1503 réponses à ce sujet

[Collider]

Not if you read the post, Loc_N_lol. Maybe I didn't make this clear? It would be ridiculous to blanket oppress all males.



If that's what you're referring to, of course.

Well you have to admit it is a bit different. I see your point though.

[Serella]

Fight without a doubt. Never liked the Chantry.

[ImoenBaby]

Collider wrote...

Not if you read the post, Loc_N_lol. Maybe I didn't make this clear? It would be ridiculous to blanket oppress all males.

If that's what you're referring to, of course.

Well you have to admit it is a bit different. I see your point though.

Naturally. No analogy can ever be quivalent.

But notice how you felt when you thought someone just condemned you purely for being male (assuming you're male). They have no idea who you are, but they think they do, and what if they had the power to control you because of this?

That's the point I was making. Same thing about Germany, if anyone's wondering.

[caridounette]

I would like the opportunity to either fight them or help them. I like options, it makes the game worth replaying.

[Calla S]

I'd support them, but attempt to lessen their power within the Tower. The mages need someone to watch over them, but preferably not someone with such an iron grip. Even if they were lorded over by other mages, the chance of these mages being as corrupt as the templars is just as likely. Having that sort of power over a group of people, even if they're your people, does things to the person in charge. Plus, not all templars are evil. In fact, barring the Broken Circle quest, there are more nice templars than there are mean ones. Bran, Cullen (pre-BC), Ser Otto, Ser Bryant, Carroll, even Hadley, from the Witch Hunt DLC. I've never understood why so many people are quick to go LOL DAI TEMPLARS DAI. Most of them probably don't want to stand around in a drafty tower watching mages, either.

Other than that, I don't see why they should be opposed at all. Unless the priest putting food into the Chant called me a no-good two cent **** and heathen when I wasn't looking.

[Face of Evil]

ImoenBaby wrote...

What's that you say? But mages are potentially dangerous? So are males. A disproportionately large group commits the most violent crime, and the most serious. They are potentially and factually responsible for most violent disruptions of civil order.  IN FACT, SO IS ANYONE, with enough numbers or power.  

That's kind of an Association Fallacy, isn't it? "Men kill people and mages kill people, so if we let men run free, then we should let mages run free." It's like saying vegetarians are evil because Hitler was a vegetarian.

You're attempting to downplay the threat that abominations pose to the world, but it really cannot be stressed enough. A single abomination can threaten entire villages; a sufficiently powerful one can endanger the entire world.

I'm not entirely supportive of the restrictions placed on mages by the Chantry, but I can see why mages need to be governed strictly and why an agency like the templars are needed.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 13 septembre 2010 - 05:42 .

[captain.subtle]

Face of Evil wrote...

ImoenBaby wrote...

What's that you say? But mages are potentially dangerous? So are males. A disproportionately large group commits the most violent crime, and the most serious. They are potentially and factually responsible for most violent disruptions of civil order.  IN FACT, SO IS ANYONE, with enough numbers or power.  

That's kind of an Association Fallacy, isn't it? "Men kill people and mages kill people, so if we let men run free, then we should let mages run free." It's like saying vegetarians are evil because Hitler was a vegetarian.

You're attempting to downplay the threat that abominations pose to the world, but it really cannot be stressed enough. A single abomination can threaten entire villages; a sufficiently powerful one can endanger the entire world.

Apostates cannot be allowed to simply "roam free" because of the risk posed to them by demons.

I thought by now you would know that it is pointless to debate on the issue. I sincerely hope that the Devs are having a much better idea on how to treat the situation.....

[LobselVith8]

I'd like a mage Hawke to dismantle the Chantry.

KLUME777 wrote...

I see a lot of people complaining about the chantry beating down on the mages.

However, lets just think for a moment.

Suppose there was no circle towers, and mages just lived wherever they were born, without protection or education against demons. THEY WOULD ALL BE POSSESESED! The circle tower and hunting down apostates is neccassary, as they are a danger to the rest of the world, with Conner as evidence.

