211 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Silfren wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

in·her·ent (n-hîrnt, -hr-)
adj.
Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic

dif·fer·ent (dfr-nt, dfrnt)
adj.
1. Unlike in form, quality, amount, or nature; dissimilar

Well black skin is a characteristic and it is unlike white skin.

So I'd say their skin colors are inherently different.

Holy f*ck, are you being deliberately obtuse here, or do you honestly not get it?

Oh, I understand your argument. I am just showing you that there are holes in your argument, like your reliance on the term inherently different. It can certainly be proven that men and women are inherently different. It can be shown that the average Joe and mages are inherently different. They all have characteristics that are different from each others, even if it's as simple as a different skin tone or access to magical powers.

No, there are NO holes in my argument.  That one group of people has a different skin color from another  group does NOT make them inherently different as people.  Likewise to gender and orientation and so on. 

To say that a person has a different trait from another person is NOT the same thing as saying that some quality of a group makes them inherently different from other people.  Unfortunately, it is precisely this mindset which has led to racism/sexism/etc.

Women are inherently different from men...they are weak-minded and given to hysterics.  Ergo they should not be allowed to vote and CERTAINLY not to hold positions of high office.

Black persons are inherently different from white persons...their brains are smaller.  Ergo they're best suited for only menial work.

Gay persons are inherently different from straight persons...they are predisposed to pedophilia and therefore should not be allowed to raise children. 

This discussion is veering too far into real world crap and getting away from the mage question, but I think the point is clear. 

[AresKeith]

Mr.House wrote...

I really hope if there is a route for mage freedom it outright blows up in everyones fate so the naive will learn.

^ This

[HiroVoid]

Tevinter is the nation on the right path. By having mages in larger position, it allows them further experimental freedom to find out the secrets of the world and the next evolutionary path of humanity which is mages. With time, everyone could have the gift of magic and nations such as the qunari could be easily pushed back to never be allowed to threaten Thedas.

[Mr.House]

HiroVoid wrote...

Tevinter is the nation on the right path. By having mages in larger position, it allows them further experimental freedom to find out the secrets of the world and the next evolutionary path of humanity which is mages. With time, everyone could have the gift of magic and nations such as the qunari could be easily pushed back to never be allowed to threaten Thedas.

You heard it here. Slavery, blood magic rituals used on said slaves to gain more power and other dark stuff is the right path.

[HiroVoid]

AresKeith wrote...

OP, I would like the option to stay neutral or force a compromise by beating the crap out of both sides

If that's truly what you want, you'll need the elves' help.  By destroying both sides, the elves can show their martial prowess and finally kick out every human in the Dales t and retake their rightful homeland that was taken away from them by the chantry.  One more thing they will not be able to take once they are gone.  After years, they will be able to regain their immortality to share their wisdom with future generations.

[Mr.House]

Yes let's kick out people who had nothing to do with what happen at the Dales, along with elves who lived in the Dales being long dead thus retaking the Dales would do nothing but cause innocents to die.

[AresKeith]

HiroVoid wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

OP, I would like the option to stay neutral or force a compromise by beating the crap out of both sides

If that's truly what you want, you'll need the elves' help.  By destroying both sides, the elves can show their martial prowess and finally kick out every human in the Dales t and retake their rightful homeland that was taken away from them by the chantry.  One more thing they will not be able to take once they are gone.  After years, they will be able to regain their immortality to share their wisdom with future generations.

0/10 for trolling

[I SOLD MY SOUL TO BIOWARE]

AresKeith wrote...

OP, I would like the option to stay neutral or force a compromise by beating the crap out of both sides

I hope for the option to invite leaders from both sides to dinner, and then...smoke a lot of weed, solve our differences, and hug it out. 

[HiroVoid]

The elves must have a homeland to retain a large enough population, and the Dales were taken from them by force, therefore, they are justified in retaking it. The blame lies entirely on the chantry on the first place for its abuse against the elves forcing their hands. Once taken, they can mount a border patrol to make sure no human ever enters in their journey towards immortality, one of the dreams of mortals.

[HiroVoid]

SergeantSnookie wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

OP, I would like the option to stay neutral or force a compromise by beating the crap out of both sides

I hope for the option to invite leaders from both sides to dinner, and then...smoke a lot of weed, solve our differences, and hug it out. 

....There was actually a fairly similar situation in Divinity: Dragon Knight Commander if the elven princess was your wife.

[Mr.House]

The elves lost the Dales in a battle of conquest, the winner got land and the loser had to leave. That's how the world works in DA and even back in the medieval time period.

Also I like how oyu blame the chantry even though there is no proof as NO one has any proof who started, you have both sides that give a bias opinion.

[HiroVoid]

By taking away the elves' only homeland, they were committing genocide on the entire race, an act never performed on any of the other nations' inhabitants. And by battle of conquest, if the elves can retake it, then its their right to the land and for the losers to leave.

