353 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Being completely reasonable is nice in some circumstances, but may not be suitable for a wartime leader. Someone centered and balanced, but utterly committed would be best, I believe.

Would be best yes, it is also the kind if leader that would have difficulty making themselves heard in times of trouble.

The leader the mages is going to get is the most ruthless, politically backstabbing, vociferous and charismatic firebrand that can be found. The one that burns brightly for the fight and outshines the rest. Mostly because such people thrive in the circumstances that now happen. It's likely not going to be a Mandela, but a Marat or a Robespierre. Maker help any mage that disagrees.

It is going to be a few long hard years 

Someone like Mandela can still be ruthless when necessary. I'd vastly prefer that to Robespierre, anyway.

I think a leader to the mage revolution would need to be ruthless at times, since this war is a fight to the death to maintain their autonomy from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars. When the opposition thinks they have "divine right" over you simply because you are a mage, you need to be ruthless. It's no different than the war Andraste and Shartan waged against the Imperium; blood was shed in order to emancipate people from a very oppressive system that enslaved them. Now it's the mages' turn to fight to keep their freedom.

Xilizhra wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

But there was no angry mob attacking innocent mages in Asunder. Evangeline allowed her sympathy for the mages to cloud her judgment to the point where she would threaten the safety of every single mundane in Thedas by splitting the  Circle from the Chantry.

If anyone threatens the mundanes, it'll be the templars; they definitely haven't been taking advantage of the supposed preference mundanes have for them, otherwise they would have won the war already. Or, more likely, they're doing things to turn the populace against them. 

I think Wynne's comment about mundanes murdering mages simply for being mages would dispute Sir JK's comment about mobs attacking mages in a general sense (as would Mother Hannah's comment to the Amell Warden in Redcliffe), even though such an incident didn't transpire in Asunder (although it almost did, simply because the people realized the group consisted of mages). This is the opportunity for mages to finally be free from a sysem that was imposed on them nearly a millennia ago, and I think the templars might do anything to try to restore the status quo, or bring forth a much harsher one to subjugate the mages.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 07 janvier 2013 - 06:31 .

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
This is the opportunity for mages to finally be free from a sysem that was imposed on them nearly a millennia ago,

Imposed? According to the Codex, the mages went "cheerily into exile". It was a compromise.

But, of course, enough time has passed that people in Southern Thedas have forgotten the dangers of magic. If nothing else, this conflict should serve to remind both sides exactly why the Circle is necessary.

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
It's no different than the war Andraste and Shartan waged against the Imperium; blood was shed in order to emancipate people from a very oppressive system that enslaved them. Now it's the mages' turn to fight to keep their freedom.

It is different and you have to know it. The mages of Tevinter enslaved people to feed their vanity projects, to satisy their need for power or simply because they could. Their subjugation is so complete that the slaves can't even understand the concept of freedom.
The mundanes of the Chantry are simply doing what they believe is necessary to protect themselves; and with good reason, magic is dangerous and prone to abuse; while still attempting to provide the mages with a bearable existence. There have been abuses but mages have rights and freedoms and an education and their work is meant to provide for them.
You can disagree with the methods of the Chantry but you should, at least, acknowledge the situation is quite different.

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I think a leader to the mage revolution would need to be ruthless at times, since this war is a fight to the death to maintain their autonomy from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars. When the opposition thinks they have "divine right" over you simply because you are a mage, you need to be ruthless. It's no different than the war Andraste and Shartan waged against the Imperium; blood was shed in order to emancipate people from a very oppressive system that enslaved them. Now it's the mages' turn to fight to keep their freedom.

Andrate lost, in case you forgot, and eventually the Imperium surrendered. More importantly, after a few generations, the Imperium got back everything it wanted (cf. Fenris's comments on this). It wouldn't be a particularly good short-term outcome for mages (what with the long, drawn-out war and the death of their leaders) and the fact that eventually they would fail to displace the power structure of their enemies.

