626 réponses à ce sujet

[draken-heart]

dragonflight288 wrote...

andy69156915 wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

"Magic is to serve man, not to rule them (or something like that)"

I see no problem with Blood magic if it is not used for selfish power gains. Control a bandit that is attacking a town into slaughtering his fellows, that is serving man, not selfishly ruling them.

Hmmm.....that can be controversial because that kind of action, while heroic, is also a slippery slope. When does the mage in question know when it is right to control another, and when it isn't. It'll be really easy to justify controlling others for smaller stuff, after having done it before.

Not saying it will happen, but that is a slippery slope.

The only reason it is considered a slippery slope or that it is bad is because of the demon thing. That is bad but the problem it is made out to be. Mages who learn it, but are powerful enough to resist the rest of the deal, I think it is grey at least.

Remove demons and it still a slippery slope.

Say Mage Albert uses blood magic to control a bandit and keeps him from attacking a town. That's all well and good, but then he uses blood magic to control a neighborhood bully from picking on someone, again all well and good.

But when does using blood magic's justification end?

Blood magic's utility as a tool, if demons were removed, is a very grey area at least.

Or just handle it how my blood mage characters do: If I'm already intending to kill them, then it doesn't really matter how I do it as long as I do it. Whether I whack him with my staff, or freeze and shatter him, or light him on fire, or explode him, or... Control his buddy next to him to make him kill him. I wouldn't use it out a childhood bully unless I was already intending to kill said bully, and if that's the case then he's screwed no matter what method I use. Either that or using it as a technique to get vital information out of an enemy and only if the only other option for getting the info is getting rough with them anyway (simply making them tell me with a few seconds of blood magic is kinder then beating the crap out of them). Now explain how this is a slippery slope, just using blood control as just another means of killing someone I already intend to kill or to harmlessly extract information or intel?

Ah. I misunderstood originally.

If you're fighting and going to kill them anyway, then yeah, tha removes the slippery slope.

except that magic itself is aslippery slope, as you say blood magic is. if you are going to kill someone in a fight, it will not take long for a mage to wan tto use their magic to cause havoc for laughs, and that is evil.

[Lluthren]

It's a tool like any other. It can be used for good or evil. Poeple now do deal with demons to get it, though In DAO i had it as specialization without dealing with a demon somehow. I used it as weapon, but also to heal team members, so you can use your own blood to save a person.

I thought it didn't always have to be taught be demons. If you don't go crazy or become an abomination and you don't use it too much, i don't really see how it's so bad.

[dragonflight288]

except that magic itself is aslippery slope, as you say blood magic is. if you are going to kill someone in a fight, it will not take long for a mage to wan tto use their magic to cause havoc for laughs, and that is evil.

That is just as logical as saying "using a sword or a bow is a slippery slope, because the archer/guard who kills the bandit may not take long for them to decide to kill others."

If a mage uses magic against a civilian population, they are a raider and a badit, no more so than the swordsman or the archer, and all ought to be punished accordingly.

[Cainhurst Crow]

TheRedVipress wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

But those people are so rare, so unbelievably rare, that the chances of every mage, even half the mages, to be that virtuous on their own without anyone else imposing that on them, is ludicrous to believe.

Aaannnd we get to the start of the circle again, where I tell you that magical law-enforcment should exist,
only that those responsible for it shouldn't be overzealous fanatics from a church based in a rival country.

And that if only you are willing to work toward peace and co-existance, there are quite a few *reasonable* solutions out there, solutions that do not require the death or enslavment of one side or the other.

But who determines this? Who determines a persons qualification to be an enforcer of the law against mages who break it. It can't all be mages, because anyone who isn't a mage who comes to them is likely going to be discriminated against, because mages, if they are like everyone else, will protect their own over other groups.

You say it can't be templars whose authority comes from the continents largest humanitarian effort orginization out there, and even if you may find it ironic, that is what they are in addition to a religious orginization. The city guard do not have the means to even come close to fighting mages, most times they struggle with even mundane bandit gangs and keeping the population from rioting every time an elf or a dwarf is accused of breaking the law or accuses a human of breaking the law.

