Whever he does, I can't take the rest of his post serious anymore.
No, she was there and a lead voice in the abolishment of the Circles. That said, all she did was have them vote.
Breaking the directive of the Divine to vote on a subject that resulted in the closing of Cumberland; She knew she was egging on the Chantry and Templars didn't care.
The refusal to hand over a murder suspect, and her attitude didn't help much either.
Taint warped her brain.
Ummm, she was in Asunder....
I was lead to believe the very start of the Mage/Templar war was what happeend with Kirkwall, which takes place a year before Asunder, so....
I really don't give the Circle credit for any of those, since the Qunari was a joint effort with many factions, the Blights were stopped by the Grey Wardens, and the Imperium is still led my mages.
The Circle aided during all of those events.
In some more then others, but they were there for all.
In most they were a critical factor and i can tell you this the Second and third exalted march only worked because of those Mages. Well for the second worked i guess is subjective but it did cripple the Imperium to the point is today, Surrounded on all sides by folks that don't care much for it i mean.
I was lead to believe the very start of the Mage/Templar was what happeend with Kirkwall, which takes place a year before Asunder, so....
Nah that just shook the system a bit, Asunder was where it resulted in the dissolving of the Accord, the Circle System going Defunt and the Chantry going to pot.
The Circle aided during all of those events.
In some more then others, but they were there for all.
In most they were a critical factor and i can tell you this the Second and third exalted march only worked because of those Mages. Well for the second worked i guess is subjective but it did cripple the Imperium to the point is today, Surrounded on all sides by folks that don't care much for it i mean.
They helped, yes. But I mean I don't go "The Blight was stopped by the Circle." or "The Circle was responsible for repelling the Qunari." More like "The Circle was a big part in repelling the Qunari."
And true, they did at least alienate the magisters from the rest of non-Tevinter society.
*sigh* isn't it agreeed that "Everyone is at fualt and all to blame"
The mages didn't help there cause cause of all the issues they have of running away disobeying the templars and all that.
Then you have the Templars who kept tighting the noose arounf the mages neck and freedom's. (Acording to DA2, Mages had a bit of freedom and could leave the circle once in awhile.)
Then the Chantry of trying to play peacekeeper but not having good enough reigns on the Templars.
Not really sure what role the Seekers would have on this whole issue considering they are mainly an investagave branch not a miltry or policy police force.
Nah that just shook the system a bit, Asunder was where it resulted in the dissolving of the Accord, the Circle System going Defunt and the Chantry going to pot.
Ah, well, even so, wouldn't you put more blame on that rather than Fiona? Considering it lead up to it? Or no?
Nah that just shook the system a bit, Asunder was where it resulted in the dissolving of the Accord, the Circle System going Defunt and the Chantry going to pot.
Asunder is basically when the war became an official one while Kirkwall was the first battle of it when it was unofficial.
*sigh* isn't it agreeed that "Everyone is at fualt and all to blame"
The mages didn't help there cause cause of all the issues they have of running away disobeying the templars and all that.
Then you have the Templars who kept tighting the noose arounf the mages neck and freedom's. (Acording to DA2, Mages had a bit of freedom and could leave the circle once in awhile.)
Then the Chantry of trying to play peacekeeper but not having good enough reigns on the Templars.
Not really sure what role the Seekers would have on this whole issue considering they are mainly an investagave branch not a miltry or policy police force.
The Seekers exist as a check and balance to the Templars, keeping them in line. So in a way, a lot of the blame falls on the Seeker Order (Lambert)
Ah, well, even so, wouldn't you put more blame on that rather than Fiona? Considering it lead up to it? Or no?
You are talking to a person who hates both mages and elves. So when there is an elven mage, they are immediately to blame for everything. 
Ah, well, even so, wouldn't you put more blame on that rather than Fiona? Considering it lead up to it? Or no?
It shook things up, yes. All it did was speed up a rebellion that was already inevitable.
Asunder is basically when the war became an official one while Kirkwall was the first battle of it when it was unofficial.
Thank you (and Master Warder Z_) for clearing that up for me!
The Seekers exist as a check and balance to the Templars, keeping them in line. So in a way, a lot of the blame falls on the Seeker Order (Lambert)
I really don't see that considering there weren't many events for him to bother with resolving there weren't resolved one way or another anyway.
Thank you (and Master Warder Z_) for clearing that up for me!
No problem. 
A way I always look at it, not sure how much this will help you, is comparing the starts to he starts of the American Revolutionary War.
First Battle = Lexington and Concord = Kirkwall
Official Start = Signing Declaration of Independence = Abolishment of Circle of Magi
You are talking to a person who hates both mages and elves. So when there is an elven mage, they are immediately to blame for everything.
Not hate!
Just views them as the comedic relief.
There is no analogue for mages in the real world. We can't approach this problem as if mages were SIMPLY people.
They are people with an innate capacity beyond everyone else. By definition, they are not equal to non-mages.
There is no analogue for mages in the real world. We can't approach this problem as if mages were SIMPLY people.
They are people with an innate capacity beyond everyone else. By definition, they are not equal to non-mages.
Finally some sense spoken in the thread.
Hastings wasn't luck.
But that isn't here or there.
The Normans carried the day because there were more of them, they were better trained, better equipped and William actually knew how to fight.
