2008 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

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

One could say that, true.

[Lazy Jer]

Rifneno wrote...

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.

 

I am trying to argue, Rifneno, that there are no acceptable targets.  Because, and this is an important point....it wasn't war until Anders blew up the Chantry Building.  It's a bit like walking up to someone and smacking them in the head with a hammer and saying "I had to do whatever it takes to win this fight."

War is hell...darn right it is!  So Anders brought hell to both sides and the worst thing that happens to him is that he gets a sharp pointy massage in the back, while Templars and Mages all across Thedas are going to go through a living hell that's going to cause bitter resentment and increase bigotry on both sides and is going to make the Vale thinner then Gamlen's hair.  So again...sorry if I'm not nominating Anders for Martyr of the Year.

[Plaintiff]

Lazy Jer wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

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.

 

I am trying to argue, Rifneno, that there are no acceptable targets.  Because, and this is an important point....it wasn't war until Anders blew up the Chantry Building.  It's a bit like walking up to someone and smacking them in the head with a hammer and saying "I had to do whatever it takes to win this fight."

War is hell...darn right it is!  So Anders brought hell to both sides and the worst thing that happens to him is that he gets a sharp pointy massage in the back, while Templars and Mages all across Thedas are going to go through a living hell that's going to cause bitter resentment and increase bigotry on both sides and is going to make the Vale thinner then Gamlen's hair.  So again...sorry if I'm not nominating Anders for Martyr of the Year.

Gamlen has a pretty full head of hair.

And the mage/templar war, like all wars, is the result of many different things. Anders can't be blamed for it, nobody can. There is no single inciting incident, it's the result of 900 years worth of increasing tension.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 31 janvier 2012 - 03:30 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Plaintiff wrote...

Gamlen has a pretty full head of hair.

And the mage/templar war, like all wars, is the result of many different things. Anders can't be blamed for it, nobody can. There is no single inciting incident, it's the result of 900 years worth of increasing tension.

Were they truly increasing? It seems, if anything, tensions have remained fairly steady. I mean, they have, after all, gone on this way for 900 years. And depending on your choices in DAO, it could very well be seen in the world that steps were being taken to produce greater freedoms and lax control by Templars with the Circle.

So things in Kirkwall have gotten more tense... but that's because a crazy psychopath was in charge of the Templars. What really set things off was when another crazy psychopath killed a bunch of people and caused a bigger bloodbath battle, which, in turn, resulted in a full scale war escalation.

World War 1, which at the time was simply called "The Great War," was due to an overflow of dozens of European alliances, all set against each other in a great political web of treaties and plots. But you know what set it all off? Five dumb guys in their 20's, calling themselves The Black Hand, killed a random duke. This meant two small Eastern European countries went to war over it. Of course, with the vast web of treaties and alliances, almost every country in Europe got pulled into the war, all desperate to exert their force against old rivals in an attempt to even old scores. Eventually, African colonies and the Ottoman Empire was pulled into the struggle and the fight even crossed the Atlantic, getting America involved to stop a German victory.

All over five dumb guys doing what they believed was "right" to answer for the "wrongs" they felt were done to them and their countrymen. It resulted in more lives lost than any war previous and set the stage up for it to repeat itself again twenty years later, but with MORE drastic casualties and horrors visited in World War 2. The war machines built out of these two giant, worldwide conflicts fueled the Cold War, which for decades held the spectre of nuclear holocaust over the heads of millions. And, during the conflict of the Cold War, places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Somalia and Korea were ripped apart and militias and fundamentalists were given money, weapons and training to attack the Communist and Capitalist sides. Which leads us today's problems, where radical groups in the Middle East, Asia and Africa could obtain nuclear technology and kill more people in one day than an army could in a month during World War 1.

Would this string of events have happened regardless of the actions of The Black Hand? Maybe, maybe not. But that doesn't mean that the actions of the Black Hand, those five young guys who couldn't think beyond one "revolutionary act" set off a course of events that forever changed the world, for the absolute and terrible worst.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 janvier 2012 - 04:48 .

[TEWR]

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

Indeed. I have said the same thing before. It was a secret war fought without the public's knowledge, and Anders and Meredith only made it known that there was a war going on.

And then Asunder pushed it to happen in the areas outside of the Circles.

[Lazy Jer]

Plaintiff wrote...

Gamlen has a pretty full head of hair.

