462 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Silfren wrote...

Connor isn't even remotely an example of what I'm talking about.  But it doesn't have to be just the PC either, though I don't see any reason at all we couldn't have gotten at least one scene or minor side quest involving this issue.  But there's zero mention of it even in ambient dialogue.  So what if it's Origin specific?  ALL The origins had unique side content.  But it doesn't have to be a case of being constantly followed around by one demon.  There are other ways this could have been demonstrated. 

I don't get what's so hard about this.  If mages actually do face this threat as a constant of their lives, why do none of them ever mention it?  In Origins we had Wynne and Morrigan in addition to the PC.  In DA2 we had Bethany, and potentially Hawke herself.  And of course all the other secondary major and minor mage characters from all games.

It is actually very hard, given the fact that it's a game.

One minor sidequest woudln't be NEARLY enough to showcase the danger of possesion. You'd need to basicly create an entire game around that - a expence in time and resources that's hard to justify. Hell, they didn't even put in the Templar Lyrium addiction mechanic (partially because it wouldn't be fun) - possesion would require far more.

And how would you hadle it mechanicly? Press X to resist temptation?
There is a reason why games avoid such things - because plot/character shields, and the very fact that it's a game and thus must be winnable, and musn't be too difficult as you don't want to alianate more casuals.

Can you name one game where temptation was done in the right way?

As long as the player is exempt it wil never feel truly dangerous. Player is a mage, he never feels threatened by possesion. Even if other mages fall, the impact is lessened.
It's the same kind of reasonign you hear repeated - "well, if Hawke/Warden can do X, and others cna't, then they are incompetent!"
How many poeple use this line of reasoning, completely forgetting that it's a game, and player needs stuff to do (hence, everyone is incapable of wiping their own ass) AND have plot shields?

There is as far as I know literally not one reference made from any mage about this supposedly constant danger.  Sorry, but I'd expect such an integral part of a mage's life to be mentioned once in a while.

A lot of important things are skipped or glosses over. That's game deveopment and resource constraints for you.

[DKJaigen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
A greater pride demon,  brought across the veil, would threaten the entire world.
--From The Maker's First Children, by Bader, Senior Enchanter of Ostwick, 8:12 Blessed.


coming fro mthe mouth of a First Enchanter.

There is a reason why the danger from mages seems so lesser.
And that's because the player can be a mage.
So just like the devs don't acknowledge oyu beign a blood mage, or like how they didnt' put in lyrium consumption for a templar spec, they didn't put in demonic possesion for mages.
Just think how FUN it would be to play as mage if every little while you'd have to do  a quick-time event or mash your controller to avoid possesion attempts.

Also it's a game, so abominations will be perfectly beatable by 4 people (or even by one), even when they can lore-wise take on entire armies.

wtf is a greater pride demon? because so far the other pride demons while dangerous are not really that world shattering. Lore is twisted in this case , because so far we have not seen an abomination take out en entrie army nor have we heard of the abominations of old taking out entire armies.

It's not the lore that is twisted.
It's the game that twists the lore to fit gameplay.

I can't belive that are actually idiots in this world who trot gameplay as ultimate proof.

It doesn't matter how many sword hits a demon or anyone else can take in game.
Or do you serisously want to argue that Ser Cauthrien is hte most devastting creature in all of TheDas?
Or any other example of gamepaly taking the lore for behind and having it's way with it?

OF COURSE an abomination in game wont be that strong. If it was, the player couldn't defeat it. DUH!
Well, I guess you could, but that would require a compeltely different approach and encoutner design...and given that EA loves the raining men approach, that's not likely to ahppen.

Then show me lore where their where abominations  wiped out entire cities. And do not say redcliff because that was village that had its defenseses stripped.

[Lotion Soronarr]

What? Codexes aren't lore?

There are multiple mentions from multiple sources of a single abomination threatening a city...or worse.

And wasn't there one city that was almost destroyed by a very sneaky one?

[Silfren]

Hazegurl wrote...

You're obviously very emotional about this. I don't think you have anything to offer this discussion.

Hoo boy, you actually just made a tone argument and tried to dismiss someone's viewpoint because you deem them too emotional.  Nice going. 

(Hint:  This is bull****.  Someone's emotional reaction to or involvement in a given subject has zero bearing on what they can bring to a discussion.  This is just a really jerk*ss attempt to shut them down).  First time I've seen it applied by a woman to a guy, though, which is a nice switch.

Modifié par Silfren, 06 mars 2013 - 02:25 .

[dragonflight288]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
But it is interesting to note that while you cite all these mages, after having been treated like dirt by the templars for so long, and had been driven to desperation, that the fact that they do desperate things as proof that mages are too dangerous...would it not be better if the mages simply weren't driven to desperate measures in the first place and have the templars hunt the mage criminals, and focus only on the criminals?

Chicken and egg here.

First of all, only SOME mages were abused.

The argument that all circles are corrupt and templars are evil is the same line of reasoning as "Oh. Guantanamo Bay happened? Let's close down ALL prisons!"

It has been proven time and time again that those incidents are exceptions. Bethany herself is perfectly content and doens't rise up besause she or any mage where abused - but because no one should be locked up. That is her stated reason. That she suddenly blurt out after Orsino urges her. I still suspect blood magic at work there.



Second, chicken and the egg. Like I said before, you say mages going abomination is a natural response to templar pressure - well I say templar pressure is a natural response to mages d*** around.

