Does anyone know what specifically is said in Leliana's epilogue if you sided with the Templars? Literally the only line on the Wiki is this:
"This frees many to join the Seekers of Truth under Cassandra - a renewed order dedicated to justice for all."
What if you told Cass to let go of the Seekers?
Damn i wish lambert was alive and then put him as divine that would be best ending ever with him taking care of mages that would be true pro-templar ending.
ignoring that he's ineligible as a man
that's still a horrendous idea
Seekers if Cass or Leliana reform them seem more dedicated toward stopping abominations and maleficar than doing what they did before. Given that the Chantry has no power over the circles if Leliana becomes Divine, the Seekers having nothing to do except stop threats.
Does anyone know what specifically is said in Leliana's epilogue if you sided with the Templars? Literally the only line on the Wiki is this:
"This frees many to join the Seekers of Truth under Cassandra - a renewed order dedicated to justice for all."
What if you told Cass to let go of the Seekers?
This happens:
ignoring that he's ineligible as a man
that's still a horrendous idea
Well if he was alive we could put him anyway as he wanted become divine in first place but it would require force hell.
That would be great idea unlike everyone in asunder he was fixing mess until divine destroyed his effort causing mage-templar war.This man knows lot about mages and saw what their corruption cause.
ignoring that he's ineligible as a man
that's still a horrendous idea
Cole has never made a mistake in reading people, he said Lambert particularly enjoyed hurting people and felt zero guilt when he cut Evangeline down. So yeah, a very horrendous idea.
Cole has never made a mistake in reading people, he said Lambert particularly enjoyed hurting people and felt zero guilt when he cut Evangeline down. So yeah, a very horrendous idea.
Nah, that's actually not what Cole said. He said Lambert cared more about killing mages and stopping hostile magic than protecting people. I swear, we should all get to make up references if you're going to do it.
How is it any lore breaking than what Cassandra or Vivienne do? No one is perfectly happy with any of the Divines.
Perhaps you should consider that times are changing? Or that in the next game Bioware might change their minds and have people weary of the College or have a Sect break off from Leliana's Chantry?
Nerd
Uhhh... You just said nerd like it was a bad thing on a forum where a video game is serious business--where you have over 1000 posts. You might want to consider that for a moment, lol
Who cares Lambert is worm's food anyhow.
Cole has never made a mistake in reading people, he said Lambert particularly enjoyed hurting people and felt zero guilt when he cut Evangeline down. So yeah, a very horrendous idea.
Cole never said he enjoyed hurting people or felt zero guilt (not that he should in that case) from what i remember he said he was using rules to hurt peoples in that case mages not to mention evangeline was traitor. So good try.
Who cares Lambert is worm's food anyhow.
You're just mad he betrayed you for the south, tbh.
You're just mad he betrayed you for the south, tbh.
Why would he be mad?
Lambert helped the current Tevinter Divine attain his position, then ****ed off south to help destabilize the opposing Chantry.
That's a good point. I retract my earlier statement.
And all mages are the same. Just like all Templars are irrational, paranoid zealots, right? It's easy for some of you to defend Templars despite corruption in their ranks, yet mages are conveniently all the same, and any independent mage system will inevitably end up like Tevinter because mages are all inherently power-hungry tyrants that want to dominate everyone. This argument is a logical fallacy because it's based on the presumption that mages as a group can by defined by their mage status, which is completely false as mages are humans, not some exclusive and isolated subgroup. Thus unless your suggestion is that all people are the same, period, then this argument holds no weight outside of fan-theory and radical speculation.
Less hypocrisy, less double standards.
That is incorrect. Mages are very much an exclusive (for magic is an inborn trait) and isolated (for mages have long developed their own distinct culture that exists apart from that of normal people, a good example of this is how being a mage takes precedence over being an elf) subgroup.
And thus, of course, like all distinct groups of people coexisting within the same living space, mages will pursue their own interests that do not always coincide with those of normal people.
