Ce sujet est fermé
Being pro-circle doesn't translate to being anti-mage or only selfish.
In the context of the war it almost does.
I hardly think the templars are going to be willing to sit down and talk about reformation and the Chantry is not in a position to, at least not at the moment.
I only support the mage rebellion because I see it as the more moral option. As for Vivienne... nothing at all, whatsoever, about her has struck me as remotely well-intentioned; she seems wholly selfish.
What about innovating the fashion industry? Setting trends, signifying looks? That's not selfish.
In the context of the war it almost does.
I hardly think the templars are going to be willing to sit down and talk about reformation and the Chantry is not in a position to, at least not at the moment.
If you're fighting a war, you need organisation and training. The Circles can provide that. The Templars and the Chantry aren't an inherently necessary part of the Circles.
Being pro-circle doesn't translate to being anti-mage or being only selfish.
Then let me say that I haven't met a single character in-universe who was not the former without being either of the latter by the end of Asunder, when the lines are drawn in full.
I only support the mage rebellion because I see it as the more moral option. As for Vivienne... nothing at all, whatsoever, about her has struck me as remotely well-intentioned; she seems wholly selfish.
I don't deny you see it as the more moral option. I do deny that you have demonstrated any consistent measure or approach to the factors or application of what you see as moral: you have outright put immoral people who committed needless and unwanted atrocities in the name of a cause you like over simply immoral people who have committed no such crimes.
You are about as loyal to any measure of morality as water is to any state of matter.
If you're fighting a war, you need organisation and training. The Circles can provide that. The Templars and the Chantry aren't an inherently necessary part of the Circles.
Agreed.
Xil, you lost any claim to objective standards long ago after years of placing factional and tribal concerns over any semblance of objective moral judgements.
You treat Vivienne like many white liberals treat black (or gay) conservatives.
If by 'didn't initiate' you mean 'totally was the one pushing it all forward, despite nearly universal opposition', sure.
If she doesn't agree with the war in the first place then she shouldn't support it more now that it started, not if she sees a better solution (which presumably she sees the Inquisition as). I think I actually read comments from the devs that Vivienne is concerned for the welfare of mages and is going to be the voice of sympathy for them in the narrative.
I also am pretty sure David Gaider once commented somewhere (twitter maybe?) that anyone who sees mages in general as ticking time bombs is not going to get along with Vivienne.
Xil dislikes Vivienne's stance on the mage rebellion, just like some pro-templar fans dislike Thrask's stance on the templars and the mages. Some of us view the status quo of the Chantry controlled Circles as ethically reprehensible.
Xil's dislike against Vivienne goes beyond Vivienne's stance on the mage rebellion: Xil's dislike is also based on an expectation of what Vivienne should be as a female mage.
Xil has consistently expressed far less antagonism against people uninterested in the mage rebellion, and even people actively opposed to said rebellion, than she has to someone who defies her belief of what a female mage should believe.
Given that Merrill studied the lore on the Eluvians and extrapolated information from the shard, she was more informed than anyone else in Dragon Age II about their potential.
And yet remained extremely ignorant.
I don't deny you see it as the more moral option. I do deny that you have demonstrated any consistent measure or approach to the factors or application of what you see as moral: you have outright put immoral people who committed needless and unwanted atrocities in the name of a cause you like over simply immoral people who have committed no such crimes.
You are about as loyal to any measure of morality as water is to any state of matter.
I think the big issue is that we disagree on what's necessary. I also believe in rehabilitation, and that those with good intentions will adapt to it more readily than those without.
Xil has consistently expressed far less antagonism against people uninterested in the mage rebellion, and even people actively opposed to said rebellion, than she has to someone who defies her belief of what a female mage should believe.
Your premise would require that I show tremendous antagonism towards Hadriana and Wynne, each for different reasons.
I don't deny you see it as the more moral option. I do deny that you have demonstrated any consistent measure or approach to the factors or application of what you see as moral: you have outright put immoral people who committed needless and unwanted atrocities in the name of a cause you like over simply immoral people who have committed no such crimes.
