196 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Granted it's been a while, but as I recall Alistair's only complaints about the Templars stemmed from his resentment for being sent there by Eamon, and his correct feeling that he was a poor fit, personality-wise. I don't remember him ever making a serious comment about their policies or duties either way.

I'm also having difficulty remembering a single organization outside the Grey Wardens that he doesn't mock, belittle, or whine about at least once.

He says explicitly in DA2 that he doesn't have the same feelings about mages that the Chantry does, which is presumably why he shelters fleeing apostates (assuming he doesn't declare the Circle freed).

[Master Warder Z_]

@MWZ

 

Will definitely have to check that out now.

 

Yeah it's a good fight not to mention all the background themes, Former National Socialist party member and Wehrmacht commander vs a product of a concentration camp.

 

They insult each other very brutally the entire fight, Red Skull doesn't even view Magneto as a person and mocks his parents, while on the other hand well...Magneto doesn't lose his cool easily but he did during that fight.

 

Forget the exact volume but it was during the AXIS Mundi days so its probably 82-83. In terms of years produced.

[AresKeith]

He says explicitly in DA2 that he doesn't have the same feelings about mages that the Chantry does, which is presumably why he shelters fleeing apostates (assuming he doesn't declare the Circle freed).

 

Which has nothing to do with him opposing the Templars

 

I don't have the same feelings about mages that the Chantry does, but I'm not against them or the Templars

[EmissaryofLies]

Uhm, i think either you slightly misunderstood his motives, or i misunderstood your meaning.

 

He sticks with pro-mage Hawke solely because of utter personal loyalty to that person, his overall views on magic doesn't change much. You'd be hard pressed to find many persons as devoted as him, for this kind of compromise to be anything more than exception.

 

Forgive if i misinterpreted your words.

 

His views do not change much. But you can convince him to fight for the mages using the pretense of the slavery argument iirc.

 

It's not that he's going to become some valiant crusader or raise his blade for mages ever again. But that such a thing was possible is magnificent. And I believe indicative of possible change.

[Master Warder Z_]

His views do not change much. But you can convince him to fight for the mages using the pretense of the slavery argument iirc.

 

It's not that he's going to become some valiant crusader or raise his blade for mages ever again. But that such a thing was possible is magnificent. And I believe indicative of possible change.

 

I strongly doubt it, Fenris seems pretty set in his ways.

 

I'm of the mind if he does it, he does it for Hawke.

 

Not the mages.

[EmissaryofLies]

I strongly doubt it, Fenris seems pretty set in his ways.

 

I'm of the mind if he does it, he does it for Hawke.

 

Not the mages.

 

Not for Fenris.

 

Just the simple aspect of taking someone who has more reasons than anyone alive in Thedas to hate mages and convincing him to defend the people he will always view with disdain, is in my opinion indicative of possible change; compromise.

 

The keyword being possible.

[Master Warder Z_]

Not for Fenris.

 

Just the simple aspect of taking someone who has more reasons than anyone alive in Thedas to hate mages and convincing him to defend the people he will always view with disdain, is in my opinion indicative of possible change; compromise.

 

The keyword being possible.

 

I suppose that principle is indicative of change in and of it self.

 

But i'd argue if you look for compromise overly, you ultimately weaken your own system of belief and values in favor of achieving an objective.

 

Is it better to be comfortable as an extremist set in his ways or a stock of cane twisting in the field along with the wind?

[AresKeith]

Not for Fenris.

 

Just the simple aspect of taking someone who has more reasons than anyone alive in Thedas to hate mages and convincing him to defend the people he will always view with disdain, is in my opinion indicative of possible change; compromise.

 

The keyword being possible.

 

But he only does it if you have high enough friendship/rivalry or if you bring up Slavery

 

He literally does it because of Hawke

[renfrees]

Not for Fenris.

 

Just the simple aspect of taking someone who has more reasons than anyone alive in Thedas to hate mages and convincing him to defend the people he will always view with disdain, is in my opinion indicative of possible change; compromise.

 

The keyword being possible.

Well, the one line might prove your point.

After Orsino's fight - "In times of desperation we are capable of anything". They keyword is we, not mages like usual.

[Xilizhra]

I suppose that principle is indicative of change in and of it self.