You mean like the Dalish mages we encounter who don't have insane drug addicts watching over them or go through Harrowings? Or Kolgrim's pro-mage dragon cult, where mages were utilized and none of them were abominations?

FDrage wrote...

Help them,

because mages are incapable of regulating themselves 9e.g. Tevinter, Flemeth, my own warden, etc ...). Beside the Chantry did a lot of good things, for people like Lelianna. Also, as fruitless as it was, the Templar were the only real fighting force left in Lothering after it was abandoned by the local Lord (granted as the order of the man in charge).

Actually, the Dalish mages regulate themselves pretty well, and they don't need Chantry supervision.

[Face of Evil]

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean like the Dalish mages we encounter who don't have insane drug addicts watching over them or go through Harrowings?

How do you know they don't have their own version of the Harrowing?

LobselVith8 wrote...

Or Kolgrim's pro-mage dragon cult, where mages were utilized and none of them were abominations?

Poor example. We know next to nothing about the private practices of the Disciples of Andraste; they might have indeed lost a few mages to possession and had to put them down. Or perhaps their connection to the High Dragon, whcih is a form of blood magic, simply made them exempt from becoming abominations.

Modifié par Face of Evil, 13 septembre 2010 - 05:53 .

[Jalem001]

Akka le Vil wrote...

I suppose that it's the typical "rebellion against authority" and irritation against preachiness that make all the "let's burn the Chantry !" railing.
What seems to completely pass under the radar of teenage rebels is that it's actually much less black and white, and a truly well thought-out situation that Bioware created.

Chantry is realistically described as a religion that has a preachy and oppressive side, but ALSO has a generous and humanitarian side. Which makes it NOT a no-brainer when it comes to "do you fight it or help it ?".
It's shallow and simplistic to describe it as tyrannizing the mages. It HELPS the mage not to be burnt by mobs just as much as it confines them in towers - where they can at least find a sense of belonging and security. It PROTECTS the non-mage from all the "little peripherical problems" that are caused by uncontrolled magic - it's all nice and fine to shrug the collateral damages while crying "freedom", up to the point you remember that these collateral damages have just as much a right to live than the mages, and one single abomination kills much more than one single person.

The Chantry is actually using a lot of efforts to control mages rather than kill them, and in this case it seems that it's actually fairly generous.

The points that would make me fight it are more about the religious intolerance (which is fairly low compared to real-life medieval setting, I offended people when I said that I didn't believe in the Maker, but they didn't try to kill or denounce me, which seems to imply that it's not actually a crime) and particularly the subjugation of Elves. But that seems to me to represent rather a non-wide-eyed-idealistic world, than an "evil oppressive religion".

This.

The Chantry as a humanitarian organization hasn't been stated enough.  Throughout all of DA:O they make it clear that the Chantry accepts pretty much everyone (With the exception of apostates, malificar, etc) who comes to it's doors.  In Orzammar it shakes the foundation of their opressive culture helping and uplifting the casteless.  In Lothering the Chantry (with Templars) keep order when the secular forces are no longer there to defend it.

Outside of humanitarian efforts they act as a balancing agent of sorts, having a powerful role in politics that they don't seem to abuse (at least in Fereldan) and uniting the Human kingdoms during the Qunari invasion.

Even with what is the Chantry's greatest failure - the subjugation of the elves - it's not completely bad.  They prevented their re-enslavement (at least outside of the Imperium), and even though they crowded them into what would become slums filled with crime and poverty, they seem to treat them well (I can't recall any instances of my city elf being treated subpar by a member fo the Chantry, and the Priestess who presides over the wedding in the Origin seems to be considered a friend by the elves).  While one could argue that the Chantry could of done more to integrate the elves into Human society, the City Elves do note that the walls of the alienage do protect them from racist Humans who would otherwise attack them.

What you have with the Chantry is a fundamentally good organization that, while flawed, has done far more good than bad.  As an organization they're strictly LG, and people seem to take offense to that lawful part.