Not the point.<_<

And the mage/templar war, like all wars, is the result of many different things. Anders can't be blamed for it, nobody can. There is no single inciting incident, it's the result of 900 years worth of increasing tension.

First of all the post above mine makes a lot of good points.  Second of all, while the history of the entire Circle/Templar system made the situation primed for Anders plot, he still can very much be blamed.  If he hadn't blown up the Chantry Building, Meredeth wouldn't have called for the Right of Annulment.  If Meredeth hadn't called for the Right of Annulment, the mages wouldn't have had to defend themselves.  In short, the Circle/Templar system in Kirkwall specifically may have been a powderkeg, but someone *cough*Anderjustice*cough* lite the fuse.

[TEWR]

First of all the post above mine makes a lot of good points. Second of all, while the history of the entire Circle/Templar system made the situation primed for Anders plot, he still can very much be blamed. If he hadn't blown up the Chantry Building, Meredeth wouldn't have called for the Right of Annulment. If Meredeth hadn't called for the Right of Annulment, the mages wouldn't have had to defend themselves. In short, the Circle/Templar system in Kirkwall specifically may have been a powderkeg, but someone *cough*Anderjustice*cough* lite the fuse.

You're ignoring the part where she went over Elthina's head to petition the Divine for the ability to call an RoA, after Elthina said no.

Add into that the fact that she believes Hawke is a blood mage thrall if he says Orsino wasn't involved in Best Served Cold's "rebellion", and I have no doubts that at some point in time she would've thought that Elthina's saying "No" to the RoA would've been evidence of Elthina being a thrall as well.

And then she would've killed her and called it a "mercy killing for a dear friend", and then ordered the RoA. Or if Elthina's subordinate took over and also said no, Meredith might kill her too.

And then keep killing until someone granted it out of fear or a similar belief on the mages.

[MichaelFinnegan]

DPSSOC wrote...

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).

Fair enough, I guess. Although there is actually no way to know where one derives one's motivations from. But that is not the only point I was making. Observe how your own principle (about the reinforcing of trust between the mages and templars even under the most extreme of circumstances) could work and how Meredith almost thwarts it: this completely changed the way I view Cullen.

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.

I suppose I'd have to acknowledge that you're right, to an extent. I don't know where Cullen gets his ideas about what it means to be a templar or where Meredith gets it from, and it's clear that they're not the same idea, and it is also clear that both the approaches won't work in practice in the same way. So, by going out of her way to save the people from the destructive tendencies of the mages, Meredith wasn't entirely in the wrong with regard to her motivations; but on the off-chance that Cullen is right about going out of his way to help mages who've not shown any real tendencies of being a danger to others, I'd have to make a case that Meredith was indeed severly negligent in her motivations, by disregarding a critical part of her duties; which would probably have to be traced back to her letting of her personal experiences rule over her reasoning powers.

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

There are some practical problems with thinking that mages would have many chances to come forward and offer help to the templars in rounding up, say, the blood mages. Mages locked away within the Circle aren't in the know about what exactly happens in the outside world. Templars have to be the source of that information; since it's they who'd probably come to know first about any apostates or blood mages; Circle mages even if they get to know would probably do so if the templars inform them or they'd have to rely on hearsay and rumors. So I actually find it odd that Kerras would say something like that, unless he was probably realizing his own preconceptions and prejudices.

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.

I personally think you're not cutting enough slack for the mages. The initiation of trust, the request for help, has to come from the captors, the templars, and mages can only respond to that. If such an initation happened and mages failed to respond, I believe you have a case, and you'd have no arguments from me.

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.

I still disagree. Commiting an action and saying that Anders speaks for all mages isn't the same thing as saying that he had accomplices in the Circle or among other mages or that the other mages were siliently approving. Anders' bombing took everyone by surprise, and Meredith's immediate reaction gave nobody time to think the situation through rationally. True, there was hardly any wiggle room at that point, but even Orsino is willing to budge at that point saying he'd help Meredith in whatever manner possible - Orsino's immeditately been put on the defensive and all the other mages are in an utterly helpless situation, forced to fend for their lives. Anders wasn't speaking for many of them; and faced with such a sitution Meredith should have really bent over backwards to analyze the situation, instead, for her it was all her worst nightmares (however senseless or invalid) coming to reality, right there.

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.

I suppose I tend toward the neutral in this instance since I'm not sure exactly "how" the mages could have done anything to help.

