1503 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Chris Readman wrote...
Wasn't the permission for the Rite of Annulment to be seeked from Redcliffe?
Where they have their own troubles and couldn't be bothered with these templars. Also, you have no proof that the templars COULD do anything either, what has happened was that Wynne and the mages had formed the first line of defense which they have held untill the warden's arrival.

Denerim actually.
Adnyou can't prove the opposite, so as an argument, it's USELESS.

And sure, Anders escaped 7 times, and he is the only one you can cite isn't he? Note my use of the word "almost". But bad-tempered templar lady was willing to do anything to have him dead, even defy the orders of the King or Queen of Ferelden. Nothing happens to people like this at all (at least untill the warden comes into the story), and they are people in the position of power, so how can you not see that this system needs some form of change? Not even a unbias system of checking?

Non-templar people loose their cool (and minds). People took justice into their own hands in real life on multiple occasions when theri freinds/family have been murdered.
And no, you have no proof that nothing happens to abusive templars. None.

Face it, you can't say that templars and Chantry are great, without just saying that "templars and Chantry are great" while having no proof. Which is what you have done in the first part of your argument. "Templars contained abominations, even though they stood behind the steel door, behind the other steel doors which demons broke through."

I recall only one doors. And templars have a historical record of doing their job.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Chris Readman wrote...

Oh by the way, in the codex entry for the Rite of Annulment, we learn that an abomination has escaped before, and we know that "[the templars] killed the abomination a year later, but by that time it had slain 70 people."
Now this is horrible, clearly, 70 people dying. But let's look at the facts here, it took the templars one year the find this abomination, ONE WHOLE YEAR!
Also, it's 70 people within a year, so people should try not to make it sound like mage abominations are so dangerous that they'll destroy all of humanity once they've escaped. It's not a small number, but it's not as dramatic as the anti-mage people try to make it sound.

A) It's a big country, and we don't know what was going on in the country at that time
abominations can exist wihout mutating the exterior, thus a abomination can hide admist the populace, if it's smart enough
C) Abominations vary in power in abiltiy too, and the 70 are probably the only deaths confirmed to be by it. The actual death toll could be much higher
D) You have no proof that someone else could catch it faster.

[Lotion Soronarr]

MariSkep wrote...
The Chantry can't do its job. I understand that one escapee in a hundred and more years isn't bad for a prison but a magically guarded prison with giant metal doors blocking every floor and with only one way out? (And even then you'd have to swim across the entire lake to get to dry land.) You should have an impeccable record. 

Not evne Alcatraz had an impeccable record. And it's inmates can't mind control and throw fireballs.

Go away you annoying god-bot.

No.

[Chris Readman]

Well, I can prove that the templars just waited for their response without even trying to retake the tower. It may be a plot-device, but they were more than happy to wait at the entrance while sending someone else into the tower. Since you've demonstrated in-game that 4 normal templars could retake the tower, why didn't the ones outside do it if they were capable?

Also, I have proof that the mages did old out at least untill the warden arrived. And it was a mage (Wynne) who suggested going ahead to save the tower. A mage, not a templar. The reactions of the remaining templars in the tower were either to get possessed or to freak out and fear that everything was an abomination.

You don't have proof that someone regulates the templars for killing innocent mages either. So there you go as well.

If the demons were able to storm the whole of the tower with other doors (and if you didn't see any other doors, you must have had some eye problems), what made them so sure that locking that one door would do any good?

What historical record are you talking about now? The one which was just broken in front of your eyes? Or the one that I cited?

You say that I have no proof that someone else could have done it faster, but whose fault is it that I have no proof? If you want to get technical about it, it's because of the writers. But I have no proof simply because the templars and Chantry have been doing things their way the whole time. And again, you have no proof that someone else would have done a worse job either.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Chris Readman wrote...

Well, I can prove that the templars just waited for their response without even trying to retake the tower. It may be a plot-device, but they were more than happy to wait at the entrance while sending someone else into the tower. Since you've demonstrated in-game that 4 normal templars could retake the tower, why didn't the ones outside do it if they were capable?

Why should they? It's safer to wait for reinforcements. Not to mention that had they faield (remeber, no save) abominations could escape.

You don't have proof that someone regulates the templars for killing innocent mages either. So there you go as well.

Welll then, you can't go around claiming it's a problem, now can you?

It would be like me going around and accusing your of rape. After all, I'm not the one who has o prove you abused, you have to prove you didn't...right?

If the demons were able to storm the whole of the tower with other doors (and if you didn't see any other doors, you must have had some eye problems), what made them so sure that locking that one door would do any good?

A far as I understand it, these were the bigegst and heaviest doors in the tower, made specificly for riots.

What historical record are you talking about now? The one which was just broken in front of your eyes? Or the one that I cited?

There were no major abomination rampages for as long as the system was in place, to my knowledge.
Obviously hte system works..with so many lives at stake, it would have been replaced if it didn't work.

You say that I have no proof that someone else could have done it faster, but whose fault is it that I have no proof? If you want to get technical about it, it's because of the writers. But I have no proof simply because the templars and Chantry have been doing things their way the whole time. And again, you have no proof that someone else would have done a worse job either.

No, but look at it this way. We have a single fact from a single incident  - it took templars a year to catch one abomination. We don't know WHY it took them a year. You simply assume it was incompetence, but really, that's not a fact.
In fact, I see that a lot in this thread...rampart conclusion jumping.

[Chris Readman]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Why should they? It's safer to wait for reinforcements. Not to mention that had they faield (remeber, no save) abominations could escape.

Er... Because the abominations can build up their forces and storm them? And don't say that I'm making an assumption here, since we know Uldred is converting mages. You can say that the templars don't know this, but it goes to show that they lack the foresight that Wynne has.

Welll then, you can't go around claiming it's a problem, now can you?

It would be like me going around and accusing your of rape. After all, I'm not the one who has o prove you abused, you have to prove you didn't...right?

Different scenarios. Using exaggerated "parallel" scenarios is not an effective argument. Also, I have more circumstancial evidence. Templars apparently go on the missions by themselves with no regulatory body. Also, Wynne does not mention anything else happening to the templars who tried to kill Anerim.

