8640 réponses à ce sujet

[Mistic]

eluvianix wrote...

Misticsan wrote...
Oh, yeah, Korra. In fact, it's related to that issue about self-determination. In the Element Nations there weren't so many problems between benders and non-benders because they identified first as citizens form the Fire Nation, the Earth Kingdom or the Water Tribe, and then as benders or non-benders. Cue Republic City and its international citizenship and people start looking for other ways to identify themselves.

And when you had benders ruling the Council, the non-benders began to feel oppressed, and then Tarrlok had to screw it all up. Korra's situation actually is very analogous to this debate in some ways.

I agree. And there are even more similarities. "Blood bending", a forbidden technique who can be used to make other people do your bidding. There are no abominations, but the second season actually is about the villain trying to "tear" the barrier between the material world and the world of spirits. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

[Dean_the_Young]

dragonflight288 wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...
I'm glad you liked the link. And do not worry, while we Pro-Compromise people may be small in number we make up in spirit. 

I think most people consider themselves to be Pro-Compromise. I know I do but others would likely disagree with this assertion.

Probably, yeah. The only ones who wouldn't would be the Anti-Mage and Anti-Templar people. However a lot of people who want compromise want one side to budge a lot more than the other, thus giving birth to the Pro-Templar and Pro-Mage crowds. It's a spectrum with varying degrees, which is perfectly fine since that leads to discussion which creates new ideas which strengthens the idea as a whole.

Until said discussions turn into arguments as some people simply cannot perceive any idea of compromise happening successfully unless it is their ideas. For example, I once debated a pro-circle person who shall remain nameless at this time, and this person agreed to increase templar scrutiny, that is, scrutiny of the templars and hold them far more accountable that what has been presented, but their idea of what the mages should give up is the right to have children or even relationships. Period. Because apparently having a relationship was too much a temptation, would cause undue stress and apparently make mages easier to possess. 

I told them this wasn't true, and what started out as a good-natured debate quickly turned into "I'm right and you're wrong," on semantics and in-game lore, and we soon lost sight of our original discussion.

Who was that, if I might ask? It sounds similar to something else I've talked about, but not quite reflecting the position I hold (which is that if you're going to have a Circle, keep relationships inside it)..

[durasteel]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Hence why you needed to defend from any suspicion of insecurity. Oh, if only someone could predict you would do such a thing...

... what?

I am certainly predictable. If predicting I might do such a thing is step one, and step three is profit, I'm dyin' to hear about step two.

[durasteel]

Misticsan wrote...
... And there are even more similarities. "Blood bending", a forbidden technique who can be used to make other people do your bidding. There are no abominations, but the second season actually is about the villain trying to "tear" the barrier between the material world and the world of spirits. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Enough to make me think I might ought to go read a wiki.

Y'know what they say, there are no original stories, only original retellings of them.

[Hellion Rex]

Misticsan wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Misticsan wrote...
Oh, yeah, Korra. In fact, it's related to that issue about self-determination. In the Element Nations there weren't so many problems between benders and non-benders because they identified first as citizens form the Fire Nation, the Earth Kingdom or the Water Tribe, and then as benders or non-benders. Cue Republic City and its international citizenship and people start looking for other ways to identify themselves.

And when you had benders ruling the Council, the non-benders began to feel oppressed, and then Tarrlok had to screw it all up. Korra's situation actually is very analogous to this debate in some ways.

I agree. And there are even more similarities. "Blood bending", a forbidden technique who can be used to make other people do your bidding. There are no abominations, but the second season actually is about the villain trying to "tear" the barrier between the material world and the world of spirits. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Funny how all that stuff lines up.

[Hellion Rex]

durasteel wrote...

Misticsan wrote...
... And there are even more similarities. "Blood bending", a forbidden technique who can be used to make other people do your bidding. There are no abominations, but the second season actually is about the villain trying to "tear" the barrier between the material world and the world of spirits. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Enough to make me think I might ought to go read a wiki.

Y'know what they say, there are no original stories, only original retellings of them.

Oh, are you not familiar with blood blending? I can provide a link if you so desire.

[Master Warder Z_]

What's with all the Avatar discussion?

._. Thought this was a DA thread.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Misticsan wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Misticsan wrote...
Oh, yeah, Korra. In fact, it's related to that issue about self-determination. In the Element Nations there weren't so many problems between benders and non-benders because they identified first as citizens form the Fire Nation, the Earth Kingdom or the Water Tribe, and then as benders or non-benders. Cue Republic City and its international citizenship and people start looking for other ways to identify themselves.

