1297 réponses à ce sujet

[Rawgrim]

I ran into alot more "bad" mages than templars, in DA2. I certainly was left with the impression that the templars were more or less right in their actions.

[Adanu]

BoBear wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Anders is justified.  The thing cannot be solved peacefully.  At best Meredith, Orsino, and Elthina would have been able to return to the status quo, which was bad.  The chantry teaches that mages are dangerous, to be feared, and claims that their rights need to be taken away for the good of all.  That is the status quo.  In order for that to be overturned, the Chantry must fall.  The people who believe it is fine to enslave people to satisfy their religion must be stopped or there will be no advancement for his people.  Anders knew that in order to free his mage brethren, he had to attack the root of the problem, the Chantry, not just killing the mook soldiers, the templars.  

Your Middle East example has no relevance.  9/11 and Saddam had nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestine issue.

Killing innocent people to prove point can never be justified.

In your opinion.

[Warden661]

Adanu wrote...

BoBear wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Anders is justified.  The thing cannot be solved peacefully.  At best Meredith, Orsino, and Elthina would have been able to return to the status quo, which was bad.  The chantry teaches that mages are dangerous, to be feared, and claims that their rights need to be taken away for the good of all.  That is the status quo.  In order for that to be overturned, the Chantry must fall.  The people who believe it is fine to enslave people to satisfy their religion must be stopped or there will be no advancement for his people.  Anders knew that in order to free his mage brethren, he had to attack the root of the problem, the Chantry, not just killing the mook soldiers, the templars.  

Your Middle East example has no relevance.  9/11 and Saddam had nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestine issue.

Killing innocent people to prove point can never be justified.

In your opinion.

Then prove me wrong. Justify it.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Rawgrim wrote...

I ran into alot more "bad" mages than templars, in DA2. I certainly was left with the impression that the templars were more or less right in their actions.

In terms of sheer number of enemies fought, I think there were more bad mages in-game.  But the bad templars in-game left an especially bad taste in my mouth.  Karras and Alrik in particular.  It's one thing to be violent and bat**** because you're weak-willed and make poor life choices.  It's another to just be a sadistic son-of-a-gun.

[Rawgrim]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

I ran into alot more "bad" mages than templars, in DA2. I certainly was left with the impression that the templars were more or less right in their actions.

In terms of sheer number of enemies fought, I think there were more bad mages in-game.  But the bad templars in-game left an especially bad taste in my mouth.  Karras and Alrik in particular.  It's one thing to be violent and bat**** because you're weak-willed and make poor life choices.  It's another to just be a sadistic son-of-a-gun.

There were plenty sadistic mages in the game too. the fellow who did that nasty bit to Hawke`s mom springs to mind. He also had some help from Orsino, as well.

[Welsh Inferno]

Rawgrim wrote...

I ran into alot more "bad" mages than templars, in DA2. I certainly was left with the impression that the templars were more or less right in their actions.

Hence why I stated "almost equally". There were more sane templars no doubt. But a fair amount of those liked to abuse their power in various ways, so it kinda evened out to me.

[Pzykozis]

Welsh Inferno wrote...

I really don't see how DA2 was made to show the Templars are right. Both seemed almost equally bats**t crazy to me. Which I hate about the game.

Yeah, it did kind of devolved into a fight of caricatures which was disappointing.

Being pro-templar seems an odd stance to me though, wouldn't it rather be pro-enforcement or pro-chantry or pro-enslavement or pro-annuling or whatever dependant on what exactly you're "pro-templar" about? Sounds kinda like being pro-police but that doesn't really make much sense, since those are people just doing their job.

[Welsh Inferno]

Adanu wrote...

BoBear wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Anders is justified.  The thing cannot be solved peacefully.  At best Meredith, Orsino, and Elthina would have been able to return to the status quo, which was bad.  The chantry teaches that mages are dangerous, to be feared, and claims that their rights need to be taken away for the good of all.  That is the status quo.  In order for that to be overturned, the Chantry must fall.  The people who believe it is fine to enslave people to satisfy their religion must be stopped or there will be no advancement for his people.  Anders knew that in order to free his mage brethren, he had to attack the root of the problem, the Chantry, not just killing the mook soldiers, the templars.  

