1019 réponses à ce sujet

[Augustei]

Beerfish wrote...

There is a whole HUGE multipaged thread about freedom for the mages. Perhaps we can save that discussion for that thread instead of having this thread become son of 'should the mages be free'?

Back to the topic of this thread. One has to examine what the chantry does as a whole to think of them as worth while or not. Other than the preachy words and high handedness that many dislike they do seem to try to legitimately look out for the poor, the sick and the refugees.

Still related to the general topic which is different to the other thread. Although the mage part does get very similar

I LOVE the chantry =D... Not because of what they do, not because of their beliefs. Not because of the things they do right but because of the things they do wrong =D It adds much interest to the story. Heck alot of the second game will be based around them and it makes great discussions. So I like the chantry in that sense.

But apart from that reason I have no real opinion.

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 02 février 2011 - 03:07 .

[Archereon]

The way magic works in Dragon Age, it's pretty clear that there needs to be SOME institutionalized form of dealing with mages. A single improperly trained mage child (Connor) was able to wipe out an entire town (if you leave Redcliffe before defeating Connor's undead army, everyone but Teagan and one or two others are dead when you come back) because of a childish mistake. Whether or not the measures the Chantry take are to harsh (or, if you talk to the Qunari, not harsh enough), is another question. While fear of those measures drove Isolde to hide Connor's magic, the fact is that completely unregulated magic would create far more "Connors" than the Chantry's measures.

[Danjaru]

The only good thing about the Chantry is their devotion for civilians, during the blight and in Redcliffe alot of refugees took shelter in the chantry.



But at the same time they are pretty much Dragon Age's version of Christianity, which makes me kind of hate them. That and their treatment of mages, exalted marches, and disregard for elves (I mean they're supposed to help people in need, but were there even chantry priests in the elven district?)

[Archereon]

Danjaru wrote...

The only good thing about the Chantry is their devotion for civilians, during the blight and in Redcliffe alot of refugees took shelter in the chantry.

But at the same time they are pretty much Dragon Age's version of Christianity, which makes me kind of hate them. That and their treatment of mages, exalted marches, and disregard for elves (I mean they're supposed to help people in need, but were there even chantry priests in the elven district?)

Well, there is a priest at the City Elf's wedding ceremony, and she tries to stop Vaugen from taking the women...

[Augustei]

Danjaru wrote...

The only good thing about the Chantry is their devotion for civilians, during the blight and in Redcliffe alot of refugees took shelter in the chantry.

But at the same time they are pretty much Dragon Age's version of Christianity, which makes me kind of hate them. That and their treatment of mages, exalted marches, and disregard for elves (I mean they're supposed to help people in need, but were there even chantry priests in the elven district?)

They are not Dragon ages version of Christiany. They have just as much in common with the church of islam as they do with christiany but they are still very different to both. and because they remind you of christianity why is that a basis for hating them? Are you daft?

[Eclipse_9990]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Danjaru wrote...

The only good thing about the Chantry is their devotion for civilians, during the blight and in Redcliffe alot of refugees took shelter in the chantry.

But at the same time they are pretty much Dragon Age's version of Christianity, which makes me kind of hate them. That and their treatment of mages, exalted marches, and disregard for elves (I mean they're supposed to help people in need, but were there even chantry priests in the elven district?)

They are not Dragon ages version of Christiany. They have just as much in common with the church of islam as they do with christiany but they are still very different to both. and because they remind you of christianity why is that a basis for hating them? Are you daft?

Even though we're on opposite sides on this argument. I have to agree with this 100%. 

Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 02 février 2011 - 04:02 .

[Erani]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Danjaru wrote...

The only good thing about the Chantry is their devotion for civilians, during the blight and in Redcliffe alot of refugees took shelter in the chantry.

But at the same time they are pretty much Dragon Age's version of Christianity, which makes me kind of hate them. That and their treatment of mages, exalted marches, and disregard for elves (I mean they're supposed to help people in need, but were there even chantry priests in the elven district?)

They are not Dragon ages version of Christiany. They have just as much in common with the church of islam as they do with christiany but they are still very different to both. and because they remind you of christianity why is that a basis for hating them? Are you daft?

I agree. Obviously the Chantry has similarities with the monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam etc but that doesn't mean it's a DA version of anything just that the influence had to come from traditions that exist in real life. Even then, there's no reason to "hate" the religious fate. We may disagree with how people act or their interpretations of their faith being harmful or hateful (let's say a corrupt Chantry) but just pure divinity or pure faith doesn't cause any impact. What does right/wrong is how people chose to act.

[In Exile]

Toward mages, the Chantry is a highly oppresive body that enforces (on the basis of universal human rights) rather abhorent conditions.