Oh and he didn't die like Harold that tends to help
I'm not saying William wasn't good. No one can ride through an army in full route and rally them to turn and face the enemy, but he did it. He was better than good, his entire life. He was an amazing commander.
But damn, was he ever lucky.
The English Channel wind in 1066 delayed its seasonal shift for months, keeping William's forces in France while allowing Hardrada to invade from the North, forcing Harold Godwinson to force march north to meet them at Stamford Bridge. Then the wind shifted and William was able to tear through Essex while Godwinson was still force marching back with the Huscarls. The battle of Hastings was forced before the full force of Godwinson's Saxons had made it South, because the idiot Edward the Confessor had installed Normans as Lords of March on the Welsh border, and they had picked a fight such that Wessex was being razed by the Welsh as much as Essex was being razed by the Normans.
That said, no one can take away from William's inspired tactics or his ultimately very effective use of indirect fire from his archers. They say it's better to be lucky than good, but he would have died Duke of Normandy if he hadn't been both, in huge amounts.
Edit: Also, I don't agree that the Normans were better equipped than the Saxons. While the Normans' mail was certainly superior for cavalry, the heavier brigandine of the Saxons was very effective for heavy infantry, and those bearded axes were brutal the few times that the Norman cavalry got into their line.
Modifié par durasteel, 28 février 2014 - 02:40 .
There is no analogue for mages in the real world. We can't approach this problem as if mages were SIMPLY people.
They are people with an innate capacity beyond everyone else. By definition, they are not equal to non-mages.
I'm pretty sure no one was actually arguing that everyone is the same.
I'm pretty sure no one was actually arguing that everyone is the same.
Then the Circle is a perfectly justifiable system, though it needs tweaking.
Then the Circle is a perfectly justifiable system.
As is Tevinter's magocracy (minus slavery), if you want to go that route.
No problem.
A way I always look at it, not sure how much this will help you, is comparing the starts to he starts of the American Revolutionary War.
First Battle = Lexington and Concord = Kirkwall
Official Start = Signing Declaration of Independence = Abolishment of Circle of Magi
That's a really great way of looking at it, thank you 
Then the Circle is a perfectly justifiable system, though it needs tweaking.
Do you think they deserve a bit more freedom, or no?
Along with not having a Templar party member (Alistair doesn't count as he was almost a Templar before being recruited), another thing that makes the presentation one sided is that we never see the abuses by the Templars. We're told about the mages being made tranquil, and yes there was Carl, but he was the only one. There was never a big Templar screw up like the Circle tower in Ferelden or any outward signs of corrupted Templars in Kirkwall. We know Meredith is going crazy because of the idol, but that's it. All other instances of Templars being bad can be traced to "the mages made us do it!"
Also we never get to see the good side of an apostate NPC that isn't tied to the main character. Just something to show the positive of living outside of the Circle for mages and the negatives of Templars having both de facto and de jour authority over the mages.
Most of the PC mages are "Good Guy" mages. I would personally say the Templars are portrayed far worse in the games than the mages are, which is the issue. They didn't need to go as overboard with the Templar wrongs to make their point, but I am afraid they went so overboard with trying to portray mages as stupidly bad they had to in order to some how balance it out. The templars are going to look bad by the point of what they do. Whether it needs doing or not, they are taking mages freedom away, that will make them look bad and unsympathetic, they should have pulled it off with some templar abuses, but not to degree they did in DA 2, but once they went so crazy stupid overboard in their treatment of mages, they didn't have any choice.
I'm not saying William wasn't good. No one can ride through an army in full route and rally them to turn and face the enemy, but he did it. He was better than good, his entire life. He was an amazing commander.
But damn, was he ever lucky.
The English Channel wind in 1066 delayed its seasonal shift for months, keeping William's forces in France while allowing Hardrada to invade from the North, forcing Harold Godwinson to force march north to meet them at Stamford Bridge. Then the wind shifted and William was able to tear through Essex while Godwinson was still force marching back with the Huscarls. The battle of Hastings was forced before the full force of Godwinson's Saxons had made it South, because the idiot Edward the Confessor had installed Normans as Lords of March on the Welsh border, and they had picked a fight such that Wessex was being razed by the Welsh as much as Essex was being razed by the Normans.
That said, no one can take away from William's inspired tactics or his ultimately very effective use of indirect fire from his archers. They say it's better to be lucky than good, but he would have died Duke of Normandy if he hadn't been both, in huge amounts.
Edit: Also, I don't agree that the Normans were better equipped than the Saxons. While the Normans' mail was certainly superior for cavalry, the heavier brigandine of the Saxons was very effective for heavy infantry, and those bearded axes were brutal the few times that the Norman cavalry got into their line.
Did you seriously just bring up Calvary in a discussion about Hastings?
For Harold's side nonetheless?
Your talking to some one who's forebears were supposedly there...For the winning side >_>
I wish it could be confirmed.
Would be neat to add Lord of Montfort to the list of titles and legacies that would adorn my brow if fate had been kinder to those who had won them and their decedents. o_o Still despite that fact, I have educated myself upon the battle for novelty if nothing else.
Finally some sense spoken in the thread.
So then you admit that you have been speaking nonsense. 
Retour en haut