A far as I understand it, these were the bigegst and heaviest doors in the tower, made specificly for riots.

Oh! A big physical door against demons which don't exactly bound themselves to the physical rules of our reality. Also, A door that appears to be surrounded by the same building material that makes up the rest of the tower. Look, if the tower had windows, which it should have, doors don't really prevent the demons from escaping.

There were no major abomination rampages for as long as the system was in place, to my knowledge.
Obviously hte system works..with so many lives at stake, it would have been replaced if it didn't work.

Well obviously it will be replaced. I mean, people are after not resistant to change and the Chantry will obviously admit that they are wrong and ask for volunteers to suggest changes. See how it went wrong once in the game, and if your mage asks for the boon to free the mages, the Chantry just says "No, nuh uh" in Awakening.

No, but look at it this way. We have a single fact from a single incident  - it took templars a year to catch one abomination. We don't know WHY it took them a year. You simply assume it was incompetence, but really, that's not a fact.
In fact, I see that a lot in this thread...rampart conclusion jumping.

If you say that the abomination has the ability to disguise itself, why haven't templars researched a way to identify abominations then? We can tell that they probably can't do this even now, since Cullen feels the need to destroy all mages just to be safe. See how there are flaws in their current system that they aren't willing to change?

Random conclusion jumping? "Pot, hello there, it's the kettle, just calling to tell you that you're black!". And how about blind faith huh? Lots of that here too.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Chris Readman wrote...

Different scenarios. Using exaggerated "parallel" scenarios is not an effective argument. Also, I have more circumstancial evidence. Templars apparently go on the missions by themselves with no regulatory body. Also, Wynne does not mention anything else happening to the templars who tried to kill Anerim.

What circumstantial evidece..And yes, templars go on mission by themselves..you know..like the police..or the army..SHOCKING!!!!

Wynne doesn't say a lot. Juisdt becasue she doesn't mention something, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Oh! A big physical door against demons which don't exactly bound themselves to the physical rules of our reality. Also, A door that appears to be surrounded by the same building material that makes up the rest of the tower. Look, if the tower had windows, which it should have, doors don't really prevent the demons from escaping.

We don't know anything about those doors.  They might be warded for all we know. And last I checked, demons didn't fly and mages (and abominations) have limitations. They can't exactly pass trough walls.

If you say that the abomination has the ability to disguise itself, why haven't templars researched a way to identify abominations then? We can tell that they probably can't do this even now, since Cullen feels the need to destroy all mages just to be safe. See how there are flaws in their current system that they aren't willing to change?

How is that a falw in the system. The mages are locked up precisely because anyone can become an abomination or be an abomination.

Random conclusion jumping? "Pot, hello there, it's the kettle, just
calling to tell you that you're black!". And how about blind faith huh?
Lots of that here too.

Mind expanding on that?
Also, common curtesy dictates that it's the accuser that needs to supply evidence. Ergo, if you are attacking tempars and the chantry, then you need to have real evidence. None of  this speculative rubbish.

You're free to point out exactly where I tried to pass anything that wasn't a fact as a fact. All I did so far was present alternate explanations and correct false claims.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]DMC12 wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]DMC12 wrote...

Even if Andraste was a powerful mage who made up the story of the Maker, it doesn't explain the Guardian who knows intimate details of yourself and companions, is immortal,  then fights you if you pour some blood on them.

Also I highly doubt that was her plan: to dupe the masses and become the world leader. I think it was more, Andraste = 1/2 Joan of Ark, 1/2 Jesus Christ.

Damn, I feel weird typing all of this, since I'm actually creeping myself out at how much of a nerd I can be.. But my generalized thesis on the subject is that there is a god in the DA universe, and arguing over whether or not there isn't is a moot point, since all the spirits (not just the fade ones), magic, immortal characters, and miraculous items all point towards a deity. The intentions, appearance, and location of that divine being and the truth behind the religions worshiping their respective deities is what the real question is.
[/quote]

Yes, the Guardian knows the backstories of the Warden and the companions, but not enough to know whether or not the Warden is going to pour blood onto the Ashes. He's a mortal who doesn't even know that Tevinter is no longer as powerful as it once was. As for his abilities, Oghren said the lyrium is affecting the temple and everything in it. It's an explanation for the ashes in the Urn and the Guardian. After all, despite all of Andraste's professed power, she couldn't use any of it to save herself from being burned alive, and there's no explanation of why the Maker did nothing to save her if he was real.

Morrigan and Leliana have this debate. Leliana makes the same points you do, and Morrigan counters it by saying that simply because there is magic, that doesn't mean there's a Maker. Morrigan comments to Leliana that "The fact of their existence does not presuppose an intelligent design by some absentee father-figure." It's a world that is both similiar and different than our own, but it's a matter of faith whether one believes in the elven gods or the Maker. As Morrigan says, "Magic is real. I can touch it and command it and I need no faith for it to fill me up inside. If you are looking for your higher power, there it is." [/quote]

The Guardian knows only the backstories, he doesn't know the future. If he could read your character's mind that well, he'd be reading your mind as a player, which is impossible in a decision based game, but not impossible for something like a purely linear game or a movie.

Lyrium could also be an explanation for the ashes, but then why can't the mages and their magic/potions cure Eamon?

As for the question of why the Maker didn't save Andrate... I'm not getting into that. Unlike the Guardian, I know where that path will lead to in the future.

When it comes to Morrigan and Leliana's religious discusions, I agree that magic has a legitimate reason behind it. What doesn't have a clear reason is the relation between blood and the spirit, namely the killing of the Archdemon. All Grey Warden's have Archdemon bood flowing within them, but it isn't the blood of the Archdemon they are fighting. Again, the transfer of the Archdemon spirit to a fetus born from some strange ritual and a Grey Warden makes no sense on a logical scale. Because what it says to me is that the spirit is entirely different than a fade spirit/demon, which is can be destroyed by conventional means, whereas the spirit as presented in the case of the Archdemon cannot. It needs something similarly intangible and powerful to be destroyed, thus a Grey Warden spirit whose blood (which somehow connects to the spirit) has been mutated on the level of an Archdemon. So maybe there's some science and logic involved, but only as a connection between the real and the divine.

