786 réponses à ce sujet

[KainD]

EntropicAngel wrote...

It's got nothing to do with the society they're in. The OP is proposing killing ALL Templars, regardless of whether they're harsh or not/how they were raised, on the possibility that they may become Red Templars.

That's no different from killing ALL mages, regardless of whether they were raised to become blood mages or not, based on the possibility that they may all become blood mages.

Same thing.

Templars are not a race, it is a view. Mages are a race. Every templar can stop being a templar, mages can't stop being mages without dying inside. 

I brought up magisters because being a magister is a view as well, unlike the mage. 

Modifié par KainD, 02 décembre 2013 - 04:30 .

[lxwkl31]

In a heartbeat.

[KainD]

EntropicAngel wrote...
...

No, my friend, mages are not a race. That's the equivalent of saying left-handed people are a race.

While your point about Templars being able to stop being templars is a decent one (though there IS that option for mages--just ask Owen in the stockroom), it's not relevant. The fact is, you're killing people over potential, not over reality. In either circumstance.

But my point is exactly about reality. I would irradicate templars if I had a choice, regardless of the red templar existence. Red templars are just even worse, although I must say I would respect red templars more, they are honest.
Also I am not really interested in talking to plants like Owen, nor interested in suggesting other mages becoming such plants. 

Modifié par KainD, 02 décembre 2013 - 04:47 .

[Hellion Rex]

EntropicAngel wrote...

KainD wrote...

But my point is exactly about reality. I would irradicate templars if I had a choice, regardless of the red templar existence. Red templars are just even worse, although I must say I would respect red templars more. 
Also I am not really interested in talking to plants like Owen, nor interested in suggesting other mages becoming such plants. 

That's great that you would do that. But the point that you originally argued against was talking about the two states (killing a mage or a Templar because of what they MIGHT do) being equivalent, and it's pretty true.

As for Owen, I haven't read...Asunder, I think it is, but there's apparently a comment in that novel by a Tranquil that says something to the effect of, "just because we don't have emotions doesn't mean we're mindless."

“If I felt pain,” she said softly, “it is meaningless to me now. Once I knew only fear, but now I know only service. Whatever pain there was, I believe it an acceptable trade.”

“Obedience is prudent. To interpret it as a lack of free will would be an error.”

These were the only two major Tranquil quotes from Asunder.

Modifié par eluvianix, 02 décembre 2013 - 04:55 .

[Karlone123]

Then what's to stop a Red Mages? Or a Red Dwarf...see what I did there?

[TheBlackAdder13]

 Would you kill mages in DA:I if doing so stopped the creation of abominations? 

[KainD]

EntropicAngel wrote...

That's great that you would do that. But the point that you originally argued against was talking about the two states (killing a mage or a Templar because of what they MIGHT do) being equivalent, and it's pretty true.

As for Owen, I haven't read...Asunder, I think it is, but there's apparently a comment in that novel by a Tranquil that says something to the effect of, "just because we don't have emotions doesn't mean we're mindless."

A person MIGHT become a Templar. If he is a Templar - it's already bad, he is doing something wrong. 
Becoming a red templar is just worse. That's my original point. Understand? 

Only an emotional person could state something like that, lol. That's one legit plot-hole. 

[dragonflight288]

I try not to use meta-game knowledge when I roleplay. I would likely judge each instance with the templars individually on my first playthrough, and reserve my judgements for later in the game to see if they had an effect.

Say, what if the templars are spared and later become Red Templars, but in order to kill them I would have to let a known blood mage live, even if it's a benevolent one, or a mage who isn't a blood mage but has been accused of being one and there's no way to know if the templars or the mage is telling the truth and all evidence is circumstantial....

It would require a great deal of thought.

[Hellion Rex]

dragonflight288 wrote...

I try not to use meta-game knowledge when I roleplay. I would likely judge each instance with the templars individually on my first playthrough, and reserve my judgements for later in the game to see if they had an effect.

Say, what if the templars are spared and later become Red Templars, but in order to kill them I would have to let a known blood mage live, even if it's a benevolent one, or a mage who isn't a blood mage but has been accused of being one and there's no way to know if the templars or the mage is telling the truth and all evidence is circumstantial....

It would require a great deal of thought.

I too am probably going to be staring at my TV for many minutes, chewing over my choices and actions. And I honestly don't mind. It will be fun.

[Silfren]

Youth4Ever wrote...

If the if the hints/rumors of their importance to the plot are true, they will be a major enemy mook faction in DA3. I have no idea how or why the red templar army is created, but, assuming it would make a worthwhile difference in the first place, if your inquisitor could stop the creation, or the potential creation of more red templars, by killing regular templars encountered, or has the opportunity to neutralize the entire order, would s/he do it?