I think Wynne's comment about mundanes murdering mages simply for being mages would dispute Sir JK's comment about mobs attacking mages in a general sense (as would Mother Hannah's comment to the Amell Warden in Redcliffe), even though such an incident didn't transpire in Asunder (although it almost did, simply because the people realized the group consisted of mages). This is the opportunity for mages to finally be free from a sysem that was imposed on them nearly a millennia ago, and I think the templars might do anything to try to restore the status quo, or bring forth a much harsher one to subjugate the mages.

So what would mages do about mundanes wanting to murder them? Because this is where the path toward a dictatorship lies. 

[LobselVith8]

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

This is the opportunity for mages to finally be free from a sysem that was imposed on them nearly a millennia ago,

Imposed? According to the Codex, the mages went "cheerily into exile". It was a compromise.

That was the claim made by the Chantry scholar, about the inception of mages living in the Circle Towers.

MisterJB wrote...

But, of course, enough time has passed that people in Southern Thedas have forgotten the dangers of magic. If nothing else, this conflict should serve to remind both sides exactly why the Circle is necessary. 

I think there's a difference between properly training mages to use their powers responsibly, and putting them under the rule of an anti-mage religious organization that preaches they are cursed. Hopefully, Inquisition will allow pro-mage and pro-templar players to pursue their respective goals, since hell will freeze over before either side reaches a consensus about this issue.

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's no different than the war Andraste and Shartan waged against the Imperium; blood was shed in order to emancipate people from a very oppressive system that enslaved them. Now it's the mages' turn to fight to keep their freedom. 

It is different and you have to know it. The mages of Tevinter enslaved people to feed their vanity projects, to satisy their need for power or simply because they could. Their subjugation is so complete that the slaves can't even understand the concept of freedom.

The Magisters of Tevinter enslave mages and non-mages alike. And Keili seems to be as indocturinated and brainwashed as Orana.

MisterJB wrote...

The mundanes of the Chantry are simply doing what they believe is necessary to protect themselves; and with good reason, magic is dangerous and prone to abuse; while still attempting to provide the mages with a bearable existence. There have been abuses but mages have rights and freedoms and an education and their work is meant to provide for them.

I don't think the mages who are fighting to maintain their autonomy would see it as a "bearable existance".

MisterJB wrote...

You can disagree with the methods of the Chantry but you should, at least, acknowledge the situation is quite different. 

Both wars had a group of formerly subjugated people who wanted to be emancipated from their oppressors. I think there are similarities.

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
That was the claim made by the Chantry scholar, about the inception of mages living in the Circle Towers.

And unless you have differing opinions, that's the one we have to go with.

I think there's a difference between properly training mages to use their powers responsibly, and putting them under the rule of an anti-mage religious organization that preaches they are cursed. Hopefully, Inquisition will allow pro-mage and pro-templar players to pursue their respective goals, since hell will freeze over before either side reaches a consensus about this issue.

And I think that there is a difference between properly training mages and actually keeping mundanes safe from mages.

The Magisters of Tevinter enslave mages and non-mages alike. And Keili seems to be as indocturinated and brainwashed as Orana.

Keili is someone who has an healthy respect of her powers. Were more mages like her, there would be less issues.
But if she bothers you that much, there's plenty of rebellious mages to choose from. Unlike the slaves of tevinter mages, they actually have the luxury to wonder just how free they are.

I don't think the mages who are fighting to maintain their autonomy would see it as a "bearable existance".

People are self entitled, unresonable and uncompromising. That's no surprise.

Both wars had a group of formerly subjugated people who wanted to be emancipated from their oppressors. I think there are similarities.

And I think you are simplifying it. Narrow something down enough and it will suddenly be similar to many things.

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I think a leader to the mage revolution would need to be ruthless at times, since this war is a fight to the death to maintain their autonomy from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars. When the opposition thinks they have "divine right" over you simply because you are a mage, you need to be ruthless. It's no different than the war Andraste and Shartan waged against the Imperium; blood was shed in order to emancipate people from a very oppressive system that enslaved them. Now it's the mages' turn to fight to keep their freedom.

