615 réponses à ce sujet

[RedArmyShogun]

There is no such thing as innocence only degrees of guilt.

[Straw Nihilist]

RedArmyShogun wrote...

There is no such thing as innocence only degrees of guilt.

Y'know for once, I actually agree with you.

[Lazy Jer]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Forgive me, but wasn't the situation exacerbated by Mage radicals at that meeting they had? Resulted in Wynne dying and the Lord Seeker being murdered by a possessed mage?

The situation was exacerbated by radicals on both sides, that's my point.

[BlueMagitek]

But, from my understanding, was the Lord Seeker completely right? Rhys was the murderer, Cole was a demon using blood magic, and the situation was only made worse by people like Adrian.

[MisterJB]

Well, Rhys hadn't actually murdered Pharamond. Adrian planted the evidence there to help create a conflict.
But Cole is definitively a demon; creature from the Fade who steals life to experience it; and it's heavily hinted that he was using blood magic to control Rhys into commiting the actual murders.

So, yes. In the end, Lambert was, technically, right about everything. Cole is a demon, Rhys a murderer and the mages rebelled.

[LobselVith8]

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Fiona is the Grand Enchanter, and she discussed emancipating the Circles of Magi from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars. If the Chantry wants to murder mages simply for not being under the yoke of their dictatorship, that isn't Fiona's fault. 

Right, so if Kim Jong-un came to Washington DC and started discussing plans on how to launch a nuclear attack on american soil, it's totally America's fault if they decide to seize the lot of them.
It couldn't possibly be that Kim Jong-un is deliberately provoking America.

Actions don't happen in a vacuum and Fiona knew very well ehrs would lead to war. What she did was use the goodwill and willingness of the Chantry to let the mages have a say on what was to be done with the Rite of Tranquility and stabbed it in the back thus only proving that mages truly can't be trusted.

Not to mention that she just walked into a meeting and said "Alright people, World War III, yes or no? You have five minutes."
I don't know how it's like in your country. But in mine, changes to the issue being discussed have to be announced three days before the actual meeting as per the law. 

It's more like if a group of slaves rose up against their slave masters, and fought for their freedom. That's a more apt analogy for mages who refuse to be slaves anymore to the Chantry.

I don't know what it's like in your country, but most people in mine abhor slavery.

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Returning to the Circle from the Wardens and helping the mages is precisely what Wynne tried to convince The Warden (from the Circle) to do after she spoke with Aneirin, to the point of saying that this was her dream[/i]. Seeing how Wynne betrayed her people over and over again through the years, I'm glad my Surana Warden entered the Eluvian with Morrigan.

Oh yes, Wynne betrayed her people by not wishing to start a war that will cost both sides, by being actually willing to consider the side of non-mages and work with them rather than just whine about your "plight".
Wynne was improving the Circle in the right way.

Somehow, I suspect if I acused Evangeline or Mundane Hawke who side with the mages of betraying their people, you'd call it bull****.

Wynne said it was her dream to improve the plight of the mages, but she did nothing to accomplish that. Unlike Wynne, I won't whitewash the slavery of the mages by a vile, abhorrent religious organization.

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Also, Adrian killed Pharamond - who wanted to die rather than be made tranquil again (which is the same desire Karl had when he temporarily returned to normal). I find it more horrific that Pharamond's humanity would be stripped from him; I find the practice to be morally repugnant.

Whitewash it all you want. Adrian couldn't care less about Pharamond, she murdered someone to start a war which doesn't make her much different from Gavrilo Princip.
And now thousands of innocent people will die, mages and non-mages.

If the templars would prefer to murder thousands of men, women, and children because they don't want to live on their knees to the Chantry, then I don't blame the mages for fighting to stay alive and refusing to live in servitude to the Chantry.

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Some people are willing to do anything to be free. 

As I would have thought mages would have learned. Guess it's a lesson we must teach them again. 

Nearly a thousand years of slavery taught them to finally fight for their freedom.