So who is this new group, that will ensure equal anf fair treatment of mages and non-mages alike?

[Cainhurst Crow]

dragonflight288 wrote...

except that magic itself is aslippery slope, as you say blood magic is. if you are going to kill someone in a fight, it will not take long for a mage to wan tto use their magic to cause havoc for laughs, and that is evil.

That is just as logical as saying "using a sword or a bow is a slippery slope, because the archer/guard who kills the bandit may not take long for them to decide to kill others."

If a mage uses magic against a civilian population, they are a raider and a badit, no more so than the swordsman or the archer, and all ought to be punished accordingly.

Well, it kinda is. That's why the term "itchy trigger finger" exist. You have an amazing skill, an art of combat, and there is a very human/sentient desire in creatures to show off their talents. And if not kept in check, it can lead to abuse.

I consider mages as fallible as any other person, they aren't different when it comes to the way they think from other groups and so, much like how these groups have people all to eager to draw their swords and fight whenever they get the chance, so to would there be mages who suffer the same problem.

[draken-heart]

dragonflight288 wrote...

except that magic itself is aslippery slope, as you say blood magic is. if you are going to kill someone in a fight, it will not take long for a mage to wan tto use their magic to cause havoc for laughs, and that is evil.

That is just as logical as saying "using a sword or a bow is a slippery slope, because the archer/guard who kills the bandit may not take long for them to decide to kill others."

If a mage uses magic against a civilian population, they are a raider and a badit, no more so than the swordsman or the archer, and all ought to be punished accordingly.

I was using your own logic. A mage will always be tempted, like a swordsman or archer, but a mage is tempted 24/7 unlike a guard, who might not go to bed thinking those thoughts.

People are afraid/hate what something CAN do, but that is false. Blood magic has no more power than a mage allows it to have. Blood magic does not control minds, the mage using it does. 

Modifié par draken-heart, 30 septembre 2013 - 10:02 .

[Laughing_Man]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

But who determines this? Who determines a persons qualification to be an enforcer of the law against mages who break it. It can't all be mages, because anyone who isn't a mage who comes to them is likely going to be discriminated against, because mages, if they are like everyone else, will protect their own over other groups.

You say it can't be templars whose authority comes from the continents largest humanitarian effort orginization out there, and even if you may find it ironic, that is what they are in addition to a religious orginization. The city guard do not have the means to even come close to fighting mages, most times they struggle with even mundane bandit gangs and keeping the population from rioting every time an elf or a dwarf is accused of breaking the law or accuses a human of breaking the law.

So who is this new group, that will ensure equal anf fair treatment of mages and non-mages alike?

That's actually very funny.
Who do you think determined that the chantry would be the one to enforce it's will on mages? The chantry itself.
The chantry's might gave it the "right".
And if they didn't prove themselves to be stupid, incompetent, and needlessly cruel, they could have kept their job.

Who will be in this new body that will make sure that magic users are not being abused, or are abusing anyone else?
Why, the best people we have.
Some will be mages, some will be civilians, some soldiers, some scholars, some former chantry and templars.
Everyone who is not either a complete idiot or an overzealous fanatic, and who is willing to hear others out and seek for a mutually beneficial solution.

In short, it should be a technocratic organisation, that employs the best people for the job.
Or the closest you can get to it.

Who will start this organisation? What is it going to be called? I'll give you a hint, your protagonist is called "The Inquisitor".

And as for mages protecting themselves, do you have an urge to protect criminals just because they are born to the same race as yours? I don't. (I support mages, yet I kill violent criminal mages every chance I get.)
Dosen't matter who or what you are, if you act like a criminal, you will be treated like one.

As for your "humanitarian effort orginization" (it took me some time until I managed to stop laughing), you mean the same "humanitarian organisation" that called an exalted march (what a disgusting concept) against the Dales for some shady made up reasons? Or the one that dosen't lift a finger against the atrocities that are happening in the alienages? Puh-lease.

