2177 réponses à ce sujet

[Vandicus]

Xil, Emperor Drakon is the guy who determined the role of the Chantry and reigned in the Inquisition. The Chantry itself did not pursue this role, though it received it upon its inception as a formalized religion instead of a cult. I don't think its reasonable to state that the Chantry chose its role, or that they chose the Inquisition. It seems fairly clear that Drakon made the decisions.

Emperor Drakon's reasons for creating it might've involved some degree of self-interest(stopping the mayhem in his empire caused by an Inquisition being #1 I imagine), and gaining divine authority, but I rather suspect a man like him was plenty capable of conquering all that he did, divine backing or not.

[Xilizhra]

Xil, Emperor Drakon is the guy who determined the role of the Chantry and reigned in the Inquisition. The Chantry itself did not pursue this role, though it received it upon its inception as a formalized religion instead of a cult. I don't think its reasonable to state that the Chantry chose its role, or that they chose the Inquisition. It seems fairly clear that Drakon made the decisions.

The Chantry didn't even exist until Drakon founded it. Effectively, Drakon is the Chantry, or at least was for the entirety of his reign. What he did, the Chantry did.

Emperor Drakon's reasons for creating it might've involved some degree of self-interest(stopping the mayhem in his empire caused by an Inquisition being #1 I imagine), and gaining divine authority, but I rather suspect a man like him was plenty capable of conquering all that he did, divine backing or not.

I daresay he wanted every ace up his sleeve that he could imagine. Not to mention the possible ego boost that'd come with people declaring the Maker was on your side.

[DPSSOC]

Xilizhra wrote...
There's a difference between caution and fear. Caution can be based on logic, while fear is based on emotion.

 
You're splitting hairs.  Worse you seem to be equating all fear with phobias.  Fear is an instinctual response to perceived danger, whether that perception is well thought out, just a gut feeling, or completely imagined it's still fear.  Caution is just a very low level of fear, you perceive something as a significant enough danger to acknowledge but not enough to act.  Caution is also entirely subjective what one person calls caution another may perceive as cowardice or rampant paranoia.

The whole idea that all we need is for people to be better informed about magic and they won't be afraid of it is kind of ridiculous.  There's a bell curve to fear that coincides with how much we know about it.  The less we know about something the more it scares us until we hit a certain point.  After that point we know too much and it starts to scare us again.  More often than not paralyzing fear is the result of too much information.

For example a disease is terrifying when you're under all these misconceptions about how it can spread.  Then you learn all the various ways it can't be spread and you're ok.  Then you learn all the ways it actually can be spread and it becomes terrifying again.

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

And I believe that expanding the sentinels' ranks will allow for mages to live more freely, with more chances for escorted trips (and potentially even lives) out of the Circle.

The Qunari seem to assign one sentinel per mage.  It seems to work out well enough for them.

The Chantry only did it because of the power, and they only pulled in the Inquisition because they didn't want unaffiliated vigilantes running around.

The Chantry created the Circles as a consolidation of power, ie as much an exercise of it as an acquisition of it.  And it was done at the behest of mages and for the mutual benefit of everyone.

Be careful about making anthropologically unsound assumptions there, especially with words like "barbarian."

The Chasind are a barbarian culture.   Any connotation you choose to assign to that is your business.  The term is accurate.

I'd also favor all of those over the atrocity that is the Qun.

Me too.  In some cases anyway.

Technically, most people have fairly easy access to instruments that can mean the power of life and death over other individuals.

Correction: most people have fairly easy access to ordinary instruments that can mean the power of life and death over other individuals.   Mages have automatic access to extraordinary instruments that can kill, maim, plus violate and warp the minds of others.  Big difference.

Just because magic is inherent doesn't mean that it's inherently more abusive; as a general rule, people are socialized well enough to restrain themselves.

"I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded, what others do only from fear of the law."-Aristotle

People are socialized to live according to a social contract.  But when they think they have the means to cheat that contract and get away with it, they will.  Magic gives a person those means, or at least enough reason to believe that they have them that they'll make the attempt to cheat.

Also, plenty of mages we've seen are extraordinary people.

Not really.  The mages we've met have been flawed, foolish, arrogant, selfish, petty, cruel, desperate, greedy, stupid, and occasionally good too.  In a word: ordinary.

