458 réponses à ce sujet

[Treacherous J Slither]

1. Agreed. But in this case, as you said.. irrelevant.

 

2. I didn't mean to imply they wouldn't be needed in the fight, since I myself used them in Denerim. But relying on them to win the war in your "The Walking Dead" scenario? No.

 

3. I'm not saying she was hopeless. But you have to admit, they got the better of her. But of course that is what the whole idea is focused on... preying on your emotions. She could hardly face it. Which again points to my earlier point. Mentally I wouldn't say mages should be necessarily relied on. Since even the greatest can falter like anyone else.

 

4. But he still lost control, and this was one case. Speaking again of my last post... you put hundreds and thousands of mages on the field that aren't half as mentally capable as Avernus, and have similar situations? You might as well be giving numbers to the enemy.

 

5. Killing Connor was always a weighted decision for me, and yes chalk it up to bad parenting. But in the end, that becomes irrelevant. A loving mother's desperate attempt to keep her son safe leads to Redcliffe being destroyed? The blame will go to the boy with magic.

 

 

I just want to get to your number 4.

 

Avernus was summoning demons. Hopefully you wouldn't order your hundreds of thousands of mages to do the same. They can instead cast Blood Wound or Mass Paralysis+Inferno.

 

In the real world during combat a ground force may call in air support and have fighter jets do really cool things with rockets, bombs, and guns. Friendly fire is a possibility but do you think that would prevent the ground force from making the call?

 

When I was in the army, a artillery unit officer called in the wrong coordinates and bombed his own men. Do you think that the army shouldn't use artillery?

 

If used properly, the pros of air support, artillery, and magic far outweigh the cons.

[Treacherous J Slither]

You don't act as though they are dangerous. and that's why we have differing opinions. Because i see all the danger they have. Those that are dangerous, that cant control their strength in a civilized world are put in jails, zoos and the such, but if they can show they can be trusted, act well, not attack those that anger them, then we let them in our homes, just like dogs or performing animals, and at this time, most Mage's dont care about that, they just want to force their freedom with blood, and that;s why they wont be accepting in "mundane" society. i know they have feelings, i know some can be trusted, but i don't kid myself about the threat they are.

 

At no point did I say or imply that magic and mages aren't dangerous. I just don't believe that the danger warrants imprisonment when education and training can help to alleviate much of the threat. There will of course be accidents and bad eggs but that's where the Templars come in. Templars with mages in their ranks. Mages and mundanes have to work together for the betterment of Thedosian society. A "us" and "them" mentality creates division and promotes ignorance. 

[Kieran G.]

Yes i agree with that, but the course Mage's are doing will only lead to more hatred, they must work within the system, Chaotic change does not cause a better life, it may years from then when times eventually calm down, but look at even andraste's exalted marches, it took almost 2 centuries for the area of Orlais to finally become peaceful( to a point, of course) the Circle system can work, that was the whole point of the Nevarran Accord, because Mage's, Inquistor's, and Chantry officials all believed it would make the world safer and find a place for magic in the world. 

[Willowhugger]

Yes i agree with that, but the course Mage's are doing will only lead to more hatred, they must work within the system, Chaotic change does not cause a better life, it may years from then when times eventually calm down, but look at even andraste's exalted marches, it took almost 2 centuries for the area of Orlais to finally become peaceful( to a point, of course) the Circle system can work, that was the whole point of the Nevarran Accord, because Mage's, Inquistor's, and Chantry officials all believed it would make the world safer and find a place for magic in the world. 

 

Andraste's changes was still better than slavery under the Tevinter and internal slow change wouldn't have worked.

[Treacherous J Slither]

As long as the Circle is simply a school and not a prison i'm all for it.

[Kieran G.]

Andraste's changes was still better than slavery under the Tevinter and internal slow change wouldn't have worked.

I know it was a good change, im just saying that even good changes, that come with force and chaos will be violent for years to come.

[Kieran G.]

As long as the Circle is simply a school and not a prison i'm all for it.

And this is a perfect example of how two people who are pro different things can compromise XD now only if they could do that in game.

[Mistic]

I know it was a good change, im just saying that even good changes, that come with force and chaos will be violent for years to come.

 

True. After all, the original Inquisition was born to stop chaos during those hard times (from -100 Ancient to 1:20 Divine).

 

The proponents of change and revolution tend to dismiss the chaos, hardships and losses that come with that. And the horrible perspective of failure. Even the romaticized French Revolution had the Terror, coup d'etats and then a general crowned himself Emperor. These things shouldn't be taken so lightly, especially when you are sacrificing other people's lives, often for a cause they don't really care about.