Andrate lost, in case you forgot, and eventually the Imperium surrendered. More importantly, after a few generations, the Imperium got back everything it wanted (cf. Fenris's comments on this). It wouldn't be a particularly good short-term outcome for mages (what with the long, drawn-out war and the death of their leaders) and the fact that eventually they would fail to displace the power structure of their enemies.

Andraste and Shartan were killed, but their people managed to get their freedom from the Imperium. And my point was about an oppressed group fighting against their oppressors for freedom.

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I think Wynne's comment about mundanes murdering mages simply for being mages would dispute Sir JK's comment about mobs attacking mages in a general sense (as would Mother Hannah's comment to the Amell Warden in Redcliffe), even though such an incident didn't transpire in Asunder (although it almost did, simply because the people realized the group consisted of mages). This is the opportunity for mages to finally be free from a sysem that was imposed on them nearly a millennia ago, and I think the templars might do anything to try to restore the status quo, or bring forth a much harsher one to subjugate the mages.

So what would mages do about mundanes wanting to murder them? Because this is where the path toward a dictatorship lies. 

Democracy doesn't seem to exist in Thedas, since we have nobility ruling over people in different kingdoms. I have no problem with the prospect of mage leaders; my Hero of Ferelden decided to put Alistair and Anora forth as King and Queen, and served as the new Arl of Amaranthine, after all.

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Andraste and Shartan were killed, but their people managed to get their freedom from the Imperium. And my point was about an oppressed group fighting against their oppressors for freedom.

The Elves were free from the Imperium (sort of, for a while) but it doesn't look like they're quite that free there right now (presumably Elven mages are now fine). Outside of the Imperium freedom for the Elves hasn't amounted to very much, given the Alienages. 

And Andraste's follows, eventually, created the Chantry. Which leads into the dictatorship point.

My point is that the end goal for the mages shouldn't be to create an oppressive system against non-mages or, generally speaking, fail to free themselves like the elves. 

Democracy doesn't seem to exist in Thedas, since we have nobility ruling over people in different kingdoms. I have no problem with the prospect of mage leaders; my Hero of Ferelden decided to put Alistair and Anora forth as King and Queen, and served as the new Arl of Amaranthine, after all.

I'm not talking about mage leadership - that's a given. I'm talking about what those mage leaders will do if they have to stake out territory with non-mages in them, and if those non-mages aren't happy with their leadership. Will the mages violently put down an uprising, like the Arl of Aramanthine did?

Modifié par In Exile, 07 janvier 2013 - 06:03 .

[LobselVith8]

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

That was the claim made by the Chantry scholar, about the inception of mages living in the Circle Towers.

And unless you have differing opinions, that's the one we have to go with.

I do have a different view.

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I think there's a difference between properly training mages to use their powers responsibly, and putting them under the rule of an anti-mage religious organization that preaches they are cursed. Hopefully, Inquisition will allow pro-mage and pro-templar players to pursue their respective goals, since hell will freeze over before either side reaches a consensus about this issue.

And I think that there is a difference between properly training mages and actually keeping mundanes safe from mages.

Which is why people like us never agree about the mage issue. It's why a plethora of mage and templar threads have people consistently disagreeing about the Chantry controlled Circles, the Order of Templars, the Chantry of Andraste, and the mages.

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Magisters of Tevinter enslave mages and non-mages alike. And Keili seems to be as indocturinated and brainwashed as Orana.

Keili is someone who has an healthy respect of her powers. Were more mages like her, there would be less issues.
But if she bothers you that much, there's plenty of rebellious mages to choose from. Unlike the slaves of tevinter mages, they actually have the luxury to wonder just how free they are.

I found Keili to be unhealthy, mentally. And considering the slave revolts in Tevinter, it seems there are slaves who contemplate independence there as well.

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't think the mages who are fighting to maintain their autonomy would see it as a "bearable existance".

People are self entitled, unresonable and uncompromising. That's no surprise.

That's precisely my view on the people who subjugate the mages.

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Both wars had a group of formerly subjugated people who wanted to be emancipated from their oppressors. I think there are similarities. 

And I think you are simplifying it. Narrow something down enough and it will suddenly be similar to many things.