[Myrmedus]

I like the idea as long as it's implemented well and not in a hamfisted way. It needs to be implemented as a morally ambiguous power not "BLOOD MAGIC IZ EVIL!".

There should be both risks and comments made about its negativity as well as recognition if you do something self-sacrificing like using your own blood to heal someone.

[BlueMagitek]

General User wrote...

The Qunari seem to assign one sentinel per mage.  It seems to work out well enough for them.

I really don't believe that's a fair comparison; Qunari mages are conditioned moreso than the crazed self hating mage that you meet in the Fereldan Circle.

Myrmedus wrote...

I like the idea as long as it's
implemented well and not in a hamfisted way. It needs to be implemented
as a morally ambiguous power not "BLOOD MAGIC IZ EVIL!".

There
should be both risks and comments made about its negativity as well as
recognition if you do something self-sacrificing like using your own
blood to heal someone.

What I would like to see is a recognition for becoming a blood mage and then for using it to influence another person.  The former making them wary of the PC and the latter causing some permanent rift between some party members (after all, if you're willing to use BM to influence another person's mind, how can they ever be sure that it won't be used on them)?  That doesn't mean 'leave the party', but instead, if I was to use a DA:O system, Respect would recieve a cap at 25 or so (meaning they're permanently wary of you).  No abusing a gift system to regain any respect.

[unbentbuzzkill]

that would be nice but it'll never happen they already equate blood magic as evil.

[DPSSOC]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Myrmedus wrote...
I like the idea as long as it's
implemented well and not in a hamfisted way. It needs to be implemented
as a morally ambiguous power not "BLOOD MAGIC IZ EVIL!".

There
should be both risks and comments made about its negativity as well as
recognition if you do something self-sacrificing like using your own
blood to heal someone.

What I would like to see is a recognition for becoming a blood mage and then for using it to influence another person.  The former making them wary of the PC and the latter causing some permanent rift between some party members (after all, if you're willing to use BM to influence another person's mind, how can they ever be sure that it won't be used on them)?  That doesn't mean 'leave the party', but instead, if I was to use a DA:O system, Respect would recieve a cap at 25 or so (meaning they're permanently wary of you).  No abusing a gift system to regain any respect.

I like it.  Using the DA2 system, if they stick with it, maybe lock you into full rivalry, except have rivalry actually mean what it means.  Like you can't romance a character who hates your guts.  I mean yes eventually many relationships reach that point but I've never seen them start that way.

[Xilizhra]

The Qunari seem to assign one sentinel per mage. It seems to work out well enough for them.

Indeed it could, assuming we remove that "leash" effect.

The Chantry created the Circles as a consolidation of power, ie as much an exercise of it as an acquisition of it. And it was done at the behest of mages and for the mutual benefit of everyone.

And it's not nearly enough.

The Chasind are a barbarian culture. Any connotation you choose to assign to that is your business. The term is accurate.

In that case, it's value-neutral and bringing it up is irrelevant. Unless you spell out the connotations you meant.

Correction: most people have fairly easy access to ordinary instruments that can mean the power of life and death over other individuals. Mages have automatic access to extraordinary instruments that can kill, maim, plus violate and warp the minds of others. Big difference.

I view mind control as lesser than death, and hence don't mind it as much. I'd much rather have law enforcement officials mind controlling lawbreakers into submission if necessary than just killing them, assuming said control was lifted later. For instance.

People are socialized to live according to a social contract. But when they think they have the means to cheat that contract and get away with it, they will. Magic gives a person those means, or at least enough reason to believe that they have them that they'll make the attempt to cheat.

Law enforcement remains necessary, but mandatory imprisonment does not.

Not really. The mages we've met have been flawed, foolish, arrogant, selfish, petty, cruel, desperate, greedy, stupid, and occasionally good too. In a word: ordinary.

Oh, please. None of the party members we've had could possibly be called "ordinary," and plenty of NPCs avoid that too.

Also, the "permanent rift" system is... not to my taste. I'm sure the rest of the party can move on into accepting it.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 14 octobre 2012 - 04:48 .

[Vandicus]

Xilizhra wrote...

The Qunari seem to assign one sentinel per mage. It seems to work out well enough for them.

Indeed it could, assuming we remove that "leash" effect.

