2008 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

From what I've read on the forums -- haven't read Asunder yet -- the Templar mindset was that of "Kill the Divine. Put someone less mage-friendly and more malleable to our desires in charge".

They'd have prefered a Divine who was more aligned to the Templar values, sure. But tehy didn't want to go so far as to kill the Divine. Hence why the left the Chantry, instead of just having her replaced. Mages on the other tried to have her killed. Despite her attempts to help them.

Xilizhra wrote...

Hell, even the Templars agreed to let the amges meet to work out a new set of rules for the Circles. But what does the mages do? They spit in the face of the people trying to help them, and start discussing open rebellion! But what did I expect? Mages aren't smart after all, as they've proven again and again.

They were right to do so. It's all just bull**** the Chantry is going to be throwing around to stay in control unless its control is completely smashed. Preferably along with the nation of Orlais.

Not accepting the Chantry's offer was both political and social suicide. Now the only way the mages will ever know peace is to take control. Otherwise they will be hated and shunned by all. Unless of course Fiona and Adrian are disposed of, and a leader of actual merit and skill takes over. 

[Xilizhra]

Given that the templars have rebelled as well, they may well not be looked upon with any more kindness. If the Chantry is willing to release control of the Circles, this can still be resolved with relatively little blood.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 15 février 2012 - 02:24 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Templars didn't actually rebel, as much as they declared the accord they were serving the Chantry under was broken, by the Chantry, and that they were no longer bound to serve the Chantry.
And there is no hope of a solution with limited bloodshed as long as the mages are lead by utter retards like Fiona and Adrian, or the Templars by Lambert (if he is actually alive).

[Xilizhra]

Then the mages fight and destroy the templars. After that, we see what the Chantry does. If the Chantry tries other means to restrict us, we fight and beat them until they stop and allow us self-governance.

The Chantry was never in a moral position to bargain for anything less than complete surrender. Saying "Oh, we'll just oppress you a little less" is worthless. Its control must be swept away completely.

[EmperorSahlertz]

What do you mean "us"?...

Anyway... Ideally the mages would fight to survive and for their place in the world, and not "the destruction of the Templars". Templars are an icon to the people of Thedas, and will probably always remain so, given that their like will always be needed, regardless of what the mages think.

And if the mages think they can gain their freedom from one day to the other, they are being fools. Freedom is gained over a long and slow process. And unless they establish themselves as the oppresers, their little rebellion will have changed nothing. As a matter of fact, it will probably have made things worse.

[Xilizhra]

Religious templars were never needed at all, and have only ever made things worse by their inclusion. The only warriors who can watch over mages are secular.

And mages would only become oppressors if their actions were against those who never did them harm; if non-templars join the Chantry in trying to crush the mages, then they make themselves targets.

[TEWR]

What the Templar Order embodies is certainly needed. A group that will hunt down the evil maleficarum out there and Abominations whilst simultaneously existing to guide and watch over the mages of the Circle. They would be fair-minded policemen around things magical, like the City Guard are the police for the normal criminal activities.

But, that is in stark contrast to what the Templar Order has become: a haven for any religious, lyrium addicted nutjob to abuse their authority and not care how they do their job, if they do their job. Even worse is when those same religious nutjobs are the ones that have an undying hatred for mages and magic.

Hence why I now refer to the Rogue Templars as the New Inquisition. Chances are they were once what they embodied after switching from the Inquisition to the Templars, and over the course of time because of the Chantry's weakness and stupidity they became what they are now.

Or... they've just always been the New Inquisition, but under a different name for 900 years.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 février 2012 - 04:42 .

[Lazy Jer]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

But, that is in stark contrast to what the Templar Order has become: a haven for any religious nutjob to abuse their authority and not care how they do their job, if they do their job. Even worse is when those same religious nutjobs are the ones that have an undying hatred for mages and magic.

You forgot to add "lyrium addled" before the word "nutjob". 

[TEWR]

Damn, you're right. I edited it in just now.

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Not accepting the Chantry's offer was both political and social suicide. Now the only way the mages will ever know peace is to take control. Otherwise they will be hated and shunned by all. Unless of course Fiona and Adrian are disposed of, and a leader of actual merit and skill takes over. 

I read Asunder and I don't recall any sort of offer.

What Anders did was before the events of Asunder, when we learn the Divine is actually sympathetic to mages.  I don't recall anything about how mages should be free to live as they choose, but she at least thought things should be better for them.