For instance, do you believe the mages would not work towards dominating the lyrium trade. On one hand, it boost their powers, on the other it is the only substance capable of granting non-mages anti-magic abilities. All in the name of their protection, of course. If they can disarm Templars, why wouldn't they?
But without soldiers capable of disabling magic, will that not lead more cases of mages abusing their powers if normal people can't stop them?
And why should they stop at lyrium trade if they can control more? Only to protect themselves, of course, and ensure the Circles don't return. Or at least, that is what they will tell themselves.
And no, I am not applying a double standard. This is the exact same thing that occurred with normal people. They were slaves to mages for over a thousand years and, in order to ensure that could never happen again, they sought to control mages.
So, no, mages are not all the same but let us not pretend the policies of the College of Enchanters will not be centred around their status as mages.
The seekers don't need Lyrium and with Leliana you only have seekers, no Templars whatsoever. So the Lyrium argument holds no merit.
Not to mention that its simply a financial matter, the mages might govern themselves but they are part of the country they reside in. They are entitled to trade food, clothes and the rest of necessities.
With templars gone for good and Seekers taking over the circles are not coming back, they are gone.
That is incorrect. Mages are very much an exclusive (for magic is an inborn trait) and isolated (for mages have long developed their own distinct culture that exists apart from that of normal people, a good example of this is how being a mage takes precedence over being an elf) subgroup.
And thus, of course, like all distinct groups of people coexisting within the same living space, mages will pursue their own interests that do not always coincide with those of normal people.
For instance, do you believe the mages would not work towards dominating the lyrium trade. On one hand, it boost their powers, on the other it is the only substance capable of granting non-mages anti-magic abilities. All in the name of their protection, of course. If they can disarm Templars, why wouldn't they?
But without soldiers capable of disabling magic, will that not lead more cases of mages abusing their powers if normal people can't stop them?
And why should they stop at lyrium trade if they can control more? Only to protect themselves, of course, and ensure the Circles don't return. Or at least, that is what they will tell themselves.
And no, I am not applying a double standard. This is the exact same thing that occurred with normal people. They were slaves to mages for over a thousand years and, in order to ensure that could never happen again, they sought to control mages.
So, no, mages are not all the same but let us not pretend the policies of the College of Enchanters will not be centred around their status as mages.
No. Being a mage has no inherent influence on you as a person in terms of your personality, mentality, morals, values, goals -- etc, etc, -- just as being a templar does not equate to any predetermined personality traits.
If being a mage resulted in any intrinsic quantity of common personality factors, fraternities would not exist and all mages would agree. Yet somehow this is not the case. Common sense dictates it's because being a mage does not automatically make you anything. That's essentially akin to saying all people of the same ethnicity share the same traits, or all green-eyed people are of a similar mindset. They're entirely unrelated factors, and at best the circumstances mages are forced into encourage them into certain mentalities.
Mages will push for rights that benefit them, of course. How does this is any way equate to the mage collective wanting to dominate Thedas and create a new Tevinter Imperium? It's asinine. You can apply that same backwards logic to any group; nobles, commoners, Templars. Thus, no faction should be allowed independence, because, hey, "They're just gonna try dominate the world!"
No. Being a mage has no inherent influence on you as a person in terms of your personality, mentality, morals, values, goals -- etc, etc, -- just as being a templar does not equate to any predetermined personality traits.
If being a mage resulted in any intrinsic quantity of common personality factors, fraternities would not exist and all mages would agree. Yet somehow this is not the case. Common sense dictates it's because being a mage does not automatically make you anything. That's essentially akin to saying all people of the same ethnicity share the same traits, or all green-eyed people are of a similar mindset. They're entirely unrelated factors, and at best the circumstances mages are forced into encourage them into certain mentalities.
Mages will push for rights that benefit them, of course. How does this is any way equate to the mage collective wanting to dominate Thedas and create a new Tevinter Imperium? It's asinine. You can apply that same backwards logic to any group; nobles, commoners, Templars. Thus, no faction should be allowed independence, because, hey, "They're just gonna try dominate the world!"
