1420 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

The rest is pretty difficult to argue. This, though? The Rite of Annulment can make sense under certain circumstances. Those circumstances were illustrated pretty well in Broken Circle, only the Warden obviated the Rite by basically being a physical god.

Annulment is completely redundant in that situation; just call for reinforcements and kill the abominations. The only difference is that you're not murdering every surviving mage you see.

[LobselVith8]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Certainly it was a slam against atheists. 

Actually, it was a slam against, I quote "athiest keyboard warriors". Anti-theists, if you will. The kind that universally deride and campaign against religion, often overlapping with groups like OWS that rail against large corporations.

You don't have to be an atheist to dislike the Chantry. I'll never understand why some pro-Chantry posters try to pretend as though the only reasons people can hate the Chantry is a general hatred of religion, or a specific hatred of Christianity, despite the two being quite dissimilar.

TheBlackBaron wrote...

The fact that this is bothering you so much, despite supposedly "having nothing against religion in general", suggests to me that the lady doth protest too much. 

Maybe it actually has to do with being the target of someone who is intentionally lying about her? It would certainly bother me if someone was mudslinging who I was simply because I disliked the Chantry.

[Br3admax]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

It's funny because I have nothing against religion as a whole.

Yeah, I don't buy that for a second. Good try though. 

So Xil hates religion because she dislikes an organization that dehumanizes mages as cursed and murders people en mass? I don't think that actually makes any sense.

Bro, last I checked, mages aren't real. Just saying. I've seen this dude, gender neutral dude, call every deity a totalitarian dictator. 

[Xilizhra]

Bro, last I checked, mages aren't real. Just saying. I've seen this dude, gender neutral dude, call every deity a totalitarian dictator.

No, I said that some interpretations of certain religions worship a totalitarian dictator. Far from every religious person does so.

[Br3admax]

Xilizhra wrote...

Bro, last I checked, mages aren't real. Just saying. I've seen this dude, gender neutral dude, call every deity a totalitarian dictator.

No, I said that some interpretations of certain religions worship a totalitarian dictator. Far from every religious person does so.

I really don't see what that has to do with the point. Especially sense the doctrine is set long before the worshippers came to be. 

[Xilizhra]

Br3ad wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Bro, last I checked, mages aren't real. Just saying. I've seen this dude, gender neutral dude, call every deity a totalitarian dictator.

No, I said that some interpretations of certain religions worship a totalitarian dictator. Far from every religious person does so.

I really don't see what that has to do with the point. Especially sense the doctrine is set long before the worshippers came to be. 

Doctrine evolves over time. Religions change as the world changes.

Additionally, it's really the first worshipers who come up with the first doctrine.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 22 octobre 2013 - 03:46 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

The rest is pretty difficult to argue. This, though? The Rite of Annulment can make sense under certain circumstances. Those circumstances were illustrated pretty well in Broken Circle, only the Warden obviated the Rite by basically being a physical god.

Annulment is completely redundant in that situation; just call for reinforcements and kill the abominations. The only difference is that you're not murdering every surviving mage you see.

The idea behind Annulment, though, is that the situation is so bad that the Templars can't afford to go in with orders to spare people. A mage who surrendered might be a blood mage (or far worse, an abomination) trying to evade quarantine; the Templars can't read minds, in fact I'll bet even the Seekers rumored ability to is BS in the context of the rest of the setting. I'm not saying this is just, I'm saying its a matter of things getting so far out of hand that the people authorizing it can't see any right answer and go with the least wrong one.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 22 octobre 2013 - 03:46 .

[LobselVith8]

Br3ad wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

So Xil hates religion because she dislikes an organization that dehumanizes mages as cursed and murders people en mass? I don't think that actually makes any sense.

Bro, last I checked, mages aren't real. Just saying.

This is a Dragon Age forum. Just saying.

Br3ad wrote...

I've seen this dude, gender neutral dude, call every deity a totalitarian dictator. 

That's not true to what Xil actually said.