To me, that's the clearest case of a divine source: the connection between blood and the spirit (for the last time, NOT Fade spirits/demons).

Edit: sorry for the late responses. Just picked up Reach and I'm going through campaign at the moment, so I have no track of time.

[/quote]

The Guardian's inability to know the future or that a deal was made with Kolgrim illustrates that he's not embued with divine abilities from the Maker. As for questions about lyrium, Sandal is an example of how exposure to the substance can change someone dramatically. If you have faith that the Maker exists in DA:O, that's fine, but there's no proof. You can't cite the Urn of Andraste and the Guardian as proof of the Maker's existance when the explanation of lyrium is provided as a valid alternative within the story of DA:O. The Guardian's ability to see into their pasts can be explained as a result of the lyrium, which seems to also change Sandal from a normal dwarf into one who somehow managed to clear an entire room of darkspawn. Oghren himself admits its the largest wall of lyrium he's ever experienced. As far as I'm concerned, I agree with Morrigan's assessment that there's no Maker.


[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Personally, I'd rather destroy the Chantry. I see no point in reforming it when their intention is to force their religion onto every person throughout Thedas. I don't think the Chantry's abuses against the elves and the mages are warranted. [/quote]

Given that you can display your disbelief and dislike of the Chantry, and no one tries to force you to convert, I fail to see how they are forcing their religion on anyone.
And you know...people generally try to convince each other on what they belive it's the truth. We're doing it right now. [/quote]

You want an example? The Dales were taken over by Orlais and worship of the elven gods was forbidden.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Only if the mage is a Grey Warden; otherwise, the Chantry takes their child away.[/quote]

Incorrect. A mage doesn't have to be a GW. He "just" has to earn that privelige. [/quote]

If you bothered to read the templar chastity thread instead of assuming you're always correct, David Gaider said mages can't raise their own children even if they're married, and GWs are exempt from this because they are no longer tied to the Chantry. Unless you're presuming to know more about the mages than David Gaider, that is.

[quote]David Gaider wrote...
[quote]leonia42 wrote...
What happens if they have a child (I assume the Chantry still takes it away from the couple)?
[/quote]
Yes, married or not the child of a mage is taken away by the Chantry. [/quote]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
You realize the Circle sided with Uldred until Wynne revealed that Loghain abandoned the troops at Ostagar, right? Considering that Wynne told the Circle that Loghain abandoned the King and his army to the darkspawn, it's certainly a valid reason why they wouldn't trust him. [/quote]

No. At no point did the whole Circle side with Uldred. Now you're making things up. [/quote]

Just because you didn't bother to actually listen to the conversations in the game doesn't mean I'm wrong. Wynne says the Circle sided with Uldred when he revealed that Loghain would give them more freedom from the Chantry, but turned against him when Wynne arrived and revealed Loghain's betrayal. They confronted him about the truth of Loghain's treachery against the King, and Uldred turned against him with the aid of the blood mages.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

So a Grey Warden can come in and clean up the mess that the templars are incapable of resolving on their own, like in A Broken Circle? The templars are drug addicts, so I'd dispute that they're needed. Alistair and Anora both agree that the mages have earned the right to look after themselves.[/quote]

Dispute it all you want, but the Maker (David) sayeth otherwise.

[/quote]

And the rulers of Ferelden, Alistair and Anora, say otherwise. Your point?

Modifié par LobselVith8, 20 septembre 2010 - 02:24 .

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

MariSkep wrote...

As sad as it might sound sometimes you really do have to force new ideas or force old ones out of people by the sword. If the pay off is a more secure, productive and generally better society (just lifting the restrictions on studying the body would be enough for huge leaps forward) I'd be willing to fight even the people I hope to help. Wouldn't be the first time I've done it. At Thedas' current rate nothing will change and their backwards policies have left them vulnerable to a much more oppressive and callous society; the Qunari.

We shall create a better society by killing the majority of the people on the planet!
Brilliant. Brilliant!

And then they say that only religious people can be fanatical zealots. Another claim internet forums proved wrong.

If you're familiar with history, revolutions tend to involve bloodshed. Considering the oppressive reach that the Chantry has on Thedas, why shouldn't people want to dismantle it?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

MariSkep wrote...

I don't care what the 'true' religion is. It's not going to change how unjust and incompetent the Chantry is and it certainly isn't going to change my sense of right and wrong. Morality given by some bearded white guy atop a cloud palace is no more 'true' to me than anything else people can come up with.

Ah..but the people of Thads would. You'd be going agaisnt most of the world.
Not only that, if you don't care about Gods morality, why would anyone else care about  yours? Or why would they choose yours over his? Who is more likely to be right?
A divine being possesing knowledge and wisdom far outstripping that of any mortal man, or..well..you?

In the end of the day, you'd be trying to conver the world by force, regardless fo the death toll, which is worse than everything the Chantry does.

EDIT: I'm sorely tempted to go around and slay any non-believer and mage I ran across in DA2, and not because that's something I would normally do, but because I know you wouldn't like it.

The World? The Qunari don't believe in the Maker. Neither do the Dalish or the Dwarves. The humans of Orlais and Ferelden do, and I'm certain other parts of Thedas where the Chant of Light has spread. But humanity isn't the world, they're a group of people amongst others who have their own faith and their own ideas about what the truth of the world is. They're trying to force their religion onto other people, and have conquered lands in their aim to spread the Chant of Light. Considering the destruction of the Dales and the oppression of the mages, why shouldn't people want to destroy the Chantry? Yes, it'll involve a war with the Chantry, but if it means freedom, I can see why there are people who would take that risk.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Chris Readman wrote...

Wasn't the permission for the Rite of Annulment to be seeked from Redcliffe?
Where they have their own troubles and couldn't be bothered with these templars. Also, you have no proof that the templars COULD do anything either, what has happened was that Wynne and the mages had formed the first line of defense which they have held untill the warden's arrival.