EDIT: Corrected a misinterpretation.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 31 janvier 2012 - 06:55 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Lazy Jer wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
And the mage/templar war, like all wars, is the result of many different things. Anders can't be blamed for it, nobody can. There is no single inciting incident, it's the result of 900 years worth of increasing tension.

First of all the post above mine makes a lot of good points.  Second of all, while the history of the entire Circle/Templar system made the situation primed for Anders plot, he still can very much be blamed.  If he hadn't blown up the Chantry Building, Meredeth wouldn't have called for the Right of Annulment.  If Meredeth hadn't called for the Right of Annulment, the mages wouldn't have had to defend themselves.  In short, the Circle/Templar system in Kirkwall specifically may have been a powderkeg, but someone *cough*Anderjustice*cough* lite the fuse.

I believe Plaintiff's point was about the starting of the mage-templar war, not about the incident at Kirkwall. I look at Anders' destruction of the Chantry, which in turn was a result of the many other things that led up to it, was not the proximate cause for the war itself; if anything the broaching of the subject of the morality and effectiveness of the Tranquility by the Divine (which happened much before the destruction of Kirkwall Circle), and then the decision during the conclave to initiate a motion for separation of the Circle from the Chantry and the resulting reaction by the Lord Seeker, among many other things that need not all be traced back to Anders' actions, at the White Spire at Val Royeaux, a year or more after the incident at Kirkwall, had as much to do with the war as the happenings at Kirkwall.

Looking at particular incident and setting that up as "the triggering incident" would perhaps be like not seeing the forest for the trees, as somebody pointed out on the last page.

[Rifneno]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

More than necessary? Define necessary. Wanton destruction is stupid and pointless, but you can't afford to hold your punches just because there's innocent people around. My philosophy is this: the battlefield is the. last. resort. You don't go to war until all other reasonable alternatives are well exhausted and you don't go to war over something trivial, you go to war when peaceful co-existence has been ruled out. But when it comes to that, then may God have mercy on your soul because you'll find none on Earth.

Peaceful co-existence with the Chantry is not possible. After a thousand years of oppression and multiple genocides, only a complete fool would think diplomacy is going to work now.

As for Asunder, I haven't read it. Never will. Just another eye-rolling, facepalming retcon to try and correct a "gray" issue that turned out to be pretty black and white. The Divine was ready to launch a crusade on Kirkwall because the mages were sick of the abuse. That's what we were told, and I give no respect to a retcon that turns the Chantry's depliction around as much as Return to Ostagar switched Loghain and Cailin. More bad writing. Looking more and more like DAO was the fluke in that it didn't suck rather than DA2 being the fluke.

Lazy Jer wrote...

I am trying to argue, Rifneno, that there are no acceptable targets. &nbsp;Because, and this is an important point....it wasn't war until Anders blew up the Chantry Building. It's a bit like walking up to someone and smacking them in the head with a hammer and saying "I had to do whatever it takes to win this fight."

If world leaders had that attitude back in the 30's, then the blue eyed blondes inhabiting this planet would all be speaking German right now.

... Okay, that wasn't a fair comparison. The Chantry has been persecuting a minority for about a thousand years longer than the other group. 

[Xilizhra]

More than necessary? Define necessary. Wanton destruction is stupid and pointless, but you can't afford to hold your punches just because there's innocent people around. My philosophy is this: the battlefield is the. last. resort. You don't go to war until all other reasonable alternatives are well exhausted and you don't go to war over something trivial, you go to war when peaceful co-existence has been ruled out. But when it comes to that, then may God have mercy on your soul because you'll find none on Earth.

Basically, that non-templars aren't targets. I'm not going to condemn Anders here (if I do kill him, something I haven't completely decided on yet, it's only to secure Sebastian's and Starkhaven's aid if possible), but this sort of thing isn't the kind of thing we should be going out of our way to do in the future (though, while it's distasteful, I can see the merit in goading templars into doing so to make them look worse).

Peaceful co-existence with the Chantry is not possible. After a thousand years of oppression and multiple genocides, only a complete fool would think diplomacy is going to work now.

I think it's possible, but only after the Chantry's army has been destroyed. Peace is rather easier when only one side has weapons, yes?

As for Asunder, I haven't read it. Never will. Just another eye-rolling, facepalming retcon to try and correct a "gray" issue that turned out to be pretty black and white. The Divine was ready to launch a crusade on Kirkwall because the mages were sick of the abuse. That's what we were told, and I give no respect to a retcon that turns the Chantry's depliction around as much as Return to Ostagar switched Loghain and Cailin. More bad writing. Looking more and more like DAO was the fluke in that it didn't suck rather than DA2 being the fluke.

