462 réponses à ce sujet

[-TC1989-]

I love how you make blowing up the Chantry sound like its just some small hut outside the city. So what the hell do you suppose they would do in that situation? You said take the person who did it, and deal with him. And then just go back to work the next day and that's it. Now that doesn't sound like a mage sympathizer....

And unless the mages around Thedas are hiding their heads in the floor, their going to know. How many do you think are gonna say "They took out their Chantry, and thats all they did?...wow". And of course you can assume. Like I said, when one does something like that, their going to get more ambitious and rebel in greater numbers. Again I'll say it more clearly for you so you see maybe I can make some damn sense... I DO NOT support Annulment, but I do support cracking down on them but NOT killing them. You cannot take an act like that and deal with him and then turn around and go hum-dee-dum about it, thinking mages have made their point and they can all live in harmony.

Modifié par -TC1989-, 07 mars 2013 - 05:19 .

[Rinshikai10]

Silfren 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.

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.

Ah I see I can agree that with no indoctrianted with anti Mage fervor. Have a faith but don't let it control your every action.

Both you and TEWR have fairly sound plans that in my POV could work.

I also recall that Evangeline did not side with Justinia until after her mission was revealed by the Demon. Making her rethink her actions.

When it cames to Justinia I can repect her for trying to reform the Circle system, but she is very Idealisic in her actions. looking for a perfect solution that may not be real. She does not appear to want the Mages to leave Chantry control Circles, going as far as disbanding the collage of Magi. Creating a problem later on when they are allowed to meet. All the actions I remember her doing feel like a delaying act. She can talk a big game but, I don't think that she has any real power by Asunder.

But this is just my opinion an this matter.

[-TC1989-]

Rinshikai10 wrote...

Silfren 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.

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.

Ah I see I can agree that with no indoctrianted with anti Mage fervor. Have a faith but don't let it control your every action.

Both you and TEWR have fairly sound plans that in my POV could work.

I also recall that Evangeline did not side with Justinia until after her mission was revealed by the Demon. Making her rethink her actions.

When it cames to Justinia I can repect her for trying to reform the Circle system, but she is very Idealisic in her actions. looking for a perfect solution that may not be real. She does not appear to want the Mages to leave Chantry control Circles, going as far as disbanding the collage of Magi. Creating a problem later on when they are allowed to meet. All the actions I remember her doing feel like a delaying act. She can talk a big game but, I don't think that she has any real power by Asunder.

But this is just my opinion an this matter.

I will never say that all Templars are good meaning people. But I do believe with the mixture of their teachings, and the lyrium they are supplied with, their minds start to deteriorate. Alot of Templars are well meaning, but their addictions and the other effects of lyrium turn them into weapons instead of people. If there was some way to make them useful against mages, without destroying their mind, I'd be all for it. Of course then there are those who are just prejudice, and shouldn't be a Templar in the first place.

Modifié par -TC1989-, 07 mars 2013 - 05:35 .

[Silfren]

-TC1989- wrote...

I love how you make blowing up the Chantry sound like its just some small hut outside the city. So what the hell do you suppose they would do in that situation? You said take the person who did it, and deal with him. And then just go back to work the next day and that's it. Now that doesn't sound like a mage sympathizer....

And unless the mages around Thedas are hiding their heads in the floor, their going to know. How many do you think are gonna say "They took out their Chantry, and thats all they did?...wow". And of course you can assume. Like I said, when one does something like that, their going to get more ambitious and rebel in greater numbers. Again I'll say it more clearly for you so you see maybe I can make some damn sense... I DO NOT support Annulment, but I do support cracking down on them but NOT killing them. You cannot take an act like that and deal with him and then turn around and go hum-dee-dum about it, thinking mages have made their point and they can all live in harmony.

I'm beginning to think it's not worth the effort to try to discuss anything with you. 

Mages aren't going to think of executing the man who blew up the Chantry as him getting off scot-free.  They're going to think that the authorities respond to Chantry bombers by executing them...