[DPSSOC]

LobselVith8 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

I would have preferred Lambert to act in a less hotheaded manner since all he did was bite Adrian's bait but the mages don't have clean hands. 

Some people are willing to do anything to be free.

So it's perfectly fine for the mages to do whatever it takes to secure their freedom and safety but non-mages aren't extended the same privledge?

LobselVith8 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Fiona is the Grand Enchanter, and she discussed emancipating the Circles of Magi from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars. If the Chantry wants to murder mages simply for not being under the yoke of their dictatorship, that isn't Fiona's fault.

Right, so if Kim Jong-un came to Washington DC and started discussing plans on how to launch a nuclear attack on american soil, it's totally America's fault if they decide to seize the lot of them.
It couldn't possibly be that Kim Jong-un is deliberately provoking America.

Actions don't happen in a vacuum and Fiona knew very well ehrs would lead to war. What she did was use the goodwill and willingness of the Chantry to let the mages have a say on what was to be done with the Rite of Tranquility and stabbed it in the back thus only proving that mages truly can't be trusted.

Not to mention that she just walked into a meeting and said "Alright people, World War III, yes or no? You have five minutes."
I don't know how it's like in your country. But in mine, changes to the issue being discussed have to be announced three days before the actual meeting as per the law.

It's more like if a group of slaves rose up against their slave masters, and fought for their freedom. That's a more apt analogy for mages who refuse to be slaves anymore to the Chantry.

I don't know what it's like in your country, but most people in mine abhor slavery.

What form of slavery involves housing, feeding, and educating people without actually demanding they do anything?

LobselVith8 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Some people are willing to do anything to be free.

As I would have thought mages would have learned. Guess it's a lesson we must teach them again.

Nearly a thousand years of slavery taught them to finally fight for their freedom.

As the previous thousand years of slavery taught non-mages to knock the mages down and keep them there, as the next period of enslavement will teach one side to rise up against and hold down the other, and on and on.

[TEWR]

What form of slavery involves housing, feeding, and educating people without actually demanding they do anything?

The Circle handles all those things, not the Chantry. The Circles raise the money required to keep their buildings intact, their food supplied, their education up to date.

What the Mages are rebelling against is the idea of the necessity of Chantry dominion over them.

That is slavery. The Chantry controls the Mages' lives in virtually every aspect. It's irrelevant what life in the Circle entails, because that's all stuff pertaining to the Circle's capability at running itself.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 26 avril 2013 - 05:30 .

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
It's more like if a group of slaves rose up against their slave masters, and fought for their freedom. That's a more apt analogy for mages who refuse to be slaves anymore to the Chantry.

I don't know what it's like in your country, but most people in mine abhor slavery.

You have a way of discussing that grieves me.
You start speaking and say that Fiona does not advocate violence, only separation. I say that she clearly knew the consequences of her actions and went ahead with it anyway, thus she is advocating violence.
And you, rather than adress what I stated, use the words "slavery" as if that automatically makes your arguments stronger.
Even if the Circle System was a form of slavery, slaves can still provoke their "masters". Therefore, simply saying that mages are "slaves" does not mean Fiona was not advocating violence and looking to start a war. It simply means that you are fine with it.

And no, I'm not going to discuss with you whether the Circle System is slavery or not. You'd just focus on that instead and I'm not playing your damn game.

Nearly a thousand years of slavery taught them to finally fight for their freedom.

So, it's perfectly fine for mages to do whatever it takes for freedom but not for non-mages, according to you.

The previous thousands of years of actual slavery taught them not to trust mages, ever. But what does it matter. regardless of who wins this, years from now there will be another war between normal people and mages. it's a never ending cycle of violence and death that can't be broken exactly because there are people like Fiona and Adrian advocating war and destruction.

Modifié par MisterJB, 26 avril 2013 - 09:31 .

[MisterJB]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
The Circle handles all those things, not the Chantry. The Circles raise the money required to keep their buildings intact, their food supplied, their education up to date.