It could be worse. Keeping the Chantry at its current depiction and then saying that they're a partially good faction, which may have been necessary for DA3, wouldn't be a desirable alternative.
And why did you dislike Return to Ostagar?

If world leaders had that attitude back in the 30's, then the blue eyed blondes inhabiting this planet would all be speaking German right now.

Not... quite true, as Hitler was the one who declared war on everyone. But your point is worth noting.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 31 janvier 2012 - 01:20 .

[Rifneno]

Xilizhra wrote...

Basically, that non-templars aren't targets. I'm not going to condemn Anders here (if I do kill him, something I haven't completely decided on yet, it's only to secure Sebastian's and Starkhaven's aid if possible), but this sort of thing isn't the kind of thing we should be going out of our way to do in the future (though, while it's distasteful, I can see the merit in goading templars into doing so to make them look worse).

Targets are people and places whose destruction is of significant detriment to the enemy. Whether they're holding a sword doesn't matter to me. A noble providing financial support or a dwarven cartel smuggling them more lyrium are both perfectly acceptable and not necessarily armed targets. My only objection to Anders is a strategic one, not an ethical one. If the inhabitants of the Chantry are viewed as martyrs, they may do far more good for the enemy dead than they ever could alive.

I think it's possible, but only after the Chantry's army has been destroyed. Peace is rather easier when only one side has weapons, yes?

True, but that's not really what I meant. I mean that peaceful co-existence sans persecution is impossible without war. That scenario is only possible after the Chantry loses the war.

It could be worse. Keeping the Chantry at its current depiction and then saying that they're a partially good faction, which may have been necessary for DA3, wouldn't be a desirable alternative.
And why did you dislike Return to Ostagar?

In vanilla DAO there was no hint of wrongdoing (other than stupidity) on Cailin's part and there's little reason to think Loghain had anything in mind other than regicide at Ostagar. Many times the retreat at Ostagar was brought up and there was never a serious case made for Loghain's withdrawal being merited. Alistair questions it and Flemeth basically just tells him that Loghain is evil and to get over it and defeat the Blight. True, Alistair is a little too close to it emotionally to trust his judgment. But why no one else that's not clearly on Loghain's side? No one even voices the possibility that it was a tactical decision. Probably because, you know, it wasn't. The reason Loghain tries to kill the warden and Alistair is the same reason that young noble was being tortured in Howe's dungeon (and his friend murdered): because witnesses to the event that aren't loyal to a fault to Loghain saw it for what it was, a knife in the back. Even Cauthrien has a "what the hell?!" reaction at the order to withdraw!
But then the fan feedback came. OMG, what is this?! People think Loghain is a bad guy?! But that was totally a gray thingie! No, we must fix this! ... And so we get Return to Ostagar, opening with Cailin's servant telling us in no uncertain terms that Loghain made the right call because even if the pincer plan worked perfectly the whole battle was suicide. And Cailin knew it. Not even Alistair voices objection to this revelation. Continuing on, we find Cailin's papers that imply he was putting his Excalibur in some Orlesian stone. But opps, it was a little vague. Oh look, here comes David Gaider to assure us that yes, Cailin was definitely planning to ditch Anora and marry Empress Celene. One wonders how he was going to commit treason when he was already planning a mass suicide with the bulk of his army, but let's not look too closely at his intentions. He was a traitor AND a traitor. Or something.
Reminiscent of Legacy, where Anders reacts with shock at the revelation that Tevinter magisters really did try to invade the Golden City and got corrupted. Even though he's clearly stated previously that he believed that story, he just didn't think it justified the Chantry's persecution for a thousand years. Multiple times. And what I love best, my favorite moment in all of gaming, when you give him back his own logic and say that it doesn't justify their oppression of mages today, he replies "Doesn't it? What else might they be right about?"

... Sorry, I have to go now. Just remembering that sick mockery of logic and good storytelling gives me a migraine.

[dragonflight288]

I've been keeping an eye on this thread since I last posted....page 17 or 18 I think. I generally don't like getting involved in discussions where it turns into "I'm right because such and such is not a military target for such and such reason." and "You can't be right because such and such actually oversee this and that thereby making them completely valid targets."

But then I saw this post.

