1503 réponses à ce sujet

[Collider]

Well, the order and what they stand for as a whole. Not necessarily every individual Templar. Certainly I'd say the ones who participate in said acts -and- the ones who don't object or disapprove deserve a tenderizing via golem.

So I take Alistair would not quite fit said golem pulverizing bill?

[Everwarden]

Collider wrote...

Well, the order and what they stand for as a whole. Not necessarily every individual Templar. Certainly I'd say the ones who participate in said acts -and- the ones who don't object or disapprove deserve a tenderizing via golem.

So I take Alistair would not quite fit said golem pulverizing bill?

No, he hates the Chantry and what they stand for in most cases. He was more than happy to leave, so I don't really count him as a templar. I am speaking of the ones who actually believe the templar 'doctrine'.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Templars are prepared for such insurgencies, its called the Rite of Annulment (or is it Right of Annulment? nvm). That however is not a fast response, and it takes time to gather forces to be ready for such an undertaking. The Templars did exactly what they were supposed to do. Cut their loses and contain the threat. The Templars stationed at the tower is more just a peacekeeping force, used to take care of the odd abomination or wayward mage, not an infestation of that magnitude.

[Ortaya Alevli]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Templars are prepared for such insurgencies, its called the Rite of Annulment (or is it Right of Annulment? nvm). That however is not a fast response, and it takes time to gather forces to be ready for such an undertaking. The Templars did exactly what they were supposed to do. Cut their loses and contain the threat. The Templars stationed at the tower is more just a peacekeeping force, used to take care of the odd abomination or wayward mage, not an infestation of that magnitude.

Peacekeeping force. Well, suppose you're the person responsible for garrisoning the tower. I suppose that would be the grand cleric. Anyway. Keeping the threat mages pose in mind, would you settle with a mere peacekeeping force or send a proper unit capable of taking care of any revolt? I see no reason to assume Greagoir's troops fall into the former category. It would suggest a terrible shortsightedness on the grand cleric's part, especially considering the Chantry is deeply involved (understatement?) in the tales of ancient Tevinter mage-lords abusing their power and becoming the greatest threat Thedas had to face time and again.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Grand Cleric should most certainly not station another army of Templars at the tower at all times. What would be the point? It would just risk even more lives if another incident ever occurs. Unless oyu suggest that the Templars should walk around in a state of constant alertness and never resting (and never giving the mages a rest either). No. Placing another army at the tower is simply waste of resources better spent elsewhere. The amount of Templars currently at the Tower are doing the job they are meant to perfectly. That job being to take care of the odd abomination and wayward mage. The only mistake of the Grand Cleric's was to think the leadership of the circle could be trusted.

[Ortaya Alevli]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Grand Cleric should most certainly not station another army of Templars at the tower at all times. What would be the point? It would just risk even more lives if another incident ever occurs. Unless oyu suggest that the Templars should walk around in a state of constant alertness and never resting (and never giving the mages a rest either). No. Placing another army at the tower is simply waste of resources better spent elsewhere. The amount of Templars currently at the Tower are doing the job they are meant to perfectly. That job being to take care of the odd abomination and wayward mage. The only mistake of the Grand Cleric's was to think the leadership of the circle could be trusted.

No, I didn't mean an "army" by any means. Numbers isn't the issue here. I'd like to point out the fact that the tower was cleared out by a grand total of four people. I'm talking about the logical choice of stationing a unit capable of handling any abomination incidents, no matter the scale. Besides, avoiding a "surprise attack" by no means requires templars to walk around in a state of constant alertness and never resting; that's what guard duty is for. I understand the Warden's party camp being taken by surprise when shrieks attack, but I don't understand templars being reduced to helpless citizens under siege. Just imagine what would happen if Wynne didn't erect that barrier. The Warden would probably have to fight his way to Lake Calenhad docks when he first arrived, never mind the tower itself.

[Morroian]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Second of all just because we see no sign of control amongst the dalish and cult of andraste does not mean there is no control at all. For instance what happens to all the apprentices of the Keeper after he chooses his first? They still got some magic talent, yet there are only 2 mages in all Dalish clans, odd no? And for all we know the mages of the cult of andraste goes under a modified harrowing, they are adheres to the chant of light so they surely feel some need for control of magic.

