1503 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

^True.

Questions is - even if the Chantry wanted to punish those responsible, could it?



How could they know who was involved in the massacre? There were SEVERAL armies involved there, and CSI was not formed back then. And it was in the middle of a massive war zone, during a all-out war. Justice in such cases has to wait.



Incorruptible pure pureness and survival are sadly incompatible in a total war.

[Daerog]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

In any case, the Chantry could not afford to acknowledge the massacres, and therefore, in the case that the order did not come from the Chantry and it was just the individual actions of their generals, had to condon this evil in order to survive. And in condoning it, became a party to the deed. It was a self-preserving, calculated response. And where the order came from is entirely a mystery and is really unimpotant in actual fact. The core result of these massacres was that the good name of the Chantry was irrevocably besmirched, their denial implicating them in the deed regardless of concious involvement.

At the very least, they could have come up with a better excuse than:
"Oh, they just fled north."
"Ok... then what about all these graves? These are not all from the battles."
"They fled north. They were not killed in order to move things along swiftly."
"Wait, what?"
"They fled north."

Really, at least Loghain could blame the disappearance of elves by making a plague seem worse than it was. Could have just spread a rumor that the qunari left some sort of foreign illness behind, or there were many revolts, etc... Just outright denying shows either stupidity or they just had to make a quick excuse in short time. Or they just didn't care.

[ShrinkingFish]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

^True.
Questions is - even if the Chantry wanted to punish those responsible, could it?

How could they know who was involved in the massacre? There were SEVERAL armies involved there, and CSI was not formed back then. And it was in the middle of a massive war zone, during a all-out war. Justice in such cases has to wait.

Incorruptible pure pureness and survival are sadly incompatible in a total war.

That is a good point. Even the Chantry's ability to identify who was directly responsible, in the event that they didn't give the orders themselves, is unlikely to say the least.

Generalities could be made, but of course, any accused would immediately claim their innocence, likely blaming those below them or, quiet possibly, those above and thus only serving to make the Chantry out to be more directly invovled with the massacres regardless of their actual level of involvment and at the very least making them out to be incompitent as they are unable to govern their own people.

In the end the Chantry's denial of the massacres was a political decision, accepting a great evil by necessity at the very least and covering up their own intense brutality at the very worst. Either case being about as likely as the other.

[ShrinkingFish]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

In any case, the Chantry could not afford to acknowledge the massacres, and therefore, in the case that the order did not come from the Chantry and it was just the individual actions of their generals, had to condon this evil in order to survive. And in condoning it, became a party to the deed. It was a self-preserving, calculated response. And where the order came from is entirely a mystery and is really unimpotant in actual fact. The core result of these massacres was that the good name of the Chantry was irrevocably besmirched, their denial implicating them in the deed regardless of concious involvement.

At the very least, they could have come up with a better excuse than:
"Oh, they just fled north."
"Ok... then what about all these graves? These are not all from the battles."
"They fled north. They were not killed in order to move things along swiftly."
"Wait, what?"
"They fled north."

Really, at least Loghain could blame the disappearance of elves by making a plague seem worse than it was. Could have just spread a rumor that the qunari left some sort of foreign illness behind, or there were many revolts, etc... Just outright denying shows either stupidity or they just had to make a quick excuse in short time. Or they just didn't care.

Any additional lies on the Chantry's part would only serve to make them seem more responsible for the massacres in the event of the lies being uncovered.

It can never be confirmed whether or not the refugees fled north, but other lies can be discovered for what they are. Claims of insurrection can be investigated as open revolts always leave signs of conflict, and signs of disease show as well.

Plus a flat denial gives them supreme deniability. If, in the unlikely event, it could be proved that no refugees fled north the Chantry can claim publicly that they had been decieved and lied to by their generals at the time, that it was just evidence of an impurity within the old Chantry and that these problems don't exist now. For it would surely take years after the conflict before any sort of census by Chantry loyal countries could be formed on Qunari lands to either confirm or refute the Chantry's tales.

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 28 septembre 2010 - 08:40 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
This quote makes me feel that I should let this debate rest, especially since you didn't even bother to read anything I wrote but felt like debating it anyway:

[quote]Riona45 wrote...

Says the guy who all but admitted to trolling:

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Well, I get as much a kick out of taunting mage supporters as mage supporters get at hating the chantry, and come on, its not like its hard to do either. And no I don't like mages, I made that clear quite early in this thread.[/quote][/quote][/quote]
And again: The difference between taunting and trolling is: Taunting provokes but brings valid points to the debate. Something I never stopped doing in any of my posts. Trolling on the other hand is just pure derailing and name-calling.[/quote]

I didn't realize there was an academia to trolling...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

That was the trigger, but hardly the only reason. More like the last straw.Or is it so hard to belive that the Chatnry wanted to smite Tevinter for slavery and blood magic, but restrained itself up to that point? [/quote]

They declared several Exalted Marches when Tevinter declared Andraste was a mortal and not divine. If you have proof that this isn't the case, feel free to provide it.[/quote]

You realise we are talking about motivation here?
Can you prove the Chantry didn't care about the blood magic and slavery in Tevinter? No, you can't. [/quote]

Except they didn't attack for blood magic and slavery, they declared an Exalted March because Tevinter declared Andraste to be a mortal woman.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith66 wrote...

Again, none of those abominations are shown to have any ties to the Collective. Again, you're wrong.[/quote]

Again, you seem impervious to logic.

I ask again - are the mages in the collective immune to possesion? No, we know they are not.
Hence, abominations among the Collective WILL happen and HAVE happened. It is undeniable...and they have no effective way of containing/stopping them.
This isn't really a point you can argue against. [/quote]

Actually, this discussion began when you said members of the Collective were abominations, except you were wrong. None of them have shown to be abominations, and you still haven't provided proof that any of the abominations encountered in the game are with the Collective. And your rants about 'will' and 'should' are speculation, not fact.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith66 wrote...
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I beg to differ. Mages are treated well in the tower. Again, Wynne mentions that the templars were the first to treat her like a human being.

Mages used as soldier? Shocking..as if regular citizens are exempt from that. [/quote]

From being torn from their family and now living under the tyranny of a religious dogma that stigmatized all mages and forced them under the watch of armored and armed drug addicts, and you're comparing it to civilian life? [/quote]

Not really. It is worse some ways, better in others. [/quote]

People who never have to live under that sort of tyrannical system can easily brush it off as necessary.

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...
[quote]LobselVith66 wrote...

Is that why you referenced the codex regarding the Chantry murdering all those people in those towns and edited it to fit your "truth"?[/quote]

I'm not editing anything.
Merely stating that things written in Codexes are written from specific points of view by specific people, and are open to interpretation in some cases. You, for example, take the Dalish codex about the Exhalted Marches as a unfallible, objective gospel - and at the same time scoff at an codex that contradicts that. [/quote]

I've mentioned the Dalish codex when you've stated the Orlesian version (of the Dalish starting the war) to be fact simply to show that there's another perspective. You've boiled down the Dalish POV to them being "butthurt."

