2008 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Yeah I'd serve jail time too and then probation. Again I point out people are dead and there's a good chance they're responsible, they got off light.

Locked into the Circle FOREVER.

[TEWR]

DPSSOC wrote...

When every documented instance of mage freedom results in mage rule, and every documented case of freeing the oppressed results in them turning around to become the new oppressors, I'm pretty sure expecting anything different to happen qualifies as insanity.

Tevinter is the most obvious but it's not the only one.  Dalish Keepers, Rivaini Seers, and Chasind Shamans are all free mage societies and all place mages in a position of authourity.

none of those have the freed people becoming the "new oppressors" as you put it. The Dalish don't oppress, the Chasind don't oppress, and the Rivaini don't oppress.

As such, Tevinter and the Chantry are the only instances of freed people oppressing other people ever happening, and the former is the only instance of it happening with freed mages.

And as I said before, Tevinter has been highly ingrained with the notion of "Free mages can rule! They can do whatever they want and use the "for the people" excuse!".

Which while I agree magic can serve man better from the political scene, Tevinter's way is just.... idiotic.

That's one way to look at it, another way being they treated any humans who dared enter their land like scum and called an invasion down upon themselves.  The only reason the elves weren't set up as the new grand oppressor is that the humans militarized faster and had greater numbers.

When they were given that land as a reward for helping bring down the Tevinter Imperium and made it a point to tell human lands that they wanted to be isolationists in order to revive their lost culture, I think they're justified in being pissed off at humans for ignoring that and trespassing on their property and telling them to get lost and ****** off.

To which I highly believe the Chantry or Orlais hired Elven thugs that didn't go to Halamshiral -- as the codex on the Long Walk says not every elf decided to complete the trek -- to sack Red Crossing so they could pin it on the Elves of the Dales and justify a forcible conversion.

Not every elf feels kinship to other Elves. The two Elves from Tevinter that were involved in Caladrius' slave trade are proof enough of this.

So he was attempting to raise an army of the undead because...fun?

To protect his friends from the Templars.

There's no indication that he wanted to rule over anyone and his self-sacrifice disproves the notion that he wanted to rule over people. A dozen mages -- with only one blood mage -- don't stand a chance against a legion of Templars, so he wanted to bolster his numbers.

Ghastly means definitely, but considering that he wanted to protect his friends I see it as noble, albeit misguided.

And then plot stupidity kicked in and made him insane for no reason at all.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 30 janvier 2012 - 05:43 .

[DPSSOC]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

So he was attempting to raise an army of the undead because...fun?

To protect his friends from the Templars.

There's no indication that he wanted to rule over anyone and his self-sacrifice disproves the notion that he wanted to rule over people. A dozen mages -- with only one blood mage -- don't stand a chance against a legion of Templars, so he wanted to bolster his numbers.

Ghastly means definitely, but considering that he wanted to protect his friends I see it as noble, albeit misguided.

And then plot stupidity kicked in and made him insane for no reason at all.

Yes, plot stupidity.  You do recall Alain pointing out that Decimus had lost is flipping mind and was likely possessed right?  This isn't like Thrask kidnapping someone to keep you off his back, this is a man who's established, from the get go, as being off his rocker.

And the whole, "What do I care what shield they carry?  If they challenge us, the dead themselves shall heed the call." line.  That didn't come across as intent to conquer?  "All who stand before use shall fall," didn't set off any alarms?

[TEWR]

Yes, plot stupidity. You do recall Alain pointing out that Decimus had lost is flipping mind and was likely possessed right?

Alain's speculation on Decimus doesn't equal fact, and you cannot say "He has to be insane" without proof of a fragile mind.

No sane man would profane the dead? I think Danarius would disagree. He's sane, yet a slimeball. But he's sane.

This isn't like Thrask kidnapping someone to keep you off his back, this is a man who's established, from the get go, as being off his rocker.

Again, saying someone is insane doesn't make them so. There has to be proof of it and not just how you personally view a man's actions simply because you've been brought up to believe blood magic is inherently evil.

This is why insanity defenses require a lot of work. Because you have to have proof that the man who committed a crime was cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

Decimus muttering to himself and acting slightly to majorly schizophrenic would've shown that he was off his rocker. Alain saying "He's insane because he's using blood magic!" isn't.

And the whole, "What do I care what shield they carry? If they challenge us, the dead themselves shall heed the call." line. That didn't come across as intent to conquer? "All who stand before use shall fall," didn't set off any alarms?

