1081 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

I only speak the truth. It's them or us.

And only a Sith deals in absolutes

Yes, like blowing up chantries and framing friends for murder.

One I disagree with, one was necessary.

And both were terrible acts done by perople who thought they were necessary.  I guess that makes them no better than the templars you despise.

Justina has done more for the mages' cause that you seem to realize. Pharamond's research was done on her behest to find an alternative to the Rite of Tranquility. That's right, she was looking for a less horrifying way to stop mages from becoming abominations

In addition, she's the one who sent Leliana to help Wynne break the mages out of the White Spire, and personally distracted Lambert as they did so.

She's a step or two above terrible, yes. Is she anything else? We shall see.

I shudder to think what it would ultimately take to convince you

Modifié par iakus, 14 juin 2013 - 11:18 .

[Senya]

She's a step or two above terrible, yes. Is she anything else? We shall see.

The way you talk, you'd want her to capitulate to any one of your demands and make none in turn. That is not negotiation.

Quentin was able to transplant a severed head onto another body completely. When have we ever been able to come close to that even with our modern technology? No, she didn't last long after his magic stopped being used, but it's a major step forward; with blood magic's capabilities for resurrection, and if combined properly with creation magic, imagine what the potential might be in the future. Also imagine how much suffering in our own world (billions have died terribly without "getting along fine" in the slightest) could have been alleviated with magic.

There is always a cost and a power source necessary for all magic. While ordinary magic relies on lyrium and mana, Blood Magic will rely on blood. Not to mention the large amounts of lyrium or blood necessary for the kinds of magic you suggest. With lyrium, I don't mind, but with the blood, where's the limit? Are human sacrifices okay and if so, which ones?

[Xilizhra]

And both were terrible acts done by perople who thought they were necessary. I guess that makes them no better than the templars you despise.

Hardly. Both were done to liberate, not to oppress and destroy, and the second one only targeted someone who wanted to die anyway.

I shudder to think what it would ultimately take to convince you

For the Chantry to join with us in destroying its own traitors.

The way you talk, you'd want her to capitulate to any one of your demands and make none in turn. That is not negotiation.

Nor do I intend it to be. The Chantry is toothless and any templars who keep fighting will all be killed. Why negotiate if I can win?

There is always a cost and a power source necessary for all magic. While ordinary magic relies on lyrium and mana, Blood Magic will rely on blood. Not to mention the large amounts of lyrium or blood necessary for the kinds of magic you suggest. With lyrium, I don't mind, but with the blood, where's the limit? Are human sacrifices okay and if so, which ones?

Actually, you can get far more mileage out of even a small amount of blood than of lyrium; when you combine that with the ease of magical healing, blood magic can be remarkably efficient. Merrill, alone and without living sacrifice, was able to cleanse an Eluvian shard that would have taken "piles of lyrium."

[LobselVith8]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

There are no moderate templars. There might be moderate ex-templars, but the Order as a whole is radical and monstrous. 

This is why no one takes you seriously and just mocks the **** out of you when you post 

I take Xil's posts seriously. I don't always agree with her, but she always has an interesting perspective about Dragon Age and the lore, including the dichotomy between mages and templars. I imagine it's difficult to envision moderate templars when the developers told us that Cullen was supposed to be an example of a 'moderate templar', and he thought that mages shouldn't be treated like people, and regarded mages as weapons; we also have him standing idly by while Meredith ordered the execution of hundreds of men, women, and children, and only stepped in to stop her when she specifically threatened the Champion of Kirkwall.

[Ausstig]

Xilizhra wrote..
1. Hardly. Both were done to liberate, not to
oppress and destroy, and the second one only targeted someone who
wanted to die anyway.

2. Nor do I intend it to be. The Chantry is
toothless and any templars who keep fighting will all be killed. Why
negotiate if I can win?

3. Actually, you can get far more mileage
out of even a small amount of blood than of lyrium; when you combine
that with the ease of magical healing, blood magic can be remarkably
efficient. Merrill, alone and without living sacrifice, was able to
cleanse an Eluvian shard that would have taken "piles of
lyrium."

