1656 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

osbornep wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

It should be the goal of the writer to write an entertaining and emotionally moving story (that does not rule out tragedy btw).

I'd go even further than this. The goal of the writer should be to create the story he or she most wants to make.

That's not always possible though, considering the economic pressures of game development. Also, you might end up with something like ME3, which shows all the signs of being dominated by a specific vision at the expense of player agency. Interactive storytelling is different in this regard, if you want player choice to be significant. A classic writer can say "I want this or that kind of character development for my protagonist." ME3 is what happens when that's tried in a game with signficant roleplaying aspects.

That's why I'm very relieved that Mark Darrah (I think it was him) said they wanted to give the player more control, implying that this was different than what they did in the past.

that was reassuring.

Will likely make it extremely painful for the devs in future game developments in order to maintain continuity, however.

It doesn't necessarily mean outcomes won't converge anymore. They would want to avoid that where feasible, but some things need to happen in order to have a plot. That won't change. It *should* mean that player choices about character traits will not converge any more like they did in ME3, and it should mean that there is no prescribed meaning of the decisions we make. It also likely means we won't be as constrained by the plot as Hawke was, and while that's desirable, that constraint didn't affect roleplaying very much. After all, what comes out of your decisions is not for you to say, that's the GM's part.

[lil yonce]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Since there appears to be a new round in the everlasting mage vs. templar debate on this forum, I thought I'd bring this thread to the fore again for the new people. What I wrote in the OP is what it is all about for me. It's not just about freedom for mages, but all the aspects of the world that are connected to them. It is interesting though, that while my/Eorlin's original manifesto was written as an in-world document to bring mages together, the rather more inflammatory response by Youth4Ever/Kamilah appears to be written to drive a wedge between them. An agent of the templars probably couldn't do it much better, which of course raises questions about the real agenda behind it....taking it strictly in-world, of course.

Separating revolution from the Libertarian fraternity is essential to a Lucrosian pursuing "the third way". If her criticism of their fraternity objectives and methods prompts the accusation of "templar agent", Kamilah would swiftly respond, "typical Libertarian bullsh*t."

[Ieldra]

Youth4Ever wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Since there appears to be a new round in the everlasting mage vs. templar debate on this forum, I thought I'd bring this thread to the fore again for the new people. What I wrote in the OP is what it is all about for me. It's not just about freedom for mages, but all the aspects of the world that are connected to them. It is interesting though, that while my/Eorlin's original manifesto was written as an in-world document to bring mages together, the rather more inflammatory response by Youth4Ever/Kamilah appears to be written to drive a wedge between them. An agent of the templars probably couldn't do it much better, which of course raises questions about the real agenda behind it....taking it strictly in-world, of course.

Separating revolution from the Libertarian fraternity is essential to a Lucrosian pursuing "the third way". If her criticism of their fraternity objectives and methods prompts the accusation of "templar agent", Kamilah would swiftly respond, "typical Libertarian bullsh*t."

Separating? You mean "thoroughly discrediting". Which is, in fact, not surprising coming from a Lucrosian, since a revolution would likely adversely affect the material comfort which appears to be the Lucrosian's primary consideration. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but freedom is not a commodity that you should sell away for decadence.....says Eorlin.  

[dragonflight288]

Youth4Ever wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Since there appears to be a new round in the everlasting mage vs. templar debate on this forum, I thought I'd bring this thread to the fore again for the new people. What I wrote in the OP is what it is all about for me. It's not just about freedom for mages, but all the aspects of the world that are connected to them. It is interesting though, that while my/Eorlin's original manifesto was written as an in-world document to bring mages together, the rather more inflammatory response by Youth4Ever/Kamilah appears to be written to drive a wedge between them. An agent of the templars probably couldn't do it much better, which of course raises questions about the real agenda behind it....taking it strictly in-world, of course.

Separating revolution from the Libertarian fraternity is essential to a Lucrosian pursuing "the third way". If her criticism of their fraternity objectives and methods prompts the accusation of "templar agent", Kamilah would swiftly respond, "typical Libertarian bullsh*t."

And would likely be true.