Modifié par TheRedVipress, 01 octobre 2013 - 01:31 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

To answer your claim that people don't defend their own, I can link you to a number of instances where there is indeed a mentality of protecting their own from prosecution, simply based on their similar group. Hell, you probably heard of a few of them.

And yes, the same organization who committed the crimes you decry them for. The same organization who risked their life to help treat the wounded and gave shelter to those affected by the blight in fereldan. The same ones who were repeatedly shown to stand up to the less kind who would fleece the survivors of tragedies for everything they have just because it made them more coin. The same organization who seems to actually be doing some form of relief effort towards the less fortunate while every other lord would ignore them or worse, have them massacred in the streets. I won't say they're perfect, but I won't delude myself into thinking they're all as evil as caricatured evil can get. They are an organization who makes mistakes, sometimes does bad, and also does some good, in other words, they're a realistic entity in the world of dragon age.

And you still didn't answer my question.

But who determines this?

Who determines who is best qualified to watch over mages and enforce the law where they are concerned?

[DooomCookie]

I love it. Why? Evil is cool, that's why.

tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilIsCool‎

Blood mages are able to kick so many different kinds of ass compared to other classes. That's my initial justification and I typically create a backstory and more complex personality from there.

[Laughing_Man]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

To answer your claim that people don't defend their own, I can link you to a number of instances where there is indeed a mentality of protecting their own from prosecution, simply based on their similar group. Hell, you probably heard of a few of them.

And yes, the same organization who committed the crimes you decry them for. The same organization who risked their life to help treat the wounded and gave shelter to those affected by the blight in fereldan. The same ones who were repeatedly shown to stand up to the less kind who would fleece the survivors of tragedies for everything they have just because it made them more coin. The same organization who seems to actually be doing some form of relief effort towards the less fortunate while every other lord would ignore them or worse, have them massacred in the streets. I won't say they're perfect, but I won't delude myself into thinking they're all as evil as caricatured evil can get. They are an organization who makes mistakes, sometimes does bad, and also does some good, in other words, they're a realistic entity in the world of dragon age.

And you still didn't answer my question.

But who determines this?

Who determines who is best qualified to watch over mages and enforce the law where they are concerned?

People who defend a criminal just because he is one of them, are criminals themselves.
(unless you have a *very* good reason to do it. like a cruel and unusual punishment for a small crime)
Yeah, you will have them too, and you will have to deal with them, and that would be more than the chantry ever bothered to do with it's own criminals and those who pretended not to notice them.

But the thing is, you just ignore the fact that most mages are good reasonable people.
(you met enough of these during the games, even if the few insane maniacs stand out more.)
And if you are willing to be cruel to innocents, what gives you the right to denounce mages like Anders who harm innocents?

The Chantry.
Don't try to cloud the issue. The chantry is not a charity organisation or anything of the sort.
Yes, some chantry members engage in such activities, but this is more on an individual level.
I didn't see the chantry "repeatedly shown to stand up to the less kind who would fleece the survivors of tragedies", the chantry is mighty, what you see are a paltry few individuals, those rare true believers who understand what religion is really about, they are the ones who do those things.

And for some reason you ignored the way the chantry treats the elves. I wonder why.

The chantry dosen't brings it's real power to bear to save innocents or to help the poor and the unfortunate.
Did they stop the slaver ring in Denerim who acted almost openly? No.
They only came into the story against the arl of Denerim And loghain because a templar was caught in the cross-fire.

My point is, to call the chantry's failings "mistakes", you have to be cynical to the extreme. Or deluded.

Who is qualified.
Was the chantry "qualified"? No.
The had the power, and they enforced their will. And not just on mages either, but on a veriaty of other "heathens".
 
No one is "qualified".
The closest you can get to "qualified", is (as I wrote already, despite the fact that you ignored it) by making a body of people who represent different sides of the mage-mundane issue, and are willing and able to reach a MUTUALY BENIFICIAL solution: some mages, soldiers, nobles, civilians, scholars, merchants, templars, chantry, hell even gray wardens, and then you find a good compromise that does not envolve death or slavery to either side.