Your Middle East example has no relevance.  9/11 and Saddam had nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestine issue.

Killing innocent people to prove point can never be justified.

In your opinion.

It is never justified.

And just so you know my hawke sided with the mages in the end. Anders still got a knife in his back.

[Pzykozis]

BoBear wrote...

Adanu wrote...

BoBear wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Anders is justified.  The thing cannot be solved peacefully.  At best Meredith, Orsino, and Elthina would have been able to return to the status quo, which was bad.  The chantry teaches that mages are dangerous, to be feared, and claims that their rights need to be taken away for the good of all.  That is the status quo.  In order for that to be overturned, the Chantry must fall.  The people who believe it is fine to enslave people to satisfy their religion must be stopped or there will be no advancement for his people.  Anders knew that in order to free his mage brethren, he had to attack the root of the problem, the Chantry, not just killing the mook soldiers, the templars.  

Your Middle East example has no relevance.  9/11 and Saddam had nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestine issue.

Killing innocent people to prove point can never be justified.

In your opinion.

Then prove me wrong. Justify it.

Any revolution that happened in the real world that people favour as a good thing.

[Warden661]

Pzykozis wrote...

BoBear wrote...

Adanu wrote...

BoBear wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Anders is justified.  The thing cannot be solved peacefully.  At best Meredith, Orsino, and Elthina would have been able to return to the status quo, which was bad.  The chantry teaches that mages are dangerous, to be feared, and claims that their rights need to be taken away for the good of all.  That is the status quo.  In order for that to be overturned, the Chantry must fall.  The people who believe it is fine to enslave people to satisfy their religion must be stopped or there will be no advancement for his people.  Anders knew that in order to free his mage brethren, he had to attack the root of the problem, the Chantry, not just killing the mook soldiers, the templars.  

Your Middle East example has no relevance.  9/11 and Saddam had nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestine issue.

Killing innocent people to prove point can never be justified.

In your opinion.

Then prove me wrong. Justify it.

Any revolution that happened in the real world that people favour as a good thing.

Those would be examples. You didn't justify anything.

[Pzykozis]

BoBear wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...

BoBear wrote...

Adanu wrote...

BoBear wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Anders is justified.  The thing cannot be solved peacefully.  At best Meredith, Orsino, and Elthina would have been able to return to the status quo, which was bad.  The chantry teaches that mages are dangerous, to be feared, and claims that their rights need to be taken away for the good of all.  That is the status quo.  In order for that to be overturned, the Chantry must fall.  The people who believe it is fine to enslave people to satisfy their religion must be stopped or there will be no advancement for his people.  Anders knew that in order to free his mage brethren, he had to attack the root of the problem, the Chantry, not just killing the mook soldiers, the templars.  

Your Middle East example has no relevance.  9/11 and Saddam had nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestine issue.

Killing innocent people to prove point can never be justified.

In your opinion.

Then prove me wrong. Justify it.

Any revolution that happened in the real world that people favour as a good thing.

Those would be examples. You didn't justify anything.

Ends justify the means?

[Adanu]

BoBear wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...

BoBear wrote...

Adanu wrote...

BoBear wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Anders is justified.  The thing cannot be solved peacefully.  At best Meredith, Orsino, and Elthina would have been able to return to the status quo, which was bad.  The chantry teaches that mages are dangerous, to be feared, and claims that their rights need to be taken away for the good of all.  That is the status quo.  In order for that to be overturned, the Chantry must fall.  The people who believe it is fine to enslave people to satisfy their religion must be stopped or there will be no advancement for his people.  Anders knew that in order to free his mage brethren, he had to attack the root of the problem, the Chantry, not just killing the mook soldiers, the templars.  

Your Middle East example has no relevance.  9/11 and Saddam had nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestine issue.

Killing innocent people to prove point can never be justified.

In your opinion.

Then prove me wrong. Justify it.

Any revolution that happened in the real world that people favour as a good thing.

Those would be examples. You didn't justify anything.

Justification is subjective and based on the person involved. Much like how Anders viewed it.

9/11 was done by murderous ignorants that we don't know what they wanted to do exactly (and don't give me that they hate our freedom crap, I don't want propaganda). We know what Anders tried to accomplish, and he succeeded. Intent is what matters to me... not some foolish black and white notion of justice.

