LOLandStuff wrote...
Cullen yapping about mages not being people and other obvious concerns: Not ok.
Anders blowing up a Chantry: Totally ok.
Yes they have. Several times, actually.Star fury wrote...
LOLandStuff wrote...
Cullen yapping about mages not being people and other obvious concerns: Not ok.
Anders blowing up a Chantry: Totally ok.
Yeah, because people here wrote exactly that. Oh crap, they didn't.
Not so different, except for it being wrong. Given that the templars still hold nigh-total power in this scenario and have far more freedom of choice.All that Cullen says is that if the Rite of Tranquility begins being more commonly used, it will be the mages who will have pushed the Templars into it which is not so different from the common pro-mage argument that if mages do something bad, it's the Templar's fault.
Star fury wrote...
LOLandStuff wrote...
Cullen yapping about mages not being people and other obvious concerns: Not ok.
Anders blowing up a Chantry: Totally ok.
Yeah, because people here wrote exactly that. Oh crap, they didn't.
Its a true assessment though. Many people support the mages simply out of that single powerful image.Star fury wrote...
ianvillan wrote...
(To Hawke, Act I) "It used to be that templars were welcomed wherever they went—for defending people from dark magics. Now the townsfolk are as likely to slam their doors as offer us a bed. The image of the poor, chained apprentice is a powerful one. And one the mages are more than willing to exploit."
LMAO. Bioware were concerned that majority supported mages in the Broken Circle quest and they tried to make a more balanced picture. Then they duly went overboard.
All Cullen is saying is that mages are not people like non-mages and that, thus, they shouldn't be treated as if they are. They require segregations, observations, etc.Star fury wrote...
(To Hawke, Enemies Among Us, Act I) "Mages cannot be treated like people. They are not like you and me. They are weapons. They have the power to light a city on fire in a fit of pique."
This line is actually terrifying and disgusting. It is on par with the "Tranquil solution".
What the living hell are you talking about? Orsino is only implied to have killed anyone in the templar ending; in the mage ending, he only ever uses corpses who were killed by the templars, and attacks Hawke alone immediately upon becoming a harvester.In the mage ending, they are killed by Orsino, not the Templars. For someone who probably always picks that side, you should know this.
I have no doubt that many people are weak. Many more are not; we do see those in the Order who were willing to stand up to atrocity and say "no more," and I respect them far more than I do Cullen.Second, it really doesn't. If you honestly believe that most people are willing to stand up to atrocities instead of defending their countries and ways of life, you really don't know anything about humanity.
Powerful, true, widely applicable.Its a true assessment though. Many people support the mages simply out of that single powerful image.
Modifié par Xilizhra, 30 octobre 2013 - 12:34 .
Cullen supports making mages Tranquil and views it as a mercy but says that the mages view it as death, and because they don't want to die that the mages want no control on them at all.MisterJB wrote...
Neither Cullen nor Pre-RL Meredith were ever in favor of killing or Tranquilizing all mages. Meredith specifically refused that suggestion.ianvillan wrote...
I have never said he was abusive to mages but he is like Meredith and would like all mages to be made tranquil or be killed which is not what a Templar is supposed to be about.
If Cullen did replace Meredith in act 2 the same events would of occurred with Cullen in charge,
All that Cullen says is that if the Rite of Tranquility begins being more commonly used, it will be the mages who will have pushed the Templars into it which is not so different from the common pro-mage argument that if mages do something bad, it's the Templar's fault.
Plus, given that Cullen expresses doubt regading the ROA and even spares mages who surrender; which goes against the principle of the ROA which is to kill every mage; it becomes obvious he wouldn't have called for it based purely on Anders' actions.
and an argument could be made that the reason he turned against Meredith was not for the mages but Which, even if true; it isn't; wouldn't change the fact he did stand up to her.
And if he had those considerations in mind, he obviously wouldn't have called for the ROA in the first place.
Modifié par ianvillan, 30 octobre 2013 - 12:36 .
ianvillan wrote...
LOLandStuff wrote...
Cullen yapping about mages not being people and other obvious concerns: Not ok.
Anders blowing up a Chantry: Totally ok.
The same could be said about Templar supporters.
Anders blowing up the Chantry: Not ok.
Cullen, Meredith and the Templars murdering mages and children, imprisoning mages and wiping the minds of mages: Totally ok.
Modifié par LOLandStuff, 30 octobre 2013 - 12:37 .
Actually, BioWare just thought that the game needed another boss, so they added one.EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Its a true assessment though. Many people support the mages simply out of that single powerful image.Star fury wrote...
ianvillan wrote...
(To Hawke, Act I) "It used to be that templars were welcomed wherever they went—for defending people from dark magics. Now the townsfolk are as likely to slam their doors as offer us a bed. The image of the poor, chained apprentice is a powerful one. And one the mages are more than willing to exploit."
LMAO. Bioware were concerned that majority supported mages in the Broken Circle quest and they tried to make a more balanced picture. Then they duly went overboard.
I'm not. There are decent templars. We can just disqualify everyone who participated in committing genocide.And calling every single templar evil just because they're templars, completely ignoring there still are some decent ones.
LOLandStuff wrote...
ianvillan wrote...
LOLandStuff wrote...
Cullen yapping about mages not being people and other obvious concerns: Not ok.
Anders blowing up a Chantry: Totally ok.
The same could be said about Templar supporters.
Anders blowing up the Chantry: Not ok.
Cullen, Meredith and the Templars murdering mages and children, imprisoning mages and wiping the minds of mages: Totally ok.
