731 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

What allies? You're not part of the setting.

My characters tend to have consistent sympathies.

Then object to it. As I said: the language you used did not give any indication that you condemned anything that Anders did, other than you thought that he went about it the wrong way.

To clarify: striking at the enemy power center was fine, but he endangered too many mages in the way he did it.

There are no other city elves that we see. We have absolutely no indication that the CEs killed or otherwise harmed any of the elves who were not involved in the uprising. This is pure fan-fiction on your part.

I'll file this statement away for future reference. However, any elves who don't want to join the Qun, and we know that they're there, will be doomed if the qunari take over.

What about the mages that don't want to fight and die for freedom? The ones who wanted compromise? They're going to be forced to fight or die.

The templars are the ones prosecuting the war. The mages voted to secede from the Chantry and the Chantry did not respond with violence; it was the templars who went rogue and started this war entirely of their own accord.

They're fighting for their betterment as part of the Qun. There is no such thing as "their people". As individuals, they believe that the Qun offers a better life. It's as simple as that.

But apparently you don't value individual self-determination very much, since you seem to think that all elves have to belong to a hivemind that prives "elven" identity, however you define it relative to the Dalish, instead of their individual feelings.

And as qunari, they're driven to victimize and kill those who won't join them.

[Plaintiff]

In Exile wrote...
What about the mages that don't want to fight and die for freedom? The ones who wanted compromise? They're going to be forced to fight or die.

Tough ******. If they would allow all their peers to continue suffering indefinitely under a system of institutionalized bigotry, then they deserve anything bad that happens to them.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
My characters tend to have consistent sympathies.

Again, what does that have to do with anything? 

So I'm going to restate this, addressing you, the person posting, not some hypothetical character.

"What qualities actually matter to you about "elves"? This is what I'm driving at: the only elves you actually care about are the Dalish. [It seems that t]he other elves are only allowed to continue to exist insofar as they don't jeopardize the views or goals of the Dalish."

To clarify: striking at the enemy power center was fine, but he endangered too many mages in the way he did it.

Let me see if I understanding this right. 

Religious centre= "enemy power centre". 

"Striking at" = vaporization of every single person in the chantry, including lay brothers and sisters and other citizens/bystanders present for service.

But, at the same time, "[t]he mages aren't ... even attacking their religious institutions."

Hmm... Nope, you're contradicting yourself here. But this is just by way of aside. 

On what moral basis can you distinguish between your gleeful support of the murder of everyone in the Chantry, and Meredith's ROA against the mages in Kirkwall? Let's say I grant you that Elthina herself is absolutely culpable, in the same way that Anders is clealry culpable for the murder of the Grand Cleric.

Any form of moral argument that you can offer for Anders's bout of terrorism can similarly be used to justify Meredith's ROA.

I'll file this statement away for future reference. However, any elves who don't want to join the Qun, and we know that they're there, will be doomed if the qunari take over.

Well, to quote Plaintiff, the moral justification is:

"Tough ******. If they would allow all their peers to continue suffering indefinitely under a system of institutionalized bigotry, then they deserve anything bad that happens to them."

So there you go. The very same argument that you can use to defend some mages making a choice for all mages can be used to defend what the Qun-specific elves do.

The templars are the ones prosecuting the war. The mages voted to secede from the Chantry and the Chantry did not respond with violence; it was the templars who went rogue and started this war entirely of their own accord.

Clearly not, since Anders was "striking at the enemy power center". Be consistent, please. Either Anders is striking a blow for all mages, meaning that the cause of mage freedom is a declaration of war against the Chantry and the religion as a whole, or Anders is a violent terrorist. You don't get to have it both ways. 

Not to mention that, again, you've avoided the question in the most intellectual bankrupt way. While I might disagree with (for example) Plaintiff (only using you as an example 'cause you posted above, mate!) on the morality of various parts of the agenda of mage freedom, I absolutely respect him for owning up to what he believes. 

But I'm not seeing very much from you on that, other than the repeated attempts to dodge the issue. 

And as qunari, they're driven to victimize and kill those who won't join them.