Thats a bit of a strawman, no-one (or at least not many) is saying that there shouldn't be some form of control. It just depends on what form the control takes while still respecting the rights of individuals.

Modifié par Morroian, 15 septembre 2010 - 01:52 .

[Riona45]

Morroian wrote...


Thats a bit of a strawman, no-one (or at least not many) is saying that there shouldn't be some form of control. It just depdnds on what form the contorl takes while still respecting the rights of individuals.

Yes, and it's also a matter of who's doing the controlling and what their biases are.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morroian wrote...

Thats a bit of a strawman, no-one (or at least not many) is saying that there shouldn't be some form of control. It just depends on what form the control takes while still respecting the rights of individuals.

I would argue that respecting the rights of the individuals requires there be no control.

There's no way to reconcile the two positions.  Either was you want extra controls over a subset of the populace, or you want to treat everyone equally.

You can't have it both ways.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 15 septembre 2010 - 04:37 .

[SgtElias]

Down with the Chantry! Free the Circle!

I sure hope that there's some huge, epic war a' brewin', and the mages finally stand up and say, "enough!"

At first I was sympathetic to the Templars and Chantry; I understand that in the past, mages have sorta been not so nice. But come on. Enough is enough. Honestly, I'm surprised that there hasn't been more of a rebellion already.

Although, I think an actual war (as much as the war-mongering part of me craves it) would do more harm than good, at first. Everyone naturally distrusts mages, anyway. If they started slaughtering religious figures and white-knights willy-nilly, I have a hard time imagining the general populace being particularly sympathetic.

Modifié par SgtElias, 15 septembre 2010 - 04:52 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...

I am narrow sighted because I think trying to get along with each other is better than imprisoning or killing each other? Mages do have an interest in not becoming abominations, or being possessed. So why is it unthinkable that the mages control themselves? It's not like mages are naturally worse people than templars. And I didn't see where the Chantry succeeds in keeping demons from taking over people.

Noone can do that. It's like stoppiong crime completely. Mission impossible. What the templas can and are doing is minimizing the number of powssesed mages, and containing or neutralizing those that do turn into abominations.
As  much as you don't like the system, IT WORKS. Proven in the lore.

In contrary, they even provoke mages to use blood magic. If you helped the Circle mages you met a couple who only sided with Uldred because they were sick of being treated like criminals even before they did anything. Is it not natural that if someone treats you like you did something bad you start thing oh well if they treat me like a bad guy anyway I can aswell act like it? There is a reason why people are considered innocent until proven otherwise. It is called justice.

Which is irrelevant in the current situation. Mages arent ordinary people. You can't treat them as such. That would be ignorance of the highest caliber. Justice is all nice adn well, but safety of the world is more important...and we can even get into the philosophical discussion of that is justice.



 

So I would rather try to understand and find solutions so everyone can be happy than compromising my beliefs out of fear.

Except you dont have any better solution, yet you'd still tear the current system down. You can't get everything you want - the world of DA:O isn't sunshine and lolipops.
You're not really trying to understand the situation - you've already mde your judgement.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 15 septembre 2010 - 07:30 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

nightcobra8928 wrote...
the problem is that mages are barely tolerated, they say or do anything that the templars might find annoying and they're beaten up or in some cases even killed. they are a threat to others and themeselves but to treat them like they're less than dogs whenever one as much as even looks at them doesn't help either.

Got any example of templars savagly beating up mages jsut because tehy didn't like his tone? No?

[Lotion Soronarr]

RazorrX wrote...



To throw this in:

There is a new Dragon Age Comic book that is written by Orson Scott Card. So far it has dealt with Mages and Templars.

1. Mages are forbidden to have children. When a mage turns up pregnant the Templar Commander strikes her, Makes a comment about telling the circle that two of their kind have been breeding, and later makes a statement that if he could she would be executed for it.

2. When she flees rather than have her child taken from her the templars are sent with this order “There is no capture for the witch, only death. This phylactery filled with her blood will lead you to her. When you find her, kill her at once, or you are no templar.”

3. Later when templars are heading out to ‘capture’ another apostate (a girl who is not a blood mage). They are joking about torturing and killing the ones they find rather than bring them to the tower.

