256 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

ShrinkingFish wrote...
How many times do I have to sight precedent for a monarchy's authority over an organized religion until someone actually reads it?

In theory, nobles have no authority of Templars. But, as authority comes at the end of a sword, if the monarchy was willing to go to war over the point then the Chantry would either have to limp off home or draw swords and fight against the kingdom that opposes them.

All the king has to do to kick off this little fiasco is pass the law that "Within my borders the mages are to govern themselves, and the Templar Order is hereby banished from the realm on pain of death" And the Templar and the Chantry would either have to obey or shed blood over the point. It would all come down to who could afford the war and who could not.

Correct. Rule of law is backed by strength to enforce it.

With said, Ferelden doesn't really have the power to risk a war with the Chantry. Not only is the country weakened from the Blight, but going againsthhte Cahtnry could cause massive internal rebelions. There's a lot of devout believers who would be more than willing to flip the bird to the king/queen. Especially given the Landsmeet episode.

[tool_bot]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Correct. Rule of law is backed by strength to enforce it.

With said, Ferelden doesn't really have the power to risk a war with the Chantry. Not only is the country weakened from the Blight, but going againsthhte Cahtnry could cause massive internal rebelions. There's a lot of devout believers who would be more than willing to flip the bird to the king/queen. Especially given the Landsmeet episode.

You don't need outright war to undermine the Chantry's authority. It could be small scale curtailing of powers and restrictions that would make the Chantry's current size and sustainment of military force to much of a hassle for most regions.

For example, remove tiths or put them on a sort of allowance. All money given to the Chantry has to go thru state hands first.

Just an idea off the top of my head but someone like Anora or the equivalent of Bhelen could pull it off.

Modifié par tool_bot, 02 octobre 2010 - 11:34 .

[tmp7704]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

How many times do I have to sight precedent for a monarchy's authority over an organized religion until someone actually reads it?

But you are ignoring that the ruler in question very much tries to tell said organized religion how it should be running its own business.

All the king has to do to kick off this little fiasco is pass the law that "Within my borders the mages are to govern themselves, and the Templar Order is hereby banished from the realm on pain of death" And the Templar and the Chantry would either have to obey or shed blood over the point. It would all come down to who could afford the war and who could not.

Quite. Which returns us to question why exactly few mages feel self-entitled to the point where they think it's okay for entire countries go to war and murder their populations over comfort of said few mages. Or for a country to want to kick out an organization which generally provides valuable service and support for the majority of people who live in said country.

[tool_bot]

tmp7704 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

How many times do I have to sight precedent for a monarchy's authority over an organized religion until someone actually reads it?

But you are ignoring that the ruler in question very much tries to tell said organized religion how it should be running its own business.

The Chantry is on foreign soil. It is on the property of whatever ruler is in that region as the mages are likely rounded up from his subjects. 

It's just as much the ruler's business as it is the Chantry's.

Quite. Which returns us to question why exactly few mages feel self-entitled to the point where they think it's okay for entire countries go to war and murder their populations over comfort of said few mages. Or for a country to want to kick out an organization which generally provides valuable service and support for the majority of people who live in said country.

A little off topic, but the mages are only one point. There's also having sovereignty over one's own land. The Chantry' very presence serves o divide everyone's loyalty and that it's situated in Orlais only makes the situation worse. I really don't get why everyone thinks rulers shouldn't try to reclaim what's rightfully there's.

[tmp7704]

tool_bot wrote...

The Chantry is on foreign soil. It is on the property of whatever ruler is in that region as the mages are likely rounded up from his subjects. 

It's actually questionable. This is said about Ferelden tower:

"This tower was built by the Avvars with some help from the dwarves and stood mighty for a long time. It was thought of as impregnable until the Tevinter Imperium succeeded in driving the Avvars from it in what was to be a brutal campaign. As a result, the tower gained a bad reputation and was thought to be cursed until the Circle of Magi assumed control of it in 3:87 Towers Age"

in other words, it doesn't appear it was ever under direct authority of Ferelden kings, given Ferelden as we know it didn't form until nearly two ages later, in 5:42 Exalted.

Modifié par tmp7704, 02 octobre 2010 - 11:42 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...



Correct. Rule of law is backed by strength to enforce it.



With said, Ferelden doesn't really have the power to risk a war with the Chantry. Not only is the country weakened from the Blight, but going againsthhte Cahtnry could cause massive internal rebelions. There's a lot of devout believers who would be more than willing to flip the bird to the king/queen. Especially given the Landsmeet episode. [/quote]



There's also a lot of people (virtually all) who would never accept Orlesian soldiers marching onto Ferelden for any reason. You say war with the Chantry, the King says war with Orlais. And given the templar training, he has the background to make a stand on this issue. From a PR standpoint, many may actually view Alistair as a templar (Leliana did, after all).



[quote]tmp7704 wrote...



But you are ignoring that the ruler in question very much tries to tell said organized religion how it should be running its own business. [/quote]



The ruler of Ferelden gives a command to Knight-Commander Greagoir in the US ending about the mages of Ferelden - in other words, Ferelden citizens.



[quote]tmp7704 wrote...

That feels rather naive -- [/quote]



Let me guess: naive is your favorite word.



[quote]tmp7704 wrote...



why would Orlesian or any other non-Ferelden mages want to risk their own necks for the sake of people they generally wouldn't even know and/or may vaguely dislike based on national bias? Before you answer "because they're all mages" keep in mind this factor doesn't apparently stop some mages from actively keeping down the others in Tevinter. Mages are selfish just like anyone else. Granted, some may think ahead farther than others but that brings us to: [/quote]



Maybe you purposefully ignored where I said there are reasons for and against any mages aiding an insurrection against the Chantry, but there are reasons. The opportunity to be free would be reason enough for plenty of mages living under the iron grip of the Chantry. You seem to think that everyone will simply agree to bow down and accept whatever the Chantry demands - Uldred's insurrection should have proved that isn't the case.