To the extent that the qunari are at war with non-qunari, that isn't special, unique or different from any other race in Thedas. And it certainly isn't different from what any other group in Thedas has done historically, or as I said previously what the mages are doing with the non-mages who don't want to fight.

But you're apparently unwilling to actually address that point.

Modifié par In Exile, 05 mai 2013 - 01:26 .

[In Exile]

Plaintiff wrote...
Tough ******. If they would allow all their peers to continue suffering indefinitely under a system of institutionalized bigotry, then they deserve anything bad that happens to them.

Just to actually respond since you said this, I disagree with you here. I don't think they're actually entitled to any consderation from the mages who rebel - but I don't think they 'deserve' anything. 

They're perfectly free to go to the templars and get lobotomized if that's what they want.

[Plaintiff]

In Exile wrote...
Well, to quote Plaintiff, the moral justification is:

"Tough ******. If they would allow all their peers to continue suffering indefinitely under a system of institutionalized bigotry, then they deserve anything bad that happens to them."

So there you go. The very same argument that you can use to defend some mages making a choice for all mages can be used to defend what the Qun-specific elves do.

Nope. The two situations are not morally equivalent at all. The mages are fighting to win their autonomy and the autonomy of their fellows.

The Qun-supporting elves are fighting to replace one bigoted, oppressive system with another equally bigoted, oppressive system, that will strip them of what little autonomy they already possessed, because they erroneously believe the lives of the elves will improve.

To recap:

Mages - trying to win their autonomy.

Qunari-Supporting Elves: Trying to take autonomy away from everybody, including other elves.

[In Exile]

Plaintiff wrote...
Nope. The two situations are not morally equivalent at all. The mages are fighting to win their autonomy and the autonomy of their fellows.

Well, no. The mages aren't fighting for the autonomy of their fellows. They're directly overriding it. Any of their peers that don't want to die for the cause are specifically abandoned. They're certainly not fighting for the autonomous self-determination of any mundanes. 

Frankly, it's rich that you're talking about the mages winning the autonomy of their fellows when you defend Anders planned genocide of the entire Kirkwall cycle if they refuse to rise up with him. In your eyes, their right to self-determination apparently ends when they don't want to support your case. 

The Qun-supporting elves are fighting to replace one bigoted, oppressive system with another equally bigoted, oppressive system, that will strip them of what little autonomy they already possessed, because they erroneously believe the lives of the elves will improve

That's absurd. The lot of the non-mage elves is signifcantly improved in the Qun. They're in positions of leadership. They're capable of being merchants, warriors, spies, whatever. The idea that the Qunari rape elves, beat them, deny them access to justice, force them to live in poverty, or otherwise treat them as second class citizens has no basis in any of the evidence we see in this setting.

Other than being filled with empty rethoric like "strip them of  what litte autonomy they already posses", your post does nothing to actually establisht that the Qun is at all oppressive toward them.

Beyond having competely failed to define autonomy as anything other than emotionally charged buzzword to make your point, you haven't shown any evidence that the Qun is either bigoted or oppresive insofar as the elves are concerned. 

So, to recap: 

Mages - Self-Determination includes the right not to fight and die for a cause, but apparently they " they deserve anything bad that happens to them" if that's the choice they make.

Qunari-Supporting Elves - Absolutely no evidence that their lots are worse by any measurable stretch. Your rhetoric is nothing more than intellectually bankrupt smoke and mirrors. 

Modifié par In Exile, 05 mai 2013 - 01:50 .

[Xilizhra]

Again, what does that have to do with anything?

So I'm going to restate this, addressing you, the person posting, not some hypothetical character.

"What qualities actually matter to you about "elves"? This is what I'm driving at: the only elves you actually care about are the Dalish. [It seems that t]he other elves are only allowed to continue to exist insofar as they don't jeopardize the views or goals of the Dalish."

Because a hypothetical Andrastian nation that started attacking the Dalish would be an aggressor, and I'm not hugely fond of those.

Let me see if I understanding this right.

Religious centre= "enemy power centre".