And when you had benders ruling the Council, the non-benders began to feel oppressed, and then Tarrlok had to screw it all up. Korra's situation actually is very analogous to this debate in some ways.

I agree. And there are even more similarities. "Blood bending", a forbidden technique who can be used to make other people do your bidding. There are no abominations, but the second season actually is about the villain trying to "tear" the barrier between the material world and the world of spirits. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Well, I already have a huge thread about my opinion that the Reapers from Mass Effect were at least partially inspired by the Homunculi in Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood, so I would not be surprised if Korra partly inspired the Mage-Templar situation and the Veil Tears. 

[durasteel]

Misticsan wrote...
...
Ok, I think I have my solution for the Mage-Templar problem. Machine guns, refrigerators and television for all!

Demons can possess inanimate objects... while the demonic television seems pretty obvious, I am fascinated by the idea of a demonic refrigerator.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Master Warder Z wrote...

What's with all the Avatar discussion?

._. Thought this was a DA thread.

It is. We are saying how some things from one are similar to things from the other.

[Master Warder Z_]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

What's with all the Avatar discussion?

._. Thought this was a DA thread.

It is. We are saying how some things from one are similar to things from the other.

Parrels really shouldn't be discussed in threads with focused topics that don't even cover said parrels.

[durasteel]

eluvianix wrote...

Oh, are you not familiar with blood blending? I can provide a link if you so desire.

Definitely. I think you're talking about the Avatar animated series, right? I have no knowledge of it, never watched it. I've heard it's good.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Master Warder Z wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

What's with all the Avatar discussion?

._. Thought this was a DA thread.

It is. We are saying how some things from one are similar to things from the other.

Parrels really shouldn't be discussed in threads with focused topics that don't even cover said parrels.

But it does. Both situations are about the relationships between those with magical powers and those without. It's no different than referring to events in the real world.

[Master Warder Z_]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

What's with all the Avatar discussion?

._. Thought this was a DA thread.

It is. We are saying how some things from one are similar to things from the other.

Parrels really shouldn't be discussed in threads with focused topics that don't even cover said parrels.

But it does. Both situations are about the relationships between those with magical powers and those without. It's no different than referring to events in the real world.

In as i said before a thread that has NOTHING at all to do with said abilities.

[Mistic]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

But it does. Both situations are about the relationships between those with magical powers and those without. It's no different than referring to events in the real world.

I agree. This thread is about the Mage-Templar problem, ways of facing it and possible solutions. Since there are enough similarities with Avatar, it can give us new insight about the issue at hand without resorting to the typical "Mages are evil!" or "Templars are evil!".

durasteel wrote...

Misticsan wrote...
...
Ok, I think I have my solution for the Mage-Templar problem. Machine guns, refrigerators and television for all!

Demons
can possess inanimate objects... while the demonic television seems
pretty obvious, I am fascinated by the idea of a demonic refrigerator.

Now I want to see a demonic refrigerator... But don't worry, you can always use the machine gun to get rid of it!

More seriously, that's another matter: even if you take mages out of the equation, what do you do with those random possessions?

[Hellion Rex]

durasteel wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Oh, are you not familiar with blood blending? I can provide a link if you so desire.

Definitely. I think you're talking about the Avatar animated series, right? I have no knowledge of it, never watched it. I've heard it's good.

Yes. It is an amazing series.

Bloodbending is a sub-skill of waterbending.

[TheLittleBird]

Misticsan wrote...

durasteel wrote...

Misticsan wrote...
...
Ok, I think I have my solution for the Mage-Templar problem. Machine guns, refrigerators and television for all!

Demons
can possess inanimate objects... while the demonic television seems
pretty obvious, I am fascinated by the idea of a demonic refrigerator.

Now I want to see a demonic refrigerator... But don't worry, you can always use the machine gun to get rid of it!

More seriously, that's another matter: even if you take mages out of the equation, what do you do with those random possessions?

Put all inanimate objects in a well-guarded tower and invent some law that allows you to destroy everything inside when objects get possessed?

[Master Warder Z_]

Misticsan wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

But it does. Both situations are about the relationships between those with magical powers and those without. It's no different than referring to events in the real world.

I agree. This thread is about the Mage-Templar problem, ways of facing it and possible solutions. Since there are enough similarities with Avatar, it can give us new insight about the issue at hand without resorting to the typical "Mages are evil!" or "Templars are evil!".

durasteel wrote...