[TurretSyndrome]

I would also like an option to just walk away, especially if the game is not willing to provide me with a means to negotiate peace, even when I try my hardest to achieve it. It will atleast be a lot less irritating and very much fulfilling than siding with one faction only to be met with withdrawal and outright stupidity, as was the case with Orsino and Meredith respectfully.

I believe this is how OP feels? Don't worry OP, I played the game in the same manner you did, sided with Mages when that is what was needed to save the innocent. Trusted Orsino after having seen his conviction to end Meredith's tyranny and the torture inflicted upon his kind, only to be betrayed once again.

Moreover, the game poorly emulates realism by denying us any control of our characters. In the end , the message I got was "Sorry, but this is the story we want to tell, you just happen to be in it.".

Modifié par TurretSyndrome, 28 octobre 2013 - 07:20 .

[Johnny_TYS38]

TurretSyndrome wrote...

I would also like an option to just walk away, especially if the game is not willing to provide me with a means to negotiate peace, even when I try my hardest to achieve it. It will atleast be a lot less irritating and very much fulfilling than siding with one faction only to be met with withdrawal and outright stupidity, as was the case with Orsino and Meredith respectfully.

I believe this is how OP feels? Don't worry OP, I played the game in the same manner you did, sided with Mages when that is what was needed to save the innocent. Trusted Orsino after having seen his conviction to end Meredith's tyranny and the torture inflicted upon his kind, only to be betrayed once again.

Moreover, the game poorly emulates realism by denying us any control of our characters. In the end , the message I got was "Sorry, but this is the story we want to tell, you just happen to be in it.".

Just imagine during the final confrontation between orsino and meredith, hawke just take bethany away from the circle and walk away. That is how DA 2 should end for me at least. It does not matter which side you take, you just end up fighting the same two final boss (one was recycled from orgins DLC and other one was pretty good) in different order. Just let the two of them duke it out in their final form at the expanse of kirkwall  

[Reznore57]

Well , I tried to be neutral as much as possible ...wasn't really rewarding ,act 3 was short and I missed some quests by not taking sides.

By the end, I saved the mages because the whole Right of annulment makes me sick.
I didn't have to think twice because there was no proof ,the Kirkwall circle was a immediate threat to the city .My pc was probably more involved in the Chantry going boom than any circle mage , anyway...

I can't say I want a Geth/Quarian ending though , I can't imagine my Inquisitor just screaming really loud and just like that mages and templars are BFF.

But after DA2, it's just really hard to trust both sides .Templars and mages were abusing their powers at every corner.

[MisanthropePrime]

Hopefully the options are "kill the templars", "kill the mages" or "kill them both" rather than "help the templars", "help the mages" or "help them both".

Bonus points if you can somehow prevent more mages from ever being born by screwing with the fade (keep in mind that the dragon age series has to take place within one century, so we can still have mage PCs born before the events of inquisition in future titles)

[Dabrikishaw]

MisanthropePrime wrote...

Hopefully the options are "kill the templars", "kill the mages" or "kill them both" rather than "help the templars", "help the mages" or "help them both".

Bonus points if you can somehow prevent more mages from ever being born by screwing with the fade (keep in mind that the dragon age series has to take place within one century, so we can still have mage PCs born before the events of inquisition in future titles)

This is exactly what I hope we get to do.

[Plaintiff]

Mr.House wrote...

Well when people like Plantiff stop projecting their life problems into a goddam video game, then maybe conversations like this would not go into the real world.

You go out of your way to make personal insults without provocation, but sure, I'm the problem.

[Rolling Flame]

Reznore57 wrote...
But after DA2, it's just really hard to trust both sides .Templars and mages were abusing their powers at every corner.

The devs have stated that Kirkwall was an extreme situation for both sides, so hopefully we'll be dealing with some cooler heads that don't play their Strawman imagery completely straight.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Silfren wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Silfren wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

in·her·ent (n-hîrnt, -hr-)
adj.
Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic

dif·fer·ent (dfr-nt, dfrnt)
adj.
1. Unlike in form, quality, amount, or nature; dissimilar

Well black skin is a characteristic and it is unlike white skin.

So I'd say their skin colors are inherently different.

Holy f*ck, are you being deliberately obtuse here, or do you honestly not get it?

Oh, I understand your argument. I am just showing you that there are holes in your argument, like your reliance on the term inherently different. It can certainly be proven that men and women are inherently different. It can be shown that the average Joe and mages are inherently different. They all have characteristics that are different from each others, even if it's as simple as a different skin tone or access to magical powers.

No, there are NO holes in my argument.  That one group of people has a different skin color from another  group does NOT make them inherently different as people.  Likewise to gender and orientation and so on. 

To say that a person has a different trait from another person is NOT the same thing as saying that some quality of a group makes them inherently different from other people.  Unfortunately, it is precisely this mindset which has led to racism/sexism/etc.

Women are inherently different from men...they are weak-minded and given to hysterics.  Ergo they should not be allowed to vote and CERTAINLY not to hold positions of high office.

Black persons are inherently different from white persons...their brains are smaller.  Ergo they're best suited for only menial work.