Someone mentioned Reformation earlier.  I like the sound of that, and I always felt that Lelianna was kinda put in the game to suggest that a Reformation was on the horizon.  It may be possible that as we delve into DA2 we find that the Chantry has factions, some of which may want a Reformation-like event.

[jpdipity]

I'd prefer to drastically reform the Chantry. Some sort of mandatory education needs to be in place for Mages to learn how to control their powers. Almost like requiring a license to drive, a car can be a dangerous weapon if not controlled properly.



On the other hand, the rigid, lock-them-away, remove all personal freedoms, forcibily remove the infant child of a mage after birth, strip mages of their identity and history all in the name of keeping the rest of society safe is beyond extreme and causes more harm than good in my opinion.



Furthermore, it is absolutely repugnant to imprison an entire group of people based on possessing a set of attributes that they were born with and cannot change. I will not support an organization who regularly commits abhorent acts simply because they donate large sums of money to good causes and operate under the guise that they are protecting society from potential crimes that may or may not ever happen.



Basically, if it would actually cause reform, I'd fight the Chantry before allowing them to continue with their current policies. However, I would not start a fight that was not winnable either.

[Aradace]

Now before I deliver my response, know that I am in no way making a direct stab at ANYONE'S religion lol.....But for me, I'd rather fight them. Why? Because the Chantry reminds me wayyyyy too much of some IRL religions that try and push their beliefs off on everyone around them. And those that dont conform are considered "blasphemers" or outcasts. But anyway, yea....Definitely fight them.

[svenus97]

War. The Chantry does good thing, but, they are idiots. Hell, you can blame the Grand Cleric, and the Chantry for the death of Duncan and the king (Remember in Ostagar, when Uldred ( a smart mage, I would be a liberatian myself) told the mages could light the beacon from far, and the silly granny told no, Loghain did a rational desicison, he retreated because the beacon was too late)



I have nothing against the Circle of the Magi, but Mages should be allowed to leave the Circle, without having to be on "official circle buiesness".



Chantry teaches us that the Maker creates everyone, that must mean he gives people magic, does he want them to be imprisoned ? I think not, if he exists.

[ImoenBaby]

Face of Evil wrote...

ImoenBaby wrote...

What's that you say? But mages are potentially dangerous? So are males. A disproportionately large group commits the most violent crime, and the most serious. They are potentially and factually responsible for most violent disruptions of civil order.  IN FACT, SO IS ANYONE, with enough numbers or power.  

That's kind of an Association Fallacy, isn't it? "Men kill people and mages kill people, so if we let men run free, then we should let mages run free." It's like saying vegetarians are evil because Hitler was a vegetarian.

You're attempting to downplay the threat that abominations pose to the world, but it really cannot be stressed enough. A single abomination can threaten entire villages; a sufficiently powerful one can endanger the entire world.

I'm not entirely supportive of the restrictions placed on mages by the Chantry, but I can see why mages need to be governed strictly and why an agency like the templars are needed.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding you.

Isn't associating all mages with abominations an association fallacy? Of course men are not mages, nor should mage policy be dictated by this analogy - as mentioned above, no analogy is equivalent. The point is that blanket condemnation and oppression of individuals, due to the actions of a group they are associated with, is indefensible.

I'm not downplaying any threat posed by abominations, either. I am challenging the rationale behind blanket condemnation of all mages - i.e, that some are also abominations, and that they allegedly created the Dark City.

Now, strict governance? I think that preventing an unusually powerful abomination from threatening the "entire world" is desirable. That's a different issue. I think strict governance of any powerful, threatening body is necessary. I just don't happen to think the actions of the Chantry - at least, not all the actions of the Chantry - could reasonably be called "strict governance".  E.g., running a teenage boy through with a sword.

[Ravenfeeder]

Depending on which class and character I'm playing, probably help them. Help them to be better. Playing a paragon of a Templar who stands up for the rights of the opressed, but is a nightmare for those who go to far, especially blood mages.

