70 réponses à ce sujet

[Boycott Bioware]

I think the whole idea of "saving the world from itself' is a total anarchy....as we can see every factions in Thedas are conservatives,they destroying themselves, so the Inquisitor is an anarchist from liberal party

[Br3admax]

Can't tell if serious. I can never tell with you.

[DarthSideus2]

Since I usually play a Mage, I am looking foreword to seeing what the Tevinters are like, and possibly becoming a Magister.

[Boycott Bioware]

Br3ad wrote..
Can't tell if serious. I can never tell with you.

If everything is destroying themselves, the solution to save them is by taking control, and that's anarchy

It is always following this rule...there is conservative, then liberal emerge, the liberal fought the conservative, the conservative fall, liberal take control, soon the liberal become conservative, another liberal emerge, same thing happen over and over

[Br3admax]

Qistina wrote...

Br3ad wrote..
Can't tell if serious. I can never tell with you.

If everything is destroying themselves, the solution to save them is by taking control, and that's anarchy

It is always following this rule...there is conservative, then liberal emerge, the liberal fought the conservative, the conservative fall, liberal take control, soon the liberal become conservative, another liberal emerge, same thing happen over and over

Anarchy. You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means. 

Modifié par Br3ad, 05 octobre 2013 - 04:12 .

[Boycott Bioware]

Br3ad wrote..
Anarchy. You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Maybe it don't mean like what I think it means, but it have a meaning...what do you think it means?

[Uccio]

Out of these option the Tevinter Imperium is the best and obvious choise.

[Chari]

Hm, at least two of my Inquistors will choose the Chantry as their ally. No one will choose Tevinter and maybe one will side with Qunari

[RobRam10]

Ukki wrote...

Out of these option the Tevinter Imperium is the best and obvious choise.

[Br3admax]

Qistina wrote...

Br3ad wrote..
Anarchy. You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Maybe it don't mean like what I think it means, but it have a meaning...what do you think it means?

I'm going to answer this as if it were a serious question:

Anarchy is when you cause disorder by removing all gonvernment authoity. Not by replacing it, alter it, or reforming it. 

[ISpeakTheTruth]

I'd pick the Tevinter and work to reform some of their morally distasteful policies. Thedas as a whole was a much better place when it was ran by the Tevinter. There were no constant wars, no religious zealotry, and technologically would be light years ahead of where we are now if they had stayed in power.

Mundanes had their shot at ruling and its ended in disaster after disaster, All they do is murder each other all to attain power they are never able to keep. They are just as morally abhorrent as Tevinter ever was. It's time to put the world back the way it was and move on with our lives, with mages able to defend their people and help guide them.

[Boycott Bioware]

Br3ad wrote...

I'm going to answer this as if it were a serious question:

Anarchy is when you cause disorder by removing all gonvernment authoity. Not by replacing it, alter it, or reforming it.

That is what the Inquisitor will do, see that the Inquisitor wearing all the rings that symbolize all factions?

All factions are under the Inquisitor whim, the Inquisitor is an anarchist

[Taleroth]

Qistina wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

I'm going to answer this as if it were a serious question:

Anarchy is when you cause disorder by removing all gonvernment authoity. Not by replacing it, alter it, or reforming it.

That is what the Inquisitor will do, see that the Inquisitor wearing all the rings that symbolize all factions?

All factions are under the Inquisitor whim, the Inquisitor is an anarchist

1) That's not the Inquisitor wearing rings.
2) That's a dictatorship. Anarchy is a complete lack of formal government authority.

[Boycott Bioware]

You make your own rule, that's anarchy

DA:I world is a world of chaos, corruption, injustice...the world where system fail...the Inquisitor rise to save the world from it self...the only thing that the Inquisitor can do is by forcing his/her own idea, remove the system and taking control.

The Inquisitor is the authority

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Qistina wrote...

You make your own rule, that's anarchy

DA:I world is a world of chaos, corruption, injustice...the world where system fail...the Inquisitor rise to save the world from it self...the only thing that the Inquisitor can do is by forcing his/her own idea, remove the system and taking control.

The Inquisitor is the authority

No, that's monarchy. (Or whatever system the Inquisitor imposes.) Anarchy is the absence of any system: thus its where the game starts, not what you're trying to impose. (Unless you really are trying to not have any system at all.)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 06 octobre 2013 - 04:01 .

[Boycott Bioware]

Isn't monarchy is a dynastic political system where rulers are from elite family members for generations?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Qistina wrote...

Isn't monarchy is a dynastic political system where rulers are from elite family members for generations?

My understanding is that at its most basic, its a system where political power proceeds from one person alone. Though an Inquisitor can still manage even by your definition, assuming (s)he wants his/her family to stay in power after (s)he dies.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 06 octobre 2013 - 04:11 .

[Br3admax]

Anarchy means no government at all. Even if the Inquisitor somehow controlled all of Thedas, that would be by definition not anarchy. Also, there is not such thing as "royal blood", not really. It's just whatever chief of whatever tribe that bullied enough people until they made a kingdom. There blood is just as special as the rest of ours, not at all.

[Lord Raijin]

DarthSideus2 wrote...

Since I usually play a Mage, I am looking foreword to seeing what the Tevinters are like, and possibly becoming a Magister.