I never once said all templars are corrupt pricks. Meredith is corrupt and she promotes the sadistic and other corrupt templars, so the moderates don't have the power to stop the sadistic ones.

The chicken and egg analogy may apply, if it weren't for the fact that the mage problems in Kirkwall didn't really truly start until AFTER Meredith became the defacto Viscount. My Warden faced more blood mages in one year during a blight than Hawke faced in five years in Kirkwall. It was AFTER Meredith gained illegal political power that blood mages became a problem.

We have mages mention that they can't be seen talking to civilians otherwise they'd get beaten. We have a large number of illegal tranquil, Cullen mentions in Ferelden that he knows some templars discuss killing mages with glee, and Thrask talks about Kerras being a sadisitic jerk who doesn't want peaceful solutions, and would rather have a bloodbath if he can get away with it. It's made quite clear that one templar used the tranquil as sex slaves.

Under Meredith, the templars have no oversight whatsoever. And Elthina doesn't hold Meredith accountable for her actions, and the actions of the templars under her command. The entire system is built up and it's ridiculously easy for templars to abuse their power.

And if you search every thread of this website, you will not find one comment made by me, not one, that says all Circle's are corrupt. I call the system itself corrupt in that each individual circle's quality for mages is dependent entirely on the Knight-Commander in charge and the Chantry doesn't give its templars enough oversight and doesn't hold its templars to be accountable for their actions. That doesn't mean that every templar is a sadistic jerk or every circle is corrupt and every mage is abused.

It's a call for a reformation of the system itself. Limit the power of the templars, hold them accountable for their actions, while still regulating magic and having templars around to fight mages who turn into criminals or blood mages. That doesn't mean mages police themselves exclusively, although I see no problem with mages working with templars to police mages and templars both.

I can buy the Chicken and the Egg analogy so long as we recognize the Circle System was set up as a compromise so mages weren't glorified janitors and it's based on fear of a 1000 years of slavery to the Tevinter Imperium. And so long as we recognize that there are societies where mages live free and those societies aren't magocracies and its mages aren't mage supremists. Giving mages more rights does not mean the rise of Tevinter 2.0.

An argument can be made that the Chantry is Tevinter 2.0....only without the mages being the rulers.

[DKJaigen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What? Codexes aren't lore?

There are multiple mentions from multiple sources of a single abomination threatening a city...or worse.

And wasn't there one city that was almost destroyed by a very sneaky one?

Then cite those codexes because i cannot find them. And destroying a city through subterfuge is not that impressive because a normal human can do that as well. What i need from you is a list of cities and armies that got destroyed by an abomination.

[Silfren]

DKJaigen wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What? Codexes aren't lore?

There are multiple mentions from multiple sources of a single abomination threatening a city...or worse.

And wasn't there one city that was almost destroyed by a very sneaky one?

Then cite those codexes because i cannot find them. And destroying a city through subterfuge is not that impressive because a normal human can do that as well. What i need from you is a list of cities and armies that got destroyed by an abomination.

I can think of exactly one codex that refers to one abomination killing a large number of people, the one for the Right of Annulment itself.  Specifically it states that an abomination got loose from the Circle and killed seventy people before it was caught a year later. 

I'm well aware that a few people are going to side-eye me for this, but seventy deaths over a year's time, or fewer than two people per week, is NOT a cataclysmic level of destruction. 

Note also that he said "threatening" a city, which is one of those nice phrases that be interpreted varyingly.  I don't personally recall codices that discuss entire cities or villages being razed to the ground, much less multiple ones from multiple sources.

Modifié par Silfren, 06 mars 2013 - 09:27 .

[dragonflight288]

Silfren wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What? Codexes aren't lore?

There are multiple mentions from multiple sources of a single abomination threatening a city...or worse.

And wasn't there one city that was almost destroyed by a very sneaky one?

Then cite those codexes because i cannot find them. And destroying a city through subterfuge is not that impressive because a normal human can do that as well. What i need from you is a list of cities and armies that got destroyed by an abomination.

I can think of exactly one codex that refers to one abomination killing a large number of people, the one for the Right of Annulment itself.  Specifically it states that an abomination got loose from the Circle and killed seventy people before it was caught a year later. 

I'm well aware that a few people are going to side-eye me for this, but seventy deaths over a year's time, or fewer than two people per week, is NOT a cataclysmic level of destruction. 

Note also that he said "threatening" a city, which is one of those nice phrases that be interpreted varyingly.  I don't personally recall codices that discuss entire cities or villages being razed to the ground, much less multiple ones from multiple sources.

I know I haven't read any codexes of abominations razing entire cities and destroying armies. The Harvester is the closest thing that fits that description, and it didn't destroy an entire city, it killed a team of smiths, a single magister and her enterage, and a few people who came by after the fact, not seeking to kill a monster but to reclaim the lost technology of building golems.

And yeah, Meredith's sister, when put in the context you said, is a lot less frightening or threatening than my Warden or Hawke...who kill people almost on a daily basis, and in great numbers.

[Silfren]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

What? Codexes aren't lore?

There are multiple mentions from multiple sources of a single abomination threatening a city...or worse.

And wasn't there one city that was almost destroyed by a very sneaky one?

Then cite those codexes because i cannot find them. And destroying a city through subterfuge is not that impressive because a normal human can do that as well. What i need from you is a list of cities and armies that got destroyed by an abomination.