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...
[quote]LobselVith66 wrote...
I didn't realize that when Brother Genitivi references the mass graves at Nocen Fields and Marnus Pell that it was one man.[/quote]

No, but it wasn't "The Chantry" either. As our own history shows, commanders in the Crusades occasionaly went against direct orders of the pope and their superiors and killed people.
People will be people. Terrible mistakes happen, douches can sometimes lead armies. [/quote]

So when it comes to pushing back the Qunari invasion in their new Exalted March, the Chantry take full responsibility as Genitivi clearly stated in the codex, but when it comes to the murder of men, women, and children by the same armies that under Chantry command during the same Exalted March against the Qunari, they aren't responsible?

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

To throw all the blame at the feet of the Chantry, like it's some kind of all-seeing, all-powerfull monolith, is quite simply a fallacy. [/quote]

Except Genitivi clearly states that the Chantry is the one pushing back the Qunari, and this is an Exalted March against the Qunari. If the Chantry is referenced as pushing back the Qunari with the armies, why assume they have no control over the armies, especially during an Exalted March?

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...
[quote]LobselVith66 wrote...

She has bad judgement, like when she tries to kill the Warden for thinking that the Circle is too great a risk, but does nothing (not even argue the point) when Greagoir says it should be done. I thought the fact that she tells her former apprentice Aneirin to return to the Circle that nearly cost him his life was a clue to that.[/quote]

You still avoid the question - why do you trust her that she speaks the truth about her apprentice  and hte templars attacking him at all? Again, selective trust. Wynne is fine as a source when she sez somethnig you agree with.

And bad judgment? Not really. She can hold you more responsbile than Gregoir on several grounds.

[/quote]

Are you asking why would I trust her apprentice when he tells me templars nearly murdered him, but not trust Wynne's judgement on the Chantry that stole her son the moment he was born and turns people into soulless rune-crafting slaves? I'd say it's a personal choice. I already stated Wynne's judgement is faulty. You're free to disagree, but for me, I stated that since Wynne tries to kill the Warden for the very thing that she will give Greagoir a pass for, and suggests that her apprentice should return to the place that nearly murdered him, that I personally don't trust her judgement, especially when it comes to the Chantry.

Greagoir is the Knight-Commander of the templars, and the Warden is a relatively new recruit to the order. Given that Wynne is a Senior Enchanter, I'd expect her to at least argue against culling the Circle to him, or fight him the same way she'd fight a Warden.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 28 septembre 2010 - 11:46 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You realise we are talking about motivation here?
Can you prove the Chantry didn't care about the blood magic and slavery in Tevinter? No, you can't.

Except they didn't attack for blood magic and slavery, they declared an Exalted March because Tevinter declared Andraste to be a mortal woman.

Again, how does that prove they didn't care? It just proves that they didn't go to war up to that point.
Just because I don't puch you instantly doesn't mean  Idon't hate you guts or that I don't want to punch you - I'm just holding back for whatever reason. And there certanly are reasons for holding back.
War is not a small matter.
You avoid starting one if you can, and when you do start one, it's when YOU are ready and the conditions are favorable.

LobselVith66 wrote...
Actually, this discussion began when you said members of the Collective were abominations, except you were wrong. None of them have shown to be abominations, and you still haven't provided proof that any of the abominations encountered in the game are with the Collective. And your rants about 'will' and 'should' are speculation, not fact.

No, they are fact. No mage is immune to posseseion and it does happen. If you're in the tower, it is contained, the abomination gets killed - it doesn't get out. If you're outside of the tower, then the resulting abominations ramapages around untill the templars kill it.

Abomination outside of tower  = abomination from an apostate
Collective = apostates
Do the math. Are the two specific abominations you ran into members of hte Collective? IIRC, one was, but don't quote me on that.

Yet it doesn't change anything. Some mages of the Collective will become abominations, and some already have - just like some memebrs of the circle will and have. The Circle can contain and eliminate them, the Collective can't.

This is just how the world of Thedas works. Plain and simple.

People who never have to live under that sort of tyrannical system can easily brush it off as necessary.

People who never suffer at the hands of mages or abominations cna easiyl brush their confinment as unnecessary.

I've mentioned the Dalish codex when you've stated the Orlesian version (of the Dalish starting the war) to be fact simply to show that there's another perspective. You've boiled down the Dalish POV to them being "butthurt."

You've been showing your "perspective" as fact from the get go. Looking back at your post, I've yet to see you offering "alternate interpretations".
Also, I've never stated the orlesian version to be fact. I REPEATEDLY claimed that we do know know enough.
Obviously, you cannot be bothered to check before throwing accusations.

So when it comes to pushing back the Qunari invasion in their new Exalted March, the Chantry take full responsibility as Genitivi clearly stated in the codex, but when it comes to the murder of men, women, and children by the same armies that under Chantry command during the same Exalted March against the Qunari, they aren't responsible?

The arimes in Exhalted Marches are not under Chantrys command. They assemble at the behest of the Chantry, but each army (and there are several) are led by their own leaders/kings....much like in the Crusades.
Except the tempar/mage army, but that one is a minor component of a March.

So the Chantry is responsible for calling the Marches, but not for every little thing that happens in them.
They set things in motion and PARTIALLY participate in them.

Are you asking why would I trust her apprentice when he tells me templars nearly murdered him, but not trust Wynne's judgement on the Chantry that stole her son the moment he was born and turns people into soulless rune-crafting slaves? I'd say it's a personal choice. I already stated Wynne's judgement is faulty. You're free to disagree, but for me, I stated that since Wynne tries to kill the Warden for the very thing that she will give Greagoir a pass for, and suggests that her apprentice should return to the place that nearly murdered him, that I personally don't trust her judgement, especially when it comes to the Chantry.

Greagoir is the Knight-Commander of the templars, and the Warden is a relatively new recruit to the order. Given that Wynne is a Senior Enchanter, I'd expect her to at least argue against culling the Circle to him, or fight him the same way she'd fight a Warden.

I dodn't ask about her apprentice, but about what WYNNE aid about him.  You accepted her story of templar attacking him BEFORE you talked to him.
Regardless.

Yes, she cna hold oyu more responsible than Gregoir and for various reasons. Gregoir is moe duty-bound to end abominations than the warden is. The Warden was also in the tower and he should know better.
Regardless, I havn't had that happen to me..did you save Irwing?

[LobselVith8]

I still think the Circle of Magi should revolt against the Chantry in DA2.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Again, how does that prove they didn't care? It just proves that they didn't go to war up to that point.
Just because I don't puch you instantly doesn't mean  Idon't hate you guts or that I don't want to punch you - I'm just holding back for whatever reason. And there certanly are reasons for holding back.
War is not a small matter.
You avoid starting one if you can, and when you do start one, it's when YOU are ready and the conditions are favorable.

Why are we suddenly discussing what they cared about? This was never the topic of discussion. We're talking about why the Exalted March on Tevinter happened. I never said they didn't care, I said the Exalted March was about their shift of religious ideology from the accepted version of the Andrastian Chantry.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No, they are fact. No mage is immune to posseseion and it does happen. If you're in the tower, it is contained, the abomination gets killed - it doesn't get out. If you're outside of the tower, then the resulting abominations ramapages around untill the templars kill it.