What the Mages are rebelling against is the idea of the necessity of Chantry dominion over them.

That is slavery. The Chantry controls the Mages' lives in virtually every aspect. It's irrelevant what life in the Circle entails, because that's all stuff pertaining to the Circle's capability at running itself.

Governments have dominion over their peoples but that doesn't mean every form of governance is a form of slavery. What determines slavery, is the way those governments treat their people.
The most widely accepted defining characteristic of slavery is the
process of dehumanizing the slave into an object. An object has no
rights or freedoms; it's owner can do to the object what s/he wishes. They're, basically, proprierty. Mages are not proprierty of the Chantry or Templars. They have rigths protecting them such as the right to physical integrity; mages can't be beaten or raped by Templars; and they have freedoms that must be respected such as the freedom of association; mages can join any fraternity they choose. This doesn't always translate as it should but corruption exists in the legal and police systems of democratic countries and they're not hallmarks of
slavery. They also can't be forced to perform labor. The Chantry or others can request help from a Circle; such as the Warden asking Irving to commit to fight against the Blight or to help deal with Connor; but the mages render the assistance only if they wish to do so. The profits of the sale of any objects produced by the Tanquils goes to the Circle, not the Chantry.
Hence, mages are not slaves. Even all of the devs claim that mages are not slaves, even Mr.Gaider himself argues that the Circle under the Chantry is not slavery.

Modifié par MisterJB, 26 avril 2013 - 09:30 .

[Lazy Jer]

MisterJB wrote...

So, it's perfectly fine for mages to do whatever it takes for freedom but not for non-mages, according to you.

The previous thousands of years of actual slavery taught them not to trust mages, ever. But what does it matter. regardless of who wins this, years from now there will be another war between normal people and mages. it's a never ending cycle of violence and death that can't be broken exactly because there are people like Fiona and Adrian advocating war and destruction.

Don't be silly.  The Darkspawn will have wiped everyone out before that happens.

[MisterJB]

Given the tendency of Bligths getting shorter, I expect the next one will last a couple of weeks.

[LobselVith8]

DPSSOC wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Some people are willing to do anything to be free. 

So it's perfectly fine for the mages to do whatever it takes to secure their freedom and safety but non-mages aren't extended the same privledge?

Not when it comes to forcing mages into subjugation simply for being mages.

DPSSOC wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's more like if a group of slaves rose up against their slave masters, and fought for their freedom. That's a more apt analogy for mages who refuse to be slaves anymore to the Chantry.

I don't know what it's like in your country, but most people in mine abhor slavery.

What form of slavery involves housing, feeding, and educating people without actually demanding they do anything?

Historically, slaves received housing, they were fed, and some were even given luxury clothes and educated in certain places, so I'm not certain why you're even bringing up these points as though it proves anything when anyone who has a passing knowledge of history realizes it means absolutely nothing.

Are you inquiring as to why I use the term? We have in-game authors who address that some mages refused to remain servants of the Chantry when they decided to leave the Chantry controlled Circle. We have the historical Aldenon the Wise, the former Grey Warden Anders, and pro-mage Hawke referring to the Chantry controlled Circle as slavery.

DPSSOC wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Nearly a thousand years of slavery taught them to finally fight for their freedom. 

As the previous thousand years of slavery taught non-mages to knock the mages down and keep them there, as the next period of enslavement will teach one side to rise up against and hold down the other, and on and on.

I'm pretty sure the elves could make that exact argument about humans, given everything they have endured since the fall of Arlathan and the Dales. However, Tevinter enslaved mages and non-mages alike.

[DKJaigen]

MisterJB wrote...

Given the tendency of Bligths getting shorter, I expect the next one will last a couple of weeks.