Toward non-mages, the Chantry is at the very least a neccesary pragmatic constraint on the danger of mages and a control on the spread of blood magic and demonic posession. It's all in where you're standing.

As a player, I really like the idea of the Chantry as the neccesary social evil to protect the masses from the danger of magic.

Modifié par In Exile, 02 février 2011 - 04:12 .

[LobselVith8]

XxDeonxX wrote...


Morrigan IS a maleficar though, because like I said in the other thread. Shapeshifting is a form of Maleficarum it extends beyond blood magic and is generally any magic that the chantry forbids.. Shapeshifting being one of them.

Given your edit, I'm going to assume that you already read how I addressed that they labelled her as a blood mage and not a maleficar, and how she's linked to the Grey Wardens. You bring up an interesting point: as a mage of the Circle of Magi, you aren't familiar with Morrigan's abilities. Despite being a talented student of the arcane arts, you're not even familiar with Morrigan's abilities to change shape.

XxDeonxX wrote...

Saying they claimed her Maleficar without evidence though could not entirely be true. I mean people would have seen her shapeshifting during the blights and reported it. The templars were looking over the reports and realised she matched the description

EDIT: Wrote this before reading your reply to the other thread

Despite no proof of her being a blood mage and her association with the Grey Wardens, they still put a bounty on her head. It's illuminating how the Chantry is willing to basically put a bounty on the life of someone who helped stop the Blight because they suspect her of being a blood mage. For all the propaganda and dogma against the mages, the Chantry certainly doesn't seem to stop mages from saving their lives during the Blights or stoping the Qunari.

[AlexXIV]

In Exile wrote...

Toward mages, the Chantry is a highly oppresive body that enforces (on the basis of universal human rights) rather abhorent conditions.

Toward non-mages, the Chantry is at the very least a neccesary pragmatic constraint on the danger of mages and a control on the spread of blood magic and demonic posession. It's all in where you're standing.

As a player, I really like the idea of the Chantry as the neccesary social evil to protect the masses from the danger of magic.

The question is if they are indeed a necessary evil, or if there is something bigger behind. It wouldn't be the first time in fantasy that a supposed good natured order turns out to have some skeleton in the cellar. Aka maybe they want to control mages to avoid that they discover some sort of truth without the Chantry being able to censor it.

[ReallyRue]

I approve of some aspects of the Chantry. Like how they will offer charity or sanctuary to people. Leliana's experience of it. It is useful to have a charitable organisation, even one that's religious. It is not useful to let the religious charity attempt to rule the entire world. Chantry should be reformed, its power significantly reduced so that people can be part of its religion if they wish, but it shouldn't be in charge of mages or be allowed to launch Exalted Marches.

Used to support organised religion. Now realise all the flaws.

[Mlaar]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

was just thinking about the people who dislike the chantry using the argument that mages are prisoned in the circle infact was mulling over this for a while before I came to the conclusion that its a lot of hogwash!! [/quote]

Of course it is. Mages just keep running away and risking their lives or fighting against the templars because it's so wonderful to live under armored and armed drug addicts.

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

sure mages as they are discovered are sent to the circle sounds terrible dosnt it to be confined in a place where they can learn to manage thier powers in a controlled enviroment but a prison it is not [/quote]

You must be ignoring the Magi Origin VO, which specifically calls it a prison.

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

why I hear you ask, well as their knowledge in the arts improve and they become more responsible with thier powers more liberties are given to the extent where they leave the tower settle, marry have children, travel the land this is shown time and time again throughout the game, [/quote]

You realize mages aren't allowed to have relationships or marry in some Circles, can never raise their own children, and can be killed or given a lobotomy if they are declared maleficar, even without evidence (like Aenirin nearly was)?

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

infact the only mages truely complaining are the younger generations and this is typically the most rebellious stage of life as they havnt enough maturity or responsibility, take Anders for example willing to throw lightning bolts at anybody he deems is a fool his words alone condemn his lack of responsibilty. [/quote]

Making jokes doesn't mean Anders is evil. He's only alive because of Irving and Greagoir.

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

I would infact praise the chantry for not caving into fear and actually making a stance by saying look mages you were born with these gifts from the maker now you must learn how to use them without causing terror in the populace,so they lose a few years due to study but they come away from it much the wiser, the fact that so many choose to remain with the confines of the tower shows that it is actually something they care for a great deal the more knowledgable they become. [/quote]

The Andrastian Chantry preaches hatred and intolerance towards mages. The Reverand Mother in Redcliffe practically apologies for it if you greet her as a human mage and promises not to raise a mob against you.

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

From what I saw the Templars and mages relationship was one of mutal respect with the only tension being caused by the strain that perhaps they would have to take a life of one who couldnt control his actions.
So no the chantry is not evil foul cruel for having mages put into the tower for it is in the best intentions[/quote]

For oppressing them and imprisoning them in conditions that can be (and have been) argued to be slavery?

