121 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Also please stop hijacking this thread, this isn´t about mage vs templars, it is about what character may take Wynne´s old role as the spokesman (or spokeswoman) for the mages who want the circle system again.

A heavily disingenuous position to take to begin with, as Wynne's faction sided with secession, as did Wynne herself. You're working off of a false and biased premise.

Back in DAO Wynne was not a loyalist, she was an aequitarian, and her ethical use of magic was based on some personal code. The loyalists seem to be different, basing their actions more on religious moralism than on personal ethics. Unfortunately i don´t think we have seen a decent loyalist character yet, we only have the self hating female mage of DAO who wanted to die, which is hardly a good example. I actually think Bethany, being so religious, would be closer to the loyalists than the aequitarians in the reasoning for using magic responsibly.

Blatantly wrong. She's wholly Aequitarian, not really overly religious, and gladly sides with the rest of Kirkwall's mages in resisting the templars. I'm fairly sure the loyalist we got is pretty representative of the fraternity as a whole.

[MadCat221]

I want to see Rhys.

And Evangeline.

Have some sort of romance going on between companions that *doesn't* involve the Player Char for a change.

[Medhia Nox]

@Youth4Evar: Thank you so much for clarifying some things out of what I was beginning to consider the worst book I never read.

So there are mages that aren't quite as mad as Xilizhra.

Good to know - my castle will be open.

[Luvyuyu]

I like Wynne but they said she is already dead in one of the novels (I haven't read them yet) I wish she'd come back but I would love to see her son (Since he is a mage as well) or Galyan who was in the dawn of the seeker movie. I could see him fit in since there is a background between him and Cassandra.

[Mr.House]

Xilizhra wrote...

Youth4Ever wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Well, certainly no one with an ounce of decency.

Stop flamebaiting.

You have opinions about Rhys, I have opinions about templarHawke.

Ya because Hawkes who side with Merdith are templar hawke and did it because they hate mages and think they are animals. Get over yourself.

[LobselVith8]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Youth4Evar: Thank you so much for clarifying some things out of what I was beginning to consider the worst book I never read.

So there are mages that aren't quite as mad as Xilizhra.

Good to know - my castle will be open.

Xilizhra isn't mad. It's an issue of how even moderates like Irving and Wynne wanted change, rather than the status quo. It's an issue of thinking that templars hunting down the mages has irrevocably changed the dynamic for the mages, making it a matter of survival now.

[Plaintiff]

I think any mages we meet will be more concerned with not being murdered.

[lil yonce]

The templars don't want to murder them. They intend to take them back the Circles of Magi. If the mages resist they will use force. There are mages who, for a variety of reasons, disagree with the separation decision, and someone who adamantly disagrees with the Libertarians could galvanize them and step forward as a leader advocating compromise.

[Xilizhra]

Ya because Hawkes who side with Merdith are templar hawke and did it because they hate mages and think they are animals. Get over yourself.

It really doesn't matter what reasons they give.

The templars don't want to murder them. They intend to take them back the Circles of Magi. If the mages resist they will use force. There are mages who, for a variety of reasons, disagree with the separation decision, and someone who adamantly disagrees with the Libertarians could galvanize them and step forward as a leader advocating compromise.

That person will not be Wynne or anyone like her, who actually cares about the mages under the Circle, unlike the Loyalists (and the other two; the Lucrosians just want their own cash and the Isolationists just want to run and hide).

[LobselVith8]

Youth4Ever wrote...

The templars don't want to murder them. They intend to take them back the Circles of Magi. If the mages resist they will use force. There are mages who, for a variety of reasons, disagree with the separation decision, and someone who adamantly disagrees with the Libertarians could galvanize them and step forward as a leader advocating compromise.

Except Wynne wanted change for the Circle. If the mage protagonist states that the Circle of Ferelden is an "oppressive place", Wynne retorts that The Warden can change this by returning to the Circle and becoming a leader, with time. In the City of Amaranthine, Wynne states that she cautions against the Circles of Magi breaking free from the Chantry because the Chantry would rather kill all the mages instead of permitting them to be free.