I can think of exactly one codex that refers to one abomination killing a large number of people, the one for the Right of Annulment itself.  Specifically it states that an abomination got loose from the Circle and killed seventy people before it was caught a year later. 

I'm well aware that a few people are going to side-eye me for this, but seventy deaths over a year's time, or fewer than two people per week, is NOT a cataclysmic level of destruction. 

Note also that he said "threatening" a city, which is one of those nice phrases that be interpreted varyingly.  I don't personally recall codices that discuss entire cities or villages being razed to the ground, much less multiple ones from multiple sources.

I know I haven't read any codexes of abominations razing entire cities and destroying armies. The Harvester is the closest thing that fits that description, and it didn't destroy an entire city, it killed a team of smiths, a single magister and her enterage, and a few people who came by after the fact, not seeking to kill a monster but to reclaim the lost technology of building golems.

And yeah, Meredith's sister, when put in the context you said, is a lot less frightening or threatening than my Warden or Hawke...who kill people almost on a daily basis, and in great numbers.

That codex doesn't refer to Meredith's sister, it happened quite a few years back   

ETA: It happened during the Glory Age, in fact, which was the second age.  I also see where you got the idea the abomination was Meredith's sister, since she killed seventy villagers, too.

Before certain people try to use this to prove any points, I have to add that if Amelia Stannard is the only example of an abomination slaughtering an entire village, I'm not impressed of the dangers.  Disasters happen sometimes, but terrible as they are, they don't qualify as an epidemic that justifies drastic reaction, especially when the first one was even less impressive. 

Modifié par Silfren, 06 mars 2013 - 11:42 .

[Hazegurl]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Hazegurl said....

snip

You say I'm wrong? While I may not be in your mind regarding your roleplaying experiences, and you may not be in mine, (although you did have a fascinating roleplaying experience from what you wrote out about your Hawke's motivations), the Right of Annulment, by its very definition, is purging the circle completely. That means killing every last mage. From every man and woman, from First Enchanter to apprentice, including the children.

If Bethany is in the Circle, then she is, by definition, included in that purge. Your Hawke may want to spare her, but Meredith still demands her death. Your Hawke supports killing every mage, but wishes to spare one and have her be an exception?

Ah well, your playthrough.

But it is interesting to note that while you cite all these mages, after having been treated like dirt by the templars for so long, and had been driven to desperation, that the fact that they do desperate things as proof that mages are too dangerous...would it not be better if the mages simply weren't driven to desperate measures in the first place and have the templars hunt the mage criminals, and focus only on the criminals?

I'm not saying you are wrong. I don't think anyone's choice in game is wrong. That is your Hawke's story and the choices s/he made. I really don't see it as a big deal. I began this thread asking for input from people who sided with the Templars and why they chose to do so because I think so many different reasons exists for doing so. Like I said before, I find it to be the more complex choice. 

You don't have to explain the RoA to me. I know what it means and yes still supported it to secure Kirkwall's safety. Also, reducing casualities were the objective. Bethany being spared would be a bonus to that. That doesn't mean he would be indifferent to her plight. She is his only family and he loves his sister. My Hawke spared the mages who surrendered, yeah it doesn't seem like much but it's better than no one being spared, he still stopped Meredith in the end when she wanted to continue. Too bad the rest didn't surrender to Hawke. if they did, I would have saved them too.

And yes, mages should not be driven to committing desperate acts. However, when are mages ever going to be held accountable for their own choices? I probably sound like Fenris here. But it is the truth.  All Anders and other mages did was make one excuse after another. The excuse that "The Templars made us do it"  was wearing thin. Everyone has a choice and the mages who turned to murdering innocent people deserve their punishment. Sadly, they are a stain on decent mages. I don't believe mages should be locked up. I think the circle is needed but as a school. Templars are needed to enforce the law when mages are concerned. However, mages should not be given the right to govern themselves. As according to Fenris, that's when things started to go downhill. It became all about greasing each other's palms and an old boy's club of power hungry mages willing to resort to the sickest acts to sit at the top of the heap. Sure regular men and women can do the same thing, but they don't have demons on their back.  That is what makes mages dangerous.

[dragonflight288]

Hazegurl wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Hazegurl said....

snip

You say I'm wrong? While I may not be in your mind regarding your roleplaying experiences, and you may not be in mine, (although you did have a fascinating roleplaying experience from what you wrote out about your Hawke's motivations), the Right of Annulment, by its very definition, is purging the circle completely. That means killing every last mage. From every man and woman, from First Enchanter to apprentice, including the children.

If Bethany is in the Circle, then she is, by definition, included in that purge. Your Hawke may want to spare her, but Meredith still demands her death. Your Hawke supports killing every mage, but wishes to spare one and have her be an exception?

Ah well, your playthrough.

But it is interesting to note that while you cite all these mages, after having been treated like dirt by the templars for so long, and had been driven to desperation, that the fact that they do desperate things as proof that mages are too dangerous...would it not be better if the mages simply weren't driven to desperate measures in the first place and have the templars hunt the mage criminals, and focus only on the criminals?

I'm not saying you are wrong. I don't think anyone's choice in game is wrong. That is your Hawke's story and the choices s/he made. I really don't see it as a big deal. I began this thread asking for input from people who sided with the Templars and why they chose to do so because I think so many different reasons exists for doing so. Like I said before, I find it to be the more complex choice. 

