1297 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

hhh89 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...



My opinion of Ethlina is pretty much the same as Anders (and suprisingly apparently Meredith's as well).  She's a nice old woman who is too weak and completely unsuited to the hard responsibilities of being the Grand Cleric.  She's the sort of woman that likes to eat meat (i.e. benefit from the circle system and Chantry control over it), but can't stomache the idea of butchering a cow (doesn't know and doesn't want to know what is going on under her diocese and nominally under her responsibility).  That's why Elthina won't ever authorize a Right of Annulment (at least baring an extreme/Fereldan-like situation).  It forces her to take an actual stand, and I think Elthina would rather die than take an actual stand that could be criticized (and she does in the end).

I still think that if it wasn't Anders, Meredith herself would have arranged it probably by using apostate/mage catspaws for deniability.

-Polaris

To be fair, the Annulment should be declared only unders and extreme situation (or better, a situation that would lead to problem for the people outside of the Circle. That's probably why Elthina didn't conced it. She didn't think the situation was extreme/critical.
About Meredith murdering Elthina, I think it's possible if the statue influenced/corrupted her further. As Meredith was before the Last Straw, I don't think she'd have murdered Elthina.

I was taking it as a given that Meredith was going to degenerate further into paranoia.  Perhaps I should have made that clearer.

-Polaris

[Huntress]

thats1evildude wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

So punish the mages who commit crimes. After the crimes are committed, like you do with literally any other type of crime.

How can one anticipate when a mage is going to be possessed by a demon? It can happen at any time, without warning. At best, the templars can only contain the threat.

But they can't, templars aren't trainned to stop and destroy demons, they are forge and build to kill mages, they ( the templars) only have one use and is to stop mages from casting all type of magic but Blood-magic.

The circle will only work if it was view and use as a school for young Mages to learn about magic and  fade demons, not as a jail because of a what IF.

Think of this way, if we should  start cutting one hand because someone, somewere might start killing innocent peoples, would you agree with that? will you allow someone to cut you're hand to show the world you will never  kill innocent people? I won't and in that moment anyone who agrees that cutting a hand is better that the alternative might think I am an upstarted and try to kill me or put me in a prison cell.

Mages are born with power is better to concentrate on funneling this powers in a positive way and not trying to isolate this people, bad people will always exist, i am sorry but thats the truth, not everyone will want to kill innocents but we do have many who feels pleasure on making others suffer.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...


I take my position from the UN definition of genocide.  The only time genocide can ever be justified is if it's a situation like the darkspawn (i.e. they survive or we do but not both).    The only situation that came even close to that was the Fereldan circle tower incident, and even then KC Gregoire exercised restraint.

If it weren't for the Warden, he would have annulled the Circle. The only reason he didn't is because another option presented itself, and that option worked.

Nope.  Gregoire wasn't going to do anything without the Grand Cleric's approval.  He gave the Grey Warden his blessings, but if things went south, he could quite legitamently say that it was a Grey Warden thing and had nothing to do with the Chantry.

This is restraint (something that Meredith was never very good at).

Not true (and this is where I continue to differ with Gaidar...and no he isn't infallible):  If that were true, then Meredithy would not have had the legal authority to declare an Anullment on her own hook.  While the bombing did indeed decapitate the Chantry's senior members (esp Elthina), there were several surviving Revered Mothers left (such as the Revered Mother of Starkhaven to name one and one close by at that!)

I don't think the Revered Mother of Starkhaven has any authority over Meredith. They're from separate... dioceses? Parishes? Whatever they are, I don't think the Revered Mother of Starkhaven has any control over this situation.

Not true.  According to the codex, Elthina is the Grand Cleric of Kirkwall, Starkhaven, and one other Freemarch city.    Even if that were not the case, there were plenty of Revered Mothers outside the Cathedral that had to have survived.  Not all Revered mothers are in the Cathedral at all times.  That's just silly.

Okay, fair enough. But do those priests have any authority over Kirkwall, just because a priest in Kirkwall has authority over them? And how long is it going to take to figure out which of the priests is temporarily in charge of the Southern Free Marches?

That being so, all Meredith would have had to do is arrange what Anders did:  Destroy the Chantry preferably by magical means.  Given her power and connections, it wouldn't be too hard to assassinate (and destroy) everyone in the Cathedral and make it look like someone else (esp given how poor a job "Sister Nightengale" was doing at keeping tabs on things).