1. Right so attacks on civilians are ok as long as you want to 'liberate' someone? The Templars are tying to liberate the world from the fear ad terror that mages spread and mages from being attacked by mobs. So by your logic all that they do is justified as well.

Pretty sure he was not too keen to die.

2. HA, your a fool if you think 'winning' like that will accomplish anything, all that high handed approach does is make your enemies fight to the death, compare the eastern front in WW1 to WW2, in the first the Germans offered, steep but acceptable terms in the second the Germans did not. They won the first but not the second. When you give no ground no one will give ground to you.


3. Didn't the mirror have a daemon in it that was manipulating her?

Modifié par Ausstig, 15 juin 2013 - 12:01 .

[LobselVith8]

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

What discussion is there to be had with templars?

There's another one of those statements...

Templars think they have dominion over mages by divine right - per the 'moderate' Knight-Captain Cullen. If I was a mage, I don't think there would be any discussion to be had with an Order that thinks the Maker has given them the right to dominate me.

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Honest and sincere people can do absolutely horrible things if they think it's right, somehow. It's happened over and over again.

Yes, like blowing up chantries and framing friends for murder.   

Or murdering an entire population of people who were innocent of the actions of one, single man in order to appease a hypothetical mob that would demand their deaths simply for being mages. I doubt that anyone disagrees that mages and templars have done bad things; however, keeping mages subjugated under the Andrastian Chantry simply isn't an option for some of us.

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

There's that talk about the magical explosion in the survey, remember.

I take that survey with a large grain of salt.

I could do without Divine Justina V, personally.

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Open to the idea on her own terms, thus far, with her staying in power. Though she didn't declare war on the mages, which is a somewhat encouraging sign... I'll wait, for the time being, but we can't wait forever.

Justina has done more for the mages' cause that you seem to realize.  Pharamond's research was done on her behest to find an alternative to the Rite of Tranquility.  That's right, she was looking for a less horrifying way to stop mages from becoming abominations

In addition, she's the one who sent Leliana to help Wynne break the mages out of the White Spire, and personally distracted Lambert as they did so. 

Divine Justina's efforts to give the mages a little more leeway in order to keep them tettered to serving under the auspicies of the Chantry of Andraste doesn't make her altruistic.

[Xilizhra]

1. Right so attacks on civilians are ok as long as you want to 'liberate' someone? The Templars are tying to liberate the world from the fear ad terror that mages spread and mages from being attacked by mobs. So by your logic all that they do is justified as well.

I disagreed with Anders, though he didn't actually attack civilians. Nor did Adrian.

Pretty sure he was not too keen to die.

Actually, he begged to be killed as an alternative to being re-Tranquilized.

2. HA, your a fool if you think 'winning' like that will accomplish anything, all that high handed approach does is make your enemies fight to the death, compare the eastern front in WW1 to WW2, in the first the Germans offered, steep but acceptable terms in the second the Germans did not. They won the first but not the second. When you give no ground no one will give ground to you.

I'm not at war with the Chantry.

3. Didn't the mirror have a daemon in it that was manipulating her?

Nope.

[Iakus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I take Xil's posts seriously. I don't always agree with her, but she always has an interesting perspective about Dragon Age and the lore, including the dichotomy between mages and templars. I imagine it's difficult to envision moderate templars when the developers told us that Cullen was supposed to be an example of a 'moderate templar', and he thought that mages shouldn't be treated like people, and regarded mages as weapons; we also have him standing idly by while Meredith ordered the execution of hundreds of men, women, and children, and only stepped in to stop her when she specifically threatened the Champion of Kirkwall.

I don't recall Cullen saying they shouldn't be treated like people, but that they shouldn't be treated as friends.  He saw firsthand how demons can turn any mage into murderous rampaging beasts, even against their will.  He no longer dares try to connect with mages on a personal level, as he could potentially be forced to kill them out of necessity.

