645 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

What makes you think being a threat and holding a position are the same thing? They could have created a giant stone mountain and magic barrier around the whole part of the building, cut it off completely from the outside world, and wouldn't have posed a threat to anyone.

This false dichotomy you're pushing is really starting to get confusing.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

TK514 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

No, what I am saying is is that clearly the Templar Order didn't believe that what you dub as "threats" were at all dangerous. They judged the situation as not needing to use force. If the mages had been making threats against the Chantry, then they would have been completely justified if they had taken a more active approach. But the Codex gives us no indication that threats of violence were made.

I posit to you the same question I just asked DudeBro.  If the Mages posed no creditble threat, what was their bargaining position?  Why didn't anyone just walk over and drag them out like a bunch of four year olds who didn't want to do their chores.

Somehow, they had a strong enough bargaining position to convince everyone present to take them seriously enough NOT to simply walk over and spank them.

The codex implies that the Templars didn't think this was worth fighting a battle over (least of all in a holy site), and sympathized more with the mages than the priests. I think the fact that mages can be dangerous if attacked, even if all they're doing prior to this attack is a peaceful labor strike, was either also a factor or the whole problem. (Just because a group of Templars will probably win a fight against a group of mages doesn't mean that a fight with someone that dangerous is a good idea if there's other options.)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 14 février 2014 - 12:08 .

[Hellion Rex]

TK514 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

No, what I am saying is is that clearly the Templar Order didn't believe that what you dub as "threats" were at all dangerous. They judged the situation as not needing to use force. If the mages had been making threats against the Chantry, then they would have been completely justified if they had taken a more active approach. But the Codex gives us no indication that threats of violence were made.

I posit to you the same question I just asked DudeBro.  If the Mages posed no creditble threat, what was their bargaining position?  Why didn't anyone just walk over and drag them out like a bunch of four year olds who didn't want to do their chores.

Somehow, they had a strong enough bargaining position to convince everyone present to take them seriously enough NOT to simply walk over and spank them.

And why would they need to walk over and spank them? Heaven forbid the Templars and Chantry would actually want to listen to the mages, right?

Snark aside, I think the Templars at least were willing to listen and negotiate, unlike Ambrosia. The mages didn't need a stronger position other than the fact that the Chantry NEEDS the mages. The mages didn't have to do anything other than sit in loft, and make the Chantry sweat. They didn't need to threaten violence at all.

[TK514]

Darth Brotarian  wrote...
How does pretending that my stance was the one you proposed in your post benefit you? And again, you have failed to answer one of the biggest questions that I want to know.

What makes you think the mages demanded more then what the codex says they did? What makes you think they didn't just fortify their position and nothing else?

I argue that they fortified their position and were ready to hold out, you come in and say they wanted more in their demands then we know, I ask you how and point out that you seem to think that them fortifying their position means they were obviously being violent and demanding more things and that that is fallacious and ridiculous.

And then you try and say I think the mages didn't fortify their positions at all.

What are you?

what are you even talking about?  Where in anything I've said have I even mentioned 'what Mages want'. Their demands are entirely irrelevant to my point,.  I never said they asked for more than they did, because what they asked for doesn't't matter.  How they asked is what mattered.  My point is that a barricade you are unwilling to defend is not a barricade.  The people I was addressing originally wanted it to seem like these poor Mages just locked themselves in a room and that's it.  That doe not make sense.  If all they did was lock themselves in a room, there is zero incentive for anyone to negotiate with them.  They HAVE to pose a credible threat, either through active threat "give us X or we will Y" or through a willingness to defend their position with violence.  I never said they wanted anything than we know.  I said there is more to how they made their demands than is spelled out in a paragraph designed to make the Templars look tolerant and the Divine look like an idiot.

Modifié par TK514, 14 février 2014 - 12:08 .

[TK514]

eluvianix wrote...

And why would they need to walk over and spank them? Heaven forbid the Templars and Chantry would actually want to listen to the mages, right?