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

Well I havn't read the comics so I cant comment on that but then comics are different from designers views and are given artistic license

Uldred is not a very good example to use since well you saw how he turned out [/quote]

The mages were fighting to be freed from their oppressors. Regarding of whether Uldred was altruistic or not, they were fighting for the same cause - freedom. And we don't need to look at comics to see that the templars murdered the Magnificent D'Sims because they thought he was a mage who healed people (Awakening) or to see how templars can place a bounty on Morrigan because they assume she's a blood mage with absolutely no evidence against her.

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

Templars who ambushed Anders believed thier comrades had been slain by him they were emotionally involved and therefore had personal reason to want him dead thier reasoning is the only thing in question [/quote]

So assumptions are valid reasons to murder someone? I disagree.

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

I'll have to run through the game again about culling mages with glee I musta missed that part [/quote]

Magi Origin. When you first meet him and say that you thought all templars enjoyed killing mages.

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

You say Mages hate templars and vice versa yet each case you present is an extreme, Yet (sorry im usless with npc names) leader of mages guild, Wynne and various other elder mages are fine or impartial to the templars when you speak to them, and when you see them talking it is mutal respect. Infact Gregor though he has called for the rite of annulment comes across as very reluctant to have had to call for it and you can hear the hint of sadness in his voice that he did so. [/quote]

Greagoir seems to give Irving a lot of rope, I admit, but the fact that a mage-hating Cullen can rule the Circle of Ferelden as the new Knight-Commander in fear reveals how mages have no rights - only privledges that they're granted by the Knight-Commander.

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

What you seem to have done is taken a few extreme cases and branded the entire chantry as suspect and elevated mages to a place of ultimate purity on those actions alone[/quote]

Because the Chantry basically enslaves mages to their authority. If you read the History of the Circle codex, segregating mages from society had nothing to do with keeping people safe - it was because of a completely nonviolent protest they held in a cathedral.[/quote]
1st statement: How many mages run away or fight templars in comparision to how many choose to stay and learn? guess we will never know exact figures but lets face it if the majority of mages ran then the chantry would have said its not worth the trouble better to eradicate them, the fact they chose to send them to the circle before local villages get pitchforks and torches and and have themselves a good burning says a lot for thier defense.
armoured guards well what can they use to safeguard the general populace if mages were to go rogue? you say they are the prison warders I say they are the first line of defense should mages succomb to the temptaion of abusing such powers if they fall who defends the innocent civilians, remove them from guard duty and by the time they can react to any such incident you have already lost to many lives.

Statement 2: not played mage Origins in sometime but if memory serves me correct it actually says: which some would call a prison. when I find time in my hectic schedule I'll run through it again just to be sure.

Statement 3: can you be so certain because evidence you see with your own eyes says otherwise look at the shale dlc, who owned shale?a mage why wasnt shale allowed in the house and smaller than she originally was? because the mages wife made it happen, who is in the basement of that house? The mages son and grandchild.
If you read the journels found thier he is in communication with the circle whilst doing his research so its fairly certain they are aware of his circumstances.
So to recap we have a Mage whos settled outside of tower confines with no templar guards has taken a wife had a child hmm
I would like to say the rules that you so aptly provided are probbally enforced when first sent to the circle to limit distractions and temptations whilst a mage is learning responsibility.
Id also like to point out a couple of other instances where mages have free roam for example after saving the tower you come across 3 circle  mages 2 of which are apprentices fighting darkspawn they are heading back to the tower after hearing they will be needed in your army. hmm for being a tightly run prison why are these 3 happily roaming the land without any templars guarding them?
Also in awakenings out in the wilds yu have a botanist collecting herbs again with no guards
For a prison run by such evil jailors they sure do have an open door policy.

Statement 4: I cannont comment I have yet to play witch hunt just havnt had the time :/

Comment about Anders: revenge for believing a person has killed your friends yup thats motive enough to ambush him but yes I guess you could make the assumption that perhaps the chantry ordered him dead wait what was it you said about assumption?

it is not the Chantry that needs hate,the faith it helps to intill within the populace is good the goals of helping others and even rewarding those who are willing to lend a hand is a noble end.

One last question for you is... when the mother superior says she will not raise a lynch mob against you how can you be certain it is not just her dry sense of humour playing on superstions offered

[Addai]

The Chantry is an institution only a Revered Mother could love. HA!

Like many religions, they add a stabilizing social element and mediate the power of governments while at the same time taking their own privileged place too far at times. Like any human institution, there is the good and the bad. Story-wise I think the writers did a good job in creating something reminiscent of medieval piety without being a one-to-one correlation. I'm interested in hearing more about the "Black Chantry" and other subgroups like the dragon cult.

