19 réponses à ce sujet

[MadCat221]

Okay, I'm playing through DAO again, and I did the Circle.

Uldred is (was) a Libertarian, as I presume all the other mages that started tearing up the tower.

I also learn that Libertarians were essentially the ones that invoked the Mage-Templar war in the vote.

So... Why didn't Uldred's folly put a huge stain on the Libertarians' reputation and make them lose a lot of clout?  I would think the Aequitarians and definitely the Loyalists would have been all over that, saying that there is a definite reason for caution towards mages, and thanking them for resulting in probably more crackdowns in other circles?

[Zack_Nero]

Well, Uldred was during the blight so a lot of people really paid "that" much attention. Also it is in a different land as to DA:O and DA2. Also regardless of what he did, mages still felt the need to fight and just tried to do it differently. It didn't really matter what the chantry or templar did the libertarians because the view mages as a whole.

[LobselVith8]

MadCat221 wrote...

Okay, I'm playing through DAO again, and I did the Circle.

Uldred is (was) a Libertarian, as I presume all the other mages that started tearing up the tower.

I also learn that Libertarians were essentially the ones that invoked the Mage-Templar war in the vote.

Grand Enchanter Fiona wanted to help her people, which is why she returned to the Circle of Magi after leaving the Grey Wardens. As she said: "I came to the Circle from the Grey Wardens because I saw something had to be done. In the Wardens, we learn to watch for our moment and seize it — and that moment is now." It was a democratic vote where the majority decided to seperate from the Andrastian Chantry and the Templar Order, despite the risk of the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars trying to kill them for being independent.

MadCat221 wrote...

So... Why didn't Uldred's folly put a huge stain on the Libertarians' reputation and make them lose a lot of clout?  I would think the Aequitarians and definitely the Loyalists would have been all over that, saying that there is a definite reason for caution towards mages, and thanking them for resulting in probably more crackdowns in other circles? 

Because the actions of one man shouldn't condemn an entire group of people? Because Uldred's failings don't change the fact that some people condemn the Chantry controlled Circles for reasons that have nothing to do with him, nor do they change the reasons why some of them want the Circles of Magi to be independent. Even Wynne argued against the Circles breaking free because she feared that the Chantry would kill all the mages, rather than see them free (when she speaks to the Warden-Commander in the City of Amaranthine).

I'm sure that another factor could be the mage protagonist from the Circle of Ferelden, who can agree with the Libertarian position (explicitly in the Magi Origin) and even ask the new ruler of Ferelden to emancipate his people from the Andrastian Chantry and the Templar Order.

[jessielou]

My memory could be a little shaky, but I seem to remember that Uldred didn't act alone. That it was him and the Libertarians from the Ferelden Circle. I don't think we ever really learn how many of them, but there were a lot of abominations running around by the time the Warden went to clean up.

So, I think it's reasonable that Uldred's and his group's actions should have been a stumbling point for the Libertarians. Not that it should have completely derailed them, but at least been a mark against them. But I haven't read Asunder yet, so mabye it came up, idk.

[Tarek]

frankly it always boggled my mind that something as powerful as the circle would even accept to be leashed by anyone, risks and all the circle should actually tell the Templars to F*** off, in fact mages are more than capable of vaporizing all the Templars any time they want

[jessielou]

Tarek wrote...

frankly it always boggled my mind that something as powerful as the circle would even accept to be leashed by anyone, risks and all the circle should actually tell the Templars to F*** off, in fact mages are more than capable of vaporizing all the Templars any time they want

I don't think that's entirely true.  It seems that way during the actual gameplay, since your Warden and Hawke pretty much smoke anything that looks at them sideways.  Just like with the bloodmages and abominations, it was sort of hard to understand what everyone was so worried about because I ran into them all the time, and they didn't give me that much trouble.  It's hard not to wonder what all the fuss is about when you're playing the all powerful PC.

I think in the "real"  world for all the normal people, the templars, bloodmages, and abominations are actually pretty badass though.