Snark aside, I think the Templars at least were willing to listen and negotiate, unlike Ambrosia. The mages didn't need a stronger position other than the fact that the Chantry NEEDS the mages. The mages didn't have to do anything other than sit in loft, and make the Chantry sweat. They didn't need to threaten violence at all.

NEEDS the Mages how?  At that point they were living matchsticks.  They performed a function that could have been done by any novitiate with flint and steel.

they weren't being used for anything else.  How is that a need?

edit: I hate posting from a tablet.  Looking back at these last few posts makes me cringe.

Modifié par TK514, 14 février 2014 - 12:15 .

[Master Warder Z_]

TK514 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

No, what I am saying is is that clearly the Templar Order didn't believe that what you dub as "threats" were at all dangerous. They judged the situation as not needing to use force. If the mages had been making threats against the Chantry, then they would have been completely justified if they had taken a more active approach. But the Codex gives us no indication that threats of violence were made.

I posit to you the same question I just asked DudeBro.  If the Mages posed no creditble threat, what was their bargaining position?  Why didn't anyone just walk over and drag them out like a bunch of four year olds who didn't want to do their chores.

Somehow, they had a strong enough bargaining position to convince everyone present to take them seriously enough NOT to simply walk over and spank them.

This is actually a decent point.

[Hellion Rex]

TK514 wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

And why would they need to walk over and spank them? Heaven forbid the Templars and Chantry would actually want to listen to the mages, right?

Snark aside, I think the Templars at least were willing to listen and negotiate, unlike Ambrosia. The mages didn't need a stronger position other than the fact that the Chantry NEEDS the mages. The mages didn't have to do anything other than sit in loft, and make the Chantry sweat. They didn't need to threaten violence at all.

NEEDS the Mages how?  At that point they were living matchsticks.  They performed a function that could have been done by any novitiate with flint and steel.

they weren't being used for anything else.  How is that a need?

edit: I hate posting from a tablet.  Looking back at these last few posts makes me cringe.

(About the tablet thing - trust me, I feel your pain.)

And yet, the fires remained unlit for 21 days, so clearly it's not something an "initiate could do".

What I am failing to understand is why we are attaching a connotation of violence to these negotiations. Why can't the mages peacefully protest without threats of violence, the Templars listen and negotiate, and leave it at that?

[SgtSteel91]

Because apparently the setting dictates that the heathens be burned at the stake for daring to occupy Walstreet the Grand Cathedral.

Modifié par SgtSteel91, 14 février 2014 - 12:25 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

This whole this is from a false dichotomy that someone here is trying to insist exist without backing from the codex.

[Master Warder Z_]

SgtSteel91 wrote...

Because apparently the setting dictates that the heathens be burned at the stake for daring to occupy Walstreet the Grand Cathedral.

Exactly.

It's an affront and again i am amazed that they weren't punished for it.

[Master Warder Z_]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

This whole this is from a false dichotomy that someone here is trying to insist exist without backing from the codex.

I believe my original point was that i was astounded that they weren't punished for commiting a crime which the very codex people are using to defend the Mages admitted they commited.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Master Warder Z wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

This whole this is from a false dichotomy that someone here is trying to insist exist without backing from the codex.

I believe my original point was that i was astounded that they weren't punished for commiting a crime which the very codex people are using to defend the Mages admitted they commited.

It's almost like they were trying to avoid an incident with the public as well as earn good will points from the mages by going through peaceful channels.

[TK514]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

This whole this is from a false dichotomy that someone here is trying to insist exist without backing from the codex.

i am astounded at how poor your reading comprehension is today.

[Master Warder Z_]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

This whole this is from a false dichotomy that someone here is trying to insist exist without backing from the codex.

I believe my original point was that i was astounded that they weren't punished for commiting a crime which the very codex people are using to defend the Mages admitted they commited.

It's almost like they were trying to avoid an incident with the public as well as earn good will points from the mages by going through peaceful channels.