Being a mage automatically makes you part of a group that since the dawn of makind in Thedas has established itself as a distinct group following its own rules and traditions. Much of this comes from the fact normal people tend to either ostracize mages but it was already in function in the times of the Imperium with mages being the upper class.
As you yourself recognize, this leads to mages pushing for mages interests and working towards increasing their own influence in society or dominate, if you prefer.
And yes, it's not something exclusive to mages. All people and groups compete with each other for a larger piece of the pie, so to speak, or to dominate, if you prefer the term. I side with normal people, non-mages. But not because I believe they are somehow more virtuous. I simply identify more with them and thus do wish to see them again under the heels of mages.
Hence, why I believe giving mages independence is unwise. Because magical abilities give them advantages they will use for their benefit which will lead to them dominating society.
Being a mage automatically makes you part of a group that since the dawn of makind in Thedas has established itself as a distinct group following its own rules and traditions. Much of this comes from the fact normal people tend to either ostracize mages but it was already in function in the times of the Imperium with mages being the upper class.
As you yourself recognize, this leads to mages pushing for mages interests and working towards increasing their own influence in society or dominate, if you prefer.
And yes, it's not something exclusive to mages. All people and groups compete with each other for a larger piece of the pie, so to speak, or to dominate, if you prefer the term. I side with normal people, non-mages. But not because I believe they are somehow more virtuous. I simply identify more with them and thus do wish to see them again under the heels of mages.
Hence, why I believe giving mages independence is unwise. Because magical abilities give them advantages they will use for their benefit which will lead to them dominating society.
Yes, the oppressed will naturally wish to not be as such.
But your presumption that the mage collective will unify in a common pursuit of dominance is void of logic, baseless, goes against established facts, and is bluntly just fear-mongering. Look no further than the fact that the Fraternities of Enchanters exist to invalidate your entire argument.
Tevinter is not a product of mages. Tevinter is the product of a time before people were cautious of magic, a time before the Chantry, a culture established of both mages and mundanes, and a convergence of endless factors. Automatically equating free mages to Tevinter is nothing but a display of ignorance and unwillingness to apply any sense of objective, rational thought and observation in favor of heavily biased preferences for one side.
I was trying to figure out what 'the bright hand' name reminded me of and unfortunately, it's ''the shining path.'I hope there's no correlation, lol
I have to disagree with the above. The tevinter culture is the result of the strong seizing power and doing what they had to to hold it, both personal and as a group. In the absence of mages, it might have been an oligarchy based on religion or on military power, but in this culture, mages *are* the most naturally powerful group and if unchecked, it's not an unreasonable fear that this could happen elsewhere. In our cultures we consider checks on the military to be important in a democracy for just this reason.
Yes, the oppressed will naturally wish to not be as such.
lol OPPRESSION™
Using charged words to make your point makes it pretty weak, tbh.
But your presumption that the mage collective will unify in a common pursuit of dominance is void of logic, baseless, goes against established facts, and is bluntly just fear-mongering. Look no further than the fact that the Fraternities of Enchanters exist to invalidate your entire argument.
Um, what? Those exists to dominate each other, but they won't do it to an alien outside group? What does this even mean? That's like saying because countries have political parties, they won't fight each other, something blatantly untrue.
Tevinter is not a product of mages. Tevinter is the product of a time before people were cautious of magic, a time before the Chantry, a culture established of both mages and mundanes, and a convergence of endless factors. Automatically equating free mages to Tevinter is nothing but a display of ignorance and unwillingness to apply any sense of objective, rational thought and observation in favor of heavily biased preferences for one side.
No, Tevinter is the product of competition, where the strong overcome the weak, just like the rest of the world. Mages will always dominate if given the chance. And they always have. It's not baseless, when it's shown in literally every culture with free mages. Does it matter? Debatable. Is it a "fear-mongerer's" assumption? No.
Cole never said he enjoyed hurting people or felt zero guilt (not that he should in that case) from what i remember he said he was using rules to hurt peoples in that case mages not to mention evangeline was traitor. So good try.
But how can you be sure that head radish isn't contagious to the indigenous peoples of the south pacific?