Why would you crack down on mages who are not responsible for the Chantry explosion.  I see no sense in this.  Punishing people for a crime they did not commit IS the kind of action that will lead to mage rebellions.

[-TC1989-]

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

I love how you make blowing up the Chantry sound like its just some small hut outside the city. So what the hell do you suppose they would do in that situation? You said take the person who did it, and deal with him. And then just go back to work the next day and that's it. Now that doesn't sound like a mage sympathizer....

And unless the mages around Thedas are hiding their heads in the floor, their going to know. How many do you think are gonna say "They took out their Chantry, and thats all they did?...wow". And of course you can assume. Like I said, when one does something like that, their going to get more ambitious and rebel in greater numbers. Again I'll say it more clearly for you so you see maybe I can make some damn sense... I DO NOT support Annulment, but I do support cracking down on them but NOT killing them. You cannot take an act like that and deal with him and then turn around and go hum-dee-dum about it, thinking mages have made their point and they can all live in harmony.

I'm beginning to think it's not worth the effort to try to discuss anything with you. 

Mages aren't going to think of executing the man who blew up the Chantry as him getting off scot-free.  They're going to think that the authorities respond to Chantry bombers by executing them...

Why would you crack down on mages who are not responsible for the Chantry explosion.  I see no sense in this.  Punishing people for a crime they did not commit IS the kind of action that will lead to mage rebellions.

Wow you completely disregarded what I said. All you see is me being "mean" to mages. So your telling me... if a mage goes crazy and blows up a building MILLIONS of people around the country love and cherish, that they should just deal with him and then forget about it? Your not meeting me halfway on anything. I agree that the Annulment is too far, and you think I'm still being too hard on them. I say that Templars should be more vigilant against them after something like that is committed, you say it's just not fair to mages. So what the hell is fair then? Do you seriously believe every mage will settle down after the Templars forget something like that, that quickly? You give the mages way too much sympathy.

[Silfren]

Rinshikai10 wrote...

Silfren 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.

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.

Ah I see I can agree that with no indoctrianted with anti Mage fervor. Have a faith but don't let it control your every action.

Both you and TEWR have fairly sound plans that in my POV could work.

I also recall that Evangeline did not side with Justinia until after her mission was revealed by the Demon. Making her rethink her actions.

When it cames to Justinia I can repect her for trying to reform the Circle system, but she is very Idealisic in her actions. looking for a perfect solution that may not be real. She does not appear to want the Mages to leave Chantry control Circles, going as far as disbanding the collage of Magi. Creating a problem later on when they are allowed to meet. All the actions I remember her doing feel like a delaying act. She can talk a big game but, I don't think that she has any real power by Asunder.

But this is just my opinion an this matter.

It's been a while since I read Asunder, so I'm more than a little fuzzy on a lot of the details.  Probably I should re-read it.  Anyway, I agree that Justinia is idealistic, but I don't think she's overly so.  She IS a woman more concerned with the charity and compassion aspect of the Maker's faith, than the judgment and damnation bit, and this seems to be due to her personal life experiences as a woman with something of an illicit past.  The best woman for the job, in my view.  But remember that in she concurred with Lambert that the de-Tranquiled mage was mage Tranquil for a reason and should be re-Tranquiled.  I hated her just a little bit in that scene, but I think it marks her as a woman who is not so idealistic that she's blind to reason or practicality.

One thing of note about Justinia is that she's quite young for a Divine.  The lore in the game makes the point that she's resented by more than a few people who got used to having their Divines be decrepit old women too lost in the throes of dementia to feed themselves.  In other words, quite a few groups seeking power and influence rather liked the setup of being able to do what they damn well pleased.  So she doesn't have a lot of power, in the sense that she's got quite a few people aligned against her just for having total control of her faculties and having the wit to argue with them and tell them "No."  But it seems that she actually does have more power than the previous Divine for that same reason.  And there are always going to be groups who are loyal to her for one reason and another.  Some because they are religious devouts who see her as the spiritual representative of their goddess, and others just because they're loyal to the woman herself.