"Striking at" = vaporization of every single person in the chantry, including lay brothers and sisters and other citizens/bystanders present for service.

But, at the same time, "[t]he mages aren't ... even attacking their religious institutions."

Hmm... Nope, you're contradicting yourself here. But this is just by way of aside.

On what moral basis can you distinguish between your gleeful support of the murder of everyone in the Chantry, and Meredith's ROA against the mages in Kirkwall? Let's say I grant you that Elthina herself is absolutely culpable, in the same way that Anders is clealry culpable for the murder of the Grand Cleric.

Any form of moral argument that you can offer for Anders's bout of terrorism can similarly be used to justify Meredith's ROA.

Aside from Elthina, all we see in the Chantry are a bunch of templars. Not terribly surprising that it was mostly empty, as the bomb hit at nighttime. An act of war, but aimed at military targets.

Well, to quote Plaintiff, the moral justification is:

"Tough ******. If they would allow all their peers to continue suffering indefinitely under a system of institutionalized bigotry, then they deserve anything bad that happens to them."

So there you go. The very same argument that you can use to defend some mages making a choice for all mages can be used to defend what the Qun-specific elves do.

Yes, all mages voted on a situation that would affect all mages, and a majority chose secession. What would you have preferred, a unilateral decision from someone who favored submission? It isn't as though Anders' decision was binding, the war didn't even start for another year. Also, I don't know if you noticed, but I'm not Plaintiff.

Clearly not, since Anders was "striking at the enemy power center". Be consistent, please. Either Anders is striking a blow for all mages, meaning that the cause of mage freedom is a declaration of war against the Chantry and the religion as a whole, or Anders is a violent terrorist. You don't get to have it both ways.

Anders is making a unilateral attack as an independent apostate that had an unfortunate effect of the fallout landing on the Circle. However, even if he's defined as a terrorist, I don't consider him irredeemable, and he's still a friend and ally.

To the extent that the qunari are at war with non-qunari, that isn't special, unique or different from any other race in Thedas. And it certainly isn't different from what any other group in Thedas has done historically, or as I said previously what the mages are doing with the non-mages who don't want to fight.

It was a vote on whether or not to fight. One of the closest things to representative democracy that we've seen in any semi-governmental decision. Short of direct democracy, I don't know what more you want. If you're referring to Anders, that was to give a demonstration to the rest of the Circle community how low the templars could sink; whether or not a war would start wasn't actually up to him.

[Plaintiff]

In Exile wrote...
That's absurd. The lot of the non-mage elves is signifcantly improved in the Qun. They're in positions of leadership. They're capable of being merchants, warriors, spies, whatever.

They're not "capable" of being anything, except the role that is assigned to them by the Qun, and they have to fulfill that position until they die, irrespective of their personal desires.

Elves have few options under the current system. Under the Qun they don't have any.Their lot is only "improved" if you believe that not having any choice in your career development is an improvement. 

Other than being filled with empty rethoric like "strip them of  what litte autonomy they already posses", your post does nothing to actually establisht that the Qun is at all oppressive toward them.

I don't need to establish dick, The Qun is obviously oppressive by nature, to everybody, including its own leaders. If you won't acknowledge that, then you're blind.

It openly brags about the oppressive things it does; it doesn't allow you any freedom in choosing your own career path, it doesn't allow you to have relationships or a family, it drugs you with mind-altering substances if you refuse to submit, it hunts down and murders people who try to leave, and it claims falsely that you'll be happier as a result... exactly what part of this is morally ambiguous to you?

In addition to all of that, it makes no secret of the fact that it intends to invade Thedas and violently convert and subjugate everyone at the earliest opportunity. Sten in DA:O and the Arishok in DA2 explicitly tell you, in no uncertain terms, that this is the long-term goal of the Qun, that invading and oppressing others is a major requirement of their religion.

I never denied that the current system the city elves live under is terrible, but the Qun is not an improvement. If anything, it's worse. And while rebellious mages are not actively murdering any mage who refuses to join their cause, the Qun-supporting elves in Kirkwall are killing elves that don't want to be Qunari.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 05 mai 2013 - 02:04 .