 

That said, the opposite reaction is also bad. After all, even after taking those losses into account, sometimes the price must be paid because it's the best option in the long run. The same French Revolution is fundamental to modern history and brought ideals and rights that we now take for granted but were unthinkable before it. But the price was high. If we weren't talking about fictional characters or past history, would we be so eager to choose the revolutionary path?

 

And this is a perfect example of how two people who are pro different things can compromise XD now only if they could do that in game.

 

The fact that the game begins with a peace conference shows that Thedas is not the polarized caricature some think it is. So everything is possible.

[MisterJB]

That said, the opposite reaction is also bad. After all, even after taking those losses into account, sometimes the price must be paid because it's the best option in the long run. The same French Revolution is fundamental to modern history and brought ideals and rights that we now take for granted but were unthinkable before it. But the price was high. If we weren't talking about fictional characters or past history, would we be so eager to choose the revolutionary path?

That's a bit of a minefield.

Who decides the change was positive? Who decides it was worth the cost? What are they basing themselves on? Numbers? Morality?

What is the long run? Ten years, a hundred?

[Kieran G.]

That's a bit of a minefield.

Who decides the change was positive? Who decides it was worth the cost? What are they basing themselves on? Numbers? Morality?

What is the long run? Ten years, a hundred?

And that's exactly why i think no good can come from this war. two extremes will always clash, and that's what's happening.

[raging_monkey]

Gotta be a better way or this plot device will be in every game as a mutual extreme

[MisterJB]

I propose Russell Edgington for the face of the mage rebellion.

 

 

He is a moderate pro-mage.

[Willowhugger]

Privately, I think it's interesting to remember Merril's reaction to the mages who said, "How can you betray your own kind?"

And she's like, "I'm Dalish. You are not my kind."

If mages DON'T intend to assimilate back into the regular populace then there's really far less reason to go to war with the Templars. They become a monastic order which just so happens to consist of people who display a peculiar quirk that's identified in adolescence (like the Prequel Jedi--ugh). If mages self-identify as Mages first, not Fereldans or Orlasians or Anderfells or human, then that's an alien mindset to 90% of Thedas.

 

And it's a mindset which will keep them Circle mages no matter what happens.

[Mistic]

That's a bit of a minefield.

Who decides the change was positive? Who decides it was worth the cost? What are they basing themselves on? Numbers? Morality?

What is the long run? Ten years, a hundred?

 

That's the complicated thing. History decides it, but history is not a person you can ask for advice. It's impossible to know beforehand. Even if you take a "history is written by the winners" approach (that it's not always true), victory isn't a guaranteed thing either.

 

I don't criticize people (in real or fictional universes) for wanting change. After all, our own world is the product of change, very often dramatic and painful changes. To deny that change is highly hypocritical because we would be denying our very existence. Even fictional universes have it. Was Andraste any better when she marched against Tevinter? With hindsight, people in Thedas agree that it was a good change. Even in Tevinter.

 

However, change is not always good. And change always pays a price. I criticize forgetting that price. Or worse: expecting others to pay that price instead of you, and happily too, engineering things so others would fight for their causes, willing or not (coughAnderscoughAdriancough).

[Willowhugger]

That's a bit of a minefield.

Who decides the change was positive? Who decides it was worth the cost? What are they basing themselves on? Numbers? Morality?

What is the long run? Ten years, a hundred?

 

Well, that's pretty much what Nietzsche said is the driving force of history. PEOPLE decide what's worth the cost and have to do so on an individual level because morality is determined by no set objective value. He said people should make their own morality and operate to it rather than follow the masses because that's the only way things will get done but also because it's more honest.

 

Oddly, quite a few Christian existentialists latched onto this despite Fred being very anti-religion.

Even today, people will talk about wars and conflicts which other people deride. The Mongolian conquests are viewed by most as monstrous while in Mongolia, they just point out the Khanate was the most successful bunch of conquerors in the world and united much of the world.

[MisterJB]

That's the complicated thing. History decides it, but history is not a person you can ask for advice. It's impossible to know beforehand. Even if you take a "history is written by the winners" approach (that it's not always true), victory isn't a guaranteed thing either.

 

I don't criticize people (in real or fictional universes) for wanting change. After all, our own world is the product of change, very often dramatic and painful changes. To deny that change is highly hypocritical because we would be denying our very existence. Even fictional universes have it. Was Andraste any better when she marched against Tevinter? With hindsight, people in Thedas agree that it was a good change. Even in Tevinter.