-Polaris

Thus killing every priest in reach who would have been a suitable replacement?

You are now adding in "suitable replacement" which is a legal hole that one can drive a truck through.  This is a large part of what made what Meredith did so bloody 'dodgy' legally whatever the letter of Chantry law might say.  There is no reason why Meredith couldn't have asked the Divine Herself for guidance...the circle was trapped on an island and the Templars controlled the harbor.  Those mages were going nowhere.  It wasn't an emergency until after Meredith decided to go on a mage-killing kick.   There wasn't even civil disorder until Meredith created it.

-Polaris

Oh no, I'm not trying to say this isn't dodgy. I'm just saying that there is the letter of the law on her side. Even Gaider never said this was justified, in fact, he said Meredith would have ended up facing harsh questions if she didn't die. But the problem isn't law, it's equity.

[frankf43]

Xilizhra wrote...

Well, if the Warden wasn't basically invincible, Kinloch Hold would have qualified.

The Warden is good, but not invincible, and nor are her companions. If four people (possibly three people and a dog) who aren't even templars can secure the place... of course, they have a mage healer with them, hint hint.

I doubt it. I know you're not going to concede that Elthina might actually have everyone's best interests at heart, so here's this; My impression of the White Chantry is that they want to have mages around, they just want them under control. If they're annulling circles left and right, pretty soon they won't have anything left to fight the Tevinters with. I can't see that ending well when the Black Chantry finds out. Or the Qunari, for that matter. Iirc, the Qunari didn't lose to Thedas. They lost to the Circles. Not to mention that apparently mages are necessary for the Joining.

Possibly, but I believe the Chantry would feel no sorrow about losing one Circle here and there, and the Kirkwall one is easy to scuttle and likely wouldn't hurt them much.

But it was inevitable the the other Circle would not take the RoA of one of its circles for the act of an apostate without rebelling.
 
For years they lived by the mantra, yes this is hard but as long as we are resoanable so will they be.

Meredith's actions changed all that, the Circles can no longer to expect the Chantry to be fair and even-minded in its judgements.

This being the case the Circles had to rise up and defend themselves.

Modifié par frankf43, 01 décembre 2012 - 04:05 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

The fact remains that according to the lore, Greagoir's limitations here are just about right. Handling one or two abominations is roughly what you can expect, and pretty impressive compared to what most military forces in Thedas can do. Nor should one mage make much of a difference, especially against Uldred.

I find this seriously doubtful. They could have at least made a stab at it; that's their duty, after all, not to just run away and wait for reinforcements to deal with the problem. If they could actually know it was too much for them to handle instead of just guessing, fine; they'd rescue some mages, at least.

Against an entire horde of monsters, each of which is a rough match for a squad of templars according to the lore?

Then the only argument possible is that Elthina actually meant what she was saying about wanting the best for everyone, which you don't believe despite not having any real evidence she was double-talking. (Or, if you do, I'd like to hear it.)

I don't believe it in the slightest. I don't believe for a minute that Elthina actually lacks power over Meredith; Meredith clearly still respects her, and if she was going too insane to keep to that, then Elthina should have gotten Leliana to investigate Meredith and see what was causing it. But I don't believe it's gotten to that point yet; Meredith would back off somewhat if Elthina told her too, and in fact did just that at the beginning of Act 3. I also believe that Elthina was tacitly allowing Petrice to engage in her schemes, or even not so tacitly; Petrice sounded extremely surprised and betrayed when Elthina let her hang at the end of Following the Qun, and Elthina seemed extremely unsurprised by Petrice's ensuing death (the qunari killing a mother would certainly inflame the population against the qunari, after all).

Okay, so maybe she was double-talking about the qunari. They aren't under her jurisidiction, though. The mages are. Which technically means she's responsible for not killing them.

Edit: Nor am I saying that Elthina lacks power over Meredith. Apparently, she's giving up more and more of it each year, but on those issues where she cares to take a stand, Meredith backs down. I figure Elthina probably would have retired before it got to the point you describe.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 01 décembre 2012 - 04:10 .

[The Elder King]

Xilizhra wrote...

