225 réponses à ce sujet

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

My inner bomb throwing revolutionary already supports the mages and their cause.

It would still be nice to have sane mages in DA:I.

[IanPolaris]

In Exile wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually I couldn't stand that scene with Thrask's daughter Olivia. It's completely lorebreaking to have a mage just go "Abomination" like that except (apparently) in Kirkwall, and Kirkwall because of the virtually non-existant veil is emphatically not the norm (but the gameplay in DA2 goes to great lengths to imply that it is....you have to HUNT and SEARCH for the Enigma Codex entries that explain why it isn't).

-Polaris

That's false. DG explains that it's totally possible for a mental breakdown to make one very vulnerable to demons, provide one is around at that time to grab hold. 

Not at the drop of a hat like that.  If you have a DG post that explicitly says otherwise, I want to see it. Edit: If mages could suddenly go "abomination" like that within seconds at the drop of a hate simply because of stress or fear, then Tevinter (which used mages in battle quite a lot) should have been a smoking ruin a very, very long time ago.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  I also point out that Olvia wasn't having a mental breakdown.  She was afraid for her life and justifiably so.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 30 mai 2013 - 05:43 .

[IanPolaris]

Mr.House wrote...

MR_PN wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

I'm sorry you can't stand the truth that for every good mage, there are ten bad mages.

and the Templars are better? they want exactly what Hitler did, that's why they broke away from the chantry, that's why Meredith called the right of annulment and Cullen didn't stop her.

Um the templars broke away from the chantry becauset he Divine rebeled against Lamberts orders. She broke the treaty and thus the agreement the chantry and the seekers made(Templars are part of the seekers) where done, let's also not forget many mages where inciting the templars, going as far as to kill a mage to frame another mage and the grand Enchanter pissing off Lambert on purpose. Mages are no more innocent then the templars and Asunder proved this. Both sides caused the war. Also Cullen didn't approve of the right. He followed his orders but he hated it and he decides enough is enough when Meredith at last loses it.

Divine Justina is Lamber's SUPERIOR and not the other way around.  Claiming that the Templars can unilaterally void the Nevarran Accord that established the modern chantry is legally dodgy at best.

-Polaris

[kinderschlager]

Harle Cerulean wrote...

It kind of boggles my mind that people are actually arguing that torture and murder are morally grey.

new to the U.S. eh?

[NoForgiveness]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

MR_PN wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

ruthless mages (Adrian, Janeka** and Caladrius)  

wait Adrian? from asunder? how is she ruthless? because she kills pharamond?

Is that a serious question? She kills a man and frames another to start an open war. Even if I thought that was justified (I don't, but I can see the argument for it) I'd still have to agree it was ruthless.

hmm.. doesn't seem so bad to me. the man wanted to die(with good reason) and that battle was more or less inevitable because they were voting for their freedom.  the only part that seems wrong is that she kind of betrays her friend. A simple apology would make it better if I was rhys. maybe it is a little ruthless but id say its justified

[Dr. Doctor]

I remember either David Gaider or Marc Laidlaw saying that they deliberately made the mages in DA2 over the top in terms of blood magic usage so that the players wouldn't always side against the Templars.

[Mr.House]

IanPolaris wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

MR_PN wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

I'm sorry you can't stand the truth that for every good mage, there are ten bad mages.

and the Templars are better? they want exactly what Hitler did, that's why they broke away from the chantry, that's why Meredith called the right of annulment and Cullen didn't stop her.

Um the templars broke away from the chantry becauset he Divine rebeled against Lamberts orders. She broke the treaty and thus the agreement the chantry and the seekers made(Templars are part of the seekers) where done, let's also not forget many mages where inciting the templars, going as far as to kill a mage to frame another mage and the grand Enchanter pissing off Lambert on purpose. Mages are no more innocent then the templars and Asunder proved this. Both sides caused the war. Also Cullen didn't approve of the right. He followed his orders but he hated it and he decides enough is enough when Meredith at last loses it.

Divine Justina is Lamber's SUPERIOR and not the other way around.  Claiming that the Templars can unilaterally void the Nevarran Accord that established the modern chantry is legally dodgy at best.

-Polaris

He was still able to do it and as seen at the end of DA2 with Varic and Cass, it did happen. The mages left the chantry and Lambert broke the treaty becauset he Devinve meddled in afairs. Stuff that mages in fact caused. The uproar happen because of what Adrian did to frame Rhys.

[IanPolaris]

Mr.House wrote...

He was still able to do it and as seen at the end of DA2 with Varic and Cass, it did happen. The mages left the chantry and Lambert broke the treaty becauset he Devinve meddled in afairs. Stuff that mages in fact caused. The uproar happen because of what Adrian did to frame Rhys.

He had the power do to it just as South Carolina had the power to unilaterally secede from the Union.  It remains to be seen if it will stick and it's still an act of rebellion.

Also the ability to do a rebellious act doesn't make that act any less rebellious.

-Polaris

[kinderschlager]

thats1evildude wrote...