Edit:
Who makes this body? Someone who is not narrow-minded, not an overzealous fanatic, and sees the benefits of cooperation with mages and the posibilities in making magic (like healing and enchanting) available to the public,
someone who understands that you can't treat people like animals and still claim to be a force for good.

That someone could very well be the Inquisitor.

Modifié par TheRedVipress, 01 octobre 2013 - 04:17 .

[The Hierophant]

TheRedVipress wrote...

The Chantry.
Don't try to cloud the issue. The chantry is not a charity organisation or anything of the sort.
Yes, some chantry members engage in such activities, but this is more on an individual level.
I didn't see the chantry "repeatedly shown to stand up to the less kind who would fleece the survivors of tragedies", the chantry is mighty, what you see are a paltry few individuals, those rare true believers who understand what religion is really about, they are the ones who do those things.

The Chantry is a mixed bag as we've seen it take on the responsibilities that the local rulers failed to provide for their people like with Lothering, Redcliffe, while there's individuals like brother Burkel, the sister during the CE origin.

And for some reason you ignored the way the chantry treats the elves. I wonder why.

Their mistreatment from the local guard, commoners and nobles is not mandated by any Andrastian tenet, it's mostly racism from humans that the Chantry can't curb, while it's major failing in regards to the elves is that it didn't pressure the national/local authorities enough in regards to the elves having equal oppurtunities, and better living conditions, but i think the rampant racism in Thedosian society would still trump their efforts.

The chantry dosen't brings it's real power to bear to save innocents or to help the poor and the unfortunate.
Did they stop the slaver ring in Denerim who acted almost openly? No.

lol what? Like everyone else at the Landsmeet they were unaware that Loghain allowed Tevinter slavers (Chantry hates them) to infiltrate the alienage and cart the elves away.

They only came into the story against the arl of Denerim And loghain because a templar was caught in the cross-fire.

False. They served as temporary law enforcement for Lothering while aiding it's and Redcliffe's refugees, defenders, and survivors.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 01 octobre 2013 - 04:26 .

[Laughing_Man]

@ The Hierophant.
The mistreatment of elves started from the "exalted" march against the Dales as I wrote before,
a march that was probably called because the elves were not as receptive as they should have been to the Chantry's indoctrination. (check wiki)
Up until this point, elves were more or less the chantry's allies.

The reasons for the chantry's lack of help to the elves don't really matter.
The point is, you can't claim to be good and represent morality only half-way.

In Redcliffe the Chantry as an institution did nothing.
The civilians came to the church to hide and seek psychological shelter, that's about it.

And I don't claim that the chantry don't have good people, just that doing good deeds is a minor secondary objective at best for it as an organisation.

You can argue that the chantry is not outright evil, or not-so-bad, but that's not really enough.
Not when the chantry claims to speak for morality and for good.

And anyway, the most important point I raised was not how evil is the chantry, but how stupid and needlessly cruel it would be to reinstate the chantry's version to "handling" mages,
(like taking newborns from their mothers, lobotomizing people that look funny to you, and other various "good" deeds)
and how pretensious it is to on one hand denounce someone like Anders for harming innocents (and indeed he should be), and on the other hand be perfectly ok with harming innocent mages in the name of good.

Because that just means that for you, like in Tavinter, might makes right.

[draken-heart]

MasterScribe wrote...

Everyone should try it at least once, yo.

That stuff will mess you up, in a good way.

Demons are awesome. Just great conversationalists. And surprisingly humble.

What have you been smoking? I have friends from college who might want to get their hands on the stuff.

Now to be serious. Demons are selfish jerks who care only for themselves. So in a sense they are just like us so...

[Renmiri1]

Not exactly like us because they crave their "fix" of the particular emotion they like. They will do just about anything for it. Including ignore self preservation and leave the fade just so they can have more of "rage", "desire", etc...

Very few of us are that focused in just one thing, except the deeply addicted.

[Bionuts]

Humans crave happiness. Of course, most people might not notice it in themselves, but that's to be expected.

