1858 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord Raijin]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Lord Raijin wrote...
Meredith recieves a sick pleasure by watching mages die in her custody, she is rather twisted even without idol sword. She very much has the mentality of Kim Jong Un.

Comeptlely wrong.
This silly idea that Meredith hates mages and loves to watch them suffer is redicolous.

She is a creature of duty. EVerything she does she does to protect the people of Kirkwall, not out of hatered for mages. She sez so herself.
Even at the end, she still has sympathy for mages (listen to her dialogue with Orsino).

"It breaks my heart to do it, but we must be vigilant."

In the mean time she says this: “Magic is a cancer in the heart of our land, just as it was in the time of Andraste. And like her, we are left with no choice but to purify it with fire and blood.” This is a clearly a hatred statement against mages.

Very much like this "I tried to have sympathy! Maker knows, I've tried! But how can we allow
them freedom when so many would use it to commit atrocities? They
control minds, they become abominations, they began the Blight itself!"

Meredith pretty much lies. She never had any sympathy for the mages. She could not possibly show sympathy when she hates them that much. Greagoir has far more sympathy for the mages than Meredith, and its proven by the relationship that he has with Irving. Do you think Meredith would be fair to Orsino? No. She treats him like sh!t. She pushes mages into desperate situations to then use it against them, and to remind the mages that they're responsible for the first blight.

Yeah thats a bizarre way to show sympathy for the mages by making them feel guilty, treating them like sh!it and take their freedom away.

No wonder the previous Viscount wanted to evicted the Templar order out of his city.

[Lord Raijin]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Lucky for Anders he was a Harrowed mage, and therefore he could not by law be made Tranquil. IIRC Anders gave up willingly every time the Templars caught up to him. No doubt that played a part in why they were so lenient with him. It was only after the 7th escape that they punished him as severely as a year in solitary.

IIRC Anders was sweet on a templar woman, and for some reason each time he escapes she would go and search for him. It was more like a game to him really.

[MisterJB]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Lucky for Anders he was a Harrowed mage, and therefore he could not by law be made Tranquil. IIRC Anders gave up willingly every time the Templars caught up to him. No doubt that played a part in why they were so lenient with him. It was only after the 7th escape that they punished him as severely as a year in solitary.

Someone caught deserting from an army would be hanged on the first attempt.

[Silfren]

Lord Raijin wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Lucky for Anders he was a Harrowed mage, and therefore he could not by law be made Tranquil. IIRC Anders gave up willingly every time the Templars caught up to him. No doubt that played a part in why they were so lenient with him. It was only after the 7th escape that they punished him as severely as a year in solitary.

IIRC Anders was sweet on a templar woman, and for some reason each time he escapes she would go and search for him. It was more like a game to him really.

Meh.  He wasn't sweet on anyone.  That entire exchange was meant to be a joke.

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Lucky for Anders he was a Harrowed mage, and therefore he could not by law be made Tranquil. IIRC Anders gave up willingly every time the Templars caught up to him. No doubt that played a part in why they were so lenient with him. It was only after the 7th escape that they punished him as severely as a year in solitary.

Someone caught deserting from an army would be hanged on the first attempt.

And since Anders was NOT deserting from an army, this is relevant how, exactly?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Silfren wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Lucky for Anders he was a Harrowed mage, and therefore he could not by law be made Tranquil. IIRC Anders gave up willingly every time the Templars caught up to him. No doubt that played a part in why they were so lenient with him. It was only after the 7th escape that they punished him as severely as a year in solitary.

Someone caught deserting from an army would be hanged on the first attempt.

And since Anders was NOT deserting from an army, this is relevant how, exactly?

It could serve to prove exactly how lenient the Circle really is when it comes to law enforcement and punishment.

I'd imagine that a prisoner escaping from a regular prison in Thedas would also get executed.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 13 décembre 2013 - 06:01 .

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Silfren wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Lucky for Anders he was a Harrowed mage, and therefore he could not by law be made Tranquil. IIRC Anders gave up willingly every time the Templars caught up to him. No doubt that played a part in why they were so lenient with him. It was only after the 7th escape that they punished him as severely as a year in solitary.

Someone caught deserting from an army would be hanged on the first attempt.

And since Anders was NOT deserting from an army, this is relevant how, exactly?

It could serve to prove exactly how lenient the Circle really is when it comes to law enforcement and punishment.

I'd imagine that a prisoner escaping from a regular prison in Thedas would also get executed.

Thedas is NOT one giant monolithic culture, no more than Europe is, so that's automatically invalid, sorry.  We do not know how the various cultures of Thedas all treat escaped prisoners.  You can "imagine" all you like, but without any evidence, it's completely pointless.