[Hazegurl]

LobselVith8 wrote...

You're condemning Merrill because of a plot that made every companion betray Hawke, with the sole exception of Anders? The plot where a demon made an offer to a companion, and seconds latter they decided to attempt to murder Hawke in cold blood? That quest made as much sense as Decimus thinking that apostate Hawke and Merrill were templars.

You can scream plot if you like but just look at DAO. Sten was strong enough not to fall prey inside the Fade and Morrigan swat away demons like they are just pesky flies. Anders/Justice does not betray you in DA2. So if Merrill is written to betray you in the fade it is because she fails as the great trickster of demons people claims she is.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
Because a hypothetical Andrastian nation that started attacking the Dalish would be an aggressor, and I'm not hugely fond of those.

I find it hard to believe that's your actual justification, given that your first reaction to my statement that the CEs would want their own Andrastian nation was that your support for it is contingent on whether they attack the Dalish as opposed to any other possible nation or example.

Aside from Elthina, all we see in the Chantry are a bunch of templars. Not terribly surprising that it was mostly empty, as the bomb hit at nighttime. An act of war, but aimed at military targets.

Even if I somehow grant that the Chantry was empty, it's still an attack on the religous institution, given that at minimum it's the eradication of the symbol of the Chantry in Kirkwall and the execution of the Grand Cleric. 


We don't know how empty it was, or who actually happens to live in the Chantry at night. But let's suppose it only had lay sisters and brothers, as well as priets. You're still contradicting yourself as I described in my post. Not that you'll do anything other than dodge it as you did just now, though.

Yes, all mages voted on a situation that would affect all mages, and a majority chose secession.

A) In Kirkwall, the mages did no such thing. There was no vote. There was no discussion. There was Anders nuke, and then there was their death.

Even if the majority chose secession, the minority didn't. 

What would you have preferred, a unilateral decision from someone who favored submission?

No. I don't "prefer" anything, other than for you to actually own up to the moral views that your supporting. Despite being constantly dragged into these arguments with you, I don't actually disagree with the underlying causes. My debate is with you and your views, not with the in-game causes, which I support.

is making a unilateral attack as an independent apostate that had an unfortunate effect of the fallout landing on the Circle. However, even if he's defined as a terrorist, I don't consider him irredeemable, and he's still a friend and ally.

No, you don't get to be this dishonest. When you call it an "enemy power centre", you're making a clear value judgement about what Anders' involvement is in the cause of mage freedom. 

It was a vote on whether or not to fight. One of the closest things to representative democracy that we've seen in any semi-governmental decision. Short of direct democracy, I don't know what more you want. 

I want you to address the points I'm making. I have no idea where this discussion of the vote the mages engaged in came from, but it has nothing to do with what I mentioned at any point, since I continue to harm on your morally bankrupt distiction between your slaughter of the qunari-supporting elves and your support for the mages.

If you're referring to Anders, that was to give a demonstration to the rest of the Circle community how low the templars could sink; whether or not a war would start wasn't actually up to him.

And I'm not refering to Anders. I'm refering to you, and the logical and moral implications from your own view.

[Plaintiff]

Hazegurl wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You're condemning Merrill because of a plot that made every companion betray Hawke, with the sole exception of Anders? The plot where a demon made an offer to a companion, and seconds latter they decided to attempt to murder Hawke in cold blood? That quest made as much sense as Decimus thinking that apostate Hawke and Merrill were templars.

You can scream plot if you like but just look at DAO. Sten was strong enough not to fall prey inside the Fade and Morrigan swat away demons like they are just pesky flies. Anders/Justice does not betray you in DA2. So if Merrill is written to betray you in the fade it is because she fails as the great trickster of demons people claims she is.

By this logic, are we also saying that Wynne is naive and retarded?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 05 mai 2013 - 02:06 .

[Xilizhra]

I find it hard to believe that's your actual justification, given that your first reaction to my statement that the CEs would want their own Andrastian nation was that your support for it is contingent on whether they attack the Dalish as opposed to any other possible nation or example.