But...  how do we find that out?  Not through widely publicized changes to Chantry doctrine.  Not because the Divine declares to the world that mages have been too harshly treated for too long.  No, we find out that she's been quietly making inroads with Wynne to investigate the Tranquil ritual.

Quietly because even the Divine knows that precious few of the people in charge have any interest in going easy on the mages, not even takling about actual freedom.

There was no deal.  There was no knowledge that I could tell among other mages, certainly not during the time period that DA2 takes place, that the Divine has any intentions of working to improve their lot.

You can't fault Anders for thinking that an organization that has treated mages a certain way for 900 years was probably planning to keep doing so unless he acted against it.

[colouroflife]

It is very interesting and odd some people here support and even glorify violence and killing innocent civilians included Elthina. Assuming you are mostly Americans, didn't you live 9/11? Didn't thousands of Americans die in World Trade Center? Do you support this action? Do you think it was the right answer against USA? You should if you support Anders' atrocity.

Anders never thought the freedom of mages. His only goal was to be a " hero" and a " martyr". He did not hesitate to lie, use and kill innocent people, included mages, to achieve his selfish goal. He , his goal and ways are highly immoral.

He never considered a real compromise with Chantry and Templars. To guarantee this , he killed the only person who tried hard to make a compromise between mages and templars. He just wanted blood and rebellion but who gave him that right to play god? Who gave him that right to make decisions for the behalf of other mages? Can a dead mage be free and live freely?

Anders' first reaction was always violence. This is very obvious if you disagree with him. Think Ella, a mage who escaped from malicious templars. After hawke rescued her, she disagreed with Anders and his first reaction was to kill , or nearly kill, her. Anders killed many civilians, innocent, defenseless people in chantry just because they oppose him and his selfish goal.

I can see some people justify his killing innocent, defenseless people and think this is a way to solve problems. We can apply this logic to every violent situation. Somebody who uses violence undoubtely thinks it is the right way. Everybody can easily find a reason, an excuse, a motivation to use violence. You may disagree with their motivations and reasons but you should agree their methods of using violence because you think it is a way to reach a goal, a tool to be used for any cause.

As for similarities between Meredith and Anders, while some exsist but cannot say they are identical. Meredith's goal cannot be counted as selfish, of course before going nuts after she got that idol. She was just a strict, and sometimes harsh, Knight-Commander who tried to preserve majority from harm of mages, blood mages and maleficarums. Considering many people died at the hands of these, it is hard to blame her for this goal. She was a moral person and absoultely far more honourable than Anders.

On the other hand, Anders was a mass-murderer, a liar, a coward, selfish, a terrorist and had a selfish goal. Other people, included mages, were just tools for him to reach his goal. He was morally repulsive in his personality and actions.

Meredith and Anders both were killers but their motivations were different. In fact motivations, goals, causes, resons and excuses do not matter if you go and kill civilian innocent people because these are highly relative. What is not relative is that they both killed many innocent people.

Again, i am much surprised to see here some people openly support terrorism, violence, killing innocent civilians and such an atrocity. You can be sure that people who killed thousands of Americans in World Trade Center had their own reasons, motivations and causes.

[CrimsonZephyr]

colouroflife wrote...

It is very interesting and odd some people here support and even glorify violence and killing innocent civilians included Elthina. Assuming you are mostly Americans, didn't you live 9/11? Didn't thousands of Americans die in World Trade Center? Do you support this action? Do you think it was the right answer against USA? You should if you support Anders' atrocity.

Blatant strawmanning. I happen to agree that Anders' actions were terrorism, but you sound like you're invoking Godwin's Law. Calling people who support Anders' actions supporters of Al-Qiada does nothing to strengthen your point.

colouroflife wrote...

Anders never thought the freedom of mages. His only goal was to be a " hero" and a " martyr". He did not hesitate to lie, use and kill innocent people, included mages, to achieve his selfish goal. He , his goal and ways are highly immoral.

His actions were horrible to be sure, but given how he freely admits that his actions were inexcusable and that both sides condemn him, I don't think he was searching for glory. His plan was poorly thought out, and he was more concerned with getting mages to fight period, rather than fight intelligently, which inevitably doomed more than a few. But selfish? Not entirely, seeing as his actions were not at all to his benefit.

colouroflife wrote...

He never considered a real compromise with Chantry and Templars. To guarantee this , he killed the only person who tried hard to make a compromise between mages and templars. He just wanted blood and rebellion but who gave him that right to play god? Who gave him that right to make decisions for the behalf of other mages? Can a dead mage be free and live freely?