EDIT: My Warden would advice caution no matter the path, and urge all mages to avoid developing a reputation as blood mages and demonologists, otherwise all it would accomplish is justify the Chantry's claims that the Circle's are needed.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 24 octobre 2013 - 10:42 .

[Hellion Rex]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Youth4Ever wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Since there appears to be a new round in the everlasting mage vs. templar debate on this forum, I thought I'd bring this thread to the fore again for the new people. What I wrote in the OP is what it is all about for me. It's not just about freedom for mages, but all the aspects of the world that are connected to them. It is interesting though, that while my/Eorlin's original manifesto was written as an in-world document to bring mages together, the rather more inflammatory response by Youth4Ever/Kamilah appears to be written to drive a wedge between them. An agent of the templars probably couldn't do it much better, which of course raises questions about the real agenda behind it....taking it strictly in-world, of course.

Separating revolution from the Libertarian fraternity is essential to a Lucrosian pursuing "the third way". If her criticism of their fraternity objectives and methods prompts the accusation of "templar agent", Kamilah would swiftly respond, "typical Libertarian bullsh*t."

And would likely be true.

EDIT: My Warden would advice caution no matter the path, and urge all mages to avoid developing a reputation as blood mages and demonologists, otherwise all it would accomplish is justify the Chantry's claims that the Circle's are needed.

But what think you of blood magic? Do you believe that it is inherently evil?

[dragonflight288]

eluvianix wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Youth4Ever wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Since there appears to be a new round in the everlasting mage vs. templar debate on this forum, I thought I'd bring this thread to the fore again for the new people. What I wrote in the OP is what it is all about for me. It's not just about freedom for mages, but all the aspects of the world that are connected to them. It is interesting though, that while my/Eorlin's original manifesto was written as an in-world document to bring mages together, the rather more inflammatory response by Youth4Ever/Kamilah appears to be written to drive a wedge between them. An agent of the templars probably couldn't do it much better, which of course raises questions about the real agenda behind it....taking it strictly in-world, of course.

Separating revolution from the Libertarian fraternity is essential to a Lucrosian pursuing "the third way". If her criticism of their fraternity objectives and methods prompts the accusation of "templar agent", Kamilah would swiftly respond, "typical Libertarian bullsh*t."

And would likely be true.

EDIT: My Warden would advice caution no matter the path, and urge all mages to avoid developing a reputation as blood mages and demonologists, otherwise all it would accomplish is justify the Chantry's claims that the Circle's are needed.

But what think you of blood magic? Do you believe that it is inherently evil?

Me, personally?

I believe its potential has the capacity to corrupt people, as it makes things way too easy. Don't have enough lyrium to amplify a spell? Blood magic. Ran out of mana in an experiment you really want to get done. Blood magic. Working on an experiment that'll help you, your family, your House, your nation, but lack the capacity to do it within your own power and knowledge, blood magic.

I also think its potential abuse, from influencing the thoughts and actions of others, is also an aspect that can very easily be abused.

Each and every time the easy choice is made, it becomes harder to make the harder choice, which may in turn actually be the better solution.

On the other hand, blood magic itself is also an incredibly useful tool. Merrill used it to great effect when it came to cleansing the eluvian shard of the darkspawn taint. And if it can do that to a powerful magical item, well a broken one at any rate, with enough knowledge, can this not also be used to help the recovery of a nation after a blight?

Also, a blood mage can never be truly negated a threat by templars/seekers. This is both good and bad. Bad, because of the stigma of being a blood mage and the connotations to Tevinter, inherint with all the risks I mentioned earlier. But at the same time, I know for a fact that the templars and seekers have become corrupt in their power over mages, and wouldn't think twice of killing mages if they could get away with it, and many templars/seekers abuse their power over mages so harshly that it can break the bodies, minds and spirits of those mages, so having a branch of magic to defend yourself with that templars cannot negate can also be an emotional relief to the mage, knowing they'll never be truly defenseless.

There is the risk of demonic possession to consider, but I think that is largely a factor mainly because nearly all the books or experts on blood magic live in Tevinter, and the White Chantry bans it wholesale....except in cases where it benefits them (phylacteries) and so the easiest path to learn blood magic, and thus the most used one is through demons, and that increases the risk of demonic possession.