Abomination outside of tower  = abomination from an apostate
Collective = apostates
Do the math. Are the two specific abominations you ran into members of hte Collective? IIRC, one was, but don't quote me on that.

Yet it doesn't change anything. Some mages of the Collective will become abominations, and some already have - just like some memebrs of the circle will and have. The Circle can contain and eliminate them, the Collective can't.

This is just how the world of Thedas works. Plain and simple.

More speculation and absolutely no proof from you. No abominations in DA:O were members of the Collective. They are a self-regulating guild, and so far, they seem to be handling their affairs without Chantry oversight. The abomination in the quest you mentioned had no mentioned affiliation to the Collective, since he isn't even referenced by the Collective, who are concerned about the missing mage; he was an apprentice like the three apprentices that are fired in another quest, none of whom reference the Mages Collective.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
People who never suffer at the hands of mages or abominations cna easiyl brush their confinment as unnecessary.

So can people who never suffered at the hands of templars.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You've been showing your "perspective" as fact from the get go. Looking back at your post, I've yet to see you offering "alternate interpretations".
Also, I've never stated the orlesian version to be fact. I REPEATEDLY claimed that we do know know enough.
Obviously, you cannot be bothered to check before throwing accusations.

You have offered your opinion as fact, even when it contradicted lore. For instance, you claimed the Dalish murdered the missionaries from the Chantry, except the Dalish codex stated the missionaries were tossed out, who were replaced by the templars. The only reference to killing is the attack on the town of Red Crossing, and we have no idea of knowing whether that was retaliation against a prior attack by the Orlesians or not. I've argued against Chantry oversight for the mages. I've also said I hope that DA2 offers the choice to help or hinder the Chantry and the Circle of Magi in the Free Marches. And  I've clearly read what you wrote, like when you dismissed the elves as being "butthurt" by what happened with humanity; clearly the words of a scholar.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The arimes in Exhalted Marches are not under Chantrys command. They assemble at the behest of the Chantry, but each army (and there are several) are led by their own leaders/kings....much like in the Crusades.
Except the tempar/mage army, but that one is a minor component of a March.

So the Chantry is responsible for calling the Marches, but not for every little thing that happens in them.
They set things in motion and PARTIALLY participate in them.

None of that is mentioned in the codex. You're making assumptions and presenting them as fact again. Let's discuss what's actually said in the codex: the Chantry is responsible for pushing back the Qunari armies, since Genitivi clearly references them and their use of the mages of the Circle of Magi in the codex. You're arguing that they are not responsible for the deaths of the innocent people, despite Genitivi making it clearly that the Chantry is responsible for pushing the Qunari back in their Exalted March, as well as blatantly lying about what happened to the people.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I dodn't ask about her apprentice, but about what WYNNE aid about him.  You accepted her story of templar attacking him BEFORE you talked to him.
Regardless.

Yes, she cna hold oyu more responsible than Gregoir and for various reasons. Gregoir is moe duty-bound to end abominations than the warden is. The Warden was also in the tower and he should know better.
Regardless, I havn't had that happen to me..did you save Irwing?

Regardless? You made an assumption of how I played DA:O and that specific scene. We're also discussing if Wynne's judgement is sound, not if she's a liar. Just because I doubt her judgement, doesn't mean that I think Wynne lies every time she opens her mouth. There's a difference. When it comes to the Chantry's treatment of the mages of the Circle or the Urn, Wynne has (in my opinion) incredibly bad judgement (i.e. kill the Warden for going against her). 

I'll say that I enjoy the magic class of DA much better than others, and since I remembered the bad blood between the templars and the mages, I knew it was plausible. Wynne said the templars went to kill him when he fled the Circle at fourteen. I knew it was plausible because Niall directly says apostates are killed if they leave and Aneirin nearly was (which means that either another writer handled this and went against Gaider's recommendation that apostates aren't killed, or perhaps there was another Senior Enchanter at the time who didn't intervene as much as Irving did, or Gaider changed the treatment of apostates to explain the introduction of Anders in the DA:O expansion Awakening). I did save Irving, but I also thought Morrigan was correct in her assessment of the Circle being leashed to the Chantry.

Wynne is welcome to think a new recruit to the Grey Wardens should be held more responsible than a seasoned Knight-Commander of the templars, but I disagree. Wynne will try to kill the Warden if the Warden thinks the Circle should be culled. Considering that she does nothing if Greagoir culls the Circle, not even argue against it, I see no reason not to hold it against her.

[tool_bot]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Again, how does that prove they didn't care? It just proves that they didn't go to war up to that point.
Just because I don't puch you instantly doesn't mean  Idon't hate you guts or that I don't want to punch you - I'm just holding back for whatever reason. And there certanly are reasons for holding back.
War is not a small matter.
You avoid starting one if you can, and when you do start one, it's when YOU are ready and the conditions are favorable.

I've decided to take you seriously again. Mostly because I'm bored and am sick of the Loghain gush thread.

What it proves is that the wars the Chantry fights aren't out of necisity, like you can argue the war with the Dales was. (not that I buy that bs but whatever) The Chantry isn't an organisation trying to do good, just one trying to expand its power and hoping to topple down its enemies. That the catalyst for the war was a difference of opinion over a piece of dogma, speaks volumes of the Chantry's priorities. Obviously if it's enough to go to war over it' enough to justify almost anything in the eyes of the Divine.

People who never have to live under that sort of tyrannical system can easily brush it off as necessary.

People who never suffer at the hands of mages or abominations cna easiyl brush their confinment as unnecessary.

I love the way you justify things. Everyone is evil and guilty until proved otherwise. Everyone, of course, except for the people making the decisions.

Also, I've never stated the orlesian version to be fact. I REPEATEDLY claimed that we do know know enough.
Obviously, you cannot be bothered to check before throwing accusations.

You've accused the Dalish of everything from attempting genocide to intentionally instigating a world war. You've repeatedly tried to absolve the Chantry of any wrong doing, that's for sure.

So the Chantry is responsible for calling the Marches, but not for every little thing that happens in them.
They set things in motion and PARTIALLY participate in them.

If they set things in motion then they're also guilty. Especially if they had knowledge of what was done.

And why are you arguing this? Isn't your point that it would be far to inconvenient and impractical to try and prosecute who was responsible for any 'war crimes?'

I dodn't ask about her apprentice, but about what WYNNE aid about him.  You accepted her story of templar attacking him BEFORE you talked to him.

To be frank, who ****ing cares?

The Dalish are not part of the Chantry or Ferelden. They obviously have their own methods for dealing with magic, none of which involves the Chantry.

[Riona45]

Is that you, MariSkep?

[tool_bot]

Riona45 wrote...

Is that you, MariSkep?

Why yes it is.

Can't seem find a screen name I like.

[Riona45]

In any case, good to see you again.

[Sir JK]

Now that I have a proper connection here in Hanoi, I can return to posting here in this interesting thread. Here goes:



For reference, I will use andrastians to refer to followers of the andrastian chantry, imperials for the imperial chantry, dalish for modern dalish, dalers for the elves of the Dales. Just to make separating them from one another smoother. Also, to make things clear: unless otherwise specified I will default to how things worked in the real world (within reason). I'll try to point it out when I'm doing so though.