Uh-oh, I sense an impending political discussion that has little to do with actual topic. I think I'm done here.

https://i.chzbgr.com...0400/hC36908D0/

LMAO, i concur, we had someone mention BOTH gays and abortion. now i'm just here for the lolz as people tear into eachother

[IanPolaris]

Dr. Doctor wrote...

I remember either David Gaider or Marc Laidlaw saying that they deliberately made the mages in DA2 over the top in terms of blood magic usage so that the players wouldn't always side against the Templars.

Which should have told either/both of them that what they thought was a morally grey issue actually wasn't.

-Polaris

[Mr.House]

MR_PN wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

MR_PN wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

ruthless mages (Adrian, Janeka** and Caladrius)  

wait Adrian? from asunder? how is she ruthless? because she kills pharamond?

Is that a serious question? She kills a man and frames another to start an open war. Even if I thought that was justified (I don't, but I can see the argument for it) I'd still have to agree it was ruthless.

hmm.. doesn't seem so bad to me. the man wanted to die(with good reason) and that battle was more or less inevitable because they were voting for their freedom.  the only part that seems wrong is that she kind of betrays her friend. A simple apology would make it better if I was rhys. maybe it is a little ruthless but id say its justified

She framed and betrayed her friend with the purpose of causing war which led to lots of death on both sides including Wynns death. I'm happy Ryhs is cold towards her, an apology is as useful as taking care of weeds with a nail clipper at that moment when the war started.

Modifié par Mr.House, 30 mai 2013 - 05:48 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Dr. Doctor wrote...

I remember either David Gaider or Marc Laidlaw saying that they deliberately made the mages in DA2 over the top in terms of blood magic usage so that the players wouldn't always side against the Templars.

Even with that in mind they went overboard for both sides.

It got so bad that by the endgame my first thought wasn't "Yeah Mage freedom!" Or "We've got to stop those crazy mages" But "Screw you guys I'm going home"

[kinderschlager]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Harle Cerulean wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Harle Cerulean wrote...

It kind of boggles my mind that people are actually arguing that torture and murder are morally grey.

What I'm arguing is that limitedly good ends can justify limitedly bad means. Torture and murder like the sort Avernus did? Pretty bad. Keeping a whole bunch of demons that could otherwise get as far as Kirkwall safely contained in a castle out in the middle of nowhere? Pretty cool.

 

Combating evil with evil doesn't make the second evil less evil.  It just means everyone involved is an evil bastard.  Maybe we should say the demons were morally grey because they were keeping an evil blood mage occupied and too busy to go looking for prey outside his tower!

The demons are evil. They are literally inhuman beings of pure malice. On the other hand, you may have a point about their service to humanity by keeping Avernus occupied. He might well have done more harm had he not been otherwise occupied. His cited motivation was to keep the demons occupied, so we can't be sure, but who's to say if he's telling the truth? (If you don't believe that evil people can do good work for evil reasons, you are not prepared to hear about some of my Wardens. Wicked bastards or not, they did save their world.)

i'm not the only one? good:D

[NoForgiveness]

Mr.House wrote...

MR_PN wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

MR_PN wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

ruthless mages (Adrian, Janeka** and Caladrius)  

wait Adrian? from asunder? how is she ruthless? because she kills pharamond?

Is that a serious question? She kills a man and frames another to start an open war. Even if I thought that was justified (I don't, but I can see the argument for it) I'd still have to agree it was ruthless.

hmm.. doesn't seem so bad to me. the man wanted to die(with good reason) and that battle was more or less inevitable because they were voting for their freedom.  the only part that seems wrong is that she kind of betrays her friend. A simple apology would make it better if I was rhys. maybe it is a little ruthless but id say its justified

She framed and betrayed her friend with the purpose of causing war which led to lots of death on both sides including Wynns death. I'm happy Ryhs is cold towards her, an apology is as useful as taking care of weeds with a nail clipper at that moment when the war started.

your thinking as though the battle started solely because of her, it didn't, they were standing there voting for freedom, the Templars wouldn't have let it happen and Fiona wouldn't have backed down, unless the vote failed which was highly unlikely. the framing part was just an added push

[kinderschlager]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

My inner bomb throwing revolutionary already supports the mages and their cause.

It would still be nice to have sane mages in DA:I.

same here, on both counts

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

MR_PN wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

MR_PN wrote...

hmm.. doesn't seem so bad to me. the man wanted to die(with good reason) and that battle was more or less inevitable because they were voting for their freedom.  the only part that seems wrong is that she kind of betrays her friend. A simple apology would make it better if I was rhys. maybe it is a little ruthless but id say its justified

She framed and betrayed her friend with the purpose of causing war which led to lots of death on both sides including Wynns death. I'm happy Ryhs is cold towards her, an apology is as useful as taking care of weeds with a nail clipper at that moment when the war started.

your thinking as though the battle started solely because of her, it didn't, they were standing there voting for freedom, the Templars wouldn't have let it happen and Fiona wouldn't have backed down, unless the vote failed which was highly unlikely. the framing part was just an added push

That doesn't help your case. If the fight was going to happen anyway the extra push wasn't needed.