Andrastianism has a history of violence toward the Dalish, so that was my primary worry.

We don't know how empty it was, or who actually happens to live in the Chantry at night. But let's suppose it only had lay sisters and brothers, as well as priets. You're still contradicting yourself as I described in my post. Not that you'll do anything other than dodge it as you did just now, though.

What I'm saying is that we have no evidence of anyone except for templars and their commander-in-chief being there. If you argue that there "must have been" others there, I refer you to that post of yours I made a note of.
In any case, Anders may have made an attack on the religious institution as a whole, but his own action cannot be said to define the entire mage freedom movement.

A) In Kirkwall, the mages did no such thing. There was no vote. There was no discussion. There was Anders nuke, and then there was their death.

Even if the majority chose secession, the minority didn't.

I told you about my issues with Kirkwall, and with the other mages... what would you have wanted? With a majority of the Circle seceding anyway, whatever minority didn't want to leave couldn't logically return in any case; the templars wouldn't allow it. However, after the events of Asunder, it doesn't seem likely that their reception would have been much warmer had the Circle as a whole chosen submission.

And I've already tried to address the points you made. I support the defeat of templars and the secession of the mages. I do not support the qunari conquering Kirkwall. That's the beginning and end of it. The elves in Demands of the Qun made themselves my enemies, the Kirkwall Circle never did.

[LobselVith8]

xxx2emo4Uxxx wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

That's inaccurate. We have societies where mages are free, and none of them emulate Tevinter. I don't see why you're being disingenious by making it seem as though free mages automatically lead to another Tevinter when history proves this isn't the case. The Imperium is also an example of a society that enslaves mages as well. We have societies where mages are free: the Avvar, the Chasind, the Dalish, and the witches of the kingdom of Rivain, and none of those societies emulate Tevinter.

Avvar, Chasind, Dalish are small tribes, you cant really compare that to tevinter

Rivain is a kingdom, and the Dalish had their own nation until the Chantry invaded their sovereign nation (according to Dalish history). I certainly can point out that there are societies with free mages that didn't emulate the Imperium.

The idea that free mages will automatically create another Tevinter is wrong.

xxx2emo4Uxxx wrote...

edit: i also think you guys forgot that First Enchanter has more authority over circle than knight-commander, circles are not really as bad as you make them look like. 

No, they don't. When Jowan was given the Rite of Tranquility, Irving concedes he would do things differently if it was up to him. Greagoir only permitted seven mages to serve at Ostagar, despite the fact that Irving, Duncan, and even the King of Ferelden wanted more mages to fight the darkspawn.

As for the Chantry controlled Circles, I assume you've heard about the abuses that happened to the mages. As Cullen says: "We have dominion over mages by divine right". The Chantry controlled Circles can get really bad. Alain was raped by templars; the templar Alrik was illegally making mages tranquil and raping them. Meredith can have mages killed simply to set an example to the others.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 05 mai 2013 - 02:14 .

[In Exile]

Plaintiff wrote...
They're not "capable" of being anything, except the role that is assigned to them by the Qun, and they have to fulfill that position until they die, irrespective of their personal desires.

They're assigned a profession at birth. That's not in the least equivalent to the rape, beating, murder, denial of access to justice, poverty, racial segregation, actual outright racism (just to name a few!) than the CEs have to deal with in Andrastian society.

There's no parallel. 

Elves have few options under the current system. Under the Qun they don't have any.

The choice to be beaten, murdered and raped, apparently. Wonderful. I'll go tell the mages how choice-filled their lives are. 

Their lot is only "improved" if you believe that not having any choice in your career development is an improvement.  

Their lot is improved when they have safety, security, the ability to advance and seek fulfilment, when they are treated like equals as between other races and valued. Which, moreso than in Andrastian society, the Qun offers them.

What choice do the elves have? Which professions to the poor slobs who lived in the Kirkwall or Ferelden Alienage have? To become merchants? To become warriors? They were all camp servants, beaten when they disobeyed, and raped by soldiers if they happend to be women. 