Denerim actually.
And you can't prove the opposite, so as an argument, it's USELESS.

Given that the templars didn't do anything and Irving said the abomination Uldred would destroy them, I see no reason why we shouldn't trust a learned scholar of the arcane arts who has witnessed, first hand, what Uldred is capable of.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Chris Readman wrote...

And sure, Anders escaped 7 times, and he is the only one you can cite isn't he? Note my use of the word "almost". But bad-tempered templar lady was willing to do anything to have him dead, even defy the orders of the King or Queen of Ferelden. Nothing happens to people like this at all (at least untill the warden comes into the story), and they are people in the position of power, so how can you not see that this system needs some form of change? Not even a unbias system of checking?

Non-templar people loose their cool (and minds). People took justice into their own hands in real life on multiple occasions when theri freinds/family have been murdered.
And no, you have no proof that nothing happens to abusive templars. None.

Templars are also armored and armed drug addicts who have no oversight. An insane Cullen has the chance to take over as Knight-Commander if the Circle is culled, after all. Mages have no one in their corner who can protect them from the templars; even Irving had to submit to Knight-Commander Greagoir's ruling in the Magi Origin, and even a Warden who did as Irving commanded (by helping Jowan) faced the wrath of Knight-Commander Greagoir for going into the phylactery chamber despite the fact that the Warden was following the orders of Irving, and it was made clear that Greagoir wanted to punish the Warden for this (saved only by Duncan conscripting the mage into service as a Warden).

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Chris Readman wrote...

Face it, you can't say that templars and Chantry are great, without just saying that "templars and Chantry are great" while having no proof. Which is what you have done in the first part of your argument. "Templars contained abominations, even though they stood behind the steel door, behind the other steel doors which demons broke through."

I recall only one doors. And templars have a historical record of doing their job.

Yes, templars have a historical record of murdering men, women, and children for over 700 years.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 20 septembre 2010 - 02:50 .

[Chris Readman]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What circumstantial evidece..And yes, templars go on mission by themselves..you know..like the police..or the army..SHOCKING!!!!

Wynne doesn't say a lot. Juisdt becasue she doesn't mention something, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

That... is the circumstantial evidence... They go on the mission by themselves, no one observes them, there's hardly any way to see if they've done anything wrong, therefore they can get away scott free.

And why wouldn't Wynne mention anything happening to the templars who harmed her student? An incident that's been eating away at her away for years which she's decided to be completely open about.

We don't know anything about those doors.  They might be warded for all we know. And last I checked, demons didn't fly and mages (and abominations) have limitations. They can't exactly pass trough walls.

Er... desire demons float... And wrath demons materialise out of nowhere.

How is that a falw in the system. The mages are locked up precisely because anyone can become an abomination or be an abomination.

It's a flaw in the system simply because mages can escape, so can abominations. And yet nothing is being done to improve the detection of abominations. Only the simple, and frankly dumb, solution of killing everything exists.

Mind expanding on that?
Also, common curtesy dictates that it's the accuser that needs to supply evidence. Ergo, if you are attacking tempars and the chantry, then you need to have real evidence. None of  this speculative rubbish.

You're free to point out exactly where I tried to pass anything that wasn't a fact as a fact. All I did so far was present alternate explanations and correct false claims.

You just mentioned not knowing anything about the doors, which MIGHT have wards.
And there's also the issue of demon capability.
You mention historical records proving that templars and Chantry have done their job well when there are at least two cases otherwise.
You made the assumption that there would be a reply to the request for The Rite of Annulment (to be fair I made the assumption that it wouldn't, but you still did make the assumption).
You assume that all the pro-mage people want mages without supervision.
You say that the templars are 100% needed for sure, when there are other cases where they don't exist, like the Qunari (don't like this example, but still holds true) and Dalish Elves.
You also changed the definition of "mission success" for the templars from "completely stopping abominations" to just "containing them". And even this part of the "success" is questionable.
There's the assumption that mages cannot police themselves, when there are upright mages like Irving and Wynne who are up to the task. One Uldred does not equate the all of them being unable to look after themselves.
When the mages of the distant past were brought up, you say that they could have been monitored when there's no evidence of this or otherwise.
The Harrowing is not a test that ALL mages have to go through, but it only applies to Circle mages. Morrigan is a powerful mage resistant to demon temptations who would not have gone through the Circle's Harrowing.

Quite a list huh?

Oh and the defense has to provide proper counter-evidence as well.

Modifié par Chris Readman, 20 septembre 2010 - 03:20 .

[Lumikki]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Templars are also armored and armed drug addicts who have no oversight. An insane Cullen has the chance to take over as Knight-Commander if the Circle is culled, after all. Mages have no one in their corner who can protect them from the templars; even Irving had to submit to Knight-Commander Greagoir's ruling in the Magi Origin, and even a Warden who did as Irving commanded (by helping Jowan) faced the wrath of Knight-Commander Greagoir for going into the phylactery chamber despite the fact that the Warden was following the orders of Irving, and it was made clear that Greagoir wanted to punish the Warden for this (saved only by Duncan conscripting the mage into service as a Warden).

You know when I read this, it really show that it's about view point of players as how they want to see situation. I did not see situation like this, even if you got some facts right. It's like in movie of "Abyss" where the woman says, "You have to look it in better eyes". If you look monsters, you see monsters.

[Chris Readman]

Oh oh! I have MORE for Lotion Soronnar! This is so fun!

Mages who pass the Harrowing are not said to have limited freedom, you made this claim based only on Wynne's departure and influential nobles buying their services.

There's some mention about the Chantry not forcing their religion onto others, but according to the codex for "The City Elves", they "were not enslaved as we had been before, but our worship of the ancient gods was now forbidden. We were allowed to live among the humans only as second-class citizens who worshipped their Maker, forgetting once more the scraps of lore we had maintained through the centuries.".

And there's the matter of mages and their children, you say that they WILL be taken care of and "WILL PROBABLY have a good life in the care of the Chantry". But we don't know that.