[dragonflight288]

draken-heart wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

except that magic itself is aslippery slope, as you say blood magic is. if you are going to kill someone in a fight, it will not take long for a mage to wan tto use their magic to cause havoc for laughs, and that is evil.

That is just as logical as saying "using a sword or a bow is a slippery slope, because the archer/guard who kills the bandit may not take long for them to decide to kill others."

If a mage uses magic against a civilian population, they are a raider and a badit, no more so than the swordsman or the archer, and all ought to be punished accordingly.

I was using your own logic. A mage will always be tempted, like a swordsman or archer, but a mage is tempted 24/7 unlike a guard, who might not go to bed thinking those thoughts.

People are afraid/hate what something CAN do, but that is false. Blood magic has no more power than a mage allows it to have. Blood magic does not control minds, the mage using it does. 

Tempted by who? Mages aren't tempted during their waking hours except by everyday things, same as any other man. Most mages, as far as I can tell from the lore, aren't tempted in their sleep save for exceptions like Feynriel and other dreamers.

As for the blood magic, I agree to a point, but the mage in question gains that power from blood magic itself. If they show a willingness to use it, and take away another person's free will, such an act is something I truly believe is punishable with Tranquility. In nearly every other case, I will oppose tranquility being forced upon a mage.

[Hellion Rex]

dragonflight288 wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

except that magic itself is aslippery slope, as you say blood magic is. if you are going to kill someone in a fight, it will not take long for a mage to wan tto use their magic to cause havoc for laughs, and that is evil.

That is just as logical as saying "using a sword or a bow is a slippery slope, because the archer/guard who kills the bandit may not take long for them to decide to kill others."

If a mage uses magic against a civilian population, they are a raider and a badit, no more so than the swordsman or the archer, and all ought to be punished accordingly.

I was using your own logic. A mage will always be tempted, like a swordsman or archer, but a mage is tempted 24/7 unlike a guard, who might not go to bed thinking those thoughts.

People are afraid/hate what something CAN do, but that is false. Blood magic has no more power than a mage allows it to have. Blood magic does not control minds, the mage using it does. 

Tempted by who? Mages aren't tempted during their waking hours except by everyday things, same as any other man. Most mages, as far as I can tell from the lore, aren't tempted in their sleep save for exceptions like Feynriel and other dreamers.

As for the blood magic, I agree to a point, but the mage in question gains that power from blood magic itself. If they show a willingness to use it, and take away another person's free will, such an act is something I truly believe is punishable with Tranquility. In nearly every other case, I will oppose tranquility being forced upon a mage.

On being tempted, I feel like that yes, mages aren't tempted every second of the day. And when they work magic, they may feel a small urge, a quiet thought: what if they were to take the spell a little farther? Also, when they work any major magic, they are more susceptible to demons. Both Wynne and Rhys experienced this in Asunder near the end of the novel. Both felt that urge to just let loose and annihilate the templars that they were facing. 

[dragonflight288]

eluvianix wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

draken-heart wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

except that magic itself is aslippery slope, as you say blood magic is. if you are going to kill someone in a fight, it will not take long for a mage to wan tto use their magic to cause havoc for laughs, and that is evil.

That is just as logical as saying "using a sword or a bow is a slippery slope, because the archer/guard who kills the bandit may not take long for them to decide to kill others."

If a mage uses magic against a civilian population, they are a raider and a badit, no more so than the swordsman or the archer, and all ought to be punished accordingly.

I was using your own logic. A mage will always be tempted, like a swordsman or archer, but a mage is tempted 24/7 unlike a guard, who might not go to bed thinking those thoughts.

People are afraid/hate what something CAN do, but that is false. Blood magic has no more power than a mage allows it to have. Blood magic does not control minds, the mage using it does. 

Tempted by who? Mages aren't tempted during their waking hours except by everyday things, same as any other man. Most mages, as far as I can tell from the lore, aren't tempted in their sleep save for exceptions like Feynriel and other dreamers.