[Silfren]

-TC1989- wrote...

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

I love how you make blowing up the Chantry sound like its just some small hut outside the city. So what the hell do you suppose they would do in that situation? You said take the person who did it, and deal with him. And then just go back to work the next day and that's it. Now that doesn't sound like a mage sympathizer....

And unless the mages around Thedas are hiding their heads in the floor, their going to know. How many do you think are gonna say "They took out their Chantry, and thats all they did?...wow". And of course you can assume. Like I said, when one does something like that, their going to get more ambitious and rebel in greater numbers. Again I'll say it more clearly for you so you see maybe I can make some damn sense... I DO NOT support Annulment, but I do support cracking down on them but NOT killing them. You cannot take an act like that and deal with him and then turn around and go hum-dee-dum about it, thinking mages have made their point and they can all live in harmony.

I'm beginning to think it's not worth the effort to try to discuss anything with you. 

Mages aren't going to think of executing the man who blew up the Chantry as him getting off scot-free.  They're going to think that the authorities respond to Chantry bombers by executing them...

Why would you crack down on mages who are not responsible for the Chantry explosion? I see no sense in this.  Punishing people for a crime they did not commit IS the kind of action that will lead to mage rebellions.

Wow you completely disregarded what I said. All you see is me being "mean" to mages. So your telling me... if a mage goes crazy and blows up a building MILLIONS of people around the country love and cherish, that they should just deal with him and then forget about it? Your not meeting me halfway on anything. I agree that the Annulment is too far, and you think I'm still being too hard on them. I say that Templars should be more vigilant against them after something like that is committed, you say it's just not fair to mages. So what the hell is fair then? Do you seriously believe every mage will settle down after the Templars forget something like that, that quickly? You give the mages way too much sympathy.

I'm sorry, I was not aware that you and I were trying to compromise on something such that I needed to meet you halfway...??  Did we open a business together while I was in a coma?

No, I'm not saying we should simply deal with that mage and then forget about it.  I restricted my statement to the fact that we deal with JUST that mage, we don't kill him and then turn around and kill the other mages who were completely uninvolved in his act.  I'm well aware that that's not going to be the end of the story, but I didn't go further than that because I was ONLY addressing the issue of the immorality, illegality, and injustice of killing people who were very much NOT part of Anders' scheme. 

I didn't say anything about it being unfair for Templars to be more vigilant toward mages...I didn't address that at all, I ONLY said that it's not okay to slaughter the Circle mages of Kirkwall for the actions of Anders.

I didn't put words in your mouth, but you are certainly going out of your way to put them in mine.

ETA: Reading back, I guess I can see that the problem probably lies in my question about cracking down on mages.  I should clarify that I meant it was unfair--and pointless, for that matter--to PUNISH the Circle mages for what Anders did.  I'm well aware that following the destruction of the Chantry, Templars are going to be hyper-vigilant at least for a while, while tensions and fears are braced for the possibility of another attack.  But I don't think that this means the Templars have the right to or would be justified in enacting punitive measures, because the goal in the aftermath is to prevent more attacks, NOT to punish, because the person who needs to be punished already was if you execute Anders.  I also think that those reactionary measures of hyper-vigilance would need to die down after a while rather than being permanent. 

Real world example: When religious zealots blow up or fly planes into buildings, you target those zealots and their supporters, you don't "crack down," on every person who proclaims the same religion or looks to be of the same ethnicity. 

Unless, of course, you WANT to create more terrorists by proving to these other people that the terrorists were right in the things they said about you...

Modifié par Silfren, 07 mars 2013 - 06:03 .

[Face of Evil]

Silfren wrote...

But remember that in she concurred with Lambert that the de-Tranquiled mage was mage Tranquil for a reason and should be re-Tranquiled.  I hated her just a little bit in that scene, but I think it marks her as a woman who is not so idealistic that she's blind to reason or practicality.