No it doesn't come off as "MUAHAHAHA I WILL RULE YOU ALL!" It came off as unjustified insanity for a man that would sacrifice himself and do whatever it took to see his friends free from Templar control.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 30 janvier 2012 - 06:01 .

[DKJaigen]

@DPSSOC

Whatever you think mages will do is irrelevant is a social matter. But any sane person will now support the mages. In a world where their is enemy living under the ground that has the potential to eradicate the entire human , elven and dwarven races from the land you cannot allow the destruction of the only people who can prevent that(for your information you need mages to create grey wardens). Mages are needed for humanity to survive. And by destroying the mages the templars have actively endangerd the entire human race. For such crimes the templars and the chantry can no longer be allowed to exist.

What happens after the circle free themselves is therefore irrelevant. As long humans survive they can alter their society.

[MichaelFinnegan]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Anders was once a Circle mage, so with your twisted sense of justice, the Circle must be in some sick way accountable for his eventual insanity.

The prevailing circumstances did motivate Anders to action. However, all the choices were his. There are reasons to believe that a change in the current system is required, but Anders' methods ought to be questioned.

I'm not sure what you're getting at or where you're getting at it from. It's you who seems to be twisting all meaning from my arguments, and yet accusing me of doing the twisting.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Im saying I find it... funny... taht you are willing to point the finger at citizens of a nation, and blaming them for actions they can't possibly have ahd any influence on. Yet you seem unwilling to point the finger far enough back in the case of Anders, and present him as an isolated case.

[MichaelFinnegan]

GavrielKay wrote...

It is a bit silly to think that citizens of a democratically elected government have absolutely zero responsibility for the actions of their elected representatives. How much responsibility and what can or should be done to a citizen in response to the actions of their gov't is a separate issue. But you can't really think that if a country has a long history of bad behavior of its elected officials that no burden of guilt at all falls on the citizens who elected them.

In the modern world, we tend to use economic sanctions against countries who continuously behave in ways contrary to peace in the international community. It is mostly the citizens who are affected by such sanctions I think, as corrupt gov't officials are pretty good at getting what they want regardless of how the citizenry is faring. It is a sort of non-violent terrorism where the hope is that put upon citizens will try to do something to fix their gov't and make everyone's life better.

Thanks for putting that so succinctly. I believe legal aspects are clouding the moral parts of the argument making it difficult to argue what I essentially think is a simple logically defensible argument.

A long history of bad behavior indicates a systemic problem - a complete lack of willingness or motivation to change something that is wretched. Blame for allowing an oppressive regime to continue for 900 years falls on a lot of people. It goes from the top of the Chantry where policy is set to the lowliest believer who sings along with the prayer. They do not share responsibility equally of course, but they do share it.

I wouldn't go so far as to say complete unwillingness on the part of everyone. If a templar came knocking on some family's door in the middle of the night to round up a mage in that family, and took that mage away for good, I'm sure there would've been some objection, and a moment of doubt (however brief) that there is something wrong with the way the whole thing is done. And the RoT really has to have been common knowledge - seeing how the tranquil are no longer bound to the Circle, and therefore free to roam about.

And we see how the citizens of Kirkwall do aid mages to escape from the Circle, as evidenced by the letter from Cullen to Meredith (I think). So, really, some normal folk do undertand the problem and think that they ought to do something, in whatever capacity, about the increasing templar domination and resulting plight of the mages in Kirkwall. I just think that those civilians aren't organized enough to effect a change, which would I think be somewhat understandable.

Having said all that, I still think it'd not be correct to hold a civilan accountable for the actions of the templars. The templars are supported by the Chantry's funding, and the Chantry isn't necessarily supported by the civilians, unlike a government that by coercion levies taxes from the civilans. And, besides, nobody within the templar and Chantry ranks are voted into postions of power by the civilians.

But you're right about those who willingly subscribe to the idea that mages must necessarily be evil, and act on that idea - those are the ones by their very actions are perpetrating things that'd worsen the situation for the mages. Mages need hold no solidarity toward those.

That is not at all the same as saying that the blame for the actions of one individual at one time should be shared by anyone else. If a mage blew up a Chantry every year for 900 years and the rest of the mages never spoke against it, or tried to ferret out the guilty party and punish them, then you'd have a much closer analogy.

