322 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Tell that to the government the next time you exercise your "right" to drive the speed limit you want to, to ignore traffic laws, to not pay taxes, to swipe that purse you've been wanting but can't pay for because you're exercising your "right" not to work.

Rights are a meaningless and arbitrary concept, I'm starting to realize, outside of extremely generic things like "right to life.

Well, if you'd rather, we can all fight only for sheer dominance and have the mages just reconquer the whole of Thedas, but I'd rather not. In any case, all of your strawman examples are infringing on other peoples' rights.

I meant the monstrous organization. If it prevents another millennia of slavery by dissolving an anti-mage religious institution, it's worth the attempt.

Right, but while military action can destroy an army, it can't destroy a church, really. Spreading better beliefs will be far more efficient in weakening it.

[Lulupab]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Rassler wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Specifically to inspire fear in the civilian populace, something Anders was not about.

I don't know that I agree on that point.

Miriam Webster says...

terrorism:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Terror is not the goal. It never is. Terror is the method. Terror was the method Anders used.

Yes as mentioned before his cause is more just than any terrorism in real life. Besides just think about being tranquil, mindless animal that can speak. Even animals have more emotions. That is terrorism. Terrorism doesn't have to be an explosion you know.

The Rite of Tranquility is no more terrorism than capital punishment is. Tranquility is used as punishment and as a safety measure both, but it is not intended to either push an agenda or even sow fear. So for obvious reasons, it can't qualify for terrorism.

But tranqulty is used as fear to keep mages in check.  So its not any less terror. Besides Chantry has its own share of crimes and thus needs to go anyway e.g kill elves just because they don't worship the maker and call them heathens. I don't see any difference between rule of chantry and government of Iran. Not to bring politics into this of course but just like Iran its purely ruled with religion and that can never work. If an explosion would set a war into an event that would bring end of chantry so be it. In eyes of templars he is a terrorist and mages and some others see him as a hero. Its just a matter of opinon really.

Edit: oh not ot mention chantry can annul mages anytime it wants.

Modifié par Rassler, 01 mai 2013 - 10:52 .

[Xilizhra]

Certainly. But that must be clarified unless people start to think it's more just simply because it's more just.

But that's... utterly unnecessary. All that matters is whether or not peoples' own ethical systems consider it more just or not.

I disagree. No demon by itself will do a fraction of the damage of a person who consorts willingly with one, or a person corrupted by their greed and ambitions.

Then it'd be "protecting mages from demons and evil mages." It's not the same thing as saying implicitly that every mage is inherently corrupt/dangerous.

Demons alone, taking advantage of fear, caused all of those spontaneous possessions in DA ][. But a person caused the entire Ferelden Circle to be locked down, and nearly nullified. A person caused Meredith to invoke the Right of Anulment. How is that spelled, anyway.

Yes, and that person is Meredith alone. Plus the idol. In any case, Uldred's thing in the Fereldan Circle was purely accidental, and the actual slaughter was carried out by demons.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Rassler wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Rassler wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Specifically to inspire fear in the civilian populace, something Anders was not about.

I don't know that I agree on that point.

Miriam Webster says...

terrorism:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Terror is not the goal. It never is. Terror is the method. Terror was the method Anders used.

Yes as mentioned before his cause is more just than any terrorism in real life. Besides just think about being tranquil, mindless animal that can speak. Even animals have more emotions. That is terrorism. Terrorism doesn't have to be an explosion you know.

The Rite of Tranquility is no more terrorism than capital punishment is. Tranquility is used as punishment and as a safety measure both, but it is not intended to either push an agenda or even sow fear. So for obvious reasons, it can't qualify for terrorism.

But tranqulty is used as fear to keep mages in check.  So its not any less terror. Besides Chantry has its own share of crimes and thus needs to go anyway e.g kill elves just because they don't worship the maker and call them heathens. I don't see any difference between rule of chantry and government of Iran. Not to bring politics into this of course but just like Iran its purely ruled with religion and that can never work. If an explosion would set a war into an event that would bring end of chantry so be it. In eyes of templars he is a terrorist and mages and some others see him as a hero. Its just a matter of opinon really.

