1305 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

A moderate is a character who can look at the situation without biased or extreme viewpoints and come out with a viewpoint that can be on one side for completely valid reasons.

 

Take Greagoir for instance, he is an experienced and long serving Knight-Commander who runs his branch with a firm, yet fair hand. He doesn't have an personal malice against mages and views their magic as both a gift and curse. He understands and accepts the full danger that unchecked magic can have on the general populace and serves the order to protect said populace. Yet, he won't pursue mages without just cause, will call off the Right of Annullment once Uldred's rebellion is put down, and has a grudging respect for some mages such as Irving, Wynne and any other mage who controls and uses their power responsibly.

 

But moderation in a conflict like the Mage-Templar Conflict is probably very difficult considering how that war is a symptom of many layers of inherent problems with the Circle System and the Chantry itself. There may not even be room for a moderate who hasn't been persuaded to throw all in for one side or another. Even Vivienne, a mage who opposes the mage rebelliion, appears to be a pro-chantry mage which makes her very likely to sympathize with templars.

 

I would like to add something.

 

In Vivienne's case, it doesn't matter what her politics is as of Asunder. Merely the fact that she's a mage dictates where she will or will not stand by the extremists who make policy.

 

For example, Lambert declared the Nevarran Accord void. There is no Circle system any more and all mages are now apostates in the eyes of templars and seekers like Lambert. Therefore it's a death sentence just to be found by these particular templars, even if that view isn't shared by other templars.

 

Whereas in the case of Fiona or Adrian, simply being a mage MUST mean that you have to be on their side because the templars who left the chantry won't care at all if the mage they're hunting is a libertarian or a loyalist. They are a mage and therefore a danger. End of story. So mages MUST rally behind them for protection of some sort.

 

Adrian didn't care if other mages disagreed, she didn't care that she framed Rhys for Pharamond's murder. All she cared about was forcing the result of the mages being forced to fight for the lives simply because they're mages. And Lambert was more than happy to fall into that mindset and justify the mages leaving.

 

Sometimes, being a moderate means next to nothing because the extremists around you will force you to choose a side, whether you wish it or not.

[GVulture]

I'm sure that the Chantry controlled Circles have no method of detection, but the scene was clearly intended to show that Merrill is discerning whether or not there were any "demons" in Kerran's blood.

 

And it wouldn't be the first time that someone pointed out an aspect of Dragon Age II that Gaider wasn't personally familiar with (since he isn't the only writer), since he wasn't even aware of the scene with Hawke talking about his mother being with the Maker.

Yes, but it is within Merrill's character to think she knew everything. Even Anders proposed that his test wasn't conclusive, it would not be out of character for Merrill to pronounce her verdict infallible and still have her be wrong.

[Hellion Rex]

Gaider said there is no way to detect possession.  Xil has sited it often to prove her point about the mages in Kirkwall that were spared had to be tranquiled and so weren't really spared.  Between Gaider and Merril, I will just have to go with merril being wrong, that is the only conclusion I can come to. It isn't a retcon on Gaiders part as it was after DA2 came out.

Except that Merrill did do it. My guess is that the Circles have no way to detect it, but Merrill was able to use blood magic, something the Circles would never use.

[Master Warder Z_]

I'm sure that the Chantry controlled Circles have no method of detection, but the scene was clearly intended to show that Merrill is discerning whether or not there were any "demons" in Kerran's blood.

 

And it wouldn't be the first time that someone pointed out an aspect of Dragon Age II that Gaider wasn't personally familiar with (since he isn't the only writer), since he wasn't even aware of the scene with Hawke talking about his mother being with the Maker.

 

Or WOG retconned that scene.

 

Eitherway it was a one time usage by a blood mage, not really applicable for the circle anyway.

[Hellion Rex]

Yes, but it is within Merrill's character to think she knew everything. Even Anders proposed that his test wasn't conclusive, it would not be out of character for Merrill to pronounce her verdict infallible and still have her be wrong.

