wants to go. She didn"t murder the man, he wanted to die, she helped. And her best friend wasn't anymore her friend, she used him for her goal. That's totally pratice to me. You can be a fanatic and pratice in the same time.

She is saying many things that can actually be real. she know how politics work, the chantry work, i am for the templar, but many things she said were true about them, and her thought, while she wants so much to be free, and all the mage, isn't that of a fanatic who thinks only about dreams.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 12 janvier 2012 - 11:18 .

[Heimdall]

Sylvianus wrote...

Morroian wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Adrian : The only new female protagonist that I respect in this book. Pragmatic, sometimes crazy, but she knows what she does, she fights for what she believes is right, and many things she says is right. I'm glad she lives at the end. Her thinking is entirely practical, and totally unprincipled fool. Lacks some moral, but it's not too serious; Thanks to her, I do not feel totally disconnected from the mages. I knew immediately that it was she who had killed the elf.

Adrian practical? She's an ideologue who threw her best friend under a bus for a cause. She's essentially a terrorist like Anders. She framed her best friend for a murder that she knew would also lead to him being regarded as the one who committed the other murders and "she lacks some morals but its not serious"??

As for the rest Silfren said it better than I could.

That's the war, and the situation is desesperate, She knows what she has to do, to go where she wants to go. She didn"t murder the man, he wanted to die, she helped. And her best friend wasn't anymore her friend, she used him for her goal. That's totally pratice to me. You can be a fanatic and pratice in the same time.

She is saying many things that can actually be real. she know how politics work, the chantry work, i am for the templar, but many things she said were true about them, and her thought, while she wants so much to be free, and all the mage, isn't that of a fanatic who thinks only about dreams.

She killed a man and framed her best friend for it and considers herself noble for being willing to do such things for a cause.  Adrian is no different from Meredith and Anders, a fanatic so wrapped up in her own ideology that she is quite willing to murder and sacrifice innocents to further her self righteous cause.  She isn't practical, a practical person wouldn't throw a tantrum whenever she doesn't have her way.  She is just like any fanatic, unable to tolerate having her own ideas challenged.

[Sylvianus]

Or maybe, she feels that they are wrong, and that it could lead to a disaster for her cause and all the mages, based on reasonable doubts, ( yes also ideologue ) and I can't blame her to think that when I am reading this book. Templar are total useless jackass. She could totally think that the conclave wouldn't change at all their situation and that after it would be too late to act and never it could happen again. I don't even imagine what they suffered during one year. I think I have a different view.

 In this book, it seems clear for me that mages from their point of view can't really hope in the divine.

If I was Adrian, i would decide to fight now, if I felt that it was our last chance.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 12 janvier 2012 - 11:43 .

[Silfren]

Sylvianus wrote...

@ Silfren Actually,  ( yes I remember you, and I stil don't care to debate with you ) I don't really care what 's your thoughts about my view, but respect it, That's all what I ask. There are many reasons, why I have this thought for any character in this book. And not based necessarily on your standard or your reading.

I remember you, too.  

I'm not debating with you.  Nevertheless, this is an open forum, and I'm completely at liberty to state my opinion of your posts.