Misticsan wrote...
...
Ok, I think I have my solution for the Mage-Templar problem. Machine guns, refrigerators and television for all!

Demons
can possess inanimate objects... while the demonic television seems
pretty obvious, I am fascinated by the idea of a demonic refrigerator.

Now I want to see a demonic refrigerator... But don't worry, you can always use the machine gun to get rid of it!

More seriously, that's another matter: even if you take mages out of the equation, what do you do with those random possessions?

If they are within Humans or other setients with cognition? Execution seems the apporiate course, If they are within like a tree or rock or what have you.

I don't know avoid the area's they are within?

[Hellion Rex]

TheLittleBird wrote...

Put all inanimate objects in a well-guarded tower and invent some law that allows you to destroy everything inside when objects get possessed?

While that might destroy the containers, couldn't that theoretically release the demons as well?

[Master Warder Z_]

eluvianix wrote...

TheLittleBird wrote...

Put all inanimate objects in a well-guarded tower and invent some law that allows you to destroy everything inside when objects get possessed?

While that might destroy the containers, couldn't that theoretically release the demons as well?

This is why you invest in competent security *nods*

[dragonflight288]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...
I'm glad you liked the link. And do not worry, while we Pro-Compromise people may be small in number we make up in spirit. 

I think most people consider themselves to be Pro-Compromise. I know I do but others would likely disagree with this assertion.

Probably, yeah. The only ones who wouldn't would be the Anti-Mage and Anti-Templar people. However a lot of people who want compromise want one side to budge a lot more than the other, thus giving birth to the Pro-Templar and Pro-Mage crowds. It's a spectrum with varying degrees, which is perfectly fine since that leads to discussion which creates new ideas which strengthens the idea as a whole.

Until said discussions turn into arguments as some people simply cannot perceive any idea of compromise happening successfully unless it is their ideas. For example, I once debated a pro-circle person who shall remain nameless at this time, and this person agreed to increase templar scrutiny, that is, scrutiny of the templars and hold them far more accountable that what has been presented, but their idea of what the mages should give up is the right to have children or even relationships. Period. Because apparently having a relationship was too much a temptation, would cause undue stress and apparently make mages easier to possess. 

I told them this wasn't true, and what started out as a good-natured debate quickly turned into "I'm right and you're wrong," on semantics and in-game lore, and we soon lost sight of our original discussion.

Who was that, if I might ask? It sounds similar to something else I've talked about, but not quite reflecting the position I hold (which is that if you're going to have a Circle, keep relationships inside it)..

I'd rather not say as I respect this person a great deal and I don't want to provoke an argument. I simply wanted to add on to the previous point that most people are pro-compromise in some way, but sometimes we aren't as willing to compromise if it means giving up some of our own ideas.

They and I don't agree when it comes to mages and how they should be treated, but they do agree with me on many other non-magic related issues. 

I will say that they are a regular debater here, even in this thread. 

[Martyr1777]

I love how something that's hardly even given a thought in other fantasy settings (magic) is such an amazing hotbed when it comes to DA. Simply because the writers show a slightly more negative side to it.

You have the Tevinter Imperium that rules with an iron fist thanks to their magic making them more powerful. Then The risk of abominations and control of blood magic.

Suddenly you go from a mage in D&D being just a person with a different skill set to someone with some extreme depth. Do they need to be controlled, should they be given freedom, can they be trusted, etc...

The discussions of the mage vs templar situation on BSN are almost more entertaining then the actually items presented in game.

The simple fact of the matter is that Bioware has created something that has no solution (on purpose I'm sure). The tighter the templars squeeze the more the mages fight, the more they fight the tighter they squeeze. The circles are a good basic idea, but obviously it requires much oversight to prevent the templars having power trips. But the reality is oversight never truly works, not even in the real world, governments consistently fail at oversight.

So while compromise is a good thing and on paper it should work fine, in reality it fails. What we end up with is the irresistible force and unmovable object. Creates a terrible thought experiment but its awesome for keeping people intrigued in the setting. The unfortunate part comes back to the OP... I think the first 2 games did a very poor job of representing things in a meaningful way. However as others have mentioned Asunder did a much better job of it.

[Adanu]

Master Warder Z wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

The Baconer wrote...

Adanu wrote...
That's a laugh. They don't have total control? I dare you to find an instance where mages can come and go freely from the towers without the Templars permission.

Dairsmund? Maybe not the best example...

Wynne?

.-. Short list though i do admit and rightfully so.

Mages belong in the circle after all.