Well, it was a political move. She was pushing Lambert pretty far already; Justinia couldn't totally over-rule him, for reasons you yourself pointed out.

If the price of pushing through major reforms to the Circle is applying the Rite of Tranquility a second time to a half-delirious elf who was responsible for dozens of deaths (albeit unintentionally), I would do it too, pity be damned.

[Silfren]

Face of Evil wrote...

Silfren wrote...

But remember that in she concurred with Lambert that the de-Tranquiled mage was mage Tranquil for a reason and should be re-Tranquiled.  I hated her just a little bit in that scene, but I think it marks her as a woman who is not so idealistic that she's blind to reason or practicality.

Well, it was a political move. She was pushing Lambert pretty far already; Justinia couldn't totally over-rule him, for reasons you yourself pointed out.

If the price of pushing through major reforms to the Circle is applying the Rite of Tranquility a second time to a half-delirious elf who was responsible for dozens of deaths (albeit unintentionally), I would do it too, pity be damned.

Oh, I know why she did it, and I can't disagree with her reasons.  But my heart was breaking for that poor mage.

[-TC1989-]

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

I love how you make blowing up the Chantry sound like its just some small hut outside the city. So what the hell do you suppose they would do in that situation? You said take the person who did it, and deal with him. And then just go back to work the next day and that's it. Now that doesn't sound like a mage sympathizer....

And unless the mages around Thedas are hiding their heads in the floor, their going to know. How many do you think are gonna say "They took out their Chantry, and thats all they did?...wow". And of course you can assume. Like I said, when one does something like that, their going to get more ambitious and rebel in greater numbers. Again I'll say it more clearly for you so you see maybe I can make some damn sense... I DO NOT support Annulment, but I do support cracking down on them but NOT killing them. You cannot take an act like that and deal with him and then turn around and go hum-dee-dum about it, thinking mages have made their point and they can all live in harmony.

I'm beginning to think it's not worth the effort to try to discuss anything with you. 

Mages aren't going to think of executing the man who blew up the Chantry as him getting off scot-free.  They're going to think that the authorities respond to Chantry bombers by executing them...

Why would you crack down on mages who are not responsible for the Chantry explosion.  I see no sense in this.  Punishing people for a crime they did not commit IS the kind of action that will lead to mage rebellions.

Wow you completely disregarded what I said. All you see is me being "mean" to mages. So your telling me... if a mage goes crazy and blows up a building MILLIONS of people around the country love and cherish, that they should just deal with him and then forget about it? Your not meeting me halfway on anything. I agree that the Annulment is too far, and you think I'm still being too hard on them. I say that Templars should be more vigilant against them after something like that is committed, you say it's just not fair to mages. So what the hell is fair then? Do you seriously believe every mage will settle down after the Templars forget something like that, that quickly? You give the mages way too much sympathy.

I'm sorry, I was not aware that you and I were trying to compromise on something such that I needed to meet you halfway...??  Did we open a business together while I was in a coma?

No, I'm not saying we should simply deal with that mage and then forget about it.  I restricted my statement to the fact that we deal with JUST that mage, we don't kill him and then turn around and kill the other mages who were completely uninvolved in his act.  I'm well aware that that's not going to be the end of the story, but I didn't go further than that because I was ONLY addressing the issue of the immorality, illegality, and injustice of killing people who were very much NOT part of Anders' scheme. 

I didn't say anything about it being unfair for Templars to be more vigilant toward mages...I didn't address that at all, I ONLY said that it's not okay to slaughter the Circle mages of Kirkwall for the actions of Anders.

I didn't put words in your mouth, but you are certainly going out of your way to put them in mine.

Well when I say crack down.... how does that not mean vigilance? You said in your former post you were totally against cracking down on them, but now being vigilant against them is okay? I'm simply trying to explain to you that dealing with one mage and saying "all work is done here, now rebuild the chantry" is just stupid.

Btw I'm not quite sure what this business talk is, but you seem to take these conversations alittle too literal apparantley. When I mentioned before that when a mage does something like this, that there need to be consequences, and you immediately get defensive saying mages had nothing to do with it. Scary how it takes just one mage to cause that kind of damage, huh?

