1256 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
That's not what I read from Xil's comments. It was more akin to Edmund Burke's line: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Or woman, in this case.

Evil also triumphs if good men (or women) do evil, which is where all the arguments start when people talk about what's "necessary" (whether on the templar or mage side). 

Evil isn't monolithic. Killing is frequently seen as evil, yet look at how often it's necessary in Dragon Age.

[Ieolus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

What if a Mage Inquisitor helps the Chantry bring back the Circle?

You mean, for other people? I don't think it would stop the motivation of mages who don't want to capitulate to the Chantry of Andraste. Mage autonomy means a lot to some of these people who are willing to die to emancipate their people from servitude, as we saw and read. Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

I mean, the Inquisitor gets the Mages to capitulate.  Maybe he changes the minds of the deciding faction (the Aequitarians) and they decide to stop fighting.. I dunno, there are lots of possibilities.

[Ieolus]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Ieolus: Why is my mage enslaved by the greater mage hive mind?

My mage believes that mages should be policed, that the Harrowing is valuable, that Tranquilizing isn't to be totally abolished and that the Circles have very valid reasons for existing.

My mage also believes that the rebellion is NOT in the best interest for mage/mundane relations - that, despite what the game morality will require because games are inherently limited, violent rebellions (though I will likely ONLY be able to respond violently) do NOT have a moral high ground.

Also - anyone who is in collusion with blood mages and Anders' attack on the Chantry - does not have my mage character on their side.

That does not mean I'm Pro-Templar however.

I hope you can take that stance.  I hope we are given options.

[Xilizhra]

Ieolus wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Ieolus: Why is my mage enslaved by the greater mage hive mind?

My mage believes that mages should be policed, that the Harrowing is valuable, that Tranquilizing isn't to be totally abolished and that the Circles have very valid reasons for existing.

My mage also believes that the rebellion is NOT in the best interest for mage/mundane relations - that, despite what the game morality will require because games are inherently limited, violent rebellions (though I will likely ONLY be able to respond violently) do NOT have a moral high ground.

Also - anyone who is in collusion with blood mages and Anders' attack on the Chantry - does not have my mage character on their side.

That does not mean I'm Pro-Templar however.

I hope you can take that stance.  I hope we are given options.

I hope that giving that option is unnecessary.

[Ieolus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

I hope you can take that stance.  I hope we are given options.

I hope that giving that option is unnecessary.

What does that even mean?  You would rather have less options in a game, to what end?  Less replayability?  Less meaningful choices?

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
Evil isn't monolithic. Killing is frequently seen as evil, yet look at how often it's necessary in Dragon Age.

I know. I just wanted to point out that these topics quickly descend into circularity.

[/general comments, not directed at you per se]:

Personally, I think the problem is that people confuse "what's just and right for the group" with "what's objectively right for humanity" (or in the case of a fantasy game like DA, all sentient beings everywhere). 

When you look at social movements in the 20th century, the goal and aim of those groups was never universal, it was always localized to one particular group and to rectify one specific set of injustices. Specific examples would likely derail the topic to IRL politics, so please only consider my comments re: the DA lore.

Mages have been oppressed and abused for centuries. Mage oppression started from, ironically, mage oppression (but with the shoe on the other foot and the mundanes opressed). That sort of abuse has to be fixed, but trying to make the tent broader is just a recepie for disaster.

It's similar to the elves. They have their own grievances. They have a lot of moral weight to seek justice. But there isn't a need to try and create some big tend coalition - even conceptually - because then you start to realize that a lot of the grievances one group has (in this case the elves) are against the other persecuted group (in this case, the human mages). 

Modifié par In Exile, 23 septembre 2013 - 03:05 .

[Xilizhra]

In Exile wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Evil isn't monolithic. Killing is frequently seen as evil, yet look at how often it's necessary in Dragon Age.

I know. I just wanted to point out that these topics quickly descend into circularity.

[/general comments, not directed at you per se]:

Personally, I think the problem is that people confuse "what's just and right for the group" with "what's objectively right for humanity" (or in the case of a fantasy game like DA, all sentient beings everywhere). 

When you look at social movements in the 20th century, the goal and aim of those groups was never universal, it was always localized to one particular group and to rectify one specific set of injustices. Specific examples would likely derail the topic to IRL politics, so please only consider my comments re: the DA lore.

Mages have been oppressed and abused for centuries. Mage oppression started from, ironically, mage oppression (but with the shoe on the other foot and the mundanes opressed). That sort of abuse has to be fixed, but trying to make the tent broader is just a recepie for disaster.

It's similar to the elves. They have their own grievances. They have a lot of moral weight to seek justice. But there isn't a need to try and create some big tend coalition - even conceptually - because then you start to realize that a lot of the grievances one group has (in this case the elves) are against the other persecuted group (in this case, the human mages). 

