223 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

You meant the mages rebelling without anything to replace the circle. You are just a person behind a comp screen. We have no issue.

[Xilizhra]

Ryzaki wrote...

You meant the mages rebelling without anything to replace the circle. You are just a person behind a comp screen. We have no issue.

I was referring to my characters, really. Who have also never sown destruction without a plan.

[erilben]

Lazy Jer wrote...

erilben wrote...
Nah, Jowan is an idiot. You can get him to admit he only learned blood magic because he wanted to make himself stronger because was jealous of the mage Warden.

It doesn't really say he did it out of jealousy for the Warden.  He turned to blood magic because he thought it would make him a better mage.  It was either  be a better mage or end up tranquil.

Execute him as a mage, and he'll say he did it out of jealousy.

[Lazy Jer]

erilben wrote...

Execute him as a mage, and he'll say he did it out of jealousy.

I did not know that.

[LobselVith8]

erilben wrote...

Nah, Jowan is an idiot. You can get him to admit he only learned blood magic because he wanted to make himself stronger because was jealous of the mage Warden.

The Warden is a prodigy, Irving's "star pupil." Jowan will, if spared and let go, become Master Levyn, and protect refugees from the darkspawn during the Fifth Blight.

[Ryzaki]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

You meant the mages rebelling without anything to replace the circle. You are just a person behind a comp screen. We have no issue.

I was referring to my characters, really. Who have also never sown destruction without a plan.

Well unless your characters show mine the plan (and it's a realistic and viable plan) they're being attacked in an attempt to stop them (successful or not).

[Xilizhra]

Ryzaki wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

You meant the mages rebelling without anything to replace the circle. You are just a person behind a comp screen. We have no issue.

I was referring to my characters, really. Who have also never sown destruction without a plan.

Well unless your characters show mine the plan (and it's a realistic and viable plan) they're being attacked in an attempt to stop them (successful or not).

I'll need to wait until DA3 before starting any rebellions. Until then, all I've done is defend against genocide.

[TEWR]

Ryzaki wrote...

Speculation.

Naturally. It is, however, speculation that uses a lot of in-game evidence to back it up.

Ryzaki wrote...

Plus Jowan admits to wanting to be more powerful

As I said, this doesn't negate that Uldred may have had a hand in leading Jowan to blood magic, so as to make him another sacrificial pawn.

How else do you think he had a collective group of blood mages ready to act with him -- mostly Libertarians, if not all -- if he wasn't leading them to it himself? If he wasn't trying to get them to learn it?

Ryzaki wrote...

Pretty sure Jowan didn't even know Howe. And of course he has a stake. He's Loghain's lackey and Eamon threatens Loghain's power.

Jowan doesn't really say if he knows Howe. But that's unimportant really. Berwick was supposed to be watching the castle and listening to local rumors for information on the Arl's condition -- since the Knights frequent the tavern, he would've certainly heard information had the Corpsefest not happened.

Then he would've sent out a missive to Howe or someone in Howe's employ telling them about the worsening condition of the Arl and to send out the antidote immediately.

However, I cannot see Howe doing such a thing. Loghain would've sent it if he received the missive -- as he did make it a point to want Eamon to stay alive, but was prepared for the possibility of his death -- but Howe is a Complete Monster who does things For the Evulz, and probably would've let the Arl wallow in his poisoned state, die, and possibly plan how he could take Redcliffe.

[dragonflight288]

Ryzaki wrote...

Pretty sure Jowan didn't even know Howe. And of course he has a stake. He's Loghain's lackey and Eamon threatens Loghain's power.

What etheral said. Howe had no problem taking the Arling of Denerim under the guise of helping with the elven rebellion (thanks to Vaughn)

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Naturally. It is, however, speculation that uses a lot of in-game evidence to back it up.

Like what exactly?

As I said, this doesn't negate that Uldred may have had a hand in leading Jowan to blood magic, so as to make him another sacrificial pawn.

How else do you think he had a collective group of blood mages ready to act with him -- mostly Libertarians, if not all -- if he wasn't leading them to it himself? If he wasn't trying to get them to learn it?

Pretty sure Jowan (in his eternal of wanting to blame someone else for his problems) would've admitted to Uldred "tempting" him with bloodmagic.

Jowan doesn't really say if he knows Howe. But that's unimportant really. Berwick was supposed to be watching the castle and listening to local rumors for information on the Arl's condition -- since the Knights frequent the tavern, he would've certainly heard information had the Corpsefest not happened.

Then he would've sent out a missive to Howe or someone in Howe's employ telling them about the worsening condition of the Arl and to send out the antidote immediately.

However, I cannot see Howe doing such a thing. Loghain would've sent it if he received the missive -- as he did make it a point to want Eamon to stay alive, but was prepared for the possibility of his death -- but Howe is a Complete Monster who does things For the Evulz, and probably would've let the Arl wallow in his poisoned state, die, and possibly plan how he could take Redcliffe.

He mentions Loghain. Pretty sure he would've meanted Howe if he was with Loghain. (Especially since it would've given non HN players a reason to want to stick it to Howe).

True.