You don't have to explain the RoA to me. I know what it means and yes still supported it to secure Kirkwall's safety. Also, reducing casualities were the objective. Bethany being spared would be a bonus to that. That doesn't mean he would be indifferent to her plight. She is his only family and he loves his sister. My Hawke spared the mages who surrendered, yeah it doesn't seem like much but it's better than no one being spared, he still stopped Meredith in the end when she wanted to continue. Too bad the rest didn't surrender to Hawke. if they did, I would have saved them too.

And yes, mages should not be driven to committing desperate acts. However, when are mages ever going to be held accountable for their own choices? I probably sound like Fenris here. But it is the truth.  All Anders and other mages did was make one excuse after another. The excuse that "The Templars made us do it"  was wearing thin. Everyone has a choice and the mages who turned to murdering innocent people deserve their punishment. Sadly, they are a stain on decent mages. I don't believe mages should be locked up. I think the circle is needed but as a school. Templars are needed to enforce the law when mages are concerned. However, mages should not be given the right to govern themselves. As according to Fenris, that's when things started to go downhill. It became all about greasing each other's palms and an old boy's club of power hungry mages willing to resort to the sickest acts to sit at the top of the heap. Sure regular men and women can do the same thing, but they don't have demons on their back.  That is what makes mages dangerous.

Hmm, it sounds like you and I are actually closer in opinion through your implications than our arguments make them out to be.

You say mages like Anders make excuse after excuse. I've said in the past that the templars never give mages the benefit of the doubt and paint all of them with the same brush, guilty and innocent both. You talk about Tevinter and how if mages are given freedom they will inevitably turn into another Tevinter. I've always said mages shouldn't police themselves, but work with the templars and help in policing themselves and the templars should be given more oversight and be held accountable when they inevitably abuse the power they now possess.

You ask when mages will be held accountable for their own actions? I say they've been held accountable for the actions of the guilty and the innocent are punshed alongside them. I have only had one playthrough, only one, where I let Anders live after destroying the Chantry, and it never felt right with me. I always hold mages accountable for their individual actions.

I believe everyone, be they mage, templar, priest or apprentice, must be held accountable for what that individual does. If a mage turns to blood magic to keep him/herself from being raped by a templar, I call it justified self-defense. If a mage turns to blood magic and uses it to take away the free will of others and committs crimes, I say that mage deserves tranquility as a punishment (for his willingness to take away the free will of others) or possibly death, depending on the scale of the crimes committed.

If a templar is hunting an apostate, in an effort to bring them to the circle, and the apostate uses blood magic to enthrall a nearby village, or summons a demon, I will not hold the templar accountable if a fight breaks out and the apostate in question ends up dead. But if a templar is hunting an apprentice or an apostate, and the mage in question has no defense or isn't a blood mage, but ends up run through and reported as a maleficar (Aneirin, I'm referring to you) then I say that the templar abused his authority. When a templar captures and tortures a dalish hunter with fire to gather information on a mage who's never been in the Circle, and then justifies it by saying they don't care about 'knife-ears' then if the Dalish slaughter the templar, I won't have any objections. But if the templar is attacked unjustly, then I'll defend that individual templar.

The problem with the system itself is that it gives way too much power to the templars and the chantry. They now routinely abuse their power over mages, and it can be said they are Tevinter 2.0. The templars aren't held accountable for their own actions as of now, and they have gone against the Chantry so the could do a world-wide mage hunt out of fear and hatred.

Were I to come across a mage abusing his power, I would hold that mage accountable, but not other mages. All I would like to see, is an understanding that while mages may be dangerous and hold a great deal of power, the templars have shown a far greater willingness (in the current system) to abuse their power.

[Rinshikai10]

I agree with many of the points dragonflight288. The individual should be punished rather then the group, the Chantry/Templar are a Tevinter 2.0 the just rules with Magic indirectly.

While I may not like the Order as a whole, the purpose is necessary for a real danger. But need to be held accountable for its members just as much as the Mages.

Its a nice idea for both groups to work together, but I feel that is a dream at best. My own personal view is the Circle must be separated by from the Chantry/ Templar organizations and policed by a neutral group that does not bring faith into the governing process, such as the Grey Wardens.

However I know few people would share the same view as me.

Modifié par Rinshikai10, 07 mars 2013 - 03:02 .

[-TC1989-]

Sorry if this has been mentioned but...

While I can definately understand and agree with the whole "one shouldn't ruin it for everyone", I really have to give some thought as to an act like blowing up a chantry. I mean how do you really just say "YOU did it, arrest that man ONLY". I mean where is the justification for an act like this? I really don't know how I would act to something like that. I mean a crazy blood mage is one thing, you deal with him and go home. But this is something else to me in my opinion.

You really have to set a firm and swift answer to this. I don't think the Right of Annulment is the answer, but what else do you do? When someone has the ambition and the balls to do something to wipe out an entire building to "get back at the man".. I really have to stop and think about the right course of action. How do you proceed? You can't say "Okay we'll apologize to the mages and hope they settle down". An unspeakable act of murder and devastation has been committed. You have to deal with the situation like that here and now, and somehow get order under control, and yes I hate to say it but you have to make a statement even if deadly.

[Silfren]

Rinshikai10 wrote...