Consider, though: If a civilian (instead of a mage) blew up a chantry, no matter how frequently, nobody would think about accusing other civilians for it. There is no logical basis for arguing that a person A is responsible for something that a person B commits, if there is no discernable relation between them, irregardless of what particular category either A and B might both fall under.

[MichaelFinnegan]

DPSSOC wrote...

I love how you say this like the only reason for her actions is mustache twirling villainy.  Misguided and insane though she may be Meredith is working to protect the non-mages (you know the majority of people) from blood mages and abominations (which are rampant) as well as the reason for the initial set up of the Circle which was in response to 1,000 plus years of Magister tyranny, which is continually shown to be necessary by the on going Magister tyranny in present day Tevinter.

Meredith I think should never have been within the templar ranks, to begin with. Her history and her emotional attachment toward the incident with her family, as somebody pointed out a few pages back, should have been sufficient not to ever recruit her. Why? The other half of being a templar is to protect mages also, from both demonic influences and from whatever danger the rest of the world posed toward them, even going to extreme lengths to ensure that. That, in addition to what you mentioned above, is what being a templar is all about. I don't think it's ever possible to do justice to only one aspect of a templar's work, and somehow hope negligence of the other aspect won't come back to bite severely in the longer run.

However poorly she does her job Meredith is trying to protect people from powers they can't stand up against.  She's not just oppressing the mages for the sake of oppressing them she's oppressing them because they insist on regularly demonstrating that they're dangerous.  It's not like we ever get this scene.

Perhaps the entire point is that the mages are being oppressed. Perhaps you didn't mean to state it that way, but what she ended up not doing was preventing the oppressing of mages that was happening under her very leadership. One cannot harp on the rampancy of blood mages, abominations and so on, without even analyzing whether that someone herself isn't in some way contributing to the general mayhem.

How about around a decade of blood mages and abominations killing people with no one in the Circle speaking or stepping up? How about a First Enchanter who actively campaigns to have the Knight Commander deposed, and is, at the time of the incident, refusing to allow a search of the Circle?

When Meredith calls for the RoA, Orsino does agree with allowing the full search (if I remember correctly). Meredith refuses saying that it's too late. Orsino might have had his reasons refusing Meredith's insistence on searching the mage quarters. It's not as if the two were having any kind of sensible debate when we meet up with them at the end.

Kerras actually makes a comment about this if you're a mage and you turn Grace in and get Varric to explain what's going on. He comments that it's odd for the mages to offer assistance in rounding up blood mages, runaways, and apostates.

Does that mean he requested the Circle mages for help before and they refused? Or does it mean it never occured to him in the first place to ask for help, and when such an opportunity accidentally presented itself, he found the whole thing odd?

So you have the Circle refusing to assist in the capture of people who regularly pose a danger to the public, actively campaigning against the Templars, and refusing a search of the Circle. You then have a mage, an abomination no less blowing up the Chantry and claiming to act for all mages, but we're not supposed to lump the Circle in with him?

A refusal to help by the Circle, even if you're correct in your assessment, doesn't automatically equate to the notion that all the Circle mages were somehow involved with Anders plot. And as far as I remember I don't think Anders ever claimed that he took the assistance of any mages, apostates, or otherwise, for his actions.

It's cyclical, the mages can't trust the Templars because Meredith is brutal, Meredith is brutal because she can't trust the mages,  At some point one side has to stop it.  By demonstrating that they are willing to assist in policing themselves Meredith can afford to loosen her grip, granting the mages greater freedoms.  With greater freedoms they can police themselves better and Meredith can loosen her grip again, and on, and on until it reaches the point Meredith doesn't feel she needs thugs like Kerras and Alrik to keep the mages in line.  Now this would work if it started early (around Tarohne) and Meredith didn't get the Idol. That the mages did nothing for too long, and Meredith was too far gone, made any kind of cooperation impossible.

Apart from your suggestion that the Circle mages did nothing (and we don't know the truth behind that), I very much like your idea. And it'd have been a much better alternative to what Anders did, in my opinion. Sometimes the bending over backwards and the reinforcing of trust has to happen to break the impasse.

EDIT: Fixing formatting and some typos...

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 30 janvier 2012 - 10:07 .

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Im saying I find it... funny... taht you are willing to point the finger at citizens of a nation, and blaming them for actions they can't possibly have ahd any influence on. Yet you seem unwilling to point the finger far enough back in the case of Anders, and present him as an isolated case.