 

However, change is not always good. And change always pays a price. I criticize forgetting that price. Or worse: expecting others to pay that price instead of you, and happily too, engineering things so others would fight for their causes, willing or not (coughAnderscoughAdriancough).

And let's not forget that much of history is also about resisting change, especially when it is being imposed by an hostile party.

[LobselVith8]

Privately, I think it's interesting to remember Merril's reaction to the mages who said, "How can you betray your own kind?"

And she's like, "I'm Dalish. You are not my kind."

 

Actually, Merrill tells Orsino, "This is my friend. He is my people now." You're mistaken in phrasing it as though she doesn't care about people who aren't Dalish; Merrill is the person who expresses that the plight faced by the Kirkwall elves matters, who supports killing Kelder because he poses a threat to elven children from the Alienage, and who supports protecting the Starkhaven mages from the templars.

[Willowhugger]

And let's not forget that much of history is also about resisting change, especially when it is being imposed by an hostile party.

Of course, as an academic, 90% of history is "change is opposed by hostile power."

Internal change is a fairly new thing with rare exceptions throughout history.

[Willowhugger]

Actually, Merrill tells Orsino, "This is my friend. He is my people now." You're mistaken in phrasing it as though she doesn't care about people who aren't Dalish; Merrill is the person who expresses that the plight faced by the Kirkwall elves matters, who supports killing Kelder because he poses a threat to elven children from the Alienage, and who supports protecting the Starkhaven mages from the templars.

 

I was referring more to this.

 

http://morrigan-disa...ost/82673063380

Basically, Mages are their own group. They have nothing really in common with regular Thedans and should probably be autonomous.

[cjones91]

Are we really equating mages with zoo animals and dogs now?It's that kind of thinking that prompted them to rebel in the first place.Mages felt they were being treated like monsters with no rights of their own and so they decided to do something about it.

 

Until people stop treating them like tools to be used and locked away otherwise then this conflict will never end.

[LobselVith8]

I was referring more to this.

 

http://morrigan-disa...ost/82673063380

Basically, Mages are their own group. They have nothing really in common with regular Thedans and should probably be autonomous.

 

Anders and Merrill both refute Grace in that scene because her people tried to murder them mere seconds ago (so that scene is out of context in itself). However, neither one approves handing the Starkhaven mages over to the templars; they both disapprove doing that, and express their concern for the human mages. Merrill even gives 10 to 20 points of approval (depending on whether you're on console or PC) when you vocally support keeping the mages safe from the templars.

[Kieran G.]

Are we really equating mages with zoo animals and dogs now?It's that kind of thinking that prompted them to rebel in the first place.Mages felt they were being treated like monsters with no rights of their own and so they decided to do something about it.

 

Until people stop treating them like tools to be used and locked away otherwise then this conflict will never end.

That what their power is. a tool. and if they want to be treated like a regular civilian they are going to have to compromise too. the blame doesn't sit only on the Templars shoulders, they are as much to blame as the Templars, and yes i will compare circles to zoos, like animals who are untrained for the house hold, and i will compare regular humans to cats and mage's to tigers, one is much more dangerous.

[Mistic]

And let's not forget that much of history is also about resisting change, especially when it is being imposed by an hostile party.

 

Very true. I can't criticize them for oppossing change either, since it would be also denying our history. "I want to protect" is also a very positive statement and probably even more romanticized than change and revolution in countless stories.

 

Yet there's also a dark side. The same revolutionaries tend to forget that change comes at a price, protectors tend to avoid questioning themselves if the thing they want to protect deserves that protection.

[raging_monkey]

Are we really equating mages with zoo animals and dogs now?It's that kind of thinking that prompted them to rebel in the first place.Mages felt they were being treated like monsters with no rights of their own and so they decided to do something about it. Until people stop treating them like tools to be used and locked away otherwise then this conflict will never end.

Thats what what half the players want a end. The system worked until the dragon age. Why dont we just make a new accord that works for both parties. Not just one sided

[Kieran G.]

Very true. I can't criticize them for oppossing change either, since it would be also denying our history. "I want to protect" is also a very positive statement and probably even more romanticized than change and revolution in countless stories.

 

Yet there's also a dark side. The same revolutionaries tend to forget that change comes at a price, protectors tend to avoid questioning themselves if the thing they want to protect deserves that protection.

Some dont forget change comes at a price, they just don't care, they only want their goals to be fulfilled and destroy what ever they have to.