Wynne wasn't a Loyalist, and you seem to want a Loyalist companion who would prefer to live under templar and Chantry rule rather than preferring a life of freedom.

[Mr.House]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ya because Hawkes who side with Merdith are templar hawke and did it because they hate mages and think they are animals. Get over yourself.

It really doesn't matter what reasons they give.

My bad, only reasons from mages matter here. Silly me.

[Medhia Nox]

@LobselVith8: Why is anyone who thinks that holding a bloody revolution isn't the best way to obtain mage rights instantly a bootlick to you?

You've decided that there is only one way - and you've decided to condemn anyone who doesn't agree with your view.

The story has NOT decided this - Bioware has NOT decided this.

The one sidedness of the situation is purely your invention (and doubly so for Xilizhra)

Hardly the rational - reasonable types I want leading whatever takes the place of the Circles. ((And again - as a mage player))

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 04 juillet 2013 - 06:40 .

[Plaintiff]

Youth4Ever wrote...

The templars don't want to murder them. They intend to take them back the Circles of Magi. If the mages resist they will use force. There are mages who, for a variety of reasons, disagree with the separation decision, and someone who adamantly disagrees with the Libertarians could galvanize them and step forward as a leader advocating compromise.

When the mages were in the Circle of Magi, Templars murdered them anyway, with impunity.

If there are individual mages who wish to surrender to the Templars, then that's entirely their prerogative, and they're free to do so.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Is it possible to have a mage that has some common sense?

[Xilizhra]

@LobselVith8: Why is anyone who thinks that holding a bloody revolution isn't the best way to obtain mage rights instantly a bootlick to you?

They didn't choose bloodinesss, the templars did. Also, the Loyalists are bootlicks; it's basically their mandate.

Is it possible to have a mage that has some common sense?

Certainly. They won't be loyalists.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 04 juillet 2013 - 12:24 .

[Angrywolves]

I expect Wynne's death is canon.
I would like to see her son
There was another mage, a herbalist in DA Awakening. Forgot her name. She woulf be ok as well
Liked Vellana. Never got to explore her character, or that nice body she had rotfl.
Don't want any other mages from the books/comics or any Tevinter mages.

[lil yonce]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Wynne wasn't a Loyalist, and you seem to want a Loyalist companion who would prefer to live under templar and Chantry rule rather than preferring a life of freedom.

Wrong. Don't assume you know what I want. Because there was no suitable alternative to Libertarian leaders, I invented one. You can check her profile in my signature.

[lil yonce]

Medhia Nox wrote...
@LobselVith8: Why is anyone who thinks that holding a bloody revolution isn't the best way to obtain mage rights instantly a bootlick to you?

Revolution must be honorable and sensible. I won't compromise on that. The Libertarians as of late have proven to be a group of restless and unprincipled, dirty-handed intriguers with a fanatical bent hazardous to the health of every Circle mage in Thedas. They would justify blood magic, demonic consort, and murder in pursuit of revolution. Will they hand their very souls over to an archdemon next? Probably. We should leave it to them to solve mage issues and lead a new Circle in the future? Haha. No.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 04 juillet 2013 - 08:27 .

[Beerfish]

TexasToast712 wrote...

 With the death of their leader I would imagine the Libertarians would lose all hope and join the mage rebels.

Or have her wishy washy brat of a son turn his back on everything his mother stood for 30 seconds after she sacrificed herself so he could have his love puppy back.  That would work as well.

[LobselVith8]

Youth4Ever wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@LobselVith8: Why is anyone who thinks that holding a bloody revolution isn't the best way to obtain mage rights instantly a bootlick to you?

Revolution must be honorable and sensible. I won't compromise on that.