[quote]tmp7704 wrote...

And i'm sure people across Thedas would love an excuse for more of elf razing. And elves picking a fight under a banner of unleashing mages upon population which generally distrust and fears magic... well, let's just say that's hardly the best choice of PR one could make. [/quote]



And yet that doesn't read like a reason why some Dalish elves wouldn't participate, it reads like a possible outcome. I'm certain you had a point to make: let me know when you make it.





I think it's realistic rather than ridiculous given empty declarations has been par for the course in politics. If anything it seems more ridiculous that such important matter would be up to whim of any local ruler when it's otherwise a system they aren't really part of, and that such meddling wouldn't be met with strong objection from the Chantry if not Greagoir himself.





Empty declarations? Your words read like you simply want to agree the point rather than articulate an actual debate, because you seem to enjoy ignoring what I say and responding reardless - I'm writing about the US ending, not the post-DR ceremony. In the US ending, the ruler didn't declare anything, the ruler commanded Greagoir that the new tower would be named after the Warden and that the mages would be given the new Tower, and Greagoir relented. If we're talking about an Alistair who was romantically involved with a female Mage Warden do you realize how ridiculous you sound saying that he's making an empty declaration? The man was a former templar and is well aware of the relationship between the Chantry and the Circle of Magi. There's a Chantry priest right next to Alistair as he's commanding Greagoir, and no one says anything to contradict what Alistair has ordered.



[quote]tmp7704 wrote...

Think we actually know very little regarding how the Dalish handle their mages -- if i'm not mistaken we're told a Dalish clan has the Keeper and the Keeper has an apprentice who's supposed to take over once the Keeper dies... but is it ever addressed how the Dalish handle other mages than these two? Oddly enough we don't meet such individuals, and you can't select mage specialization as Dalish elf in the game without modifications (there's Wynne's old pupil but he's a city elf) [/quote]



You realize the Keeper and the First are mages, right? And none of the Dalish show any concern for Wynne's former apprentice Aneirin - they speak of him with respect and saved his life. I doubt that his vicinity to the clan is an accident.



[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...



No, you like to think that's what I said.

Yes, there are blood mages and abominations among the Collective..how I know? - because there are blood mages and abominations among any larger group of mages, and there's nothing to grant hte Collective immunity from that. [/quote]



And yet I quoted you directly, stating your claim that it was run by abominations. Again, you're trying to distance yourself from that by focusing on blood mages comment instead of the abominations comment you included with that. There is no evidence that abominations are running the Collective. You want me to leave a link to that quote this time?



[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No, we were not. Don't try to twist this. We were discussing if there is oversight, not where that oversight is.

And your'e again talking rubbish.

Of course, there is a highest ranking individul in a given location! THERE ALWAYS IS ONE IN ANY ORGANIZATION.

If not Gregoir, then someone else. And then you would have a problem with that someone else. Gregoir having the highest authority in the Circle Tower is not the issue. It's no different from the police Chief having control over the police station, or a general having control of a military base.



Where the hell were you even going with this? [/quote]



First you jump down my throat that I have no proof that Greagoir isn't the highest ranking templar at the Circle Tower (despite that his codex says that he is) and now you're ranting. Again.



[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yes. Becasue he wasn't talking nonsense. Clearing the tower completley is not a insane notion. And how was anyone supposed to know just how muhc torture he endured or that he wouldn't calm down? (remeber, he was jsut released...his paranoia could easily be prescribed ot temporary shock. It's not like they have psychaitrists in Thedas) [/quote]



It was evident that he was distrustful of all mages when he was speaking to Greagoir. It wasn't a surprise to me that he goes on a killing spree if the Circle is spared.



[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Is that your comeback? It's pathetic. It doesn't even begin to deal with the issue.



We know a LOT more about the templars then we know about the ancient elves. And exactly what we do not know about them is ctirical to the understanding of the mage issue. In other words, you're making 0 sense whatsoever. [/quote]



More personal attacks from you. I guess that's what you need to resort to when it's pointed out how flawed your argument is. You say I can't make such comments about Arlathan or the Dales since I don't know such details, and yet when I ask you the same questions about the templars that you've asked me, you say nothing. How is it you can attack me for not knowing precise details about mages and yet you can make broad statements about templars and the Chantry without knowing the details?



[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And this is exactly why I like it.

Chantry take no s*** from no pissy snobby king of a little backwater country.

"My house dawg! My charges! No." [/quote]



That must explain their relationship with the Dalish and the fall of the Dales.



[quote] EmperorSahlertz wrote...

David Gaider never confirmed the phylacteries were specifically Blood Magic. He said it was very much alike to blood magic and it could be viewed by some as blood magic. At least that's what he said in the post I remember. Can't recall he elaborated further on the issue later. [/quote]



He did confirm it - he referred to it as blood magic.



[quote]tmp7704 wrote...



I think it's just rather odd that we don't see a single Dalish mage (other than Keeper + apprentice) while we get to see quite a few mages outside of the Circle in human environments. Especially combined with game not allowing you to be a mage if you start your game as Dalish. I'm also assuming there is other Dalish mages for the same reason you mention, but i wonder what happens to them -- it seems too convenient and unlikely that there would only ever be just enough of them to fill positions of the Keeper and keeper's First, and yet they're oddly absent, no? [/quote]



You're surprised you see generic mages at the Circle Tower and generic Dalish NPCs at the Dalish camp?



[quote]tmp7704 wrote...