Beyond that, that certain groups may be excessively harsh toward prisoners doesn't make the Circle lenient, it just makes those other groups...excessively harsh.  Then again, I've always despised the argument of "hey, you could have it SOOOOOO much worse if you were with x!  I'm being LENIENT by THEIR standards!  You should be GRATEFUL for how lenient I am!"

[EmperorSahlertz]

Silfren wrote...

Thedas is NOT one giant monolithic culture, no more than Europe is, so that's automatically invalid, sorry.  We do not know how the various cultures of Thedas all treat escaped prisoners.  You can "imagine" all you like, but without any evidence, it's completely pointless.

No matter how you want to see it, Thedosian cultures are ALL medieval in nature. Medieval society was rarely kind and gentle to their prisoners. Usually they didn't even bother with imprisoning actually. They'd just put people pillory or a one way trip throug the hatch of the gallows. Actually hanging was not even that commonly used on lowly thiefs. Theifs for example would more often just be spiked outside the city gate and left to die a slow agonizing death as a warning to others. You can wish and want all YOU want for there to be some Thedosian society that have even a semblance of a modern approach to prison and prisoners, but until we see that, we should probably assume that Thedas is NOT a nice place to be imprisoned (especially  considering that 100% of the prisons we've seen ahve been horrible places).

Silfren wrote...

Beyond that, that certain groups may be excessively harsh toward prisoners doesn't make the Circle lenient, it just makes those other groups...excessively harsh.  Then again, I've always despised the argument of "hey, you could have it SOOOOOO much worse if you were with x!  I'm being LENIENT by THEIR standards!  You should be GRATEFUL for how lenient I am!"

And I particularly hate when people try and judge a culture or setting by modern standards. Especially when the setting or culture would have no notion of such standards, and it is highly unfair to expect them to live up to such standards.
The matter of fact is that the Circle probably IS the most lenient place in Thedas concerning recaptures, and the mages SHOULD be grateful for that. In general people SHOULD be happy that they are better off than someone else, since that put things into perspective. Otherwise you raise a generation of whiners and self-entitled brats. Somewhat like the mages of Thedas.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 13 décembre 2013 - 07:33 .

[Inprea]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
And I particularly hate when people try and judge a culture or setting by modern standards. Especially when the setting or culture would have no notion of such standards, and it is highly unfair to expect them to live up to such standards.
The matter of fact is that the Circle probably IS the most lenient place in Thedas concerning recaptures, and the mages SHOULD be grateful for that. In general people SHOULD be happy that they are better off than someone else, since that put things into perspective. Otherwise you raise a generation of whiners and self-entitled brats. Somewhat like the mages of Thedas.

So you have nothing to say against Uldred torturing the templars he captured and you would have nothing to say against the mages if they were to begin executing every templar leader they could get their hands on and impaling the templars in mass as a warning against further pursuit?

Really if you want to judge them by the ethics of ancient settings how do you even have anything against the mage rebellion? A group of people believe that the government is no longer seeing to their interest and they believe they have the power to either change or escape from that government. The typical method of change in such situtations is violence.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Inprea wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
And I particularly hate when people try and judge a culture or setting by modern standards. Especially when the setting or culture would have no notion of such standards, and it is highly unfair to expect them to live up to such standards.
The matter of fact is that the Circle probably IS the most lenient place in Thedas concerning recaptures, and the mages SHOULD be grateful for that. In general people SHOULD be happy that they are better off than someone else, since that put things into perspective. Otherwise you raise a generation of whiners and self-entitled brats. Somewhat like the mages of Thedas.

So you have nothing to say against Uldred torturing the templars he captured and you would have nothing to say against the mages if they were to begin executing every templar leader they could get their hands on and impaling the templars in mass as a warning against further pursuit?

Really if you want to judge them by the ethics of ancient settings how do you even have anything against the mage rebellion? A group of people believe that the government is no longer seeing to their interest and they believe they have the power to either change or escape from that government. The typical method of change in such situtations is violence.

I wouldn't like it., but I can't blame them for using the tactics that are prevalent in their time. I don't fault the Romans for having had gladiatorial combats for fun either, even though I don't like it. I am capable of understanding that it was a product of their time, just like my ideas and world view are a product of my time period.

And yes, I can certainly have something against the Mage Rebellion when the option for peaceful change was given to them IN the setting, yet they deliberately chose the violent way.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 13 décembre 2013 - 08:20 .

[Inprea]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I wouldn't like it., but I can't blame them for using the tactics that are prevalent in their time. I don't fault the Romans for having had gladiatorial combats for fun either, even though I don't like it. I am capable of understanding that it was a product of their time, just like my ideas and world view are a product of my time period.

And yes, I can certainly have something against the Mage Rebellion when the option for peaceful change was given to them IN the setting, yet they deliberately chose the violent way.