With its ability to amplify spells and replace mana, I think it's a very, very valuable tool. Especially if used by a healer. Amplified healing magic can only be a good thing, and less lyrium would be used, and thus can be stored for the larger rituals that would otherwise require needless and immoral sacrifices.

So in the end, I think of blood magic as a near perfect mirror of the Dragon Amulet in the game Jade Empire (if you haven't played it, I highly recommend it, and if that's enough, then I use a Jedi Mind trick to command you to go and buy it right now.) In the right hands, it's a very valuable tool that can benefit the world. In the wrong hands, it's one of the most terrible things anyone could ever have possession of.

In the end...I would think highly regulated blood magic, limited strictly to Senior Enchanters with a very solid record, would be acceptable, if the mage in question agreed to be under far greater surveillance because of its potential for abuse.

EDIT: So no, I don't believe it's inherently evil. But I do think its potential for abuse and an "easier path" can harm a person's morals, little by little, like any vice/virtue. The more you rely on it, the more you use it, and too much of a good/bad thing......

Modifié par dragonflight288, 24 octobre 2013 - 11:31 .

[Hellion Rex]

dragonflight288 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Youth4Ever wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Since there appears to be a new round in the everlasting mage vs. templar debate on this forum, I thought I'd bring this thread to the fore again for the new people. What I wrote in the OP is what it is all about for me. It's not just about freedom for mages, but all the aspects of the world that are connected to them. It is interesting though, that while my/Eorlin's original manifesto was written as an in-world document to bring mages together, the rather more inflammatory response by Youth4Ever/Kamilah appears to be written to drive a wedge between them. An agent of the templars probably couldn't do it much better, which of course raises questions about the real agenda behind it....taking it strictly in-world, of course.

Separating revolution from the Libertarian fraternity is essential to a Lucrosian pursuing "the third way". If her criticism of their fraternity objectives and methods prompts the accusation of "templar agent", Kamilah would swiftly respond, "typical Libertarian bullsh*t."

And would likely be true.

EDIT: My Warden would advice caution no matter the path, and urge all mages to avoid developing a reputation as blood mages and demonologists, otherwise all it would accomplish is justify the Chantry's claims that the Circle's are needed.

But what think you of blood magic? Do you believe that it is inherently evil?

Me, personally?

I believe its potential has the capacity to corrupt people, as it makes things way too easy. Don't have enough lyrium to amplify a spell? Blood magic. Ran out of mana in an experiment you really want to get done. Blood magic. Working on an experiment that'll help you, your family, your House, your nation, but lack the capacity to do it within your own power and knowledge, blood magic.

I also think its potential abuse, from influencing the thoughts and actions of others, is also an aspect that can very easily be abused.

Each and every time the easy choice is made, it becomes harder to make the harder choice, which may in turn actually be the better solution.

On the other hand, blood magic itself is also an incredibly useful tool. Merrill used it to great effect when it came to cleansing the eluvian shard of the darkspawn taint. And if it can do that to a powerful magical item, well a broken one at any rate, with enough knowledge, can this not also be used to help the recovery of a nation after a blight?

Also, a blood mage can never be truly negated a threat by templars/seekers. This is both good and bad. Bad, because of the stigma of being a blood mage and the connotations to Tevinter, inherint with all the risks I mentioned earlier. But at the same time, I know for a fact that the templars and seekers have become corrupt in their power over mages, and wouldn't think twice of killing mages if they could get away with it, and many templars/seekers abuse their power over mages so harshly that it can break the bodies, minds and spirits of those mages, so having a branch of magic to defend yourself with that templars cannot negate can also be an emotional relief to the mage, knowing they'll never be truly defenseless.

There is the risk of demonic possession to consider, but I think that is largely a factor mainly because nearly all the books or experts on blood magic live in Tevinter, and the White Chantry bans it wholesale....except in cases where it benefits them (phylacteries) and so the easiest path to learn blood magic, and thus the most used one is through demons, and that increases the risk of demonic possession.