Avoid incident from the Public?

The Very public that just suffered...it's first Blight, Its throw down with the Imperium and now annoying mages who seize a place of Holy Reverence and Worship?

You figure they would be as sick of the Mages by this point as the mages were being reduced to Flint Lighters.

And considering by this point the Imperium was pieces trying to place it self back together and basically universially depised by their very brutal reign through out "Thedas" the only public they could be trying to appease likely wouldn't care.

._. Perhaps brownie points from the mages was valid enough, No one wanted another war i guess but it still doesn't excuse what they did.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Master Warder Z wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

This whole this is from a false dichotomy that someone here is trying to insist exist without backing from the codex.

I believe my original point was that i was astounded that they weren't punished for commiting a crime which the very codex people are using to defend the Mages admitted they commited.

It's almost like they were trying to avoid an incident with the public as well as earn good will points from the mages by going through peaceful channels.

Avoid incident from the Public?

The Very public that just suffered...it's first Blight, Its throw down with the Imperium and now annoying mages who seize a place of Holy Reverence and Worship?

You figure they would be as sick of the Mages by this point as the mages were being reduced to Flint Lighters.

And considering by this point the Imperium was pieces trying to place it self back together and basically universially depised by their very brutal reign through out "Thedas" the only public they could be trying to appease likely wouldn't care.

._. Perhaps brownie points from the mages was valid enough, No one wanted another war i guess but it still doesn't excuse what they did.

Yeah, that public. I highly doubt any public would want to see their church stained with the blood of Templars and Mages since you know, mages are still people.

But at least you're willing to accept that the Templars were doing it to show the mages they weren't all heartless oppressors and were in fact willing to seek peaceful compromise.

[Hellion Rex]

Master Warder Z wrote...
._. Perhaps brownie points from the mages was valid enough, No one wanted another war i guess but it still doesn't excuse what they did.

What they did? Sitting in a choir loft and negotiating peaceably? Right.
<_<

[Hanako Ikezawa]

eluvianix wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...
._. Perhaps brownie points from the mages was valid enough, No one wanted another war i guess but it still doesn't excuse what they did.

What they did? Sitting in a choir loft and negotiating peaceably? Right.
<_<

It's Master Warden Z, eluvianix. A mage sneezing warrents the death penalty in his eyes because it might get a nonmage sick with the sniffles.

[Cainhurst Crow]

What did Warder Z even say originally? I didn't see his post.

[MisterJB]

eluvianix wrote...
And why would they need to walk over and spank them? Heaven forbid the Templars and Chantry would actually want to listen to the mages, right?

The Chantry did listen and reached an agreement. Now they are altering the terms of the agreement and I guess we should just pray they don't alter it any further.
Seriously, every time an agreement is reached, the mages just break it when they feel like it.

[Master Warder Z_]

eluvianix wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...
._. Perhaps brownie points from the mages was valid enough, No one wanted another war i guess but it still doesn't excuse what they did.

What they did? Sitting in a choir loft and negotiating peaceably? Right.
<_<

Illegal Seizure we covered this.

Punishable offense in our reality, But given its result i suppose i can understand consideration being given but it makes me ponder one thing.

If it was "peaceful" then when it require the loft to be barred for 21 straight days? 

What leverage did the Mages command to warrent the Templars or worse Seekers from breaking down the Attic with a Ballistia? Or You know just charging in there and gutting them all or dragging them out of there.

It's the implication i question more over the actual event it self i suppose.

[Silfren]

Master Warder Z wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

This whole this is from a false dichotomy that someone here is trying to insist exist without backing from the codex.

I believe my original point was that i was astounded that they weren't punished for commiting a crime which the very codex people are using to defend the Mages admitted they commited.

It's almost like they were trying to avoid an incident with the public as well as earn good will points from the mages by going through peaceful channels.

Avoid incident from the Public?