When speculating on the motives of the chantry for whatever it does, remember that the only thing that really matters is the chantry's own subjective view based on the information it holds. We have a significant advantaged in that not only do we have easy access to knowledge, an ability to read both subjective and objective accounts and the outside perspective. The chantry has neither of those.

So if one is arguing about for example, the chantry's motivation (but not it's actions) for the exalted marches on the dales then Dalish codex entries are a poor source since it does not at all represent the Chantry position (but rather that of the Dalish. the descendants of he defeated dalers).

Secondly, you know how gossips are urban stories twist and turn for each person that passes it along? That sort of thing happens in history too. The dalish are a embittered wandering people with a grudge and the chantry a huge spirito-political organisation which frequently needs to defend itself. Chances are that both side's version have been twisted beyond recognition time and time again and that neither can on it's own tell us the correct story (but give us a vague hint of it together with the other side's version).



But for the arguments sake, let's take a look at the exalted marches (minus the one of Andraste+Maferath+followers).

Exalted march on the dales

This being the first one. It starts officially in 2:9, but skirmishes (which is small scale reciprocted battles, often no more than a handful individuals).

The chantry isn't the beast it is today, it is barely a hundred years old and has only been spreading outside of Orlais for about 70 (with the grey wardens as it's primary vector). It does not have the stable position in entire Thedas as it has in the modern day, and only for 120 has it had political support in Orlais.

Furthermore, according to the entry at 1025 TE it isn't Andraste herself that grants the elves the Dales, but Maferath (possibly as means to atone for what he did to his wife?) and Andraste's sons, the rulers of the kingdoms of Ciriane and Planasene (speculation of mine, but it fits). Ciriana later became Orlais.



Tensions seem to have always been there due to the elven isolationism and probably a great deal of bitterness after centuries of slavery, but relations doesn't really start to crumble until after the second blight when the elves do nothing to save Montsimmard despite allegedly being not only able, but prepared to do so. Regardless of why the elves did this (perhaps they were protecting their lands and feared the darkspawn would spli past them if they attacked?) it's hardly a move that promotes freedom and does give the impression that the elves care nothing of the lives of humans (mind, just an impression. It can be imagined).

Next up is 2:05 when we know there are skirmishes. Presumably it's related to the missionary thing mentioned in Dalish accounts. Wether or not templars were involved at this point cannot be confirmed or denied. The chantry mentions dark magic and human sacrefices to elven gods, this I do think is propaganda (possibly completely made up or "interpreted", like if the elves nailed a missionary to a tree as a warning and another thought that it was a sacrefice to their gods)

Speculation: It's possible templars were sent to act as bodyguards or convert by the sword. It's also equally possible that they did not get involved until the actual exalted march 5 years later. Neither statement has any proof (except that they did indeed get involved).

The war officially starts when the elves capture Red Crossing in 2:9. Chantry sources mention atrocities, this I do think is relatively true. It might be as simple as that they burned it down though (the chantry), but it might have been really ugly too.

The march is declared in 2:10 when Montsimmard is captured (that city never gets a break, does it?) and Val Royeaux is threatened. Remember what I mentioned about the Chantry's power base? I don't think it's far fetched that the leadership paniced and thought the elves were going to destroy them and force them to become little more than a persecuted cult again (perhaps even force their religion on them! Or just kill them all...). No, the elves might not have done this but the Chantry might have thought so. So they declare an exalted march... calling all believers to fight for their faith.

They do eventually lose Val Royeaux anyways, perhaps they weren't in such a danger as they thought or it was the march itself that allowed it t survive. Who knows? No data available.



My point is that the march was not declared because the elves were pagans (though it certainly factored in) but as a defensive call against what was seen as a unstoppable tide and that the elves definantely took a big part in causing it and the subsequent result (not intentionally though, of course). The aftermath is not something that was carefully planned but as a result of war itself, I'll discuss this further down in this post.



I wish to add a point of speculation though: I think that the Dalish exile and the creation of the alienages is not so much a planned and executed move but something rather "accidental", more organic than something created. I think the alienages were created by groups of elven refugees getting whatever space was given to them in the cities they arrived in (eventually drawing in more) and that the dalish went into exile to avoid being forcefully converted. Something that happened on it's own, gradually.



Exalted marches against the Tevinter Imperium

The Chantry is by now a lot stronger than previously but mind that it's also 260 years later. It's a lot of time. The lore says that the Tevinters and andrastians have been arguing a lot over the chantry over the years. My guess is that it fits poorly in Tevinter society (by merit of it being run by mages no doubt). Eventually they split in 3:87. With the Imperials stating that andraste is mortal while electing a male mage as it's divine. Let me break that up for you:

1. They reject the rule of the Andrastian divine. Like with kings this hardly sits well with them...

2. They reject Andraste's divinity...

3. ... and rub it in their faces by electing a man to be her representative in Thedas...

4. ... who also happen to be a magister (mage-lord).

Not only do they reject the andrastians politically, commit blasphemy two times over but also gives a mage power over not only the Imperium but the chantry itself. This in the religion where "magic exists to serve man". To the andrastians, the imperials more or less spit on everything they value and takes a frightening step towards returning to their opressive past. I don't think the slavery was anything they cared much about though, nor do I think the blood mage allegations is more than propaganda.



Despite all that... it still takes 53 years before the first exalted march against them is declared (in the mean time the Imperials have the gall to celebrate the death of a divine, it's as if they are deliberately provoking the andrastians. Even that takes place 40 years before the marches). To give a comparison, the papacy elects on average 14,7 popes a century. If the Chantry is anything like it then there could be so many as 7 or 8, possibly more, divines elected in those 53 years. It's even enough time for someone to be born, raised, go through a career and be a divine candidate. Meaning that the divine that declared the first one might not have been born when the schism happened. Secondly... it's hardly as if every soul in the Imperium converted prior to the schism, what do you think happened to those that didn't?



What is my point then? That it's probably lots more political reasons behind those marches and it's not just because "they said Andraste was a mortal woman". Like always, it's a lot more complicated.



qunari marches

Fairly straightforward these ones, no? It's much more obvious that they are very defensive in nature. At least one is even declared by the Imperials (possibly another, the lore is vague in that regard). Still, they last for over 60 years in total (with time in between naturally) and the Qunari are present for over 150 so there's plenty of time for not only conversions but also to be raised by your qunari parents and grandparents. Se further down for a discussion on the atrocities committed.



Summary exalted marches

It's not big wars of phycial or mental subjugation, but wars of defence or politics like any other. The latter in unavoidable, partly due to the history of it and due to the massive influence it have in Thedas, and the former... is that really so horrible? That it, like any nation, is willing to call out to protect it's members? Would it be preferable if it apathetically stayed out of all conflict and let it's members suffer or allow itself to be destroyed?



On the nature of war and atrocities

War is hell and makes monsters out of men. Two statements that I think are very true and reflect a lot on why and what soldiers are willing to do, can do and does. In order to survive they simply learn to ignore that instinctual compunction we humans have against killing. They learn how to shut it off and stop asking questions as to why that person need to die. That if the person is a danger then they can kill them.