..that I can picture Howe doing.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Ryzaki wrote...

ANd when you start a rebellion without a gameplan...I'm not going to help you.

Why? I'm pretty sure that the standard procedure is to overthrow the current tyrannical regime first and then start planning the new order. You don't start drafting governing documents before you're sure you'll be in a position to govern.

By the same token I will support the mages even if they don't have a plan yet. They'll come up with something eventually and I seriously doubt most of them want to try and replicate Tevinter.

[maxernst]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

ANd when you start a rebellion without a gameplan...I'm not going to help you.

Why? I'm pretty sure that the standard procedure is to overthrow the current tyrannical regime first and then start planning the new order. You don't start drafting governing documents before you're sure you'll be in a position to govern.

That's why most revolutions fail catastrophically and often produce regimes worse than the ones that proceeded them.  And what the majority of the people supporting a revolution want has very little to do with what actually happens.

[Xilizhra]

Well, for avoiding-pissing-people-off reasons, I'm fairly sure this revolution won't be doomed to failure. The backlash against Bioware would be too great.

[TEWR]

Ryzaki wrote...

Like what exactly?

The codex entry Irving's Mistake where it becomes clear Uldred was sacrificing blood mages in the Tower to the Templars to increase his own standing amongst his peers and conceal his own status as a maleficar, the part in the Mage origin where we hear about a witness to Jowan's blood magic, and others.

Pretty sure Jowan (in his eternal of wanting to blame someone else for his problems) would've admitted to Uldred "tempting" him with bloodmagic.

You're claiming Uldred would've had to have been blatant about it. Uldred isn't a blatant person. He's more subtle, unless his subtlety fails him.

There are subtle ways of leading Jowan to blood magic without implicating himself.

He mentions Loghain. Pretty sure he would've meanted Howe if he was with Loghain. (Especially since it would've given non HN players a reason to want to stick it to Howe).

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because he doesn't mention it doesn't mean it never happened.

He was given his mission by Loghain after Ostagar, that much is true. But just because he doesn't mention Howe doesn't mean Howe might not have been there, or instructed Jowan on a few things, or that Jowan knew about him, or whatever.

It also doesn't mean he was there and that Jowan knew about him.

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The codex entry Irving's Mistake where it becomes clear Uldred was sacrificing blood mages in the Tower to the Templars to increase his own standing amongst his peers and conceal his own status as a maleficar, the part in the Mage origin where we hear about a witness to Jowan's blood magic, and others.

Jowan isn't Irving's peer. Not in the least. Jowan wasn't even a full mage.

You're claiming Uldred would've had to have been blatant about it. Uldred isn't a blatant person. He's more subtle, unless his subtlety fails him.

There are subtle ways of leading Jowan to blood magic without implicating himself.

Maybe maybe not. You go with that being the case I go with Jowan falling for typical bait that's left around (by Irving) to test a mage's restraint and weed out the weak.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because he doesn't mention it doesn't mean it never happened.

He was given his mission by Loghain after Ostagar, that much is true. But just because he doesn't mention Howe doesn't mean Howe might not have been there, or instructed Jowan on a few things, or that Jowan knew about him, or whatever.

It also doesn't mean he was there and that Jowan knew about him.

And just because he doesn't mentioned it happened doesn't mean it does.

So yeah we can argue specualtions all day. There's nothing in game to say that was the case.

maxernst wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

ANd when you start a rebellion without a gameplan...I'm not going to help you.

Why? I'm pretty sure that the standard procedure is to overthrow the current tyrannical regime first and then
start planning the new order. You don't start drafting governing
documents before you're sure you'll be in a position to govern.

That's
why most revolutions fail catastrophically and often produce regimes
worse than the ones that proceeded them.  And what the majority of the
people supporting a revolution want has very little to do with what
actually happens.

This.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 19 septembre 2012 - 08:17 .

[SeptimusMagistos]

maxernst wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

ANd when you start a rebellion without a gameplan...I'm not going to help you.

Why? I'm pretty sure that the standard procedure is to overthrow the current tyrannical regime first and then start planning the new order. You don't start drafting governing documents before you're sure you'll be in a position to govern.

That's why most revolutions fail catastrophically and often produce regimes worse than the ones that proceeded them.  And what the majority of the people supporting a revolution want has very little to do with what actually happens.

Successful revolutions share this trait too, though. Anything else is unreasonable just from logistical perspective.

[General User]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

maxernst wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

ANd when you start a rebellion without a gameplan...I'm not going to help you.

Why? I'm pretty sure that the standard procedure is to overthrow the current tyrannical regime first and then start planning the new order. You don't start drafting governing documents before you're sure you'll be in a position to govern.

That's why most revolutions fail catastrophically and often produce regimes worse than the ones that proceeded them.  And what the majority of the people supporting a revolution want has very little to do with what actually happens.

Successful revolutions share this trait too, though. Anything else is unreasonable just from logistical perspective.

Just curious, what criteria are you using to determine which revolutions are "successful?"  And what specific revolutions did you have in mind?

[TEWR]

Ryzaki wrote...

Jowan isn't Irving's peer. Not in the least. Jowan wasn't even a full mage.