[Fuggyt]

Tarek wrote...

frankly it always boggled my mind that something as powerful as the circle would even accept to be leashed by anyone, risks and all the circle should actually tell the Templars to F*** off, in fact mages are more than capable of vaporizing all the Templars any time they want

Thank you.  I've been saying all along that mages are not really as numerous or powerful as the Templars claim.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Tarek wrote...

frankly it always boggled my mind that something as powerful as the circle would even accept to be leashed by anyone, risks and all the circle should actually tell the Templars to F*** off, in fact mages are more than capable of vaporizing all the Templars any time they want

When the Templars are capable of completely shutting down the abilities of a mage, the mage becomes a cloth wearing weakling, with no real combat experience. That is why the Circle can't (couldn't) tell the Templars to "**** off"... I also expect there are a lot more Templars than there are mages. The Circles also actively prevent the mages from studying magic that would be difficult to control, such as shapeshifting.

[billy the squid]

LobselVith8 wrote...

MadCat221 wrote...

Okay, I'm playing through DAO again, and I did the Circle.

Uldred is (was) a Libertarian, as I presume all the other mages that started tearing up the tower.

I also learn that Libertarians were essentially the ones that invoked the Mage-Templar war in the vote.

Grand Enchanter Fiona wanted to help her people, which is why she returned to the Circle of Magi after leaving the Grey Wardens. As she said: "I came to the Circle from the Grey Wardens because I saw something had to be done. In the Wardens, we learn to watch for our moment and seize it — and that moment is now." It was a democratic vote where the majority decided to seperate from the Andrastian Chantry and the Templar Order, despite the risk of the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars trying to kill them for being independent.

MadCat221 wrote...

So... Why didn't Uldred's folly put a huge stain on the Libertarians' reputation and make them lose a lot of clout?  I would think the Aequitarians and definitely the Loyalists would have been all over that, saying that there is a definite reason for caution towards mages, and thanking them for resulting in probably more crackdowns in other circles? 

Because the actions of one man shouldn't condemn an entire group of people? Because Uldred's failings don't change the fact that some people condemn the Chantry controlled Circles for reasons that have nothing to do with him, nor do they change the reasons why some of them want the Circles of Magi to be independent. Even Wynne argued against the Circles breaking free because she feared that the Chantry would kill all the mages, rather than see them free (when she speaks to the Warden-Commander in the City of Amaranthine).

I'm sure that another factor could be the mage protagonist from the Circle of Ferelden, who can agree with the Libertarian position (explicitly in the Magi Origin) and even ask the new ruler of Ferelden to emancipate his people from the Andrastian Chantry and the Templar Order.

Hmmm Fiona, you mean the one who manipulated the vote with murder, planting evidence and creating distrust between the various factions? When the conclave was supposed to be about condition in the circle not leaving it entirely? Your concept of democracy is funny. 

Yeah, it was Uldred.... and all his Acolytes within the Libertarean faction, and Orsino being able to use blood magic, and Anders destroying the Chantry, or the experimentation in the fortress to reverse the Right of Tranquility releasing a tide of demons into the real world. But, yeah just 1 person.

Wynne actually votes against the "democratic movement and is worried by the Templars, because of people like Fiona who are likely to get them all killed.

[LobselVith8]

billy the squid wrote...

Hmmm Fiona, you mean the one who manipulated the vote with murder, planting evidence and creating distrust between the various factions? When the conclave was supposed to be about condition in the circle not leaving it entirely? Your concept of democracy is funny.

Fiona didn't murder anyone in Asunder, nor did she plant evidence to create distrust. And she had every right to bring up the vote to seperate from the Chantry as Grand Enchanter.

billy the squid wrote...

Yeah, it was Uldred.... and all his Acolytes within the Libertarean faction, and Orsino being able to use blood magic, and Anders destroying the Chantry, or the experimentation in the fortress to reverse the Right of Tranquility releasing a tide of demons into the real world. But, yeah just 1 person.

I don't think we were told what fraternity Orsino belongs to, and he performs one specific ritual that can clearly only be done once. Anders wasn't a member of the Circle during his time in Kirkwall; he was a rogue Grey Warden. Furthermore, a tranquil performed that experiment in Asunder - not a member of the Libertarians.

billy the squid wrote...

Wynne actually votes against the "democratic movement and is worried by the Templars, because of people like Fiona who are likely to get them all killed. 

Wynne explicitly says in Amaranthine she fears the mages getting killed by the Chantry if they successfully vote to separate the Circles from the Chantry.

[Plaintiff]

I wonder how mage fraternities even get started. How do they get acknowledgement from the rest of the Circle, and a seat at meetings? Does the Chantry have to pre-approve them? If so, why did it ever let the Libertarians be a thing in the first place?

