993 réponses à ce sujet

[Shechinah]

Oh, it almost certainly was terrorism from the perspective of the Templars and Chantry. To the mages, it's freedom fighting.

 

Are you referring to what Anders did or what the rebellion did?

 

Because if you are referring to the former then I disagree, seeing as it provided those opposing less restrictions and more freedom with a frightening example of why mages should not have more freedom or fewer restriction imposed upon them. It was also intended by Anders to force his opinion on his fellow mages, which would include children and the elderly, by forcing them into a conflict.

 

Mages were looked at with more sympathy from the populace and this decrease in fear could have potentially lead to more peaceful means of removing restrictions and ensuring more mage rights.
 

[Xilizhra]

In fact, society itself, the very concept of it, is centered around the restricting the freedoms of people so that we can coexist. From the moment we are born, people see their freedoms restricted by the rule of law due to the simple fact that we are dangerous to each other. Naturally, mages who represent a much greater danger, require greater restrictions. It's only logical.

With a caveat: any restrictions can come only in relation to vulnerability to being possessed, which can be treated like a medical condition.

[MisterJB]

With a caveat: any restrictions can come only in relation to vulnerability to being possessed, which can be treated like a medical condition.

 

No, restrictions to you and me come not in relation to our vulnerability to develop mental conditions that create murderous urges in us.

Restrictions are placed upon every single member of the society in relation to nothing but our hability to grab a rock and smash someone's head with it.

Therefore, there is no reason to behave any differently with mages. Restrictions must be placed upon them in relation to their ability to use their magic to hurt others and given that magic is more dangerous than a sword or a bow, the restrictions must be greater still.
 

[Xilizhra]

No, restrictions to you and me come not in relation to our vulnerability to develop mental conditions that create murderous urges in us.

Well, if we're mentally ill, they do.

 

 

Restrictions are placed upon every single member of the society in relation to nothing but our hability to grab a rock and smash someone's head with it.

Therefore, there is no reason to behave any differently with mages. Restrictions must be placed upon them in relation to their ability to use their magic to hurt others and given that magic is more dangerous than a sword or a bow, the restrictions must be greater still.

Sounds to me like the equivalent would be limiting availability, i.e. only teaching offensive magic to those of proven character.

[GreaterGoodIreland]

Are you referring to what Anders did or what the rebellion did?

 

Because if you are referring to the former then I disagree, seeing as it provided those opposing less restrictions and more freedom with a frightening example of why mages should not have more freedom or fewer restriction imposed upon them. It was also intended by Anders to force his opinion on his fellow mages, which would include children and the elderly, by forcing them into a conflict.

 

Mages were looked at with more sympathy from the populace and this decrease in fear could have potentially lead to more peaceful means of removing restrictions and ensuring more mage rights.
 

The Rebellion. What Anders did was straight lone-wolf terrorism, even if it did strike at the heart of the establishment doing the oppression. He didn't take a vote of the mages, he didn't even bother trying to gather votes, he just went out and did it.

 

Fiona acted with the full legitimacy first in her position as leader of the Libertarians and then as leader of the Rebellion once the vote had been taken, though I can hear the cries of "manipulation" already, as if she was a saint rather than a politician.

[Bayonet Hipshot]

The Mayor of Crestwood and Mistress Poulin of Sahrnia were also desperate leaders who resorted to terrible things. The Inquisitor could judge and punish them. The punishment varied from merciful ones to harsh ones but it was there. Fiona should have gotten the same treatment.

 

I am someone who is pro-mage and pro-Circle. My position is quite similar to Wynne's position. I think Fiona was an awful leader and out of character, given her experiences as a slave, as an ex-Grey Warden, as a Grand Enchanter and as a rebellious person. If Fiona was being true to herself, she would have given Alexius the finger the moment the Inquisition stepped in, just like how she was willing to give the finger to the Chantry and Templars in Asunder at a very tense moment by declaring Circle secession. For someone who was a slave, I find it hypocritical that she indentured herself and the entire Rebel Mage to Alexius, especially when you take into consideration that the Ferelden Monarchy have granted the Rebel Mages refugee status to seek asylum in Ferelden. All she really had to do if she was worried about Templars was to contact Arl Teagan for aid, since he is part of the Ferelden Crown or at least related to it and is bound to uphold the refugee asylum status for the Rebel Mages.