The Chantry created the Circles as a consolidation of power, ie as much an exercise of it as an acquisition of it. And it was done at the behest of mages and for the mutual benefit of everyone.

And it's not nearly enough.

The Chasind are a barbarian culture. Any connotation you choose to assign to that is your business. The term is accurate.

In that case, it's value-neutral and bringing it up is irrelevant. Unless you spell out the connotations you meant.

Correction: most people have fairly easy access to ordinary instruments that can mean the power of life and death over other individuals. Mages have automatic access to extraordinary instruments that can kill, maim, plus violate and warp the minds of others. Big difference.

I view mind control as lesser than death, and hence don't mind it as much. I'd much rather have law enforcement officials mind controlling lawbreakers into submission if necessary than just killing them, assuming said control was lifted later. For instance.

People are socialized to live according to a social contract. But when they think they have the means to cheat that contract and get away with it, they will. Magic gives a person those means, or at least enough reason to believe that they have them that they'll make the attempt to cheat.

Law enforcement remains necessary, but mandatory imprisonment does not.

Not really. The mages we've met have been flawed, foolish, arrogant, selfish, petty, cruel, desperate, greedy, stupid, and occasionally good too. In a word: ordinary.

Oh, please. None of the party members we've had could possibly be called "ordinary," and plenty of NPCs avoid that too.

Also, the "permanent rift" system is... not to my taste. I'm sure the rest of the party can move on into accepting it.

Some characters, like Fenris or Anders would logically have a "permanent rift" simply by the use of blood magic. I find it hard to imagine that the average companion would not have an incredibly difficult time of trusting someone who actually uses mind control.

[BlueMagitek]

DPSSOC wrote...

I like it.  Using the DA2 system, if they stick with it, maybe lock you into full rivalry, except have rivalry actually mean what it means.  Like you can't romance a character who hates your guts.  I mean yes eventually many relationships reach that point but I've never seen them start that way.

Rivals don't actually need to be antagonistic (they can be, but friendly rivalries do exist), which is why I was hesitant to use that as an example. 

Xilizhra wrote...

Also, the "permanent rift" system is... not to my taste. I'm sure the rest of the party can move on into accepting it.

Um, what?  Blood magic isn't like a brand preference.  For a devout Andrastian, someone using blood magic to influence another person's mind is a full on maleficar.  It doesn't matter if you think that mind control is acceptable, you aren't the companion.  It isn't convincing them that 'Nike is an awesome brand' when they prefer Adidas.  What you're asking is akin to trying to convince someone today that human sacrifice is a great thing and they shouldn't be wary or worry that they might be next up on the chopping block if they stay with you.

[Xilizhra]

Some characters, like Fenris or Anders would logically have a "permanent rift" simply by the use of blood magic. I find it hard to imagine that the average companion would not have an incredibly difficult time of trusting someone who actually uses mind control.

Anders' special issue is with demons; not using them would mean he could probably stand it. Fenris just has a problem with magic in general.

Um, what?  Blood magic isn't like a brand preference.  For a devout
Andrastian, someone using blood magic to influence another person's mind
is a full on maleficar.  It doesn't matter if you think that mind
control is acceptable, you aren't the companion.  It isn't convincing
them that 'Nike is an awesome brand' when they prefer Adidas.  What
you're asking is akin to trying to convince someone today that human
sacrifice is a great thing and they shouldn't be wary or worry that they
might be next up on the chopping block if they stay with you.

If they have an initial problem, fine, but I want to be able to debate the issue with them instead of it just being a straight relationship hit with no chance of recovery.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 14 octobre 2012 - 05:05 .

[BlueMagitek]

Xilizhra wrote...

If they have an initial problem, fine, but I want to be able to debate the issue with them instead of it just being a straight relationship hit with no chance of recovery.

Well, you're kind of performing an act that they consider to be especially heinous.  With no assurance that you won't perform such an act on them or any of your other companions if they happen to disagree with you. 

[Xilizhra]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

If they have an initial problem, fine, but I want to be able to debate the issue with them instead of it just being a straight relationship hit with no chance of recovery.

Well, you're kind of performing an act that they consider to be especially heinous.  With no assurance that you won't perform such an act on them or any of your other companions if they happen to disagree with you. 

If they possess functioning logical thought processes, there should be a chance to at least talk to them about it. It worked well enough with Merrill in DA2, after all.