Considering how some characters view the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery, I don't agree. But you and I already know we aren't going to agree about this issue. Ever. Which is why I don't think the mages and the templars at war will reach a consensus either. I imagine Fiona could be one of the faces of the mage rebellion, since there are likely multiple leaders across the continent leading different mage groups.

[SeptimusMagistos]

MisterJB wrote...

And unless you have differing opinions, that's the one we have to go with.

How about: the mages accepted the slanted 'compromise' because they just lost a war and it was better than their previous situation. And now their descendants intend to renegotiate.

MisterJB wrote...
And I think that there is a difference between properly training mages and actually keeping mundanes safe from mages.

I disagree strongly.

MisterJB wrote...

Keili is someone who has an healthy respect of her powers. Were more mages like her, there would be less issues

The fact that you think anything about Keili's attitude is healthy undermines your position.

Any time you hear someone refer to any aspect of themselves as a curse, it's time for an incredibly thorough investigation of their authority figures, because this is not okay.

Modifié par SeptimusMagistos, 07 janvier 2013 - 06:15 .

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Andraste and Shartan were killed, but their people managed to get their freedom from the Imperium. And my point was about an oppressed group fighting against their oppressors for freedom.

The Elves were free from the Imperium (sort of, for a while) but it doesn't look like they're quite that free there right now (presumably Elven mages are now fine). Outside of the Imperium freedom for the Elves hasn't amounted to very much, given the Alienages. 

And Andraste's follows, eventually, created the Chantry. Which leads into the dictatorship point.

My point is that the end goal for the mages shouldn't be to create an oppressive system against non-mages or, generally speaking, fail to free themselves like the elves.

I agree. Creating an oppressive system would lead to riots from the non-mages, and the elves ended up getting screwed over. The mages should strive for something different, but I imagine the mage leaders would have different ideas about what that outcome should be.

Speaking of the elves, I have wondered how the elves in the occupied Dales would respond to the Orlesian civil war and the Mage-Templar War. Might the elves try to take advantage of the situation?

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Democracy doesn't seem to exist in Thedas, since we have nobility ruling over people in different kingdoms. I have no problem with the prospect of mage leaders; my Hero of Ferelden decided to put Alistair and Anora forth as King and Queen, and served as the new Arl of Amaranthine, after all.

I'm not talking about mage leadership - that's a given. I'm talking about what those mage leaders will do if they have to stake out territory with non-mages in them, and if those non-mages aren't happy with their leadership. Will the mages violently put down an uprising, like the Arl of Aramanthine did? 

I imagine the leadership might have to put down some riots, in certain situations. Possibly through force, or intimidation. I suppose it depends on how bad it gets in certain regions, and how pro-templar some societies might be. I think the mage leadership could need to help out the non-mages in certain ways (like how the Warden-Commander can have his army spread out to help protect the farmers) to earn the favor of the people.

[Sir JK]

Lobsel:
The angry mob quote was not from me

Lobsel and Xilizhra:
It's not the Chantry/Templars that should fear a ruthless leader, it's the moderate mages. When ruthless leaders and radicals together in times of war cry out for blood, it is the moderates that either have to file into the ranks or rally together against their kin.

It is the mages that fight only for freedom and justice that have to watch their backs for the ambitious ones that seek influence, prestige and fame and are not afraid of a few dead bodies. Not because their goals are different, but that such individuals seldom take a no for an answer. When the ones struggling for justice say that they've gone too far... that's when they're in real danger.

The non-mages will fear any mage leader, no matter their vices and virtues. It is the kind of people that thrives in conflict that the mages will have to fear... from their own side.

It is, unfortunantely, also excellent war-time leadership material.

After all... the people that excel in times of war... are the ones that learned to kill.

That's whom I suspect will emerge as a leader and/or face for the mages. Not only because it is far more likely that such a person would benefit out of a "realistic" perspective. But also, and perhaps more crucially, the good cause with a slightly sympathetic but callous and somewhat frightening leader is a an escellent story potential. Because it allows one to tell the story of crossed lines, of moral dilemmas and of the corruption of power.