Because the templars were so willing to accept that peaceful change? Last I checked it was the Divine that had the final say on matters regarding the chantry and she accepted it when the circles said they were no long part of the chantry. The Circles say they are no longer part of the chantry and the chantry agrees. It's the templars that ignored the Divine's decision.

What kind of peaceful changes did the templars offer anyway? Who's standards are you using to judge if those changes were sufficient to address the mage's concerns? Are you using your standards to determine if those changes were sufficient or are you using the mage's standards?

[Hellion Rex]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And yes, I can certainly have something against the Mage Rebellion when the option for peaceful change was given to them IN the setting, yet they deliberately chose the violent way.

And what was the peaceful option? The Circles, as they were?

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Lucky for Anders he was a Harrowed mage, and therefore he could not by law be made Tranquil. IIRC Anders gave up willingly every time the Templars caught up to him. No doubt that played a part in why they were so lenient with him. It was only after the 7th escape that they punished him as severely as a year in solitary.

Someone caught deserting from an army would be hanged on the first attempt.

And since Anders was NOT deserting from an army, this is relevant how, exactly?

The mages are a bunch of entitled whiners who overly romanticize an harsh world that will only get harsher now that there are living hellgates capable of killing people with their mind as well as release demons upon the land and who have nothing but their own moral compass to restrain them walking around.

Am I supposed to be feeling sorry for people who live in some of the most luxurious locations in Thedas with their every need attended to and who can't legally be killed after a test while there are thedosians who, if they steal some grain to feed their starving families, will have their heads mounted atop pikes? Give me a break.

Modifié par MisterJB, 13 décembre 2013 - 09:09 .

[Lazy Jer]

Just read the OP.

I agree, actually.  The circle system as it was before this whole mage rebellion hullabaloo needed drastic reform.  The argument that mages had a better living then most peasants isn't universally true of all circles.  The circle in Fereldan looked nice enough, but who is to say that that's the case all around.  It's also outweighed  by the fact that a mage could be made Tranquil if those in charge decided they weren't strong enough to survive the Harrowing, and even mages who did pass the Harrowing were expected to live their entire lives in a Circle tower unless there was a blight or some other big world-shattering problem that would require liberal amounts of fireballs thrown at it.

There was too much power in the hands of the Knight-Commander and not nearly enough accountability.  There was no balance of power that would have put the Templars in check.  Now the Circle is broken up and the people who carry sticks around are at war with the people who wear buckets on their heads. 

[Lazy Jer]

MisterJB wrote...
The mages are a bunch of entitled whiners who overly romanticize an harsh world that will only get harsher now that there are living hellgates capable of killing people with theirs mind as well as release demons upon the land and who have nothing but their own moral compass to restrain them walking around.

Am I supposed to be feeling sorry for people who live in some of the most luxurious locations in Thedas with their every need attended to and who can't legally be killed after a test while there are thedosians who, if they steal some grain to feed their starving families, will have their heads mounted atop pikes? Give me a break.

First, "Most luxurious" is an exaggeration.  Second, if "every need" was being attended to then there wouldn't be so many of them trying to escape.  Third they can be legally killed after the Harrowing if they get caught reading the wrong book in front of the wrong person.    You don't have to feel sorry for the mages, that's your choice.  But that doesn't mean you have to exaggerate them into living the perfect life when a percentage of them are going to end up Tranquil without even having a choice in the matter. 

[MisterJB]

Lazy Jer wrote...
First, "Most luxurious" is an exaggeration. 

 "one of the most luxurious" And it is true. The confort of Ferelden's Circle is only matched by Eamon's palace.

Second, if "every need" was being attended to then there wouldn't be so many of them trying to escape.

As I said, mages overly romanticize the outside world; they don't actually realize how harsh it is. For instance, Adrian and Rhys; who, unlike Wynne, had little experience with it; couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that; unlike in the Circle; literacy is not universal.
So, they look to the outside world and think how great the people there must be having without Templars looking over their shoulders and fail to realize how, if you have a bad winter and your crops die, there is a good chance you'll starve while there is 0% chance the Chantry would let precious commodities die of hunger.

Third they can be legally killed after the Harrowing if they get caught reading the wrong book in front of the wrong person. 

No, it is forbidden for Templars to kill mages who have passed their Harrowing. Anders says so in DAA.
Meanwhile, all a Bann has to say is "off with his head" and there goes Joe the peasant.

But that doesn't mean you have to exaggerate them into living the perfect life when a percentage of them are going to end up Tranquil without even having a choice in the matter. 

Perfect? No but their living conditions are well above the average thedosian and they have the gall to start a revolution to improve them still knowing fully well how this will make the lives of the average thedosian ever harsher.

So, really, in the words of the wise Carver Hawke "Shove your plight". And that isn't meant a slight against you.

Modifié par MisterJB, 13 décembre 2013 - 09:31 .