You also say that mages are DEFINITELY dangerous to their own children. This is true only if they get possessed, but it's not like they get possessed all of a sudden while walking down the streets.
There's also the outright rejection of the comic as reliable evidence just because it's anti-templar, when it does indeed illustrate that the templars aren't as great as you thought they were. This of course doesn't apply to all templars, but it's still evidence for some of them, proving their prejudice.

Now I'm not anti-templar or Chantry, but you keep saying that the current system works. The only way it can "work" is when you put "not very well" behind it. Yup, no system is perfect, but it can be better.

Modifié par Chris Readman, 20 septembre 2010 - 04:16 .

[LobselVith8]

Lumikki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Templars are also armored and armed drug addicts who have no oversight. An insane Cullen has the chance to take over as Knight-Commander if the Circle is culled, after all. Mages have no one in their corner who can protect them from the templars; even Irving had to submit to Knight-Commander Greagoir's ruling in the Magi Origin, and even a Warden who did as Irving commanded (by helping Jowan) faced the wrath of Knight-Commander Greagoir for going into the phylactery chamber despite the fact that the Warden was following the orders of Irving, and it was made clear that Greagoir wanted to punish the Warden for this (saved only by Duncan conscripting the mage into service as a Warden).

You know when I read this, it really show that it's about view point of players as how they want to see situation. I did not see situation like this, even if you got some facts right. It's like in movie of "Abyss" where the woman says, "You have to look it in better eyes". If you look monsters, you see monsters.

What is it you're disputing? Templars are addicted to lyrium, Cullen loses it as a result of the Uldred revolt (either ruling in fear or murdering mages as a madman if the Circle is spared), Irving makes it clear that he has no choice in the decision to make Jowan tranquil because he can't overrule Greagoir, and Greagoir wants to punish the Warden regardless of whether they were acting on Irving's orders. How do any of these events pertain to a particular point of view? If you favor what the templars do, feel free to articulate why instead of insinuating that someone is incorrect. You're welcome to embrace the policies of the Chantry just as Wynne did, and I'm free to argue that the Chantry should be abolished.

[Lumikki]

My point was that you want to see these situation as bad way, because that's what you want.

Example addicted to lyrium. You make it's like bad thing. There is billions of smoke addicted in our real world, does it make them evil or bad? No, but you want lyrium use to be bad, because it fits you purpose and "proving" Templars is bad.

You say Cullen is insane in bad ways. You don't even take consider what was done to Cullen, losing mind from what he was forced to see would be expected from anyone. If You can't trust your eyes, how you can trust anything at all. So, be confused and angry agaist mages was natural reaction from anyone who was forced what Cullen was by Uldred.

You allways make it sound like every ruling is done by Chantry, when there is clear divided ruling between Greagoir and Irving. Irving is charge of Mages and deside what they do. How ever, in emergy "security" situation Greagoir has ruling, because it's his duty to protects Mages. Yes I sayed protect, not just judge them, like you seem to think. Greagoir only judge when it's necassary.

Of cause Greagoir is angry about Jowans situation, because Irving did something what he should not have done. Because Irving wanted to get Lili so that Gregoir can see better than it's not just Mages what needs watched over, but also his own people. This is what you have tryed to say, there is something wrong in Chantry too, but when Irving tries to show it, you just think it's wrath of Greagoirs.

Of cause Greagoir did not like that you break in phylactery chamber, because only two people has right to go there. It wasn't about punisment, but not reward it, because in Greagoirs eyes there wasn't anything to reward. Only Irving wanted to reward, because you did what was asked and did it well. You got both Lili and Jowan while doing the crime in front of Greagoirs eyes.

As for Ducan. Duncan was there to recruit you anyway. You had to notice this from first monent you saw Duncan. Because Duncan sayed "is this the one". It means Irving had allready planed to make you Grey Warden or give you Grey Wardens. So, the opportunity for Duncan be like rescuier you was perfect. But even if Duncan would not come, You would not be be punished, because Greagoir was angry to Irving, not just you. Gregoir wanted to know what really happen, because Irving has done all this behind Greigoirs back, what wasn't right thing to do.

So, my point again, you see what you want, because you want to see it that way. Is my eyes any better, of course not, but at least I don't look situation as so dark ways you do.

Modifié par Lumikki, 20 septembre 2010 - 05:09 .

[LobselVith8]

Lumikki wrote...

My point was that you want to see these situation as bad way, because that's what you want.

Example addicted to lyrium. You make it's like bad thing. There is billions of smoke addicted in our real world, does it make them evil or bad? No, but you want lyrium use to be bad, because it fits you purpose and "proving" Templars is bad.

Lyrium isn't nicotine. I mention it because the Chantry turns templars into addicts, and they're supposed to be watching over men, women, and children. It also means they lose their sanity after prolonged exposure or if they become disoriented if they aren't on it. Cullen references that some of his fellow templars talk in glee about killing mages, they take away their children the moment they're born, and they kill mages who run away, regardless of the reason. So yes, I think it's bad. You're welcome to disagree.

Lumikki wrote...

You say Cullen is insane in bad ways. You don't even take consider what was done to Cullen, losing mind from what he was forced to see would be expected from anyone. If You can't trust your eyes, how you can trust anything at all. So, be confused and angry agaist mages was natural reaction from anyone who was forced what Cullen was by Uldred.

So since Cullen was tortured, it's okay that he harms others as a result? If Cullen can't be trusted to be a soldier, then why is he made Knight-Commander if Greagoir dies? It's completely insane.

Lumikki wrote...

You allways make it sound like every ruling is done by Chantry, when there is clear divided ruling between Greagoir and Irving. Irving is charge of Mages and deside what they do. How ever, in emergy "security" situation Greagoir has ruling, because it's his duty to protects Mages. Yes I sayed protect, not just judge them, like you seem to think.

I don't think the Chantry is a good institution. Are you surprised that I dislike their conduct, given that I've said they should be dismantled? They turn mages into slaves in order to have effective rune-crafters, they steal children from their mothers, and they prohibit mages from owning land or having a title. Again, I don't like their policies, so don't be surprised that I don't like the Chantry.