[shirespartan]

I love Blood Magic, only thing that makes the Mage class appeal to me.. would love to see a certain level of infamy gained as you grow stronger in Blood Magic, chantry loving companions kicking off, extra dialogue.. maybe even a Blood Magic related companion and origin story

Infact yeah, a Blood Magic origin story would be immense.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Neither requires the protagonist to be "super."

And it remains irrelevant.

It isn’t irrelevant. The protagonist doesn’t need to be ‘super’ to make a man realize his mistakes, or defend himself against attempted murder, was the point of my statement. And the Dalish aren’t at the brink of ‘extinction’ simply because two clans can perish.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Do you intentionally aim to be incoherent? That makes no sense. I am against the Chantry controlled Circles for putting mages under the boot of the Chantry and the templars; you are pretending that all Dalish clans are like the two we encounter.

And you claim that all Ciricles are bleak, opressive places based off 1 cicrle (Kirkwall).

I’m using the brutal subjugation of mages across Thedas in all the Circles of Magi to argue against the Chantry controlled Circles. Circles of Magi where mages have no basic rights, where templars have “dominion over mages by divine right,” where mages can be made tranquil without any ability to argue against the charges against him, and where abuses can transpire because they are at the mercy of the templars.

You’re using the different fate of two clans for two separate reasons to claim that all Dalish clans behave the same way.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It does mean that someone callign something opressive means nothing.

So we should ignore how the mage protagonist, Fiona, Anders, and multiple mages view the Chantry controlled Circles? How Fiona thought the Circle of Magi was worse than her brutal background as a sex slave of an Orlesian noble? How Wynne dreamt of the Circle of Ferelden getting better through a progressive leader (the mage protagonist)? How Irving can be grateful for the Hero of Ferelden asking for the Magi Boon instead of a title and riches, thanking him profusely for freeing the mages from “their shackles”?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Actually, she asks The Warden (from the Circle) to change the Circle from an oppressive place because it's her dream. And she warns (in Amaranthine) that genocide would transpire if the Circles simply broke free.

Actually she EXPLICITLY sez one can have a nice and fulfilled life in the Circle.

Wynne explicitly asks The Warden to make the Circle of Ferleden better by becoming a progressive leader, because she doesn’t think she will live long enough to change the Circle of Ferelden from being an “oppressive place.” She argues against breaking free from the Chantry because she says the Chantry would rather murder all the mages rather than see them free from Chantry control.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote....

So you ignore Bethany's admission that the Circle taught her that mages should be free because it goes against your own views on the Chantry controlled Circles?

Bethanys wish for all mages to be free is not relevant to me. If she didn't oppose it from the get-go then it wasn't that bad. Waht the Circle tough her in the end is of little concern. Arten't oyu the one who constantly accuse the Chantry of brainwasing? Well, I say the disgruntled mages are brainwashing others to accept their views. 

Bethany realizing that mages shouldn’t be locked up because of her time at the Gallows means nothing? She thought she belonged in the Circle of Magi because she Andrastian doctrine preaches how mages should be locked up, as she explicitly explains to Hawke.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 14 octobre 2012 - 07:01 .

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Sure you can. Tevinter was a human empire, after all. The atrocities of the Andrastian Chantry and the Orlesian Empire. All of humanity can be condemned.

No, not really.

Apples and oranges. Differnt measn, different kinds of powers, different kinds of threat.

So your line of thinking is perfectly fine when it condemns mages and elves, but you abandon your line of thinking if it condemns humanity by using the same reasoning.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I was addressing your line about the 'superpowers' of The Warden and Hawke.

Which is utterly irrelevant. You're nitpicking and avoiding the real issue.

I’m not nickpicking, I’m addressing the facts. 

You’re the one who decides to ignore certain facts if they don’t line up with your point of view. Such as Corypheus disproving the mythology of the Chantry in Legacy: Corypheus is confused at where he is, but he explicitly says that the City was Black when the Magisters arrived; he expresses anger and confusion at the fact that he was mislead by Dumat, because he says it was supposed to be Golden. In addition to the dwarven records depicting no ‘awakened darkspawn’ at the encounters in the Deep Roads, it suggests that the Magisters may have not caused the Blight if the City was Black prior to the arrival of the Magisters. It means the mythology of the Chantry is wrong.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean enslaving mages across Thedas in the Chantry controlled Circles?