With its ability to amplify spells and replace mana, I think it's a very, very valuable tool. Especially if used by a healer. Amplified healing magic can only be a good thing, and less lyrium would be used, and thus can be stored for the larger rituals that would otherwise require needless and immoral sacrifices.

So in the end, I think of blood magic as a near perfect mirror of the Dragon Amulet in the game Jade Empire (if you haven't played it, I highly recommend it, and if that's enough, then I use a Jedi Mind trick to command you to go and buy it right now.) In the right hands, it's a very valuable tool that can benefit the world. In the wrong hands, it's one of the most terrible things anyone could ever have possession of.

In the end...I would think highly regulated blood magic, limited strictly to Senior Enchanters with a very solid record, would be acceptable, if the mage in question agreed to be under far greater surveillance because of its potential for abuse.

EDIT: So no, I don't believe it's inherently evil. But I do think its potential for abuse and an "easier path" can harm a person's morals, little by little, like any vice/virtue. The more you rely on it, the more you use it, and too much of a good/bad thing......

Thank you for indulging me.

[lil yonce]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Youth4Ever wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Since there appears to be a new round in the everlasting mage vs. templar debate on this forum, I thought I'd bring this thread to the fore again for the new people. What I wrote in the OP is what it is all about for me. It's not just about freedom for mages, but all the aspects of the world that are connected to them. It is interesting though, that while my/Eorlin's original manifesto was written as an in-world document to bring mages together, the rather more inflammatory response by Youth4Ever/Kamilah appears to be written to drive a wedge between them. An agent of the templars probably couldn't do it much better, which of course raises questions about the real agenda behind it....taking it strictly in-world, of course.

Separating revolution from the Libertarian fraternity is essential to a Lucrosian pursuing "the third way". If her criticism of their fraternity objectives and methods prompts the accusation of "templar agent", Kamilah would swiftly respond, "typical Libertarian bullsh*t."

Separating? You mean "thoroughly discrediting". Which is, in fact, not surprising coming from a Lucrosian, since a revolution would likely adversely affect the material comfort which appears to be the Lucrosian's primary consideration. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but freedom is not a commodity that you should sell away for decadence.....says Eorlin.

Lucrosians are not empty-headed, superficial, self-centered, materialists as Eorlin would imply. The Lucrosian ideology, for this character, is a means to a "Libertarian-like" end. It is true and sustained mage liberation through wealth. Kamilah is not a supporter of the current Circle system but rightly understands it is better than the aftermath of a Libertarian driven, hate-filled, blood-fueled revolution predictably gone wrong. Importantly, the Lucrosians understand that revolutionary government is central to the present controversy for should mages institute a bad one after the conflict, it had been well to have accepted the current one without the risk of contest. In her view, the Libertarians have yet to justify the heavy political risk and human cost their revolution requires, and until their answers are satisfactory, she will fiercely rebuke them and promulgate her opinions on reform.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 25 octobre 2013 - 12:48 .

[Gwydden]

eluvianix wrote...

But what think you of blood magic? Do you believe that it is inherently evil?

I know I'm not the one being asked, but I can't help but say that I consider such a line of thought to be rather extreme, since:

• Evil is a subjective concept and you can't hope to use is as some sort of universal label.
• I'm not of the opinion that objects, or in this case abilities, lacking sentience can be adscribed a morality.

With that covered, and in the subject of mage revolution and what the Warden's take on it... My Amell is the last person to ask. He's the sort that would have approved of Anders blowing up the Chantry, and he would fully support the mage revolution, disregarding any damage it might cause. And he's not evil, mind you. At least I don't consider him to be so. He's just incredibly resentful and rebellious. I once pictured a scenario where he pulled a Wednesday "Judas Goat" as the Hero of Ferelden to further the mage rebellion.

As for MY opinion, well, I'm rather neutral in this whole mage-templar issue. It seems to me no matter what side you take you end up morally faulty, either of risking the safety of Thedas and its inhabitants or of participating in the imprisonment and ocasional abuse of innocent mages. I have still to hear arguments persuading me one is better than the other.