[kinderschlager]

IanPolaris wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

MR_PN wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

I'm sorry you can't stand the truth that for every good mage, there are ten bad mages.

and the Templars are better? they want exactly what Hitler did, that's why they broke away from the chantry, that's why Meredith called the right of annulment and Cullen didn't stop her.

Um the templars broke away from the chantry becauset he Divine rebeled against Lamberts orders. She broke the treaty and thus the agreement the chantry and the seekers made(Templars are part of the seekers) where done, let's also not forget many mages where inciting the templars, going as far as to kill a mage to frame another mage and the grand Enchanter pissing off Lambert on purpose. Mages are no more innocent then the templars and Asunder proved this. Both sides caused the war. Also Cullen didn't approve of the right. He followed his orders but he hated it and he decides enough is enough when Meredith at last loses it.

Divine Justina is Lamber's SUPERIOR and not the other way around.  Claiming that the Templars can unilaterally void the Nevarran Accord that established the modern chantry is legally dodgy at best.

-Polaris

where are y'all getting this info, and don't tell me a book, i never count anything in books tied to video games, they're just cheap money grabs in my opinion

[kinderschlager]

Dr. Doctor wrote...

I remember either David Gaider or Marc Laidlaw saying that they deliberately made the mages in DA2 over the top in terms of blood magic usage so that the players wouldn't always side against the Templars.

lol, too bad, not once have i sided with the templars. they're ****s at best

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

kinderschlager wrote...

where are y'all getting this info, and don't tell me a book, i never count anything in books tied to video games, they're just cheap money grabs in my opinion

Then they can't answer.

[NoForgiveness]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

MR_PN wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

MR_PN wrote...

hmm.. doesn't seem so bad to me. the man wanted to die(with good reason) and that battle was more or less inevitable because they were voting for their freedom.  the only part that seems wrong is that she kind of betrays her friend. A simple apology would make it better if I was rhys. maybe it is a little ruthless but id say its justified

She framed and betrayed her friend with the purpose of causing war which led to lots of death on both sides including Wynns death. I'm happy Ryhs is cold towards her, an apology is as useful as taking care of weeds with a nail clipper at that moment when the war started.

your thinking as though the battle started solely because of her, it didn't, they were standing there voting for freedom, the Templars wouldn't have let it happen and Fiona wouldn't have backed down, unless the vote failed which was highly unlikely. the framing part was just an added push

That doesn't help your case. If the fight was going to happen anyway the extra push wasn't needed.

then it has absolutely no effect and so no harm is done(from the framing itself) aside from the friendship betrayal. which like I said can be made better with an genuine apology.

Modifié par MR_PN, 30 mai 2013 - 06:00 .

[IanPolaris]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

It got so bad that by the endgame my first thought wasn't "Yeah Mage freedom!" Or "We've got to stop those crazy mages" But "Screw you guys I'm going home"

I hear that.  Whatever my personal thoughts are, when I played DA2 part of me was wondering by the end of Act 2, "Hey I'm rich, but my entire family is dead.  Why am I staying in this Maker-forsaken city again?"


-Polaris

[Boycott Bioware]

Blood magic could lead to insanity, if blood mages use their own blood and spraying it everywhere,then blood supply to their brain is reduced....they could fall into coma and having stroke attack...

[kinderschlager]

IanPolaris wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

It got so bad that by the endgame my first thought wasn't "Yeah Mage freedom!" Or "We've got to stop those crazy mages" But "Screw you guys I'm going home"

I hear that.  Whatever my personal thoughts are, when I played DA2 part of me was wondering by the end of Act 2, "Hey I'm rich, but my entire family is dead.  Why am I staying in this Maker-forsaken city again?"


-Polaris

i believe it is already been established that hawke is an idiot

[wolfhowwl]

Plaintiff wrote...
"Terrorist" and "terrorism" are words that have wildly varying meanings from country to country, and in our post-9/11 climate the words have been abused to the point that every act of violence must be one of terrorism. So I'm not obligated to agree with your definition of it.

In fact, I don't support use of the word in any debate. It's emotionally loaded to the point that it hampers any attempt at intellectually honest discussion.

Of course you don't want the word used, it perfectly describes what your boy did.

Any "intellectually honest discussion" will just be you dancing around the fact that Anders killed in cold blood people that you don't like. As a mage fanatic, you'll make any excuse for this murderer.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 30 mai 2013 - 06:03 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

MR_PN wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

MR_PN wrote...

your thinking as though the battle started solely because of her, it didn't, they were standing there voting for freedom, the Templars wouldn't have let it happen and Fiona wouldn't have backed down, unless the vote failed which was highly unlikely. the framing part was just an added push

That doesn't help your case. If the fight was going to happen anyway the extra push wasn't needed.

then it has absolutely no effect and so no harm is done(from the framing itself) aside from the friendship betrayal. which like I said can be made better with an genuine apology.

It doesn't bug you that she made everyone think her friend is a murderer? That she killed a man who was about to be voted free of Templar control, according to you? And you think that a betrayal that huge (I am given to understand that Lambert tried to arrest him: I cannot see that ending in anything but death) can be mended with an apology?

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 30 mai 2013 - 06:06 .