It obviously seems you care very deeply for mages. Convincing you of them doing any wrong doing is definately a struggle to say the least. You tell me Anders had plenty of justification and then some, killing all the people inside that Chantry, I guess I should have seen it then.

[Silfren]

-TC1989- wrote...

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

I love how you make blowing up the Chantry sound like its just some small hut outside the city. So what the hell do you suppose they would do in that situation? You said take the person who did it, and deal with him. And then just go back to work the next day and that's it. Now that doesn't sound like a mage sympathizer....

And unless the mages around Thedas are hiding their heads in the floor, their going to know. How many do you think are gonna say "They took out their Chantry, and thats all they did?...wow". And of course you can assume. Like I said, when one does something like that, their going to get more ambitious and rebel in greater numbers. Again I'll say it more clearly for you so you see maybe I can make some damn sense... I DO NOT support Annulment, but I do support cracking down on them but NOT killing them. You cannot take an act like that and deal with him and then turn around and go hum-dee-dum about it, thinking mages have made their point and they can all live in harmony.

I'm beginning to think it's not worth the effort to try to discuss anything with you. 

Mages aren't going to think of executing the man who blew up the Chantry as him getting off scot-free.  They're going to think that the authorities respond to Chantry bombers by executing them...

Why would you crack down on mages who are not responsible for the Chantry explosion.  I see no sense in this.  Punishing people for a crime they did not commit IS the kind of action that will lead to mage rebellions.

Wow you completely disregarded what I said. All you see is me being "mean" to mages. So your telling me... if a mage goes crazy and blows up a building MILLIONS of people around the country love and cherish, that they should just deal with him and then forget about it? Your not meeting me halfway on anything. I agree that the Annulment is too far, and you think I'm still being too hard on them. I say that Templars should be more vigilant against them after something like that is committed, you say it's just not fair to mages. So what the hell is fair then? Do you seriously believe every mage will settle down after the Templars forget something like that, that quickly? You give the mages way too much sympathy.

I'm sorry, I was not aware that you and I were trying to compromise on something such that I needed to meet you halfway...??  Did we open a business together while I was in a coma?

No, I'm not saying we should simply deal with that mage and then forget about it.  I restricted my statement to the fact that we deal with JUST that mage, we don't kill him and then turn around and kill the other mages who were completely uninvolved in his act.  I'm well aware that that's not going to be the end of the story, but I didn't go further than that because I was ONLY addressing the issue of the immorality, illegality, and injustice of killing people who were very much NOT part of Anders' scheme. 

I didn't say anything about it being unfair for Templars to be more vigilant toward mages...I didn't address that at all, I ONLY said that it's not okay to slaughter the Circle mages of Kirkwall for the actions of Anders.

I didn't put words in your mouth, but you are certainly going out of your way to put them in mine.

Well when I say crack down.... how does that not mean vigilance? You said in your former post you were totally against cracking down on them, but now being vigilant against them is okay? I'm simply trying to explain to you that dealing with one mage and saying "all work is done here, now rebuild the chantry" is just stupid.

Btw I'm not quite sure what this business talk is, but you seem to take these conversations alittle too literal apparantley. When I mentioned before that when a mage does something like this, that there need to be consequences, and you immediately get defensive saying mages had nothing to do with it. Scary how it takes just one mage to cause that kind of damage, huh?

It obviously seems you care very deeply for mages. Convincing you of them doing any wrong doing is definately a struggle to say the least. You tell me Anders had plenty of justification and then some, killing all the people inside that Chantry, I guess I should have seen it then.

I edited my comment while you were typing this.  Please re-read.  And cease with this crap of "convincing you of them doing any wrong is definitely a struggle" nonsense.  Being a mage sympathizer and supporter doesn't mean I support every mage on the planet in every way for everything they've ever done.  I don't have to believe that no mage ever injured someone out of pure malice to believ that the Circle system is unjust and needs to be reformed from the ground up.