I'm not sure, but I believe my Inquisitor will be for breaking a truce between templars and mages until the demon problem has been dealt with. That means he will most likely won't be a mage, since I can't stand roleplaying Loyalists or Aequitarians. I either end up with extremely Libertarian Amell or just-leave-me-alone mage Hawke.

[dragonflight288]

eluvianix wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Youth4Ever wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Since there appears to be a new round in the everlasting mage vs. templar debate on this forum, I thought I'd bring this thread to the fore again for the new people. What I wrote in the OP is what it is all about for me. It's not just about freedom for mages, but all the aspects of the world that are connected to them. It is interesting though, that while my/Eorlin's original manifesto was written as an in-world document to bring mages together, the rather more inflammatory response by Youth4Ever/Kamilah appears to be written to drive a wedge between them. An agent of the templars probably couldn't do it much better, which of course raises questions about the real agenda behind it....taking it strictly in-world, of course.

Separating revolution from the Libertarian fraternity is essential to a Lucrosian pursuing "the third way". If her criticism of their fraternity objectives and methods prompts the accusation of "templar agent", Kamilah would swiftly respond, "typical Libertarian bullsh*t."

And would likely be true.

EDIT: My Warden would advice caution no matter the path, and urge all mages to avoid developing a reputation as blood mages and demonologists, otherwise all it would accomplish is justify the Chantry's claims that the Circle's are needed.

But what think you of blood magic? Do you believe that it is inherently evil?

Me, personally?

I believe its potential has the capacity to corrupt people, as it makes things way too easy. Don't have enough lyrium to amplify a spell? Blood magic. Ran out of mana in an experiment you really want to get done. Blood magic. Working on an experiment that'll help you, your family, your House, your nation, but lack the capacity to do it within your own power and knowledge, blood magic.

I also think its potential abuse, from influencing the thoughts and actions of others, is also an aspect that can very easily be abused.

Each and every time the easy choice is made, it becomes harder to make the harder choice, which may in turn actually be the better solution.

On the other hand, blood magic itself is also an incredibly useful tool. Merrill used it to great effect when it came to cleansing the eluvian shard of the darkspawn taint. And if it can do that to a powerful magical item, well a broken one at any rate, with enough knowledge, can this not also be used to help the recovery of a nation after a blight?

Also, a blood mage can never be truly negated a threat by templars/seekers. This is both good and bad. Bad, because of the stigma of being a blood mage and the connotations to Tevinter, inherint with all the risks I mentioned earlier. But at the same time, I know for a fact that the templars and seekers have become corrupt in their power over mages, and wouldn't think twice of killing mages if they could get away with it, and many templars/seekers abuse their power over mages so harshly that it can break the bodies, minds and spirits of those mages, so having a branch of magic to defend yourself with that templars cannot negate can also be an emotional relief to the mage, knowing they'll never be truly defenseless.

There is the risk of demonic possession to consider, but I think that is largely a factor mainly because nearly all the books or experts on blood magic live in Tevinter, and the White Chantry bans it wholesale....except in cases where it benefits them (phylacteries) and so the easiest path to learn blood magic, and thus the most used one is through demons, and that increases the risk of demonic possession.

With its ability to amplify spells and replace mana, I think it's a very, very valuable tool. Especially if used by a healer. Amplified healing magic can only be a good thing, and less lyrium would be used, and thus can be stored for the larger rituals that would otherwise require needless and immoral sacrifices.

So in the end, I think of blood magic as a near perfect mirror of the Dragon Amulet in the game Jade Empire (if you haven't played it, I highly recommend it, and if that's enough, then I use a Jedi Mind trick to command you to go and buy it right now.) In the right hands, it's a very valuable tool that can benefit the world. In the wrong hands, it's one of the most terrible things anyone could ever have possession of.

In the end...I would think highly regulated blood magic, limited strictly to Senior Enchanters with a very solid record, would be acceptable, if the mage in question agreed to be under far greater surveillance because of its potential for abuse.

EDIT: So no, I don't believe it's inherently evil. But I do think its potential for abuse and an "easier path" can harm a person's morals, little by little, like any vice/virtue. The more you rely on it, the more you use it, and too much of a good/bad thing......