You seem to confuse ethics with politics. The only connection that anders has with the circle is that he is a mage. He has no political connections at all. A person that remains in a country is actively supporting the current goverment unless they are in a state of rebellion

[EmperorSahlertz]

Anders had several contacts within the Circle, and he was working with members of it to smuggle mages out of it. So obviously Anders had connections to the Circle, beyond just being a mage.

[MichaelFinnegan]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Anders had several contacts within the Circle, and he was working with members of it to smuggle mages out of it. So obviously Anders had connections to the Circle, beyond just being a mage.

To clear up a few facts: Anders is an escaped Circle mage and former Grey Warden, who during Act 2 had joined a group of like-minded apostates to help mages escape the Kirkwall Circle.

So there is no basis to even consider the further argument that whether being a part of the Circle alone would be enough to hold every other Circle mage accountable for one particular action of a Circle mage, which by the way I haven't made.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Ah.. So now you have to be part of the organization to be eliglbe to partake in the blame?

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Ah.. So now you have to be part of the organization to be eliglbe to partake in the blame?

You finally get it. I only blame a group of people if they share the same political view. Anders and the circle where not the same entity. Civilians in a country however support or condone the current regime. This makes the civilians responsible for the actions of the country.

Now that does not mean that you should mass murder civilians. But if the civilians are someway supporting the military they become vaild targets. In my opinion all chantry followers priests and templars are responsible for the actions of the templars. And as such any priest or chantry followers that actively support the templars becomes a valid military target. And as such the destruction of the kirkwall chantry is valid. As the chantry is responsible for the finances logistics and recruitment of the templars and as such play big in maintaining the templars.

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Ah.. So now you have to be part of the organization to be eliglbe to partake in the blame?

You have to be in some way supporting or influencing the organization.

Worshippers help keep the Chantry going, they believe and spread the Chantry dogma.  If more of them opposed the worst parts of the Chantry's behavior, it would slowly have to change.  This can be witnessed looking at modern churches who have slowly modernized their preachings to continue to bring in worshippers and donations.  (Or slowly become even more insular and hateful when their adherents lean that way.)

Anders was beyond the influence of the circle.  He could not be stopped even by the woman he loved and the friends he'd traveled with for years.  Sure he had been a circle mage, because the Templars had siezed him as a child and dragged him away in chains.  Saying he "joined" the circle is like saying an inmate joins a prison work crew.  Mages aren't "members" of a circle so much as they are a captive of it, and so why should they share the blame for things that other inmates do?

Meredith on the other hand signed up for the Templars, rose in their ranks and then used that position to gather even more power and control over the mages.  The Chantry officials who were supposed to control her (Elthina et al.) apparently joined up willingly as well, and then failed to do anything effective to protect the mages.  The poplulace gets to feel somewhat safer at the expense of the mages and for the most part contribute to the status quo.

So I think there's a clear distinction between participating in and benefitting from something (citizens in a democracy, members of a church etc) and thus sharing some of the blame... and being a captive of or suffering under something (citizens in a dictatorship, circle mages etc.) and thus not sharing the blame for the actions of the organization.

To be clear however, my concept of "sharing the blame" for the small folk who just light a candle now and then is along the lines of: "hey, perhaps you should have a chat with the local Mother and tell her you think they could lighten up on mages a bit"...  not "hey, I'ma spilt you open with my sword!"

[Xilizhra]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Im saying I find it... funny... taht you are willing to point the finger at citizens of a nation, and blaming them for actions they can't possibly have ahd any influence on. Yet you seem unwilling to point the finger far enough back in the case of Anders, and present him as an isolated case.

I admit that the first point is going too far. I wouldn't attack ordinary citizens for the Chantry's actions, and in Anders' place, probably wouldn't have blown up the Chantry. But now that he's already done that, I have to make the best of it.

[Lazy Jer]

DKJaigen wrote...

You finally get it. I only blame a group of people if they share the same political view. Anders and the circle where not the same entity. Civilians in a country however support or condone the current regime. This makes the civilians responsible for the actions of the country.

Now that does not mean that you should mass murder civilians. But if the civilians are someway supporting the military they become vaild targets. In my opinion all chantry followers priests and templars are responsible for the actions of the templars. And as such any priest or chantry followers that actively support the templars becomes a valid military target. And as such the destruction of the kirkwall chantry is valid. As the chantry is responsible for the finances logistics and recruitment of the templars and as such play big in maintaining the templars.