He's seen the worst-case scenerio with magic, and even if it left him traumatized, he still remained a generally decent person.  And by Act 3, he is having doubts about Meredith's sanity himself.

Yeah, I do think tehy could have done better as a poster child for a moderate templar.  But he did do a pretty good job painting the difficulties templars face

[Xilizhra]

I don't recall Cullen saying they shouldn't be treated like people, but that they shouldn't be treated as friends. He saw firsthand how demons can turn any mage into murderous rampaging beasts, even against their will. He no longer dares try to connect with mages on a personal level, as he could potentially be forced to kill them out of necessity.

Wrongo. "Mages cannot be treated like people. They are not like you and me."

He's seen the worst-case scenerio with magic, and even if it left him traumatized, he still remained a generally decent person. And by Act 3, he is having doubts about Meredith's sanity himself.

Not even slightly. He participates in the Annulment. He's as guilty of genocide as Meredith and should be called to account for that.

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

1. Right so attacks on civilians are ok as long as you want to 'liberate' someone? The Templars are tying to liberate the world from the fear ad terror that mages spread and mages from being attacked by mobs. So by your logic all that they do is justified as well.

I disagreed with Anders, though he didn't actually attack civilians. Nor did Adrian.

So every Kirkwaller who had the bad luck to be in the Chantry to light a candle for a loved one, pray, or make a donation at the wrong time was secretly a templar?

Adrian's plan nearly got her little revolution ended before it even started  It was only through the Divne's behind-the-scenes aid that every mage in the tower wasn't killed or made tranquil.

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...
Not even slightly. He participates in the Annulment. He's as guilty of genocide as Meredith and should be called to account for that.

let me ask, do you have any Hawke's who executed Anders?

[Xilizhra]

So every Kirkwaller who had the bad luck to be in the Chantry to light a candle for a loved one, pray, or make a donation at the wrong time was secretly a templar?

Given that the number in the cutscene was zero, unless they were also dressed in templar armor for some reason, I think we're safe.

Adrian's plan nearly got her little revolution ended before it even started It was only through the Divne's behind-the-scenes aid that every mage in the tower wasn't killed or made tranquil.

Nah, Wynne could have pulled it off. The Divine did make it easier, however.

let me ask, do you have any Hawke's who executed Anders?

Once, when I thought that Sebastian might be politically useful, but I decided that A. he wasn't, and B. it wasn't in-character for my Hawke. So ultimately, no.

[LobselVith8]

iakus wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I take Xil's posts seriously. I don't always agree with her, but she always has an interesting perspective about Dragon Age and the lore, including the dichotomy between mages and templars. I imagine it's difficult to envision moderate templars when the developers told us that Cullen was supposed to be an example of a 'moderate templar', and he thought that mages shouldn't be treated like people, and regarded mages as weapons; we also have him standing idly by while Meredith ordered the execution of hundreds of men, women, and children, and only stepped in to stop her when she specifically threatened the Champion of Kirkwall.

I don't recall Cullen saying they shouldn't be treated like people, but that they shouldn't be treated as friends.  He saw firsthand how demons can turn any mage into murderous rampaging beasts, even against their will.  He no longer dares try to connect with mages on a personal level, as he could potentially be forced to kill them out of necessity.

As Xil has already pointed out, Cullen specifically said 'people' in that scene (to my apostate Hawke, no less), not friends. If you're curious, I can provide you with a link to the specific scene if you would like, although it isn't too difficult to find.

iakus wrote...

He's seen the worst-case scenerio with magic, and even if it left him traumatized, he still remained a generally decent person.  And by Act 3, he is having doubts about Meredith's sanity himself.

You're entitled to your opinion about the Knight-Captain, but I don't share it. Coupled with his inaction during Meredith's Right of Annulment (as well as the scene with Bethany), I find it very difficult to like Cullen.

iakus wrote...

Yeah, I do think tehy could have done better as a poster child for a moderate templar.  But he did do a pretty good job painting the difficulties templars face

And Cullen might return in Inquisition. I wonder if the new protagonist can refuse his aid, along with Cassandra's.