Yes, what great freedom of choice they have in Andrastian society. 

I don't need to establish dick, The Qun is obviously oppressive by nature, to everybody, including its own leaders. If you won't acknowledge that, then you're blind.

That's not what you said. You said (and helpfully bolded):

"fighting to replace one bigoted, oppressive system with another equally bigoted, oppressive system"

"strip them of what little autonomy they already possessed"

That's what you have to prove. The fact that the Qun is oppresive doesn't mean it's more oppressive than the Alienage by default.

It openly brags about the oppressive things it does; it doesn't allow you any freedom in choosing your own career path, it doesn't allow you to have relationships or a family, it drugs you with mind-altering substances if you refuse to submit, it hunts down and murders people who try to leave, and it claims falsely that you'll be happier as a result... exactly what part of this is morally ambiguous to you?

It's funny - when did I say that any of this is morally ambiguous? It's almost like you're having an argument with some sort of person built out of straw... but then that would be absurd, of course.

The Qun doesn't involve beatens, rape, poverty, disease, racial segregation, actual outright racism and racial slurs, a completely denial of all basic social institutions like the courts or the police... 

The Qunari are, absolutely, a totalitarian society. But they're leaps and bounds above what the CEs experienced in Kirkwall on their best days. 

In addition to all of that, it makes no secret of the fact that it intends to invade Thedas and violently convert and subjugate everyone at the earliest opportunity. Sten in DA:O and the Arishok in DA2 explicitly tell you, in no uncertain terms, that this is the long-term goal of the Qun, that invading and oppressing others is a major requirement of their religion.

The fact that they're an expansionist culture doesn't mean that their going to be a worse deal for the elves. As you saw pretty clearly in Kirkwall, if anything the elves are going to side with them because they're getting a better deal by converting to the Qun. 

I never denied that the current system the city elves live under is terrible, but the Qun is not an improvement. If anything, it's worse. And while mages are not killing any mage who refuses to join their cause, the Qun-supporting elves in Kirkwall are killing elves that don't want to be Qunari. 

That's just dishonest, given your gleeful support that all of the mages in Kirkwall who wouldn't rise up with Anders deserved to die (or worse). There's little difference between following a policy that will lead to any mage who refuses to join the cause dying and actually swinging the sword yourself. It's why the templars are as guilty for all the mages they drive to suicide as much as they are for the mages they actually execute. 

[Xilizhra]

That's what you have to prove. The fact that the Qun is oppresive doesn't mean it's more oppressive than the Alienage by default.

It's not. However, I believe it's far harder to change socially once it achieves a foothold; the way it completely mentally rewrites people makes it a target far too difficult to win hearts and minds. Simply put, I believe the Alienages are easier to fix without just bringing in new oppressors than the Qun is.

I prefer to think of it as the plot that every other mage in your party was able to resist except for Merrill.

It is of course your privilege to be an idiot, but Anders doesn't resist a damn thing. Justice is the one in control, and he's immune to spirit shenanigans by virtue of being a spirit himself.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
Andrastianism has a history of violence toward the Dalish, so that was my primary worry.

And why is that? Why do the Dalish come to mind, when both peoples are elves? Because it seems to me to arise from the fact that you don't actually care for elves per se, only the Dalish.

What I'm saying is that we have no evidence of anyone except for templars and their commander-in-chief being there. If you argue that there "must have been" others there

I didn't say that. About as far as you can accuse me of going is that I supposed that the Chantry clergy - like the religions that they are based on - also happen to live in the Chantry. 

In any case, Anders may have made an attack on the religious institution as a whole, but his own action cannot be said to define the entire mage freedom movement.

But, once again, I'm not taking about Anders. I'm talking about you.

You use words like "enemy power centre" and "commander-in-chief" to describe the Chantry and its respective religious leader, and then you turn around and try to say that, in your view,  the mage rebellion isn't targeting the Chantry as a religious institution. 

It's absolutely and completel intellectual bankrupt. 

I told you about my issues with Kirkwall, and with the other mages... what would you have wanted? 