I couldn't care less about Orson Scott Card.
When a specific contracted writer decides to take his own spin on something, that is basicly a contionuity of it's own...

Or do you fail to remember all the completley different version of batman, spiderman and superman, with completely different personalities...because tehy were written by different people, all of which put their own prejudices and ideas into comics?

[AlexXIV]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Except you dont have any better solution, yet you'd still tear the current system down. You can't get everything you want - the world of DA:O isn't sunshine and lolipops.
You're not really trying to understand the situation - you've already mde your judgement.

But I do have a better solution. Give more responsibility to the Circle mages and ease the Templar's grip. That's what you can ask for if you finish DA:O as a mage. Some times you have to tear down the current system to make space for a new and better. Especially if this current system is as arrogant and unreasonable as the Chantry.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 15 septembre 2010 - 07:43 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Considering the revolts that transpire throughout the centuries because of mages wanting freedom from the Chantry and the templars, I'd say that many of them see the Chantry as oppressive regardless of how you care to personally define it. It's the entire reason of Uldred's revolt.

It doesn't matter how much freedom you give to mages - as logn as it's not toal freedom, there will always be thsoe who resent it.
Yes, mages resent being loced up in towers. you know what? So do people thrown in jails. So do people locked up in menal institutions. It is irrelevant.
Do you honestly belive things would be better if mages roamed free?

No, discrimination is never warranted. And your example is a poor one. There's a big difference between risking infection of a deadly disease and properly educating people on their magical ability without treating them like a second class citizen or having drug addicts who hate them supervise them.

Actually, the comparison is an apt one. Youdon't know when a mage might go beserk or turn into an abomination (many won't).  But just like in the case of a unknown desease - you set up a quarantene.
No one gets in or out. You don't know who's infected and who isn't (just like you don't know which mages practices blood magic or will turn into an abomination)

Unfrair to those that aren't infected? Yes. Do you have a better way of handling it? No.

And that's the point. You don't have a better way of handling it. And you know you wouldn't get rid of a quarantene in real life.

[Morroian]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Got any example of templars savagly beating up mages jsut because tehy didn't like his tone? No?

The templars clearly have the power to abuse mages if they want, the system provides no checks on their behaviour except in terms of what is acceptable to individual commanders. 

[Morroian]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Morroian wrote...
Thats a bit of a strawman, no-one (or at least not many) is saying that there shouldn't be some form of control. It just depends on what form the control takes while still respecting the rights of individuals.

I would argue that respecting the rights of the individuals requires there be no control.

There's no way to reconcile the two positions.  Either was you want extra controls over a subset of the populace, or you want to treat everyone equally.

You can't have it both ways.

If you're a libertarian (real world libertarian) perhaps, but there would be a happy medium, its just a matter of finding it.

[AlexXIV]

Morroian wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Got any example of templars savagly beating up mages jsut because tehy didn't like his tone? No?

The templars clearly have the power to abuse mages if they want, the system provides no checks on their behaviour except in terms of what is acceptable to individual commanders. 

Well the point where I realized how 'out of line' templars are is when you recruit Anders into the Grey Wardens. You are the hero of Ferelden, the one who killed the Archdemon and is probably the greatest hero of your time but the templars still would rather kill you than letting you recruit a bloodmage, which is perfectly in your rights. And even the king/queen allows it. So the templars ignore the rights of the Wardens, the law of the country, the rights of the monarch of the land, because their 'sacred duty'. It can't get more fanatical and surely shows that they think they can do what they want where they want and whenever they want.

The Chantry may be ok on the bottom, but the higher you go through their ranks the more corruption you find. Like in most political parties. I don't see how they have the right to claim to be more or better than any other political organisation.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Everwarden wrote...
Play through as a mage, and when asked what you want request independence from the Chantry, the ruler declares that the Circle will now have the right to self-govern and exist outside of Chantry authority.

As D.G. said...teh Chantry's response was  "No".

Because you're gambling with the lives of people as it is. The Chantry abuses are what drive otherwise good mages to turn to violence. The way the Chantry treats mages -justifies- the use of blood magic, so where in the normal course of things evil mages would do evil and good mages would do good, the status quo encourages good mages to do evil things just to earn their basic human rights.