Chantry followers are valid military targets?  Are you kidding?

In the highly unlikely event that you're not, then I couldn't disagree more.  These are people whose only crime was believing in a specific religion.  I might remind you that the Chant of Light has more chapters then just the ones on mages.  In fact the only ones I can think of are the one about magic serving mankind rather then ruling over him and the origin of the Darkspawn.  The latter chapter could be argued to be more a condemnation of pride then magic itself.  But I digress.

Deciding that someone is a valid military target simply because the specific religion they subscribe to is what caused the so called "Exalted March on the Dales".  It wasn't right as applied to the Daleish and it's not right applied to those who follow the teachings of Andraste.

[DKJaigen]

No i have specifically said if a chantry follower is actively supporting the templars they become a target not before that. Should a village supply foodstuffs to the templars then its of utmost tactical importance to destroy that village. If i wish to compeletly wish to destabalize the country i will leave the people of the burned down villages alive.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Yet you have also claimed that the Chantry and the Templar Order is one and the same, and by supporting the Chantry you are supporting the Templars. Supply depots are rarely something you can afford to actually destroy and are worth much much much more to actually capture and keep, than what you could possibly hope to gain by destroying them.

By the way, you don't destabalie the countryside by leaving the villagers alive, quite the contrary. You only add to the strength of your enemy. You'd destabalize by leaving only one villager alive, preferably a child, in the same vein as the Huns and Mongols had a habit of doing.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 30 janvier 2012 - 09:43 .

[Lazy Jer]

DKJaigen wrote...

No i have specifically said if a chantry follower is actively supporting the templars they become a target not before that. Should a village supply foodstuffs to the templars then its of utmost tactical importance to destroy that village. If i wish to compeletly wish to destabalize the country i will leave the people of the burned down villages alive.

How is Anders' blowing up the entire Chantry Building targeting just those specific supporters?  Secondly, I feel I should point out that Anders isn't an army.  He's not even a country, unless his hovel in Darktown was officially recognized by Orlais.  So this talk about militarily acceptable targets is more or less moot.

[DPSSOC]

[quote]The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...




[quote]Yes, plot stupidity. You do recall Alain pointing out that Decimus had lost is flipping mind and was likely possessed right?[/quote]

Alain's speculation on Decimus doesn't equal fact, and you cannot say "He has to be insane" without proof of a fragile mind.

No sane man would profane the dead? I think Danarius would disagree. He's sane, yet a slimeball. But he's sane.



[quote]
This isn't like Thrask kidnapping someone to keep you off his back, this is a man who's established, from the get go, as being off his rocker.[/quote]

Again, saying someone is insane doesn't make them so. There has to be proof of it and not just how you personally view a man's actions simply because you've been brought up to believe blood magic is inherently evil.

This is why insanity defenses require a lot of work. Because you have to have proof that the man who committed a crime was cuckoo for cocoa puffs.

Decimus muttering to himself and acting slightly to majorly schizophrenic would've shown that he was off his rocker. Alain saying "He's insane because he's using blood magic!" isn't.[/quote]

True, on it's own Alain's assertion is not enough to establish Decimus as insane, had Decimus greated me and acted otherwise normal I would have questioned Alain's claim.  However Decimus' actions reinforce the assertion that he's insane (blindly attacking anyone outside his group that approaches), and it's not plot stupidity because, unlike Thrask who's portrayed as sensible and has never hesitated in requesting your aid with mages before, we're never given any indication that Decimus isn't nuts.  We don't encounter anyone who claims Decimus is of sound mind, the only thing we're told is that he's crazy.  Hawke not leaping at the opportunity to kill obviously dangerous people is plot stupidity, Thrask kidnapping your sibling/romance is plot stupidity, Hawke standing by and doing nothing while Grace expresses her intent to kill him/her and the hostage while killing Thrask is plot stupidity.  A character we only hear described as crazy acting crazy is not plot stupidity.  It's not exactly top notch writing, but it's not plot stupidity.


[quote]The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
[quote]
And the whole, "What do I care what shield they carry? If they challenge us, the dead themselves shall heed the call." line. That didn't come across as intent to conquer? "All who stand before use shall fall," didn't set off any alarms? [/quote]

No it doesn't come off as "MUAHAHAHA I WILL RULE YOU ALL!" It came off as unjustified insanity for a man that would sacrifice himself and do whatever it took to see his friends free from Templar control.