If I get the chance in DA2, I'd happily lead an apostate Hawke with a mage army against the Orlesians, the templars, and the Chantry... even the Grey Wardens themselves if necessary.

Lumikki wrote...

Of cause Greagoir is angry about Jowans situation, because Irving did something what he should not have done. Because Irving wanted to get Lili so that Gregoir can see better than it's not just Mages what needs watched over, but also his own people. This is what you have tryed to say, there is something wrong in Chantry too, but when Irving tries to show it, you just think it's wrath of Greagoirs.

Greagoir also allowed it to happen. He references that he could have acted sooner, but didn't, based on Irving's suggestion. That doesn't change the fact that he wants to punish the Warden for helping Jowan regardless of Greagoir being well aware of the plan and waiting outside the chamber with his templars to ambush them.

Lumikki wrote...

Of cause Greagoir did not like that you break in phylactery chamber, because only two people has right to go there. It wasn't about punisment, but not reward it, because in Greagoirs eyes there wasn't anything to reward. Only Irving wanted to reward, because you did what was asked and did it well. You got both Lili and Jowan while doing the crime in front of Greagoirs eyes. As for Ducan. Duncan was there to recruit you anyway. You had to notice this from first monent you saw Duncan. Because Duncan sayed "is this the one". It means Irving had allready planed to make you Grey Warden. So, the opportunity for Duncan be like rescuier you was perfect. But even if Duncan would not come, You would not be be punished, because Greagoir was angry to Irving, not just you. Gregoir wanted to know what really happen, because Irving has done all this behind Greigoirs back, what wasn't right thing to do.

Yes, Greagoir was angry, but it's clear he wants to punish the Warden regardless of the fact that the Warden was acting on Irving's orders, which is why he's arguing with Irving after he's done speaking with Lily. He becomes even more hostile when he learns about the deal with Duncan.

[Lumikki]

Like I sayed, you have your way to look situation, I have mine. It's like we both interpret what happen little different ways, based our own view points.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Guardian's inability to know the future or that a deal was made with Kolgrim illustrates that he's not embued with divine abilities from the Maker. As for questions about lyrium, Sandal is an example of how exposure to the substance can change someone dramatically. If you have faith that the Maker exists in DA:O, that's fine, but there's no proof. You can't cite the Urn of Andraste and the Guardian as proof of the Maker's existance when the explanation of lyrium is provided as a valid alternative within the story of DA:O. The Guardian's ability to see into their pasts can be explained as a result of the lyrium, which seems to also change Sandal from a normal dwarf into one who somehow managed to clear an entire room of darkspawn. Oghren himself admits its the largest wall of lyrium he's ever experienced. As far as I'm concerned, I agree with Morrigan's assessment that there's no Maker.

Nope. Lyrium isn't a good explanation.
Not only does the power of the ashes outstrip anything the Circle can come up with (despite having acess to many mages, spirit healers and lots of lyrium), but also mind-reading is not possible, even with blood magic.

You want an example? The Dales were taken over by Orlais and worship of the elven gods was forbidden.

Ahem....

If you bothered to read the templar chastity thread instead of assuming you're always correct, David Gaider said mages can't raise their own children even if they're married, and GWs are exempt from this because they are no longer tied to the Chantry. Unless you're presuming to know more about the mages than David Gaider, that is.
 

And there were also examples of mages that earend such rights.
Like Wilhem. Do something to impress the Chantry and your reward may be life outside of the tower...with a family.

Just because you didn't bother to actually listen to the conversations in the game doesn't mean I'm wrong. Wynne says the Circle sided with Uldred when he revealed that Loghain would give them more freedom from the Chantry, but turned against him when Wynne arrived and revealed Loghain's betrayal. They confronted him about the truth of Loghain's treachery against the King, and Uldred turned against him with the aid of the blood mages.

I don't recall the WHOLE cricle siding. Citation needed.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Dispute it all you want, but the Maker (David) sayeth otherwise.

And the rulers of Ferelden, Alistair and Anora, say otherwise. Your point?

David Gaider  >>>> Alistair and Anora

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 21 septembre 2010 - 07:17 .

[ShrinkingFish]

<cough> off topic </cough>

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
If you're familiar with history, revolutions tend to involve bloodshed. Considering the oppressive reach that the Chantry has on Thedas, why shouldn't people want to dismantle it?

At what point did you miss the "killing the majority". That's no revolution, that's mass murder.
And do you really think your desire for change justified the death of untold thousands?

Forget revolution...evolution. Less bloodshed.

The World? The Qunari don't believe in the Maker. Neither do the Dalish or the Dwarves. The humans of Orlais and Ferelden do, and I'm certain other parts of Thedas where the Chant of Light has spread. But humanity isn't the world, they're a group of people amongst others who have their own faith and their own ideas about what the truth of the world is. They're trying to force their religion onto other people, and have conquered lands in their aim to spread the Chant of Light. Considering the destruction of the Dales and the oppression of the mages, why shouldn't people want to destroy the Chantry? Yes, it'll involve a war with the Chantry, but if it means freedom, I can see why there are people who would take that risk.

Again, humans are most numerous. Which would involve killing the majority in that revolution.
I'd also like to see all those "wars to spread the Chant" your'e talking about.

The Chatnry never went to war agaisnt the dwarves, nor does it force surface dwarves to worship the maker. They never started the war with the qunari, It's the qunari that invaded.
Opression of mages? Hardly.

So no. I don' see a single sensible reason to start a war of that magnitude.
It can only do far more harm than good.

Given that the templars didn't do anything and Irving said the abomination Uldred would destroy them, I see no reason why we shouldn't trust a learned scholar of the arcane arts who has witnessed, first hand, what Uldred is capable of.

Irwing is far from infalible, and again, there are no guarantees that Uldred would suceed. We didn't evne know how far the Templar reinforcements were. By the time Uldred finished his preparation, it might already be too late.

So it's useless to discuss what might have been, when we do not know what might have been. We can only specualte.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Templars are also armored and armed drug addicts who have no oversight.