You can't negotiate from a position of powerlessness. Higher orders don't relinquish power out of the goodness of their hearts. The Chantry has loose, and largely moral control over the Templars and Seekers, and the Templars themselves have all the bargaining power. Why would the Templars freely relinquish their hold over the mages when the Chantry is largely toothless when it comes to reining them in and the mages can't actually put any bite behind their bark? A war would have to have been fought, but using mass murder and anticlerical terrorism is the wrong, and counterproductive approach.

colouroflife wrote...

Anders' first reaction was always violence. This is very obvious if you disagree with him. Think Ella, a mage who escaped from malicious templars. After hawke rescued her, she disagreed with Anders and his first reaction was to kill , or nearly kill, her. Anders killed many civilians, innocent, defenseless people in chantry just because they oppose him and his selfish goal.

That happens three years after you first meet him. He's an idiot and a douche, but he wasn't axe crazy in the beginning.

colouroflife wrote...

I can see some people justify his killing innocent, defenseless people and think this is a way to solve problems. We can apply this logic to every violent situation. Somebody who uses violence undoubtely thinks it is the right way. Everybody can easily find a reason, an excuse, a motivation to use violence. You may disagree with their motivations and reasons but you should agree their methods of using violence because you think it is a way to reach a goal, a tool to be used for any cause.

Murdering the inhabitants of the Chantry was not the right way, but a war would eventually have to be fought regardless. The mages have no bargaining power whatsoever, and would have to leverage military might to force the Templars to the bargaining table.

colouroflife wrote...

As for similarities between Meredith and Anders, while some exsist but cannot say they are identical. Meredith's goal cannot be counted as selfish, of course before going nuts after she got that idol. She was just a strict, and sometimes harsh, Knight-Commander who tried to preserve majority from harm of mages, blood mages and maleficarums. Considering many people died at the hands of these, it is hard to blame her for this goal. She was a moral person and absoultely far more honourable than Anders.

Meredith could have done innumerable things differently. She could have simply killed Anders right then and there, and blocked off the Gallows so that mobs do not attack the mages of the Circle. Instead, she blames the entire Circle for his actions and tries to exterminate them for a crime they did not commit. Other crimes committed at other times are not relevant, and are only post-facto justifications. Saying, "oh, that mage used blood magic, I was right all along in attacking him!" is faulty logic, as the Templars were attacking under false pretenses. So too is saying "a member of group A committed a crime, all of group A must therefore die!" That is punishment by weak association, and it has no place in a sound system. Meredith was anything, but honorable and moral. She is every bit a fanatical mass murderer.

[colouroflife]

"

" Blatant strawmanning. I happen to agree that Anders' actions were terrorism, but you sound like you're invoking Godwin's Law. Calling people who support Anders' actions supporters of Al-Qiada does nothing to strengthen your point."

Anders actions and what happened in 9/11 were very similar, killing innocent people for your cause regardless of what that cause is which is unimportant.

" His actions were horrible to be sure, but given how he freely admits that his actions were inexcusable and that both sides condemn him, I don't think he was searching for glory. His plan was poorly thought out, and he was more concerned with getting mages to fight period, rather than fight intelligently, which inevitably doomed more than a few. But selfish? Not entirely, seeing as his actions were not at all to his benefit."

Well, he himself admitted that he wanted to be a martry, somebody like Spartacus. His goal might seem noble on the surface, like fighting back against opression, but in reality he selfishly wanted to be a saviour for all mages and to be remembered like that for ages after he died. This was his benefit in his mind.

"You can't negotiate from a position of powerlessness. Higher orders don't relinquish power out of the goodness of their hearts. The Chantry has loose, and largely moral control over the Templars and Seekers, and the Templars themselves have all the bargaining power. Why would the Templars freely relinquish their hold over the mages when the Chantry is largely toothless when it comes to reining them in and the mages can't actually put any bite behind their bark? A war would have to have been fought, but using mass murder and anticlerical terrorism is the wrong, and counterproductive approach."

It is true that you cannot negotiate if you are in a powerless position. So what Anders should have done is that to rally other mages against their supposed supressors. He should have talked to other mages, circle mages, nobles and ordinary people and gained their support. This is, of course, a difficult and long way that requires much effort and Anders had neither such intention nor patience. Bombing Chantry and getting killed Circle mages were much easier and suitable for his goal. If Anders should have done these and become a leader of mages, or at least gained that right to speak for the behalf of them, then he should have had power to negotiate with Chantry and templars and they would have had to listen to him.