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I take Xil's posts seriously. I don't always agree with her, but she always has an interesting perspective about Dragon Age and the lore, including the dichotomy between mages and templars. I imagine it's difficult to envision moderate templars when the developers told us that Cullen was supposed to be an example of a 'moderate templar', and he thought that mages shouldn't be treated like people, and regarded mages as weapons; we also have him standing idly by while Meredith ordered the execution of hundreds of men, women, and children, and only stepped in to stop her when she specifically threatened the Champion of Kirkwall.

I wonder, and this is pure speculation mind, if Cullen says a whole lot more than he actually believes. He expresses some rather staunch things, but when we do see him act he does so with considerable more restraint and compassion that his words would indicate. All that's required for him to give Keran a chance is for Hawke to say so, no evidence needed. When he comes to intercept the rebels, he grants mercy to the survivors merely if Hawke suggests it. Finally, if you do side with the Templars in the ending not only does he accept the surrender of some apprentices without batting an eyelash but he also openly and directly tells Meredith (when she tries to make him kill them) that it is part of his duty as a templar to do so.
Given his experiences in DAO however, I wonder if Cullen expresses templar dogma to convince himself that he and his collegues are doing good. In an attempt to try to rationalize what he hears about his fellow templars.
Pure speculation on my part...

As for him not standing up to the RoA. He was not there for the confrontation with Orsino that unleashed the mess... who knows what Meredith tld him. I'm willing to bet it wasn't the whole truth though.

All in all though, I have great respect for you And Xil. Though sometimes I wonder if you aren't painitng the templars a bit more extreme than they are. That's not saying the circles are perfect, many templars not abusive or many mages not desiring freedom mind.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...
Wrongo. "Mages cannot be treated like people. They are not like you and me."

And they cannot be treated like normal people...because they are not normal people.


There is no  talking to you. You're denser than uranium.

People, I already suggested you ignore Xil on these kinds of threads, where all she does is troll around and de-rail.

[TCBC_Freak]

Sir JK wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I take Xil's posts seriously. I don't always agree with her, but she always has an interesting perspective about Dragon Age and the lore, including the dichotomy between mages and templars. I imagine it's difficult to envision moderate templars when the developers told us that Cullen was supposed to be an example of a 'moderate templar', and he thought that mages shouldn't be treated like people, and regarded mages as weapons; we also have him standing idly by while Meredith ordered the execution of hundreds of men, women, and children, and only stepped in to stop her when she specifically threatened the Champion of Kirkwall.

I wonder, and this is pure speculation mind, if Cullen says a whole lot more than he actually believes. He expresses some rather staunch things, but when we do see him act he does so with considerable more restraint and compassion that his words would indicate. All that's required for him to give Keran a chance is for Hawke to say so, no evidence needed. When he comes to intercept the rebels, he grants mercy to the survivors merely if Hawke suggests it. Finally, if you do side with the Templars in the ending not only does he accept the surrender of some apprentices without batting an eyelash but he also openly and directly tells Meredith (when she tries to make him kill them) that it is part of his duty as a templar to do so.
Given his experiences in DAO however, I wonder if Cullen expresses templar dogma to convince himself that he and his colleagues are doing good. In an attempt to try to rationalize what he hears about his fellow templars.
Pure speculation on my part...

As for him not standing up to the RoA. He was not there for the confrontation with Orsino that unleashed the mess... who knows what Meredith tld him. I'm willing to bet it wasn't the whole truth though.

All in all though, I have great respect for you And Xil. Though sometimes I wonder if you aren't painting the templars a bit more extreme than they are. That's not saying the circles are perfect, many templars not abusive or many mages not desiring freedom mind.

Sir JK, I've always felt this way, I hope this is where they take Cullen in DA:I.