[-TC1989-]

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

Silfren wrote...

-TC1989- wrote...

I love how you make blowing up the Chantry sound like its just some small hut outside the city. So what the hell do you suppose they would do in that situation? You said take the person who did it, and deal with him. And then just go back to work the next day and that's it. Now that doesn't sound like a mage sympathizer....

And unless the mages around Thedas are hiding their heads in the floor, their going to know. How many do you think are gonna say "They took out their Chantry, and thats all they did?...wow". And of course you can assume. Like I said, when one does something like that, their going to get more ambitious and rebel in greater numbers. Again I'll say it more clearly for you so you see maybe I can make some damn sense... I DO NOT support Annulment, but I do support cracking down on them but NOT killing them. You cannot take an act like that and deal with him and then turn around and go hum-dee-dum about it, thinking mages have made their point and they can all live in harmony.

I'm beginning to think it's not worth the effort to try to discuss anything with you. 

Mages aren't going to think of executing the man who blew up the Chantry as him getting off scot-free.  They're going to think that the authorities respond to Chantry bombers by executing them...

Why would you crack down on mages who are not responsible for the Chantry explosion.  I see no sense in this.  Punishing people for a crime they did not commit IS the kind of action that will lead to mage rebellions.

Wow you completely disregarded what I said. All you see is me being "mean" to mages. So your telling me... if a mage goes crazy and blows up a building MILLIONS of people around the country love and cherish, that they should just deal with him and then forget about it? Your not meeting me halfway on anything. I agree that the Annulment is too far, and you think I'm still being too hard on them. I say that Templars should be more vigilant against them after something like that is committed, you say it's just not fair to mages. So what the hell is fair then? Do you seriously believe every mage will settle down after the Templars forget something like that, that quickly? You give the mages way too much sympathy.

I'm sorry, I was not aware that you and I were trying to compromise on something such that I needed to meet you halfway...??  Did we open a business together while I was in a coma?

No, I'm not saying we should simply deal with that mage and then forget about it.  I restricted my statement to the fact that we deal with JUST that mage, we don't kill him and then turn around and kill the other mages who were completely uninvolved in his act.  I'm well aware that that's not going to be the end of the story, but I didn't go further than that because I was ONLY addressing the issue of the immorality, illegality, and injustice of killing people who were very much NOT part of Anders' scheme. 

I didn't say anything about it being unfair for Templars to be more vigilant toward mages...I didn't address that at all, I ONLY said that it's not okay to slaughter the Circle mages of Kirkwall for the actions of Anders.

I didn't put words in your mouth, but you are certainly going out of your way to put them in mine.

Well when I say crack down.... how does that not mean vigilance? You said in your former post you were totally against cracking down on them, but now being vigilant against them is okay? I'm simply trying to explain to you that dealing with one mage and saying "all work is done here, now rebuild the chantry" is just stupid.

Btw I'm not quite sure what this business talk is, but you seem to take these conversations alittle too literal apparantley. When I mentioned before that when a mage does something like this, that there need to be consequences, and you immediately get defensive saying mages had nothing to do with it. Scary how it takes just one mage to cause that kind of damage, huh?

It obviously seems you care very deeply for mages. Convincing you of them doing any wrong doing is definately a struggle to say the least. You tell me Anders had plenty of justification and then some, killing all the people inside that Chantry, I guess I should have seen it then.

I edited my comment while you were typing this.  Please re-read.  And cease with this crap of "convincing you of them doing any wrong is definitely a struggle" nonsense.  Being a mage sympathizer and supporter doesn't mean I support every mage on the planet in every way for everything they've ever done.  I don't have to believe that no mage ever injured someone out of pure malice to believ that the Circle system is unjust and needs to be reformed from the ground up.