Edit: oh not ot mention chantry can annul mages anytime it wants.

Oh boy... Where to start? Okay... First of: The Rite of Tranquility is NOT used a tool of terror against the mages. As a matter of fact it is illegal to even put a harrowed mage under it. It is offered as a way out for an apprentice who is too terrified to undergo his Harrowing. It can also be used on an apprentice, who is deemed by the First Enchanter, to be too big a risk to undergo the Harrowing. Need I remind you that the First Enchanter is a mage?

Second: What I can only assume is a misinformed reference to the War of the Dales, I want to point out that the Chantry wasn't even involved in the war at all, until the Elves themselves started to kill Chantry clergy, and laid siege to the very city where the Chantry headquarters is situated, Val Royaux. Actually the Chantry was the one faction advocating mercy to the defeated Elves, and ordered all nations to harbor the Elven refugees.

And don't even start with Iran, since it would seem you have very limted knowledge of how politics work there....

Wether you agree with a terrorist action will always be a matter of opnion. It however does not change the act itself. Anders will always be a terrorist, wether you find his actions justified or not. I can tell you a lot of people also sympathized with the 9/11 terror actions, but that certainly still doesn't change the events of that day.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
Specifically to inspire fear in the civilian populace, something Anders was not about.

Actually, to inspire genocidal rage in the templars, so that they would then retaliate with the rite of annulment against the mages. Which would then inspire fear in mages and lead to their rebellion.

His plan was terror, just not against non-mages.

[Xilizhra]

It's necessary because some people don't make that determination from an ethical system--they make it because that's what society is telling them and thus they follow.

It's their own ethical system, just one societally imposed.

So you feel that saying "protect mages from themselves" assumes that mages are corrupt? I disagree. The statement doesn't say that they're corrupt, but rather that they're dangerous--which is absolute fact, a pistol is dangerous, whether it's in the hands of a cold-blooded psychopath, a trained police officer, or a baby--and that they CAN become corrupt. Which is also true. Mages are human. Humans can become corrupt. Combine corruptability with danger and you have things like laws--things like the Templar creed.

There's a reason why only dystopian police forces use phrases like "protect you from yourselves" as a rule; certainly none IRL that I know of. The templars would do well to follow this.

I don't agree--nowhere are we shown that Uldred resisted the demon that gained control over him. He accepted it. HE surrendered submitted. He is the reason for what happened.

Did you hear about him screaming as his body was being seized?

[Fast Jimmy]

Would you feel okay if Anders'' cameo if it was replaced with another NPC if he was killed? One that might be more sympathetic to the other side, like say... Fenris?

Perhaps... it can be like the Wrex/Wreav scenario from ME3.

Well, I was trying to avoid anything like the Wrex/Wreav scenario. After all, there was no benefit to killing Wrex - Wreav was pretty much unlikeable and the worst outcome possible.

I though giving the option of seeing a different familiar face would help balance things out. But,,, then again... you have the option of killing Fenris in DA2. So if you killed Anders AND Fenris, that would be a bit of a catch 22. Would we throw Merrill in instead? She can be killed too. Not to mention you may have not killed Anders... but would much rather see follow-up from Fenris in the next game.

How long of a cameo would you prefer? Was Zevran's cameo acceptable? Was Allistair/Anora's?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 mai 2013 - 11:31 .

[Xilizhra]

Well, I was trying to avoid anything like the Wrex/Wreav scenario. After all, there was no benefit to killing Wrex - Wreav was pretty much unlikeable and the worst outcome possible.

Precisely. This is what I want.

I though giving the option of seeing a different familiar face would help balance things out. But,,, then again... you have the option of killing Fenris in DA2. So if you killed Anders AND Fenris, that would be a bit of a catch 22. Would we throw Merrill in instead? She can be killed too. Not to mention you may have not killed Anders... but would much rather see follow-up from Fenris in the next game.