[/quote]

In all my playthroughs have I missed a line of dialogue?  Where is this idea that Decimus isn't cuckoo for coco puffs coming from?

[quote]DKJaigen wrote...
@DPSSOC

Whatever you think mages will do is irrelevant is a social matter.[/quote]

Me personally no but what the characters believe to be the likely outcome of an event effects how they respond to it. Meredith clearly believes even leniency with mages will be disasterous, let alone full blown freedom, and that directs her actions.

[quote]DKJaigen wrote...
But any sane person will now support the mages. In a world where their is enemy living under the ground that has the potential to eradicate the entire human , elven and dwarven races from the land you cannot allow the destruction of the only people who can prevent that(for your information you need mages to create grey wardens). Mages are needed for humanity to survive. And by destroying the mages the templars have actively endangerd the entire human race. For such crimes the templars and the chantry can no longer be allowed to exist.[/quote]

Mages are being born every year, there are still the Chantry loyalists to teach them, and blights are typically separated by centuries. The current slate can be wiped clean and the Circle can start fresh with little risk of dooming mankind.

[quote]DKJaigen wrote...
What happens after the circle free themselves is therefore irrelevant. As long humans survive they can alter their society.[/quote]

No they can't. In our world yes we can alter our society because not matter how powerful a dictator or despot is they still rely on people and if we can turn enough people to our cause we can affect change. When said dictator can shoot fireballs from his hands and the entire ruling class can do the same it doesn't matter how many people we win over if we can't win over some of that ruling class. Fenris points out rebellions happen all the time in the Imperium and they're put down hard because no matter how numerous they are non mages can't hope to oppose the Magisters.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]DPSSOC wrote...
I love how you say this like the only reason for her actions is mustache twirling villainy. Misguided and insane though she may be Meredith is working to protect the non-mages (you know the majority of people) from blood mages and abominations (which are rampant) as well as the reason for the initial set up of the Circle which was in response to 1,000 plus years of Magister tyranny, which is continually shown to be necessary by the on going Magister tyranny in present day Tevinter.[/quote]
Meredith I think should never have been within the templar ranks, to begin with. Her history and her emotional attachment toward the incident with her family, as somebody pointed out a few pages back, should have been sufficient not to ever recruit her. Why? The other half of being a templar is to protect mages also, from both demonic influences and from whatever danger the rest of the world posed toward them, even going to extreme lengths to ensure that. That, in addition to what you mentioned above, is what being a templar is all about. I don't think it's ever possible to do justice to only one aspect of a templar's work, and somehow hope negligence of the other aspect won't come back to bite severely in the longer run.[/quote]

No arguments Meredith was a terrible Knight Commander, but it is dishonest at best and delusional at worst to say, "Meredith just has it out for the mages," when she clearly has motivations outside hating mages (though that is one).

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]
However poorly she does her job Meredith is trying to protect people from powers they can't stand up against. She's not just oppressing the mages for the sake of oppressing them she's oppressing them because they insist on regularly demonstrating that they're dangerous. It's not like we ever get this scene.[/quote]
Perhaps the entire point is that the mages are being oppressed. Perhaps you didn't mean to state it that way, but what she ended up not doing was preventing the oppressing of mages that was happening under her very leadership. One cannot harp on the rampancy of blood mages, abominations and so on, without even analyzing whether that someone herself isn't in some way contributing to the general mayhem.[/quote]

Allow me to clarify I'm saying that while Meredith was oppressing the mages (and she was) she wasn't doing it solely for kicks or because she had something against the mages, she was doing it because she felt it was the best way to protect the most people. Her motivations don't excuse her actions but neither does the fact she was wrong erase her motivations.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]
Kerras actually makes a comment about this if you're a mage and you turn Grace in and get Varric to explain what's going on. He comments that it's odd for the mages to offer assistance in rounding up blood mages, runaways, and apostates.[/quote]
Does that mean he requested the Circle mages for help before and they refused? Or does it mean it never occured to him in the first place to ask for help, and when such an opportunity accidentally presented itself, he found the whole thing odd?[/quote]

Again just my interpretation but it came across to me that he found it odd for Mages to volunteer assistance in dealing with problems.