You are about as loyal to any measure of morality as water is to any state of matter.
Favoring characters who want to free the mages from subjugation is going to cast them in a different light than characters who support a status quo that some of us find incredibly toxic.
I really don't think you understand what is being said here.
Seems to be some sort of bizarre therapy session.
Xil's dislike against Vivienne goes beyond Vivienne's stance on the mage rebellion: Xil's dislike is also based on an expectation of what Vivienne should be as a female mage.
Xil has consistently expressed far less antagonism against people uninterested in the mage rebellion, and even people actively opposed to said rebellion, than she has to someone who defies her belief of what a female mage should believe.
And yet remained extremely ignorant.
I've gotten the impression, so far, that Vivienne supports the Chantry controlled Circles, which is when she had power at court, and was elected First Enchanter.
There was not an option for Vivienne to rise to power in a Circle not controlled by the Chantry, so I don't believe her election is any more incriminating or indicative of her stance than any other mage who has risen within the Circle.
Also, I wouldn't say that her power in the court is attributed to the Chantry. The description states that some sought to restrict her power, and we know that the Chantry does not control the court and is in fact a player itself. She could easily be a threat to them. After all, her power put her in the perfect position to advocate Circle reform in a non-destructive way.
I think the big issue is that we disagree on what's necessary. I also believe in rehabilitation, and that those with good intentions will adapt to it more readily than those without.
Your concept of rehabilitation and good intentions is little more than agreeing with you and whatever cause of the hour you have identified with.
Your premise would require that I show tremendous antagonism towards Hadriana and Wynne, each for different reasons.
Not at all. Wynn and Hadriana act and compose themselves significantly closer to how you feel female mages should appropriately act.
I really don't think you understand what is being said here.
You mean I'm not framing it in a matter that vilifies Xil for having an opinion that differs from yours?
Nope. You just show no signs of grasping the concept being raised.
I'm not seeing the issue. Vivienne may very well surprise us all and show us layers that we didn't expect, but I don't see the issue with Xil disliking Vivienne do far.
As I said- you aren't understanding what's going on above your head. Carry on as you will regardless- you tend to do that.
Hawke is certainly ignorant about the Eluvians, but he's a human who knows virtually nothing about the plight of the People. Merrill, in contrast, says the Eluvians can help the People. She's performed extensive research. She's more informed about their potential than anyone else in the narrative of Kirkwall.
Her research...was more like fumbling in the dark. She was working on a lot of "if's" and "maybe's", since not much of the Eluvian lore still exists.
As I said- you aren't understanding what's going on above your head. Carry on as you will.
Rather dismissive, don't you think?
As I said- you aren't understanding what's going on above your head. Carry on as you will.
Your concept of rehabilitation and good intentions is little more than agreeing with you and whatever cause of the hour you have identified with.
There are bizarrely few chances to really do anything more than that in Bioware games. With the possible exception of Isabela's rivalry path.
Not at all. Wynn and Hadriana act and compose themselves significantly closer to how you feel female mages should appropriately act.
I don't know, I think you're retrofitting your perceptions so that they fit your impromptu psych profile.
Actually, there are two big reasons I dislike Vivienne aside from politics. One is that her description makes her sound like she's insufferably smug about everything, including blatant classism and her idiotic fashion. The other is that she's a companion and I'll have to deal with this personally. Fenris was anti-mage, but he at least wasn't outright malevolent about it and it was mostly a side effect of his traumatic past; I found him more understandable than almost any templar in that game, at least.
Wow this thread is almost as bad off as the 'Sera' thread currently is. Maybe just as bad, didn't read all of this one.
See BioWare... as I said before... we need moar info!
please
Perhaps try a little free association?
Her research...was more like fumbling in the dark. She was working on a lot of "if's" and "maybe's", since not much of the Eluvian lore still exists.
Retour en haut