She has the permission of the Templars., try again.

Mmm Right.

I am certain the Templars were the one's who gave the Divine free reign to issue her that ridicious right to be able to traipse across Orlais with out even an escort.

._. So you try again.

Reluctant permission is still permission, and the Templars were still accountable to the Divine at the time.

Ignoring the context doesn't make you right.

Modifié par Adanu, 19 février 2014 - 12:12 .

[Master Warder Z_]

Adanu wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

Adanu wrote...

Master Warder Z wrote...

The Baconer wrote...

Adanu wrote...
That's a laugh. They don't have total control? I dare you to find an instance where mages can come and go freely from the towers without the Templars permission.

Dairsmund? Maybe not the best example...

Wynne?

.-. Short list though i do admit and rightfully so.

Mages belong in the circle after all.

She has the permission of the Templars., try again.

Mmm Right.

I am certain the Templars were the one's who gave the Divine free reign to issue her that ridicious right to be able to traipse across Orlais with out even an escort.

._. So you try again.

Reluctant permission is still permission, and the Templars were still accountable to the Divine at the time.

Ignoring the context doesn't make you right.

Ignoring context? Well considering one thing the Divine at the time was underminding the templars at every term she could its no small leap from there to her issuing such a decree with out even getting templar advisement on the issue before allowing said mage out of the circle.

I doubt the Templars issued anything relating to mages outside of a tower without premission otherwise personally, In the Blight it was a diffrent case and curcumstance but Premission was given not to mention she was tossed into the hand of a person who likely could kill a ramapaging abomination or two given what they just went through eh?

No such measure was present at this time, in fact the Divine gave her premission to recuirt further mages and again with out oversight travel to her private project.

Its presumption certainly, But then again so is the notion that the Templars had any say in the matter and gave premission when it wasn't requested in the first place.

[ShadowLordXII]

Martyr1777 wrote...

I love how something that's hardly even given a thought in other fantasy settings (magic) is such an amazing hotbed when it comes to DA. Simply because the writers show a slightly more negative side to it.

You have the Tevinter Imperium that rules with an iron fist thanks to their magic making them more powerful. Then The risk of abominations and control of blood magic.

Suddenly you go from a mage in D&D being just a person with a different skill set to someone with some extreme depth. Do they need to be controlled, should they be given freedom, can they be trusted, etc...

The discussions of the mage vs templar situation on BSN are almost more entertaining then the actually items presented in game.

The simple fact of the matter is that Bioware has created something that has no solution (on purpose I'm sure). The tighter the templars squeeze the more the mages fight, the more they fight the tighter they squeeze. The circles are a good basic idea, but obviously it requires much oversight to prevent the templars having power trips. But the reality is oversight never truly works, not even in the real world, governments consistently fail at oversight.

So while compromise is a good thing and on paper it should work fine, in reality it fails. What we end up with is the irresistible force and unmovable object. Creates a terrible thought experiment but its awesome for keeping people intrigued in the setting. The unfortunate part comes back to the OP... I think the first 2 games did a very poor job of representing things in a meaningful way. However as others have mentioned Asunder did a much better job of it.

Perhaps Asunder does grant a more even presentation, but I'm little skeptical about counting it against the main games considering that it screams of "Required Reading" or in tv tropes terms, "Explained in the Manuel". In short, the book seems more optional and supplemental to stuff that we've seen in the main games rather then superceding them in terms of "canon".

Take for instance "Stolen Throne" and "The Calling"...both are great stand-alone stories that also supplement information that we're given in DA: O and it's expansion, Awakening. But we don't need to read those books to understand why the Orlesian Occupation was bad or why Loghain is a complicated character, the games give us enough information.

Here, I get the impression that Asunder is retconning the origins of the Mage-Templar War after DAII explicitely stated that the Kirkwall Breakdown was the start of the conflict. Asunder essentially renders the struggles of Hawke as pointless in the overall picture since according to Asunder, all Hawke did was kick over a bucket of oil but someone else actually set it on fire.

Plus even Asunder falls prey to my original OP's sentiment because not only are the templars almost unanimously oppressive, but apparently the seekers, the organization meant to keep the templars in line, appear to be just as bad due to Lambert's understandable, but still zealous position on magic. I still see no reason why the Circle shouldn't break away from the Chantry considering how oppressive their executive branches are and how useless the Divine appears to be in the grand picture.

You know...the more that I think about it and trace the dots, the more that this whole conflict seems to be yet another magnificent failure on the part of the Chantry. Or it's probably just me.