I agree with many of the points dragonflight288. The individual should be punished rather then the group, the Chantry/Templar are a Tevinter 2.0 the just rule with Magic indirectly.

While I may not like the Order as a whole, the purpose is necessary for a real danger. But need to be held accountable for its members just as much as the Mages.

Its a nice idea for both groups to work together, but I feel that is a dream at best. My own personal view is the Circle must be separated by from the Chantry/ Templar organizations and policed by a neutral group that does not bring faith into the governing process, such as the Grey Wardens.

However I know few people would share the same view as me.

It's far more unrealistic to consider the Grey Wardens the appropriate police force for criminal mages than the idea of mages and Templars working together.  There's no reason why this has to be an unachievable dream, none at all.  It does require that the Templars in question not be religious fanatics who've been taught that magic is fundamentally both dangerous and evil, and that would require a new order of Templars, trained as a group to hunt mages and counter magic, but not taught any religious indoctrination.  And there's no reason at all why this new group couldn't work with mages--mages after all are absolutely indispensable for understanding better than anyone how magic is best applied offensively and defensively. 

This isn't an unachievable goal.  What it would require are the secular leaders--the monarch of Ferelden, for one, gathering up moderate Templars of the likes of Evangeline, and using them to train this new order.  But in addition to this, there is no reason whatsoever that Templar abilities should be a closely-guarded Chantry secret, so it would be a good idea to provide Templar training to regular soldiers...or at least to provide a group of Templars to secular rulers at every level. 

No, the most pressing problem to deal with is actually going to be that of lyrium.  It IS required for Templar abilities, per Gaider, irrespective of what Alistair says to the contrary, so making sure there's an adequate supply, and dealing with the addictive effects, that'll be the hard part.

[Silfren]

-TC1989- wrote...

Sorry if this has been mentioned but...

While I can definately understand and agree with the whole "one shouldn't ruin it for everyone", I really have to give some thought as to an act like blowing up a chantry. I mean how do you really just say "YOU did it, arrest that man ONLY". I mean where is the justification for an act like this? I really don't know how I would act to something like that. I mean a crazy blood mage is one thing, you deal with him and go home. But this is something else to me in my opinion.

You really have to set a firm and swift answer to this. I don't think the Right of Annulment is the answer, but what else do you do?You really have to set a firm and swift answer to this. I don't think the Right of Annulment is the answer, but what else do you do? When someone has the ambition and the balls to do something to wipe out an entire building to "get back at the man".. I really have to stop and think about the right course of action. How do you proceed? You can't say "Okay we'll apologize to the mages and hope they settle down". An unspeakable act of murder and devastation has been committed. You have to deal with the situation like that here and now, and somehow get order under control, and yes I hate to say it but you have to make a statement even if deadly.

You execute the guy responsible, who's sitting right in front of you waiting for you to do precisely that.  What's the dilemma?  You're talking about this as if it was a Circle-wide plot, but it wasn't, it was the act of a single person, so I'm sorry but I don't understand why you'd have a dilemma over whether to carry out the Right of Annulment. 

How do you NOT say "arrest that man ONLY?"  Again, what's so hard about this question?  And I'm unsure what apologizing to the mages has to do with it.  You don't have to apologize to them at all.  Just, you know, DON'T decide to invoke the Right of Annulment for a crime they did not commit.  And there's no settling down to be had if you haven't threatened them with summary execution, so...what??

The moral answer should be obvious--civilized, just people don't execute innocents for a crime they didn't commit.  But even if you don't want to discuss the moral aspect, it's a practical one too:  executing a few HUNDRED individuals for the act of a single person is an excellent way to cause their fellows  to revolt at the injustice.  Obviously it's what the entire end plot of DA2 revolves around.  So if you're trying to AVOID bloodshed, slaughtering several hundred people for the actions of an unrelated single person, while the world looks on, is not the way to go.  But if you have to make a statement, there's no dilemma, again--just kill the man who committed the act...he's conveniently sitting there for you to take him into custody for just that purpose.

As for getting order under control, well, that's also not hard.  You set the police to work restoring order to the angry mob, and you go on with life.  If you're suggesting that because there's an angry mob about, you have to kill the mages, who are NOT an angry mob, because they're all over at the Gallows, nicely contained and confined away from the chaos to begin with...I'm sorry, I really just don't understand why there's a dilemma here to fret over.

There's PLENTY of justification for what Anders did, but that's a whole other thread (many, many threads) entirely.

[Rinshikai10]

@ Silfren

I think you are misinterpreting what I'm trying to say. The reason I use the Warden as an example is because of their neutral stance in Thedas. They accept people from all walks of life, and go through life or death rituals like a Mages harrowing, which could allow them to relate to the Mages in some way. I know that they are not the most honorable group out there, but as far as I know they are the only true neutral group that I can think of.

I don't think that Mages working with their guardians is a unachievable goal. What I think is a dream is the current Templars and Mages solving their distrust within the current system. There is just too much hate from both sides.

I like the idea of a secular leaders, training to protect mages and non mages alike, but would moderate Templars be able to take their faith out of training a new group? Evangeline is a good woman in my POV, but she still seems to have loyalties to the Divine. Who isn't a Secular leader, and is too connected to her faith in the Chantry.

Plus would you not have to get most nations to agree to this training of a new order? If only one nation did this, it could cause problems.

I agree that lyrium is going to be a major issue in the future.