Also, how do you join one?

[Fredward]

^ That's the idea I got as well. Pretty informal. Just groups of people who think alike who got labelled for easy reference. And I don't think the Chantry actively encourages it or frowns on it either. I think I remember someone in one of the games talking about how they were allowed because it allowed the Chantry to watch the "troublemakers." That worked out well for them.

[Plaintiff]

Morocco Mole wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I wonder how mage fraternities even get started. How do they get acknowledgement from the rest of the Circle, and a seat at meetings? Does the Chantry have to pre-approve them? If so, why did it ever let the Libertarians be a thing in the first place?

Also, how do you join one?

They have little to no actual power if I am remembering right.

I guess you just walk up and ask

Maybe they have hazing rituals, where you have to stand up and moon the Grand Cleric during mass, and then endure a spanking with your own staff.

Can anyone start a fraternity? I want to found the Mabarians.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 19 juin 2013 - 08:45 .

[jessielou]

Again, I haven't read Asunder so I don't know if it's addressed, but I assume they just gravitate toward each other like any like-minded individuals anywhere would. Maybe they aren't officially recognized, but have been around so long everyone knows who's who and whom they speak for?

[lil yonce]

When you become an Enchanter, you have the opporuntity to choose a fraternity to belong to. I suppose if you have enough people who agree with your ideals at the College of Magi, your group can become a fraternity. And I remember reading the templars and Chantry allow the Libertarian fraternity to exist to help identify troublemakers in the Circle.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 19 juin 2013 - 08:48 .

[Plaintiff]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

^ That's the idea I got as well. Pretty informal. Just groups of people who think alike who got labelled for easy reference. And I don't think the Chantry actively encourages it or frowns on it either. I think I remember someone in one of the games talking about how they were allowed because it allowed the Chantry to watch the "troublemakers." That worked out well for them.

Every time a Libertarian causes trouble, the Grand Cleric's reaction is something like this:

Modifié par Plaintiff, 19 juin 2013 - 08:48 .

[PsychoBlonde]

MadCat221 wrote...
So... Why didn't Uldred's folly put a huge stain on the Libertarians' reputation and make them lose a lot of clout?

It brought them all under a gigantic cloud of suspicion, which is mentioned in Asunder--two of the mage main characters ARE members of the Libertarian fraternity.  Clout is much harder to define--you can actually GAIN clout from negative reputation because people fear you or consider you a loose cannon.  You can even be seen as a martyr as the templars attempt to lock down.

[billy the squid]

LobselVith8 wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Hmmm Fiona, you mean the one who manipulated the vote with murder, planting evidence and creating distrust between the various factions? When the conclave was supposed to be about condition in the circle not leaving it entirely? Your concept of democracy is funny.

Fiona didn't murder anyone in Asunder, nor did she plant evidence to create distrust. And she had every right to bring up the vote to seperate from the Chantry as Grand Enchanter.

billy the squid wrote...

Yeah, it was Uldred.... and all his Acolytes within the Libertarean faction, and Orsino being able to use blood magic, and Anders destroying the Chantry, or the experimentation in the fortress to reverse the Right of Tranquility releasing a tide of demons into the real world. But, yeah just 1 person.

I don't think we were told what fraternity Orsino belongs to, and he performs one specific ritual that can clearly only be done once. Anders wasn't a member of the Circle during his time in Kirkwall; he was a rogue Grey Warden. Furthermore, a tranquil performed that experiment in Asunder - not a member of the Libertarians.

billy the squid wrote...

Wynne actually votes against the "democratic movement and is worried by the Templars, because of people like Fiona who are likely to get them all killed. 

Wynne explicitly says in Amaranthine she fears the mages getting killed by the Chantry if they successfully vote to separate the Circles from the Chantry.

She didn't, her fraternity of Libertarians did, or was she completely ignorant of it, like all the mages who are associated with extremist acts seem to be? Adriana did it, for precisely the reason we saw, to spilt Wynne from the co existence lobby. Rather telling that the Libertareans had failed in their previous 2 votes. Or is is meerly coincidence that it was done at the same time as the final vote, to initially discuss Circle conditions not sceding from it?

So he was able to use Blood Magic and was completely unaware of the the experiments carried out by the mage making Frankenstein then?

Indeed, she does. Because the Libertareans have proved to be uncontrollable.