No, i mean to say few people would want to trade their life (as in, getting executed) just so someone else they don't even know may possibly have it better. Keep in mind you've talked of "insurrection" which is generally something quite different from just running to another country -- it's organized rebellion, and active resistance going as far as attempts to destroy established government. [/quote]



Mages wouldn't fight for their own freedom? If Ferelden recognized an independent Circle, why assume other mages wouldn't fight for this so they, too, can be free from the Chantry? And when I said insurrection - insurrection against the Chantry, who control the Circles of Magi (from what we were recently told by Gaider) by members of the Circle of Magi who, for hundreds of years, have had to follow what they command.



[quote]tmp7704 wrote...



I think you're reading too far into it here. The ruler of Ferelden proclaims Ferelden mages earned their freedom by participating in fight against the Blight and helping to defeat the archdemon. This is far cry from claiming all mages earned that right, and even farther from expectation any foreign mage can just waltz in and be welcome with open arms. Especially if it happens to be a mage who rebelled to get their wish -- after all who is to say such mage doesn't rebel again this time against the Ferelden authorities when they get into their heads they're entitled to even more? [/quote]



And yet if we follow your conclusion: in a war between mages and the Chantry, that narrow view is going to mean little.



[quote]tmp7704 wrote...



I don't think the numbers argument can work very well -- by the same token there's also humans all across Thedas who would love to put the elves back in their place shall they ever get illusions of grandeur. And at least some of the Dalish certainly do seem to care about their PR given their lives hinge on it -- consider the tribe in Awakening which goes as far as to expel their member who is found too abrasive and war-mongering. They don't live in alienages but for the most part they actively avoid humans and conflict with them. As such i doubt you could get them all go "oh yeah, let's support mages in a war with humans so we get Dales back, surely that couldn't possibly backfire and end with our tribes eradicated for good". [/quote]



Which is why I said some would, as some do in Awakening.



[quote]tmp7704 wrote...



I didn't ignore it. My comment calling it "more ridiculous" was referring precisely to lack of objection shown in that scene. Although i'd give them benefit of doubt and presume Greagoir simply didn't want to start a quarrel during what's basically a funeral, but as soon as it was over it's more than likely someone from the chantry went all "yo little king, you mad?" [/quote]



That must explain why the Chantry member standing right next to the King didn't say anything - the King who, I might add, was raised by the Chantry and trained to be a templar.

[EmperorSahlertz]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Correct. Rule of law is backed by strength to enforce it.

With said, Ferelden doesn't really have the power to risk a war with the Chantry. Not only is the country weakened from the Blight, but going againsthhte Cahtnry could cause massive internal rebelions. There's a lot of devout believers who would be more than willing to flip the bird to the king/queen. Especially given the Landsmeet episode. [/quote]

There's also a lot of people (virtually all) who would never accept Orlesian soldiers marching onto Ferelden for any reason. You say war with the Chantry, the King says war with Orlais. And given the templar training, he has the background to make a stand on this issue. From a PR standpoint, many may actually view Alistair as a templar (Leliana did, after all).[/quote]
Possibly, but if they don't have the power to resist the Orlesian they will be forced to accept their rule. Might makes right.


[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...

But you are ignoring that the ruler in question very much tries to tell said organized religion how it should be running its own business. [/quote]

The ruler of Ferelden gives a command to Knight-Commander Greagoir in the US ending about the mages of Ferelden - in other words, Ferelden citizens.[/quote]
That is likely just a figure of speech.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...

why would Orlesian or any other non-Ferelden mages want to risk their own necks for the sake of people they generally wouldn't even know and/or may vaguely dislike based on national bias? Before you answer "because they're all mages" keep in mind this factor doesn't apparently stop some mages from actively keeping down the others in Tevinter. Mages are selfish just like anyone else. Granted, some may think ahead farther than others but that brings us to: [/quote]

Maybe you purposefully ignored where I said there are reasons for and against any mages aiding an insurrection against the Chantry, but there are reasons. The opportunity to be free would be reason enough for plenty of mages living under the iron grip of the Chantry. You seem to think that everyone will simply agree to bow down and accept whatever the Chantry demands - Uldred's insurrection should have proved that isn't the case.[/quote]
Uhm......... The very fact that not all mages follow Uldred rebellion shows just as much that not all mages are malcontent. Some mages are perfectly happy with their lot in life. Perhaps they even see the big picture, compared to Uldred.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
And i'm sure people across Thedas would love an excuse for more of elf razing. And elves picking a fight under a banner of unleashing mages upon population which generally distrust and fears magic... well, let's just say that's hardly the best choice of PR one could make. [/quote]

And yet that doesn't read like a reason why some Dalish elves wouldn't participate, it reads like a possible outcome. I'm certain you had a point to make: let me know when you make it.


I think it's realistic rather than ridiculous given empty declarations has been par for the course in politics. If anything it seems more ridiculous that such important matter would be up to whim of any local ruler when it's otherwise a system they aren't really part of, and that such meddling wouldn't be met with strong objection from the Chantry if not Greagoir himself.


Empty declarations? Your words read like you simply want to agree the point rather than articulate an actual debate, because you seem to enjoy ignoring what I say and responding reardless - I'm writing about the US ending, not the post-DR ceremony. In the US ending, the ruler didn't declare anything, the ruler commanded Greagoir that the new tower would be named after the Warden and that the mages would be given the new Tower, and Greagoir relented. If we're talking about an Alistair who was romantically involved with a female Mage Warden do you realize how ridiculous you sound saying that he's making an empty declaration? The man was a former templar and is well aware of the relationship between the Chantry and the Circle of Magi. There's a Chantry priest right next to Alistair as he's commanding Greagoir, and no one says anything to contradict what Alistair has ordered.[/quote]
WHy oh why would the Dalish ever even bother trying to help the mages fight a lost cause? Well... They have shown a remarkable lack of strategic knowledge, but aiding mages in an open revovlt would be downright suicide from the Elves side and would likely just make the Exalted March be called even more swiftly. The elves joining rebellious mages, apostates and maleficar? Yeah... Good luck with that....