I suppose the difference is that I find nothing sensible or honorable in forcing mages to live their rules under the authority of figures who believe they have dominion over them by divine right. Freedom needs to be fought for at times. Andraste and Shartan didn't write the Imperium strongly worded letters, they fought for the freedom of their people. People died as a consequence. That's the reality of war.

Youth4Ever wrote...

The Libertarians as of late have proven to be a group of restless and unprincipled, dirty-handed intriguers with a fanatical bent hazardous to the health of every Circle mage in Thedas. They would justify blood magic, demonic consort, and murder in pursuit of revolution. Will they hand their very souls over to an archdemon next? Probably. We should leave it to them to solve mage issues and lead a new Circle in the future? Haha. No. 

I don't recall them justifying becoming abominations or consorting with demons, I recall the argument focusing on freedom from the Andrastian Chantry and the Templar Order. Like Grand Enchanter Fiona, some of us won't compromise on the autonomy of the mages when they finally freed themselves of the horrors of the Chantry of Andraste or the Order of Templars.

[lil yonce]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I suppose the difference is that I find nothing sensible or honorable in forcing mages to live their rules under the authority of figures who believe they have dominion over them by divine right. Freedom needs to be fought for at times. Andraste and Shartan didn't write the Imperium strongly worded letters, they fought for the freedom of their people. People died as a consequence. That's the reality of war.

What is your plan? For the confrontation and afterwards? Step-by-step. Do you even have one? I do. I don't trust a lunatic fringe with an angry mob mentality running off half-cocked without a plan, determined to drag everyone else into their mess. Separation is perhaps the most self destructive endeavor the Circle can undertake. Mages should fight for nothing less than true liberty, stability, and, of course, heads.

I don't recall them justifying becoming abominations or consorting with demons,

Grace. Decimus. Anders. Uldred.

I recall the argument focusing on freedom from the Andrastian Chantry and the Templar Order. Like Grand Enchanter Fiona, some of us won't compromise on the autonomy of the mages when they finally freed themselves of the horrors of the Chantry of Andraste or the Order of Templars.

I agree with Senior Enchanter Torrin, "Ah, the short-sighted Libertarians. They'll get their way and take us all down with them." 

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 04 juillet 2013 - 11:40 .

[Eveangaline]

Youth4Ever wrote...

Filament wrote...
The one with a hole in her chest, thanks to her big sibling? 

You can prevent Meredith from slaying Bethany.

Which never made much sense to me. Orsino literally made the exact offer twice already that bethany did "we won't fight so long as you agree to not kill all of us"

Really, that was the entirety of the mages demands, that the templars not murder them all if they surrendered peacefully. The entire fight should have ended right there. The only reason I can think of why it didn't is because, since the rite of annullment was already invoked, that means surrendering only earned you a clean, quick death later, or being turned tranquil once it was all done.

Modifié par Eveangaline, 04 juillet 2013 - 09:25 .

[lil yonce]

Eveangaline wrote...
Which never made much sense to me.

She was willing to give up Bethany to pacify Hawke. Just one mage who, in Meredith's own opinion, is a model mage. She risks far more in PO Hawke in that moment than in letting Bethany go.

[Eveangaline]

Youth4Ever wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...
Which never made much sense to me.

She was willing to give up Bethany to pacify Hawke. Just one mage who, in Meredith's own opinion, is a model mage. She risks far more in PO Hawke in that moment than in letting Bethany go.

There were two more with Bethany, weren't there? So it's not just Bethany. She's literally going against the entire point of the annullment and the only reason anyone is fighting.

[lil yonce]

Eveangaline wrote...
There were two more with Bethany, weren't there? So it's not just Bethany. She's literally going against the entire point of the annullment and the only reason anyone is fighting.

I don't think there was anyone with Bethany. She was only mage left alive in that room. You can spare three others as the annulment gets underway, and Meredith spares them only to pacify Cullen and Hawke. The annulment is a success. A handful of mages may make it out alive, but the rest in a Circle of hundreds, if not thousands, are put to death.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 04 juillet 2013 - 09:32 .