Thank you for indulging me.

Happy to help.

Blood magic is simply one of those issues that's worth thinking about in its entirety, its benefits and dangers both.

[Lazy Jer]

Youth4Ever wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Youth4Ever wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Since there appears to be a new round in the everlasting mage vs. templar debate on this forum, I thought I'd bring this thread to the fore again for the new people. What I wrote in the OP is what it is all about for me. It's not just about freedom for mages, but all the aspects of the world that are connected to them. It is interesting though, that while my/Eorlin's original manifesto was written as an in-world document to bring mages together, the rather more inflammatory response by Youth4Ever/Kamilah appears to be written to drive a wedge between them. An agent of the templars probably couldn't do it much better, which of course raises questions about the real agenda behind it....taking it strictly in-world, of course.

Separating revolution from the Libertarian fraternity is essential to a Lucrosian pursuing "the third way". If her criticism of their fraternity objectives and methods prompts the accusation of "templar agent", Kamilah would swiftly respond, "typical Libertarian bullsh*t."

Separating? You mean "thoroughly discrediting". Which is, in fact, not surprising coming from a Lucrosian, since a revolution would likely adversely affect the material comfort which appears to be the Lucrosian's primary consideration. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but freedom is not a commodity that you should sell away for decadence.....says Eorlin.

Lucrosians are not empty-headed, superficial, self-centered, materialists as Eorlin would imply. The Lucrosian ideology, for this character, is a means to a "Libertarian-like" end. It is true and sustained mage liberation through wealth. Kamilah is not a supporter of the current Circle system but rightly understands it is better than the aftermath of a Libertarian driven, hate-filled, blood-fueled revolution predictably gone wrong. Importantly, the Lucrosians understand that revolutionary government is central to the present controversy for should mages institute a bad one after the conflict, it had been well to have accepted the current one without the risk of contest. In her view, the Libertarians have yet to justify the heavy political risk and human cost their revolution requires, and until their answers are satisfactory, she will fiercely rebuke them and promulgate her opinions on reform.

Hmmm...I haven't seen unity like this since the Dalish started looking down their noses at City Elves for "not really being elves." 

[Jorji Costava]

Ieldra2 wrote...

That's not always possible though, considering the economic pressures of game development. Also, you might end up with something like ME3, which shows all the signs of being dominated by a specific vision at the expense of player agency. Interactive storytelling is different in this regard, if you want player choice to be significant. A classic writer can say "I want this or that kind of character development for my protagonist." ME3 is what happens when that's tried in a game with signficant roleplaying aspects.

That's a fair point, although a huge part of the problem with ME3 involved the promise to provide a high degree of agency within the story, and the subsequent inability of the game to deliver on this promise. It would be harder to make a complaint about being dominated by a specific vision against a game like The Last of Us, for instance.

The mages aren't written to be exactly underdogs. As for elitism, that'sthe belief you're entitled to more than others because you belong to the elite, regardless of how "elite" is defined. Mages only want what others have: a reasonable level of freedom. Most mages, anyway.

To me, a story about an oppressed group fighting for its freedom is inherently a kind of underdog story. One group has the political power, and the other is trying to get its fair share. What I'm saying is that placing a bunch of super beings into this kind of narrative seems like an awkward fit. You end up with two competing narratives: One involving a marginalized group struggling for recognition, and the other involving exceptional individuals being misunderstood and feared by the dumb masses (which involves a kind of elitism in my view, although not necessarily in your usage of the term). The less this plot is played up as having applicability to real-world struggles against political repression of marginalized groups, the better IMO.

EDIT: Fixed quotes.

Modifié par osbornep, 25 octobre 2013 - 02:24 .

[Ieldra]

Youth4Ever wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Youth4Ever wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Since there appears to be a new round in the everlasting mage vs. templar debate on this forum, I thought I'd bring this thread to the fore again for the new people. What I wrote in the OP is what it is all about for me. It's not just about freedom for mages, but all the aspects of the world that are connected to them. It is interesting though, that while my/Eorlin's original manifesto was written as an in-world document to bring mages together, the rather more inflammatory response by Youth4Ever/Kamilah appears to be written to drive a wedge between them. An agent of the templars probably couldn't do it much better, which of course raises questions about the real agenda behind it....taking it strictly in-world, of course.