So you want to gamble with the lives of even mroe people? Truly brilliant logic!
"Hey, I'm gambling with the lives of hunderds...why not with the lives of tens of thousands while I'm at it!"

No. The way things work justifies nothing. It's like that because it has to be like that.
It's liek saying that a dangerous psycho that is thrown in a mental institution is justified in murdering his way out of it....because everyone deserves freedom, right?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Morroian wrote...
The templars clearly have the power to abuse mages if they want, the system provides no checks on their behaviour except in terms of what is acceptable to individual commanders. 

Aee you sure of that? We know there exist something like templar internal affairs/internal police (the Seekers).
Granted, too few data too see just what checks exist.

[Daerog]

Even if the Circles were removed from Chantry oversight. I would still suggest putting a non-mage organization in a position to check the Circles. Crazy mages are worse than crazy ordinary people. Templars or similar is still a must for such an organization if a rogue mage or rogue faction needs to be dealt with.

Edit: Would this change the situation at all? Perhaps, but at least all the anti-mages and psychos who wish to only hurt mages will try to join the other organization and get the hell out of the Chantry.

Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 15 septembre 2010 - 08:16 .

[Everwarden]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So you want to gamble with the lives of even mroe people? Truly brilliant logic!
"Hey, I'm gambling with the lives of hunderds...why not with the lives of tens of thousands while I'm at it!"

No. The way things work justifies nothing. It's like that because it has to be like that.
It's liek saying that a dangerous psycho that is thrown in a mental institution is justified in murdering his way out of it....because everyone deserves freedom, right?

We're going in circles here, I've already answered that earlier in the tread.

But to restate: It's a gamble either way, and I believe the chantry is doing more harm that good by provoking the mages into revolt. Seriously, imagine you are caged because of what you are, not what you've done. Imagine you, in a moment of passion, father a child on some fellow mage... and for this horrible crime against the maker the woman (and you) are brutally beaten and the child is taken away by the Chantry. Is that necessary? How exactly does that serve to defend the innocent people of Fereldan from magic?

It doesn't, you know it doesn't, and you're going to try saying it does anyway. The odds are that you'd feel enormous resentment at best, and be volunteering yourself to a pride demon just for some payback at worst.
The Chantry needs to be removed not because of the purpose they serve in guarding the mages, but because they completely abuse their position. I don't think it would be much of a mental leap to assume mage women would have a lot to fear from templars, as well. People don't usually take vows of chastity seriously.

Modifié par Everwarden, 15 septembre 2010 - 08:20 .

[AlexXIV]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Even if the Circles were removed from Chantry oversight. I would still suggest putting a non-mage organization in a position to check the Circles. Crazy mages are worse than crazy ordinary people. Templars or similar is still a must for such an organization if a rogue mage or rogue faction needs to be dealt with.

Edit: Would this change the situation at all? Perhaps, but at least all the anti-mages and psychos who wish to only hurt mages will try to join the other organization and get the hell out of the Chantry.

Well that's reasonable because the highest authority in a country is their monarch. So the king/queen at least should have some sort of control over what their mages are doing. But not the Chantry. Not as long as my main character still has a heartbeat left.

[Daerog]

AlexXIV wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Even if the Circles were removed from Chantry oversight. I would still suggest putting a non-mage organization in a position to check the Circles. Crazy mages are worse than crazy ordinary people. Templars or similar is still a must for such an organization if a rogue mage or rogue faction needs to be dealt with.

Edit: Would this change the situation at all? Perhaps, but at least all the anti-mages and psychos who wish to only hurt mages will try to join the other organization and get the hell out of the Chantry.

Well that's reasonable because the highest authority in a country is their monarch. So the king/queen at least should have some sort of control over what their mages are doing. But not the Chantry. Not as long as my main character still has a heartbeat left.

Funny, my main character, who is a mage, is in full support of the Chantry. However, I will disagree with the king/queen governing their own Circles. The Circle is an international organization, it would be frustrating to have separate nations using the Circles to their own end. An internation organization that is not tied to politics outside the Circle should be made. Heh, good luck with that... Still, kings/queens should not have complete say over an international organization.