Why not see follow-up from all of them?

How long of a cameo would you prefer? Was Zevran's cameo acceptable? Was Allistair/Anora's?

Wrex's. but if need be, Zevran could be acceptable.

[Fast Jimmy]

Well, I was trying to avoid anything like the Wrex/Wreav scenario. After all, there was no benefit to killing Wrex - Wreav was pretty much unlikeable and the worst outcome possible.

Precisely. This is what I want.

This is fine and dandy because you like that choice.

What if, because you sided with the Mages, Varric's cameo was replaced by some surly, annoying dwarf?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 01 mai 2013 - 11:58 .

[Xilizhra]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, I was trying to avoid anything like the Wrex/Wreav scenario. After all, there was no benefit to killing Wrex - Wreav was pretty much unlikeable and the worst outcome possible.

Precisely. This is what I want.

This is fine and dandy because you like that choice.

What if, because you sided with the Mages, Varric's cameo was replaced by some surly, annoying dwarf?

Varric can't die and siding with the mages isn't directly related to killing any character, so I don't see the relevance.

[Knight of Dane]

Finn replaces dead Anders and prefer chantry subjugation!

[Giggles_Manically]

How it should in game terms?

A pro-mage ending- The mages are given autonomy from the Chantry and self-monitor
A pro-templar ending- The Templars reassert control over the Mages, but change to avoid rebellion
A middle approach - Both sides compromise and agree to new rules to work together.

There wont be a Kill All Mages/Templar ending though.
Cant have anything that would create outcomes people wont easily be able to see now!

[EdwinLi]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

How it should in game terms?

A pro-mage ending- The mages are given autonomy from the Chantry and self-monitor
A pro-templar ending- The Templars reassert control over the Mages, but change to avoid rebellion
A middle approach - Both sides compromise and agree to new rules to work together.

There wont be a Kill All Mages/Templar ending though.
Cant have anything that would create outcomes people wont easily be able to see now!

If this is attempt of Sarcasim than it is a bad one. 

Out comes of wars are never easy and coexistence will always be the hardest to obtain because some memebers of each sides will never accept peace and will gladly try to stop you. Some will even go as far as to ally them selves with their own enemy then once you're taken care of they will be back to killing each other but the leaders of the Templars and Mages can't be that insane right.

[BlueMagitek]

Xilizhra wrote...
Varric can't die and siding with the mages isn't directly related to killing any character, so I don't see the relevance.

You've made your dislike of choice well known on the ME3 forums.

[Fast Jimmy]

Xilizhra wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, I was trying to avoid anything like the Wrex/Wreav scenario. After all, there was no benefit to killing Wrex - Wreav was pretty much unlikeable and the worst outcome possible.

Precisely. This is what I want.

This is fine and dandy because you like that choice. 

What if, because you sided with the Mages, Varric's cameo was replaced by some surly, annoying dwarf?

Varric can't die and siding with the mages isn't directly related to killing any character, so I don't see the relevance.

Fair enough, then how about siding with the Mages means Cullen is not in DA3? Since he let Hawke leave after Meredith's death, he is charged with finding Hawke and the player does not encounter him in DA3. Yet if you sided with the Templars, he winds up leaving Kirkwall and meets up with the player in DA3 during a random instance. 
Would that be acceptable?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 mai 2013 - 02:28 .

[Xilizhra]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, I was trying to avoid anything like the Wrex/Wreav scenario. After all, there was no benefit to killing Wrex - Wreav was pretty much unlikeable and the worst outcome possible.

Precisely. This is what I want.

This is fine and dandy because you like that choice. 

What if, because you sided with the Mages, Varric's cameo was replaced by some surly, annoying dwarf?

Varric can't die and siding with the mages isn't directly related to killing any character, so I don't see the relevance.

Fine, then how about siding with the Mages means Cullen is not in DA3? Since he let Hawke leave after Meredith's death, he is charged with finding Hawke. If you sided with the Templars, he winds up leaving Kirkwall and meets up with the player in DA3 during a random instance. 