I also believe that Elthina was tacitly allowing Petrice to engage in her schemes, or even not so tacitly; Petrice sounded extremely surprised and betrayed when Elthina let her hang at the end of Following the Qun, and Elthina seemed extremely unsurprised by Petrice's ensuing death (the qunari killing a mother would certainly inflame the population against the qunari, after all).

I think that in a dialogue if Petrice survived (not knowing it personally because I played so far only once to that point, and she deserved to die, in my opinion), she expressed a negative opinion about Elthina. Anyway, from what I understand from Petrice's dialogue during DA2, she has an absoluate sense of security that she's doing what she's right. She's a fanatic. She's completely surprised to find that Elthina disagrees with her.
Anyway, the scene could be interpreted in both ways, and in the end I don't care much about Elthina.

[Xilizhra]

Against an entire horde of monsters, each of which is a rough match for a squad of templars according to the lore?

The codex entries here are very obviously wrong or exaggerated. Abominations can be that dangerous (see Uldred), but the vast majority aren't.

Okay, so maybe she was double-talking about the qunari. They aren't under her jurisidiction, though. The mages are. Which technically means she's responsible for not killing them.

A lot of Chantry officials, and certainly most templars, see the lives of mages as something they can choose to do with as they wish. I don't believe she'd suffer much guilt.

I think that in a dialogue if Petrice survived (not knowing it personally because I played so far only once to that point, and she deserved to die, in my opinion), she expressed a negative opinion about Elthina. Anyway, from what I understand from Petrice's dialogue during DA2, she has an absoluate sense of security that she's doing what she's right. She's a fanatic. She's completely surprised to find that Elthina disagrees with her.

I think Elthina was disappointed that Petrice survived, and wanted to alienate her so that Petrice wouldn't speak of any earlier ties.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

Against an entire horde of monsters, each of which is a rough match for a squad of templars according to the lore?

The codex entries here are very obviously wrong or exaggerated. Abominations can be that dangerous (see Uldred), but the vast majority aren't.

Yeah, but how do you know which is which? Besides, according to Gaider, every abomination is more dangerous than the vast majority of the ones shown in-game.

Edit: In addition, Greagoir has to consider the idea that an abomination might be able to get into the lake and swim away during the fight, or if it's lost the majority of them can. That's why I say that that there are things worse than killing off an entire circle.

Okay, so maybe she was double-talking about the qunari. They aren't under her jurisidiction, though. The mages are. Which technically means she's responsible for not killing them.

A lot of Chantry officials, and certainly most templars, see the lives of mages as something they can choose to do with as they wish. I don't believe she'd suffer much guilt.

"A lot of Chantry officials and most templars" isn't necessarily the same as Elthina.

I think that in a dialogue if Petrice survived (not knowing it personally because I played so far only once to that point, and she deserved to die, in my opinion), she expressed a negative opinion about Elthina. Anyway, from what I understand from Petrice's dialogue during DA2, she has an absoluate sense of security that she's doing what she's right. She's a fanatic. She's completely surprised to find that Elthina disagrees with her.

I think Elthina was disappointed that Petrice survived, and wanted to alienate her so that Petrice wouldn't speak of any earlier ties.

How would that work?

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 01 décembre 2012 - 04:38 .

[Xilizhra]

Yeah, but how do you know which is which? Besides, according to Gaider, every abomination is more dangerous than the vast majority of the ones shown in-game.

Then why don't they just have fewer abominations as enemies? They're seriously undermining any supposed threat.

Edit: In addition, Greagoir has to consider the idea that an abomination might be able to get into the lake and swim away during the fight, or if it's lost the majority of them can. That's why I say that that there are things worse than killing off an entire circle.

There are always worse things, but if enough templars are left behind to hold the door... in any case, if abominations are that dangerous, they could probably jump out the windows and survive anyway, so it wouldn't even help.

"A lot of Chantry officials and most templars" isn't necessarily the same as Elthina.

No, but it's a definite precedent.

How would that work?

It's a bit thin, but I suspect that Elthina didn't want any relationship between her and Petrice continuing to exist.

[The Elder King]

Xilizhra wrote...