 

But i'd argue if you look for compromise overly, you ultimately weaken your own system of belief and values in favor of achieving an objective.

 

Is it better to be comfortable as an extremist set in his ways or a stock of cane twisting in the field along with the wind?

Ah, I never knew you supported me.

[TK514]

He says explicitly in DA2 that he doesn't have the same feelings about mages that the Chantry does, which is presumably why he shelters fleeing apostates (assuming he doesn't declare the Circle freed).

I assume this is with a freed Circle King? I'll have to youtube it and have a look.

[EmissaryofLies]

I suppose that principle is indicative of change in and of it self.

 

But i'd argue if you look for compromise overly, you ultimately weaken your own system of belief and values in favor of achieving an objective.

 

Is it better to be comfortable as an extremist set in his ways or a stock of cane twisting in the field along with the wind?

 

Good point.

 

But is it not better to hold your extremist or strong beliefs until after it is proven that compromise is impossible?

 

Why burn the bridge when you haven't tried to cross it yet?

 

@Ares Keith

 

I already mentioned as much. Hawke does convince him. But it seems that he fights with the mages against a common enemy, slavery. As I said even if he never does so again, he helps to prove that it's feasible even with the most anti-mage of individuals. Also, the fact that he works with an Apostate Hawke for almost a decade and does not betray him/her to the templars is of note.

[Master Warder Z_]

Good point.

 

But is it not better to hold your extremist or strong beliefs until after it is proven that compromise is impossible?

 

Why burn the bridge when you haven't tried to cross it yet?

 

A Fair point, but i have always been of the mind that compromise should be broached with caution, If you are applying it to the current Mage/Templar situation then the reasoning should be obvious.

 

If you are seeking to prevent greater Tragedy down the line then all methods done to acheive said goal should be done with out hesitation.

[EmissaryofLies]

A Fair point, but i have always been of the mind that compromise should be broached with caution, If you are applying it to the current Mage/Templar situation then the reasoning should be obvious.

 

If you are seeking to prevent greater Tragedy down the line then all methods done to acheive said goal should be done with out hesitation.

 

Oh most definitely. I do not use the term lightly. Which is why no one should deign to compromise until both parties know the exact meaning of it down to the last letter.

 

If you're completely pro-compromise, agreed.

 

Realistically, it isn't smart to completely throw compromise out of the window in favor of sating a bloodlust. Caution is indeed advised.

[Master Warder Z_]

Ah, I never knew you supported me.

 

Philosophically i support the right of the Individual to be firm in belief if they so choose.

 

Beyond that? No.

[Laughing_Man]

A Fair point, but i have always been of the mind that compromise should be broached with caution, If you are applying it to the current Mage/Templar situation then the reasoning should be obvious.

 

If you are seeking to prevent greater Tragedy down the line then all methods done to acheive said goal should be done with out hesitation.

 

Currently the situation can be summed up as SNAFU.

 

Some sort of change is needed. A continuation of the current system will lead to more abuse of the sorts we saw, will help to build a grudge in mages that will survive for generations at least until the next explosion, and will make Anders the terrorist into Anders the saint for most mages from this point on.

 

Caution is a virtue most of the time, but not when your caution is an investment in the next great slaughter down the line.

 

Some mages are bad, just like some non-mages are bad.

But treating innocents like they are guilty and abusing them, is a sure way to cause a tragedy.

[dragonflight288]

I have no problem with compromise, but I believe we should be firm in our principles and values. For example, I believe strongly in individual freedom and accountability. I would be willing to compromise a few things in the Circle system if somehow the mages had some capacity to have rights that other people take for granted like the right to have a family, get married, and not have their children taken away as the church's property, and the templars are held accountable if and when they abuse their authority.

 

Ultimately, achieving those two goals would limit Chantry and Templar control over mages, increase mages control over their own lives, and many people I've debated over the years feel that if this happened it would automatically mean a new Tevinter, even though it doesn't even eliminate the Circle system at all, merely is a reformation of it. 