Edit: I can just imagine kings/queens using mages freely in whatever war they find themselves in, and having a bunch of mages fighting in wars, even against other Circle mages, could be a problem. Which is why the involvment of mages in wars is limited. They can be needed, especially against the qunari, but they can cause a lot of damage.

Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 15 septembre 2010 - 08:28 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Anathemic wrote...
You didn't even counter this statement, all you referred to was the title and not the actual point numero 1 I bulleted on there, so therefore sir you EPIC FAIL.

No, I have coutnered it. You're basic premise is "that's not what Andraste wanted", but you really have nothing to back that up wioth. How do YOU know what Andraste wanted?

Okay well that was back in ye olde days, and as we all know everything is subjugated to time. Ever wonder why we don't kill people on sight anymore if theyre different? Because our society evolved ******, same can be applied to the Dragon Age universe, the societies there can evolve and so far are doing better than their real-world counterpart considering that human can live side by side and not have a problem with skin color which took the real-world counterpart like i dunno half a milennia to fix.

DA:O is not our world, and evolve as you might, some things won't change.
Again, we do lock up people if tehy are too dangerous - potentialy dangerous people can be locked up in mental institutions. During quaranteens potentially non-infected people are restrained, forced into confinement. Both of these examples have peoples  "freedoms" taken away, in our modern, "civlized" world.
Because it has to be done. It's as simple as that.

with diseases such as cancer, HIV, etc.? No it's not, again society evovled to accept these people, so can society in the Dragon Age universe, again at a much faster pace.

Again, I refer you to the post above. A specific danger, specific risk requires a specific response.

Name evil and abusive templars in the game.
Now name good templars....Hmm.. For some reason, I fail to see your point.

Lemee point you to a lil' book called The Calling, "no way me not reading a bookz on a game!", well if your going into a lore-based debate such as this, you might wanna do so. In the book the templars in the Circle yell at little girl mages just for kicks, sure not corrupt but pretty damn outright full of themselves.

Abusive templars? Do Wynne's side quest on the elf student she had (whose name escapes me atm) and learn how after a futile chase they outright lied to Wynee and proclaimed he was dead.

1) What we do know is this, humans enslaved elves, Andraste frees elves, Chantry exalted march wtfpwns elves, elves force to live as outcasts or second-class citizens among humans. I'm pretty much on the elves' side on this one.

Check the wiki again. The Exalted March was called after the elven army reached Val Royaux, long after the fighting started.

2) Qunari were invading to convert people into their society/religion wow look at that, Chantry got a piece of its own medicine, oh the irony.

I fail to see your point. How is calling a exhalted march to defend your lands evil?

3) Invalid, why? Because this was already done before, Cairidan and the corrupt king many centuries ago did this and no one had a problem with it, hell it helped against the darkspawn. You takes out the dwarves, the Blight will be a CONSTANT threat.

Not irrelevant. We don't know how aware the surfacers were of what was going on in the dwarve kingdoms. Also, the dwarves didn't use those golems to attack the surface. Aslo, things change.
If the Chatnry looked the other way back then, it doesn't mean it was the right thing to do.
Again, painfull, forced, soul-binding...no more needs to be said.

No one has a spotless record, but everyone is expected to redeem him/herself by what? oh yeah, STOP ****ING DOING IT. But no Chantry uses "Help the poor and sick" as an excuse for Imprisoning/persecuting/killing mages.

What the Chantry does it what needs to be done. It's a ****ty job, but somebody's got to do it.

Blood Magic comes from demons, demons are what? Spiritual manifestations of emotions. Blood Magic is powered by blood but the actual effect is a manifestation of an emotion.

No. Blood magic it taught by demons, but the demons are not the soruce of the power. Life force is.
Blood magic has little to do with actual emotion. I really dont' know where you got this.

I'm sorry sir but you are EPIC FAIL, why? Because:
1) You failed to come out in a reasonable manner in the debate
2) You fail to grasp the idea that Dragon Age universe is heavily based on our own (as all human-made games are)
3) You resort to insulting and badmouthing instead of trying to put up a decent debate.

Sir I suggest a Therapist

You fail to make any sense
You fail to relaise that the DA universe is very differnt from ours..once cannot apply our morality to it directly.

And I suggest you get some proper perspective and thining done, before posting.