[dragonflight288]

Rinshikai10 wrote...

@ Silfren

I think you are misinterpreting what I'm trying to say. The reason I use the Warden as an example is because of their neutral stance in Thedas. They accept people from all walks of life, and go through life or death rituals like a Mages harrowing, which could allow them to relate to the Mages in some way. I know that they are not the most honorable group out there, but as far as I know they are the only true neutral group that I can think of.

I don't think that Mages working with their guardians is a unachievable goal. What I think is a dream is the current Templars and Mages solving their distrust within the current system. There is just too much hate from both sides.

I like the idea of a secular leaders, training to protect mages and non mages alike, but would moderate Templars be able to take their faith out of training a new group? Evangeline is a good woman in my POV, but she still seems to have loyalties to the Divine. Who isn't a Secular leader, and is too connected to her faith in the Chantry.

Plus would you not have to get most nations to agree to this training of a new order? If only one nation did this, it could cause problems.

I agree that lyrium is going to be a major issue in the future.

So if we have this hypothetical third group that is neutral by all parties, then who'll watch them? Who do they answer to? 

There needs to be a system of checks and balances. The templars can check the mages, the seekers can check the templars, and the mages can check the seekers. Or something like that. Just remove the Chantry from the picture entirely and let each group handle themselves.

Or something along those lines. That's probably the closest we can get to keep any singular group from becoming too corrupt and powerful, as we all know that corruption exists in any organization.

[TEWR]

There needs to be a system of checks and balances. The templars can check the mages, the seekers can check the templars, and the mages can check the seekers. Or something like that. Just remove the Chantry from the picture entirely and let each group handle themselves.

It would probably be better for the crown to check the seekers and not the Mages.

The Mages and Circles would be an independent organization, with self-autonomy in the nations they reside in. Essentially, a nation within a nation. They've already proven that they can earn their own money to keep themselves afloat.

The Templars would similarly be an independent organization with a strict guideline on how to act. Alternatively, they'd be in the control of the state.

The Seekers would be the internal affairs of said independent organization/state's organization obviously. And the crown would have authority over the Seekers if there were reports of Seekers abusing power.

There will, of course, never be a perfect system. But I feel that something along these lines will be the best one could hope for in order to see the least amount of abuse the system allows.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 07 mars 2013 - 04:19 .

[dragonflight288]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

There needs to be a system of checks and balances. The templars can check the mages, the seekers can check the templars, and the mages can check the seekers. Or something like that. Just remove the Chantry from the picture entirely and let each group handle themselves.

It would probably be better for the crown to check the seekers and not the Mages.

True. I just typed the first thing that came to my mind.

[Silfren]

Rinshikai10 wrote...

@ Silfren

I think you are misinterpreting what I'm trying to say. The reason I use the Warden as an example is because of their neutral stance in Thedas. They accept people from all walks of life, and go through life or death rituals like a Mages harrowing, which could allow them to relate to the Mages in some way. I know that they are not the most honorable group out there, but as far as I know they are the only true neutral group that I can think of.

I don't think that Mages working with their guardians is a unachievable goal. What I think is a dream is the current Templars and Mages solving their distrust within the current system. There is just too much hate from both sides.

I like the idea of a secular leaders, training to protect mages and non mages alike, but would moderate Templars be able to take their faith out of training a new group? Evangeline is a good woman in my POV, but she still seems to have loyalties to the Divine. Who isn't a Secular leader, and is too connected to her faith in the Chantry.

Plus would you not have to get most nations to agree to this training of a new order? If only one nation did this, it could cause problems.

I agree that lyrium is going to be a major issue in the future.

Evangeline is an example of a Templar who is an Andrastian without the crazy.  I'm not saying it's necessary for the Templars in my proposed new group to be atheists, or anti-Andrastian.  I'm saying they need to not be indoctrinated with anti-mage fervor.

Evangeline's loyalties to the Divine, if I recall, remain intact specifically because she and the Divine we are talking about are essentially on the same side.  Remember, Divine Justinia is in favor of reforming the Circle system.

[-TC1989-]

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

Sorry if this has been mentioned but...

While I can definately understand and agree with the whole "one shouldn't ruin it for everyone", I really have to give some thought as to an act like blowing up a chantry. I mean how do you really just say "YOU did it, arrest that man ONLY". I mean where is the justification for an act like this? I really don't know how I would act to something like that. I mean a crazy blood mage is one thing, you deal with him and go home. But this is something else to me in my opinion.

You really have to set a firm and swift answer to this. I don't think the Right of Annulment is the answer, but what else do you do?You really have to set a firm and swift answer to this. I don't think the Right of Annulment is the answer, but what else do you do? When someone has the ambition and the balls to do something to wipe out an entire building to "get back at the man".. I really have to stop and think about the right course of action. How do you proceed? You can't say "Okay we'll apologize to the mages and hope they settle down". An unspeakable act of murder and devastation has been committed. You have to deal with the situation like that here and now, and somehow get order under control, and yes I hate to say it but you have to make a statement even if deadly.

You execute the guy responsible, who's sitting right in front of you waiting for you to do precisely that.  What's the dilemma?  You're talking about this as if it was a Circle-wide plot, but it wasn't, it was the act of a single person, so I'm sorry but I don't understand why you'd have a dilemma over whether to carry out the Right of Annulment. 

