636 réponses à ce sujet

[TheKomandorShepard]

If Leliana were a character you're not allowed to disagree with as it's the case with mary sues, you wouldn't be able to change her.

Not at all that isn't what mary sue is.

[dragonflight288]

Based on in-game lore and such, I think I can say with full confidence that whatever system the Rivaini have is more effective than the Circle's in preventing deaths and magical accidents, and is also not another Tevinter.

 

Based again on all the in-game lore, Rivain seems to be handling things right and any attempt to deny this is based on an indoctrination in what the Chantry teaches about magic or an inherent distrust of anyone having any modicum of power also being people of integrity.

[Vit246]

I find it fascinating how much people are trying to discredit Rivain. Just fascinating. Try to make it sound like its another Tevinter and it has evil abominations running around.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

[dragonflight288]

I find it fascinating how much people are trying to discredit Rivain. Just fascinating. Try to make it sound like its another Tevinter and it has evil abominations running around.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

I know.

 

Nothing, absolutely nothing in the lore even hints at this, yet some people are so convinced that a mage, by virtue of being a mage, having any level of freedom or influence will automatically mean another Tevinter that they'll deny all evidence and existing lore to the contrary because they can't stand the idea that mages can be free and not be tyrants, or mages can be free and not have abominations running around. 

[Master Warder Z_]

Based on in-game lore and such, I think I can say with full confidence that whatever system the Rivaini have is more effective than the Circle's in preventing deaths and magical accidents, and is also not another Tevinter.

Except it isn't.

It's no Tevinter even the Magi of the north view possession as a negative and don't embrace that lunacy.

In my eye it's even worse.

It's an incompetent mage run society.

[dragonflight288]

Except it isn't.

It's no Tevinter even the Magi of the north view possession as a negative and don't embrace that lunacy.

In my eye it's even worse.

It's an incompetent mage run society.

 

Do you have proof?

[Master Warder Z_]

Do you have proof?

Their attitude towards possession has already been covered.

[Vit246]

I know.

 

Nothing, absolutely nothing in the lore even hints at this, yet some people are so convinced that a mage, by virtue of being a mage, having any level of freedom or influence will automatically mean another Tevinter that they'll deny all evidence and existing lore to the contrary because they can't stand the idea that mages can be free and not be tyrants, or mages can be free and not have abominations running around. 

 

And another thing. We know that mages can get "possessed" by benevolent spirits and not turn into rampaging abominations. We know Wynne is an example. And even Anders could be if he wasn't so emotionally and psychologically unstable in the first place. He could never be a suitable human host.

 

It is obvious that for generations, Rivain seers have found a way to form symbiotic relations with non-demonic spirits. And that seers are primarily benevolent rulers and the people respect and support their seers. It is obvious that the seers know what they are doing. And it is foolish to assume that the occasional abomination cannot be handled by the Rivain mages that have been mastering spirits for generations. And most of all it is not lore-breaking.

[dragonflight288]

Their attitude towards possession has already been covered.

 

But not their methods, or even the very nature of the possession itself. 

 

For all we know, their Seers may be a bunch of Wynne's, possessed but full of their own will and morals as people, not really being controlled at all. 

 

You are making a broad stroke argument, but have no evidence to back it up. You say they're incompetently run, then point out the majority people of Rivain and show me their opinions on the matter? If you do, all you'll point out is that the mundanes resist the Chantry's control over mages because they support the mages and the practice of having seers do such a degree that the Chantry was forced to make many concessions no other Circle got because they couldn't convince the people that mages were cursed or a danger. 

 

You say that they have a bunch of abominations running things, but there is no evidence this is the case. I'd hardly call Cassandra an abomination or most of the Seekers for that matter, yet every one of them had to be made tranquil and then a Spirit of Faith brought upon their minds in order to become Seekers. So if you denounce them for affiliation with spirits, then in turn you must also denounce every single Seeker the Chantry has ever produced. 

 

You have given your opinion that they must be a certain way because that is what you expect, but you cannot offer any proof that they actually are that way because, at the moment, there is no proof. All evidence points that they have different traditions and are handling their mages without a slave-managing Magocracy that Tevinter is nor the number of blood mages the Chantry says apostates turn to.

 

If more evidence comes up that says otherwise, we'll have to adjust our positions in light of new facts, but as of right now the facts say that Rivain is different, and there is nothing lore breaking about them having a different nature of possession among their seers. It's seen as early as Origins in the form of Wynne, and is discussed in codex entries as far back as Origins. 