More than necessary? Define necessary. Wanton destruction is stupid and pointless, but you can't afford to hold your punches just because there's innocent people around. My philosophy is this: the battlefield is the. last. resort. You don't go to war until all other reasonable alternatives are well exhausted and you don't go to war over something trivial, you go to war when peaceful co-existence has been ruled out. But when it comes to that, then may God have mercy on your soul because you'll find none on Earth.

And I have to agree 110%. I read Sun Tzu. War is not pretty. If you are in a calvary and charging an enemy army, but get an arrow in the shoulder and fall off your horse, you'll be trampled to death by your own calvary charging forward because they can't afford to stop.

For 900 years, the Chantry has been in charge. It has had Divines threaten to call an exalted march on her own cathedral because mages were protesting peacefully and it had abominations and blood mages causing havoc throughout the land.

You have families going out of their way to keep their children out of the Circle and you have mobs killing children because of superstition and prejudice against magic. Wynne mentions this in Origins when talking to her.

The Chantry teaches that they must lock up the mages to prevent the rise of another Imperium. But the Dalish aren't Tevinter, yet their mages are clan leaders. The Rivaini have seers who are mages, honored advisors and they aren't Tevinter, even if they voluntarily become possessed. The Chasind have mages and they aren't Tevinter.

The only real threat to the mages becoming another Tevinter is if the mages actively, as a group, seek political power.

When I play chess or Orcs Must Die (Xbox 360 Arcade Game), or some other strategy war game. I don't take into consideration how to win while keeping as many enemy pawns, Knights, Rooks, and even bishops alive as possible. I plot, scheme, and plan to take them all down. If they stand between me and victory, then they are expendable.

When I go against someone in a game of war, or when generals go into a war. Ideally they should look at going for the victory, but if anything stands between you and the goal, then they are a prime target.

The biggest problem with war is that everyone sees shades of grey. Often in war, one has to keep the view black and white. Otherwise you'd be caught up in inaction and second-guessing yourself. You have to pick a side and commit to it.

I think the game Risen does an excellent job of this. On an island with three factions. None of them are truly good. You have the Inquisition who go out of their way to keep the people on the island safe. But they conscript them like crazy because they need soldiers, and don't let anyone leave the town. Now you have an overpopulated town, and not enough food for everyone. The people are desperate for food, shelter, and other necessities. They are being taken advantage of by merchants. And the Inquisition does nothing to help them.

Then you have Don Esteban's bandits. They fight for the people. But they are thieves, pickpockets, backstabbers and thugs. They aren't afraid to hurt anyone who gets in the way of driving the Inquisition off the island. Even the very people they are fighting for.

Finally we have the mages. They seem all right at first. Running a soup kitchen for the homeless in town, offering magical aid to both the bandits and the Inquisition. But as the game progresses, its revealed they don't involve themselves at all with the outside world unless they're directly affected. They would let the people be torn apart by the wild animals of the island, remain unprotected, or starving if they weren't directly involved. They are full of indifference and apathy for the other factions, and are pretty neutral.

There are good, decent folk in each faction, and there are rotten, spineless little toads you want to crush beneath your heel in each faction. Corruption and brutality exists in all.

I mention this because in the end, there is no true good side or bad side. You have to pick a side, templars or mages, for whatever personal reasons you may have, and then stick to your guns. You will see corruption on your side. You will see abuse of power. You will see it on the other side as well. But there are also decent people on either side.

You can support the institution of the Chantry, the reformation of the Circles...and the Chantry as it stands won't let that happen. It would mean giving up power. Or you can be for the complete abolishment of either group. But mages will always be born every day. They will come into their power four to ten years from now. And they will need training to protect themselves from demons. They will need protection from a prejudiced world. That same world will need protection from the abominations and the mage criminals. So there will also always be a need for templars. And there will also always be a need for experienced mages to help and teach the new ones every day.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Did you seriously just compare the "lives" of your chess pawns, with the lives of your (theoretical) real life soliders?........ You don't care about the "lives" of your pawns because they... well.. they aren't alive. You care about your actual soldiers because they are. And if you don't then you aren't fit for command.

The hypocrisy of the mage-supporters in this thread is mind-staggering... I mean, just listen to them for one second. here they are, crying foul at a system they call unjust and evil. Yet in the same breath, they state they won't hesitate to commit the foulest of crimes to advance their own goals....

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 31 janvier 2012 - 04:42 .