I think that in a dialogue if Petrice survived (not knowing it personally because I played so far only once to that point, and she deserved to die, in my opinion), she expressed a negative opinion about Elthina. Anyway, from what I understand from Petrice's dialogue during DA2, she has an absoluate sense of security that she's doing what she's right. She's a fanatic. She's completely surprised to find that Elthina disagrees with her.

I think Elthina was disappointed that Petrice survived, and wanted to alienate her so that Petrice wouldn't speak of any earlier ties.

I think it's possible (as I said in my post,  I think you theory that Elthina was under Petrice's action is possible), but I'm more oriented to think that Elthina wasn't involved with Petrice. Though if by any chance we'll find that you're right, I wouldn't be surprised. I'm not going to be surprised about anything and anyone from Kirkwall.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

Yeah, but how do you know which is which? Besides, according to Gaider, every abomination is more dangerous than the vast majority of the ones shown in-game.

Then why don't they just have fewer abominations as enemies? They're seriously undermining any supposed threat.

You'd have to ask Gaider that. Let me know if you get an answer, I'm curious too.

Edit: In addition, Greagoir has to consider the idea that an abomination might be able to get into the lake and swim away during the fight, or if it's lost the majority of them can. That's why I say that that there are things worse than killing off an entire circle.

There are always worse things, but if enough templars are left behind to hold the door... in any case, if abominations are that dangerous, they could probably jump out the windows and survive anyway, so it wouldn't even help.

They need every templar they can get holding the door, and can't spare any to attack the tower. That's why reinforcements are necessary. Also, we are shown that an anullment doesn't necessarily preclude sparing some mages. There's a mage emissary in camp regardless of whether the anullment went through.

As for the second bit, there's a difference between being really good at killing and being able to survive a drop from the top of a tower. (Apparently there are no windows at such heights as make this a realistic option.)

"A lot of Chantry officials and most templars" isn't necessarily the same as Elthina.

No, but it's a definite precedent.

Yeah, but it's not proof.

How would that work?

It's a bit thin, but I suspect that Elthina didn't want any relationship between her and Petrice continuing to exist.

But that wouldn't work. If Elthina tried this, Petrice would just tell everyone who would listen about this betrayal. Or, more pragmatically, she'd quietly tell such people as didn't like Elthina.

[TCBC_Freak]

Honestly, the words and attitude of the pro-mage folks (in the game and on the forum) are pushing me towards pro-Tempalr. I've always been more middle ground, but those folks are pushing me, I'm getting more positive receptions from the pro-Templar people (both in the games and on the forum). It's as if because I don't hate all Templar and I think that they have a few good points I must hate mages to the pro-mage people. I get attacked anyway, despite the fact that I was of a slightly more pro-mage lean before.

Example...
Pro-Mage----------/---------------------Pro-Templar (Before)
Pro-Mage-----------------/--------------Pro-Templar (Now)

I still believe that the Templar are doing a lot wrong but I'm more convinced that both in the DA world and here on the forums they are the more rational folks because, according the pro-mage folks (both in the DA world and here on the forums), if you ain't pro-mage you are pro-Templar. And since they have decided to take that stance I am being forced into the pro-Templar camp, crazy to think.

Modifié par TCBC_Freak, 01 décembre 2012 - 05:07 .

[BlueMagitek]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

Honestly, the words and attitude of the pro-mage folks (in the game and on the forum) are pushing me towards pro-Tempalr. I've always been more middle ground, but those folks are pushing me, I'm getting more positive receptions from the pro-Templar people (both in the games and on the forum). It's as if because I don't hate all Templar and I think that they have a few good points I must hate mages to the pro-mage people. I get attacked anyway, despite the fact that I was of a slightly more pro-mage lean before.

Example...
Pro-Mage----------/---------------------Pro-Templar (Before)
Pro-Mage-----------------/--------------Pro-Templar (Now)

I still believe that the Templar are doing a lot wrong but I'm more convinced that both in the DA world and here on the forums they are the more rational folks because, according the pro-mage folks (both in the DA world and here on the forums), if you ain't pro-mage you are pro-Templar. And since they have decided to take that stance I am being forced into the pro-Templar camp, crazy to think.

A similar thing happened to me.  I was initially pro-Mage, but after thinking about it from an in universe perspective, and the hatred of Templar here, I'm firmly in the pro-Templar camp.  I still believe that proven Mages should have additional rights, if only to serve as a benefit of good behavior, and the Templar to have a better internal affairs division (after Kirkwall, Fereldan seemed k).