You seem to be asking us if we'll kill templars just because they might become red templars later on. 

My answer is no.  I won't kill a templar just because it would be one less red templar to fight later on.  However, I would happily kill any templars who were determined to try to force mages back into enslavement.  It might amount to the same thing in the end, but ultimately, no, I wouldn't kill a templar for something they might become later.

That said, I wonder if I'm the only person who would, with no qualms whatsoever, say yes to "Would you kill x if you could go back in time to when they were an infant?"  I never understood what the purpose was of that stupid question except maybe to allow some people to engage in pearl-clutching. 

[addiction21]

KainD wrote...


A person MIGHT become a Templar. If he is a Templar - it's already bad, he is doing something wrong. 

Then there is no discussion to be had.

[Hellion Rex]

EntropicAngel wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

“If I felt pain,” she said softly, “it is meaningless to me now. Once I knew only fear, but now I know only service. Whatever pain there was, I believe it an acceptable trade.”

“Obedience is prudent. To interpret it as a lack of free will would be an error.”

These were the only two major Tranquil quotes from Asunder.

Unsure. It's one where the character hikes an eyebrow and says something.

Huh.  There were only two interactions with a Tranquil, one in the beginning, the other at the end. (I am looking at my copy now). In hindsight, I think it is the same Tranquil woman. But I don't think there is a hiking of the eyebrows in either situation, and these were the only really relevant quotes from either encounter.

[KainD]

EntropicAngel wrote...

There's your point of disagreement, then--you think templars are automatically doing something wrong.

Yep. Sometimes I'm not even sure why I discuss subjective things with people on these forums, because everyone has their own opinion, and everybody is right. Thought I usually start to do it when I feel like people don't get it, so I show them the other side. 

[Dayze]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Dayze wrote...

So were the Red Templars thrown just to make The Templar side even more murky and ambiguous?

I mean; now just like Mages they have their "abominable" forms. If they had tendencies to go berskerk ala Meredith than.....how aren't they every bit the danger any mage is?

Possibly because they can't throw a fireball and kill a dozen people. Possibly because they can't literally control someone's mind through their blood.

Possibly.

Depends; how many are Meredith level is really what makes the difference.  Look what she did and she had no clue what she was doing whatsoever.  If Red Templars tend to have one Meredith level freak out every so often like abominations happen to mages....thats a pretty extreme threat there.

[addiction21]

KainD wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

There's your point of disagreement, then--you think templars are automatically doing something wrong.

Yep. Sometimes I'm not even sure why I discuss subjective things with people on these forums, because everyone has their own opinion, and everybody is right. Thought I usually start to do it when I feel like people don't get it, so I show them the other side. 

People already know the other side. You have decided before you ever came in here that there is only one side and it is yours. You are not interested in a discussion you are interested in telling people why you are right and if they disagree they are wrong.

[Cainhurst Crow]

KainD wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

There's your point of disagreement, then--you think templars are automatically doing something wrong.

Yep. Sometimes I'm not even sure why I discuss subjective things with people on these forums, because everyone has their own opinion, and everybody is right. Thought I usually start to do it when I feel like people don't get it, so I show them the other side. 

For someone who wants to discuss subjective views, you seem to follow no customs of the internet and commit lots of faux pas in discussing things and making people know you're being subjective. IMO.

[Hellion Rex]

Dayze wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Dayze wrote...

So were the Red Templars thrown just to make The Templar side even more murky and ambiguous?

I mean; now just like Mages they have their "abominable" forms. If they had tendencies to go berskerk ala Meredith than.....how aren't they every bit the danger any mage is?

Possibly because they can't throw a fireball and kill a dozen people. Possibly because they can't literally control someone's mind through their blood.

Possibly.

Depends; how many are Meredith level is really what makes the difference.  Look what she did and she had no clue what she was doing whatsoever.  If Red Templars tend to have one Meredith level freak out every so often like abominations happen to mages....thats a pretty extreme threat there.

If what we saw in the PAX demo is true, then they at least have the power to launch red magical blasts, something Meredith couldn't necessarily do.

[KainD]

addiction21 wrote...

People already know the other side. You have decided before you ever came in here that there is only one side and it is yours. You are not interested in a discussion you are interested in telling people why you are right and if they disagree they are wrong.

The thing is, there is only one side for everyone, and that's their side, and that side is right, and the other persons side if they disagree is wrong. But there is no universal right or wrong, only the subjective personal right and wrong. I understand that, and always say that upfront, but some people think there is some sort of universal right that is on their side, often because they are in agreement with a lot other people, and they mistake that for some kind of authority, but opinion of the majority is not the criteria for truth. 

[Killdren88]

I am one of those people who don't mind at all if the Templars turn to ME3 Cerberus. Because I'm gonna have a strict anti-templar policy.