411 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

hhh89 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...


There is no such thing as neutrality when you're dealing with obvious injustice.

If the game in question is DA2, neutrality should be an option in the game, since both sides are wrong and completely insane.

I repeat, there is no such thing as "neutrality" in that situation.

Even if you had the choice to claim to be neutral, you would not really be neutral. If you are "neutral" in the face of obvious oppression, then you are allowing tht oppression to continue, and the oppressed will remember that you were aware of their suffering and made no attempt to prevent it. They will despise you for it, and they will be right to.

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."
- Desmond Tutu

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."
- Dante Alighieri

"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe."
- Elie Wiesel

Modifié par Plaintiff, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:00 .

[Gileadan]

Most mages were blood mages and/or abominations. Orsino was probably the greatest blood mage of them all - I doubt you get the harvester ritual from your first talent point in the blood magic tree, in fact I think it's so powerful that it was simply outside the scope of what a player character could attain.

It is simply a matter of logic.

Remove all mages, and the templars can go home. They had little else to do other than watching over that bunch of lunatics.

Remove all templars or whatever other force keeps the mages in check, and the world turns into a slaughterhouse with covens of bloodmages sacrificing the populace and howling abominations massacring entire villages everywhere.

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

When did this thread become so serious?

Because you think that there aren't people who really want the possibily to tranquilize mages in DA3? Or that some people don't want templars to be the main enemy in DA3?

I was thinking how the tone three pages back was friendly and relaxed, not über-serious and combative. It was fun. I thought it was cool that pro-templar and pro-mage fans were having a nice time in the same thread; I guess it wasn't meant to last.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:09 .

[Emzamination]

Plaintiff wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
I know what game you meant. I was making a point.

The Chantry isn't neutral and the people in it aren't innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

How about the stretch where not every member of an organization is accountable for the actions (or inaction) of it's leadership?  Most of the people in the Chantry hadn't done anything, at least not that we know of, and with the exception of Elthina none of them could have done anything to make things better.

Well, they could have aided the mage underground via their potential knowledge of goings-on with the templars.

That's taking sides.

Yes, the right side.

There is no such thing as neutrality when you're dealing with obvious injustice.

Yeah. The right side leadership willingly harbored a serial killing mage full well knowing what said mage was studying.The right side supporters drowned kirkwall's docks in blood magic, abominations and demonic summonings to save their own skin uncaring of the innocents caught in the cross fire.The right side didn't get the full extent of what it deserved.There are compelling reasons why mages must remain caged like animals until the end of days.

Modifié par Emzamination, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:01 .

[Xilizhra]

Yeah. The right side leadership willing harbored a serial killing mage full well knowing what said mage was studying.The right side supporters drowned kirkwall's docks in blood magic, abominations and demonic summonings to save their own skin uncaring of the innocents caught in the cross fire.The right side didn't get the full extent of what it deserved.There are compelling reasons why mages must remain caged like animals until the end of days.

A. It wasn't harboring, it was trying to shield the Circle from being Annulled.
B. One lunatic was summoning demons on the Docks, and she killed a bunch of other mages as well as templars. A lone anomaly.

I was thinking more along how the tone two pages back was more friendly and relaxed, not über-serious.

Remember: there is no compromise.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:02 .

[Plaintiff]

Emzamination wrote...

Yeah. The right side leadership willingly harbored a serial killing mage full well knowing what said mage was studying.The right side supporters drowned kirkwall's docks in blood magic, abominations and demonic summonings to save their own skin uncaring of the innocents caught in the cross fire.The right side didn't get the full extent of what it deserved.There are compelling reasons why mages must remain caged like animals until the end of days.

Their actions are the direct result of an evil system that drove them to desperation in the first place. The mages act like animals because that's how they are treated.

If you create a monster, you don't get to complain when it destroys your house.

[DPSSOC]

Plaintiff wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
I know what game you meant. I was making a point.

The Chantry isn't neutral and the people in it aren't innocent by any stretch of the imagination.