UNPROVEN. I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself. Obviously they do have at elast some oversight. Gregoair had to ask for premission to anull the tower, after all.

Yes, templars have a historical record of murdering men, women, and children for over 700 years.

So do soldiers of any military force involved in a war or containment operations.
Fact remain, that there we no major abomination outbreaks. And that IS the templars job. To prevent those from happening.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Chris Readman wrote..

That... is the circumstantial evidence... They go on the mission by themselves, no one observes them, there's hardly any way to see if they've done anything wrong, therefore they can get away scott free.

And why wouldn't Wynne mention anything happening to the templars who harmed her student? An incident that's been eating away at her away for years which she's decided to be completely open about.

As I said before, so do soldiers and police officers.

And why would she mention that? It would entirely depend on the point she wanted to make or what parts of the story she deemed important, or her speech patterns, etc...
Being open doesn't mean mentioning every little detail.

It's a flaw in the system simply because mages can escape, so can abominations. And yet nothing is being done to improve the detection of abominations. Only the simple, and frankly dumb, solution of killing everything exists.

How do you know nothing is being done to improve detection?
The only thing we do know is that tehre is no known way of detecting abomination. None. Not in Ferelden, not in Tevinter - nowhere. No one would benefit more than mages if a detection method was found. None was found yet.

When only one solution exists, it's not dumb.
You might as well call quarantine a dumb solution. THERE ISN'T ANYTIHNG ELSE.

Quite a list huh?

No, because as I said, I was providing alternate explanation, not stating thigs as fact (falsly) as you do.
But if oyu insist:

You just mentioned not knowing anything about the doors, which MIGHT have wards. (yes, I said MIGHT. We do know, from Alistair, that every Circle has those big doors. So they are obviously good for something.)

And there's also the issue of demon capability. (no teleportation in Thedas. We have that from DG. We do know that demons have limitations. They are not omnipotent, and we do not hear that any abomination ever escaped trough the window)

You mention historical records proving that templars and Chantry have done their job well when there are at least two cases otherwise.(those two cases otherwise are not fact, but your oppinion. You also fail to realise what the purpose of the templars is)

You made the assumption that there would be a reply to the request for The Rite of Annulment (to be fair I made the assumption that it wouldn't, but you still did make the assumption). (There is no reason to assume there wouldn't. At that point, there's nothing happeinign in Denerim to prevent a reply from coming. Also, if you chosoe to anull the tower, it does happen...meaning the reinforcements did come.)

You assume that all the pro-mage people want mages without supervision. (I never assumed that.)

You say that the templars are 100% needed for sure, when there are other cases where they don't exist, like the Qunari (don't like this example, but still holds true) and Dalish Elves. (Well...technicly, that isn't true. We dont' actually NEED the police for example..life would just be very shi*** wihout them. The Templars do their job well - if they didn't tehy would be replaced by someone else. Also, Quanri and dalish have their own way of dealing with mages, which may be far more horrifying than anything the templars do. Adn yes, DG said the templars are needed.)

You also changed the definition of "mission success" for the templars from "completely stopping abominations" to just "containing them". And even this part of the "success" is questionable. (Anulling the tower IS completely stoppign them. Waiting for reainforcements IS a sensible thing to do. And yes, I did say that stopping all abomination for ever coming into existance is NOT the templars job, because it's impossible. It's like stopping any crime from happening..ever..)

There's the assumption that mages cannot police themselves, when there are upright mages like Irving and Wynne who are up to the task. One Uldred does not equate the all of them being unable to look after themselves. (And one Uldred is all it takes. I never said mages are incapable of policing themselves, it just isn't a smart thing to do. No sensible ruler would ever want that. Too many ways things can go horribly wrong. You don't use a ticking bomb to watch another ticking bomb)


When the mages of the distant past were brought up, you say that they could have been monitored when there's no evidence of this or otherwise. (I'm not sure what you mean by this. Wherever there are mages, tehre are methods and forces to deal with them. Even in Tevinter, mages are still locked up in Circles. Adn we know what teh Quanri do to their mages. The behavior towards mages is not a product of baseless fear - but the harsh reality of Thedas)


The Harrowing is not a test that ALL mages have to go through, but it only applies to Circle mages. Morrigan is a powerful mage resistant to demon temptations who would not have gone through the Circle's Harrowing. (When did  Isay apostates and hedge mages go trough teh harrowing? I'd assume the dalish have soemthing similar, for Morrigan I do not know)

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Cullen references that some of his fellow templars talk in glee about killing mages, they take away their children the moment they're born, and they kill mages who run away, regardless of the reason. So yes, I think it's bad. You're welcome to disagree.[/qutoe]

Again with this crap?

Look, some soldiers talk in glee about how the killed/will kill. Soem police officers love beating a perp.
I dont' see you campaigning to destroy hte police and military.





[quote]
Greagoir also allowed it to happen. He references that he could have acted sooner, but didn't, based on Irving's suggestion. That doesn't change the fact that he wants to punish the Warden for helping Jowan regardless of Greagoir being well aware of the plan and waiting outside the chamber with his templars to ambush them.[/quote]

Gregoir is NOT aware of the plan, as Irwing clearly didn't tell him everything. He didn't know you were there on Irwings orders untill Irwing told him..AFTER he caught you breaking in. Which makes Irwing stupid too, as he should have told him eariler.  What should Gregoir think now? Is Irwing covering for you or did he really order you in?
He was pissed yes. It didn't really strike me like he would really punish the PC, he just needed to vent and cool down.


And since we're at it, anyone notice how quickly the templars caught Jowan, even wihout the plachietry?

[Chris Readman]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
As I said before, so do soldiers and police officers.

And why would she mention that? It would entirely depend on the point she wanted to make or what parts of the story she deemed important, or her speech patterns, etc...
Being open doesn't mean mentioning every little detail. [/quote]

Yeah, so do soldiers and police officers. But the templars aren't supposed to be police officers or soldiers per se. Their job scope is much more focused than soldiers or police officers, only dealing with mages. Your comparison doesn't hold 100%, therefore different standards can apply. In fact, soldiers and police officers are known to have to write reports which can be checked if anything suspicious happen.