[Xilizhra]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The rest is pretty difficult to argue. This, though? The Rite of Annulment can make sense under certain circumstances. Those circumstances were illustrated pretty well in Broken Circle, only the Warden obviated the Rite by basically being a physical god.

Annulment is completely redundant in that situation; just call for reinforcements and kill the abominations. The only difference is that you're not murdering every surviving mage you see.

The idea behind Annulment, though, is that the situation is so bad that the Templars can't afford to go in with orders to spare people. A mage who surrendered might be a blood mage (or far worse, an abomination) trying to evade quarantine; the Templars can't read minds, in fact I'll bet even the Seekers rumored ability to is BS in the context of the rest of the setting. I'm not saying this is just, I'm saying its a matter of things getting so far out of hand that the people authorizing it can't see any right answer and go with the least wrong one.

But it's not the least wrong one, as can be easily proven in DAO. The least wrong one is to, well, be willing to spare people.

[Br3admax]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Br3ad wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

So Xil hates religion because she dislikes an organization that dehumanizes mages as cursed and murders people en mass? I don't think that actually makes any sense.[/quote]

Bro, last I checked, mages aren't real. Just saying. [/quote]

This is a Dragon Age forum. Just saying.
[/quote]
And, being a Dragon Age forum doesn't make everything pertain to Dragon Age as soon as it is said. 
[quote]Br3ad wrote...

I've seen this dude, gender neutral dude, call every deity a totalitarian dictator. [/quote]

That's not true to what Xil actually said.
[/quote]
This thread is not the entire world, nor this entire forum. Xil has even gone on to admit it, sort of, so really there is no point in saying otherwise. 

[Br3admax]

Xilizhra wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Bro, last I checked, mages aren't real. Just saying. I've seen this dude, gender neutral dude, call every deity a totalitarian dictator.

No, I said that some interpretations of certain religions worship a totalitarian dictator. Far from every religious person does so.

I really don't see what that has to do with the point. Especially sense the doctrine is set long before the worshippers came to be. 

Doctrine evolves over time. Religions change as the world changes.

Additionally, it's really the first worshipers who come up with the first doctrine.

Seriously, what point are you trying to make? 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The rest is pretty difficult to argue. This, though? The Rite of Annulment can make sense under certain circumstances. Those circumstances were illustrated pretty well in Broken Circle, only the Warden obviated the Rite by basically being a physical god.

Annulment is completely redundant in that situation; just call for reinforcements and kill the abominations. The only difference is that you're not murdering every surviving mage you see.

The idea behind Annulment, though, is that the situation is so bad that the Templars can't afford to go in with orders to spare people. A mage who surrendered might be a blood mage (or far worse, an abomination) trying to evade quarantine; the Templars can't read minds, in fact I'll bet even the Seekers rumored ability to is BS in the context of the rest of the setting. I'm not saying this is just, I'm saying its a matter of things getting so far out of hand that the people authorizing it can't see any right answer and go with the least wrong one.

But it's not the least wrong one, as can be easily proven in DAO. The least wrong one is to, well, be willing to spare people.

Yes, but Cullen wasn't wrong when he said that this could very easily backfire. There's an option to smuggle a blood mage into the Mage army. While I like having the option to do so, the fact remains that a less non-villainous blood mage or a particularly crafty abomination (not that there seem to have been any in this batch, mind you) could have done the same thing. Greagoir really did take a risk when he allowed Irving to vouch for the surviving mages.

[Steelcan]

Which side do I need to argue?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Steelcan wrote...

Which side do I need to argue?

They both have their ups and downs.

[LobselVith8]

Br3ad wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

This is a Dragon Age forum. Just saying. 

And, being a Dragon Age forum doesn't make everything pertain to Dragon Age as soon as it is said.

Mages are part of the setting, and are likely to be discussed in a thread that delves into different facets of the Chantry of Andraste.

Br3ad wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

That's not true to what Xil actually said. 

This thread is not the entire world, nor this entire forum. Xil has even gone on to admit it, sort of, so really there is no point in saying otherwise. 

Xil admitted you were wrong.

[Steelcan]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Which side do I need to argue?