Did anyone here ever play LA Noire? Detective Cole is some much like Cullen, he talks in these big grand terms about what it means to be a cop (Templar) and how he can't feel anything for the criminals or even the victims really because has to focus on pure justice... but when other cops fall short, when he himself falls short, you see it's all him trying to convince himself and his peers that he is the paragon of justice and that real justice is possible... when it shows us that really we're all human and we have to see our own faults and those in others to truly be good to one another.

In the start of DAO Cullen is a good kid (maybe kid's the wrong word but I'm running with it, lol), unsure about the dangers of mages and conflicted because he sees the mages as people and kids just like him (he even may have fallen in love with the female mage Warden), he is not sure what he really believes. But after the torture he endures in the tower and him seeing that any mage can be possessed even if they don't want to be, even if they passed all the "tests" and can kill people who were their friends... well, he wants to crawl under the blanked of Templar dogma for protection, and hide away his uncertainty. And he still is that first person. He is still that kid who can't really reconcile what he wants to believe with what he knows in his heart to be true, that mages are people and you have to be open in spite of the danger. But he can't show people that. Hawke can bring it out, Hawke can reach him on a deep level and show him who he is really, a person who does believe what the Templar's are meant to be and can really be that and still be unsure and act with honor and not only protect people from mages but protect mages from people... even from other Templar.

Just my little soap box, take it as you like. I'm not pro-mage, and I'm not pro-Templar, not anymore. I'm pro-person, and I'll be playing the game judging each case as it comes and if we have to make the "big choice," I'll probably do what I did in ME2 with the heretic Geth, I'll set the controller down and spend thirty minutes or more making up my mind asking, "What would the Inquisitor I've made up to now do?" and examine all the other choices I'd made up till then to get my answer.

Modifié par TCBC_Freak, 15 juin 2013 - 11:58 .

[Xilizhra]

As for him not standing up to the RoA. He was not there for the confrontation with Orsino that unleashed the mess... who knows what Meredith tld him. I'm willing to bet it wasn't the whole truth though.

I cannot find it within myself to believe that it was acceptable for him to not try to assess the situation further before leaping headlong into genocide.

And they cannot be treated like normal people...because they are not normal people.

Which... isn't what he said, he said that they can't be treated like people, period.

In the start of DAO Cullen is a good kid (maybe kid's the wrong word but
I'm running with it, lol), unsure about the dangers of mages and
conflicted because he sees the mages as people and kids just like him
(he even may have fallen in love with the female mage Warden), he is not
sure what he really believes. But after the torture he endures in the
tower and him seeing that any mage can be possessed even if they don't
want to be, even if they passed all the "tests" and can kill people who
were their friends... well, he wants to crawl under the blanked of
Templar dogma for protection, and hide away his uncertainty. And he
still is that first person. He is still that kid who can't really
reconcile what he wants to believe with what he knows in his heart to be
true, that mages are people and you have to be open in spite of the
danger. But he can't show people that. Hawke can bring it out, Hawke can
reach him on a deep level and show him who he is really, a person who
does believe what the Templar's are meant to be and can really be that
and still be unsure and act with honor and not only protect people from
mages but protect mages from people... even from other Templar.

Something that my Hawke never gets to see due to siding with the mages... and even then, it's much too little, much too late, with the Annulment already in action and him also helping to murder numerous people.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 15 juin 2013 - 12:21 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

And they cannot be treated like normal people...because they are not normal people.

Which... isn't what he said, he said that they can't be treated like people, period.

Everything has to bee spelled out for you, doesn't it?

"normal" can be ommited for brevity... and since he clearly DOES treat mages like poeple, then your entire point is moot. As is everything you say.

[Xilizhra]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

And they cannot be treated like normal people...because they are not normal people.

Which... isn't what he said, he said that they can't be treated like people, period.

Everything has to bee spelled out for you, doesn't it?

"normal" can be ommited for brevity... and since he clearly DOES treat mages like poeple, then your entire point is moot. As is everything you say.

I don't know, murdering everyone for something someone not even in your organization did doesn't strike me as the action of someone who particularly values their lives.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 15 juin 2013 - 12:49 .

[The Elder King]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

.

There is no  talking to you. You're denser than uranium.