How about the stretch where not every member of an organization is accountable for the actions (or inaction) of it's leadership?  Most of the people in the Chantry hadn't done anything, at least not that we know of, and with the exception of Elthina none of them could have done anything to make things better.

They could've stopped preaching mage-hate in every sermon and on every street corner. They could've stopped and thought "Wait a minute, just because the Chant of Light says something doesn't mean it's true."

Must have missed that I don't recall anyone preaching mage hate on the corner, or even hearing much of it in the Chantry.  Mages are a small part of the Chant of Light, perhaps the worst part but still just a small part.  I can only think of one verse we ever hear that touches on them.  This idea that the Chantry and the Chant are only about beating down the mages is patently ridiculous.

Everyone is responsible for their own actions. If you support oppression through your words and behaviour, then you deserve every bad thing that happens to you.

So every one who pays taxes is responsible for the actions of their government?  Everyone who works, or eats, or lives in a house, is responsible?  They're supporting those actions far more directly than sharing propaganda they're actively funding it, so they must deserve to be held responsible?

[LobselVith8]

Ausstig wrote...

Mages have no innocence, only degrees of guilt. 

Also I hope blood mages are the big bad/ main enemies. 

I just imagine walking into some town in the middle of nowear  seeing some jumped up BM demading sacrfices. Then you tell them off, or some other witty remake. Then they try to magic the PC, you the Tempslap them (whaty Alistair does that Magister in the first issue of "those who Speak") then the mage goes 

BM: "what are?"

PC: "I am the solution"/ "I am Andraste, like my hair"/ " I am Retrbitution" 

Then you can Tranquil them, or kill them or do something like Tranquil but they still have emotions.

Templars can't nullify blood magic.  {put on shades, cue music}

Modifié par LobselVith8, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:06 .

[Xilizhra]

So every one who pays taxes is responsible for the actions of their government? Everyone who works, or eats, or lives in a house, is responsible? They're supporting those actions far more directly than sharing propaganda they're actively funding it, so they must deserve to be held responsible?

It depends on many factors, but they're probably a minor issue assuming they aren't actively interfering with the war.

[Emzamination]

Xilizhra wrote...

Neutrality here is useless.

Neutrality is useless only amongst the Templars and the mages.The grand cleric however is third party moderator that has nothing to do with the immediate conflict.

The grand cleric isn't privy to how the knight commander runs the circle.Tho they are the same faction, they are different arms and offices.But that's all a moot point seeing as meredith was right all along and the whole tower including the first enchanter was swimming in blood magic.

Then she should pay attention. In any case, Orsino and most of the others never used blood magic until forced into it by the templars, and plenty never used it at all.

Don't give me that, orsino admitted to reading quentins research then putting it away.Every last one of those sick savages was deemed Maleficarum before I delivered the maker's justice.

[panamakira]

I don't see why not but I always found the act of making someone a "tranquil" quite distasteful. Even though I'm more neutral in the mages/templar issue (I feel there needs to be a better solution than the Circle but some regulations need to be put in place since most mages are/can be dangerous). If anything we could have the option of sending mages to be "Tranquil" not necessarily have a skill that allows to make anybody we want a "tranquil".

[Plaintiff]

DPSSOC wrote...

So every one who pays taxes is responsible for the actions of their government?  Everyone who works, or eats, or lives in a house, is responsible?  They're supporting those actions far more directly than sharing propaganda they're actively funding it, so they must deserve to be held responsible?

Is their government a tyrannical power that oppresses people that are not themselves? Are they willingly supporting it in full knowledge of that fact? Do they make no effort whatsoever to protest or affect any sort of change?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:09 .

[The Elder King]

Xilizhra wrote...

Because every templars want to genocide mages?

Every templar aids the system that does.