[Colonelkillabee]

Terrorism is a tactic, freedom fighting is a cause, what you call it depends on your perspective. It was both, to my mind. Soldiers of the most righteous causes have committed atrocities equal to or greater than that over the centuries, on Earth and on Thedas.

 

Can't really argue the British weren't eejits though.

To my knowledge, the ones that were successful had more tactical advantage than making enemies that were friends, and killing people not involved directly unless the attack also killed their enemy, or allowed them to destroy or obtain enemy intel, supplies, whatever.

 

I'm sorry, but these acts were just ****** stupid.

[MisterJB]

Sounds to me like the equivalent would be limiting availability, i.e. only teaching offensive magic to those of proven character.

Except we know that sometimes a moody brat discovers he has magic because he just fried his mom on accident.

[Xilizhra]

Except we know that sometimes a moody brat discovers he has magic because he just fried his mom on accident.

Is that a spell, or just a random spurt of magic? I'm fairly sure it's the latter.

[MisterJB]

Is that a spell, or just a random spurt of magic? I'm fairly sure it's the latter.

Right, even within Circles of Magi, blood mages and demon summoning occur.

 

And you think that we can just somehow prevent the majority of the mage population from leaning anything as basic as creating a fire when even children can do it on accident?
One of the codex in DAI tells of a mage who had a bad dream and set his bed on fire.
 

[Xilizhra]

Right, even within Circles of Magi, blood mages and demon summoning occur.

 

And you think that we can just somehow prevent the majority of the mage population from leaning anything as basic as creating a fire when even children can do it on accident?
One of the codex in DAI tells of a mage who had a bad dream and set his bed on fire.
 

Why would it have to be the majority? After all, most people don't have violent criminal tendencies.

[Colonelkillabee]

Why would it have to be the majority? After all, most people don't have violent criminal tendencies.

Because it doesn't take a mage that has violent criminal tendencies to make **** hit the proverbial fan in thedas. All it really takes is for something to cause them to get emotional. Death of a family member for instance, like in Redcliffe, which is rather common.

[MisterJB]

Why would it have to be the majority? After all, most people don't have violent criminal tendencies.

Because you are offering an alternative. The freedom of mages being dependant upon their inability to kill people if they feel like it.

If you are not even willing to target the majority, then it's an worthless alternative because people will still be dependant upon the kindness of mages in order to survive which is not acceptable.

 

Most people also don't have the ability to level a city block if they're having a bad day.

[thesuperdarkone2]

Did everyone here suddenly forget arl wulff aiding the Venatori alliance?

[Colonelkillabee]

Doesn't matter, Arl Wulff can be tried and killed for that if you want, yet Fiona (not that I'd kill my boo) can't. She needs to take responsibility too, she's ultimately the one that had to agree.

 

I also wonder if Wulff really did that on his own accord. I can't possibly see people in Ferelden thinking "yep, lets give Tevinter our rebel mages and strengthen their armies". Hate to bring up blood magic every time someone's a dumb ass, but I'm sure hoping.

[thesuperdarkone2]

Doesn't matter, Arl Wulff can be tried and killed for that if you want, yet Fiona (not that I'd kill my boo) can't. She needs to take responsibility too, she's ultimately the one that had to agree.

I also wonder if Wulff really did that on his own accord. I can't possibly see people in Ferelden thinking "yep, lets give Tevinter our rebel mages and strengthen their armies". Hate to bring up blood magic every time someone's a dumb ass, but I'm sure hoping.

The war table op pretty much says nope, he legitimately thought the mages would be better off in Tevinter

[Colonelkillabee]

The war table op pretty much says nope, he legitimately thought the mages would be better off in Tevinter

Then he's a moron I'll be sure to execute. Doesn't let the mages off the hook either.