Considering that the witherd and the lost managed to defeat both the legion and the grey wardens (the supposed experts against the darkspawn) you can bet that if they wanted to destroy thedas the darkspawn would need only a few days. And for the record blights last as long as the archdemon lives. kill it and the blight ends but that is no indication how powerful the darkspawn are. In the darkspawn chronicles the darkspawn win the war of fereldan because allaistair failed to kill the archdemon

[LobselVith8]

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's more like if a group of slaves rose up against their slave masters, and fought for their freedom. That's a more apt analogy for mages who refuse to be slaves anymore to the Chantry.

I don't know what it's like in your country, but most people in mine abhor slavery.

You have a way of discussing that grieves me.

You're the one who brought up Kim Jong-un.

MisterJB wrote...

You start speaking and say that Fiona does not advocate violence, only separation. I say that she clearly knew the consequences of her actions and went ahead with it anyway, thus she is advocating violence.

Advocating independence from the Chantry doesn't mean that Fiona is advocating for senseless violence. If the templars attempt to murder the mages, then it's only reasonable that the mages deserve to defend themselves against armored and armed soldiers who are attempting to kill them.

MisterJB wrote...

And you, rather than adress what I stated, use the words "slavery" as if that automatically makes your arguments stronger.

I'm simply following in the footsteps of characters and authors who already use the term to describe the Chantry controlled Circles.

MisterJB wrote...

Even if the Circle System was a form of slavery, slaves can still provoke their "masters". Therefore, simply saying that mages are "slaves" does not mean Fiona was not advocating violence and looking to start a war. It simply means that you are fine with it.

I agree with the mages emancipating themselves from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars.

MisterJB wrote...

And no, I'm not going to discuss with you whether the Circle System is slavery or not. You'd just focus on that instead and I'm not playing your damn game.

I don't think this needs to be debated.

MisterJB wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Nearly a thousand years of slavery taught them to finally fight for their freedom. 

So, it's perfectly fine for mages to do whatever it takes for freedom but not for non-mages, according to you.

The autonomy of the mages doesn't require the enslavement of the non-mages, and the protection of the people doesn't require mages to be forced to bend knee to the Chantry or their templars.

MisterJB wrote...

The previous thousands of years of actual slavery taught them not to trust mages, ever.

When Tevinter was enslaving mages and non-mages alike? I'd think it should have taught them not to trust Tevinter.

MisterJB wrote...

But what does it matter. regardless of who wins this, years from now there will be another war between normal people and mages. it's a never ending cycle of violence and death that can't be broken exactly because there are people like Fiona and Adrian advocating war and destruction. 

They advocate independence from tyranny and oppression.

[BlueMagitek]

LobselVith8 wrote...

They advocate independence from tyranny and oppression.

Call me when they fight for the oppressed, then.

[Lazy Jer]

MisterJB wrote...

The previous thousands of years of actual slavery taught them not to trust mages, ever. But what does it matter. regardless of who wins this, years from now there will be another war between normal people and mages. it's a never ending cycle of violence and death that can't be broken exactly because there are people like Fiona and Adrian advocating war and destruction.

...and Lambert and Meredith.

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
You're the one who brought up Kim Jong-un.

Except he was not the focus. I could have just as easily used any two opposing parties.

Advocating independence from the Chantry doesn't mean that Fiona is advocating for senseless violence. If the templars attempt to murder the mages, then it's only reasonable that the mages deserve to defend themselves against armored and armed soldiers who are attempting to kill them.

The Templars can't and shouldn't just watch as extremely dangerous people suddenly have no regulations or police stopping them from doing whatever they please.
Fiona knows this. She knows that asking for a separation is asking for war. Actions do not happen in a vaccum and had the URSS started World War III by sending nuclear missiles into Cuba, they couldn't just shrug and say "We were not harming anyone".
Likewise, neither Fiona nor Adrian nor any mage that voted for separation can shrug and claim their hands are not stained with the blood of innocents.

I'm simply following in the footsteps of characters and authors who already use the term to describe the Chantry controlled Circles.

Except it's 100% irrelevant to the topic.