The Annulment should be used only in exceptional case. I could understand using it in TBC quest, since if the Warden wouldn't have been here, hundreds of abominations would've run free. The situation was critical. Declaring the Annulment on Kirkwall was idiotic, and I can't support the templars, becuase the Circle (despite being running by a blood mages who didn't say nothing about experiments on innocents) wasn't involved in destruction of teh Chantry. The templars (who didn't catch Anders) and Varric/Hawke (who helped Anders not get caught) have more faults than the Circle.
Now, I can definitely agree that the Tranquility shouldn't be used, that the templars are tyrannical (in Kirwall and other places, but not everywhere), but that doesn't mean that every  templars want to treat mages as animals. Or did you forgotten that Anders escaped the Circle seven times, and he was neither killed or tranqulized? In Kirkwall he would've beene tranquilized long before.
I'll always believe that there are good mages and bad mages, as well as good templars and bad templars, and that the two sides SHOULD be morally grey. And i hope that the main villain would be something else. I'd prefer to see the Archdemon again (which would be boring) to see the templars or the mages as the main villains.

[The Hierophant]

Plaintiff wrote...

If you create a monster, you don't get to complain when it destroys your house.

Irony much? The same can be said for the Chantry/Templars being what they are due to the Tevinter Imperium's magical reign of tyranny.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:12 .

[Xilizhra]

Neutrality is useless only amongst the Templars and the mages.The grand cleric however is third party moderator that has nothing to do with the immediate conflict.

She's instigating the templars by her silence.

Don't give me that, orsino admitted to reading quentins research then putting it away.Every last one of those sick savages was deemed Maleficarum before I delivered the maker's justice.

He put it away. He didn't use it.

I'll always believe that there are good mages and bad mages, as well as good templars and bad templars, and that the two sides SHOULD be morally grey. And i hope that the main villain would be something else. I'd prefer to see the Archdemon again (which would be boring) to see the templars or the mages as the main villains.

There are no good loyalist templars. They continue to support a heinously evil system, and by that support, they erode whatever moral superiority they may have had otherwise until they leave it.

Irony much? The same can be said for the Chantry/Templars being being
what they are due to the Tevinter Imperium's magical reign of tyranny.

Yes, because it's Tevinter that's being oppressed by the Chantry, instead of... completely reversing the situation and making the Imperial Chantry its slave while the wholly innocent mages in the rest of Thedas feel the fallout.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:11 .

[Plaintiff]

The Hierophant wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

If you create a monster, you don't get to complain when it destroys your house.

Irony much? The same can be said for the Chantry/Templars being being what they are due to the Tevinter Imperium's magical reign of tyranny.

No it can't. That happened over a millenium ago. The mages that are being oppressed now have no connection to Tevinter and are not at all responsible for anything related to it. They have had no hand in creating the situation in which they now live.

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

When did this thread become so serious?

Because you think that there aren't people who really want the possibily to tranquilize mages in DA3? Or that some people don't want templars to be the main enemy in DA3?

I was thinking more along how the tone two pages back was more friendly and relaxed, not über-serious.

Maybe I was exaggerating, but what I said it's true. There are a lot of people here who think that one of the side is completely evil, while the other is completely right, when the two sides were morally grey in the first game, and they where writed as extremist in DA2, whith templars that tortured, tranquilized, raped mages, and wth almost every mages used blood magic.

Modifié par hhh89, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:13 .

[Emzamination]

Xilizhra wrote...

Yeah. The right side leadership willing harbored a serial killing mage full well knowing what said mage was studying.The right side supporters drowned kirkwall's docks in blood magic, abominations and demonic summonings to save their own skin uncaring of the innocents caught in the cross fire.The right side didn't get the full extent of what it deserved.There are compelling reasons why mages must remain caged like animals until the end of days.

A. It wasn't harboring, it was trying to shield the Circle from being Annulled.

He knew about a ritual that led to many innocent women (including a mage) getting sliced up and sown back together in some sick twisted frakenstein type creation.He could've stopped it all and saved many innocent people including hawke loss and emotional heart break but he didn't just to save his own kind.He chose his kind over the innocents he so desperately desired to join.

B. One lunatic was summoning demons on the Docks, and she killed a bunch of other mages as well as templars. A lone anomaly.

There was far more than one demon on those docks and just like orsino's sacrifices, how are we to know they didn't give their life force willingly?