Separating revolution from the Libertarian fraternity is essential to a Lucrosian pursuing "the third way". If her criticism of their fraternity objectives and methods prompts the accusation of "templar agent", Kamilah would swiftly respond, "typical Libertarian bullsh*t."

Separating? You mean "thoroughly discrediting". Which is, in fact, not surprising coming from a Lucrosian, since a revolution would likely adversely affect the material comfort which appears to be the Lucrosian's primary consideration. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but freedom is not a commodity that you should sell away for decadence.....says Eorlin.

Lucrosians are not empty-headed, superficial, self-centered, materialists as Eorlin would imply. The Lucrosian ideology, for this character, is a means to a "Libertarian-like" end. It is true and sustained mage liberation through wealth.

Eorlin writes:
"That is what I hoped to hear. Meanwhile, Libertarians - to whom, as an aside, I owe no allegiance - are not blood-crazed fanatics and seek true, sustained mage liberation through separation from the Chantry. Now that this is established, perhaps we can discuss how a co-operation between the factions can benefit our almost identical  goals. There will be no sustained mage liberation without resources, but neither will their be liberation if we remain slaves in spirit and continue to subscribe to the Chantry's pronouncements about magic and mages. There is a place for both the fist and the velvet glove in any conflict, and the threat of war has been a tried and true tool in the management of conflicts since time immemorial. Discord will only weaken the cause, and if I have likened your actions to those of a templar agent, that is because sowing discord benefits only them. I do not seek violent conflict, but I will not let our goal be compromised by political timidity and by not being prepared for it should our opposition choose to beat us into submission rather than talk."

@Lazy Jer:
This is a fun roleplaying exercise. I'm just honing my skills in political rhetorics...

Modifié par Ieldra2, 25 octobre 2013 - 11:19 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

vpacheco1984 wrote...
Kamilah this is your manifest in a nut shell. This is what will be come if you and your ilk win. All we mages except for a few who are kept as weapons who have no self awareness then an animal will be whiped out. Any mageling found will be killed in the street like animals unless they need to replace a mage. This is what you and mages like you want to happen.

You have a dark vision of the future.
Tell me, how do you know EXACTLY whatwill happen and what the templars and loyalists want?

You see far more self-hating implying all mages should be treated like animals or killed if the rebellion fails. Why would that happen? Tempalrs seem to bring things back to the status quo, not make things a hunderd times worse.
Waht you are describing is a fictional mage apocalypse.

[Xilizhra]

Lucrosians are not empty-headed, superficial, self-centered, materialists as Eorlin would imply. The Lucrosian ideology, for this character, is a means to a "Libertarian-like" end. It is true and sustained mage liberation through wealth. Kamilah is not a supporter of the current Circle system but rightly understands it is better than the aftermath of a Libertarian driven, hate-filled, blood-fueled revolution predictably gone wrong. Importantly, the Lucrosians understand that revolutionary government is central to the present controversy for should mages institute a bad one after the conflict, it had been well to have accepted the current one without the risk of contest. In her view, the Libertarians have yet to justify the heavy political risk and human cost their revolution requires, and until their answers are satisfactory, she will fiercely rebuke them and promulgate her opinions on reform.

Thankfully, the Lucrosian fraternity is tiny and no longer politically relevant.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Lucrosians are the ones with the money, so unless the mage rebels plan on becoming nothing more than common bandits, and steal all the gold from the Lucrosians, the other fraternities are gonna have to play nice with the Lucrosians.

[Xilizhra]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Lucrosians are the ones with the money, so unless the mage rebels plan on becoming nothing more than common bandits, and steal all the gold from the Lucrosians, the other fraternities are gonna have to play nice with the Lucrosians.

Well, it depends. Will the Lucrosians betray their compatriots? If so, they're enemies and subject to the same rules.