How do you NOT say "arrest that man ONLY?"  Again, what's so hard about this question?  And I'm unsure what apologizing to the mages has to do with it.  You don't have to apologize to them at all.  Just, you know, DON'T decide to invoke the Right of Annulment for a crime they did not commit.  And there's no settling down to be had if you haven't threatened them with summary execution, so...what??

The moral answer should be obvious--civilized, just people don't execute innocents for a crime they didn't commit.  But even if you don't want to discuss the moral aspect, it's a practical one too:  executing a few HUNDRED individuals for the act of a single person is an excellent way to cause their fellows  to revolt at the injustice.  Obviously it's what the entire end plot of DA2 revolves around.  So if you're trying to AVOID bloodshed, slaughtering several hundred people for the actions of an unrelated single person, while the world looks on, is not the way to go.  But if you have to make a statement, there's no dilemma, again--just kill the man who committed the act...he's conveniently sitting there for you to take him into custody for just that purpose.

As for getting order under control, well, that's also not hard.  You set the police to work restoring order to the angry mob, and you go on with life.  If you're suggesting that because there's an angry mob about, you have to kill the mages, who are NOT an angry mob, because they're all over at the Gallows, nicely contained and confined away from the chaos to begin with...I'm sorry, I really just don't understand why there's a dilemma here to fret over.

There's PLENTY of justification for what Anders did, but that's a whole other thread (many, many threads) entirely.

Whoa I never supported the idea of Annulment, your putting words in my mouth. I said how do we avoid making that an option? And yes it is more than just going after one person, are you kidding me? When you swat one person down for something like that, how many others are going to step into his place? Once rebellious mages get wind of the leniancy of something like that, their not going to take the authority seriously. I just finished reading Asunder, and if you have then you should know why just tapping their hand is obviously not going to solve anything. You trade a bad mage at the cost of dozens of lives? All your going to create is more rebellious behavior, because obviously in the thick of it, mages are really just biding their time for a speaker to stand for them.

And justification? Anders was a pshycopath, but I am starting to realize while saying this, you seem like a major mage sympathizer... so no wonder your saying Anders was right

[TEWR]

I said how do we avoid making that an option

Simple. Meredith takes all the Mages back to the Gallows, locks it down with her Templars guarding the place, and instructs the Champion and Aveline to keep control should a mob eventually arise.

While Anders is sitting there waiting for death -- even admitting that he will not deny people the right to see justice done -- Hawke and Aveline could then present him to the citizens up in Hightown and say "Here is your culprit. Him and him alone".

Now, of course, this may embolden the Resolutionists/Libertarians into performing similar acts later on, but as of now you cannot use the actions of an apostate Abomination to punish the Circle. But were Meredith to cite this recent act as a reason to perform a search on the Circle, then perhaps one might be able to obtain evidence of Resolutionists talking of similar acts.

Which then could be appropriately handled.

[Silfren]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Rinshikai10 wrote...

@ Silfren

I think you are misinterpreting what I'm trying to say. The reason I use the Warden as an example is because of their neutral stance in Thedas. They accept people from all walks of life, and go through life or death rituals like a Mages harrowing, which could allow them to relate to the Mages in some way. I know that they are not the most honorable group out there, but as far as I know they are the only true neutral group that I can think of.

I don't think that Mages working with their guardians is a unachievable goal. What I think is a dream is the current Templars and Mages solving their distrust within the current system. There is just too much hate from both sides.

I like the idea of a secular leaders, training to protect mages and non mages alike, but would moderate Templars be able to take their faith out of training a new group? Evangeline is a good woman in my POV, but she still seems to have loyalties to the Divine. Who isn't a Secular leader, and is too connected to her faith in the Chantry.

Plus would you not have to get most nations to agree to this training of a new order? If only one nation did this, it could cause problems.

I agree that lyrium is going to be a major issue in the future.

So if we have this hypothetical third group that is neutral by all parties, then who'll watch them? Who do they answer to? 

There needs to be a system of checks and balances. The templars can check the mages, the seekers can check the templars, and the mages can check the seekers. Or something like that. Just remove the Chantry from the picture entirely and let each group handle themselves.

Or something along those lines. That's probably the closest we can get to keep any singular group from becoming too corrupt and powerful, as we all know that corruption exists in any organization.

I had proposed a group forming under the auspices of the secular governments.  I would prefer this be a primarily secular organization, but I suppose it wouldn't be necessary to remove Chantry involvement, perhaps just Chantry control.  Certainly the Chantry can't monopolize the system or call the shots.  The entire thing needs to be inter-dependent somehow.  Just as there need to be mages involved at the level of hunting criminal mages, there need to be mages and Templars and mundanes working together within every branch, and all parties need to have ready access to someone to whom they can bring grievances.

[-TC1989-]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I said how do we avoid making that an option

Simple. Meredith takes all the Mages back to the Gallows, locks it down with her Templars guarding the place, and instructs the Champion and Aveline to keep control should a mob eventually arise.

While Anders is sitting there waiting for death -- even admitting that he will not deny people the right to see justice done -- Hawke and Aveline could then present him to the citizens up in Hightown and say "Here is your culprit. Him and him alone".

Now, of course, this may embolden the Resolutionists/Libertarians into performing similar acts later on, but as of now you cannot use the actions of an apostate Abomination to punish the Circle. But were Meredith to cite this recent act as a reason to perform a search on the Circle, then perhaps one might be able to obtain evidence of Resolutionists talking of similar acts.