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
Think we actually know very little regarding how the Dalish handle their mages -- if i'm not mistaken we're told a Dalish clan has the Keeper and the Keeper has an apprentice who's supposed to take over once the Keeper dies... but is it ever addressed how the Dalish handle other mages than these two? Oddly enough we don't meet such individuals, and you can't select mage specialization as Dalish elf in the game without modifications (there's Wynne's old pupil but he's a city elf) [/quote]

You realize the Keeper and the First are mages, right? And none of the Dalish show any concern for Wynne's former apprentice Aneirin - they speak of him with respect and saved his life. I doubt that his vicinity to the clan is an accident.[/quote]
And yet he isn't part of their clan... Now why is that if he is so useful. They clearly have great respect for him but they don't seem to want him in their clan.

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

No, you like to think that's what I said.
Yes, there are blood mages and abominations among the Collective..how I know? - because there are blood mages and abominations among any larger group of mages, and there's nothing to grant hte Collective immunity from that. [/quote]

And yet I quoted you directly, stating your claim that it was run by abominations. Again, you're trying to distance yourself from that by focusing on blood mages comment instead of the abominations comment you included with that. There is no evidence that abominations are running the Collective. You want me to leave a link to that quote this time?[/quote]
So he isn't allowed to change his point of view? So why are any of us even discussing on forums? He exagerated to prove a point, its common practice in discussions.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No, we were not. Don't try to twist this. We were discussing if there is oversight, not where that oversight is.
And your'e again talking rubbish.
Of course, there is a highest ranking individul in a given location! THERE ALWAYS IS ONE IN ANY ORGANIZATION.
If not Gregoir, then someone else. And then you would have a problem with that someone else. Gregoir having the highest authority in the Circle Tower is not the issue. It's no different from the police Chief having control over the police station, or a general having control of a military base.

Where the hell were you even going with this? [/quote]

First you jump down my throat that I have no proof that Greagoir isn't the highest ranking templar at the Circle Tower (despite that his codex says that he is) and now you're ranting. Again.[/quote]
Greagoir is the highest ranking Templar in the tower yes, but not neccesarily in all of Ferelden. That was his point, and the very fact that we run into three Knight-Commanders during the game seems to reinforce this point.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Yes. Becasue he wasn't talking nonsense. Clearing the tower completley is not a insane notion. And how was anyone supposed to know just how muhc torture he endured or that he wouldn't calm down? (remeber, he was jsut released...his paranoia could easily be prescribed ot temporary shock. It's not like they have psychaitrists in Thedas) [/quote]

It was evident that he was distrustful of all mages when he was speaking to Greagoir. It wasn't a surprise to me that he goes on a killing spree if the Circle is spared.[/quote]
Even though he was disturbed CUllen did bring a valid point. We don't know how many of the survivng mages were Blood Mages or how many of them had dormant demons within them. And speaking of CUllen. The very fact that he runs away from the Circle after having killed a few mages seems to point at there is some sort of oversight amongst Templars. Otherwise why would he run? From vengeful mages? unlikely. From Internal affairs Templars who would execute him for his crime? Likely.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Is that your comeback? It's pathetic. It doesn't even begin to deal with the issue.

We know a LOT more about the templars then we know about the ancient elves. And exactly what we do not know about them is ctirical to the understanding of the mage issue. In other words, you're making 0 sense whatsoever. [/quote]

More personal attacks from you. I guess that's what you need to resort to when it's pointed out how flawed your argument is. You say I can't make such comments about Arlathan or the Dales since I don't know such details, and yet when I ask you the same questions about the templars that you've asked me, you say nothing. How is it you can attack me for not knowing precise details about mages and yet you can make broad statements about templars and the Chantry without knowing the details?[/quote]
Oh and you are lifted above personal attacks? Just because you hide them between clever words does not mean the rest of us doesn't read them.
And no, you can't compare Arlathan and the Dales to the Templars because we know significantly more about teh Templars and NOTHING but legends about Arlathan and the Dales.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And this is exactly why I like it.
Chantry take no s*** from no pissy snobby king of a little backwater country.
"My house dawg! My charges! No." [/quote]

That must explain their relationship with the Dalish and the fall of the Dales.[/quote]
You mean the fact that the Dalish sacked the capital of Orlais? Yeah that should have left a strain on the relationship between the two.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote] EmperorSahlertz wrote...
David Gaider never confirmed the phylacteries were specifically Blood Magic. He said it was very much alike to blood magic and it could be viewed by some as blood magic. At least that's what he said in the post I remember. Can't recall he elaborated further on the issue later. [/quote]

He did confirm it - he referred to it as blood magic.[/quote]
Yeah... Sorry for not taking your word on it. But I think I'll try track down that post from him.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...

No, i mean to say few people would want to trade their life (as in, getting executed) just so someone else they don't even know may possibly have it better. Keep in mind you've talked of "insurrection" which is generally something quite different from just running to another country -- it's organized rebellion, and active resistance going as far as attempts to destroy established government. [/quote]

Mages wouldn't fight for their own freedom? If Ferelden recognized an independent Circle, why assume other mages wouldn't fight for this so they, too, can be free from the Chantry? And when I said insurrection - insurrection against the Chantry, who control the Circles of Magi (from what we were recently told by Gaider) by members of the Circle of Magi who, for hundreds of years, have had to follow what they command. [/quote]
Not all mages think they are prisoners. So no not all mages would want to fight for "freedom". And what do you honestly thik would have happened had Uldred Succeeded? Or if any insurrection succeeded for that matter? (Local succes, not international, as that is an impossibility anyway)


[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...