I agree with the mages emancipating themselves from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars.

You want a war, fine, whatever, don't care.
But you can't claim the mages didn't help start it because it's objectivelly untrue.

The autonomy of the mages doesn't require the enslavement of the non-mages, and the protection of the people doesn't require mages to be forced to bend knee to the Chantry or their templars.

Whether it's required or not it's irrelevant.
Human nature dictates one group must hold dominion over the other and meanwhile, thousands of innocent will die in war.
Because, in your opinion, the mages must do whatever it takes to be free. Even take the reins of power.

When Tevinter was enslaving mages and non-mages alike? I'd think it should have taught them not to trust Tevinter.

What does it matter if the mages will enslave their own? Was there ever a non-mage magister? No.

They advocate independence from tyranny and oppression.

Bullsh*t. They're a bunch of pampered, entitled children who overglorify a life whose hardships few have ever experienced.

Adrian, in particular, just loves flaunting her "superiority" over non-mages by waving fire in their faces. She is a magister in the making.

[LobselVith8]

BlueMagitek wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

They advocate independence from tyranny and oppression. 

Call me when they fight for the oppressed, then. 

That was the point of their actions - to fight for the freedom of the oppressed men, women, and children of the Chantry controlled Circles.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]MisterJB wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

You're the one who brought up Kim Jong-un.[/quote]

Except he was not the focus. I could have just as easily used any two opposing parties. [/quote]

That doesn't change how inflammatory the example was.

[quote]MisterJB wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Advocating independence from the Chantry doesn't mean that Fiona is advocating for senseless violence. If the templars attempt to murder the mages, then it's only reasonable that the mages deserve to defend themselves against armored and armed soldiers who are attempting to kill them.[/quote]

The Templars can't and shouldn't just watch as extremely dangerous people suddenly have no regulations or police stopping them from doing whatever they please.
Fiona knows this. She knows that asking for a separation is asking for war. Actions do not happen in a vaccum and had the URSS started World War III by sending nuclear missiles into Cuba, they couldn't just shrug and say "We were not harming anyone".
Likewise, neither Fiona nor Adrian nor any mage that voted for separation can shrug and claim their hands are not stained with the blood of innocents. [/quote]

There's a difference between autonomy from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars, and a society where mages have no regulations. I don't think many pro-mage players would argue for a world where mages have no regulations; their argument is against the Chantry or the templars enforcing this regulation on mages. Many have proposed alternatives to having mages under Chantry control or under the supervision of the Templar Order in it's current incarnation.

As for what Fiona did, she sought to help her people from a system she strongly disagreed with. She returned to the Circle precisely to help the mages free themselves from the Chantry and the templars, and her method was a democratic vote for independence.

Furthermore, if the templars attempt to murder the mages because they voted for independence, then I don't see how you can say Fiona has innocent blood on her hands.

[quote]MisterJB wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I agree with the mages emancipating themselves from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars.[/quote]

You want a war, fine, whatever, don't care.
But you can't claim the mages didn't help start it because it's objectivelly untrue. [/quote]

If the templars are attempting to kill the mages because they refuse to allow the templars to have dominion over them, then the mages didn't start the war.

[quote]MisterJB wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

The autonomy of the mages doesn't require the enslavement of the non-mages, and the protection of the people doesn't require mages to be forced to bend knee to the Chantry or their templars. [/quote]

Whether it's required or not it's irrelevant.
Human nature dictates one group must hold dominion over the other and meanwhile, thousands of innocent will die in war.
Because, in your opinion, the mages must do whatever it takes to be free. Even take the reins of power. [/quote]

Why can't mages and non-mages live together without killing one another?

[quote]MisterJB wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

When Tevinter was enslaving mages and non-mages alike? I'd think it should have taught them not to trust Tevinter.[/quote]

What does it matter if the mages will enslave their own? Was there ever a non-mage magister? No. [/quote]

I doubt the Arlathan elves were one of "their own". And it doesn't matter if the Magisters were all mages when the Imperium is enslaving mages and non-mages alike. I have little doubt that there were elven mages who followed Shartan's banner to fight the Imperium for elven freedom.

