727 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord Raijin]

ScarMK wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

You guys make it very hard for me to be pro-mage.

When I first got here I assumed the radicals and crazies would be pro-templar.

I think it's funny how I see radical pro-templars maybe once a week.  While everyday or two I see pro mage radicals.

The pro-Templars should join forces with us Pro-mages and start blowing up the chantries together. After all the Chantry treats templars like crap too. They force them to become addicted to Lyrium so that they can control them. It's no different than the Chantry taking blood from a Cicle mage, and then using it later to track them down. The Chantry has their templars on leashes and the mages.

Both parties are getting plowed by the Chantry.

[Br3admax]

By being overbearing and super antagonistic while trying to justify blatant terrorism, and at the same time being hypocritical about genocide. Most definitely.

Modifié par Br3ad, 08 octobre 2013 - 05:30 .

[Shadow Fox]

ScarMK wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

You guys make it very hard for me to be pro-mage.

When I first got here I assumed the radicals and crazies would be pro-templar.

I think it's funny how I see radical pro-templars maybe once a week.  While everyday or two I see pro mage radicals.

Yup been here 2 years now and the faction I don't support has all the sane people.<_<

[Jaison1986]

greengoron89 wrote...

Yes, because all religions revolve around control, oppression, and murder... and all religious people are guilty of the same.

Bombs away!

The spanish Inquisition says hello.

Anyway, ultimately I don't consider Anders an terrorist. IRL, terrorist groups often target civilians and bystanders that have nothing to do with the group that they are actually against. While Anders targets exaclty the group that he opposes. If you think about, he destroyed the Chantry right during the time while there were little to no civilians on it. Terrorists are not that mindful, are they?

[Br3admax]

Wow....you really just said that.

Anway, learn the definition of terrorism:
-the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

[Xilizhra]

Br3ad wrote...

By being overbearing and super antagonistic while trying to justify blatant terrorism, and at the same time being hypocritical about genocide. Most definitely.

The Master Plan to make the forums ideologically homogenous is proceeding apace.

Of course, we're definitely not outstripping them, or you, in hostility in any significant way, so eh.

[Heidenreich]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Heidenreich wrote...

OH LOOK, it's the Anders thread all over again.

Should I sit and try to explain all the reasons every Anders hater is wrong? How Awakening Anders hated Templar just as much as Justice/Anders? How The REASON he attacked the chantry and not the templars is because the CHANTRY HAS (Well up until Asunder any way) DIRECT CONTROL OVER THE TEMPLARS and by them POINTEDLY NOT DOING ANYTHING they were as good as agreeing with them?

Probably not. Arguing with the wind gets you nothing but a sore throat.

That being said, ON TOPIC (as in, will he play a part in DA:I), I'd wager to say -- since Gaider himself said if Anders is dead if you killed him -- not if you killed him. If he's alive (and romanced him) I'd bet they'll be a cameo, but you won't be able to kill him.

If he's dead, then he's dead.

If he's alive, he probably isn't running around in Orlais.

Only the Grand Cleric has some degree of control over the Templars the average priest or revered mother can't do ****.

And a prime example of my quote. Right here. No matter how you argue it, it blows right past folks bound and determined to not see both sides of an argument. I DON'T believe what he did was right.

but

It doesn't matter. The Chantry as an INSITUTION have direct control over the Templars. They cannot change policy reguarding the Mages with out approval from the Chantry. The public views the Chantry as those in charge of the Templars.

Thus by inaction they are damning themselves to the same crimes.

That's how it works. It's how it works in real life. It's how it works in video games.

Example: You're driving the get away car after someone robs a bank. You had no idea they were going to rob a bank. You were just driving them cause they didn't have access to a car and you're a good friend. By driving them there, and away, and not turning them in for robing the bank, you are now ALSO a bank rober.

Guilt by asociation.

Now say you DID know they were going to rob the bank. You don't drive them, but you sure as heck don't stop them or call the cops on them either? You are now ALSO a bank rober.

Guilt by assocation.

In this setting, the Chantry ITSELF is responsible for the actions of both parties. The Templars answer DIRECTLY to the Chantry.  It doesn't matter that THIS particular chantry might not have that power. Except it does, because it has a Grand Cleric.

[erilben]

ScarMK wrote...

Lord Raijin wrote...

I find it hilarious how the some of you guys are comparing to what Anders did to RL terrorist. That's just ridiculous at best.

I can't remember, but didn't one of the devs (I'm thinking Gaider) confirm that Anders is a terrorist?  Or was that in regards to what he did?  I know one of them touched upon this subject.

I don't know about Gaider, but Jennifer Hepler called him a "biopolar terrorist"

[Lord Raijin]

Br3ad wrote...

Wow....you really just said that.

Anway, learn the definition of terrorism:
-the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Just like what the Chantry does.

[schalafi]

ScarMK wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

You guys make it very hard for me to be pro-mage.