[Dave of Canada]

They do have internal affairs, it's why Leliana was present in the first place. Anders only struck before anything could've been done.

Didn't help that Elthina was trying to delay the Divine.

[Xilizhra]

Honestly, the words and attitude of the pro-mage folks (in the game and on the forum) are pushing me towards pro-Tempalr. I've always been more middle ground, but those folks are pushing me, I'm getting more positive receptions from the pro-Templar people (both in the games and on the forum). It's as if because I don't hate all Templar and I think that they have a few good points I must hate mages to the pro-mage people. I get attacked anyway, despite the fact that I was of a slightly more pro-mage lean before.

The anti-mage side is "safer" because less work needs to be done, and they can get away with avoiding calling for anything, whereas the pro-mage side has to call for change and could be seen by some as more aggressive, despite its motives being a end to systematic aggression. It's only a surface appearance.

[BlueMagitek]

Dave of Canada wrote...

They do have internal affairs,
it's why Leliana was present in the first place. Anders only struck
before anything could've been done.

Didn't help that Elthina was trying to delay the Divine.

I am aware of the Seekers, but a better system is needed.  That Hawke had to deal with all of the illegal tranquilities and problems at the Circle was inexcusable on the part of the Seekers.

Xilizhra wrote...

Honestly, the words and attitude of the pro-mage folks (in the game and on the forum) are pushing me towards pro-Tempalr. I've always been more middle ground, but those folks are pushing me, I'm getting more positive receptions from the pro-Templar people (both in the games and on the forum). It's as if because I don't hate all Templar and I think that they have a few good points I must hate mages to the pro-mage people. I get attacked anyway, despite the fact that I was of a slightly more pro-mage lean before.

The anti-mage side is "safer" because less work needs to be done, and they can get away with avoiding calling for anything, whereas the pro-mage side has to call for change and could be seen by some as more aggressive, despite its motives being a end to systematic aggression. It's only a surface appearance.

Yes, calling people who aren't pro-mage anti-mage will surely win others to your cause.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

Honestly, the words and attitude of the pro-mage folks (in the game and on the forum) are pushing me towards pro-Tempalr. I've always been more middle ground, but those folks are pushing me, I'm getting more positive receptions from the pro-Templar people (both in the games and on the forum). It's as if because I don't hate all Templar and I think that they have a few good points I must hate mages to the pro-mage people. I get attacked anyway, despite the fact that I was of a slightly more pro-mage lean before.

The anti-mage side is "safer" because less work needs to be done, and they can get away with avoiding calling for anything, whereas the pro-mage side has to call for change and could be seen by some as more aggressive, despite its motives being a end to systematic aggression. It's only a surface appearance.

Yeah, but you can in favor of the idea of templars without avoiding calling for anything. I've been calling for the First Enchanter to be able to call in the Seekers more easily, and for templars to have more oversight from their own this whole time. And if it's feasible to get rid of the Chantry and have the templars and circles as their own entity, I'd be in favor of that too. Regardless of whether or not the Chantry claims to be anti-magic or not, there's evidence that's how people interpret their words. Including at least one mage. Yeah, it's just one, but what are the odds she's completely unique? Especially considering that Jowan comes right out and says that Isolde, who feels the same, is pious, and doesn't seem to feel there's anything unusual about pious people being bigoted against mages.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 01 décembre 2012 - 05:25 .

[Xilizhra]

Yes, calling people who aren't pro-mage anti-mage will surely win others to your cause.

I'm referring to the templar-favoring side.

Yeah, but you can in favor of the idea of templars without avoiding calling for anything. I've been calling for the First Enchanter to be able to call in the Seekers more easily, and for templars to have more oversight from their own this whole time. And if it's feasible to get rid of the Chantry and have the templars and circles as their own entity, I'd be in favor of that too. Regardless of whether or not the Chantry claims to be anti-magic or not, that's how a lot of people interpret their words.

You can, but most of the changes they would want are cosmetic at best; even those that are better aren't enough, as a rule.

[esper]

BlueMagitek wrote...

TCBC_Freak wrote...