" Murdering the inhabitants of the Chantry was not the right way, but a war would eventually have to be fought regardless. The mages have no bargaining power whatsoever, and would have to leverage military might to force the Templars to the bargaining table."

Even in a war it is highly immoral to kill innocent, defenseless civilians and doing so you cannot gain a right to bargain with templars but you just start a war that causes obliteration. Anders knew this yet did not hesitate to bomb Chantry. Anders can be a bloodthursty mass-murderer but not stupid at all and he was well aware of what his actions would cause.

"Meredith could have done innumerable things differently. She could have simply killed Anders right then and there, and blocked off the Gallows so that mobs do not attack the mages of the Circle. Instead, she blames the entire Circle for his actions and tries to exterminate them for a crime they did not commit. Other crimes committed at other times are not relevant, and are only post-facto justifications. Saying, "oh, that mage used blood magic, I was right all along in attacking him!" is faulty logic, as the Templars were attacking under false pretenses. So too is saying "a member of group A committed a crime, all of group A must therefore die!" That is punishment by weak association, and it has no place in a sound system. Meredith was anything, but honorable and moral. She is every bit a fanatical mass murderer."

That's correct. The only criminal here was Anders and Meredith should have called his execution. This was the best and rightest way undoubtely. Instead, as you pointed out, she invoked ROA to annihilate Circle of Mages because she was not in her head cause of that lyrium idol just like Bartrand.

Just because a mage became a maleficarum and killed many poeple does not mean all mages do and will do this, just like that some templars killed and abused some mages does not mean all templars do the same. Cullen, Thrask and Keran are solid examples for this and this is what Anders is unable to perceive. He may well have gone after such templars but instead he choosen to kill third party people.

Meredith was initially honourable and moral and i compare her to Anders. Her strict and harsh attitudes were coming from her past but after she got that idol, then she totally went nuts.

Anders did murdered innocent, defenseless civilians specifally, intentionally, deliberately and conciously and there cannot be any excuse for his actions unless you are a fan of his and his half-naked pics.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Oh, but mages were oppressed you see. So that allows them to be as immoral as they please on the behalf of their own desires.

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Oh, but mages were oppressed you see. So that allows them to be as immoral as they please on the behalf of their own desires.

To be honest the mages are justified to commit genocide against all followers of the maker.

[EmperorSahlertz]

 

[Lazy Jer]

DKJaigen wrote...

To be honest the mages are justified to commit genocide against all followers of the maker.

Please say you're joking.

[Xilizhra]

Anders actions and what happened in 9/11 were very similar, killing innocent people for your cause regardless of what that cause is which is unimportant.

Amusingly, even Elthina advocates killing innocents if necessary ("Were no innocents harmed in the Exalted Marches?"). Total pacifism is understandable, but won't get very far in DA, regrettably.

Well, he himself admitted that he wanted to be a martry, somebody like Spartacus. His goal might seem noble on the surface, like fighting back against opression, but in reality he selfishly wanted to be a saviour for all mages and to be remembered like that for ages after he died. This was his benefit in his mind.

Source please, because I'm playing it now and he never talked about what he wanted for himself at all.

It is true that you cannot negotiate if you are in a powerless position. So what Anders should have done is that to rally other mages against their supposed supressors. He should have talked to other mages, circle mages, nobles and ordinary people and gained their support.

He tried that. Meredith killed them all between Acts 2 and 3, except for the ones who resorted to blood magic and drove Anders off.

Bombing Chantry and getting killed Circle mages were much easier and suitable for his goal. If Anders should have done these and become a leader of mages, or at least gained that right to speak for the behalf of them, then he should have had power to negotiate with Chantry and templars and they would have had to listen to him.

Nothing Anders could do other than this would possibly have a worldwide effect, at least in his thought process. I'm not totally sure if he was correct, but I am sure he was sincere.

That's correct. The only criminal here was Anders and Meredith should have called his execution. This was the best and rightest way undoubtely. Instead, as you pointed out, she invoked ROA to annihilate Circle of Mages because she was not in her head cause of that lyrium idol just like Bartrand.

She was never right in her head from the beginning. The sword just made it worse.

Anders did murdered innocent, defenseless civilians specifally, intentionally, deliberately and conciously and there cannot be any excuse for his actions unless you are a fan of his and his half-naked pics.

Excuses are one thing, but there can be redemption.

[GavrielKay]

colouroflife wrote...
Just because a mage became a maleficarum and killed many poeple does not mean all mages do and will do this, just like that some templars killed and abused some mages does not mean all templars do the same. Cullen, Thrask and Keran are solid examples for this and this is what Anders is unable to perceive. He may well have gone after such templars but instead he choosen to kill third party people.