[Jalem001]

svenus97 wrote...

War. The Chantry does good thing, but, they are idiots. Hell, you can blame the Grand Cleric, and the Chantry for the death of Duncan and the king (Remember in Ostagar, when Uldred ( a smart mage, I would be a liberatian myself) told the mages could light the beacon from far, and the silly granny told no, Loghain did a rational desicison, he retreated because the beacon was too late)

I have nothing against the Circle of the Magi, but Mages should be allowed to leave the Circle, without having to be on "official circle buiesness".

Chantry teaches us that the Maker creates everyone, that must mean he gives people magic, does he want them to be imprisoned ? I think not, if he exists.

Did we play the same game?  Loghain retreated not because the beacon was lit late (how would he know?  That's the -point- of the beacon, to tell him when to attack), but because he believed the Blight to be a minor threat compared to allowing the Orlesians back into Ferelden.  He would of retreated regardless who lit it or when it was lit.  

[Sir JK]

Like some others, I think the idea of the opressive chantry is a bit exaggerated. Yes, the organisation have done some very cruel things, but they also do a lot of good. Furthermore, more or less the entire theodosian society rests on the pillars of the chantry. Crush the chantry and you crush society and civilisation (and replacing it will take centuries).



The most common argument for the evils of the religion is that it opresses the mages, locks them away in a tower with no liberties, no hope and no real life.

However... a mage is in the tower free to explore and develop his/her powers (with a few no-go areas). They recieve free food, drink, roof over their head, warm beds and protection by what probably is the world's most well funded armed force. They recieve free training in both civilian and military use of their powers and are given access to all the lyrium they need (need I point out that refined lyrium is insanely expensive?). They are also largely protected from being forcefully dragged into politics.

That's not too shabby... it's better than most regular people have it, even some nobles.



I'll also point out that Gregoir, knight-commander of the Fereldan circle, redirects you to Irving when it comes to requesting aid/resources from the circle. If the Templars/chantry control everything the mages do, why would the leader of the circle Templars defer his judgement to the senior enchanter. The simplest reason would be that the Templars cannot actually order the mages, they may veto some decisions perhaps but to me it seemed like it is in fact the mages of the circle that gets to decide what they will do, not the templars (also, the mages choose the first enchanter from the senior enchanters). I think this is further reinforced by the fact that Gregoir and Irving both have to decide to tranquilize Jowan. Something the mages and templars agree on together.



My final note on the mage thing is Willem of Honnleath. Senior enchanter of the circle... living in Honnleath with his wife, son and Shale. If the correnspondence is anything to go by, it seems the circle was very well aware of this (that he lived there). I'd assume the templars did as well, if for nothing else that he was rather well known to have Shale and golems tend to stand out



Another thing is "the controlling of Templars by the lyrium". I always interpreted it that the Templars were given lyrium to help them in case they would even get into a fight with a mage and that the addiction was a unfortunate side-effect (which some would abuse, yes. Due to being human though). By the looks of things however, the chantry is providing them with generally steady doses though (again for free and lyrium is far from cheap). It is only in the case of spiralling addictions this becomes a problem. Yes... in theory the chantry could restrict access to the lyrium to control the templars.

But why would they? Having thousands of armed men in direct contact with the chantries going through withdrawal sounds like a recipe for disaster.



As for the exalted marches on the dales. Conflict needs people on both sides, not just one. And even so... while masked as a religious war, it is far more likely that it was a very geo-political one orchestrated by Orlesian lords on the borders to the dales. If the chantry wouldn't have gotten involved the war still would have happened. Possibly with even worse results.



And like others have said... the chantry does massive things for civilisation. They provide shelters for the poor, food for the hungry, solace for the mourning and troubled. They wed couples that are in love and provide assistance to those who ask. Everyone is welcome. Yes, even a apostate that comes to the chantry would be welcome (though... that would be giving themselves up and offering to go to the circle).