I mean mages overblowing everything (including their "suffering") 

Being forced into servitude isn’t “overblowing” the issue.

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

Indeed it could, assuming we remove that "leash" effect.

Why?  It seemed like a very effective method or asserting and retaining control of a mage.

And it's not nearly enough.

In your opinion.  In the collective opinion of the various peoples of Thedas however, the Circle system was quite adequate for centuries and centuries.  Even the mages were largely content until the Templar Order went completely off the rails after Kirkwall.

In that case, it's value-neutral and bringing it up is irrelevant. Unless you spell out the connotations you meant.

It is neither value-neutral nor irrelevant, it simply is what it is.  The simplest way to put it is that barbaric cultures are less sophisticated than their civilized counterparts.  And the Chasind are a barbaric culture.  Trying to apply the social structure/practices of a collection of barbarian tribes to a collection of civilized nation-states is absurd on its very face.

Law enforcement remains necessary, but mandatory imprisonment does not.

It does if the circumstances are extreme enough.  As they are with mages.

Oh, please. None of the party members we've had could possibly be called "ordinary," and plenty of NPCs avoid that too.

Our companions may be considered exceptional in a few rather shallow and limited ways, but in the end, they had just as much (and often times more) faults, failings, and foibles as anyone else, and only thing that was truly remarkable about them were the circumstances in which they found themselves.

Also, the "permanent rift" system is... not to my taste. I'm sure the rest of the party can move on into accepting it.

I'd prefer to just have companions just  leave if they find the Player Character so unacceptable.  Why retain a character in the lineup if either you can't stand them or they can't stand you?

Modifié par General User, 14 octobre 2012 - 07:32 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

It can be perfectly logical to fear something.
Especially something like magic. Fear comes from knowing the danger.

Fear is a purely emotional reaction. It has its uses, but not for determining policy.

So is simpathy/empathy.
It has it uses, but not for determining policy.

Just rememebr that every guaridan/sentinel/templar has to be trained, equipped and fed.
And that money and resources have to come from somewhere.

The Chantry was stealing much of the Circle's revenue from enchantments and the like; without that, more money should be available. The Circle could also have its own donation collection powers.

Yeah, since you can't prove where that money is going, I'm gonna call foul.

The upkeep of the Circles and the templar order is bound to cost A LOT. And if you quadripple the number of templars (at a minimum), then so does the upkeep.

[Xilizhra]

Why? It seemed like a very effective method or asserting and retaining control of a mage.

Well, it's also hideously inhumane, but I'm not sure if you care about that or not.

In your opinion. In the collective opinion of the various peoples of Thedas however, the Circle system was quite adequate for centuries and centuries. Even the mages were largely content until the Templar Order went completely off the rails after Kirkwall.

They weren't content, there just wasn't a sufficiently organized resistance until this point. It only took a few small pushes for the entire system to fall apart; it was rotten from within from the very start.

It does if the circumstances are extreme enough. As they are with mages.

Then I suppose we'll disagree. Although I thought you were vaguely for the mage rebellion.

It is neither value-neutral nor irrelevant, it simply is what it is. The simplest way to put it is that barbaric cultures are less sophisticated than their civilized counterparts. And the Chasind are a barbaric culture. Trying to apply the social structure/practices of a collection of barbarian tribes to a collection of civilized nation-states is absurd on its very face.

Define "sophisticated."

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

The Qunari seem to assign one sentinel per mage. It seems to work out well enough for them.

Indeed it could, assuming we remove that "leash" effect.

It is exactly the leash that makes it work.

How do you expect one guy to reagn in a possesed mage, when abominations can destroy entire villages along with their defenders?

I view mind control as lesser than death, and hence don't mind it as much. I'd much rather have law enforcement officials mind controlling lawbreakers into submission if necessary than just killing them, assuming said control was lifted later. For instance.

Good luck trying to enfore control over mind control.
That system would fall down faster than drunk Isabella.

Law enforcement remains necessary, but mandatory imprisonment does not.

Law enforcement the way you envision it is ineffective.

Also, the "permanent rift" system is... not to my taste. I'm sure the rest of the party can move on into accepting it.

Because everyone must agree with you? The PC must have brainwashing powers apparenlty.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

If they have an initial problem, fine, but I want to be able to debate the issue with them instead of it just being a straight relationship hit with no chance of recovery.