Also, Lucrosians are the ones who come up with moneymaking schemes for the Circle, but I don't think they own all the wealth themselves.

[EmperorSahlertz]

From the Lucrosians point of view perhaps the Libertarians are the traitors.... Either way, the Lucrosians are the only fraternity who have actually specialized in making money, and without them the mage rebels are doomed. Lucrosians are still the only craftsmen in the Circle, and the only ones with a product to sell to others.

[Xilizhra]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

From the Lucrosians point of view perhaps the Libertarians are the traitors.... Either way, the Lucrosians are the only fraternity who have actually specialized in making money, and without them the mage rebels are doomed. Lucrosians are still the only craftsmen in the Circle, and the only ones with a product to sell to others.

The Libertarians and the Aequitarians. The majority of the Circle population voted to secede (which they did, peacefully, before the templars betrayed the Chantry and attacked of their own accord). And if the mages don't stand together, they'll fall alone. The Lucrosians included.

[Hellion Rex]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

From the Lucrosians point of view perhaps the Libertarians are the traitors.... Either way, the Lucrosians are the only fraternity who have actually specialized in making money, and without them the mage rebels are doomed. Lucrosians are still the only craftsmen in the Circle, and the only ones with a product to sell to others.

Not necessarily man. The Lucrosians do deal in money, yes, but nothing from the codex suggests that they are the craftsmen and women of the Circle. I thought that responsibility remained mostly with the Tranquil.

Modifié par eluvianix, 25 octobre 2013 - 03:00 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

THe Formari are all Lucrosians, and they are the craftsmen of the Circle (and I believe that all Tranquils are Formari, and thus technically Lucrosians).

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 25 octobre 2013 - 03:03 .

[Hellion Rex]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

THe Formari are all Lucrosians, and they are the craftsmen of the Circle (and I believe that all Tranquils are Formari, and thus technically Lucrosians).

I know that the Tranquil are the dominion of the Formari, but nothing on the codex or the Wiki suggests that the Tranquil and Formari are part of the Lucrosians.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

From the Lucrosians point of view perhaps the Libertarians are the traitors.... Either way, the Lucrosians are the only fraternity who have actually specialized in making money, and without them the mage rebels are doomed. Lucrosians are still the only craftsmen in the Circle, and the only ones with a product to sell to others.

The Libertarians and the Aequitarians. The majority of the Circle population voted to secede (which they did, peacefully, before the templars betrayed the Chantry and attacked of their own accord). And if the mages don't stand together, they'll fall alone. The Lucrosians included.

ONE vote made the difference. And it wasn't even a democractic vote, but an aristocratic. All Circle members didn't get a vote, only the leaders.

[Xilizhra]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

From the Lucrosians point of view perhaps the Libertarians are the traitors.... Either way, the Lucrosians are the only fraternity who have actually specialized in making money, and without them the mage rebels are doomed. Lucrosians are still the only craftsmen in the Circle, and the only ones with a product to sell to others.

The Libertarians and the Aequitarians. The majority of the Circle population voted to secede (which they did, peacefully, before the templars betrayed the Chantry and attacked of their own accord). And if the mages don't stand together, they'll fall alone. The Lucrosians included.

ONE vote made the difference. And it wasn't even a democractic vote, but an aristocratic. All Circle members didn't get a vote, only the leaders.

It was a representational vote, just not a direct democratic vote. And one vote made the difference only because it was a vote for the largest faction by far that everyone knew would be the only vote that actually counted (the only way the Aequitarians could lose, I think, is if every other fraternity teamed up against them, including Libertarians and Loyalists). IIRC, the sizes are Aequitarian>Libertarian>Loyalist>Lucrosian>Isolationist.

In any case, the Aequitarians are moving onto the Libertarian side as early as the mage origin in DAO.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 25 octobre 2013 - 03:13 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Xilizhra: Not according to Senior Enchanter Torrin.

Not that it matters - the Aequatarians can turn against the Liberatarians to help close the rifts, or they can die with them in my playthru.

My Inquistor's not some mindless zombie following the mob mentality of the Aequatarians or the Libertarians.