[Xilizhra]

Targets are people and places whose destruction is of significant detriment to the enemy. Whether they're holding a sword doesn't matter to me. A noble providing financial support or a dwarven cartel smuggling them more lyrium are both perfectly acceptable and not necessarily armed targets. My only objection to Anders is a strategic one, not an ethical one. If the inhabitants of the Chantry are viewed as martyrs, they may do far more good for the enemy dead than they ever could alive.

Fair enough, but if we can, we should neutralize them without killing them.

True, but that's not really what I meant. I mean that peaceful co-existence sans persecution is impossible without war. That scenario is only possible after the Chantry loses the war.

True enough.

Reminiscent of Legacy, where Anders reacts with shock at the revelation that Tevinter magisters really did try to invade the Golden City and got corrupted. Even though he's clearly stated previously that he believed that story, he just didn't think it justified the Chantry's persecution for a thousand years. Multiple times. And what I love best, my favorite moment in all of gaming, when you give him back his own logic and say that it doesn't justify their oppression of mages today, he replies "Doesn't it? What else might they be right about?"

Actually, I think the purpose of Asunder is at least in part to make the mage revolution more mainstream-acceptable.

[Ivucci]

dragonflight288 wrote...

There are good, decent folk in each faction, and there are rotten, spineless little toads you want to crush beneath your heel in each faction. Corruption and brutality exists in all.

I mention this because in the end, there is no true good side or bad side. You have to pick a side, templars or mages, for whatever personal reasons you may have, and then stick to your guns. You will see corruption on your side. You will see abuse of power. You will see it on the other side as well. But there are also decent people on either side.
 

This, together with the notion that the mage-templar war has been silently going on for quite some time already, until someone got up enough nerve to call it that way, is very close to my standpoint.

At some point the whole thing reaches a stage when you simply can't turn your gaze away and you must pick a side. Picking a side does not mean idolizing your guys at all costs and condemning all the others. It means adding your voice, help and support to the cause that resonates with your viewpoint, for whatever reasons.

Which is what Anders meant by "removing the chance for compromise". Here I am, execute me, doom me forever or let me fight, but pick your side because there is no other solution, not at this time. And maybe, maybe at the end of all things there is a compromise that will let us live together in a more decent way than it has been so far. But to even reach that possibility, we have to go through a lot of sh*t first.

If there is any hypocrisy, it's in pretending that I (or, well, whoever) can be left out of this and can continue to live my life peacefully like nothing is happening.

[General User]

Am I the only one troubled by the prospect of giving some nutcase license to conduct his own personal war on society?

Modifié par General User, 31 janvier 2012 - 06:33 .

[dragonflight288]

Did you seriously just compare the "lives" of your chess pawns, with the lives of your (theoretical) real life soliders?........ You don't care about the "lives" of your pawns because they... well.. they aren't alive. You care about your actual soldiers because they are. And if you don't then you aren't fit for command.

The hypocrisy of the mage-supporters in this thread is mind-staggering... I mean, just listen to them for one second. here they are, crying foul at a system they call unjust and evil. Yet in the same breath, they state they won't hesitate to commit the foulest of crimes to advance their own goals....

If I were a general, of course I would care about their lives. I would believe in no one being left behind and honor men and women in service. But if I were a general and I saw a chance to end the war decisively with a victory, but if doing so required sacrificing a defensible location, a battle, or even an entire unit of soldiers, then I would do so in a heartbeat.

I would regret it and honor the soldiers under my command who died fighting. But someone has to make the tough decisions. In war, there will always be casualties, collateral damage to the non-military, whether from soldiers looting and raping (it's going to happen no matter which side you're on, even if the commanders are or are not aware of it) or a battle takes place in or near a city. Civilians will get caught in the crossfire. But if it means ending the war and saving that many more lives from being caught in the crossfire, I would do so.

You speak of hypocrisy of mage-supporters, and you are correct to a certain extent. The difference is we see a grave injustice over so long that we would rather have a reformation of the current system. The problem is that the current system is completely resistance to a peaceful coexistence. The Templars largely recruit from zealots instead of those with moral fiber. You can't reason with a zealot.

If a peaceful solution exists, I would jump on it without a thought. But if war is the only option, then I will fight for the side I think is more correct, and I will show no mercy at all because I know none would be given.