So yes, in your opinion. If you think it can't be justified... that is your opinion.

Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an Omelette.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Rawgrim wrote...

There were plenty sadistic mages in the game too. the fellow who did that nasty bit to Hawke`s mom springs to mind. He also had some help from Orsino, as well.

I know.  I'm not saying that one side was better or worse, just that for me personally as a player, the bat**** templars stuck out worse than the bat**** mages, even if there were more of the mages.  It evened out to me wanting both sides to just die in a fire.

Should've been more careful with what I wished for 

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 20 novembre 2012 - 12:27 .

[Warden661]

Pzykozis wrote...

BoBear wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...

BoBear wrote...

Adanu wrote...

BoBear wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Anders is justified.  The thing cannot be solved peacefully.  At best Meredith, Orsino, and Elthina would have been able to return to the status quo, which was bad.  The chantry teaches that mages are dangerous, to be feared, and claims that their rights need to be taken away for the good of all.  That is the status quo.  In order for that to be overturned, the Chantry must fall.  The people who believe it is fine to enslave people to satisfy their religion must be stopped or there will be no advancement for his people.  Anders knew that in order to free his mage brethren, he had to attack the root of the problem, the Chantry, not just killing the mook soldiers, the templars.  

Your Middle East example has no relevance.  9/11 and Saddam had nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestine issue.

Killing innocent people to prove point can never be justified.

In your opinion.

Then prove me wrong. Justify it.

Any revolution that happened in the real world that people favour as a good thing.

Those would be examples. You didn't justify anything.

Ends justify the means?

This could be argued. I don't really think it can justify it but... well done sir. 

[Adanu]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

There were plenty sadistic mages in the game too. the fellow who did that nasty bit to Hawke`s mom springs to mind. He also had some help from Orsino, as well.

I know.  I'm not saying that one side was better or worse, just that for me personally as a player, the bat**** templars stuck out worse than the bat**** mages, even if there were more of the mages.  It evened out to me wanting both sides to just die in a fire.

Should've been more careful with what I wished for 

Most of the crazy mages turned into what they did to combat the increasingly stupid Templars. I can't really blame them for turning insane when the Templars were going insane to begin with.

[Welsh Inferno]

BoBear wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...

Ends justify the means?

This could be argued. I don't really think it can justify it but... well done sir. 

No one needed to blow up a chantry full of innocents to start a war/revolution, it was inevitable anyway. So its hardly justified.

Modifié par Welsh Inferno, 20 novembre 2012 - 12:30 .

[Rawgrim]

Adanu wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

There were plenty sadistic mages in the game too. the fellow who did that nasty bit to Hawke`s mom springs to mind. He also had some help from Orsino, as well.

I know.  I'm not saying that one side was better or worse, just that for me personally as a player, the bat**** templars stuck out worse than the bat**** mages, even if there were more of the mages.  It evened out to me wanting both sides to just die in a fire.

Should've been more careful with what I wished for 

Most of the crazy mages turned into what they did to combat the increasingly stupid Templars. I can't really blame them for turning insane when the Templars were going insane to begin with.

I dunno. It would take alot to bring forth collective insanity in about 500 mages at once.

[Warden661]

Adanu wrote...

BoBear wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...

BoBear wrote...

Adanu wrote...

BoBear wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Anders is justified.  The thing cannot be solved peacefully.  At best Meredith, Orsino, and Elthina would have been able to return to the status quo, which was bad.  The chantry teaches that mages are dangerous, to be feared, and claims that their rights need to be taken away for the good of all.  That is the status quo.  In order for that to be overturned, the Chantry must fall.  The people who believe it is fine to enslave people to satisfy their religion must be stopped or there will be no advancement for his people.  Anders knew that in order to free his mage brethren, he had to attack the root of the problem, the Chantry, not just killing the mook soldiers, the templars.  

Your Middle East example has no relevance.  9/11 and Saddam had nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestine issue.

Killing innocent people to prove point can never be justified.

In your opinion.

Then prove me wrong. Justify it.

Any revolution that happened in the real world that people favour as a good thing.

Those would be examples. You didn't justify anything.

