411 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

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

Greagoir was a tyrannical ass known for physically abusing pregnant woman and executing apprentices. Otto's opinion on the mage thing isn't known.

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.

Separate question. Whether or not the mages need to be watched is a different issue from whether or not the Chantry should be doing the watching.

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

We personally lack the capacity to do much without getting killed. We as nations? Well, I'd say we could stand to do more.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:20 .

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I was thinking how the tone three 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.

It's only natural people will agree with one side over the other; Dragon Age invites us to do so. It's unfortunate that the fun tone of the discussion is gone; it was nice to read a relaxed and friendly thread (with both sides) for once.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

So in this case, you are saying that the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few? Funny comming from a pro-mage....

[Xilizhra]

LobselVith8 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I was thinking how the tone three 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.

It's only natural people will agree with one side over the other; Dragon Age invites us to do so. It's unfortunate that the fun tone of the discussion is gone; it was nice to read a relaxed and friendly thread (with both sides) for once.

I admit to some role in escalating this, but I despise sadism in any form, even video game-related. Sincere venom is easier to battle than evil glee.

So in this case, you are saying that the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few? Funny comming from a pro-mage....

When they're the same needs, sure. When it's the obvious and immediate needs of some vs. the theoretical and vaguely future needs of others, well...

Modifié par Xilizhra, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:24 .

[brushyourteeth]

Emzamination wrote...

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.

This is a great point. And it's the same kind of hypocrisy that the Chantry gets kicked around for.

"If you harbor or work with even one of the enemy and allow innocents to be mistreated, you are an enemy deserving of their fate. No excuses."

Didn't I read just a page or two back where some were saying that everyone associated with the Chantry is just as culpable as Meredith or Lambert? Yeah. Glass houses and all...

[BobZilla84]

I love the idea of our Inquistor having the ability to use the Rite of Tranquility because I was a Male Mage Warden and then I was a Male Mage Hawke and I always ended up being Pro Templar/Chantry because in my opinion as it was said by someone else in regards to the treatment of Mages in Thedas the Chantry is definitely the lesser of two evils compared to the Qunari.

I personally am going to be a Male Mage Inquistor and I have not problem admiting that I have no real remorse for the Mages because the resorted to Blood Magic and and other nonsense involving Demons Yeah thats right I am looking at you Anders/Merril.

If my Male Mage Inquistor runs into Anders I just want to kill him because he is nothing more than a murderous abomination.

And I would gladly use the Rite as my Mage Inquistor I even made the kid Tranquil in 2 because I felt that nobody should have had that kind of power period.

[Emzamination]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

Or she could just be trying to you know... keep both sides on a even tone

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.

His duty as first enchanter was to turn over that kind of magic to the knight commander immediately.A duty in which he failed to comply with for personal reasons.

[Plaintiff]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

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?

Well you might be. I certainly don't support African warlords and I do what little I can to make my opposition known. As an individual, I don't have the power to directly combat them in any meaningful way.

If you legitimately have no power to affect change whatsoever, then obviously the question is moot.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

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

We personally lack the capacity to do much without getting killed. We as nations? Well, I'd say we could stand to do more.

And yet you demand a lowly Sister newly affirmed to the Chantry, tople its entire mage politic? And you don't think that is a bit unreasonable? You have absolutely no proof that there weren't any mage sympathetic Chantry clergy within that Chantry. We don't got any that there were either, but since we know there were clergy within, and, that by being human and all, there were probably a few of them being sympathetic towards the mages.

[Emzamination]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

So in this case, you are saying that the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few? Funny comming from a pro-mage....

^ This

Innocent people don't matter as long as mage can save its own skin.Like a animal, it'll do anything to survive.

[Xilizhra]

brushyourteeth wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

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.

This is a great point. And it's the same kind of hypocrisy that the Chantry gets kicked around for.

"If you harbor or work with even one of the enemy and allow innocents to be mistreated, you are an enemy deserving of their fate. No excuses."

Didn't I read just a page or two back where some were saying that everyone associated with the Chantry is just as culpable as Meredith or Lambert? Yeah. Glass houses and all...