It's not something inheritely wrong with them, it' just a coping-mechanism allowing them to survive a "kill or be killed"-scenario (like all battles are). Once the war ends they can leave this mindset and become normal people again.



The problem is that it can, during a war, make them into absolute monsters. Since they don't have a mental block against killing or harming they can (but it's not a compulsion) do really horrible things to their percieved enemy.



What do you think happens if the local populace, especially if they don't share the language, show animosity towards soldiers? The soldiers start percieving the local populace as an enemy. Especially during wars of conquest (and similar), it is common that civilian men and women go out into the woods and start harassing the armies. Eventually injuring and harming so many that the soldiers starts to try to hit back. During some of these situations the armies start percieving that these guerillas recieve aid from local villages (shelter, hidingplaces, food, weapons, manpower) and so they do the only thing they can... they attack the villages.



Sometimes it also happens without any civilians causing it, sometimes because of the soldiers imagining a threat and sometimes by then striking premptively. Sometimes commanders order it premptively.



This is the ugly side of war and as inevitable a part as that people die. There's no stopping this really (unless of course the army is hailed as saviours, that could work). Regardless of wether it's started by kings, peasant-demagouges, generals or the Chantry. You can try to prevent it by punishing it, but if you punish the soldiers you need to know who the guilty are (and collectively punishing an entire armed army is a bad idea) and if you punish the leaders you can expect they'll never help you ever again.



Furthermore, this is worsened in the era due to communications. It can take days or even weeks to a message to go from one source to another. This means that unlike today, wars cannot really be remote-controlled. Which is why generals and kings are always travelling with their army.



This means that when a exalted march is declared a number of armies will answer the call, ask what the target is and then be own their way. The chantry have as little ability to control them as a president would have the ability to control a individual sergeant in the field. Even the templar army will be out of control once it leaves for the march, what it does will be up to the individual commanders leading it and the chantry can do little more than read reports (assuming they're even written) and possibly ask for a commander to be replaced if they do a bad job.

Anything else is out of their hands once the march has begun.



---



This is why I think using those two arguments are a bit unreasonable. The exalted marches are just a fancy name for a war declared by the Chantry. Like any wars they're as complex and have so many motives that listing them all is a monumental task. If one can narrow down it all to one thing there have been an error along the way.

Similarily, any atrocities committed during such a war was inevtiable because it's a war. The chantry cannot do anything about that but protest, and the latter is not something trivial since it can mean it loses supporters they may actually come to need. The problem with power is that you only have it as long as people support you. Removing your supporters is a great way of shooting yourself in the foot.



That said, I support anyone willing to oppose to chantry for other reasons. Like that the mages are being treated unjustifiably (even if I, personally, don't see any realistic large-scale alternatives), that you think the qunari/dalish/imperial chantry/dwarves/snowglobes have the right idea or just feels like the chantry could use some cutting down the size. As long as the struggle is hard, the choices meaningful and the result a bit ambigous and not-so-perfect I'm happy.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Why are we suddenly discussing what they cared about? This was never the topic of discussion. We're talking about why the Exalted March on Tevinter happened. I never said they didn't care, I said the Exalted March was about their shift of religious ideology from the accepted version of the Andrastian Chantry.

No, you speciflcy said the Chatnry didn't care about the slavery or blood magic. Dont' try to weasel your way out of this.
The Exhalted March was finally triggered by the religious shift, but you cannot claim it was the only reason for it. You cannot say the Chatnry didn't want to end the slavery or blood magic use in Tevinter.

More speculation and absolutely no proof from you. No abominations in DA:O were members of the Collective. They are a self-regulating guild, and so far, they seem to be handling their affairs without Chantry oversight. The abomination in the quest you mentioned had no mentioned affiliation to the Collective, since he isn't even referenced by the Collective, who are concerned about the missing mage; he was an apprentice like the three apprentices that are fired in another quest, none of whom reference the Mages Collective.

The lore isn't proof?
Wether a specifc abomination in-game was part of the Collective is IRRELEVANT. The INDESPUTABLE FACT of the universe is that ALL mages can become possesed and some WILL become possesed.
Ergo, abominations happening among the Collective is a given.

Antoher FACT - the Colelctive doesn't have an effective way of dealing with said abominations...or with blood magies.

You have offered your opinion as fact, even when it contradicted lore. For instance, you claimed the Dalish murdered the missionaries from the Chantry, except the Dalish codex stated the missionaries were tossed out, who were replaced by the templars. The only reference to killing is the attack on the town of Red Crossing, and we have no idea of knowing whether that was retaliation against a prior attack by the Orlesians or not. I've argued against Chantry oversight for the mages. I've also said I hope that DA2 offers the choice to help or hinder the Chantry and the Circle of Magi in the Free Marches. And  I've clearly read what you wrote, like when you dismissed the elves as being "butthurt" by what happened with humanity; clearly the words of a scholar.

You colorfull immagination is entertaining, but only slightly. Trying ot put words in my mouth - words I never said - won't help your case.
Now either you're confusing me with someone or you dont' even bother to check my posts. I never claimed any alternate explanation as a fact.
In fact, now that you mention it - you ARE confusing me with somoene else (both of those postst were not made by me). Another proof that you don't bother with reading and you lump all of your opponents into one pile.

F.A.I.L.

None of that is mentioned in the codex. You're making assumptions and presenting them as fact again. Let's discuss what's actually said in the codex: the Chantry is responsible for pushing back the Qunari armies, since Genitivi clearly references them and their use of the mages of the Circle of Magi in the codex. You're arguing that they are not responsible for the deaths of the innocent people, despite Genitivi making it clearly that the Chantry is responsible for pushing the Qunari back in their Exalted March, as well as blatantly lying about what happened to the people.

It is called "common  sense". I don't need the codex to tell me that human armies are led by generals or that humans have to take a ****** occasionally.
The Chantry is NOT all-powerfull. It does not control other countries. It does not order kings and armies around. When an Exhalted March is called, and army from Ferelden is led by a ferdelden general. An army from Orlais is led by an orlais general, etc.. The Chantry doesn't raise or equip those armies.

A templar & mage army may accompany other armies - and this would be the only army that is under direct Chantry control.

[Lotion Soronarr]

tool_bot wrote...

What it proves is that the wars the Chantry fights aren't out of necisity, like you can argue the war with the Dales was. (not that I buy that bs but whatever) The Chantry isn't an organisation trying to do good, just one trying to expand its power and hoping to topple down its enemies. That the catalyst for the war was a difference of opinion over a piece of dogma, speaks volumes of the Chantry's priorities. Obviously if it's enough to go to war over it' enough to justify almost anything in the eyes of the Divine.

Yes, because wars are such simple matters one shoudl start on a whim. Has it ever occured to you how much preparation and plannign a war requires? The social, economical and polical ramifacations?

Can you prove to me that the Chantry didn't want to smite Tevinter earlier (for blood magic and slavery or wahtever), but decided not to, because it wasn't ready yet for such an undertaking? Or for a maryad of other reasons? Maybe it prioritized something else at the time (re-building, relief efforts or something else)? Maybe they didn't think the losses would be worth it? (Tevinter IS very strong) etc...