When I first got here I assumed the radicals and crazies would be pro-templar.

I think it's funny how I see radical pro-templars maybe once a week.  While everyday or two I see pro mage radicals.

Maybe if you were a mage in Kirkwall you'd see how wonderful  it is to be virtually locked away for life and be made tranquil for the slightest reason.
Anders changed Justice by showing his anger at the treatment of mages, and then Vengeance started taking over little by little.

As I recall, Anders told Hawke  he and Justice were so intertwined, he couldn't tell one from the other. So was it Anders, or Justice/Vengeance who blows up the Chantry? You decide.

[Lord Raijin]

erilben wrote...


I don't know about Gaider, but Jennifer Hepler called him a "biopolar terrorist"

I guess mental illness is quite common in Thedas. Just look at Kirkwall.

[Shadow Fox]

Heidenreich wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Heidenreich wrote...

OH LOOK, it's the Anders thread all over again.

Should I sit and try to explain all the reasons every Anders hater is wrong? How Awakening Anders hated Templar just as much as Justice/Anders? How The REASON he attacked the chantry and not the templars is because the CHANTRY HAS (Well up until Asunder any way) DIRECT CONTROL OVER THE TEMPLARS and by them POINTEDLY NOT DOING ANYTHING they were as good as agreeing with them?

Probably not. Arguing with the wind gets you nothing but a sore throat.

That being said, ON TOPIC (as in, will he play a part in DA:I), I'd wager to say -- since Gaider himself said if Anders is dead if you killed him -- not if you killed him. If he's alive (and romanced him) I'd bet they'll be a cameo, but you won't be able to kill him.

If he's dead, then he's dead.

If he's alive, he probably isn't running around in Orlais.

Only the Grand Cleric has some degree of control over the Templars the average priest or revered mother can't do ****.

And a prime example of my quote. Right here. No matter how you argue it, it blows right past folks bound and determined to not see both sides of an argument. I DON'T believe what he did was right.

but

It doesn't matter. The Chantry as an INSITUTION have direct control over the Templars. They cannot change policy reguarding the Mages with out approval from the Chantry. The public views the Chantry as those in charge of the Templars.

Thus by inaction they are damning themselves to the same crimes.

That's how it works. It's how it works in real life. It's how it works in video games.

Example: You're driving the get away car after someone robs a bank. You had no idea they were going to rob a bank. You were just driving them cause they didn't have access to a car and you're a good friend. By driving them there, and away, and not turning them in for robing the bank, you are now ALSO a bank rober.

Guilt by asociation.

Now say you DID know they were going to rob the bank. You don't drive them, but you sure as heck don't stop them or call the cops on them either? You are now ALSO a bank rober.

Guilt by assocation.

In this setting, the Chantry ITSELF is responsible for the actions of both parties. The Templars answer DIRECTLY to the Chantry.  It doesn't matter that THIS particular chantry might not have that power. Except it does, because it has a Grand Cleric.

And ScarMk called it.

[Br3admax]

Lord Raijin wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Wow....you really just said that.

Anway, learn the definition of terrorism:
-the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Just like what the Chantry does.

Your point? The justification of "someone else does it," is no justification. 

[Rinji the Bearded]

BSN: People Missing the Point since 5eva

I'm out.

[Jaison1986]

Br3ad wrote...

Wow....you really just said that.

Anway, learn the definition of terrorism:
-the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Interesting. That sounds awfully similar to what many legitimate government do these days.

[Heidenreich]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Heidenreich wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Heidenreich wrote...

snip.

snip

snip

And ScarMk called it.

Called what? Sorry I was busy responding instead of refreshing the page repeatedly.

OH I SEE NOW.

Actually I'm pro-templar. I don't believe Ander's went about it right, and in a good 3/4th's of my playthroughs I kill Anders, even if that particular Hawke supports the mages, because they don't support the idea of blowing up the Chantry to get the required results. In fact my Pro-Mage Andersmancing Rogue Hawke kills him, because she doesn't believe attacking the Chantry will fix the problem.

That doesn't mean I don't get why he did it. His whole point was to remove the controling power that's continuing to allow the abuses instead of doing their jobs. Removing the Compromise.

Modifié par Heidenreich, 08 octobre 2013 - 05:47 .

[Mahumia]

I actually hope I get to see Anders in DA:I. For those who killed him, he should stay death, sure. However, I think he is a really interesting character (and the huge amount of topics about him only emphasize that). Of course it is up to eachother how they will play their inquisitor and how he/she will react upon crossing paths if that would happen. Hey, that is the nice part of roleplay: if you insist on metagaming, go ahead... Perhaps you can murderknife him on sight, I don't know...

The whole situation in Kirkwall is so full of shades of grey that I am not even going to try and mingle in the arguments here XD

[leaguer of one]

Ander's is dead, Jim...

[Fast Jimmy]

Xilizhra wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

You guys make it very hard for me to be pro-mage.