 

As such, the facts as they stand now say that your theory is wrong. Plain and simple. 

 

Sure, it's wise to be wary of the Fade and of Spirits, but by the same token we cannot dismiss a system has worked for centuries because it runs differently from what we've seen the Chantry and the Templars do because they let fear of mages and magic bind what they're willing to do. 

[MisterJB]

I know.

 

Nothing, absolutely nothing in the lore even hints at this, yet some people are so convinced that a mage, by virtue of being a mage, having any level of freedom or influence will automatically mean another Tevinter that they'll deny all evidence and existing lore to the contrary because they can't stand the idea that mages can be free and not be tyrants, or mages can be free and not have abominations running around. 

But can they be free and not be rulers?

Rivain, regardless of how it is ruled, because no it isn't "obvious" one way or another, indicates otherwise.

[Master Warder Z_]

You have given your opinion that they must be a certain way because that is what you expect, but you cannot offer any proof that they actually are that way

Like yourself?

Expect the norm or don't either way it's conjecture.

[MisterJB]

But not their methods, or even the very nature of the possession itself. 

 

For all we know, their Seers may be a bunch of Wynne's, possessed but full of their own will and morals as people, not really being controlled at all. 

 

You are making a broad stroke argument, but have no evidence to back it up. You say they're incompetently run, then point out the majority people of Rivain and show me their opinions on the matter? If you do, all you'll point out is that the mundanes resist the Chantry's control over mages because they support the mages and the practice of having seers do such a degree that the Chantry was forced to make many concessions no other Circle got because they couldn't convince the people that mages were cursed or a danger. 

 

You say that they have a bunch of abominations running things, but there is no evidence this is the case. I'd hardly call Cassandra an abomination or most of the Seekers for that matter, yet every one of them had to be made tranquil and then a Spirit of Faith brought upon their minds in order to become Seekers. So if you denounce them for affiliation with spirits, then in turn you must also denounce every single Seeker the Chantry has ever produced. 

 

Not at all because Seekers only had their minds touched by spirits, they were never possessed. Seers are posses which is dangerous regardless of how benevolent one might consider spirits to be. Anders proved as much.

 

Also, just because people feel attached to a culture, it doesn't mean it is even beneficial for them. Of course, whether we will consider to be beneficial will be influenced by our own culture.

At any rate, popularity doesn't equal being right.

[keesio74]

For those who don't understand, here's the ending in question:

 

http://youtu.be/fdaT9hu0Vr0?t=11m26s

 

 

In short, the ending says that after Leliana disbands the Circles, the conscripted mages decide to remain under the Inquisition's watch and form a new group called the Bright Hand which shows Thedas the very best the mages have to offer.

 

This ending appeals should appeal to both pro-mages and pro-templars. Pro-mages get the abolition of circles and the acceptance of mages while pro-templars get mages who are under Inquisition supervision so they don't have to worry about abominations or blood magic. This is also better than Cass' ending since unlike her ending, Leliana's version has no shadow war which implies that all mages from loyalists to liberatarians accept this and have peace.

 

Thoughts?

 

For those that chose the Mage mission, I'd agree. I personally also like the alliance with the Mages with Leliana as Divine - A softened Leliana. Both seem like positive endings.

 

I also like a Cassandra as Divine with the Seekers rebuilt and Cullen cured of addiction for those that go with the Templar mission. Both alliance and disbanded seem like a positive ending (though alliance as the Templars being reformed Seekers seem best)

[Qun00]

Not at all that isn't what mary sue is.

Not what you want the definition to be.

I could elaborate further but you're clearly not willing to do so yourself.

[thesuperdarkone2]

But not their methods, or even the very nature of the possession itself. 

 

For all we know, their Seers may be a bunch of Wynne's, possessed but full of their own will and morals as people, not really being controlled at all. 

 

You are making a broad stroke argument, but have no evidence to back it up. You say they're incompetently run, then point out the majority people of Rivain and show me their opinions on the matter? If you do, all you'll point out is that the mundanes resist the Chantry's control over mages because they support the mages and the practice of having seers do such a degree that the Chantry was forced to make many concessions no other Circle got because they couldn't convince the people that mages were cursed or a danger. 