[Xilizhra]

He knew about a ritual that led to many innocent women (including a mage) getting sliced up and sown back together in some sick twisted frakenstein type creation.He could've stopped it all and saved many innocent people including hawke loss and emotional heart break but he didn't just to save his own kind.He chose his kind over the innocents he so desperately desired to join.

The number of mages who'd be killed by the templars is far higher than the number of people killed by Quentin. Also they're still innocent.

There was far more than one demon on those docks and just like orsino's sacrifices, how are we to know they didn't give their life force willingly?

There was only one blood mage. She just summoned a bunch of demons. And given that she attacks a pro-mage Hawke, I have no idea why she'd be any friendlier to the other mages.

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I was thinking how the tone three pages back was friendly and relaxed, not über-serious and combative. It was fun. I thought it was cool that pro-templar and pro-mage fans were having a nice time in the same thread; I guess it wasn't meant to last.

Remember: there is no compromise.

Frak.

[brushyourteeth]

LobselVith8 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

When did this thread become so serious?

Because you think that there aren't people who really want the possibily to tranquilize mages in DA3? Or that some people don't want templars to be the main enemy in DA3?

I was thinking how the tone three pages back was friendly and relaxed, not über-serious and combative. It was fun. I thought it was cool that pro-templar and pro-mage fans were having a nice time in the same thread; I guess it wasn't meant to last.

Dear LobselVith8,

I disagree with you somewhat about the plight of the mages, but I still think you're cool and interesting to interact with. Your comments, while extreme, are well-thought out and polite. I really respect that about you! Let's agree to have a friendly debate soon!

Yours truly,
brushyourteeth

[Emzamination]

Plaintiff wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

Yeah. The right side leadership willingly harbored a serial killing mage full well knowing what said mage was studying.The right side supporters drowned kirkwall's docks in blood magic, abominations and demonic summonings to save their own skin uncaring of the innocents caught in the cross fire.The right side didn't get the full extent of what it deserved.There are compelling reasons why mages must remain caged like animals until the end of days.

Their actions are the direct result of an evil system that drove them to desperation in the first place. The mages act like animals because that's how they are treated.

If you create a monster, you don't get to complain when it destroys your house.

Tevinter Imperium -> templars -> mages -> templars?

[The Elder King]

Xilizhra wrote...

I'll always believe that there are good mages and bad mages, as well as good templars and bad templars, and that the two sides SHOULD be morally grey. And i hope that the main villain would be something else. I'd prefer to see the Archdemon again (which would be boring) to see the templars or the mages as the main villains.

There are no good loyalist templars. They continue to support a heinously evil system, and by that support, they erode whatever moral superiority they may have had otherwise until they leave it.

I never said anything about "loyalist". And even in this case, I think that Gregoir and ser Otto were good templars (despite having their flaws). Ser Thrask too, but I don't know if you'd define him "loyalist".

Modifié par hhh89, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:19 .

[panamakira]

Also for the sake of being the devil's advocate here. My question is for the pro-mages. If let's say we got rid of all Templars (no Templar organization or police to control mages). What indication do we have that Kirkwall or Ferelden for example wouldn't become the next Tevinter Imperium.

You know that grand ol' place where a good chunk of the mage population is a blood mage and they like to keep slaves?

I'm really curious about this.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Plaintiff wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...


There is no such thing as neutrality when you're dealing with obvious injustice.

If the game in question is DA2, neutrality should be an option in the game, since both sides are wrong and completely insane.

I repeat, there is no such thing as "neutrality" in that situation.

Even if you had the choice to claim to be neutral, you would not really be neutral. If you are "neutral" in the face of obvious oppression, then you are allowing tht oppression to continue, and the oppressed will remember that you were aware of their suffering and made no attempt to prevent it. They will despise you for it, and they will be right to.

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."
- Desmond Tutu

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of moral crisis."
- Dante Alighieri

"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men and women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe."
- Elie Wiesel

So by your logic, we are all supporters of African warlords, and deserve to be blown up, just for not wanting to get involved?