Yes, the oppressed will naturally wish to not be as such.
But your presumption that the mage collective will unify in a common pursuit of dominance is void of logic, baseless, goes against established facts, and is bluntly just fear-mongering. Look no further than the fact that the Fraternities of Enchanters exist to invalidate your entire argument.
Tevinter is not a product of mages. Tevinter is the product of a time before people were cautious of magic, a time before the Chantry, a culture established of both mages and mundanes, and a convergence of endless factors. Automatically equating free mages to Tevinter is nothing but a display of ignorance and unwillingness to apply any sense of objective, rational thought and observation in favor of heavily biased preferences for one side.
Tevinter is a word for magical dominated society. Certainly, even were the mages to succeed in becoming the rulers, the culture would not be an exact replica of the past.
However, it is undeniable that mage political and economical groups will strive towards dominance if allowed which is precisely why they shouldn't. To believe otherwise is to beyond naïve, rather it shows detachment from reality.
You think groups can't be divided amidst themselves while still, on the whole, pursuing the interests of the group? Were there no detractors amidst the empires of the past or the nations of today? Do you thinks Magisters did not disagree with each other in the Magisterium while Tevinter swallowed Thedas?
lol OPPRESSION™
Using charged words to make your point makes it pretty weak, tbh.
Ad hominem some more.
Um, what? Those exists to dominate each other, but they won't do it to an alien outside group? What does this even mean? That's like saying because countries have political parties, they won't fight each other, something blatantly untrue.
Fraternities exist within the mage collective, meaning there is no unity or common goal and ideals. Meaning your inane notions of the mages banding together to take over are directly countered, as the mages themselves are all separated and hold different beliefs on the system and as to how they should act. The only claim you can make is that they'll fight for greater rights. You have no basis for any claims in a way in which they'll act once they have said privileges. Last I checked, different countries had different systems of government; some communist, some democratic, etc.
Provide proof of your claims of a tyrannical mage empire.
No, Tevinter is the product of competition, where the strong overcome the weak, just like the rest of the world. Mages will always dominate if given the chance. And they always have. It's not baseless, when it's shown in literally every culture with free mages. Does it matter? Debatable. Is it a "fear-mongerer's" assumption? No.
No, Tevinter is not the product of any one thing you can identify. Mages will always dominate if given the chance? Then why do aequitarians exists? Why loyalists? Continue grasping at those straws. Dominating and wanting personal rights are two different things. Your proposition that people are all inherently power-hungry perhaps suggests more about you than it does anyone else.
Tevinter is a word for magical dominated society. Certainly, even were the mages to succeed in becoming the rulers, the culture would not be an exact replica of the past.
However, it is undeniable that mage political and economical groups will strive towards dominance if allowed which is precisely why they shouldn't. To believe otherwise is to beyond naïve, rather it shows detachment from reality.
You think groups can't be divided amidst themselves while still, on the whole, pursuing the interests of the group? Were there no detractors amidst the empires of the past or the nations of today? Do you thinks Magisters did not disagree with each other in the Magisterium while Tevinter swallowed Thedas?
And what basis do you have to believe that X group of mages in power will be the same as Y group of mages in power? If that were true, why is every government in the world not the same? Why are we not all communists? Perhaps because mages are first and foremost human beings, and not all human beings are the same, thus no two groups of people are ever going to result in the exact same outcome.
Tevinter was shaped more by its time than it was the fact that mages existed there.
And what basis do you have to believe that X group of mages in power will be the same as Y group of mages in power? If that were true, why is every government in the world not the same? Why are we not all communists? Perhaps because mages are first and foremost human beings, and not all human beings are the same, thus no two groups of people are ever going to result in the exact same outcome.
Did I not just say that? Yes, I did.
Maybe I don't want any mages in power over normal people.
Then why do aequitarians exists? Why loyalists?
Fear of the Chantry, mostly.
A few genuinely decent people. But even Wynne understood the need for manipulation and power.
Dominating and wanting personal rights are two different things.
No, it's not. People seek to dominate the space and those around them so they can't be hurt.
Retour en haut