I love the way you justify things. Everyone is evil and guilty until proved otherwise. Everyone, of course, except for the people making the decisions.

Sometimes, people in power have to make rough decisions. Do you shoot down the highjaked plane filled with pasanger and bio toxins, before it reaches one of your major cities?

And no. Bad (morally) decisions remain bad decisions - even if justified. However, life sometimes sucks enough that you have to make em and live with it.

Also, I've never stated the orlesian version to be fact. I REPEATEDLY claimed that we do know know enough.
Obviously, you cannot be bothered to check before throwing accusations.

You've accused the Dalish of everything from attempting genocide to intentionally instigating a world war. You've repeatedly tried to absolve the Chantry of any wrong doing, that's for sure.

I did? When?
I really don't know exactly what your talking about, because what I said (wrote) and what you say I wrote, are two compeltely different things.

If they set things in motion then they're also guilty. Especially if they had knowledge of what was done.

And why are you arguing this? Isn't your point that it would be far to inconvenient and impractical to try and prosecute who was responsible for any 'war crimes?'

If they had fore-knowledge, and did nothing...yes.

If I rally the people to defend my coutnry from an agressor..and some of the people go overboard and painfully torture captured enemy soldiers for pleasure..how is it MY fault? Did I want that? No. Did I sanctionthat? no. Can I completley stop that from happening? No.
Does that mean that I should have never rallied the people? Heck no!

And no again. My point is that even today we are unable to prosecute all war crimes or stop them - with all our fancy forensics skills and nice tech, with all our record keeping.
So how do you expect the Chatnry to do that, when it doesn't evne control all of the armies in a March?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sir JK wrote...

* SNIP *

Now THAT was a impressive and well though of post.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith66 wrote...

Why are we suddenly discussing what they cared about? This was never the topic of discussion. We're talking about why the Exalted March on Tevinter happened. I never said they didn't care, I said the Exalted March was about their shift of religious ideology from the accepted version of the Andrastian Chantry.[/quote]

No, you speciflcy said the Chatnry didn't care about the slavery or blood magic. Dont' try to weasel your way out of this.
The Exhalted March was finally triggered by the religious shift, but you cannot claim it was the only reason for it. You cannot say the Chatnry didn't want to end the slavery or blood magic use in Tevinter. [/quote]

They didn't start an Exalted March over slavery. They started an Exalted March against the "heathens" in Tevinter for religious reasons, officially starting when the Imperial Chantry threw a celebration the day Divine Joyous II of the Andrastian Chantry died, and the new Divine of Orlais named the next age the Black Age as a result. All you've done is thrown out speculation and professed it as proof, again.


[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith66 wrote...

More speculation and absolutely no proof from you. No abominations in DA:O were members of the Collective. They are a self-regulating guild, and so far, they seem to be handling their affairs without Chantry oversight. The abomination in the quest you mentioned had no mentioned affiliation to the Collective, since he isn't even referenced by the Collective, who are concerned about the missing mage; he was an apprentice like the three apprentices that are fired in another quest, none of whom reference the Mages Collective.[/quote]

The lore isn't proof?
Wether a specifc abomination in-game was part of the Collective is IRRELEVANT. The INDESPUTABLE FACT of the universe is that ALL mages can become possesed and some WILL become possesed.
Ergo, abominations happening among the Collective is a given.

Antoher FACT - the Colelctive doesn't have an effective way of dealing with said abominations...or with blood magies. [/quote]

You said mages of the Collective were abominations, and you were wrong. No known mages in DA:O are in the Collective and abominations. And you're "facts" and "indisputable facts" are assumptions.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith66 wrote...

You have offered your opinion as fact, even when it contradicted lore. For instance, you claimed the Dalish murdered the missionaries from the Chantry, except the Dalish codex stated the missionaries were tossed out, who were replaced by the templars. The only reference to killing is the attack on the town of Red Crossing, and we have no idea of knowing whether that was retaliation against a prior attack by the Orlesians or not. I've argued against Chantry oversight for the mages. I've also said I hope that DA2 offers the choice to help or hinder the Chantry and the Circle of Magi in the Free Marches. And  I've clearly read what you wrote, like when you dismissed the elves as being "butthurt" by what happened with humanity; clearly the words of a scholar.[/quote]

You colorfull immagination is entertaining, but only slightly. Trying ot put words in my mouth - words I never said - won't help your case.
Now either you're confusing me with someone or you dont' even bother to check my posts. I never claimed any alternate explanation as a fact.
In fact, now that you mention it - you ARE confusing me with somoene else (both of those postst were not made by me). Another proof that you don't bother with reading and you lump all of your opponents into one pile.

F.A.I.L. [/quote]

You mean you never said this:

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
They declined a life of subjegation? Hardly surprising. I doubt that the templars give people much choice. I've heard that the templars also hunt down the Dalish Keepers, which is part of the reason why they're nomadic. According to the codex for a Dalish Warden, the Chantry used templars to force the Dalish to convert:

[quote]
But it was not to last. The Chantry first sent missionaries into the Dales, and then, when those were thrown out, templars. We were driven from Halamshiral, scattered. Some took refuge in the cities of the shemlen, living in squalor, tolerated only a little better than vermin.[/quote][/quote]

That entry is written from a Dalish POV. Acording to the Chantry, the Dalish attacked and murdered missionaries.
Because clearly, being a missionary is the ultimate evil! If this is true, then the Cahtnry was fully justified in sending templars to protect the missionaries. [/quote]

F.A.I.L. huh? Looks like you lied. Again.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith66 wrote...

None of that is mentioned in the codex. You're making assumptions and presenting them as fact again. Let's discuss what's actually said in the codex: the Chantry is responsible for pushing back the Qunari armies, since Genitivi clearly references them and their use of the mages of the Circle of Magi in the codex. You're arguing that they are not responsible for the deaths of the innocent people, despite Genitivi making it clearly that the Chantry is responsible for pushing the Qunari back in their Exalted March, as well as blatantly lying about what happened to the people.[/quote]

It is called "common  sense". I don't need the codex to tell me that human armies are led by generals or that humans have to take a ****** occasionally. [/quote]

You mean it's your assumption that the Chantry wasn't involved in the countless deaths of those innocent people who were killed because they adopted the ideals of the Qun. Not based in lore or even the codex.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The Chantry is NOT all-powerfull. It does not control other countries. It does not order kings and armies around. When an Exhalted March is called, and army from Ferelden is led by a ferdelden general. An army from Orlais is led by an orlais general, etc.. The Chantry doesn't raise or equip those armies. [/quote]  

I guess when David Gaider said that the Chantry tells the ruler of Ferelden no for the Magi boon, that wasn't a moment of an all-powerful religious organization that controls every Circle of Magi in Thedas (with the exception of Tevinter) outright refusing to give mages in Ferelden their independence, despite the ruler's proclamation at the end of DA:O that they would be given their freedom.