In short... it's not the leader whom the mages wants or needs that ultimately will emerge... it's far more likely the one they will regret.

[MisterJB]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...
How about: the mages accepted the slanted 'compromise' because they just lost a war and it was better than their previous situation. And now their descendants intend to renegotiate.

Allow me to rephrase that. Unless someone has another acount of the creation of the Circle written by someone ingame, this is the one we have to accept.
And I mantain the mages are being self-serving, unresonable and uncompromising.

The fact that you think anything about Keili's attitude is healthy undermines your position.
Any time you hear someone refer to any aspect of themselves as a curse, it's time for an incredibly thorough investigation of their authority figures, because this is not okay.

Not at all. If someone born with a deforming condition refers to it as being a curse, who am I to contradict her. Magic is dangerous to the mages themselves; as in, I've sneezed and now my house in on fire; and it attracts demons.

Keili's attitude is preferable to Tahrone's. It is one shared with Bethany and Malcolm Hawke, exemplary mages.

[The Elder King]

MisterJB wrote...



Keili's attitude is preferable to Tahrone's. It is one shared with Bethany and Malcolm Hawke, exemplary mages.

The problem isn't strictly Keili's opinion about magic (which I think a good part of the Loyalist would share). Is that she thinks that because she's a mage she would deserve everything the templar would do to her (with some very extreme exceptions, I hope). On that, she's very different from both Bethany and Malcolm.

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
That's precisely my view on the people who subjugate the mages.

Well, at least we can agree upon the faults of those we disagree with. Probrably not a good sign but it is what it is.

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Keili's attitude is preferable to Tahrone's. It is one shared with Bethany and Malcolm Hawke, exemplary mages.

The problem isn't strictly Keili's opinion about magic (which I think a good part of the Loyalist would share). Is that she thinks that because she's a mage she would deserve everything the templar would do to her (with some very extreme exceptions, I hope). On that, she's very different from both Bethany and Malcolm. 

We also have Leandra and Bethany saying that Anders reminds them a lot of Malcolm, and Carver's comment about hearing about the plight of mages many times before.

[SeptimusMagistos]

MisterJB wrote...

Allow me to rephrase that. Unless someone has another acount of the creation of the Circle written by someone ingame, this is the one we have to accept.

You don't feel like we're meant to take the fact that it was written by a chantry member into account and then look at the attitudes of mages towards the Circle vs. their attitudes towards freedom and infer that they weren't as happy with the idea as the author suggests?

MisterJB wrote...

And I mantain the mages are being self-serving, unresonable and uncompromising.

I maintain that their expectations are totally reasonable and not that different from what any mundane wants.

Stalemate?

MisterJB wrote...

Not at all. If someone born with a deforming condition refers to it as being a curse, who am I to contradict her.

I believe the standard procedure is to send them to counceling. And if that's unreasonable by the standards of a pseudo-medieval society, removing her from the custody of anyone who actively makes her feel worse about herself is a good idea.

The fact that she's pretty much suicidal by the time the you reach the tower should demonstrate that point. Unless of course you feel that it's a good idea to make all mages suicidal?

MisterJB wrote...

Magic is dangerous to the mages themselves; as in, I've sneezed and now my house in on fire; and it attracts demons.

Keili's attitude is preferable to Tahrone's. It is one shared with Bethany and Malcolm Hawke, exemplary mages.

Malcolm's attitude is more 'great power = great responsibility', which is reasonable. Like some people working in difficult or dangerous procedures, he doesn't necessarily want his kids following in the family trade.

I have very little respect for Bethany.

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
We also have Leandra and Bethany saying that Anders reminds them a lot of Malcolm, and Carver's comment about hearing about the plight of mages many times before.

Except that Malcolm actually acknowledged both the reasonable fears of mundanes and the dangers of magic and is quite capable of seeing the good in templars whereas Anders remains blissfully ignorant and sees instead the world in black and white where mages are good, templars are bad and anything bad the mages might do was provoked by the templars somehow always.
And that is without even taking Vengeance into account.