Justification is subjective and based on the person involved. Much like how Anders viewed it.

9/11 was done by murderous ignorants that we don't know what they wanted to do exactly (and don't give me that they hate our freedom crap, I don't want propaganda). We know what Anders tried to accomplish, and he succeeded. Intent is what matters to me... not some foolish black and white notion of justice.

So yes, in your opinion. If you think it can't be justified... that is your opinion.

Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an Omelette.

His intent was to prove a point. He could have done that in another way but he chose to kill innocents to do it. The action is more important than the intent. You cannot justify this action.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Adanu wrote...

Most of the crazy mages turned into what they did to combat the increasingly stupid Templars. I can't really blame them for turning insane when the Templars were going insane to begin with.

Maybe not, but IMO it's also hard to ignore all the collateral damage that a bunch of blood mages and abominations cause.  One crazy mage sabotaged an otherwise cooperative attempt to oust Meredith when she became clearly unfit for duty.  Just because the mages were sometimes victims of circumstance doesn't mean they weren't also killing a lot of people.

"If it comes to war, it is the people of this city who will lose."  Elthina might have been generally useless, but she was also right about that.  A war between two factions bent on one anothers' annihilation is probably going to get very, very bloody.

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 20 novembre 2012 - 12:36 .

[DKJaigen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

i don't think Bioware did a good job in that, DA2 mages are negatively portrayed. Most of our quests are dealing with crazy mages, crazy blood mages, mages who become crazy, mages who turn into abomination, mages who use blood magic for personal gain and a mage who doing terrorism

What bad side of Templar in DA2?
- Sir Alrik who is ASSUMED a rapist
- RUMORS about Templar killing recruit
- RUMORS about Templar lobotomize many mages
- RUMORS about the Circle condition is bad
- Cullen beat a recruit, but later that recruit is an abomination
- Group of Templars who want to kill run away mages, but if you hand over the mages, none get killed
- Meredith character

I find no reason not to side with Templar except the Last Straw like i already mentioned.

The game is designed for player prone to become pro Templar, except if they see the very little thing in the end that is "the Circle Mage is innocent and it is not right for Meredith to kill them all while the one who is guilty for the crime that is terrorism is in front of her and that guy can walk away freely depend on Hawke decision"

Eh? Not quite correct there.

We do see mages complaining about rape.
We do see at least 3 templars that abuse their power.

Meredith....she was OK in the begining. Kirkwall was strict, but she was a good Knight-Commander. It's not untill the idol that she start going screwy.

But the majority of mage supporters rally agaisnt the templars and Circles on the principle that mages are segregated. For many (as redicolous as it seems) that in itself is enough.


What is funny is that if you are right and DA2 was made to show people the templars are right, then it backfired spectacularly. 
If the polls are anything to go by, mage supporters are still in the majority and if anything have become more zealous.

Weird because im always poking you because your so damned zealous

[Lotion Soronarr]

BoBear wrote...

Adanu wrote...

BoBear wrote...
Killing innocent people to prove point can never be justified.

In your opinion.

Then prove me wrong. Justify it.

Hmmm...interesting notion. Killing TO PROVE A POINT?

I can't say it is ever justified...but if you want to prove the point that you're a massive douche badly in needing a a trip to the afterlife, I'd say killing innocents is mightly effective.

[esper]

BoBear wrote...

Adanu wrote...

BoBear wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...

BoBear wrote...

Adanu wrote...

BoBear wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Anders is justified.  The thing cannot be solved peacefully.  At best Meredith, Orsino, and Elthina would have been able to return to the status quo, which was bad.  The chantry teaches that mages are dangerous, to be feared, and claims that their rights need to be taken away for the good of all.  That is the status quo.  In order for that to be overturned, the Chantry must fall.  The people who believe it is fine to enslave people to satisfy their religion must be stopped or there will be no advancement for his people.  Anders knew that in order to free his mage brethren, he had to attack the root of the problem, the Chantry, not just killing the mook soldiers, the templars.  

Your Middle East example has no relevance.  9/11 and Saddam had nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestine issue.

Killing innocent people to prove point can never be justified.

In your opinion.

Then prove me wrong. Justify it.

Any revolution that happened in the real world that people favour as a good thing.