And yet, she was right. Her character has nothing to do with it.

[Master Warder Z_]

I would like to add something.

 

In Vivienne's case, it doesn't matter what her politics is as of Asunder. Merely the fact that she's a mage dictates where she will or will not stand by the extremists who make policy.

 

For example, Lambert declared the Nevarran Accord void. There is no Circle system any more and all mages are now apostates in the eyes of templars and seekers like Lambert. Therefore it's a death sentence just to be found by these particular templars, even if that view isn't shared by other templars.

 

Whereas in the case of Fiona or Adrian, simply being a mage MUST mean that you have to be on their side because the templars who left the chantry won't care at all if the mage they're hunting is a libertarian or a loyalist. They are a mage and therefore a danger. End of story. So mages MUST rally behind them for protection of some sort.

 

Adrian didn't care if other mages disagreed, she didn't care that she framed Rhys for Pharamond's murder. All she cared about was forcing the result of the mages being forced to fight for the lives simply because they're mages. And Lambert was more than happy to fall into that mindset and justify the mages leaving.

 

Sometimes, being a moderate means next to nothing because the extremists around you will force you to choose a side, whether you wish it or not.

 

This is one of those odd scenario's in which we agree.

[wcholcombe]

Vivienne is more Pro-Circle than pro-chantry

Actually, we have no idea on her chantry stance.  Though being an imperial enchanter, one might assume she is pro chantry. In truth we don't know only that she opposes the mage rebellion.

[Master Warder Z_]

Actually, we have no idea on her chantry stance.  Though being an imperial enchanter, one might assume she is pro chantry. In truth we don't know only that she opposes the mage rebellion.

 

Fiona killed her puppy.

[Hellion Rex]

Fiona killed her puppy.

I'm still more scared of Viv than Fiona lol

[LobselVith8]

Or WOG retconned that scene.

 

Eitherway it was a one time usage by a blood mage, not really applicable for the circle anyway.

 

How exactly is WOG going to recton a scene that we witnessed? Merrill checked Kerran's blood to detect if there were any "demons", and she saw that there weren't any. It's getting a little ridiculous now that we're blatantly ignoring an actual scene from Dragon Age II.

[AresKeith]

Actually, we have no idea on her chantry stance.  Though being an imperial enchanter, one might assume she is pro chantry. In truth we don't know only that she opposes the mage rebellion.

 

It was already mentioned that she was pro-Circle (though she could also be pro-chantry) and she doesn't support the Mage Rebellion

[wcholcombe]

I would like to add something.

 

In Vivienne's case, it doesn't matter what her politics is as of Asunder. Merely the fact that she's a mage dictates where she will or will not stand by the extremists who make policy.

 

For example, Lambert declared the Nevarran Accord void. There is no Circle system any more and all mages are now apostates in the eyes of templars and seekers like Lambert. Therefore it's a death sentence just to be found by these particular templars, even if that view isn't shared by other templars.

 

Whereas in the case of Fiona or Adrian, simply being a mage MUST mean that you have to be on their side because the templars who left the chantry won't care at all if the mage they're hunting is a libertarian or a loyalist. They are a mage and therefore a danger. End of story. So mages MUST rally behind them for protection of some sort.

 

Adrian didn't care if other mages disagreed, she didn't care that she framed Rhys for Pharamond's murder. All she cared about was forcing the result of the mages being forced to fight for the lives simply because they're mages. And Lambert was more than happy to fall into that mindset and justify the mages leaving.

 

Sometimes, being a moderate means next to nothing because the extremists around you will force you to choose a side, whether you wish it or not.

Well the new reveal about Viviene appears she is still loyal to Celene after the events in DAI start.