Elves only hold grudges against Tevinter, not human mages everywhere (so are clearly smarter than the Chantry). Additionally, they hold a more recent one against the magophobic Chantry and the nations under its aegis, so we come fairly quickly to an "enemy of my enemy" situation.

[Medhia Nox]

@Ieolus: I hope so too. I look forward to being called a traitor by every radical mage I oppose.

I have yet to meet a mage who is Pro-Mage in game who I believe to be at all worthy of the freedom they want. They're all grossly irresponsible selfish people willing to resort to murder and mind control when they don't get what they want.  And they justify every disgusting act because: Oppressed minority.

Zathrian, Uldred, Jowan, Merril, Orsino, Morrigan, Flemeth and on and on.

That's no different than the base masses - but what is different is the means by which they can enforce their selfish behavior.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 23 septembre 2013 - 03:11 .

[Ieolus]

Really? I thought Elves hold a grudge against all of humanity, for putting them in Alienages and all that. As well as shortening their lives, killing their culture, etc. etc. You think they only express that grudge against Tevinter, really?

[AresKeith]

Ieolus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

I hope you can take that stance.  I hope we are given options.

I hope that giving that option is unnecessary.

What does that even mean?  You would rather have less options in a game, to what end?  Less replayability?  Less meaningful choices?

To fit Xil's agenda 

[Xilizhra]

Ieolus wrote...

Really? I thought Elves hold a grudge against all of humanity, for putting them in Alienages and all that. As well as shortening their lives, killing their culture, etc. etc. You think they only express that grudge against Tevinter, really?

Not against human mages in particular.

[Ieolus]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Ieolus: I hope so too. I look forward to being called a traitor by every radical mage I oppose.

I have yet to meet a mage who is Pro-Mage in game who I believe to be at all worthy of the freedom they want. They're all grossly irresponsible selfish people willing to resort to murder and mind control when they don't get what they want.  And they justify every disgusting act because: Oppressed minority.

Zathrian, Uldred, Jowan, Merril, Orsino, Morrigan, Flemeth and on and on.

That's no different than the base masses - but what is different is the means by which they can enforce their selfish behavior.

Wynne was worthy.

[Xilizhra]

Ieolus wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Ieolus: I hope so too. I look forward to being called a traitor by every radical mage I oppose.

I have yet to meet a mage who is Pro-Mage in game who I believe to be at all worthy of the freedom they want. They're all grossly irresponsible selfish people willing to resort to murder and mind control when they don't get what they want.  And they justify every disgusting act because: Oppressed minority.

Zathrian, Uldred, Jowan, Merril, Orsino, Morrigan, Flemeth and on and on.

That's no different than the base masses - but what is different is the means by which they can enforce their selfish behavior.

Wynne was worthy.

Indeed. At the end of Asunder, anyway.

[Ieolus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Really? I thought Elves hold a grudge against all of humanity, for putting them in Alienages and all that. As well as shortening their lives, killing their culture, etc. etc. You think they only express that grudge against Tevinter, really?

Not against human mages in particular.

Forget human mages... Elves have a grudge against all humans, and it is justified.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
Elves only hold grudges against Tevinter, not human mages everywhere (so are clearly smarter than the Chantry).

You mean the Ferelden elves are gee-golly peachy about their treatment by the Fereldan mundanes? Or that the Dalish would want a human enclave in the middle of their towns, when they believe exposure to humans literally strips them of immortality? 

There's a great deal of racial tension there. Look at the reception the Warden or Hawke has among the Dalish, even as a mage. They see the human, not the magic.

Merrill straight up tells Fenryiel that it will be his humanity, not his magic, that marks him among the Dalish. And his experiences - as little as he relates about them - suggest the same. 

Additionally, they hold a more recent one against the magophobic Chantry and the nations under its aegis, so we come fairly quickly to an "enemy of my enemy" situation.

Lots of mages consider themselves part of their homeland. And lots more mages - even Anders (!) - are Andrastian. Hating the templars - and the Circles - is not the same as wanting to uproot the Chantry. 

At the end of the day, the enemy of your enemy could still be your enemy. The causes aren't even the same. 

The mages would benefit if the Chantry as a political structure collapses and power was regionalized amongst each nation, making every single human nation stronger. That's a bad outcome for the elves. 

Modifié par In Exile, 23 septembre 2013 - 03:14 .

[AresKeith]

Ieolus wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Ieolus: I hope so too. I look forward to being called a traitor by every radical mage I oppose.

I have yet to meet a mage who is Pro-Mage in game who I believe to be at all worthy of the freedom they want. They're all grossly irresponsible selfish people willing to resort to murder and mind control when they don't get what they want.  And they justify every disgusting act because: Oppressed minority.

Zathrian, Uldred, Jowan, Merril, Orsino, Morrigan, Flemeth and on and on.

That's no different than the base masses - but what is different is the means by which they can enforce their selfish behavior.

Wynne was worthy.