I didn't ignore it. My comment calling it "more ridiculous" was referring precisely to lack of objection shown in that scene. Although i'd give them benefit of doubt and presume Greagoir simply didn't want to start a quarrel during what's basically a funeral, but as soon as it was over it's more than likely someone from the chantry went all "yo little king, you mad?" [/quote]

That must explain why the Chantry member standing right next to the King didn't say anything - the King who, I might add, was raised by the Chantry and trained to be a templar. [/quote]
Uhm.. The Grand Cleric PROBABLY didn't want to ruin the burial of the Hero of Ferelden by making a great big scene in front of everyone.... Just a thought. Perhaps she actually have a medicum of respect and decency?

[tmp7704]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Maybe you purposefully ignored where I said there are reasons for and against any mages aiding an insurrection against the Chantry, but there are reasons. The opportunity to be free would be reason enough for plenty of mages living under the iron grip of the Chantry. You seem to think that everyone will simply agree to bow down and accept whatever the Chantry demands - Uldred's insurrection should have proved that isn't the case.

Before we proceed, can you please make your mind about what scenario are you actually arguing for? Because in consecutive posts you switch between the idea of "mage insurrection" and "mages escaping to Ferelden to be free there" and, as pointed out earlier, these are two quite different concepts. Could you elaborate on your idea what that "mage insurrection" would actually involve?

tmp7704 wrote...
And i'm sure people across Thedas would love an excuse for more of elf razing. And elves picking a fight under a banner of unleashing mages upon population which generally distrust and fears magic... well, let's just say that's hardly the best choice of PR one could make.

And yet that doesn't read like a reason why some Dalish elves wouldn't participate, it reads like a possible outcome. I'm certain you had a point to make: let me know when you make it.

I think the ball is in your court regarding this one. Let me know when you connect the dots and realize that anticipation of possible negative outcome can be very well a reason for intelligent beings to refrain from course of action leading to such outcome. Which was my point.

(the other point was, these people wanting to put the elves down would very likely neutralize any possible advantage the rebelling elves could  provide in the struggle against the Chantry)

Empty declarations? Your words read like you simply want to agree the point rather than articulate an actual debate, because you seem to enjoy ignoring what I say and responding reardless - I'm writing about the US ending, not the post-DR ceremony. In the US ending, the ruler didn't declare anything, the ruler commanded Greagoir that the new tower would be named after the Warden and that the mages would be given the new Tower, and Greagoir relented.

I've addressed what you said twice by now i think -- yes, i realize there is such scene in the US ending. Like i said, i find that scene to be very unrealistic personally, and given what the lead writer said on this matter it'd appear that just because there was no objection on the spot shown in the game, one shouldn't take it as proof that things actually unfolded according to what the Ferelden ruler demanded, because it's questionable whether they had an actual authority to order such a thing.

I'm not sure what else you expect me to add here, but if you can't add more yourself than repeat yet again "but in the US ending Ferelden ruler says so and no one object" then we may as well drop it since the conversation isn't evolving.
 

tmp7704 wrote...
Think we actually know very little regarding how the Dalish handle their mages -- if i'm not mistaken we're told a Dalish clan has the Keeper and the Keeper has an apprentice who's supposed to take over once the Keeper dies... but is it ever addressed how the Dalish handle other mages than these two? Oddly enough we don't meet such individuals, and you can't select mage specialization as Dalish elf in the game without modifications (there's Wynne's old pupil but he's a city elf)

You realize the Keeper and the First are mages, right?

And you realize i'm wondering specifically about mages other than the Keeper and the First, don't you? Given it's spelt out in the very post you've quoted.

tmp7704 wrote...

I think it's just rather odd that we don't see a single Dalish mage (other than Keeper + apprentice) while we get to see quite a few mages outside of the Circle in human environments.

You're surprised you see generic mages at the Circle Tower and generic Dalish NPCs at the Dalish camp?

I'm getting a feeling you aren't even reading what you're responding to at this point. Take note at the bold part. Do you see how your response makes no sense in this context, because i talked how we get to see mages in places other than Circle Tower, i.e. the very opposite of the strawman you try to build?

tmp7704 wrote...

I think you're reading too far into it here. The ruler of Ferelden proclaims Ferelden mages earned their freedom by participating in fight against the Blight and helping to defeat the archdemon. This is far cry from claiming all mages earned that right, and even farther from expectation any foreign mage can just waltz in and be welcome with open arms. Especially if it happens to be a mage who rebelled to get their wish -- after all who is to say such mage doesn't rebel again this time against the Ferelden authorities when they get into their heads they're entitled to even more?

And yet if we follow your conclusion: in a war between mages and the Chantry, that narrow view is going to mean little.

No, not really. If you actually follow my conclusion rather than ignore it, there is very little reason for mages outside of Ferelden to try to start trouble with the Chantry just because of what may or may not be happening in Ferelden.

Modifié par tmp7704, 03 octobre 2010 - 09:40 .

[ShrinkingFish]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...
How many times do I have to sight precedent for a monarchy's authority over an organized religion until someone actually reads it?

In theory, nobles have no authority of Templars. But, as authority comes at the end of a sword, if the monarchy was willing to go to war over the point then the Chantry would either have to limp off home or draw swords and fight against the kingdom that opposes them.

All the king has to do to kick off this little fiasco is pass the law that "Within my borders the mages are to govern themselves, and the Templar Order is hereby banished from the realm on pain of death" And the Templar and the Chantry would either have to obey or shed blood over the point. It would all come down to who could afford the war and who could not.

Correct. Rule of law is backed by strength to enforce it.

With said, Ferelden doesn't really have the power to risk a war with the Chantry. Not only is the country weakened from the Blight, but going againsthhte Cahtnry could cause massive internal rebelions. There's a lot of devout believers who would be more than willing to flip the bird to the king/queen. Especially given the Landsmeet episode.

True. If it was handled incorrectly.