[esper]

Rifneno wrote...
snip

As for Asunder, I haven't read it. Never will. Just another eye-rolling, facepalming retcon to try and correct a "gray" issue that turned out to be pretty black and white. The Divine was ready to launch a crusade on Kirkwall because the mages were sick of the abuse. That's what we were told, and I give no respect to a retcon that turns the Chantry's depliction around as much as Return to Ostagar switched Loghain and Cailin. More bad writing. Looking more and more like DAO was the fluke in that it didn't suck rather than DA2 being the fluke.

snip
. 

I haven't read Asunder and also never will mostely because I don't like to mix media, so since dragon age is a gaming universe for me, I will never accept lore not presented in the games. The end.
 That said as I have read through Asunder threads from what I have gleamed I intereprent the situation as this. The Divine is smart enough and scared enough by the fact the someone actually targeted a chantry that she can see that the raising tension amongst the mages and templars will end violently and in fear of losing control of the mages and thereby the monopoly of magic that the chantry tries to enforce, she takes a gamble and tries to soften the blow for the mages in the hope that the chantry can keep their grip on them.
But it is too little and too late for the mages, and the templars see its as the chantry going soft on the belief that the chantry itself inserted in the templars. Results: 
Large potion of both groups (enought to make up for the most majority) deflects from the chantry.

Now this puts me in a diffucult position:

As a pro-mage person, I can definitly see that bargain with the chantry right now migth be a good card for the mages. They can earn a lot of good will by being 'reasonable'.
As and Anti-chantry person I do NOT want to give the chantry any control back to the chantry at any cost. And that count both mages and templars. In fact I will insist that the chantry is evil and work against it at every chance I get untill the remaning loyal forces have left the chantry and it has been completely removed from politics. (The thought of being a seeker in the next game)


I do not know if I am more promage than I am anti-chantry untill I stand in a situation where I have to choose between the two.

[EmperorSahlertz]

You can't reason with a zealot, so you decide to become zealots of your own cause. And you don't see that as counter-productive? What makes you any better than your enemy, if you are willing to stoop to the same lows as he? Then why should people favor you, if you are the same kind of beast as he?

[CrimsonZephyr]

The first step would be to defeat the Templars. They are now separate from the Chantry. To defeat the Templars, they will need both brilliant commanders and an eye for PR. That means no blood magic and avoiding wanton destruction where it is inadvisable. After gathering possible allies and defeating the Templars in battle, forcing the Chantry to terms would be much easier, as they are toothless without a substantial army. What the mages should NOT do is burn chantries, kill priests, and pillage the land of those they are trying to win over to their cause. The mages too often approach every conflict as though it were already lost - instead of freaking out and pulling out the blood magic right away, they need to hunker down, show a little more stiff upper lip, and approach the war as it is - an undecided conflict.

[dragonflight288]

You can't reason with a zealot, so you decide to become zealots of your own cause. And you don't see that as counter-productive? What makes you any better than your enemy, if you are willing to stoop to the same lows as he? Then why should people favor you, if you are the same kind of beast as he?

No. Zealots would refuse to believe in compromise or peaceful solutions at all. It's their way or death. Meredith was like that at then end of DA2. Anyone who disagreed with her was either a blood mage or a blood mage thrall. She went over Elthina's head for the RoA and even when Cullen tried to spare the three mages, she would rather kill them and couldn't be reasoned with. It required her templars ignoring her to spare the three mages.

I have said repeatedly I am open to a peaceful solution and reforming the Circle. I have said repeatedly in this and other threads that templars are needed. War is the absolute last option. When it's fight a war, give up all my liberties or die. I would fight rather than give up my freedoms or die. Most people would.

If a templar Knight Commander is willing to be reasonable, allow mages some freedoms to walk around outside the Circle, to be a healer in town, to fight in the army and serve their king, to have families of their own, then I'd be all over it.

Mages need to learn to defend themselves from demons and a safe place to study and train. The Circle is needed. But not in an environment where the Chantry and Templars can blatantly abuse their authority over mages who have not committed any crimes.

If such a peaceful solution exists, then I would jump all over it and fight against a war with all my heart. I don't want conflict or war. Innocent bystanders will get hurt or killed. Families will be destroyed as they lose fathers, sons, and daughters. Everyone will be affected by some form of tragedy, seeing friends suffer and die from injuries or infections on the battlefield if a healer or medic is not available.

The difference between the average mage-supporter and Anders and Meredith is pretty simple. We see the injustices that Anders saw and experienced. We see the dangers Meredith warns everyone of, and they truly do exist. But we seek a way for mages to have more freedoms while keeping the people safe.