 

http://blog.bioware....rial-enchanter/

[Master Warder Z_]

How exactly is WOG going to recton a scene that we witnessed? Merrill checked Kerran's blood to detect if there were any "demons", and she saw that there weren't any. It's getting a little ridiculous now that we're blatantly ignoring an actual scene from Dragon Age II.

 

I am referring that Gaider stated it after the game shipped, his comment may or may not retcon that scene into non existence.

 

Like Alistair not needing Lyrium, etc.

 

Perhaps one day we will get to ask him if he was retconning detection of possession or not.

[wcholcombe]

It was already mentioned that she was pro-Circle (though she could also be pro-chantry) and she doesn't support the Mage Rebellion

I was merely arguing we don't know her stance on the chantry.  She could actually be more pro-chantry then pro circle.  We don't know.  She could also despise the chantry but doesn't think there is a better alternative.  Who knows is my point.

[GVulture]

And yet, she was right. Her character has nothing to do with it.

Or any consequences for that scene never made it into the end game. We never hear anything else about Keran either way, do we? I just say because Merrill THINKS her blood magic is the solution to everything and when she tries to confront the demon thing in the Deep Roads it ignores her and she looks confused and upset by that. I am saying that she may have thought she had a way, but IT MIGHT NOT HAVE WORKED and she declared it did anyways. It is very in character for her to claim that her blood magic did this thing and when it didn't.

The fact that she was right could have been pure chance.

 

At least, Ander's way has him adding on a note of "I could be wrong" because there is no way to know their methods WORK unless they you know... actually found demons that way. Which they never, ever did.

[AlanC9]

Just because Keran wasn't possessed doesn't mean that Merrill's test is reliable, yep. She could have just been lucky.

[LobselVith8]

Or any consequences for that scene never made it into the end game. We never hear anything else about Keran either way, do we?

 

This is getting ridiculous. In all the years since that moment, Keran doesn't show any signs of being possessed, even if he's killed.

 

I just say because Merrill THINKS her blood magic is the solution to everything and when she tries to confront the demon thing in the Deep Roads it ignores her and she looks confused and upset by that. I am saying that she may have thought she had a way, but IT MIGHT NOT HAVE WORKED and she declared it did anyways. It is very in character for her to claim that her blood magic did this thing and when it didn't.

 

No, Merrill doesn't think that blood magic is the solution for everything; her main focus was on the Eluvian, and only learned blood magic because she lacked the necessary amount of lyrium necessary to cleanse the shard of the taint otherwise. As for the Profane Abomination, she's able to discern it's natural if Hawke isn't a mage, so your insistence on trying to paint her as incompetent isn't really coming across in the actual game. She also attacked a Profane Abomination, and looked angry afterwards - not confused.

 

The fact that she was right could have been pure chance.

 

I saw absolutely nothing in that scene to suggest anything of the kind.

[GVulture]

This is getting ridiculous. In all the years since that moment, Keran doesn't show any signs of being possessed, even if he's killed.

 

 

No, Merrill doesn't think that blood magic is the solution for everything; her main focus was on the Eluvian, and only learned blood magic because she lacked the necessary amount of lyrium necessary to cleanse the shard of the taint otherwise. As for the Profane Abomination, she's able to discern it's natural if Hawke isn't a mage, so your insistence on trying to paint her as incompetent isn't really coming across in the actual game. She also attacked a Profane Abomination, and looked angry afterwards - not confused.

 

 

I saw absolutely nothing in that scene to suggest anything of the kind.

Have you ever seen her test detect a demon? No? Then SCIENTIFICALLY, it is unreliable. She could have been right by pure dumb luck.

 

There isn't any evidence that there is a test for detecting demons. Merrill and Anders TRIED something, but we have no way of knowing if their tests are something reliable or viable for use in a regular setting.

 

The absence of evidence that they were wrong doesn't automatically make them right.

[Master Warder Z_]

Have you ever seen her test detect a demon? No? Then SCIENTIFICALLY, it is unreliable. She could have been right by pure dumb luck.