[quote]MisterJB wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

They advocate independence from tyranny and oppression. [/quote]

Bullsh*t. They're a bunch of pampered, entitled children who overglorify a life whose hardships few have ever experienced.

Adrian, in particular, just loves flaunting her "superiority" over non-mages by waving fire in their faces. She is a magister in the making. [/quote]

Fiona isn't pampered or entitled; she's been through more than most of the characters and companions we have. She lived a life of hardship under an Orlesian lord who repeatedly raped her, and again in the Chantry controlled Circle where she pleaded to leave when she encountered a Grey Warden who could offer her an alternative to the Circle - even if the alternative lead to her death. She returned to the Circle and all it's restrictions when she had her freedom among the Grey Wardens because she wanted to help free her people. Like her not (and it's evident you really don't like her), she advocated independence for her people.

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
That doesn't change how inflammatory the example was.

That's irrelevant to the argument.

MisterJB wrote...
There's a difference between autonomy from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars, and a society where mages have no regulations. I don't think many pro-mage players would argue for a world where mages have no regulations; their argument is against the Chantry or the templars enforcing this regulation on mages. Many have proposed alternatives to having mages under Chantry control or under the supervision of the Templar Order in it's current incarnation.

As for what Fiona did, she sought to help her people from a system she strongly disagreed with. She returned to the Circle precisely to help the mages free themselves from the Chantry and the templars, and her method was a democratic vote for independence.

Furthermore, if the templars attempt to murder the mages because they voted for independence, then I don't see how you can say Fiona has innocent blood on her hands.

Ok, follow the logic.

A proposes C. However, A knows that if C were to happen, B would start D. Therefore, A proposed D.
Fiona proposed independence. However, she knows that the Chantry can't tolerate and that they will fight if they must, Wynne reminds her of that fact but Fiona's reaction is to dismiss this.
However, she can't dismiss it. It doesn't matter if mage independence will lead to the opression of non-mages; I believe it will; what matters is that the Chantry believes that is what will happen and they will fight to prevent it.
Therefore, Fiona knew she was proposing war when she proposed independence but she did it anyway. She is partially to blame for every life lost in the war and that is an undeniable fact.

If the templars are attempting to kill the mages because they refuse to allow the templars to have dominion over them, then the mages didn't start the war.

They did. You can support them all you want but the mages helped start the war and nothing can ever change that.

Why can't mages and non-mages live together without killing one another?

Who said anything about killing? Sure, mages and non-mages can live together without either commiting genocide.
But magic is an advantage and the mages will use this advantage to elevate themselves above the non-mages. It's simply human nature and it's simply inevitable.
It's impossible for there to be equality so long as magic exists. One side must dominate the other or be dominated itself.

I doubt the Arlathan elves were one of "their own". And it doesn't matter if the Magisters were all mages when the Imperium is enslaving mages and non-mages alike. I have little doubt that there were elven mages who followed Shartan's banner to fight the Imperium for elven freedom.

Yes, it does matter. Because while the magisters enslaved the weaker mages, there weren't non-mage magisters enslaving mages or non-mages.
It wasn't a case of Tevinters enslaving others. It was a case of mages enslaving others.

Fiona isn't pampered or entitled; she's been through more than most of the characters and companions we have. She lived a life of hardship under an Orlesian lord who repeatedly raped her, and again in the Chantry controlled Circle where she pleaded to leave when she encountered a Grey Warden who could offer her an alternative to the Circle - even if the alternative lead to her death. She returned to the Circle and all it's restrictions when she had her freedom among the Grey Wardens because she wanted to help free her people. Like her not (and it's evident you really don't like her), she advocated independence for her people.