Well then, is it because he is a mage or does it simply take more than that to catergorize them as a psycho to you? I'm sorry but when anyone whether it be a Templar, Bandit, Knight, or Mage gathers up ingrediants and makes an explosion simply to wipe a building out, and everyone with it, thats a psycho. Saying he committed all those murders simply because he's a sad, lost, broken man is pretty damn naive. I guess you'll say next that Quentin had reasonable motive against Leandra... 

Modifié par -TC1989-, 07 mars 2013 - 06:25 .

[TEWR]

I'm sorry but when anyone whether it be a Templar, Bandit, Knight, or Mage gathers up ingrediants and makes an explosion simply to wipe a building out, and everyone with it, thats a psycho

If you review the Chantry's history -- not just pertaining to Mages, but Mages do play a critical role in that -- you'll see his actions can be defended.

That doesn't necessarily mean anyone who defends his actions also spares him, however.

Saying he committed all those murders simply because he's a sad, lost, broken man is pretty damn naive. I guess you'll say next that Quentin had reasonable motive against Leandra...

Silfren never said anything of the sort. You do yourself and your arguments no credit by saying things like this.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 07 mars 2013 - 06:30 .

[-TC1989-]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I'm sorry but when anyone whether it be a Templar, Bandit, Knight, or Mage gathers up ingrediants and makes an explosion simply to wipe a building out, and everyone with it, thats a psycho

If you review the Chantry's history -- not just pertaining to Mages, but Mages do play a critical role in that -- you'll see his actions can be defended.

That doesn't necessarily mean anyone who defends his actions also spares him, however.

Saying he committed all those murders simply because he's a sad, lost, broken man is pretty damn naive. I guess you'll say next that Quentin had reasonable motive against Leandra...

Silfren never said anything of the sort. You do yourself and your arguments no credit by saying things like this.

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.

[-TC1989-]

^ or maybe I'm just blind?

[Face of Evil]

I can appreciate his reasons for doing what he did and I'll gladly defend the Circle, but I've never spared Anders. He doesn't get to murder old ladies, martyr the entire Circle and force Hawke out of his home AND THEN skip town so he can play Apostate Pancho Villa for the rest of his days. F**k that s**t.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 07 mars 2013 - 06:40 .

[TEWR]

Yes, I am a major mage sympathizer, but that's not a bad thing as you imply

Um... I never did imply that.

I wouldn't call Anders a psychopath, either.

But you did just that, per this:

I'm sorry but when anyone whether it be a Templar, Bandit, Knight, or Mage gathers up ingrediants and makes an explosion simply to wipe a building out, and everyone with it, thats a psycho.

I'm confused now. So very confused.

[-TC1989-]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I'm sorry but when anyone whether it be a Templar, Bandit, Knight, or Mage gathers up ingrediants and makes an explosion simply to wipe a building out, and everyone with it, thats a psycho

If you review the Chantry's history -- not just pertaining to Mages, but Mages do play a critical role in that -- you'll see his actions can be defended.

That doesn't necessarily mean anyone who defends his actions also spares him, however.

Saying he committed all those murders simply because he's a sad, lost, broken man is pretty damn naive. I guess you'll say next that Quentin had reasonable motive against Leandra...

Silfren never said anything of the sort. You do yourself and your arguments no credit by saying things like this.

Well hey, if you think he was right for blowing all those people away, then more power to you man. I believe in justice, mage or no.

[Silfren]

-TC1989- wrote...

Well then, is it because he is a mage or does it simply take more than that to catergorize them as a psycho to you? I'm sorry but when anyone whether it be a Templar, Bandit, Knight, or Mage gathers up ingrediants and makes an explosion simply to wipe a building out, and everyone with it, thats a psycho. Saying he committed all those murders simply because he's a sad, lost, broken man is pretty damn naive. I guess you'll say next that Quentin had reasonable motive against Leandra... 

Maybe I'm just too tired to be patient with this crap, but I'm sick of you insinuating that I automatically find sympathy with someone JUST because they're a mage and I love mages.  Yes, I sympathize with mages.  But that's because I think they get the sh*t end of the stick without adequate justification, and I have seen no evidence that the Circle system in its present form is the only possible means of regulating magic that could ever possibly work.