Gay persons are inherently different from straight persons...they are predisposed to pedophilia and therefore should not be allowed to raise children. 

This discussion is veering too far into real world crap and getting away from the mage question, but I think the point is clear. 

Different races, different sexual orientations, different genders are ALL inherently different. There is no arguing this. However the differences are so small that it doesn't warrant special treatment for either. Mages are inherently different in a major way. Thus they warrant special treatment.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Silfren wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Who says that Morrigan is evil?

Well i say that she is extremely selfish and cruel she likes when other suffer and is stupid evil and try convince us to not helping or damaging others without purpose even if that would help us add to this her manipulations and bit*** to almost every character in game . Only thing why protected her from being slain as another evil minion is that she was in hero (well villain if we desire) party. 

I don't think that Morrigan LIKES it when others suffer so much as she simply thinks its beneath her to care; I also wouldn't really consider her cruel. 

But the thing is that even if she were all of those things, selfish and cruel and took delight in suffering, none of those qualities are unique to mages.  Morrigan has never shown herself to be at risk of turning into an abomination and razing a city, or anything else.

Yep morrigan likes that she always approves when you kick someone for nothing making someone life worse and when you try help someone she will be angry and her conversation with others companions where she bring painful things for them and then mock it only confirms and she cross boundaries between ass*** and pr***.She don't have to turn into abomnation she is danger to everyone around her she is extremely , enjoy suffering of others and is power hungry and that mix makes her extremely dangerous now thinkg what if such person will gain god like power .

[Fast Jimmy]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Silfren wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Silfren wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

in·her·ent (n-hîrnt, -hr-)
adj.
Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic; intrinsic

dif·fer·ent (dfr-nt, dfrnt)
adj.
1. Unlike in form, quality, amount, or nature; dissimilar

Well black skin is a characteristic and it is unlike white skin.

So I'd say their skin colors are inherently different.

Holy f*ck, are you being deliberately obtuse here, or do you honestly not get it?

Oh, I understand your argument. I am just showing you that there are holes in your argument, like your reliance on the term inherently different. It can certainly be proven that men and women are inherently different. It can be shown that the average Joe and mages are inherently different. They all have characteristics that are different from each others, even if it's as simple as a different skin tone or access to magical powers.

No, there are NO holes in my argument.  That one group of people has a different skin color from another  group does NOT make them inherently different as people.  Likewise to gender and orientation and so on.  

To say that a person has a different trait from another person is NOT the same thing as saying that some quality of a group makes them inherently different from other people.  Unfortunately, it is precisely this mindset which has led to racism/sexism/etc.

Women are inherently different from men...they are weak-minded and given to hysterics.  Ergo they should not be allowed to vote and CERTAINLY not to hold positions of high office.

Black persons are inherently different from white persons...their brains are smaller.  Ergo they're best suited for only menial work. 

Gay persons are inherently different from straight persons...they are predisposed to pedophilia and therefore should not be allowed to raise children.  

This discussion is veering too far into real world crap and getting away from the mage question, but I think the point is clear.  

Different races, different sexual orientations, different genders are ALL inherently different. There is no arguing this. However the differences are so small that it doesn't warrant special treatment for either. Mages are inherently different in a major way. Thus they warrant special treatment.

I have to agree here. 

There is no Real World analogue to this. Being born of a certain ethnicity, gender, sexual or gender orientation does not make you a risk to catch someone on fire or slaughter dozens of people by accident. Period. End of sentence. 

The question is simple - is one perosn's freedom worth the risk of dozens of others lives? Is their own rights to live without the fear of losing their family, friends and well being worth more or less than the right of others born with a certain ability that is ultimately uncontrollable to be free as well?

Because that is the question. No Mage, no matter how well trained, will be impervious to possession or abuse of their own powers. Mage freedom = deaths of innocents. Not every Mage, mind you... and "innocents" is often a rough term to define. But that is the reality... if every Mage is left to determine their own path, many will go down the path of wrecklessness or weakness that results in them being a danger to every man, woman and child who they are in the vicinity of. 

No one here can (or should) draw real life relations to this. Because they don't exist. We don't live in a world where the concept of "freedom for all" coincides with the reality of "death for more."

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 octobre 2013 - 02:05 .

[ziloe]

Plaintiff wrote...

Br3ad wrote...
Mages are conduits of almost limitless power , that can destroy on a whim and can cause terror on the scale of a small army alone. It's not the same as saying that the grandfather clause is wrong. 

I've yet to see any mage in the Dragon Age franchise exhibit such power.

And even if I had, imprisoning people for merely possessing the capacity to do violence is wrong, period.

Punishment comes after the crime, not before.

Uhh... Flemeth, who could turn into a dragon on a whim and see/manipulate the fates of those she deemed worthy. Corypheus, who most believe could merely transfer bodies before death. ...That guy who killed your mother amongst several other innocent women and raised the dead? Orsino becoming a hulking monster from the freshly dead bodies of his students beside him. Yeah... mages have never shown such raw power...