But if the Fereldan monarchy was good enough with its propaganda then they could easily sway the whole country into following them. It all depends on how it was handled. There is no definite answer to these questions until it actually happens. The fact that Andratse was born within Fereldan's borders is kind of a big boon to Fereldan in the event of any conflict.

If the Fereldan monarchy played this one correctly they could easily make the Chantry out to be evil, corrupt invaders bent on seizing control of the true people of Andraste. Instilling a strong sense of personal pride and superiority among its people as defenders of Andraste's birthplace. Using this they could instill within the Fereldan population a sense of religious righteousness. That they are the true believers in the Maker, his chosen people, and the Chantry was nothing more than a collection of heathens. And as Denerim is considered her place of birth and many pilgrims travel there every year that grants Fereldan no small amount of religious power if they chose to seize it.

Or at least, this is how I would do it.

Plus, we're not entirely sure the Chantry could go to war with Fereldan and not cause a backlash amongst its followers in other countries. If the Chantry establishes so forcefully that their laws overpower those of the ruling monarchy then many monarchy's will no longer be willing to suffer their influence for fear of losing their power just as Fereldan did. If the Chantry declares war on Fereldan because the King there will not bow to their rule then they may incite a secular rebellion against themselves.

But this discussion is another bout of us getting into hypotheticals =P We seem to do this a lot.

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 03 octobre 2010 - 11:19 .

[ShrinkingFish]

tmp7704 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

How many times do I have to sight precedent for a monarchy's authority over an organized religion until someone actually reads it?

But you are ignoring that the ruler in question very much tries to tell said organized religion how it should be running its own business.

All the king has to do to kick off this little fiasco is pass the law that "Within my borders the mages are to govern themselves, and the Templar Order is hereby banished from the realm on pain of death" And the Templar and the Chantry would either have to obey or shed blood over the point. It would all come down to who could afford the war and who could not.

Quite. Which returns us to question why exactly few mages feel self-entitled to the point where they think it's okay for entire countries go to war and murder their populations over comfort of said few mages. Or for a country to want to kick out an organization which generally provides valuable service and support for the majority of people who live in said country.

Really. This has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm discussing political realities, not morality. There is no room for morality in politics. That's why politicians are such an evil bunch.

On a side note, that is also why Alistair is the perfect King. He didn't want the power. He hated the idea of having it. Would do anything in his power to avoid it. Meanwhile Anora was willing to do anything to achieve it, even betray her own father, even betray the Warden if it served her purposes, even to behead or marry Alistair in order to ensure the power of her rule. Anyways... there you go.

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 03 octobre 2010 - 11:20 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Just because the Fereldan monarchy could theoretically get their people to fight alongside with them does not mean they would ever stand a chance in an actual war against the Chantry. Ferelden would be completely annihilated.

[silentassassin264]

Not necessarily. As I said before, all they would have to do was to convince Tevinter to join them. The Chantry stronghold is in Orlais and Tevinter would probably love a little revenge against them anyway.

[ShrinkingFish]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Just because the Fereldan monarchy could theoretically get their people to fight alongside with them does not mean they would ever stand a chance in an actual war against the Chantry. Ferelden would be completely annihilated.

Conjecture and personal opinion with no basis in fact.

The Chantry just can't flex its Templar muscles and affect the secular world at its whim. It exists with the permission of the Kingdoms of the world, expressing influence over them but not control. Any crossing over, without permission, of the Chantry into the secular world could force a wedge between the Chantry and the rest of the Kingdom's it influences.

If the Chantry is over eager to enforce its law on a sovereign nation then who is to say they wont do the same everywhere else? As such all other sovereign nations under the Chantry's rule would begin to question the power of the Chantry, perhaps insisting that they withdraw Templar's from their own country for fear of the Chantry diposing them just as they diposed the Fereldan King. Or perhaps demanding the disassembly of the Templars entirely in order to protect their interests. The Chantry may be able to fight Fereldan alone. But it certainly could not deal with what would inevitably come after. As such the Chantry's hands are tied. They wouldn't be able to afford a war with Fereldan and would therefore be forced to acquiesce to their wishes.

In the end, war would likely never happen for either side and it would all come down to who can bluff bigger and who would be the first to crack. It would be a political show of force and likely end without bloodshed.

And we don't know who would win. It is impossible to know without it actually happening before our eyes.

[Russalka]

What is the discussion about now? And how far is it from the original topic?

[Sir JK]

silentassassin264 wrote...

Not necessarily. As I said before, all they would have to do was to convince Tevinter to join them. The Chantry stronghold is in Orlais and Tevinter would probably love a little revenge against them anyway.

Now that is playing with fire. It is certainly possible and not unlikely that Tevinter would help. But the fereldan shouldn't for a minute fool themselves that they'd help out of the goodness of their hearts, they'd help with a clear and definate motive and objective (and it will not be to free the fereldan mages from the yoke of the chantry). If that objective is achieved or the Tevinter imperium would get distracted (say... by the qunari) they'd drop ferelden...
Like a rock.

Not to mention that they don't share a border with Orlais, and unless you argue they'd cross the silent plains into Nevarra, invade Antiva or Anderfels (at which point you can kiss any direct help good bye) chances is that all they'd send is a token support. Some mercenaries, some money, some mages (not volounteers naturally) and such. Enough to keep appearances but not enough to be really expensive.

But I agree with Russalka, we should steer this back to qunari and either make a dedicated chantry insurrecttion topic or go back to the other one (fight the chantry? was it called that)

Modifié par Sir JK, 03 octobre 2010 - 11:59 .

[ShrinkingFish]

Russalka wrote...

What is the discussion about now? And how far is it from the original topic?

We kind of turned this into another "Would you fight the Chantry or Help them?" thread, part 2. As in we took a topic vaguely linked to the mage and chantry issue and turned it into a aimless wandering debate that has nothing to do with the original topic but, actually, the argument is present in both threads.... with the same contenders I might add.