Honestly, the words and attitude of the pro-mage folks (in the game and on the forum) are pushing me towards pro-Tempalr. I've always been more middle ground, but those folks are pushing me, I'm getting more positive receptions from the pro-Templar people (both in the games and on the forum). It's as if because I don't hate all Templar and I think that they have a few good points I must hate mages to the pro-mage people. I get attacked anyway, despite the fact that I was of a slightly more pro-mage lean before.

Example...
Pro-Mage----------/---------------------Pro-Templar (Before)
Pro-Mage-----------------/--------------Pro-Templar (Now)

I still believe that the Templar are doing a lot wrong but I'm more convinced that both in the DA world and here on the forums they are the more rational folks because, according the pro-mage folks (both in the DA world and here on the forums), if you ain't pro-mage you are pro-Templar. And since they have decided to take that stance I am being forced into the pro-Templar camp, crazy to think.

A similar thing happened to me.  I was initially pro-Mage, but after thinking about it from an in universe perspective, and the hatred of Templar here, I'm firmly in the pro-Templar camp.  I still believe that proven Mages should have additional rights, if only to serve as a benefit of good behavior, and the Templar to have a better internal affairs division (after Kirkwall, Fereldan seemed k).

Don't worry there exist other to balance you out. I was once for a more moderate, non violent way of reforming the circles and was neutral on the chantry.

now I don't care about the cost of freeing the mages any longer, and I have become permentantly anti-chantry to the point where nothing the writers does will ever make me see the organisation in a positive light again.

[Auintus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Yes, calling people who aren't pro-mage anti-mage will surely win others to your cause.

I'm referring to the templar-favoring side.

The situation is not completely black and white.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Huntress wrote...

thats1evildude wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

So punish the mages who commit crimes. After the crimes are committed, like you do with literally any other type of crime.

How can one anticipate when a mage is going to be possessed by a demon? It can happen at any time, without warning. At best, the templars can only contain the threat.

But they can't, templars aren't trainned to stop and destroy demons, they are forge and build to kill mages, they ( the templars) only have one use and is to stop mages from casting all type of magic but Blood-magic.

The circle will only work if it was view and use as a school for young Mages to learn about magic and  fade demons, not as a jail because of a what IF.

But they can contain it and they DO contain it.
The Circle works as intended.

[Xilizhra]

Auintus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Yes, calling people who aren't pro-mage anti-mage will surely win others to your cause.

I'm referring to the templar-favoring side.

The situation is not completely black and white.

What will happen with the mages after the war is won isn't black and white, no. However, I see the war itself as very black and white, or at least black and gray.

[Lotion Soronarr]

frankf43 wrote...
But it was inevitable the the other Circle would not take the RoA of one of its circles for the act of an apostate without rebelling.
 
For years they lived by the mantra, yes this is hard but as long as we are resoanable so will they be.

Meredith's actions changed all that, the Circles can no longer to expect the Chantry to be fair and even-minded in its judgements.

This being the case the Circles had to rise up and defend themselves.

Wrong. Given all that was going on in Kirkwall, calling for the RoA wasn't redicolous.

Plenty of people would have declared the Circle beyond recovery.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Xilizhra wrote...

[quote]Against an entire horde of monsters, each of which is a rough match for a squad of templars according to the lore?[/quote]
The codex entries here are very obviously wrong or exaggerated. Abominations can be that dangerous (see Uldred), but the vast majority aren't.[/quote]

OR...gameplay balance.


[quote]
A lot of Chantry officials, and certainly most templars, see the lives of mages as something they can choose to do with as they wish. I don't believe she'd suffer much guilt. [/qutoe]

Unsupported drivel.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

Honestly, the words and attitude of the pro-mage folks (in the game and on the forum) are pushing me towards pro-Tempalr. I've always been more middle ground, but those folks are pushing me, I'm getting more positive receptions from the pro-Templar people (both in the games and on the forum). It's as if because I don't hate all Templar and I think that they have a few good points I must hate mages to the pro-mage people. I get attacked anyway, despite the fact that I was of a slightly more pro-mage lean before.

The anti-mage side is "safer" because less work needs to be done, and they can get away with avoiding calling for anything, whereas the pro-mage side has to call for change and could be seen by some as more aggressive, despite its motives being a end to systematic aggression. It's only a surface appearance.

HAHAHAha. ..no