As for the blood magic, I agree to a point, but the mage in question gains that power from blood magic itself. If they show a willingness to use it, and take away another person's free will, such an act is something I truly believe is punishable with Tranquility. In nearly every other case, I will oppose tranquility being forced upon a mage.

On being tempted, I feel like that yes, mages aren't tempted every second of the day. And when they work magic, they may feel a small urge, a quiet thought: what if they were to take the spell a little farther? Also, when they work any major magic, they are more susceptible to demons. Both Wynne and Rhys experienced this in Asunder near the end of the novel. Both felt that urge to just let loose and annihilate the templars that they were facing. 

That 'may' is not a 'guarantee.'

And the templars under Lambert near the end of the novel were going out of their way.....well Lambert was, to try and live up to his ideals and refused to give any concessions to the mages at all, to the point of killing them, or threatening to kill them.

For example, that one templar who is threatening Rhys to confess, and Rhys says "And if I don't?" the templar responds by making it clear they would kill him, or tried to give that impression. So he was giving Rhys the choice of, 'let us legally kill you for a crime, or we will try and kill you anyway because....because!"

[MisterJB]

TheRedVipress wrote...
Who is qualified.
Was the chantry "qualified"? No.
The had the power, and they enforced their will. And not just on mages either, but on a veriaty of other "heathens".
 
No one is "qualified".
The closest you can get to "qualified", is (as I wrote already, despite the fact that you ignored it) by making a body of people who represent different sides of the mage-mundane issue, and are willing and able to reach a MUTUALY BENIFICIAL solution: some mages, soldiers, nobles, civilians, scholars, merchants, templars, chantry, hell even gray wardens, and then you find a good compromise that does not envolve death or slavery to either side.

Edit:
Who makes this body? Someone who is not narrow-minded, not an overzealous fanatic, and sees the benefits of cooperation with mages and the posibilities in making magic (like healing and enchanting) available to the public,
someone who understands that you can't treat people like animals and still claim to be a force for good.

That someone could very well be the Inquisitor.

First, think, really think about what such a body of people would entail. Let's say you did grab some soldiers and some nobles as well as some scholars.
The soldiers will have to their name their sword arms; the scholars will have their minds; meanwhile, the nobles will have thousands of soldiers and millions of sovereigns. Whose word do you think will have a greater weight in this "body"? So, ultimately, it will just be doing the will of whoever had the most power.
Sure, it's lovely to think about getting everyone to talk about a solution that works for both sides but, in practice, it's so much more complex and difficult than that.

Second, you accuse the Chantry of only being qualified to deal with mages because it had the power to claim it was.
Now, this is true but who exactly decides that the Inquisitor is qualified? You listed some qualities that you believe are essential for someone to be "qualified" except others might disagree and believe those same "qualities" are what makes the Inquisitor not qualified to deal with the issue.
Is the Inquisitor going to force his point of view and form this body? Then, we can say he is only qualified because he had the power to declare himself qualified which is what the Chantry did.

Modifié par MisterJB, 01 octobre 2013 - 02:38 .

[Laughing_Man]

MisterJB wrote...
First, think, really think about what such a body of people would entail. Let's say you did grab some soldiers and some nobles as well as some scholars.
The soldiers will have to their name their sword arms; the scholars will have their minds; meanwhile, the nobles will have thousands of soldiers and millions of sovereigns. Whose word do you think will have a greater weight in this "body"? So, ultimately, it will just be doing the will of whoever had the most power.
Sure, it's lovely to think about getting everyone to talk about a solution that works for both sides but, in practice, it's so much more complex and difficult than that.

Second, you accuse the Chantry of only being qualified to deal with mages because it had the power to claim it was.
Now, this is true but who exactly decides that the Inquisitor is qualified? You listed some qualities that you believe are essential for someone to be "qualified" except others might disagree and believe those same "qualities" are what makes the Inquisitor not qualified to deal with the issue.
Is the Inquisitor going to force his point of view and form this body? Then, we can say he is only qualified because he had the power to declare himself qualified which is what the Chantry did.