[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]
So you have the Circle refusing to assist in the capture of people who regularly pose a danger to the public, actively campaigning against the Templars, and refusing a search of the Circle. You then have a mage, an abomination no less blowing up the Chantry and claiming to act for all mages, but we're not supposed to lump the Circle in with him?[/quote]
A refusal to help by the Circle, even if you're correct in your assessment, doesn't automatically equate to the notion that all the Circle mages were somehow involved with Anders plot.[/quote]

Involved no but as I pointed out their inaction, their decision to not even try to do anything for so long (Orsino in Year 7 is the only indication of mages trying to reign in their own), can be taken as silent approval of mages very much like Anders.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
And as far as I remember I don't think Anders ever claimed that he took the assistance of any mages, apostates, or otherwise, for his actions.[/quote]

No but he does claim to speak for all mages. He's decided that the Circle's gone on too long, he's decided that Orsino hasn't been doing his bit, and he's decided to push this thing to violence.

[quote]MichaelFinnegan wrote...
[quote]
It's cyclical, the mages can't trust the Templars because Meredith is brutal, Meredith is brutal because she can't trust the mages, At some point one side has to stop it. By demonstrating that they are willing to assist in policing themselves Meredith can afford to loosen her grip, granting the mages greater freedoms. With greater freedoms they can police themselves better and Meredith can loosen her grip again, and on, and on until it reaches the point Meredith doesn't feel she needs thugs like Kerras and Alrik to keep the mages in line. Now this would work if it started early (around Tarohne) and Meredith didn't get the Idol. That the mages did nothing for too long, and Meredith was too far gone, made any kind of cooperation impossible.[/quote]
Apart from your suggestion that the Circle mages did nothing (and we don't know the truth behind that),[/quote]

We're given no indication either way, nothing to suggest they are or are not trying to do something about the nuttier among them. Without proof of the positive I assume the negative, I find I'm right more often that way.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 31 janvier 2012 - 01:29 .

[Xilizhra]

The current slate can be wiped clean and the Circle can start fresh with little risk of dooming mankind.

Yes, the Circle can start fresh, with all Chantry influence purged.

No arguments Meredith was a terrible Knight Commander, but it is dishonest at best and delusional at worst to say, "Meredith just has it out for the mages," when she clearly has motivations outside hating mages (though that is one).

Actually, I don't think she hates them at all. I think she loves them, and her ways of expressing such are incredibly twisted thanks to her familial issues.

[Rifneno]

Lazy Jer wrote...

How is Anders' blowing up the entire Chantry Building targeting just those specific supporters?  Secondly, I feel I should point out that Anders isn't an army.  He's not even a country, unless his hovel in Darktown was officially recognized by Orlais.  So this talk about militarily acceptable targets is more or less moot.

If it's moot, then why are you trying to argue what is and isn't acceptable targets?
You know why they say war is hell?  Because war is hell.  War is a last resort, but when it comes to that last resort, you can't give every person at your target a damn trial.

[Xilizhra]

Rifneno wrote...

Lazy Jer wrote...

How is Anders' blowing up the entire Chantry Building targeting just those specific supporters?  Secondly, I feel I should point out that Anders isn't an army.  He's not even a country, unless his hovel in Darktown was officially recognized by Orlais.  So this talk about militarily acceptable targets is more or less moot.

If it's moot, then why are you trying to argue what is and isn't acceptable targets?
You know why they say war is hell?  Because war is hell.  War is a last resort, but when it comes to that last resort, you can't give every person at your target a damn trial.

Though we should keep in mind that war may be hell, but there's no reason to deliberately make it more hellish than necessary.

Truth be told, with Asunder, I'm no longer certain that Anders' bomb was the right decision per se, since it didn't seem to actually start the war.

[Plaintiff]

Xilizhra wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Lazy Jer wrote...

How is Anders' blowing up the entire Chantry Building targeting just those specific supporters?  Secondly, I feel I should point out that Anders isn't an army.  He's not even a country, unless his hovel in Darktown was officially recognized by Orlais.  So this talk about militarily acceptable targets is more or less moot.

If it's moot, then why are you trying to argue what is and isn't acceptable targets?
You know why they say war is hell?  Because war is hell.  War is a last resort, but when it comes to that last resort, you can't give every person at your target a damn trial.

Though we should keep in mind that war may be hell, but there's no reason to deliberately make it more hellish than necessary.

Truth be told, with Asunder, I'm no longer certain that Anders' bomb was the right decision per se, since it didn't seem to actually start the war.

I'm of the opinion that the "war" has always been going, personally, even if nobody officially recognised it.