[The Hierophant]

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
We also have Leandra and Bethany saying that Anders reminds them a lot of Malcolm, and Carver's comment about hearing about the plight of mages many times before.

Except that Malcolm actually acknowledged both the reasonable fears of mundanes and the dangers of magic and is quite capable of seeing the good in templars whereas Anders remains blissfully ignorant and sees instead the world in black and white where mages are good, templars are bad and anything bad the mages might do was provoked by the templars somehow always.
And that is without even taking Vengeance into account.

Hold up wasn't it mentioned by someone else in another thread that Leandra/siblings said that Hawke reminded them of Malcolm?

Modifié par The Hierophant, 07 janvier 2013 - 07:08 .

[LobselVith8]

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

We also have Leandra and Bethany saying that Anders reminds them a lot of Malcolm, and Carver's comment about hearing about the plight of mages many times before. 

Except that Malcolm actually acknowledged both the reasonable fears of mundanes and the dangers of magic and is quite capable of seeing the good in templars whereas Anders remains blissfully ignorant and sees instead the world in black and white where mages are good, templars are bad and anything bad the mages might do was provoked by the templars somehow always.

Anders has no problem blaming Decimus and his stupid and insane mages for their actions in the initial conversation with Grace; he doesn't absolve them and blame the templars, after all. He condemns mages who use blood magic. He considers speaking to Grand Cleric Elthina when he considers that she might actually not be a bad person (when he sees that she denied Alrik's request for the Tranquil Solution). When Hawke brings Anders along, and stumbles upon Thrask's group of templars and mages, he doesn't seem to have an issue with it. He seems pleasantly surprised, in my opinion.

I have to imagine that Bethany and Leandra have reason to compare Anders to Malcolm, as well as Carver's mention of hearing about the plight of mages many times before (since it makes little sense if Hawke is pro-templar).

MisterJB wrote...

And that is without even taking Vengeance into account.

I think Justice is much more into seeing things fairly black and white.

[MisterJB]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...
You don't feel like we're meant to take the fact that it was written by a chantry member into account and then look at the attitudes of mages towards the Circle vs. their attitudes towards freedom and infer that they weren't as happy with the idea as the author suggests?

I feel that if there is only one historical document presented in the game, we are meant to see it as fact. When controversial issues are being discussed, David Gaider makes sure to write codex entries from diverse viewpoints to adress all versions of the history. For instance, the Dales.

Besides, Sister Petrine was fairly unbiased in that particular codex entry.

I maintain that their expectations are totally reasonable and not that different from what any mundane wants.

Stalemate?

This argument has been in a stalemate since 2009 and it's not likely to change anytime soon.
Let's see, we can agree that the mage's greater potential for destruction obligates them to greater responsabilities towards society, yes?

I believe the standard procedure is to send them to counceling. And if that's unreasonable by the standards of a pseudo-medieval society, removing her from the custody of anyone who actively makes her feel worse about herself is a good idea.

Not if her condition places others in danger which it does.

The fact that she's pretty much suicidal by the time the you reach the tower should demonstrate that point. Unless of course you feel that it's a good idea to make all mages suicidal?

Or it could have been the demons running around, seeing her friends turn into monsters, things like that.

Personally, I'm not particularly fond of religious dogma but, in this case, it has help kept people honest. So...I've mixed feelings about changing the Chantry's Doctrine.

Malcolm's attitude is more 'great power = great responsibility', which is reasonable. Like some people working in difficult or dangerous procedures, he doesn't necessarily want his kids following in the family trade.

Malcolm refer to his magic as a curse at least once.

I have very little respect for Bethany.

Why?

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Anders has no problem blaming Decimus and his stupid and insane mages for their actions in the initial conversation with Grace; he doesn't absolve them and blame the templars, after all.

He does. He claims that Decimus' group must have been really desperate to use blood magic thus claiming that it's the templar's fault for pursuing them. And does the very same thing later in the game when dealing with Avelina and Huon and many others.