Nobles seizing power:
This is something that could happen anyway, with any system.
The Idea here is to make a strong body, much like the chantry, led not by religious zeal, but by logic and with more regard to morality. Such a strong body will not be easily intimidated by a single noble.
(and when I said soldiers, I didn't mean grunts, obviously.)
The strength of this body could come from the inquisition.

"Qualification":
As we agreed, no one is really qualified. The chantry just forced it's will on everyone else.
And considering that at this point large amounts of excrement hit the fan, and considering that it's clear that the chantry is at fault at least to some degree, the Inquisitor is probably the most qualified man to do something about it.
He has the power, and large amounts of authority.
That makes him as close to qualified that you can come in my book.
Of course, it's for the player to decide what the Inquisitor will actually do with his power.

But all that is irrelevant really, qualified or not, the question is can you take a classical FUBAR and make it better?
If you can, then you are qualified.

Of course, you can also decide that you are simply going to kill every mage you can, and put the rest in a prison so harsh, that those mages will be jealous of the qunari ones.
But that is just the kind of thinking that will make every mage alive out there - even the kindest and gentles among them - fight you to the death and bring the world crushing on your head.
Then you can be the king of the wasteland. If you are still alive that is.

It's very funny to see to what lengths people are willing to go to explain why you just CAN'T be reasonable,
and why you should continue to use a fanatic, cruel, and broken system, depite the fact that we are still busy taking care of the disaster that this system caused.

[MisterJB]

TheRedVipress wrote...
Nobles seizing power:
This is something that could happen anyway, with any system.
The Idea here is to make a strong body, much like the chantry, led not by religious zeal, but by logic and with more regard to morality. Such a strong body will not be easily intimidated by a single noble.
(and when I said soldiers, I didn't mean grunts, obviously.)
The strength of this body could come from the inquisition.

I'm not talking about a single noble. I'm saying that by choosing people from so many different stratas of life, you're bound to pick people who simply have more means than the others; means they will use to direct the arguments in ways that benefit them. How can a body be so strong as to be able to resist the very will of its members?
And, assuming the Inquisition will last long enough, it might have the strenght to impose the decisions of this body but how will it decide which decisions must be implemented? Does the ultimate power rest in the hands of the First Inquisitor? What if he is corrupt or just an easily swayed fool?

Plus, the decisions of the Chantry were very much lead by logic and morality. Otherwise, all mages would just be killed or Tranquilised the moment they were discovered.

"Qualification":
As we agreed, no one is really qualified. The chantry just forced it's will on everyone else.
And considering that at this point large amounts of excrement hit the fan, and considering that it's clear that the chantry is at fault at least to some degree, the Inquisitor is probably the most qualified man to do something about it.
He has the power, and large amounts of authority.
That makes him as close to qualified that you can come in my book.
Of course, it's for the player to decide what the Inquisitor will actually do with his power.

But all that is irrelevant really, qualified or not, the question is can you take a classical FUBAR and make it better?
If you can, then you are qualified.

Seriously? You don't see the double standard you're applying?
You're saying that you can accept the Inquisitor doing something about the current state of Thedas because he "has the power and large amount of authority" and that you think he is qualified if he can take a FUBAR and make it better and yet, that is exactly what the Chantry did.
They had the power and the authority so they did something about the world. And given that previously to its creation, Southern Thedas was plagued by Abominations and Demons who rampaged through the countryside unnoposed; and this is not bias, Brother Genitivi could be one of the most unbiased and fair minded people in Thedas and this comes from him; I'd dare say the people would agree that they improved the "FUBAR".
I can even use the argument that the mages were largely responsible for it.

Of course, you can also decide that you are simply going to kill every mage you can, and put the rest in a prison so harsh, that those mages will be jealous of the qunari ones.
But that is just the kind of thinking that will make every mage alive out there - even the kindest and gentles among them - fight you to the death and bring the world crushing on your head.
Then you can be the king of the wasteland. If you are still alive that is.

It's very funny to see to what lengths people are willing to go to explain why you just CAN'T be reasonable,
and why you should continue to use a fanatic, cruel, and broken system, depite the fact that we are still busy taking care of the disaster that this system caused.