Wynne was more Pro-Circle than Pro-Mage

[Xilizhra]

You mean the Ferelden elves are gee-golly peachy about their treatment by the Fereldan mundanes? Or that the Dalish would want a human enclave in the middle of their towns, when they believe exposure to humans literally strips them of immortality?

There's a great deal of racial tension there. Look at the reception the Warden or Hawke has among the Dalish, even as a mage. They see the human, not the magic.

As you like, but my point was that them being mages doesn't make them more disliked.

Lots of mages consider themselves part of their homeland. And lots more mages - even Anders (!) - are Andrastian. Hating the templars - and the Circles - is not the same as wanting to uproot the Chantry.

At the end of the day, the enemy of your enemy could still be your enemy. The causes aren't even the same.

The mages would benefit if the Chantry as a political structure collapses and power was regionalized amongst each nation, making every single human nation stronger. That's a bad outcome for the elves.

As my Inquisitor is likely going to be a Dalish mage, it'll be my duty to find a way to meld the outcomes. Weakening the Chantry and individual human nations alike by giving independence to the Circle while at the same time making a stab to retake Arlathan (forget the Dales, that's aiming too low) would be my preference.

[LobselVith8]

Ieolus wrote...

Really? I thought Elves hold a grudge against all of humanity, for putting them in Alienages and all that. As well as shortening their lives, killing their culture, etc. etc. You think they only express that grudge against Tevinter, really?

Their historical account also condemns the Chantry of Andraste for invading the kingdom of the Dales with templars, so I think you can add the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars, especially since they still hunt down the Dalish.

[Medhia Nox]

Wynne believes in the Circles.

Did they change her in that book?

[Ieolus]

AresKeith wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Ieolus: I hope so too. I look forward to being called a traitor by every radical mage I oppose.

I have yet to meet a mage who is Pro-Mage in game who I believe to be at all worthy of the freedom they want. They're all grossly irresponsible selfish people willing to resort to murder and mind control when they don't get what they want.  And they justify every disgusting act because: Oppressed minority.

Zathrian, Uldred, Jowan, Merril, Orsino, Morrigan, Flemeth and on and on.

That's no different than the base masses - but what is different is the means by which they can enforce their selfish behavior.

Wynne was worthy.

Wynne was more Pro-Circle than Pro-Mage

Did you read Asunder?  I don't agree with that statement at all.

[Xilizhra]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Wynne believes in the Circles.

Did they change her in that book?

She realized that fighting the templars was necessary. She teamed up with Leliana to do so as well.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 23 septembre 2013 - 03:18 .

[AresKeith]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Wynne believes in the Circles.

Did they change her in that book?

No, Wynne still pretty much believed in the Circles

[Medhia Nox]

@Xilizhra: I'll be fighting the Templars too.

My question was - does Wynne still believe in the Circles.

[wolfhowwl]

AresKeith wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieolus wrote...

I hope you can take that stance.  I hope we are given options.

I hope that giving that option is unnecessary.

What does that even mean?  You would rather have less options in a game, to what end?  Less replayability?  Less meaningful choices?

To fit Xil's agenda 

Why would anyone do that? More choices are a good thing.

It's like the Talimancers who say there shouldn't be an option to side with the Geth. It's transparent, it's pathetic, and anyone so wrapped up in a videogame that they can't handle people making choices they don't like needs to find a new hobby.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
As you like, but my point was that them being mages doesn't make them more disliked.

Oh, I get it! Apologies, I don't think I worded my post well. I wasn't emphasizing their mage-ness, but rather their human-ness. Once you have a well-trained and well-armed group of human mages that are carving out the countryside, I think it will be hard for elves - especially poverty striken alienage elves - to not see the mages as another source of potential human oppression. 

We're assuming that the human mages aren't all racists, and I don't think if we've ever really seen what the Circle is like for elves.

As my Inquisitor is likely going to be a Dalish mage, it'll be my duty to find a way to meld the outcomes. Weakening the Chantry and individual human nations alike by giving independence to the Circle while at the same time making a stab to retake Arlathan (forget the Dales, that's aiming too low) would be my preference.

There is no Arlathan to retake. I suppose you could take the forest, but other than symbolism, I'm not sure that's really a better choice. 

As for weakening the individual human nations, I think that's precisely the kind of thing that will make any human mage balk. "Let's weaken your species so that in an eventual elf vs. human interspecies conflict, elves have the advantage. How does that sound to you, exclusively human mages?"

The elf vs. human war is an ethnic conflict that, even if at the start could be put aside for common ground against the templars, won't look very good if magical city states start springing up all over the place. 

The various human nations are wealthy and resource rich, and it's pretty easy to see humans as "one of us" when the alternative is another species. 

All in all, I think it's much more likely that in an elf mundane vs. human mundane war, that the human mages would make common cause with humans. Which is why it would be a bad idea for the elves to get involved with human mages (wearing my elf sympathizer hat now).