We're pros at leading discussions off topic. Though I am an amatuer compared to these other guys. They're olympian league.

[Daerog]

Hypothetically, if Tevinter joins in the scenario of Fereldan fighting an Exalted March, they would come by sea to the ports of Gwaren and Denerim most likely, but they'd have to be careful not to run into qunari navy. Also, Tevinter is still technically still at war with the qunari since they never signed the peace treaty. Besides, the Chantry is having trouble in DA2 somehow, so if there is going to be any sort of revolt, the time seems right.

This is completely off topic, but the question has been answered. The qunari would accept a mage who completely accepts the Qun. Leash and all. If not, then it is re-education or forced labor until death. Or just outright killed if the mage doesn't join. I don't think a mage will get a pass just b/c s/he is new.

[tool_bot]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Just because the Fereldan monarchy could theoretically get their people to fight alongside with them does not mean they would ever stand a chance in an actual war against the Chantry. Ferelden would be completely annihilated.

What makes you say that?  If you succeed at selling it as a war between Orlais and Ferelden (don't know why we're focusing on Ferelden. evey other Chantry dominated nation has a right to ruling their own country) why wouldn't other nations see it as such? Provided you're only request is the disbandment or strict control over Templar forces, I don't see declaring an Exalted March on Ferelden justified in anyone's eyes. 

[Xewaka]

silentassassin264 wrote...

How would the Qunari react to a mage trying to join them?

Chaining him and cutting his tongue for starters, then building up from there. Can't say I disagree with the methods.

[silentassassin264]

Sir JK wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Not necessarily. As I said before, all they would have to do was to convince Tevinter to join them. The Chantry stronghold is in Orlais and Tevinter would probably love a little revenge against them anyway.

Now that is playing with fire. It is certainly possible and not unlikely that Tevinter would help. But the fereldan shouldn't for a minute fool themselves that they'd help out of the goodness of their hearts, they'd help with a clear and definate motive and objective (and it will not be to free the fereldan mages from the yoke of the chantry). If that objective is achieved or the Tevinter imperium would get distracted (say... by the qunari) they'd drop ferelden...
Like a rock.

Not to mention that they don't share a border with Orlais, and unless you argue they'd cross the silent plains into Nevarra, invade Antiva or Anderfels (at which point you can kiss any direct help good bye) chances is that all they'd send is a token support. Some mercenaries, some money, some mages (not volounteers naturally) and such. Enough to keep appearances but not enough to be really expensive.

But I agree with Russalka, we should steer this back to qunari and either make a dedicated chantry insurrecttion topic or go back to the other one (fight the chantry? was it called that)

Sure it would be an alliance out of convenience but I doubt the Chantry would go to war with Ferelden if they even thought Tevinter would join in against them.  After all, in addition to Tevinter getting their land back, if Ferelden switches to the Imperial Chantry, they would lose revenue.  If the Ferelden Monarch was truly for the Freedom of mages and was going to back up the conviction with arms (and Tevinter), the Chantry would probably back down.

[tool_bot]

Xewaka wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

How would the Qunari react to a mage trying to join them?

Chaining him and cutting his tongue for starters, then building up from there. Can't say I disagree with the methods.

Hope you're flame retardant. Poor Sten wasn't.

Poor poor Sten. Oh well, he was asking for it.

[tmp7704]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Really. This has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm discussing political realities, not morality. There is no room for morality in politics. That's why politicians are such an evil bunch.

Is there then some political advantage in giving much more powerful neighbour a pretext to invade small backwater country and not long after it managed to free itself from said neighbour, too?

Modifié par tmp7704, 04 octobre 2010 - 02:27 .

[ShrinkingFish]

tmp7704 wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

Really. This has nothing to do with the discussion. I'm discussing political realities, not morality. There is no room for morality in politics. That's why politicians are such an evil bunch.

Is there then some political advantage in giving much more powerful neighbour a pretext to invade small backwater country and not long after it managed to free itself from said neighbour, too?

"Much more powerful" is incorrect. Remember that Orlais lost that war. And they lost for a reason. And they lost when Fereldan was divided and on the run.

Besides. Orlais is not the Chantry. Orlais is a country. The Chantry is a religious body. There is a clear division between the two. The Chantry is simply very closely linked to Orlais. They are not the same.

In the end, Orlais could no afford another war with Fereldan. And neither could the Chantry. They can have all the pretext they want, but they'll never be able to do it.

An invasion of Fereldan by outside forces would immediately unite all the Banns under the King's banner, creating a strong, centralized force intent on defending their territories. If the King also used propaganda effectively, they could insure that the Chantry was viewed by the people as an oppressive invaders by instilling in the people of Fereldan a sense of moral and spiritual superiority. As Denerim is considered to be the birthplace of Andraste it wouldn't be that hard to reform the religion around the Fereldan monarchy and declare the Fereldan people the true believers in Andraste, the Maker's chosen people, the defenders of his favored land. Thusly turning the general population of Fereldan into a bunch of religious, self-righteous zealots who will fight against the "heathen" Chantry to their dieing breaths.

This added to the fact that the Chantry faces the chance of serious, damaging backlash from the other monarchies under its influence if they choose to enforce their will on a sovereign nation with strength of arms. If the Chantry succeeds in Fereldan then it establishes a precedent that is fatal for any monarchs that subscribe to the Chantry faith. It puts forth that any king can be overthrown if they defy the Chantry's will. As such many kings would immediately turn their backs of the Chantry, order the Templars out of their own countries, perhaps calling for the dismemberment of the Templar forces entirely, or simply take steps to ensure the Chantry is unsuccessful in their war on Fereldan. In which case any threat by the Chantry of war is an empty one as they cannot enforce their will over all the countries of humanity simultaniously. They have enough trouble controlling what they do. Open war would be overplaying their hand. As such the Chantry and the Templars themselves are castrated in this matter.