And you do realize the Chantry is closely tied to the Orlesian Empire, correct? Emperor Kordillus Drakon I of the Orlesian Empire established the Cult of Andraste as an organized religion three years prior to the Divine Age, who created the office of the Divine (and to the election of the first Divine Justinia I, and the naming of the Divine Age), the creation of the Order of Templars, and establishing the Circle of Magi. He also started a number of Exalted Marches to make the worship of the Maker the dominant religion. (From: From Tales of the Destruction of Thedas, by Brother Genitivi, Chantry scholar, Codex Entry: The History of the Chantry Part 4)

Edited: Apparently, the templars existed prior to the Emperor establishing the Order:

[quote]David Gaider wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
The Chantry and the templars were started by the Orlesian Emperor Kordillus Drakon I, who organized the Cult of Andraste into a formal religion and established the templars. When the Divine was elected three years later, the Divine Age began.[/quote]

Just a note that the Chantry didn't create the templars, per se. They established the Templar Order, yes, but the templars existed as the Inquisition previous to that-- an army of the faithful that hunted down not only mages but also cultists of the Old Gods. It was a dark time during a period when many different cults of Andraste existed, and it wasn't until one of them was established as the "official" cult (ie. the Chantry) that the idea of the Circle of Magi began and a need was seen for an official body to police it.

Minor point, perhaps, but there you go.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 29 septembre 2010 - 11:57 .

[LobselVith8]

Edited: Apparently, the templars existed prior to the Emperor establishing the Order, but the Order of the templars was created by the Emperor.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

tool_bot wrote...

What it proves is that the wars the Chantry fights aren't out of necisity, like you can argue the war with the Dales was. (not that I buy that bs but whatever) The Chantry isn't an organisation trying to do good, just one trying to expand its power and hoping to topple down its enemies. That the catalyst for the war was a difference of opinion over a piece of dogma, speaks volumes of the Chantry's priorities. Obviously if it's enough to go to war over it' enough to justify almost anything in the eyes of the Divine.

Yes, because wars are such simple matters one shoudl start on a whim. Has it ever occured to you how much preparation and plannign a war requires? The social, economical and polical ramifacations?

Can you prove to me that the Chantry didn't want to smite Tevinter earlier (for blood magic and slavery or wahtever), but decided not to, because it wasn't ready yet for such an undertaking? Or for a maryad of other reasons? Maybe it prioritized something else at the time (re-building, relief efforts or something else)? Maybe they didn't think the losses would be worth it? (Tevinter IS very strong) etc...

Better yet, can you prove that the Andrastian Chantry didn't declare four Exalted Marches against Tevinter as a result of the Imperial Chantry? They declared war on Tevinter after the Imperial Chantry celebrated the day that Divine Joyous II died? The likely reason more Exalted Marches didn't continue against Tevinter was the Fourth Blight. And the Ages description states that the Exalted March was to destroy the "heathens" of the Imperium:




[*] 4:40 Black–5:10 Exalted: The Chantry declare a series of four Exalted Marches to destroy the “heathens” within the Tevinter Imperium. All four times, large armies are gathered from around the Chantry’s domains, and an assault is launched deep into Tevinter. Every time, however, the Exalted March falls just short of its goal of conquering Minrathous. In the end, the Exalted Marches serve simply to cement the separation between Minrathous and Val Royeaux. The Imperial Chantry starts to form its own dogma and policies, and the groundswell of mages fleeing from southern lands into Tevinter bolsters the empire’s waning power.


[*]5:12 Exalted: The Exalted Marches come to an end with the awakening of Andoral and the rise of the Fourth Blight. Darkspawn appear in great numbers in the northeast and northwest of the continent. The country of Antiva is overrun and its entire ruling family slaughtered. The darkspawn then pour into the Free Marches and Rivain. The Blight rises in the Anderfels as well, and the capital city of Hossberg comes under siege. Orlais and the Tevinter Imperium are attacked by fewer numbers and are able to drive the darkspawn back into the depths of the Deep Roads. Despite their success, Tevinter refuses to send any aid to the Free Marches or the Anderfels, while Orlais sends only a token force.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

tool_bot wrote...

I love the way you justify things. Everyone is evil and guilty until proved otherwise. Everyone, of course, except for the people making the decisions.

Sometimes, people in power have to make rough decisions. Do you shoot down the highjaked plane filled with pasanger and bio toxins, before it reaches one of your major cities?

And no. Bad (morally) decisions remain bad decisions - even if justified. However, life sometimes sucks enough that you have to make em and live with it.

So declaring wars for religious reasons, like the Exalted Marches, is akin to a plane of bio-toxins that needs to be shot down?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

tool_bot wrote...

If they set things in motion then they're also guilty. Especially if they had knowledge of what was done.

And why are you arguing this? Isn't your point that it would be far to inconvenient and impractical to try and prosecute who was responsible for any 'war crimes?'

If they had fore-knowledge, and did nothing...yes.

If I rally the people to defend my coutnry from an agressor..and some of the people go overboard and painfully torture captured enemy soldiers for pleasure..how is it MY fault? Did I want that? No. Did I sanctionthat? no. Can I completley stop that from happening? No.
Does that mean that I should have never rallied the people? Heck no!

And no again. My point is that even today we are unable to prosecute all war crimes or stop them - with all our fancy forensics skills and nice tech, with all our record keeping.
So how do you expect the Chatnry to do that, when it doesn't evne control all of the armies in a March?

If their armies were responsible, then the Chantry is responsible, and Genitivi credits the Chantry as pushing back the Qunari in the same codex that the deaths of the people of Nocen Fields and Marnus Pell are mentioned.

So you're bringing up forensics because the Chantry intentionally lied about the mass murders of innocent men, women, and children that their armies may have been directly responsible for, during an Exalted March?

Modifié par LobselVith8, 29 septembre 2010 - 12:31 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

They didn't start an Exalted March over slavery. They started an Exalted March against the "heathens" in Tevinter for religious reasons, officially starting when the Imperial Chantry threw a celebration the day Divine Joyous II of the Andrastian Chantry died, and the new Divine of Orlais named the next age the Black Age as a result. All you've done is thrown out speculation and professed it as proof, again.

No, tehy didn't START it, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to.
Again, I'm not offering proof, I'm offering alternate interpretations that are valid.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You said mages of the Collective were abominations, and you were wrong. No known mages in DA:O are in the Collective and abominations. And you're "facts" and "indisputable facts" are assumptions.

Missing the point again? Weather any of the abomination in the game were specificly partof hte collective is IRRELEVANT.

Find me ANY piece of evidence that claims apostates are immune to possesion.
Show me evidence of the Collective efficiency in dealign with blood mages or abominations within their ranks.

There isn't any.

So I ask you again - are apostates immune to becoming abominatons? Answer that.

You mean you never said this:

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You are just as dead set as seeing everyhting the do as wrong. However, I do not really care about the Chantry, I think they do good work though. I believe what the Templars do is right though, and very much needed, the Templars just happens to be part of the Chantry.
So far no one has come with anything to give me a concrete piece of evidence to dislike the Templars or the Chantry as organizations, only to dislike indiviuals within them. On the contrary with mages, I find reason to like individuals but I dislike mages as a whole. Elves I jsut generally dislike because of their butthurtness about their own mistakes. They really should just roll over present their bellies and die with dignity.... (As a culture, the city elves can stay)

Well, no.
You don't even bother to check whom you are quoting.