They both have their ups and downs.

Someone clearly doesn't know how arguments work...

[Br3admax]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

This is a Dragon Age forum. Just saying. 

And, being a Dragon Age forum doesn't make everything pertain to Dragon Age as soon as it is said.

Mages are part of the setting, and are likely to be discussed in a thread that delves into different facets of the Chantry of Andraste.

Fine. Let's be on topic.

Br3ad wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

That's not true to what Xil actually said. 

This thread is not the entire world, nor this entire forum. Xil has even gone on to admit it, sort of, so really there is no point in saying otherwise. 

Xil admitted you were wrong.

He came right out and told me that the Christian god is a dictator who hates all different people and condems almost everyone to death. Deny it all you want, but it's not like it wasn't said. And then went on to explain how horrible organizd religion was. Xil may not remember said fits of insanity, but I do. 


Anyway, the Chantry is a waste of resources, time, and lives. Burn the world and start over. 

[Xilizhra]

Seriously, what point are you trying to make?

What point are you trying to make?

Yes, but Cullen wasn't wrong when he said that this could very easily backfire. There's an option to smuggle a blood mage into the Mage army. While I like having the option to do so, the fact remains that a less non-villainous blood mage or a particularly crafty abomination (not that there seem to have been any in this batch, mind you) could have done the same thing. Greagoir really did take a risk when he allowed Irving to vouch for the surviving mages.

I've never gotten that option; how's it done?

He came right out and told me that the Christian god is a dictator who
hates all different people and condems almost everyone to death. Deny it
all you want, but it's not like it wasn't said. And then went on to
explain how horrible organizd religion was. Xil may not remember said
fits of insanity, but I do.

No, that's some interpretations of the Christian god, certainly not all of them. I was never trying to be universal about it.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 22 octobre 2013 - 03:58 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Steelcan wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Which side do I need to argue?

They both have their ups and downs.

Someone clearly doesn't know how arguments work...

Actually, I took a class in it my first semester of college.

[Steelcan]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Which side do I need to argue?

For the Qun.

Sorry...

[Steelcan]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Which side do I need to argue?

They both have their ups and downs.

Someone clearly doesn't know how arguments work...

Actually, I took a class in it my first semester of college.

And if they didn't teach you to completely dig yourself into a hole where you can't give the others side an inch you did it wrong

[Br3admax]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Which side do I need to argue?

For the Qun.

I can't think of a worse situation, to be honest. The Qun isn't for the weak willed. 

[TheBlackBaron]

LobselVith8 wrote...

You don't have to be an atheist to dislike the Chantry.

Do tell where I said you had to be. I dislike aspects of the Chantry myself. 

Maybe it actually has to do with being the target of someone who is intentionally lying about her? It would certainly bother me if someone was mudslinging who I was simply because I disliked the Chantry.

For that matter, I must have also missed the part where I said Xil was an atheist keyboard warrior, or even referenced him at all in my original post. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 22 octobre 2013 - 04:02 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

Yes, but Cullen wasn't wrong when he said that this could very easily backfire. There's an option to smuggle a blood mage into the Mage army. While I like having the option to do so, the fact remains that a less non-villainous blood mage or a particularly crafty abomination (not that there seem to have been any in this batch, mind you) could have done the same thing. Greagoir really did take a risk when he allowed Irving to vouch for the surviving mages.

I've never gotten that option; how's it done?

Really? Never?

Okay then. Remember that blood mage who begs for her life? If you have the right spec (varies according to class, the ones that unlock this are Reaver, Assassin and Blood Mage) you can tell her to redeem herself for her part in causing everything to go to hell by fighting the darkspawn. And I don't think we see anything to indicate that she was caught. Granted, she really did seem sincere in her repentence, so I don't think there's a danger from her, but we can't know. And we can't be sure that none of the children or adult apprentices are similarly passing. That's why the mages who are left alive are Tranqulized. (Well, when the Annulment is properly used, that's why. Otherwise, it really is to keep the mages in line, which is a somewhat murkier issue morally.)