If they are anything like their IRL counterpart they're also conducting censuses, supporting the peasantry against noble opression, making cheeses and ales, conducting science, going over the law to improve on it, teaching people to sing and read, managing all higher education and mediating peace and ending pointless wars.



It is a massive and very important thing to theodosian society. One the world as it is now cannot be without.

[RazorrX]

I am for taking the chantry down several pegs.

From my Elven perspective:

YES they (the elves) did not help against the blight. They stood back and watched humans fight and simply pulled back. Then humans in anger attacked them. THEN they attacked a human village. THEN the chantry used that as an excuse to do a holy march and take their lands from them for the real purpose of the fact that they would not convert and worship some 'maker' and his 'bride'. In the end, the elves did not lose their lands because of fights with humans, but because they would not convert.

Putting elves in alienages – they did this as a ‘reward’ for agreeing to convert to the Maker. Convert and we will not kill you, instead you can live life as less than a dog in slums. While the priest seemed liked by the flock of city elves, notice that she did NOTHING to stop Vaughn.

From a Mages perspective:

They over threw a evil empire (of mages) and then set out to persecute everyone born with that talent. Even though the prophet stated that magic was to serve man. Even though there are hints that Andraste was perhaps a mage herself. Why did Andraste lead a revolt vs the Tevinter Imperium? Because it was unjust, because it enslaved people, etc. same thing the chantry now does to mages.

Andraste fought a war against slavers (being an escaped slave herself) yet the Chantry allows slavery in the Tevinter Imperium. In fact, under the chantry the Tevinter Imperium is much the same as it always was. They still have slaves, they still rule and they still practice blood magic (just not in the open maybe).

From a Grey Warden's perspective:

The Chantry prevented the circle from sending more mages to the fight at Ostagar. More mages may have made a difference. The King and Duncan (with other wardens) may have been saved. Also at Ostagar they would not let the mages fully use their powers, keeping them cowed back with templars nearby, etc. Again handicapping the efforts.

The chantry was fully willing to keep sten locked up in a cage for the darkspawn to have. IF you do not have sister fruitbat in your party it is a very hard persuade to get the reverend mother to let him go. Even the right of conscription, which the chantry recognized since the beginning is thrown out by a “We will not be seen as going against Loghain”.

This is the same chantry that was officially supportive of the Orlesians - knowing full well the atrocities they were doing.

So yeah, I want to take it down several pegs, to the point of no longer existing.

[JrayM16]

I am pretty firmly anti-chantry in the dragon age world.

[Jalem001]

Consider this: I kill 200 people, then I save 200 people from death.
Does the latter cancel the first?

'We declare an Exalted March
(for WHATEVER reason)!' - that has always ended up in taking lives.
'We
build places of shelter for the poor (possibly with wealth that could
have been gathered as a result of during the Exalted
Marches, which are basically a from of invasion)'

Does building
shelter for the poor or feeding the poor, or raising orphans (!!! some
of which may have been a result OF the Exalted March) somehow make up
for, or cancels an invariable result of an Exalted March, which is the
loss of life?

Your argument isn't valid.  Exalted Marches don't happen every other year, and for that matter you work off the basis that the Exalted March is not legitimate.  There are almost certainly arguments that can be made for each Exalted March.

There have been nine Exalted Marches according to the Dragon Age Wiki.  The first by Andraste herself, the second against the Elves, four against the Imperium for being "heretical", and the final three against the Qunari.

That means that the last Exalted March was over 150 years ago.   Your orphan theory falls flat, especially considering that the wars against the Qunari were more than valid (Qunari were the aggressors).  In addition to orphans you propose the theory that the Exalted Marches are used as some sort of fundraising scheme, however the wars and Marches against the Qunari ended because they felt it was more important to -rebuild-.

To sum it up:  There is no reason to believe that the Exalted Marches cause a ton of harm to the society and civilization of Thedas.  In at least four cases they clearly defended it, in one it was possibly more of an evil than a good, and in the other four we can't really judge because we don't have enough information.  The examples you give aren't true to "life", and have not bearing in this argument.