Or this:

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


That entry is written from a Dalish POV. Acording to the Chantry, the Dalish attacked and murdered missionaries.
Because clearly, being a missionary is the ultimate evil! If this is true, then the Cahtnry was fully justified in sending templars to protect the missionaries.

F.A.I.L. huh? [b]Looks like you lied. Again.

Wow... Again. Note the underlined part...So where exactly have Iied here?

Oh boy..when you jump on a Fail Train it just keep going..

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You mean it's your assumption that the Chantry wasn't involved in the countless deaths of those innocent people who were killed because they adopted the ideals of the Qun. Not based in lore or even the codex.

No. I say we don't know the details, so blaiming the Chantry for everything is premature, to say the least - especially given the circumstances.

You own codex quotes don't provide enough specifics. It never specified who killed the people. And again, all Codex entires are from a specific individuals p.o.w.
One must ask oneself if Genitivi deals with facts or rumors.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I guess when David Gaider said that the Chantry tells the ruler of Ferelden no for the Magi boon, that wasn't a moment of an all-powerful religious organization that controls every Circle of Magi in Thedas (with the exception of Tevinter) outright refusing to give mages in Ferelden their independence, despite the ruler's proclamation at the end of DA:O that they would be given their freedom.

ERm..the Chantry owns the Circels, not the king, didn't you know?
The "no" is not them telling kings what to do, but not letting kings tell THEM what to do. It's basicly like a president telling the Church how to run their monastery and the Church saying "no". Their monastery.

That's not all-powerfull. Not to mention that according to DG, there is a lot more to it than that.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Yeah, I had a hunch he was confusing the two of us Lotion... Hoped he would figure it out by himself though

Edit: Granted, we do have somewhat similar avatars. I can see where the confusion started.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 29 septembre 2010 - 12:12 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

My avatar is handsomerer

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Well, no.
You don't even bother to check whom you are quoting. [/quote]

Actually, I did. I assumed you changed your screenname (like MariSkep did to tool_bot). It's not an assumption I should have made. Assumptions are very, very bad. You know, like when you assumed that the Collective was run by abominations?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
There are free mages; are you forgetting about the mages of the Mages Collective, who police themselves?[/quote]

You mean the bunch full of blood mages and abominations that hires other people to take care of their mess? [/quote]

Lesson learned: assumptions are bad. Since you said you aren't the same person, I'll amend the comment.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

They didn't start an Exalted March over slavery. They started an Exalted March against the "heathens" in Tevinter for religious reasons, officially starting when the Imperial Chantry threw a celebration the day Divine Joyous II of the Andrastian Chantry died, and the new Divine of Orlais named the next age the Black Age as a result. All you've done is thrown out speculation and professed it as proof, again.[/quote]

No, tehy didn't START it, but that doesn't mean they didn't want to.
Again, I'm not offering proof, I'm offering alternate interpretations that are valid. [/quote]

They're not canon, they're assumptions.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith66 wrote...
You said mages of the Collective were abominations, and you were wrong. No known mages in DA:O are in the Collective and abominations. And you're "facts" and "indisputable facts" are assumptions.[/quote]

Missing the point again? Weather any of the abomination in the game were specificly partof hte collective is IRRELEVANT.

Find me ANY piece of evidence that claims apostates are immune to possesion.
Show me evidence of the Collective efficiency in dealign with blood mages or abominations within their ranks. [/quote]

It was the topic of discussion. No member of the Collective is an abomination in DA:O.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith66 wrote...
You mean it's your assumption that the Chantry wasn't involved in the countless deaths of those innocent people who were killed because they adopted the ideals of the Qun. Not based in lore or even the codex.[/quote]

No. I say we don't know the details, so blaiming the Chantry for everything is premature, to say the least - especially given the circumstances.

You own codex quotes don't provide enough specifics. It never specified who killed the people. And again, all Codex entires are from a specific individuals p.o.w.
One must ask oneself if Genitivi deals with facts or rumors. [/quote]

Didn't you assume they weren't responsible in any way?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith66 wrote...

I guess when David Gaider said that the Chantry tells the ruler of Ferelden no for the Magi boon, that wasn't a moment of an all-powerful religious organization that controls every Circle of Magi in Thedas (with the exception of Tevinter) outright refusing to give mages in Ferelden their independence, despite the ruler's proclamation at the end of DA:O that they would be given their freedom.[/quote]

ERm..the Chantry owns the Circels, not the king, didn't you know?
The "no" is not them telling kings what to do, but not letting kings tell THEM what to do. It's basicly like a president telling the Church how to run their monastery and the Church saying "no". Their monastery. [/quote]

You realize I've stated they control all the Circles in Thedas, correct? And since they control the lives of every mage in Thedas outside of Tevinter, I'm not certain how you can seriously say they have no power when they get mages from the Circles they control to fight the Qunari invasion.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 29 septembre 2010 - 12:55 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

No one is arguing that the Chantry doesn't ahve power or doesn't want more power. The two most important things to know about power is: How to keep it and how to gain more. If you don't do either of these you WILL lose it.

What we are arguing is that the Chantry isn't as superficial as you make them out to be by calling Exalted Marches over petty religious differences alone. We are trying to prove that the Chantry called each of its Exalted Marches for several different reasons (maybe not the one against the Qunari, but that was just self-defense).

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No one is arguing that the Chantry doesn't ahve power or doesn't want more power. The two most important things to know about power is: How to keep it and how to gain more. If you don't do either of these you WILL lose it.
What we are arguing is that the Chantry isn't as superficial as you make them out to be by calling Exalted Marches over petty religious differences alone. We are trying to prove that the Chantry called each of its Exalted Marches for several different reasons (maybe not the one against the Qunari, but that was just self-defense).

Fair enough. However, they started the Exalted March on Tevinter after they celebrated on the day when the Divine Joyous II, and the schism between the two happened on 4:87 Towers because of religious differences between the two. If the Dalish version is true, the Chantry attacked them simply because they refused to convert to their religion, which one could argue since they actually made worshipping the elven gods illegal. I do admit that it seems more of an issue of who you're inclined to believe, and if you think the Chantry is worth keeping around.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Well since they annexed the Dales and the Chant says that it must be sung from the four corners of the world. It makes sense for Orlais to outlaw any other religion in their country no matter what. And I aggree the root of the whole Exalted March on the Dales was because of the Dalish not wanting to convert and the Chantry not taking no for an answer. However I believe both parts could have handled the situation better than they did.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Well since they annexed the Dales and the Chant says that it must be sung from the four corners of the world. It makes sense for Orlais to outlaw any other religion in their country no matter what. And I agree the root of the whole Exalted March on the Dales was because of the Dalish not wanting to convert and the Chantry not taking no for an answer. However I believe both parts could have handled the situation better than they did.

I agree with that. Maybe the people of Ferelden and the Dalish in the Hinterlands will handle it better than the Orlesians and the elves of the Dales did.