The other mages are in the exact same situation as the mages in Kirkwall. They're either going to have to fight, or die. It's the same issue. They're being forced to fight a war they don't want at the impentus of other people who think they are entitled to decide whether they should live or die for some Grand Cause. 

Fionna isn't Anders, but she's perfectly willing to sacrfice lives for what she believes in. So I'm asking you whether you think it's morally justified for one person to decree whether others should live or die for the sake of a cause. Because after that, all that we're doing is quibbling about the cause. 

With a majority of the Circle seceding anyway, whatever minority didn't want to leave couldn't logically return in any case; the templars wouldn't allow it. However, after the events of Asunder, it doesn't seem likely that their reception would have been much warmer had the Circle as a whole chosen submission. 

Exactly - the majority already made that choice for them.

And I've already tried to address the points you made. I support the defeat of templars and the secession of the mages. I do not support the qunari conquering Kirkwall. That's the beginning and end of it. The elves in Demands of the Qun made themselves my enemies, the Kirkwall Circle never did.

You haven't addressed anything, other than to constantly sidestep any attempt at actually defending the moral ideology that you're putting forward. 

[LobselVith8]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...
 
The others are extremists like Meredith, Cullen, and Anders, extremely naive to point of extreme stupidity like Merrill, and lazy whiners like Jowan.

Jowan was in the shadow of a prodigy. He can atone for his mistakes and protect refugees from the darkspawn as Master Levyn.

Merrill has culture shock about human society - that's it. She is sane, highly intelligent, uses magic proficiently for years, can tell if Keran is possessed, is able to identify what the Profane Abomination is, and is reconstructing ancient elven technology that baffled the Magisters of the Imperium.

She studied the lore she gathered about the ancient Eluvians and extrapolated information from the shard so she could construct the Eluvian. She was proactive in trying to stop the plight of her people. I don't see why people praise Hawke's passivity but condemn Merrill for actually trying to improve the lives of elves across the continent with invaluable technology. 

Before anyone says it to vilify Merrill, using blood magic isn't evil. The Grey Warden mages have also used blood magic.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
It's not. However, I believe it's far harder to change socially once it achieves a foothold; the way it completely mentally rewrites people makes it a target far too difficult to win hearts and minds. Simply put, I believe the Alienages are easier to fix without just bringing in new oppressors than the Qun is.

And here we have it! Yes, your view is that it's justified to kill those elves, despite the fact that they're fighting to improve their lots in life, because you think that it's morally justified for the sake of some better future. 

That's what I was driving at: that you think it's justified to kill these elves because in your view all the elves should become Dalish, and it's worth killing them to ensure that. 

[Xilizhra]

And why is that? Why do the Dalish come to mind, when both peoples are elves? Because it seems to me to arise from the fact that you don't actually care for elves per se, only the Dalish.

Because your question sounded like some kind of trap and I went into a defensive mode.

You use words like "enemy power centre" and "commander-in-chief" to describe the Chantry and its respective religious leader, and then you turn around and try to say that, in your view, the mage rebellion isn't targeting the Chantry as a religious institution.

Anders is not the mage rebellion.

The other mages are in the exact same situation as the mages in Kirkwall. They're either going to have to fight, or die. It's the same issue. They're being forced to fight a war they don't want at the impentus of other people who think they are entitled to decide whether they should live or die for some Grand Cause.

Fionna isn't Anders, but she's perfectly willing to sacrfice lives for what she believes in. So I'm asking you whether you think it's morally justified for one person to decree whether others should live or die for the sake of a cause. Because after that, all that we're doing is quibbling about the cause.

Inasmuch as it's right for anyone to declare a war for any reason ever, yes. Because it's about more than a cause, it's about building a better tomorrow for mages both present and future.

And here we have it! Yes, your view is that it's justified to kill those elves, despite the fact that they're fighting to improve their lots in life, because you think that it's morally justified for the sake of some better future.

That's what I was driving at: that you think it's justified to kill these elves because in your view all the elves should become Dalish, and it's worth killing them to ensure that.