I'm actually on the neutral side. But lately, pro- mages have gone to great lenghts to justify Anders blowing up the Chantry and blaming it on the Chantry for his action.
Killing innocents to start a war is not ok. Both sides suffer for the actions of a lunatic.
And calling every single templar evil just because they're templars, completely ignoring there still are some decent ones.
Modifié par ianvillan, 30 octobre 2013 - 12:42 .
Reread what you wrote, he did not give his opinion. Cullen merely stated the fact that the Rite of Tranquility was conceived as a mercy so that mages didn't have to be killed outright.ianvillan wrote...
Cullen supports making mages Tranquil and views it as a mercy
Mages have given proof that they wish no control over them many times by many different means that extend well beyond their opposition of the Rite of Tranquility.but says that the mages view it as death, and because they don't want to die that the mages want no control on them at all.
Modifié par MisterJB, 30 octobre 2013 - 12:50 .
Fine, just so long as you remember that it was in truth the templars' own duty to stop them.I could say that after the Chantry was destroyed, everyone was in shock and wanted to take it out on mages since it was a mage's fault. I don't agree with what they did but I understand people will want blood and someone to blame. And the more the better.
I was talking about forumites actually.Br3ad wrote...
Actually, BioWare just thought that the game needed another boss, so they added one.EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Its a true assessment though. Many people support the mages simply out of that single powerful image.Star fury wrote...
ianvillan wrote...
(To Hawke, Act I) "It used to be that templars were welcomed wherever they went—for defending people from dark magics. Now the townsfolk are as likely to slam their doors as offer us a bed. The image of the poor, chained apprentice is a powerful one. And one the mages are more than willing to exploit."
LMAO. Bioware were concerned that majority supported mages in the Broken Circle quest and they tried to make a more balanced picture. Then they duly went overboard.
Well in that case we won't have to disqualify a single Templar, since annulments aren't genocide.Xilizhra wrote...
I'm not. There are decent templars. We can just disqualify everyone who participated in committing genocide.And calling every single templar evil just because they're templars, completely ignoring there still are some decent ones.
Obliteration of a biological grouping within a nation, in whole or in part? I rather think it is.Well in that case we won't have to disqualify a single Templar, since annulments aren't genocide.
I'm a Templar supporter and I don't agree with her Right of Annulment.ianvillan wrote...
Your right in what you say and this is not directed at you, but how is killing innocent mages and mage children in the right of annulment justified because of the actions of one mage. The Templar supporters agree with the right of annulment and making mages tranquil just because mages are different.
Didn't you consider mages dangerous primarily because you feared them economically? In addition to wanting to replace mages with demons, or something of that nature?I'm a Templar supporter not because mages are different but because mages are dangerous. And don't bloody tell me everyone is dangerous. When was the last time a normal child destroyed a city? Because Connor did it.
LOLandStuff wrote...
You can blame that on Anders. In act III it was visible Meredith was losing it, with or without the idol (idol just accelerated it), and you didn't need to be a genius to see Meredith was just waiting for a reason to declare RoA and he gave her just that.
I could say that after the Chantry was destroyed, everyone was in shock and wanted to take it out on mages since it was a mage's fault. I don't agree with what they did but I understand people will want blood and someone to blame. And the more the better.
And Tranquility should be used on willing mages or dangerous cases, if they don't turn into abominations first.
Modifié par LOLandStuff, 30 octobre 2013 - 12:58 .
It is different because Greagoir actually had a reason to believe that all of them were already compromised. He had no way to be sure, other than kill them all. A single Abomination can be catastrophic, and as such leaving someone alive, can bring disaster down the road.ianvillan wrote...
LOLandStuff wrote...
You can blame that on Anders. In act III it was visible Meredith was losing it, with or without the idol (idol just accelerated it), and you didn't need to be a genius to see Meredith was just waiting for a reason to declare RoA and he gave her just that.
I could say that after the Chantry was destroyed, everyone was in shock and wanted to take it out on mages since it was a mage's fault. I don't agree with what they did but I understand people will want blood and someone to blame. And the more the better.
And Tranquility should be used on willing mages or dangerous cases, if they don't turn into abominations first.
In DAO Greagoir was willing to kill Wynne some mage apprentices and mage children in his right of annulment just because of the actions of Uldred and a few mages how is that different from Anders willing to kill the reverend mother and some innocent Chantry people and citizens because of the actions of Meredith.
Now I don't agree with what Anders did but you cant say that Anders was wrong while accepting it from the Templars.
I'm not surprised that you would try to pin such a loaded term, for the hope of trying to bring even more buzz to your cause. Still doesn't chagne anything. Annulments aren't genocide, no matter how much of a simplification you try to pin on it.Xilizhra wrote...
Obliteration of a biological grouping within a nation, in whole or in part? I rather think it is.Well in that case we won't have to disqualify a single Templar, since annulments aren't genocide.
MisterJB wrote...
Reread what you wrote, he did not give his opinion. Cullen merely stated the fact that the Rite of Tranquility was conceived as a mercy so that mages didn't have to be killed outright.ianvillan wrote...
Cullen supports making mages Tranquil and views it as a mercyMages have given proof that they wish no control over them many times by many different means that extend well beyond their opposition of the Rite of Tranquility.but says that the mages view it as death, and because they don't want to die that the mages want no control on them at all.
For example, Uldred's rebellion in Ferelden. By admission of his cohorts, the intention was not to converse over mage rights but to demand the withdrawal of all Templars from the tower which equals in mageas having no restrictions at all.
Retour en haut