The Very public that just suffered...it's first Blight, Its throw down with the Imperium and now annoying mages who seize a place of Holy Reverence and Worship?

You figure they would be as sick of the Mages by this point as the mages were being reduced to Flint Lighters.

And considering by this point the Imperium was pieces trying to place it self back together and basically universially depised by their very brutal reign through out "Thedas" the only public they could be trying to appease likely wouldn't care.

._. Perhaps brownie points from the mages was valid enough, No one wanted another war i guess but it still doesn't excuse what they did.

.....They barricaded themselves inside the choir loft.  You're overstating things JUST a tad.

[Hellion Rex]

MisterJB wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
And why would they need to walk over and spank them? Heaven forbid the Templars and Chantry would actually want to listen to the mages, right?

The Chantry did listen and reached an agreement. Now they are altering the terms of the agreement and I guess we should just pray they don't alter it any further.
Seriously, every time an agreement is reached, the mages just break it when they feel like it.

I was being completely sarcastic. Ummm, we only have one agreement between the mages and anyone else, so it's only been broken once, and I believe both sides had a hand in shredding the Accord.

[Master Warder Z_]

MisterJB wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
And why would they need to walk over and spank them? Heaven forbid the Templars and Chantry would actually want to listen to the mages, right?

The Chantry did listen and reached an agreement. Now they are altering the terms of the agreement and I guess we should just pray they don't alter it any further.
Seriously, every time an agreement is reached, the mages just break it when they feel like it.

Heh i liked the reference.

And i agree with the underlining point.

[Silfren]

Master Warder Z wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...
._. Perhaps brownie points from the mages was valid enough, No one wanted another war i guess but it still doesn't excuse what they did.

What they did? Sitting in a choir loft and negotiating peaceably? Right.
<_<

Illegal Seizure we covered this.

Punishable offense in our reality, But given its result i suppose i can understand consideration being given but it makes me ponder one thing.

If it was "peaceful" then when it require the loft to be barred for 21 straight days? 

What leverage did the Mages command to warrent the Templars or worse Seekers from breaking down the Attic with a Ballistia? Or You know just charging in there and gutting them all or dragging them out of there.

It's the implication i question more over the actual event it self i suppose.

You can't possibly be serious. 

The mages locked themselves in the choir loft.  Obviously there was no violence because nothing in the codex suggests that the templars perceived them as a dangerous threat.  All they did--mages and non-mages both, apparently--was shout back and forth at each other.  The Divine was even discouraged by her templars from calling an Exalted March.  That indicates rather strongly and obviously that the mages had done absolutely NOTHING to warrant violence.

Modifié par Silfren, 14 février 2014 - 12:50 .

[Master Warder Z_]

Silfren wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

This whole this is from a false dichotomy that someone here is trying to insist exist without backing from the codex.

I believe my original point was that i was astounded that they weren't punished for commiting a crime which the very codex people are using to defend the Mages admitted they commited.

It's almost like they were trying to avoid an incident with the public as well as earn good will points from the mages by going through peaceful channels.

Avoid incident from the Public?

The Very public that just suffered...it's first Blight, Its throw down with the Imperium and now annoying mages who seize a place of Holy Reverence and Worship?

You figure they would be as sick of the Mages by this point as the mages were being reduced to Flint Lighters.

And considering by this point the Imperium was pieces trying to place it self back together and basically universially depised by their very brutal reign through out "Thedas" the only public they could be trying to appease likely wouldn't care.

._. Perhaps brownie points from the mages was valid enough, No one wanted another war i guess but it still doesn't excuse what they did.

.....They barricaded themselves inside the choir loft.  You're overstating things JUST a tad.

You don't think the location was the only reason the building wasn't basically smashed into rubble with the weapons of siegecraft?

._. They used the one place in the faith that they knew the Chantry and thus the Templars would hesistate to use force on.

Overstating things? Perhaps? Disliking that Exortion actually resulted in Mage victory? Very much so. That said i guess i approve of the end result well enough.