Would that be acceptable?

I was referring to decisions involving killing characters alone. I would also create worse alternatives for those who killed Fenris.

[Boycott Bioware]

Mages are the agents of The Maker, the strong connection to the Fade and Spirits (the Maker's children) is a solid proof that Mages are created to be the agents of The Maker.

The Chantry creating the order of Templar to suppress Mages because they know the truth and they want to hide it. They know the truth that The Maker hate everything and want to destroy the world.

They fear that with the strong connection to the fade and Spirit (The Maker's children) making the Mages carry out The Maker's order to destroy the world. That is why they try hard to subdue Mages, tranquilize them, control them and if needed exterminate them.

[Fast Jimmy]

I was referring to decisions involving killing characters alone. I would also create worse alternatives for those who killed Fenris.

Alright... then what if by turning Isabella over to the Arishok results in Sten appearing in DA3, while killing the Arishok results in a random Qunari being there in his place? Sten would be required to stay and attend to other matters if he was named Arishok following the former Arishok's death at the hands of Hawke. Yet he would still have his role of Sten if the Arishok lived and would be free to encounter the PC in Inquisition.

Would that be acceptable?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 02 mai 2013 - 02:34 .

[Dave of Canada]

I want to replace the Divine, tranquil all upstarts and make the loyal mages rejoin the Circle of Magi under harsher restrictions until further notice.

EntropicAngel wrote...

But do the mages want autonomy?

Spoilers for Asunder:
Mages voted for autonomy in Dragon Age: Awakening, it failed with Wynne pleading her case for the Circle and ending up with a majority vote towards remaining with the Circle. Anyways~

High Seeker Lambert was trying to investigate a bunch of murder cases, discovers evidence that points to Rhys (the protagonist of the novel) as the one who's commited the murders and he tries to arrest him and orders every other mage gathered at a super secret meeting (more on that in a second) to head back to their quarters, the mages get infuriated and start defending Rhys, prompting a fight to break out between Lambert's Templar and Seekers vs the Mages.

The Templar lover of Rhys which turns on Lambert gets struck down, Lambert leaves, Wynne sacrifices herself to bring her back to life and the battle ends with mages across Thedas hearing about it and breaking free from the Circles to try and join them outside of Orlais.

There, the mages hold a vote that a representative of each fraternity would decide whether or not they're going to war. Rhys discovers his ex-girlfriend was the murderer and she was using Rhys as a cover-up to try and start the mage rebellion, he's also informed that he takes Wynne's role as representative.

The votes are 50/50, Rhys walks in being the only one to not have voted and Grand Enchanter Fiona goes "The Divine might be on our side but LOL WHO CARES" and then they're mentions of the Circles trying to break free either coming over or they were wiped out by the Templar, which aggravates the situation further. Rhys goes "WE'RE GOING TO WAR", echoing half the sentiment across the chamber and leaving the majority in favor of war.

Meanwhile, Lambert is writing a letter to the Divine because she distracted Lambert on purpose so mages could have a super secret meeting, claiming her mage sympathies means she's not doing her duty to the Maker and what say you. Lambert breaks the Accord keeping the Templar/Seekers tied with the Chantry.

Then it's implied he's murdered by a mage-demon ghost thing.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 02 mai 2013 - 02:40 .

[Xilizhra]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I was referring to decisions involving killing characters alone. I would also create worse alternatives for those who killed Fenris.

Alright... then what if by turning Isabella over to the Arishok results in Sten appearing in DA3, while killing the Arishok results in a random Qunari being there in his place? Sten would be required to stay and attend to other matters if he was named Arishok following the former Arishok's death at the hands of Hawke. Yet he would still have his role of Sten if the Arishok lived and would be free to encounter the PC in Inquisition.

Would that be acceptable?

Indeed it would. Although really bizarre to implement, as the vast majority of people wouldn't take that decision.

[MoMan313]

OH OH OH 3.

Who WOULDN'T go with this if it's possible! C:
Kill the other leaders? PSHH. BRING IT ON.