I personally am not saying that. Although you have absolutely no reason to believe that Orsino wasn't working on taking down Quentin himself, just not wanting to involve Meredith because of the Annulment risk. And there's even less reason to believe that Orsino is currently collaborating with Quentin.

[The Elder King]

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

My views on the Circle system and the mages/templars situation would be considered pro-mages by the templars, and pro-templars by the mages. So if the choice is between complete freedom and the golden cage/slavery system, I don't want to choose none of them.
Of course, depending on the situation, I can choose one the two side. That's what happened in DA2, since Meredith went completely insane and declared the Annulment to a Circle that wasn't involved in the slightest with Anders. That didn't prevent me to kill Anders for his action, which I consider wrong.

[panamakira]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

Separate question. Whether or not the mages need to be watched is a different issue from whether or not the Chantry should be doing the watching.

Not really? So in your ideal mage world you'd have "local authorities/guards" monitor mages? How wold that work pray tell when a regular guard dude tries to stop a blood mage? How can that person counter magic if not for Templar training to fight off said magic?

[Xilizhra]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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

We personally lack the capacity to do much without getting killed. We as nations? Well, I'd say we could stand to do more.

And yet you demand a lowly Sister newly affirmed to the Chantry, tople its entire mage politic? And you don't think that is a bit unreasonable? You have absolutely no proof that there weren't any mage sympathetic Chantry clergy within that Chantry. We don't got any that there were either, but since we know there were clergy within, and, that by being human and all, there were probably a few of them being sympathetic towards the mages.

I'm saying what they could have done, because someone asked me that. I'm not necessarily expecting them to do so. I will, however, say that the mage underground had plenty of ordinary citizens in it, not even sisters, just regular people wanting to make a difference.

Not really? So in your ideal mage world you'd have "local
authorities/guards" monitor mages? How wold that work pray tell when a
regular guard dude tries to stop a blood mage? How can that person
counter magic if not for Templar training to fight off said magic?

My plan is for a separate warrior office with templar training to be attached to the Circle directly and hold separate but equal power.

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

[Plaintiff]

panamakira wrote...

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.

I never said there should be no policing system.

I don't know if the mages of Thedas will forge another slave nation like Tevinter. I do know that imprisoning and mistreating them for something they might do is illogical and unconscienable.

If the mages do become oppressors, I'll fight against them when and if that happens.

It's very simple: In a conflict between oppressor and oppressed, always support the oppressed.

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...


It's only natural people will agree with one side over the other; Dragon Age invites us to do so. It's unfortunate that the fun tone of the discussion is gone; it was nice to read a relaxed and friendly thread (with both sides) for once.

I'm not saying that we don't have to take side. I'm saying that people should recognize the flaws of the side they picked.

[Gileadan]

In every RPG I play, I have a specific approach to such conflicts as the mage/templar thing.
I try to see both sides. I try to negotiate. If that fails, I'll most likely side with the weaker side and try to even the odds.

To DA2 goes the great achievement of making me regret that approach. There was practically nothing I did for any mage in the entire game that didn't turn around to bite my ass. I'm done with them.

Modifié par Gileadan, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:29 .

[Eternal Phoenix]

Yes please. It really is a huge choice to make with a heavy consequence. If we ever end up being given the choice to perform it on a companion then it will become an even bigger choice to make.

[brushyourteeth]

Xilizhra wrote...

brushyourteeth wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

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.

This is a great point. And it's the same kind of hypocrisy that the Chantry gets kicked around for.

"If you harbor or work with even one of the enemy and allow innocents to be mistreated, you are an enemy deserving of their fate. No excuses."

Didn't I read just a page or two back where some were saying that everyone associated with the Chantry is just as culpable as Meredith or Lambert? Yeah. Glass houses and all...

I personally am not saying that. Although you have absolutely no reason to believe that Orsino wasn't working on taking down Quentin himself, just not wanting to involve Meredith because of the Annulment risk. And there's even less reason to believe that Orsino is currently collaborating with Quentin.

Okay. Just to be fair, I totally acknowledge the non-underlined. However, I'd say the underlined is just as true of Justinia, although you've never been willing to admit that she may be doing more for the mages than we've been shown so far.