He considers speaking to Grand Cleric Elthina when he considers that she might actually not be a bad person (when he sees that she denied Alrik's request for the Tranquil Solution).

He hates it if people assume that mages are evil and yet he does the very same thing by assuming that everyone affiliated with the Chantry must be a bad person.
Hypocrite is what he is.

I have to imagine that Bethany and Leandra have reason to compare Anders to Malcolm, as well as Carver's mention of hearing about the plight of mages many times before (since it makes little sense if Hawke is pro-templar).

Mine was a Pro Templar Diplomatic Hawke and Leandra and Bethany and Hawke also claim that he is like their father. Ergo, it could really mean anything.

I think Justice is much more into seeing things fairly black and white.

Vengeance has gone from "black and white " territory and into "insult = death penalty".

[ISpeakTheTruth]

People need to stop naming Anders as a valid choice as the leader or face of the Mage rebellion. He's at best a deeply disturbed person and at worst a cold blooded murderer without empathy. He has no control over his condition and should be in confinment. The only reason I didn't kill him in my playthrough is because I thought I'd need his help in preventing innocent mages from being killed for something they didn't have anything to do with what Anders had done.

If there was a chance of redirecting the blame completely on Anders which is where it should have been targeted than I would have handed him over in a minute. If I see him again in DA3 then I'm going to kill him because people like him give all good mages a bad name.

[SeptimusMagistos]

MisterJB wrote...

I feel that if there is only one historical document presented in the game, we are meant to see it as fact. When controversial issues are being discussed, David Gaider makes sure to write codex entries from diverse viewpoints to adress all versions of the history. For instance, the Dales.

Besides, Sister Petrine was fairly unbiased in that particular codex entry.

I see. Obviously, I feel that if you were to ask the mages at the time for their opinion, you'd get something considerably less than 'cheerful'.

MisterJB wrote...
Let's see, we can agree that the mage's greater potential for destruction obligates them to greater responsabilities towards society, yes?

In a way that's minimally disruptive to their lives, yes.

I get the argument that other people are affected by a mage's presence, I really do. But I feel that doesn't give them the right to uniletally impose their will on the mage.

Please don't drag the old 'quarantine' argument into this, since I'm pretty sure you've made it clear that you would support the circles even if the chance of mages being possessed was zero. Mundanes may rightly be concerned about the mages' power and the whole thing may require some sort of an arrangement, but I feel that the one that's in place right now is totally skewed. (and not actually all that helpful.)

MisterJB wrote...

Or it could have been the demons running around, seeing her friends turn into monsters, things like that.

Not judging by the differences in her reaction vs. that of other students.

MisterJB wrote...
Personally, I'm not particularly fond of religious dogma but, in this case, it has help kept people honest. So...I've mixed feelings about changing the Chantry's Doctrine.

Mine are overwhelmingly negative. Anyone who says such things to a child should never be anywhere near them.

MisterJB wrote...
Malcolm refer to his magic as a curse at least once.

I think that was around the time the Grey Wardens were threatening to kill his family if he didn't do magic for them. It may have affected his thinking.

MisterJB wrote...
Why?

Because apparently despite spending all that time killing Templars she doesn't quite understand that our group was on a mission to kill all Templars.

Instead, she decided to put her safety and the safety of others into the Templars' hands. She learned the error of her ways when her would-be guardians decided to kill her.

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

People need to stop naming Anders as a valid choice as the leader or face of the Mage rebellion. He's at best a deeply disturbed person and at worst a cold blooded murderer without empathy. He has no control over his condition and should be in confinment. The only reason I didn't kill him in my playthrough is because I thought I'd need his help in preventing innocent mages from being killed for something they didn't have anything to do with what Anders had done.

If there was a chance of redirecting the blame completely on Anders which is where it should have been targeted than I
would have handed him over in a minute. If I see him again in DA3 then I'm going to kill him because people like him give all good mages a bad name.

I didn't like what Anders did, but someone had to do something, and the game wouldn't let me fireball Meredith. I gave him a C+ for effort and welcomed him back into the group.

Modifié par SeptimusMagistos, 08 janvier 2013 - 12:04 .