[tmp7704]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

"Much more powerful" is incorrect. Remember that Orlais lost that war. And they lost for a reason. And they lost when Fereldan was divided and on the run.

Why then Loghain's greatest fear is to have Orlais enter the borders of Ferelden again, and why no one calls BS on it and tells him that Orlais is no threat in terms of military force?

You are ignoring that it's not Orlais that has just lost bulk of its military in both civil war and in attempt to stop the Blight, rendering already weaker country weaker still. And that it took over 70 years to force Orlais occupation army out in the first place. And that Orlais is described simply as "currently the most powerful nation in Thedas".

Besides. Orlais is not the Chantry. Orlais is a country. The Chantry is a religious body. There is a clear division between the two. The Chantry is simply very closely linked to Orlais. They are not the same.

Except it was the ruler of Orlais who formed both Orlais and the Chantry in the first place, and did it around the cult of Andraste which he turned into organized religion. The clear division seems very much in name only, since Orlais can be considered "spiritual parent" of the Chantry. I don't think you can count on the country ever leaving the Chantry to fend for itself.

In the end, Orlais could no afford another war with Fereldan. And neither could the Chantry. They can have all the pretext they want, but they'll never be able to do it.

What makes you believe it, the fact Ferelden was left free so far? That's more due to change in course of Orlais politics that happened since intial conquest, not military inability. And it by no means a conquest can't happen, especially "never".

An invasion of Fereldan by outside forces would immediately unite all the Banns under the King's banner, creating a strong, centralized force intent on defending their territories. If the King also used propaganda effectively, they could insure that the Chantry was viewed by the people as an oppressive invaders by instilling in the people of Fereldan a sense of moral and spiritual superiority.

All united banns of a small country and even entire population still make for small number of people overall, and even less soldiers. The "great city of Denerim" has ~50k inhabitants on the whole, and most of the country itself is very sparsely populated. For that matter probably even more sparsely populated freshly after the Blight, darkspawn running around very much unchecked for at least a year tends to have that effect on people after all.

Also, if you look at Ferelden history you will note that quite a few Banns had no problem with joining side of Orlais in the previous war. People are greedy, petty and looking for their own gain first, so enough are willing to betray what they consider lost cause for the priviledges from who they expect to be victorious. To expect country-wide unity... well, i wouldn't.

This added to the fact that the Chantry faces the chance of serious, damaging backlash from the other monarchies under its influence if they choose to enforce their will on a sovereign nation with strength of arms.

Except from external point of view it's not the Chantry that's being aggressive and trying to push their will here. It was pointed out earlier in the thread that the Circle of Magi at Lake Calenhad was established literally over hundred of years before Ferelden even existed as country. For a ruler of such relatively younger country which eventually formed around it, to start making demands how that Circle should operate... that is quite more likely to cause backlash if said ruler tried to enforce it, since it's not unlike having prime minister of Italy suddenly try to have a say how Vatican City should operate.

edit: btw, you went onto this tangent on technicalities and that quite derailed us, but in the end you didn't actually answer my question.... which was, what exactly political gain is there for Ferelden to try and stir this kind of trouble in the first place? I.e. why would they want to risk it? Of course, without any of "human rights" nonsense, after all like you said, politics isn't supposed to concern itself with morality.

Modifié par tmp7704, 04 octobre 2010 - 05:22 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

There's also a lot of people (virtually all) who would never accept Orlesian soldiers marching onto Ferelden for any reason. You say war with the Chantry, the King says war with Orlais. And given the templar training, he has the background to make a stand on this issue. From a PR standpoint, many may actually view Alistair as a templar (Leliana did, after all).

You think Orlais would be the only country to strike if an Exhalted March is called?
And whom would the people trust? The king/queen that barely won the throne (and one can say was placed there by the Warden)..or the many members of the local Chantry?

You really think it's as simple as the king yelling "Orlais invasion", that everyone will forget that he's going agaisnt their religion and doing something that's considered dangerous/heretical?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And yet I quoted you directly, stating your claim that it was run by abominations. Again, you're trying to distance yourself from that by focusing on blood mages comment instead of the abominations comment you included with that. There is no evidence that abominations are running the Collective. You want me to leave a link to that quote this time?

No, I never said the Collective was RUN by abominations, merely that it's plauged by them like every other mage group

First you jump down my throat that I have no proof that Greagoir isn't the highest ranking templar at the Circle Tower (despite that his codex says that he is) and now you're ranting. Again.

No, I jump "down on you" because you make no damn sense. WTF does Greagoir being the highest-ranking templar in the Tower got to do with oversight??
Unless of course, you're implying that there must be someone who is not a templar and outranks Gregoir at the Tower,..otherwise there is no oversight. Which is bullcrap.

More personal attacks from you. I guess that's what you need to resort to when it's pointed out how flawed your argument is. You say I can't make such comments about Arlathan or the Dales since I don't know such details, and yet when I ask you the same questions about the templars that you've asked me, you say nothing. How is it you can attack me for not knowing precise details about mages and yet you can make broad statements about templars and the Chantry without knowing the details?

You ask completely different details that have little to do with the issue, in an attempt to steer the discussion in another direction...Obviously, you noticed just how weak your arguments are.

So I say again - we know a lot about how Chantry controls the mages and how the mages live.
We know next to nothing about how mages in Alrlathan or the Dales lived or were controlled.

You're irritating beyond all belief. Ever heard of a guy named Noober? You are bery much like him. The mother of all broken records and impervious to reason.

That must explain why the Chantry member standing right next to the King didn't say anything - the King who, I might add, was raised by the Chantry and trained to be a templar.

Has it ever occured to you that is was a funeral and the revered motehr waited after it to talk to the king in private?

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 04 octobre 2010 - 06:45 .