[TEWR]

Meanwhile, all a Bann has to say is "off with his head" and there goes Joe the peasant.

Well, it was nice knowing my head while it lasted.

[Hellion Rex]

MisterJB wrote...

No, it is forbidden for Templars to kill mages who have passed their Harrowing. Anders says so in DAA.
Meanwhile, all a Bann has to say is "off with his head" and there goes Joe the peasant.

No. They are immune to Tranquility, not death.

Modifié par eluvianix, 13 décembre 2013 - 09:43 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Inprea wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I wouldn't like it., but I can't blame them for using the tactics that are prevalent in their time. I don't fault the Romans for having had gladiatorial combats for fun either, even though I don't like it. I am capable of understanding that it was a product of their time, just like my ideas and world view are a product of my time period.

And yes, I can certainly have something against the Mage Rebellion when the option for peaceful change was given to them IN the setting, yet they deliberately chose the violent way.

Because the templars were so willing to accept that peaceful change? Last I checked it was the Divine that had the final say on matters regarding the chantry and she accepted it when the circles said they were no long part of the chantry. The Circles say they are no longer part of the chantry and the chantry agrees. It's the templars that ignored the Divine's decision.

What kind of peaceful changes did the templars offer anyway? Who's standards are you using to judge if those changes were sufficient to address the mage's concerns? Are you using your standards to determine if those changes were sufficient or are you using the mage's standards?

Actually we have no idea what the Divine's official stance is on Circles being free of Chantry control. What she sanctioned was a metting that would discuss the cure for Tranquility. This meeting was hijacked by Fiona and Adrian and quickly took a direction that the Divine had not intended.
And initially the Divine had allowed the mages to meet and discuss what changes they would like to see in the Circle system. Peaceful change (this meeting was also interrupted though..).
And whatever the mages might have come up with, would of course ahve to be acknoweldge and approved by the Chantry before tehy could come to effect, which means that the mages would ahve to be reasonable in their demands. Again avoiding bloodshed. But the mages would have none of it.
Not that I think the Templars would ahve been jumping for joy about it either, but they would probably not ahve left the Chantry over it, nor begun a continent spanning war about it. They would howeer do so, if the mages were ever to leave the Chantry completely. Which the mages chose to do. So the Templars did too (admittedly the fact that the Divine betrayed them also played a role in the decission making).

eluvianix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And yes, I can certainly have something against the Mage Rebellion when the option for peaceful change was given to them IN the setting, yet they deliberately chose the violent way.

And what was the peaceful option? The Circles, as they were? 

I thought you had already read Asunder?

[MisterJB]

eluvianix wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

No, it is forbidden for Templars to kill mages who have passed their Harrowing. Anders says so in DAA.
Meanwhile, all a Bann has to say is "off with his head" and there goes Joe the peasant.

No. They are immune to Tranquility, not death.

I stand corrected.

[Hellion Rex]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I thought you had already read Asunder?

I have numerous times. I thought you were just referring to the Circles, in general. Yes, the mages chose to risk the violent path. But I honestly doubt Lambert was going to listen to their decisions at that conclave, regardless if they had discussed open war or not.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Lambert was willing to introduce the cure for Tranquility in a less tumultous political climate. He was not opposed to change. he just didn't want the entire system falling apart around his ears, because some mage didn't get his third meal that day..

[Hellion Rex]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Lambert was willing to introduce the cure for Tranquility in a less tumultous political climate. He was not opposed to change. he just didn't want the entire system falling apart around his ears, because some mage didn't get his third meal that day..

A bit of a generalization, no?

[EmperorSahlertz]

eluvianix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Lambert was willing to introduce the cure for Tranquility in a less tumultous political climate. He was not opposed to change. he just didn't want the entire system falling apart around his ears, because some mage didn't get his third meal that day..

A bit of a generalization, no?

Exageration promotes comprehension.

[MisterJB]

eluvianix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Lambert was willing to introduce the cure for Tranquility in a less tumultous political climate. He was not opposed to change. he just didn't want the entire system falling apart around his ears, because some mage didn't get his third meal that day..

A bit of a generalization, no?

Yes but whereas the mages of Kirkwall actually had valid complaints regarding how certain Templars; like Alrik; were not respecting the laws of the Circle, much of the rethoric employed by the mages in that conclave was based on the larger principle of freedom. Fiona gets downright self-rigtheous when she says that mages are done waiting for "the right thing" to be done.
Because she, of all people, has obviously discerned what is the right thing in this complex debate of freedom for some vs security for all.

Honestly, it seems to me there is a double standard here. Meredith is often deemed unfit to be a Knight-Commander because of how her sister killer her family plus over 70 people but Fiona's; who was raped by a non-mage; ability to be the Grand Enchanter is never brought into question.