So bias obviously exists on both sides. We're all willing to give a little more grace to the people we like the best. I still maintain that it was Orsino's duty to stop Quentin from being everything that keeps the Circle makes under lock and key, and at the very least, not to duplicate any part of his deplorable "research". I know he's a mage, I love you love mages (so do I). I know you might like his character (so do I) but he effed up.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:30 .

[The Elder King]

Xilizhra wrote...

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

Greagoir was a tyrannical ass known for physically abusing pregnant woman and executing apprentices. Otto's opinion on the mage thing isn't known.

Where it was stated that he abused pregnant women? And about the apprentice's execution,  while I find the Harrowing horrible, a lot of mages agreed on that. Feel free to kill them too.

[Xilizhra]

Okay. Just to be fair, I totally acknowledge the non-underlined. However, I'd say the underlined is just as true of Justinia, although you've never been willing to admit that she may be doing more for the mages than we've been shown so far.

What we know is that she caved into Lambert on rather too many things and, if she did support the mages, was unwilling to rein in the templars/Seekers sufficiently to change much.

So bias obviously exists on both sides. We're all willing to give a little more grace to the people we like the best. I still maintain that it was Orsino's duty to stop Quentin from being everything that keeps the Circle makes under lock and key, and at the very least, not to duplicate any part of his deplorable "research". I know he's a mage, I love you love mages (so do I). I know you might like his character (so do I) but he effed up.

Ultimately, the losses from Quentin, while tragic, were far smaller than the potential losses from Meredith. Also, Quentin wasn't part of the Kirkwall Circle, so Orsino didn't even have any jurisdiction, and the Templar Order was too corrupt to do its job properly, so really, the only decent solution was Hawke stumbling into it.

Where it was stated that he abused pregnant women? And about the
apprentice's execution,  while I find the Harrowing horrible, a lot of
mages agreed on that. Feel free to kill them too.

The Dragon Age comic. And if any mages support the templars, they'll get the same deal as the templars themselves.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:34 .

[Emzamination]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Emzamination wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Blood magic is a necessity. Fueling powerful spells with living templars could allow the rebels to accomplish grandiose spells. Mind control is also an effective way to make a templar surrender. I'm sure the lyrium withdrawal would be a factor for their mental health, depending on their access to it, but blood magic should work regardless.

It's also a very effective way to loose public support, Ferelden for starters. Making the rebel's chances of loosing the war much higher. I approve =D

Right!? Lobsel's demented maleficar rantings just reinforce how insane blood mages are and why every available weapon and rite are conceivable & viable options for pro-templars in this war.

History will absolve me. La historia me absolverá for the Latino blood mages out there).

Only Andraste's pyre will offer any form of absoloution to foul blood mages.Accept the sword of mercy and burn far far from the sight of the maker.Thedas has no room for such as thee.

[The Elder King]

Xilizhra wrote...

Not really? So in your ideal mage world you'd have "local
authorities/guards" monitor mages? How wold that work pray tell when a
regular guard dude tries to stop a blood mage? How can that person
counter magic if not for Templar training to fight off said magic?

My plan is for a separate warrior office with templar training to be attached to the Circle directly and hold separate but equal power.

That's exactly what I want. Though I doubt that he'd happen in-game with a different organization. They'll probably using the templars again in this case.

[Emzamination]

Elton John is dead wrote...

Yes please. It really is a huge choice to make with a heavy consequence. If we ever end up being given the choice to perform it on a companion then it will become an even bigger choice to make.

I want to perform the rite on morrigan.

[Xilizhra]

hhh89 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Not really? So in your ideal mage world you'd have "local
authorities/guards" monitor mages? How wold that work pray tell when a
regular guard dude tries to stop a blood mage? How can that person
counter magic if not for Templar training to fight off said magic?

My plan is for a separate warrior office with templar training to be attached to the Circle directly and hold separate but equal power.

That's exactly what I want. Though I doubt that he'd happen in-game with a different organization. They'll probably using the templars again in this case.

Then we should just eradicate the templars and headcanon it.