If they're simular to Fenris former master I will not be liking the Tevinters.

[Boycott Bioware]

Br3ad wrote...
Anarchy means no government at all. Even if the Inquisitor somehow controlled all of Thedas, that would be by definition not anarchy.

If the government failed, destroying themselves, the solution is remove the government. The theme is "saving the world from itself" by means the world is destroying it self, the one who shape the world is the government. So, the in order to save the world from itself is the Inquisitor must remove the government and take control, that's anarchy

Br3ad wrote...
Also, there is not such thing as "royal blood", not really. It's just whatever chief of whatever tribe that bullied enough people until they made a kingdom. There blood is just as special as the rest of ours, not at all.

There is royal blood...not everyone can become a king (or queen), it's in the blood. Believe it or not our blood play a significant role in our life, our blood define who we are and what we can do. A king is meant to be a king, a chief is meant to be a chief, they are successful or not is depend on many factors, but they are meant to be what they are.....So, save your blood, don't let anyone steal it.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Qistina wrote...

Br3ad wrote...
Anarchy means no government at all. Even if the Inquisitor somehow controlled all of Thedas, that would be by definition not anarchy.

If the government failed, destroying themselves, the solution is remove the government. The theme is "saving the world from itself" by means the world is destroying it self, the one who shape the world is the government. So, the in order to save the world from itself is the Inquisitor must remove the government and take control, that's anarchy

What anarchy means, if used correctly, is that nobody rules. This can mean every man for himself (which I believe is the way things are at the start of the game) or a peaceful society of equals. Either way, if an Inquisitor successfully takes control of Thedas then by definition the setting is not in a state of anarchy. For things to start that way will make it easier for some types of Inquisitor, but if an Inquisitor wants to rule then he cannot also be an anarchist.

Br3ad wrote...
Also, there is not such thing as "royal blood", not really. It's just whatever chief of whatever tribe that bullied enough people until they made a kingdom. There blood is just as special as the rest of ours, not at all.

There is royal blood...not everyone can become a king (or queen), it's in the blood. Believe it or not our blood play a significant role in our life, our blood define who we are and what we can do. A king is meant to be a king, a chief is meant to be a chief, they are successful or not is depend on many factors, but they are meant to be what they are.....So, save your blood, don't let anyone steal it.

I have no statistical evidence to back this up, but I think you'll find that believing that places you in a small minority. (Edit: I really hope this comment doesn't lead to a thread getting derailed with more irl politics...)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 06 octobre 2013 - 06:08 .

[Boycott Bioware]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
What anarchy means, if used correctly, is that nobody rules. This can mean every man for himself (which I believe is the way things are at the start of the game) or a peaceful society of equals. Either way, if an Inquisitor successfully takes control of Thedas then by definition the setting is not in a state of anarchy. For things to start that way will make it easier for some types of Inquisitor, but if an Inquisitor wants to rule then he cannot also be an anarchist.

Taking control doesn't mean rule, the Inquisitor can be an anarchist and taking control of the world without become a ruler. Taking control means the governments no longer in control

It's like V = Vendetta thing

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Qistina wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
What anarchy means, if used correctly, is that nobody rules. This can mean every man for himself (which I believe is the way things are at the start of the game) or a peaceful society of equals. Either way, if an Inquisitor successfully takes control of Thedas then by definition the setting is not in a state of anarchy. For things to start that way will make it easier for some types of Inquisitor, but if an Inquisitor wants to rule then he cannot also be an anarchist.

Taking control doesn't mean rule, the Inquisitor can be an anarchist and taking control of the world without become a ruler. Taking control means the governments no longer in control

It's like V = Vendetta thing

Okay, I see what you're saying. Though I don't know if any society V would approve of will be an option in this game. He seemed to be big on democracy, or possibly on benevolent anarchy. I don't know how likely either of those is to work in the context of setting history.

Edit: I do think I can see an Inquisitor being allowed to create a hands-off, liberal government, but not a democratic one. And the last hands-off government we created (un-liberal though it was) didn't really end well.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 06 octobre 2013 - 06:42 .

[Little Princess Peach]

Lord Raijin wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
As the Inquisitor, it is your role to save the world from itself. Whom has your support? Who will be destroyed if they don't match what your ideals, or would you allow them to live if they support a treaty that calls for peace?

Considering the fact that theirs 4 rings on the fingers of the Inquisitor

you forgot the 5th ring

[Boycott Bioware]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote..
Okay, I see what you're saying. Though I don't know if any society V would approve of will be an option in this game. He seemed to be big on democracy, or possibly on benevolent anarchy. I don't know how likely either of those is to work in the context of setting history.

Edit: I do think I can see an Inquisitor being allowed to create a hands-off, liberal government, but not a democratic one. And the last hands-off government we created (un-liberal though it was) didn't really end well.

Democracy or not is not important, what important is how well the system rum. Democracy is not always good, it is good when it is good, there will be a time when it failed. There are many great ancient civilizations, they are not democracy, and some are religious.

What worse is when democracy is a hoax, example, elections have been determined, the candidates are from the elite families, secret societies, we only just a tool to run the system that look like democracy but it really isn't.

So, no matter what system the Inquisitor could establish after removing the old one that failed, that system is good, for certain time, until situation demand changes. It just natural...