Those would be examples. You didn't justify anything.

Justification is subjective and based on the person involved. Much like how Anders viewed it.

9/11 was done by murderous ignorants that we don't know what they wanted to do exactly (and don't give me that they hate our freedom crap, I don't want propaganda). We know what Anders tried to accomplish, and he succeeded. Intent is what matters to me... not some foolish black and white notion of justice.

So yes, in your opinion. If you think it can't be justified... that is your opinion.

Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an Omelette.

His intent was to prove a point. He could have done that in another way but he chose to kill innocents to do it. The action is more important than the intent. You cannot justify this action.

Had he not killed Elthina and blown up the Chantry the point wouldn't have been the same.

[WazzuMan]

I don't think it was really intended to make he mages look any worse than the Templars. Remember the game was pretty quick out the door, not a lot of time to create a balance of enemies and arguments to sway you either way. Normally, I just side with the mages, I sympathise with them more. Once I was pro-Templar and that was so I could get the Trophies associated with it.

[Adanu]

BoBear wrote...

Adanu wrote...

BoBear wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...

BoBear wrote...

Adanu wrote...

BoBear wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Anders is justified.  The thing cannot be solved peacefully.  At best Meredith, Orsino, and Elthina would have been able to return to the status quo, which was bad.  The chantry teaches that mages are dangerous, to be feared, and claims that their rights need to be taken away for the good of all.  That is the status quo.  In order for that to be overturned, the Chantry must fall.  The people who believe it is fine to enslave people to satisfy their religion must be stopped or there will be no advancement for his people.  Anders knew that in order to free his mage brethren, he had to attack the root of the problem, the Chantry, not just killing the mook soldiers, the templars.  

Your Middle East example has no relevance.  9/11 and Saddam had nothing to do with the Israeli/Palestine issue.

Killing innocent people to prove point can never be justified.

In your opinion.

Then prove me wrong. Justify it.

Any revolution that happened in the real world that people favour as a good thing.

Those would be examples. You didn't justify anything.

Justification is subjective and based on the person involved. Much like how Anders viewed it.

9/11 was done by murderous ignorants that we don't know what they wanted to do exactly (and don't give me that they hate our freedom crap, I don't want propaganda). We know what Anders tried to accomplish, and he succeeded. Intent is what matters to me... not some foolish black and white notion of justice.

So yes, in your opinion. If you think it can't be justified... that is your opinion.

Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an Omelette.

His intent was to prove a point. He could have done that in another way but he chose to kill innocents to do it. The action is more important than the intent. You cannot justify this action.

His intent was to stop Templars and Mages **** footing around the very serious and true issue of THE CURRENT CIRCLE SYSTEM NOT WORKING AND HAVING BROKEN LONG AGO FROM TEMPLAR ABUSES.

Without radical change, there was no way in hell mages would get any semblence of reform of freedom that would work for both parties. Without rebellion, the Templars would simply dictate all terms. Just look at Lambert in Asunder. This man is the LORD SEEKER and essentially the top Templar. Do you really think this man and all others like them would willingly give up the power they held? It was either force, or submission for more ages when reform failed.

People in the modern day don't seem to realize that violence is usually the only way to reform things. It is very, very rare for reform to come without force. Naivette doesn't make you right, it makes you soft.

[Warden661]

Adanu wrote...

His intent was to stop Templars and Mages **** footing around the very serious and true issue of THE CURRENT CIRCLE SYSTEM NOT WORKING AND HAVING BROKEN LONG AGO FROM TEMPLAR ABUSES.

Without radical change, there was no way in hell mages would get any semblence of reform of freedom that would work for both parties. Without rebellion, the Templars would simply dictate all terms. Just look at Lambert in Asunder. This man is the LORD SEEKER and essentially the top Templar. Do you really think this man and all others like them would willingly give up the power they held? It was either force, or submission for more ages when reform failed.

People in the modern day don't seem to realize that violence is usually the only way to reform things. It is very, very rare for reform to come without force. Naivette doesn't make you right, it makes you soft.

We could argue exactly what his intent was but whatever that exactly is does not justify killing innocent people. I'll agree that a war is needed to end this conflict but I will not agree that what Anders did to start it was neccessary. Nor was it justified.