Meredith and the Chantry won't budge on the issue. It's their way or death.

[EmperorSahlertz]

You don't want war, but you seem to find it acceptable (at least you said you would), to sacrifice anyhting and everyhting that stands in the way of your victory. I don't want war, but if that is what is comming, I will not make any civilian sacrifices unless there are absolutely no alternatives. Hearts and minds are what wins a war, by the end of the day. Not guns and bullets.

The Chantry, or at least the current Divine, has proven to be remarkably mage-friendly, and recognizes the mages' blight. Yet the mages try to assassinate her, and bomb the Chantry's churches. That is not exactly the best way of convincing Templars that mages are able to handle the pressure of freedom. Likewise with the Templars. There are too many cases of them abusing their authority over the mages, but with a mage-friendly Divine, that would likely had been able to change, within the current age of Thedas. But then you have such utterly moronic mages like the one who tries to assassinate the Divine, and Fiona (by god is she stupid...) and Adrian.
You don't keep the people safe by starting a global war. You want more freedom for mages, then perhaps the mages should've grown a brain and then used the perfect political playing field they had, with several out of boudns Knight-Commanders like Meredith, and a mage-friendly Divine. But noooooo lets go bomb them churces... Yeah, the mages can go shove it now. They've already lost this war.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 31 janvier 2012 - 08:45 .

[Lazy Jer]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

You're ignoring the part where she went over Elthina's head to petition the Divine for the ability to call an RoA, after Elthina said no.

Add into that the fact that she believes Hawke is a blood mage thrall if he says Orsino wasn't involved in Best Served Cold's "rebellion", and I have no doubts that at some point in time she would've thought that Elthina's saying "No" to the RoA would've been evidence of Elthina being a thrall as well.

And then she would've killed her and called it a "mercy killing for a dear friend", and then ordered the RoA. Or if Elthina's subordinate took over and also said no, Meredith might kill her too.

And then keep killing until someone granted it out of fear or a similar belief on the mages.

...and you're assuming that the Divine would have said yes without sending word to Grand Cleric.  You're also assuming that Meredeth would have been able to continue bumping off "blood mage thrall" indiscriminately without someone under her stepping in and saying "enough is enough".  I'm assuming that someone would step in.  Especially considering this that the Grand Cleric would be the first person on this supposed chopping block.

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

I believe Plaintiff's point was about the starting of the mage-templar war, not about the incident at Kirkwall. I look at Anders' destruction of the Chantry, which in turn was a result of the many other things that led up to it, was not the proximate cause for the war itself; if anything the broaching of the subject of the morality and effectiveness of the Tranquility by the Divine (which happened much before the destruction of Kirkwall Circle), and then the decision during the conclave to initiate a motion for separation of the Circle from the Chantry and the resulting reaction by the Lord Seeker, among many other things that need not all be traced back to Anders' actions, at the White Spire at Val Royeaux, a year or more after the incident at Kirkwall, had as much to do with the war as the happenings at Kirkwall.

Looking at particular incident and setting that up as "the triggering incident" would perhaps be like not seeing the forest for the trees, as somebody pointed out on the last page.

I believe my powder keg annology should have adequately addressed both the forest and the trees.  I fail to see how believing that there was a triggering incident fails to acknowledge that other factors went into the development of the war in question.

Rifneno wrote...

If world leaders had that attitude back in the 30's, then the blue eyed blondes inhabiting this planet would all be speaking German right now.

... Okay, that wasn't a fair comparison. The Chantry has been persecuting a minority for about a thousand years longer than the other group.

Are invoking Godwin's Law about the actual World War II or some strange imaginary one where a certain German chancelor and ex-painter didn't start the war?  I'm guessing the latter.

EDIT:  Removed a four-letter word describing the popular German political party in the 1930's and 1940's.  Didn't know the word was forbidden sorry about that, Mods.

Modifié par Lazy Jer, 31 janvier 2012 - 09:06 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

Wait, you're putting up Justinia as the fulcrum upon which mage freedom would be earned? Not likely. This is, after all, the woman who lost the loyalty of almost her entire military precisely because she wasn't hardcore enough for them.

As for the mages, really, having the Libertarians arrested would have been enough. All of the mages' problems stem from that fraternity. The Aequitarians even led a vote against secession, which passed, until the Lord Seeker, again, got too hardcore and tried to clamp down on the entire Circle - which, I repeat, had just voted to remain under Chantry control.