What Anders perceived is only in the minds of the writers. 

However, one can tell from the game and story line that however many Templars were rational people who didn't take every opportunity to abuse the mages in their care, the system is still based on locking people up at puberty because they might one day do something bad.  The system is corrupt and causes more trouble than it solves.  When you treat people like criminals you will create criminals.

Any talk of Templars who aren't evil is all well and good, but I don't recall hearing about anyone (other than Thrask protecting his daughter) actually promoting mage freedom.  The best we get is a collaboration of mages and Templars who all think Meredith needs to go.

If the goal is actual freedom, not just relief from abuse while being kept prisoner, then even the "good" Templars aren't going to help.

[TEWR]

colouroflife wrote...
Just because a mage became a maleficarum and killed many poeple does not mean all mages do and will do this, just like that some templars killed and abused some mages does not mean all templars do the same. Cullen, Thrask and Keran are solid examples for this and this is what Anders is unable to perceive. He may well have gone after such templars but instead he choosen to kill third party people.

He actually is able to perceive that Thrask is a decent Templar. If you talk to him while he's in your party after one of the Thrask oriented quests, he calls him a decent Templar.

Additionally, he's happily astonished that the Templars and mages were working together to remove Meredith from power.

And to paraphrase the City Elf line...

"There are far more Alriks, Merediths, and Kerrases in the world then there are Thrasks, Cullens, and Kerans.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 février 2012 - 05:20 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

 

QFT.

Stop being stereotypical, pro-mage people.

Modifié par CrimsonZephyr, 15 février 2012 - 05:27 .

[TEWR]

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Oh, but mages were oppressed you see. So that allows them to be as immoral as they please on the behalf of their own desires.

To be honest the mages are justified to commit genocide against all followers of the maker.

Jean Luc is right. To do something this asenine would seriously kill the mages' chances of being recognized as people that won't always commmit atrocious acts and acquiring freedom ever in the future. This would actually make the Divine begin to change her stance. She wouldn't support the people that proved they couldn't handle freedom responsibly.

I too seriously hope you're joking, because what you're advocating is a Tevinter of another name. They may not enslave the people, but they'd be killing them for no true reason other then what they believe in. In fact, they'd be the same as the Chantry that killed the Dalish.

To kill people for what religion they believe in is beyond twisted.

The Chantry's concepts aren't all that bad. Well, most. I despise the "Spread the Chant to the four corners" schtick. But aside from that, the concepts aren't the problem. The interpretation is what the problem is.

And killing Andrastians won't do anything to help.

You're advocating that the mages kill their families and friends, simply for them being followers of the Maker. That they kill themselves. The fact of the matter is that most -- if not all -- mages are followers of the Maker because that's the common doctrine they live with.

Granted, some people wind up like Kelli, but that's not the point.

So way to not think something through. Supporting infighting between the mages and slaughtering innocents. Yea, brilliant!

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 février 2012 - 05:33 .

[Xilizhra]

Jean Luc is right. To do something this asenine would seriously kill the mages' chances of being recognized as people that won't always commmit atrocious acts and acquiring freedom ever in the future. This would actually make the Divine begin to change her stance. She wouldn't support the people that proved they couldn't handle freedom responsibly.

I too seriously hope you're joking, because what you're advocating is a Tevinter of another name. They may not enslave the people, but they'd be killing them for no true reason other then what they believe in. In fact, they'd be the same as the Chantry that killed the Dalish.

To kill people for what religion they believe in is beyond twisted.

Also, it'd take too long.

The Chantry's concepts aren't all that bad. Well, most. I despise the "Spread the Chant to the four corners" schtick. But aside from that, the concepts aren't the problem. The interpretation is what the problem is.

The concept of monotheism is, I believe, inherently flawed when it rejects other interpretations of the divine.

[DKJaigen]

Lazy Jer wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

To be honest the mages are justified to commit genocide against all followers of the maker.

Please say you're joking.

Dont be naive .Why dont you give me a reason why the mages should not commit genocide vs the followers of the chantry.

[TEWR]

Xilizhra wrote...


Also, it'd take too long.

Indeed.

The concept of monotheism is, I believe, inherently flawed when it rejects other interpretations of the divine.

Right. That's partially why I despise the four corners thing the Chantry preaches. It's one thing to believe your religion may be right. It's another to believe your religion is the only religion that's right.

The other reason is because I think the Chantry just wants political clout all over the world.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 février 2012 - 05:51 .