And let me throw the question back at you, why would she not mention it?

[quote]How do you know nothing is being done to improve detection?
The only thing we do know is that tehre is no known way of detecting abomination. None. Not in Ferelden, not in Tevinter - nowhere. No one would benefit more than mages if a detection method was found. None was found yet.

When only one solution exists, it's not dumb.
You might as well call quarantine a dumb solution. THERE ISN'T ANYTIHNG ELSE.[/quote]

They do have a mage detection solution, does "phylactery" not ring a bell? The problem is that it's a mage detection system, not an abomination detection system. If you extrapolate, why can't you advance this field after so many years of research? Simple, hardly any research is done!

Just because there isn't anything else doesn't mean it's not dumb, what kind of reasoning is that? Also, other solutions did exist, and it did happen, the warden and company went in and saved the day!

[quote](yes, I said MIGHT. We do know, from Alistair, that every Circle has those big doors. So they are obviously good for something.)[/quote]

Every human being has an appendix, they're not good for anything at the moment. Well actually, they're good for causing undesirable pain. Just because it exists doesn't mean it's good for something.

[quote](no teleportation in Thedas. We have that from DG. We do know that demons have limitations. They are not omnipotent, and we do not hear that any abomination ever escaped trough the window)[/quote]

Still does not address the problem of what we know. Desire demons float, wrath demons materialise out of nowhere. They have limitations, we don't know what they all are. This is a Schrödinger's cat scenario, both possibilities exist untill proven otherwise. But I have more evidence supporting the possibility of my case.

[quote](those two cases otherwise are not fact, but your oppinion. You also fail to realise what the purpose of the templars is)[/quote]

So if it goes against your belief, it's not a fact? Even when it has happened. Educate me on the purpose of the templars then, other than monitoring mages, stopping abominations and hunting down rogue mages. In these two cases, the templars have failed at the stopping abominations and monitoring mages criteria; they allowed the mages to summon demons and get possessed, and they were unable to stop the abominations for a year or untill the warden arrives.

[quote](There is no reason to assume there wouldn't. At that point, there's nothing happeinign in Denerim to prevent a reply from coming. Also, if you chosoe to anull the tower, it does happen...meaning the reinforcements did come.)[/quote]

Here are some possibilities: darkspawn invasion, Denerim politics, Loghain's own involvment with the issue, bandits. I'm not saying that they did cause the failure in message delivery, but they are possibilities. Considering these factors, wouldn't it be wiser if the templars had a plan B instead of using the door?

[quote](I never assumed that.)[/quote]

Fair enough. But your argument phrasings mostly end up sounding like "If the pro-mage people get their way, what about the other people! Think about the citizens!".

[quote](Well...technicly, that isn't true. We dont' actually NEED the police for example..life would just be very shi*** wihout them. The Templars do their job well - if they didn't tehy would be replaced by someone else. Also, Quanri and dalish have their own way of dealing with mages, which may be far more horrifying than anything the templars do. Adn yes, DG said the templars are needed.)[/quote]

Another assumption. Here's what we call a circular argument.
If X is no good, X will be replaced.
X has not been replaced.
Therefore X is good.

There are many horrible government systems that have not been replaced despite majority disapproval, take Burma's current military ruled government for example, around 30 years of wanting change and nothing has happened other than constant suppression.

Another in-game example is the Chantry rejecting the mages' boon.

The Dalish elves are ruled by the Keepers, who are mages.

[quote](Anulling the tower IS completely stoppign them. Waiting for reainforcements IS a sensible thing to do. And yes, I did say that stopping all abomination for ever coming into existance is NOT the templars job, because it's impossible. It's like stopping any crime from happening..ever..)[/quote]

I'm not saying that templars have to stop abominations from coming to existence, I'm saying that they have to stop them completely. Putting a road block in their path is not stopping them, eradicating them is. Furthermore, you've established that 2 or 4 normal templars can retake the tower, why can't a higher number of them do it?

[quote](And one Uldred is all it takes. I never said mages are incapable of policing themselves, it just isn't a smart thing to do. No sensible ruler would ever want that. Too many ways things can go horribly wrong. You don't use a ticking bomb to watch another ticking bomb)[/quote]

Overgeneralisation again. Firstly, they're not all ticking bombs, there will be duds. If the mages take part in the policing, does it not relieve the burden from the templars? Note that I have never suggested complete removal of the templars. Take this for example: mages probably trust mages more than templars, a mage can infiltrate diabolical attempts and gather intelligence.

Also, again, the leader of Dalish Elves are Keepers, who are mages. It works for them.

[quote](I'm not sure what you mean by this. Wherever there are mages, tehre are methods and forces to deal with them. Even in Tevinter, mages are still locked up in Circles. Adn we know what teh Quanri do to their mages. The behavior towards mages is not a product of baseless fear - but the harsh reality of Thedas)[/quote]

Again, like I said, it's your assumption again. There might have been the Qunaris and the Circles, but there might be independant mages (Flemeth and Morrigan), mages might have been their own police. Not enough information here. You cannot deny the other side is a possibility.

[quote](When did  Isay apostates and hedge mages go trough teh harrowing? I'd assume the dalish have soemthing similar, for Morrigan I do not know)[/quote]

My bad, it wasn't you who said this. But look at what an asset a non-Circle, non-Chantry restrained mage has become. Granted, her personality is twisted. Instead of condemning them, they can learn the good parts of the education from them.

Also, you have the tendency to use David Gaider in your argument as word of God, and as much as I respect him, there are problems with this. Firstly, I'll need to see the actual quote to have a full understanding of the situation. Secondly, words are subjective, the meaning could have been "templars are needed, but only in Fereldan and only now". Thirdly, stories can be changed, and it is these writers who will change them.

And there's also the tendency to equate DAO to reality. There might be similarities, but you can't draw conclusions by comparing two vastly different worlds. And just because something is the way it is in both worlds does not mean it is the way it SHOULD be.

Modifié par Chris Readman, 21 septembre 2010 - 08:51 .