I didn't say Anders was sad or lost.  I did say he was desperate and broken.  There is something of a difference, so there's no need to snidely suggest I just think Anders is a lonely man who needed a hug. But I should clarify that I don't say that he blew up the Chantry because he was those things.  I think he blew it up because he needed to start a war and so he picked the best military target available to him.  I said he was desperate and broken as opposed to being a psychopath, but I don't think those qualities are what led him to his opening salvo. 

Newsflash: A person does not have to be crazy to commit violence.  They could be crazy, but they certainly don't have to be. 

[TEWR]

Face of Evil wrote...

I can appreciate his reasons, but I still kill Anders. He doesn't get to martyr the entire Circle and then skip town so he can play Apostate Pancho Villa for the rest of his days.

I generally killed him too. His death is more of a boon then his life is. By that I mean his death cements Starkhaven's support, so his death brought me how many thousands of soldiers?

And it does more then that. Particularly by how he's not remembered as a martyr, but as a madman, even in the eyes of the Mages

That actually helps the Mages' cause, if you ask me.

[-TC1989-]

I think he was a desperate, broken man.


^There, of course I already put it there for you but you conveniently skipped over it

[Silfren]

-TC1989- wrote...

^ or maybe I'm just blind?

Psychopathy is a psychiatric mental condition.  Blowing up a building doesn't automatically confer that label.  I realize a lot of people use the label's emotional connotation, pretty much the way people will cry out "What kind of a lunatic was he!" in response to ANY kind of mass violence.  But I work in the mental health industry so I don't and won't apply labels indiscriminately unless I'm being facetious.  When speaking seriously, no, I won't call a person a psychopath for committing an act of violence, unless their medical history makes it a legitimate claim.

I repeat, you don't have to be crazy to blow up a building...you could just be very, very, very angry.

Modifié par Silfren, 07 mars 2013 - 06:48 .

[TEWR]

-TC1989- wrote...

Well hey, if you think he was right for blowing all those people away, then more power to you man. I believe in justice, mage or no.

Okay, I have no idea if you're being serious in this thread or just trolling, but you're putting words in everyone's mouth now. Mine, Silfren's, and I'm willing to bet you'd put words in the mouth of a dog roaming a street if you could.

I kill him as well. I may agree with why he blew up the Chantry, I may defend his actions because I've reviewed the Chantry's history throughout the years and the Templars', but I will not let him escape justice for committing something that is still a criminal act (as far as Thedas is concerned). Whether it's an act of terrorism or a declaration of war is up to the player.

Me, well, I've never decided which to call it. Just something I can defend and agree with, but ultimarely he should be killed for it.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 07 mars 2013 - 07:08 .

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Yes, I am a major mage sympathizer, but that's not a bad thing as you imply

Um... I never did imply that.

I wouldn't call Anders a psychopath, either.

But you did just that, per this:

I'm sorry but when anyone whether it be a Templar, Bandit, Knight, or Mage gathers up ingrediants and makes an explosion simply to wipe a building out, and everyone with it, thats a psycho.

I'm confused now. So very confused.

LOL. I'm the one who said I wouldn't call Anders a psychopath.  Are you up past your bedtime?  I'm certainly well past mine.  

Modifié par Silfren, 07 mars 2013 - 06:44 .

[Rinshikai10]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Face of Evil wrote...

I can appreciate his reasons, but I still kill Anders. He doesn't get to martyr the entire Circle and then skip town so he can play Apostate Pancho Villa for the rest of his days.

I generally killed him too. His death is more of a boon then his life is. By that I mean his death cements Starkhaven's support, so his death brought me how many thousands of soldiers?

And it does more then that. Particularly by how he's not remembered as a martyr, but as a madman, even in the eyes of the Mages

That actually helps the Mages' cause, if you ask me.

If I recall Wynne is the only mage that called him a madman in Asunder.

Modifié par Rinshikai10, 07 mars 2013 - 06:46 .