I've not sided with Petrice, I haven't killed any qunari until they tried to kill me. That's the only reason I'm justifying killing the elves. As for why I'm fighting them, I'd have no problems at all with them joining the Qun... if the Qun wasn't a gigantic mass-murdering war machine that hideously tortures mages, among other things.

[LobselVith8]

Hazegurl wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You're condemning Merrill because of a plot that made every companion betray Hawke, with the sole exception of Anders? The plot where a demon made an offer to a companion, and seconds latter they decided to attempt to murder Hawke in cold blood? That quest made as much sense as Decimus thinking that apostate Hawke and Merrill were templars.

You can scream plot if you like but just look at DAO. Sten was strong enough not to fall prey inside the Fade and Morrigan swat away demons like they are just pesky flies. Anders/Justice does not betray you in DA2. So if Merrill is written to betray you in the fade it is because she fails as the great trickster of demons people claims she is. 

Sten and Morrigan don't try to kill The Warden because a demon offered them something a few seconds prior, unlike the asinine plot of "Night Terrors" that makes no sense.

Also, what's with this trickster stuff? Merrill says you can gain information from a demon, and you can. The Profane Abomination can tell you about the danger ahead, while the Sloth Demon can caution you about Feynriel's predicament. That's Merrill's point.

Or are you talking about her not seeing a distinction between spirits and demons? Because that distinction is religiously Andrastian, and Merrill is Dalish. She doesn't see Spirits and Demons as the First Children of the Maker, or Demons as Spirits who turned their back on the Maker.

Filament wrote...

Lobselvith8 wrote...

You're condemning Merrill because of a plot that made every companion betray Hawke, with the sole exception of Anders? 

I prefer to think of it as the plot that every other mage in your party was able to resist except for Merrill. 

Every other mage = Anders the abomination. That's pretty much it.

[Xilizhra]

Filament wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It is of course your privilege to be an idiot, but Anders doesn't resist a damn thing. Justice is the one in control, and he's immune to spirit shenanigans by virtue of being a spirit himself.

She really has no excuse. The assumption that spirits are immune to other spirits is questionable and even then it only means that  the only mage in the party wasn't able to resist a demon, which isn't much better. Merrill just proved how mages need to be watched with her foolishness, and people making excuses for her don't even realize that.

Oh, yes, it's such a terrible moral failing to be ensnared by the most powerful kind of demon being fueled by the nightmares of a somniarus.

[Solmanian]

Military and trade leaders (usually) had to work hard and prove themselves to reach their positions. Bad generals die on the battlefield (admittadly probably after their soldiers; unless they're really bad), and incompetent "trade princess" can become bankrupt very fast. Political leaders are usually easily corruptible, especialy when their postion is hereditary; but they still rely on people to carry out their will. Mages are born with superpowers... Unleashed upon the world, free to abuse that power until their almost inevitable possession. Unless ofcourse they're really unlucky and they become a gateway through which a demonic invasion will come. So, yes they require constant supervision. Civil rights are all fine and good (and don't actually exist in thedas...) but the "honor system" is not a reliable way to deal with walking WMD's.

[LobselVith8]

Filament wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It is of course your privilege to be an idiot, but Anders doesn't resist a damn thing. Justice is the one in control, and he's immune to spirit shenanigans by virtue of being a spirit himself.

She really has no excuse. The assumption that spirits are immune to other spirits is questionable and even then it only means that  the only mage in the party wasn't able to resist a demon, which isn't much better. Merrill just proved how mages need to be watched with her foolishness, and people making excuses for her don't even realize that.

I find it strange that you're condemning Merrill for a quest that many people have ridiculed as ludicrous and stupid.

The plot had all but one of the companions attempt cold blooded murder after a few seconds of a demon offering them something. Everyone's excuse for why this stupidity should be disregarded is the same: people don't work this way. No one is going to try to kill someone simply because I offered them something absurd.

It's a stupidly written quest. Then again, this is the game where Grace wants revenge if Hawke helped her, and Decimus thought Merrill was a templar.