When I first got here I assumed the radicals and crazies would be pro-templar.

Given its greater removal from modern ethics, the templar position has fewer supporters overall and even fewer who follow it to the full logical conclusion.

Magic exists to serve man, not to rule over him.

Key word? SERVE. You seem to indicate that Templars want to eradicate all Mages. That is never the conclusion of any pro-Templar supporter. You can't use Mages as tools in times of need (such as a Blight) if you kill them all.

Besides, the possibility of even full scale genocide to wipe out a trait like being able to use magic is impossible. How would you have any idea of who the carriers would be? How would you be able to test people for the talent of magic if they keep it secret? 

Morrigan can walk through a town undetected and unharmed. Unless a Mage wears a funny hat, there is zero way to catch them if they don't want to be found.

I think it's funny how I see radical pro-templars maybe once a week.  While everyday or two I see pro mage radicals.

I think we're succeeding in slowly driving out many of the radical pro-templars.

That's a disturbing mindset. And what of Gaider's recent post about making it appear that a pro-Mage stance may possibly end in pain and suffering for many? Will you still feel that driving away people who believed in a safer path?

[leaguer of one]

Jaison1986 wrote...

You gotta love this reasoning.

Religion = freedom to control, opress and kill anyone that you feel like it while getting away scot free.

It has been used for that reason but there other ways to do that to.
One can say any form of Order does that.

[leaguer of one]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

You guys make it very hard for me to be pro-mage.

When I first got here I assumed the radicals and crazies would be pro-templar.

Given its greater removal from modern ethics, the templar position has fewer supporters overall and even fewer who follow it to the full logical conclusion.

Magic exists to serve man, not to rule over him.

Key word? SERVE. You seem to indicate that Templars want to eradicate all Mages. That is never the conclusion of any pro-Templar supporter. You can't use Mages as tools in times of need (such as a Blight) if you kill them all.

Besides, the possibility of even full scale genocide to wipe out a trait like being able to use magic is impossible. How would you have any idea of who the carriers would be? How would you be able to test people for the talent of magic if they keep it secret? 

Morrigan can walk through a town undetected and unharmed. Unless a Mage wears a funny hat, there is zero way to catch them if they don't want to be found.

I think it's funny how I see radical pro-templars maybe once a week.  While everyday or two I see pro mage radicals.

I think we're succeeding in slowly driving out many of the radical pro-templars.

That's a disturbing mindset. And what of Gaider's recent post about making it appear that a pro-Mage stance may possibly end in pain and suffering for many? Will you still feel that driving away people who believed in a safer path?

1. That does not mean you should enslave them. Making  system to point out who is a mage and managing them is fine. Inprisoning thme for what they are is not.

2. So the end of the templar tea party has come?

[Xilizhra]

Magic exists to serve man, not to rule over him.

Key word? SERVE. You seem to indicate that Templars want to eradicate all Mages. That is never the conclusion of any pro-Templar supporter. You can't use Mages as tools in times of need (such as a Blight) if you kill them all.

Nor has it ever needed to be. The current practices and the fact that our foes want to uphold the status quo is bad enough.

That's a disturbing mindset. And what of Gaider's recent post about making it appear that a pro-Mage stance may possibly end in pain and suffering for many? Will you still feel that driving away people who believed in a safer path?

Those who'd barter liberty for safety deserve neither, or so it's been said. This war isn't for the current mages alone, it's so that no future generations will have to be subjected to the templar yoke.

[Wulfram]

The outcome Bioware chooses to write doesn't change what's the right position to take now.

[Elanor]

I hope he will appear in DA:I if you didn't killed him in DA2. I always let him live so I can in DA:I bring him to justice.

[Hellion Rex]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

You guys make it very hard for me to be pro-mage.

When I first got here I assumed the radicals and crazies would be pro-templar.

Given its greater removal from modern ethics, the templar position has fewer supporters overall and even fewer who follow it to the full logical conclusion.

Magic exists to serve man, not to rule over him.

Key word? SERVE. You seem to indicate that Templars want to eradicate all Mages. That is never the conclusion of any pro-Templar supporter. You can't use Mages as tools in times of need (such as a Blight) if you kill them all.

Besides, the possibility of even full scale genocide to wipe out a trait like being able to use magic is impossible. How would you have any idea of who the carriers would be? How would you be able to test people for the talent of magic if they keep it secret? 

Morrigan can walk through a town undetected and unharmed. Unless a Mage wears a funny hat, there is zero way to catch them if they don't want to be found.

I think it's funny how I see radical pro-templars maybe once a week.  While everyday or two I see pro mage radicals.

I think we're succeeding in slowly driving out many of the radical pro-templars.

That's a disturbing mindset. And what of Gaider's recent post about making it appear that a pro-Mage stance may possibly end in pain and suffering for many? Will you still feel that driving away people who believed in a safer path?

Hardly disturbing. Losing pro-templar radicals isn't a bad thing.