The Circle system was neither fanatic, nor cruel or broken and it was not responsible for this disaster. The mages not abbiding by it was what caused this disaster.

[Hellion Rex]

MisterJB wrote...

TheRedVipress wrote...
Nobles seizing power:
This is something that could happen anyway, with any system.
The Idea here is to make a strong body, much like the chantry, led not by religious zeal, but by logic and with more regard to morality. Such a strong body will not be easily intimidated by a single noble.
(and when I said soldiers, I didn't mean grunts, obviously.)
The strength of this body could come from the inquisition.

I'm not talking about a single noble. I'm saying that by choosing people from so many different stratas of life, you're bound to pick people who simply have more means than the others; means they will use to direct the arguments in ways that benefit them. How can a body be so strong as to be able to resist the very will of its members?
And, assuming the Inquisition will last long enough, it might have the strenght to impose the decisions of this body but how will it decide which decisions must be implemented? Does the ultimate power rest in the hands of the First Inquisitor? What if he is corrupt or just an easily swayed fool?

Plus, the decisions of the Chantry were very much lead by logic and morality. Otherwise, all mages would just be killed or Tranquilised the moment they were discovered.

"Qualification":
As we agreed, no one is really qualified. The chantry just forced it's will on everyone else.
And considering that at this point large amounts of excrement hit the fan, and considering that it's clear that the chantry is at fault at least to some degree, the Inquisitor is probably the most qualified man to do something about it.
He has the power, and large amounts of authority.
That makes him as close to qualified that you can come in my book.
Of course, it's for the player to decide what the Inquisitor will actually do with his power.

But all that is irrelevant really, qualified or not, the question is can you take a classical FUBAR and make it better?
If you can, then you are qualified.

Seriously? You don't see the double standard you're applying?
You're saying that you can accept the Inquisitor doing something about the current state of Thedas because he "has the power and large amount of authority" and that you think he is qualified if he can take a FUBAR and make it better and yet, that is exactly what the Chantry did.
They had the power and the authority so they did something about the world. And given that previously to its creation, Southern Thedas was plagued by Abominations and Demons who rampaged through the countryside unnoposed; and this is not bias, Brother Genitivi could be one of the most unbiased and fair minded people in Thedas and this comes from him; I'd dare say the people would agree that they improved the "FUBAR".
I can even use the argument that the mages were largely responsible for it.

Of course, you can also decide that you are simply going to kill every mage you can, and put the rest in a prison so harsh, that those mages will be jealous of the qunari ones.
But that is just the kind of thinking that will make every mage alive out there - even the kindest and gentles among them - fight you to the death and bring the world crushing on your head.
Then you can be the king of the wasteland. If you are still alive that is.

It's very funny to see to what lengths people are willing to go to explain why you just CAN'T be reasonable,
and why you should continue to use a fanatic, cruel, and broken system, depite the fact that we are still busy taking care of the disaster that this system caused.

The Circle system was neither fanatic, nor cruel or broken and it was not responsible for this disaster. The mages not abbiding by it was what caused this disaster.

The mages who were made Tranquil would disagree. As well as the circle of Dairsmuid who were annuled.

Modifié par eluvianix, 01 octobre 2013 - 05:38 .

[MisterJB]

eluvianix wrote...
The mages who were made Tranquil would disagree. As well as the circle of Dairsmuid who were annuled.

They can disagree all they want, mages who are made Tranquil were either blood mages, too weak to control their powers or chose to become one. Either way, it was justified.

And the Rivaini mages were willingly becoming hosts for spirits; which means they were terribly endagering their fellows; as well as ruling over man. They were no saints. 

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
The mages who were made Tranquil would disagree. As well as the circle of Dairsmuid who were annuled.

They can disagree all they want, mages who are made Tranquil were either blood mages, too weak to control their powers or chose to become one. Either way, it was justified.

And the Rivaini mages were willingly becoming hosts for spirits; which means they were terribly endagering their fellows; as well as ruling over man. They were no saints. 

It's amusing how you think that the Rivain example was inherently evil.