 

You say that they have a bunch of abominations running things, but there is no evidence this is the case. I'd hardly call Cassandra an abomination or most of the Seekers for that matter, yet every one of them had to be made tranquil and then a Spirit of Faith brought upon their minds in order to become Seekers. So if you denounce them for affiliation with spirits, then in turn you must also denounce every single Seeker the Chantry has ever produced. 

 

You have given your opinion that they must be a certain way because that is what you expect, but you cannot offer any proof that they actually are that way because, at the moment, there is no proof. All evidence points that they have different traditions and are handling their mages without a slave-managing Magocracy that Tevinter is nor the number of blood mages the Chantry says apostates turn to.

 

If more evidence comes up that says otherwise, we'll have to adjust our positions in light of new facts, but as of right now the facts say that Rivain is different, and there is nothing lore breaking about them having a different nature of possession among their seers. It's seen as early as Origins in the form of Wynne, and is discussed in codex entries as far back as Origins. 

 

As such, the facts as they stand now say that your theory is wrong. Plain and simple. 

 

Sure, it's wise to be wary of the Fade and of Spirits, but by the same token we cannot dismiss a system has worked for centuries because it runs differently from what we've seen the Chantry and the Templars do because they let fear of mages and magic bind what they're willing to do. 

This so much. I find it so hilariously hypocritical that templar supporters wind up doing the exact same things they accuse me of. I just ignore their insults and let them live in their pessimistic minds.

[Eliastion]

But can they be free and not be rulers?

Rivain, regardless of how it is ruled, because no it isn't "obvious" one way or another, indicates otherwise.

Regardless of indications in Rivain, Avvars prove that mages indeed can be free while not being rulers.

And the "indication" in case of Rivain is disputable when you take into account the fact that the Seers explicitly pledge loyalty to the queen who is not a mage afaik. Though you definitelly could make a compelling case of Rivain being mage-governed, regardless of who the highest authority on national scale is.

 

 

Also, just because people feel attached to a culture, it doesn't mean it is even beneficial for them. Of course, whether we will consider to be beneficial will be influenced by our own culture.

At any rate, popularity doesn't equal being right.

Equal? No. But it is some indication. The system is, apparently, working - and has been working for a long time, all this with strong support of society. That's a pretty good indication that it is not as disastrous as some people would like to assume.

[Steelcan]

This so much. I find it so hilariously hypocritical that templar supporters wind up doing the exact same things they accuse me of. I just ignore their insults and let them live in their pessimistic minds.

well Seekers aren't possessed...just touched by a spirit, but I know rational discussion isn't really your thing

[Sir DeLoria]

Bull, conscripted Templars or bust.

[Steelcan]

Bull, conscripted Templars or bust.

then you don't Ser Barris's mission chain

 

can't not have that

[Br3admax]

Bull, conscripted Templars or bust.

Why conscript the Templars? Anything Leliana agrees with is wrong. I'm actually disappointed in you. 

[Ryzaki]

Why conscript the Templars? Anything Leliana agrees with is wrong. I'm actually disappointed in you. 

 

So they can stay with the Inquisition.

 

 

then you don't Ser Barris's mission chain

 

can't not have that

 

That's only because it's bugged.

[Cuddlezarro]

then you don't Ser Barris's mission chain

 

can't not have that

 

 

actually you can get that mission chain with ser barris if you conscript the templars the cutscene where you promote him is slightly different but pretty much the same

[Sir DeLoria]

Why conscript the Templars? Anything Leliana agrees with is wrong. I'm actually disappointed in you.

It's fine if they remain a separate institution, but they might have more power if coupled with the Inquistion.

then you don't Ser Barris's mission chain
 
can't not have that

That's true.

So they can stay with the Inquisition.

Exactly!

I don't disagree with any of you three though anyway.

[Br3admax]

It's fine if they remain a separate institution, but they might have more power if coupled with the Inquistion.
 

So they can stay with the Inquisition.

Everyone is letting me down today. That's not worth agreeing with her, and you both know it. 

 

But to be frank, I still control them. They serve me by holy mandate. "Templars serve the Maker and the Light of Andraste." Who's the "Light of Andraste?" This guy.

[Ryzaki]

Everyone is letting me down today. That's not worth agreeing with her, and you both know it. 

 

But to be frank, I still control them. They serve me by holy mandate. "Templars serve the Maker and the Light of Andraste." Who's the "Light of Andraste?" This guy.

 

*snort*

 

Whatever. You can have your templars taken away like a rank amateur.