I never said anything of the sort.

Ryzaki wrote...

You go with that being the case I go with Jowan falling for typical bait that's left around (by Irving) to test a mage's restraint and weed out the weak.

I view Irving as a massive twit and douche for doing something like that.

Yeah it can't possibly have unforeseen consequences!

Again though, this doesn't negate the possibility that Uldred had a hand in Jowan's eventual learning of blood magic. For all we know, Uldred himself suggested Irving do something like this.

But that's speculation with very little to back it up, the only thing being the codex entry Irving's Mistake where Irving posits that he should take some of the other Enchanters and Uldred on some sort of study-session on how best to get rid of blood mages.

Ryzaki wrote...

And just because he doesn't mentioned it happened doesn't mean it does.

That's what I said. Or attempted to, really, as I phrased it very poorly in the last sentence.

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

[Ryzaki]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Jowan isn't Irving's peer. Not in the least. Jowan wasn't even a full mage.

I never said anything of the sort.

Yeah Irving should be Uldred.

I view Irving as a massive twit and douche for doing something like that.

Yeah it can't possibly have unforeseen consequences!

Again though, this doesn't negate the possibility that Uldred had a hand in Jowan's eventual learning of blood magic. For all we know, Uldred himself suggested Irving do something like this.

But that's speculation with very little to back it up, the only thing being the codex entry Irving's Mistake where Irving posits that he should take some of the other Enchanters and Uldred on some sort of study-session on how best to get rid of blood mages.

Twit? Not at all but douche? Maybe so. Better to get the bad apples out early though.

Of course it can but it can also have positive effects.

And it doesn't make it a certainty either.

It's all speculation I thought that was what we were doing? 

That's what I said. Or attempted to, really, as I phrased it very poorly in the last sentence.

So we can't really get anywhere because you say it could happen and I go Nope.

[SeptimusMagistos]

General User wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

maxernst wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

ANd when you start a rebellion without a gameplan...I'm not going to help you.

Why? I'm pretty sure that the standard procedure is to overthrow the current tyrannical regime first and then start planning the new order. You don't start drafting governing documents before you're sure you'll be in a position to govern.

That's why most revolutions fail catastrophically and often produce regimes worse than the ones that proceeded them.  And what the majority of the people supporting a revolution want has very little to do with what actually happens.

Successful revolutions share this trait too, though. Anything else is unreasonable just from logistical perspective.

Just curious, what criteria are you using to determine which revolutions are "successful?"  And what specific revolutions did you have in mind?

The American Revolution comes to mind. Everyone was pretty unclear on what they wanted the government to look like after the victory. They just knew that it had to change from its present state.

[Shadow Fox]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

General User wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

maxernst wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

ANd when you start a rebellion without a gameplan...I'm not going to help you.

Why? I'm pretty sure that the standard procedure is to overthrow the current tyrannical regime first and then start planning the new order. You don't start drafting governing documents before you're sure you'll be in a position to govern.

That's why most revolutions fail catastrophically and often produce regimes worse than the ones that proceeded them.  And what the majority of the people supporting a revolution want has very little to do with what actually happens.

Successful revolutions share this trait too, though. Anything else is unreasonable just from logistical perspective.

Just curious, what criteria are you using to determine which revolutions are "successful?"  And what specific revolutions did you have in mind?

The American Revolution comes to mind. Everyone was pretty unclear on what they wanted the government to look like after the victory. They just knew that it had to change from its present state.

Actually they wanted a monarchy but GW said no.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Actually they wanted a monarchy but GW said no.

Some of them wanted a monarchy. Some wanted the national government to be weak and others wanted it to be strong. Some wanted it to be represented equally between states and others wanted the representation to depend on population. Some wanted slaves to be counted and others did not.

The important thing is that they didn't get around to discussing these issues until after they'd won.

[General User]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

The American Revolution comes to mind. Everyone was pretty unclear on what they wanted the government to look like after the victory. They just knew that it had to change from its present state.

While the ultimate form of the union between the states was very much a work in progress (through the 1860's really), the people of the early US knew exactly what type of governments they wanted after the Revolution: the same types they had before, ie their colony, now state, governments.

You see, the American Revolution was fundamentally conservative in nature, ie fought to preserve the prexisiting rights and privilages, and goverments of the colonists from Crown enchroachment. 

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Actually they wanted a monarchy but GW said no.

Some of them wanted a monarchy. Some wanted the national government to be weak and others wanted it to be strong. Some wanted it to be represented equally between states and others wanted the representation to depend on population. Some wanted slaves to be counted and others did not.

The important thing is that they didn't get around to discussing these issues until after they'd won.

You seem to be referring to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, which was the last, and most successful in a series of efforts of the early Americans to establish a national or coordinated government for the colonies, then States.  An effort that began in earnest some 13 years prior, with the Continental Congress of 1774.

Modifié par General User, 22 septembre 2012 - 12:57 .

[TEWR]

Ryzaki wrote...

Yeah Irving should be Uldred

Still doesn't make sense though.

Ryzaki wrote...

So we can't really get anywhere because you say it could happen and I go Nope.

Yup!