People, I already suggested you ignore Xil on these kinds of threads, where all she does is troll around and de-rail.

I talked with Xilzhra in my thread about the possibility of mages and templars making a cease fire in DAI, and we had a pacate  discussion. The same goes for Lobsel. And I'm neither pro-mage or pro-templar.
About Cullen's dialogue about mages being people or not, I do think that they might have meant  'normal people', but it's Bioware's fault of leaving the dialogue open to interpretation. Maybe if he's a companion he'll talk about his beliefs and explain better his stance.

Modifié par hhh89, 15 juin 2013 - 12:56 .

[Sir JK]

Xilizhra wrote...

I cannot find it within myself to believe that it was acceptable for him to not try to assess the situation further before leaping headlong into genocide.

He, like all templars, is first and foremost a soldier. His superior officer gave him a command: to annull the circle. Shortly previously the chantry was destroyed by what for all intents and purposes looked like magic. He's also personally been at the mercy of a mage uprising and know how terrible they can be.

I know you're not too fond of the idea of templars or the RoA. But there's no real reason for him to question his orders there. There's no evidence present for him to suggest the circle is innocent (and more than a few things that suggest the opposite) and as a rule, a soldier disobeying orders puts his fellow's lives at risk.

Let me turn it around for you. You're fighting for the mage rebellion and Fiona (let's assume she leads it) comes up to you and tells you to wipe out a templar force and the village supporting them. She says they've just destroyed a group of mages, including mere apprentices and are poised at attacking your own camp and thus wiping out the mage rebellion.
Would you believe her and obey?

[Xilizhra]

He, like all templars, is first and foremost a soldier. His superior officer gave him a command: to annull the circle. Shortly previously the chantry was destroyed by what for all intents and purposes looked like magic. He's also personally been at the mercy of a mage uprising and know how terrible they can be.

I know you're not too fond of the idea of templars or the RoA. But there's no real reason for him to question his orders there. There's no evidence present for him to suggest the circle is innocent (and more than a few things that suggest the opposite) and as a rule, a soldier disobeying orders puts his fellow's lives at risk.

He also has serious reason to doubt Meredith's sanity at this point, and even acknowledges that. The ground is far too shaky for matters to be so simple, and Cullen has enough information to reach that conclusion.

Let me turn it around for you. You're fighting for the mage rebellion and Fiona (let's assume she leads it) comes up to you and tells you to wipe out a templar force and the village supporting them. She says they've just destroyed a group of mages, including mere apprentices and are poised at attacking your own camp and thus wiping out the mage rebellion.

Why would I destroy a whole village? I mean, templars are always fair game, but deliberately attacking civilians won't help anything.

[Sir JK]

Xilizhra wrote...

He also has serious reason to doubt Meredith's sanity at this point, and even acknowledges that. The ground is far too shaky for matters to be so simple, and Cullen has enough information to reach that conclusion.

Sure he doubts her. But is that grounds enough to split the templars into two and doom several collegues? Sure if he had evidence, that'd be something. But you're asking him to directly disobey an order in a combat situation that as far as he knows might very well have been instigated by Orsino and the mages. It's a "kill or allow your men to be killed" situation, and this is a man with responsibility of other people.

Why would I destroy a whole village? I mean, templars are always fair game, but deliberately attacking civilians won't help anything.

She said that the lot of them are supporting the templars and the templars are currently in it. In either case, she and mages under her command are going in regardless of whether you will or not. The odds do not look good for them without you, but she is adamant it's that or a last stand that are the alternatives.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Everything has to bee spelled out for you, doesn't it?

"normal" can be ommited for brevity... and since he clearly DOES treat mages like poeple, then your entire point is moot. As is everything you say.

I don't know, murdering everyone for something someone not even in your organization did doesn't strike me as the action of someone who particularly values their lives.

The Rite of Annulment exists for a reason. We can debate if it was necessary or not (as many could argue that the cirlce was indeed corrupted), but Anders blowing the Chantry up was not the real reason to call for it anyway.