[thesuperdarkone2]

Then he's a moron I'll be sure to execute. Doesn't let the mages off the hook either.

Of course, it doesn't mean the mages are completely at fault if a Ferelden arl both facilitated and encouraged the alliance. What reason would they have to reject it if they thought it was backed by Ferelden nobility

[GreaterGoodIreland]

For the record, I'm all for an option to let Fiona be judged by the Inquisitor. It makes absolute sense from a story perspective.

[Colonelkillabee]

Of course, it doesn't mean the mages are completely at fault if a Ferelden arl both facilitated and encouraged the alliance. What reason would they have to reject it if they thought it was backed by Ferelden nobility

It wasn't backed by the only ferelden nobility that mattered, the king, or the family or Redcliffe whose land they were occupying and thinking of giving control to Venatori.

[KaiserShep]

Did everyone here suddenly forget arl wulff aiding the Venatori alliance?

 

 

Honestly I think that this is one of those more obscure details in the game that not many would encounter or notice. I wonder how many players even remember Arl Wulff. 

[Master Warder Z_]

Honestly I think that this is one of those more obscure details in the game that not many would encounter or notice. I wonder how many players even remember Arl Wulff.

He looked smelly in DAO

[Dean_the_Young]

The Mayor of Crestwood and Mistress Poulin of Sahrnia were also desperate leaders who resorted to terrible things. The Inquisitor could judge and punish them. The punishment varied from merciful ones to harsh ones but it was there. Fiona should have gotten the same treatment.

 

I am someone who is pro-mage and pro-Circle. My position is quite similar to Wynne's position. I think Fiona was an awful leader and out of character, given her experiences as a slave, as an ex-Grey Warden, as a Grand Enchanter and as a rebellious person. If Fiona was being true to herself, she would have given Alexius the finger the moment the Inquisition stepped in, just like how she was willing to give the finger to the Chantry and Templars in Asunder at a very tense moment by declaring Circle secession. For someone who was a slave, I find it hypocritical that she indentured herself and the entire Rebel Mage to Alexius, especially when you take into consideration that the Ferelden Monarchy have granted the Rebel Mages refugee status to seek asylum in Ferelden. All she really had to do if she was worried about Templars was to contact Arl Teagan for aid, since he is part of the Ferelden Crown or at least related to it and is bound to uphold the refugee asylum status for the Rebel Mages.

 

Honestly, I was disappointed we couldn't commend them for making necessary sacrifices. Betrayal or no, the Blight is the Blight. And Poulin's collaboration was a no-win situation- not doing business with the Red Templars once she knew the truth wouldn't have helped anyone, since at that point they would have/could have just abducted people anyway. She wasn't in a position to stop them.

 

It's not that I don't feel it's perfectly alright to condemn them- I'd just have liked it if for some of our judgements (like this one) we could judge 'not guilty,' or 'justified.' For the proven members of the Venatori, every option being a punishment of sorts makes sense. But for questions of whether it's really a crime, given the context? We can absolve the Wardens for worse.

 

And yes, I'd be more than open to the possibility of a 'not guilty' judgement of Fiona having that as an option if she were tried. Put in the relevant approval effects if you do, but by all means let the Inquisitor give pro-mage rhetoric and absolve Fiona of guilt because Templars. The Templar judgement of Knight Captain Denam allows you to sentence him to, well, being a Templar.

 

*I note we haven't actually mentioned Ser Denam much- and he is a Templar judgement in which the idea of 'just following orders' is raised. The charge isn't that he knowingly did anything bad- it really is that he followed orders that harmed and risked his faction. That's could be relevant to Fiona as well.

[Hellion Rex]

^^i guess I don't mention Denam often is that he seems kind of...forgettable in the grand scheme of things?

[Master Warder Z_]

^^i guess I don't mention Denam often is that he seems kind of...forgettable in the grand scheme of things?

Plus he's a loon.

He's akin to a willing collaborator more so then a misguided officer anyway. He knew about Cory, Samson, etc, he went along with it.

He's as much a Templar by that point as Fiona.