Which then could be appropriately handled.

Sadly the plot of this has ran itself to the point where really you have to pick sides. The more freedom you give mages, the more freedom their going to want. Templars are going to keep being vigilant against them for obvious reasons, one goes nuts and wipes out a freaking chantry. At that point I put Anders to the sword anyway, so I wouldn't give him the chance to spread his word of crazy. I personally defend mages when their being harassed by a Templar, but I tell them their going straight back to the Circle. I mean I'm one of those, that while I sympathize for the mages for being what they are, and not having a choice... I'm not risking another whole Tevinter Imperium episode.

[Silfren]

-TC1989- wrote...

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

Sorry if this has been mentioned but...

While I can definately understand and agree with the whole "one shouldn't ruin it for everyone", I really have to give some thought as to an act like blowing up a chantry. I mean how do you really just say "YOU did it, arrest that man ONLY". I mean where is the justification for an act like this? I really don't know how I would act to something like that. I mean a crazy blood mage is one thing, you deal with him and go home. But this is something else to me in my opinion.

You really have to set a firm and swift answer to this. I don't think the Right of Annulment is the answer, but what else do you do?You really have to set a firm and swift answer to this. I don't think the Right of Annulment is the answer, but what else do you do? When someone has the ambition and the balls to do something to wipe out an entire building to "get back at the man".. I really have to stop and think about the right course of action. How do you proceed? You can't say "Okay we'll apologize to the mages and hope they settle down". An unspeakable act of murder and devastation has been committed. You have to deal with the situation like that here and now, and somehow get order under control, and yes I hate to say it but you have to make a statement even if deadly.

You execute the guy responsible, who's sitting right in front of you waiting for you to do precisely that.  What's the dilemma?  You're talking about this as if it was a Circle-wide plot, but it wasn't, it was the act of a single person, so I'm sorry but I don't understand why you'd have a dilemma over whether to carry out the Right of Annulment. 

How do you NOT say "arrest that man ONLY?"  Again, what's so hard about this question?  And I'm unsure what apologizing to the mages has to do with it.  You don't have to apologize to them at all.  Just, you know, DON'T decide to invoke the Right of Annulment for a crime they did not commit.  And there's no settling down to be had if you haven't threatened them with summary execution, so...what??

The moral answer should be obvious--civilized, just people don't execute innocents for a crime they didn't commit.  But even if you don't want to discuss the moral aspect, it's a practical one too:  executing a few HUNDRED individuals for the act of a single person is an excellent way to cause their fellows  to revolt at the injustice.  Obviously it's what the entire end plot of DA2 revolves around.  So if you're trying to AVOID bloodshed, slaughtering several hundred people for the actions of an unrelated single person, while the world looks on, is not the way to go.  But if you have to make a statement, there's no dilemma, again--just kill the man who committed the act...he's conveniently sitting there for you to take him into custody for just that purpose.

As for getting order under control, well, that's also not hard.  You set the police to work restoring order to the angry mob, and you go on with life.  If you're suggesting that because there's an angry mob about, you have to kill the mages, who are NOT an angry mob, because they're all over at the Gallows, nicely contained and confined away from the chaos to begin with...I'm sorry, I really just don't understand why there's a dilemma here to fret over.

There's PLENTY of justification for what Anders did, but that's a whole other thread (many, many threads) entirely.

Whoa I never supported the idea of Annulment, your putting words in my mouth. I said how do we avoid making that an option? And yes it is more than just going after one person, are you kidding me? When you swat one person down for something like that, how many others are going to step into his place? Once rebellious mages get wind of the leniancy of something like that, their not going to take the authority seriously. I just finished reading Asunder, and if you have then you should know why just tapping their hand is obviously not going to solve anything. You trade a bad mage at the cost of dozens of lives? All your going to create is more rebellious behavior, because obviously in the thick of it, mages are really just biding their time for a speaker to stand for them.

And justification? Anders was a pshycopath, but I am starting to realize while saying this, you seem like a major mage sympathizer... so no wonder your saying Anders was right

Uh, no, I'm NOT putting words in your mouth.  You wrote that you don't think the Right of Annulment is the answer, but asked what else do you do?  It's not unreasonable for me to interpret that as you saying you don't want to do it but don't see a way not to. Note that I didn't say you supported it, I addressed your comment from the assumption, based on your words, that you were terribly conflicted about it.  Okay, so I was incorrect in my take on it, and for that I apologize.  But it wasn't like I read the word "blue," and thought you wrote "purple."

Um.  You're NOT being lenient on a person if you execute them, so where on earth are you getting the idea that mages would get wind of any leniency after you "swatted" one person down?? Before you go accusing me of putting words in your mouth, think about how the things you write aren't making a damn bit of sense.

You can't just assume that since Anders blew up the Chantry, the other mages in the general vicinity are going to automatically wanna do the same thing and pre-emptively kill them.  It's precisely by doing this that you push the other mages into rebelling, anyway. 

Yes, I am a major mage sympathizer, but that's not a bad thing as you imply.  =P  I wouldn't call Anders a psychopath, either.  I think he was a desperate, broken man.  Blowing up a building in and of itself does not mark a person as a psychopath, no matter how horrifying an act that is.

Modifié par Silfren, 07 mars 2013 - 05:11 .