[Laughing_Man]

I have no problem with compromise, but I believe we should be firm in our principles and values. For example, I believe strongly in individual freedom and accountability. I would be willing to compromise a few things in the Circle system if somehow the mages had some capacity to have rights that other people take for granted like the right to have a family, get married, and not have their children taken away as the church's property, and the templars are held accountable if and when they abuse their authority.

 

Ultimately, achieving those two goals would limit Chantry and Templar control over mages, increase mages control over their own lives, and many people I've debated over the years feel that if this happened it would automatically mean a new Tevinter, even though it doesn't even eliminate the Circle system at all, merely is a reformation of i

 

Indeed.

The main point is the need to recognise and differentiate between corrupt power-hungry criminal-mages, and the rest who just want what everyone else wants: to live and enjoy their lifes in relative peace. Oh, and to be left alone and not be abused and harrased by every religious fanatic out there.

[Master Warder Z_]

I have no problem with compromise, but I believe we should be firm in our principles and values. For example, I believe strongly in individual freedom and accountability. I would be willing to compromise a few things in the Circle system if somehow the mages had some capacity to have rights that other people take for granted like the right to have a family, get married, and not have their children taken away as the church's property, and the templars are held accountable if and when they abuse their authority.

 

Ultimately, achieving those two goals would limit Chantry and Templar control over mages, increase mages control over their own lives, and many people I've debated over the years feel that if this happened it would automatically mean a new Tevinter, even though it doesn't even eliminate the Circle system at all, merely is a reformation of it. 

 

Just as i have no issue with there being more controls placed upon the Circle or the Utter removal of the Chantry from the Equation. But ultimately the Templars either independent of the Chantry or no should remain a institution as they have.

 

I just believe Mages should be confined to the Tower the entirety of their lives unless if requested or summoned to serve a task, Mages should be given the right to have their own families, But connection with the outside world and their influence within it should be next to non existent unless if otherwise needed. Magical Domination may not be an immediate occurrence of having mages let loosed into the world, but it will occur as surely as the Imperium did occur.

 

The issue with the pro mage movement i find most often is, we have a very real case of Mages being given their freedom, of being treated as normal beings and them utterly dominating a society for a thousand plus years due to that tolerance.

 

It cannot be allowed to occur again.

[Xilizhra]

The issue with the pro mage movement i find most often is, we have a very real case of Mages being given their freedom, of being treated as normal beings them utterly dominating a society for a thousand plus years due to that tolerance.

I don't actually think that we've seen that ever.

[Master Warder Z_]

I don't actually think that we've seen that ever.

 

The Absence of Evidence is the evidence of Absence?

 

You know if the Imperium didn't exist.

 

That might actually work

[Xilizhra]

The Absence of Evidence is the evidence of Absence?

 

You know if the Imperium didn't exist.

 

That might actually work

The Imperium never treated mages as ordinary citizens; Darinius and his followers launched a coup after being bolstered with blood magic from Dumat or someone.

[Hellion Rex]

The Absence of Evidence is the evidence of Absence?

 

You know if the Imperium didn't exist.

 

That might actually work

Thing is, they have always had there freedom, so they're not exactly a viable example for what you were talking about.

[Laughing_Man]

The issue with the pro mage movement i find most often is, we have a very real case of Mages being given their freedom, of being treated as normal beings and them utterly dominating a society for a thousand plus years due to that tolerance.

 

Well, the issue with the anti-mage movement is: that it assumes that every mage is guilty without the chance to prove himself innocent.

Mages are capable of taking out their own trash like every other society.

 

Should the voices of reason between mages be allowed to be the ones who set the tone, I believe that a system can be created, both to police magical crimes, and to block eventualities like power hungry fools trying to ruin everyone's lives for the sake of their own twisted desires.

 

The particulars of said system are important, but more so is a real desire to achive a state of peaceful co-existance.

Checks and balances, a specialised police force, and a justice system are part of that.

[Master Warder Z_]

Thing is, they have always had there freedom, so they're not exactly a viable example for what you were talking about.

 

Actually they violently seized in it in a brutal coup but the point remains.

 

Unregulated Magic will seek dominion over normal people.

 

 

The Imperium never treated mages as ordinary citizens; Darinius and his followers launched a coup after being bolstered with blood magic from Dumat or someone.

 

It allowed the Mage position to exist with out a counterbalance to it, same thing in essence.