 

People here don't like terms of empirical evidence G.

 

Because they tend to suggest trends most don't care for.

[LobselVith8]

Just because Keran wasn't possessed doesn't mean that Merrill's test is reliable, yep. She could have just been lucky.

 

There's nothing in that scene that even remotely suggests that Merrill was uncertain, or that she could be wrong. I really don't see why some people are looking for something that isn't there. Is it because if Merrill's test was reliable, then it would mean that blood magic has a beneficial application in detecting possession? Because I can see why some would argue strongly against that notion. 

[Master Warder Z_]

There's nothing in that scene that even remotely suggests that Merrill was uncertain, or that she could be wrong. I really don't see why some people are looking for something that isn't there. Is it because if Merrill's test was reliable, then it would mean that blood magic has a beneficial application in detecting possession? Because I can see why some would argue strongly against that notion. 

 

Or maybe because the lore doesn't support that notion, Gaider doesn't support that notion and until that scene there was nothing there to suggest that it could?

 

Merril pulling it out of thin air doesn't suggest even to you that it may not be entirely accurate?

 

And i could also argue you are looking for proof or support of that notion when it isn't there given that apart from that one scene, its never touched upon again.

[GVulture]

There's nothing in that scene that even remotely suggests that Merrill was uncertain, or that she could be wrong. I really don't see why some people are looking for something that isn't there. Is it because if Merrill's test was reliable, then it would mean that blood magic has a beneficial application in detecting possession? Because I can see why some would argue strongly against that notion. 

That's not the case at all. My point is that unless a test is SHOWN to be able to detect demons, as in, they did the test and a demon burst forth from within the mage because its cover was blown, it is fool hardy to believe that it is completely accurate. There is NO evidence that it WORKS. A negative is easier to prove than a positive.

 

If there was such a method, you don't think it would already be in use? Anders does the exact same thing without blood magic so the excuse that people just don't want to think blood magic can be beneficial is just using a strawman argument that has nothing to do with the discussion that the test may not actually work.

 

That and considering that Templars already use a form of blood magic with the phylacteries I don't think they would squirm too much if they could spill a bit of mage blood to see if they have demons in them.

[LobselVith8]

Or maybe because the lore doesn't support that notion, Gaider doesn't support that notion and until that scene there was nothing there to suggest that it could?

 

No one in that scene says that what Merrill did was impossible. Not Anders, not Fenris, not Bethany, not apostate Hawke. I'm not seeing how it's improbable or impossible, or why we're even debating a scene that's intended to show that Keran isn't possessed.

 

Merril pulling it out of thin air doesn't suggest even to you that it may not be entirely accurate?

 

We're never in a position for Merrill to use it again, and there's nothing in that scene that suggests that Merrill is intentionally lying to Hawke.

 

And i could also argue you are looking for proof or support of that notion when it isn't there given that apart from that one scene, its never touched upon again.

 

The difference is that I'm addressing the actual scene, not using my imagination to vilify a character because she used blood magic in a beneficial way.

[GVulture]

No one in that scene says that what Merrill did was impossible. Not Anders, not Fenris, not Bethany, not apostate Hawke. I'm not seeing how it's improbable or impossible, or why we're even debating a scene that's intended to show that Keran isn't possessed.

 

 

We're never in a position for Merrill to use it again, and there's nothing in that scene that suggests that Merrill is intentionally lying to Hawke.

 

 

The difference is that I'm addressing the actual scene, not using my imagination to vilify a character because she used blood magic in a beneficial way.

No one is vilifying Merrill here for using blood magic. I think you might need to take a moment to re-read the responses.

[LobselVith8]

No one is vilifying Merrill here for using blood magic. I think you might need to take a moment to re-read the responses.

 

From your misuse of how often Merrill relies on blood magic to your mischaracterization of what transpired during the scene with the Profane Abomination, I've read what you wrote sufficiently well enough.