Anyone who thinks that freedom is non-negotiable regardless of death and destruction is extremely entitled.
Now, it's true that Fiona has some knowledge of the outside world but that's not true for most mages who are just overglorifying a Thedas that at best is unpleasant and, at worst, Hell of Earth. Despite what mages might believe; and they do believe this; they are not the only ones who suffer and they are, in great part, sheltered from the harsh reality of the outside world where people are actually at risk of starving or being transformed into Broodmothers and don't sleep in Drakon's former palace.

Why should I care what Fiona advocates? She is a mage who wants mage to not have to answer to anyone that is not themselves. Big deal, every people ever wanted that, do you want me to give her a prize or something,
The only thing to be said in favor is that she not commiting acts of terrorism and murder like some mages. Yet.

[Silfren]

BlueMagitek wrote...

But, from my understanding, was the Lord Seeker completely right? Rhys was the murderer, Cole was a demon using blood magic, and the situation was only made worse by people like Adrian.

We don't know that Rhys was the murderer.  We have Rhys saying he BELIEVES he might be, and a templar reminds him not to fall back on old assumptions.  I also don't think it's a given that Cole was a demon using blood magic.  The whole point of Cole's existence was to throw what we know about demons and the Fade into question.  Again, it's a templar who asserts that the things we see happening with Cole were real and not some delusion. 

A person like Adrian would not have existed if there weren't grossly unjust systems like the Circle around to create them.

Modifié par Silfren, 26 avril 2013 - 11:28 .

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...
Now, it's true that Fiona has some knowledge of the outside world but that's not true for most mages who are just overglorifying a Thedas that at best is unpleasant and, at worst, Hell of Earth. Despite what mages might believe; and they do believe this; they are not the only ones who suffer and they are, in great part, sheltered from the harsh reality of the outside world where people are actually at risk of starving or being transformed into Broodmothers and don't sleep in Drakon's former palace.

Why do you refuse to accept that there ARE people in the world who don't give a crap how nasty or dangerous the world is, they still want the right to live within it freely?  You keep talking about how awful the world of Thedas is, but I haven't seen any evidence to support the idea that Thedas is in fact so awful that all peasants are jealous of the lives mages lead. 

You use the argument of how sh*tty the world is that mages should be grateful to be locked away from it that you almost seem to be suggesting that the Chantry specifically locks up mages to DO them this favor.  Your entire argument ignores the fact that mages are locked up against their will.  They aren't given the option to decide for themselves whether they want to brave this dark, evil, despairing world, and THAT is the problem.

Before you go showing me examples of Kirkwall's squalor-dwelling underclass or bringing up the example of the Orlesian woman who was assaulted by a Chevalier, I must point out to you that we are shown that Thedas is, in large part, much like our own world with its range of abuses that people who aren't born to considerable wealth have to contend with, but I haven't seen anything to suggest a widespread Dickensian/Orwellian level of misery, which is what I'd expect to see the way you go on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how terrible life is for the general peasants of the Thedosian world in your determination to show that mages have it so awesome that they have no right to complain.

Modifié par Silfren, 26 avril 2013 - 11:49 .

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
I also don't think it's a given that Cole was a demon using blood magic.

Considering that the Litanny worked on him and it only works on mind domination, he was definitively using blood magic.

A person like Adrian would not have existed if there weren't grossly unjust systems like the Circle around to create them.

Because Danarius and Titus are so very opressed. It couldn't possibly be that some people, upon realization that they can conjure storms of fire while others can't, simply believe themselves to be superior to others.

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...
I also don't think it's a given that Cole was a demon using blood magic.

Considering that the Litanny worked on him and it only works on mind domination, he was definitively using blood magic.

Sorry, but you DON'T know this.  It could easily mean our information about how the Litany works, etc., is incomplete. 

Because Danarius and Titus are so very opressed. It couldn't possibly be that some people, upon realization that they can conjure storms of fire while others can't, simply believe themselves to be superior to others.

What the bloody hell does that have to do with what I said about Adrian?