Well, you're kind of performing an act that they consider to be especially heinous.  With no assurance that you won't perform such an act on them or any of your other companions if they happen to disagree with you. 

If they possess functioning logical thought processes, there should be a chance to at least talk to them about it. It worked well enough with Merrill in DA2, after all.

Merril was a compeltely different scenario.

Are there things you could never stand someone else doing?

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And it remains irrelevant.

It isn’t irrelevant. The protagonist doesn’t need to be ‘super’ to make a man realize his mistakes, or defend himself against attempted murder, was the point of my statement. And the Dalish aren’t at the brink of ‘extinction’ simply because two clans can perish.

It is irrelevant because it doens't change the fact that two dalish mages brought their clans to the bink of distruction.
What the Warden/Hawke does is irrelevant.
Without him (or even with him) both of those clans are doomed.

I’m using the brutal subjugation of mages across Thedas in all the Circles of Magi to argue against the Chantry controlled Circles. Circles of Magi where mages have no basic rights, where templars have “dominion over mages by divine right,” where mages can be made tranquil without any ability to argue against the charges against him, and where abuses can transpire because they are at the mercy of the templars.

"Across Thedas" and you only have Kirkwall to go with.

Mages have rights and they can have a decent life in the Circles.
Occasional abuses are pretty much expected (given the setting and time period...heck, even today they wouldn't be out of place) and they do not indicate that everything is horribly, irrepalably wrong.

You’re using the different fate of two clans for two separate reasons to claim that all Dalish clans behave the same way.

They all have mages as leaders, so...kinda
If you call the Circles a faliure because of Kirkwall abuse, I can call the Dalish clans a faliure because their mage-handling repeatedly fails.

So we should ignore how the mage protagonist, Fiona, Anders, and multiple mages view the Chantry controlled Circles? How Fiona thought the Circle of Magi was worse than her brutal background as a sex slave of an Orlesian noble? How Wynne dreamt of the Circle of Ferelden getting better through a progressive leader (the mage protagonist)? How Irving can be grateful for the Hero of Ferelden asking for the Magi Boon instead of a title and riches, thanking him profusely for freeing the mages from “their shackles”?

Name droping is irrelevant.
People have oppinions and naturally different character even within the setting have their own.

Just because Anders sez something doesn't make it an objective truth.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Actually she EXPLICITLY sez one can have a nice and fulfilled life in the Circle.

Wynne explicitly asks The Warden to make the Circle of Ferleden better by becoming a progressive leader, because she doesn’t think she will live long enough to change the Circle of Ferelden from being an “oppressive place.” She argues against breaking free from the Chantry because she says the Chantry would rather murder all the mages rather than see them free from Chantry control.

She EXPLICITLY sez one can have a nice and fulfilled life in the Circle.

You can repeat yourself a dozen times, so can I.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No, not really.

Apples and oranges. Differnt measn, different kinds of powers, different kinds of threat.

So your line of thinking is perfectly fine when it condemns mages and elves, but you abandon your line of thinking if it condemns humanity by using the same reasoning.

Nope, it's the same line of thiking. Different factors and parameters.

As I said apples and oranges. They're not the same and neither should they be treated as such.

I’m not nickpicking, I’m addressing the facts.

  .. As if.

You’re the one who decides to ignore certain facts if they don’t line up with your point of view. Such as Corypheus disproving the mythology of the Chantry in Legacy: Corypheus is confused at where he is, but he explicitly says that the City was Black when the Magisters arrived; he expresses anger and confusion at the fact that he was mislead by Dumat, because he says it was supposed to be Golden. In addition to the dwarven records depicting no ‘awakened darkspawn’ at the encounters in the Deep Roads, it suggests that the Magisters may have not caused the Blight if the City was Black prior to the arrival of the Magisters. It means the mythology of the Chantry is wrong.

It means nothing.
You said it yourself - corypheus was confused. And whos' to say the Golden City didnt' turn black the second they started their spell?

[lil yonce]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I’m not nickpicking, I’m addressing the facts. 

You’re the one who decides to ignore certain facts if they don’t line up with your point of view.

You mean you actually use facts to support your arguments outside of our debate??? Whoa!

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 14 octobre 2012 - 08:30 .