Modifié par Addai67, 02 février 2011 - 07:06 .

[Silver Dreamer]

Hmm, I'm intrigued by some of the comments made here. I do like the Chantry simply because its an entirely human organization-- it is both good and evil. Necessary and unnecessary. Worshipped and reviled. It's all about perspective. And I love how Bioware made it such a controversial organization (as opposed to "The good king", "the evil king", "the betrayed order", etc).

[Akizora]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Akizora wrote...

In actual life I am an atheist , I will not however bring them into discussion here. When I play games my characters tend to be atheists as well or discordiants or at least have their own strong beliefs of worship or religion that differ from the "mainstream religion". Whether they worship cults, believe themselves to be gods or think that it is all a lie constructed to bring order and control over the world.

In Dragon Age Origins, my Mage did not believe in the Chantry and after a life of opression and isolation he held a great deal of hatred for the Chantry. He desecrated the sacred urn, he swore and told off revered mothers, priests and templars and even forced to kill some. Add to that he was also a narcissist and sliced the throats on random people crying for help, prompting Alistair to go "uuuh, remind me not to get injured around you".and in some cases caused Zevran to feel a strange tingle.

There was a lighter side to him however, when I hardened Lelianah and made her almost abandon her belief in the Chantry...those were the days, mmm. Can't you feel the good in my mage?

I speak of all this from IN-CHARACTER and I might as well put a late disclaimer that none of this necessarily reflects my personal opinions.

Wait you destroyed the ashes, and Leliana lived? When I did it, she just turned on me. 

If she is hardened before the quest, you can use a conversation option to get her to back off and not fight.

[Gavinthelocust]

Problem being is that when you actually take a good look at any religion there's a lot of ****s in them. Being mostly based on Christianity, arguably the religion with the widest variety of believers and many of them being pricks, doesn't help. If they incorporated the good parts of Christianity more than the bigoted nonsensical parts people would like them more. Makes sense as Christianity in the middle ages where at best a bunch of hooting devoted **** and at worst hypocritical murderous zealots in denial.

[SirOccam]

I'm an atheist, but I try not to let my RL beliefs (or lack thereof) influence all of my characters by default. Certainly there will be a few who will oppose the Chantry, but there will be some who believe in the Maker and support the Chantry.

I just hope BioWare gives us reasons to sympathize with the Chantry, at least to some extent. The best villains are the ones for whom it is debatable whether they are even a villain at all.

I think they did a decent job with this in Origins, actually. Most of the Chantry priests seem to be legitimately benevolent and charitable, and even many of the Templars seem to be fairly admirable. Disliking the organization but liking the members of that organization seems like a pretty cool direction they could go.

And I can say right now that I really, REALLY want to like Cassandra. I don't know enough about her motivations to make a judgement now, but unless I get incontrovertible evidence of her bad-ness, then I'm pretty sure I'll like her.

[Addai]

Gavinthelocust wrote...

Problem being is that when you actually take a good look at any religion there's a lot of ****s in them. Being mostly based on Christianity, arguably the religion with the widest variety of believers and many of them being pricks, doesn't help. If they incorporated the good parts of Christianity more than the bigoted nonsensical parts people would like them more. Makes sense as Christianity in the middle ages where at best a bunch of hooting devoted **** and at worst hypocritical murderous zealots in denial.

  My, we are a tolerant sort, aren't we?  I could provide some RL historical examples of the positive impact of all three major monotheistic religions on medieval society, but not sure it matters.  It's a story and the parallels to the actual historical medieval world are extremely loose.

Modifié par Addai67, 02 février 2011 - 08:46 .

[moilami]

Akizora wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Akizora wrote...

In actual life I am an atheist , I will not however bring them into discussion here. When I play games my characters tend to be atheists as well or discordiants or at least have their own strong beliefs of worship or religion that differ from the "mainstream religion". Whether they worship cults, believe themselves to be gods or think that it is all a lie constructed to bring order and control over the world.

In Dragon Age Origins, my Mage did not believe in the Chantry and after a life of opression and isolation he held a great deal of hatred for the Chantry. He desecrated the sacred urn, he swore and told off revered mothers, priests and templars and even forced to kill some. Add to that he was also a narcissist and sliced the throats on random people crying for help, prompting Alistair to go "uuuh, remind me not to get injured around you".and in some cases caused Zevran to feel a strange tingle.

There was a lighter side to him however, when I hardened Lelianah and made her almost abandon her belief in the Chantry...those were the days, mmm. Can't you feel the good in my mage?

I speak of all this from IN-CHARACTER and I might as well put a late disclaimer that none of this necessarily reflects my personal opinions.

Wait you destroyed the ashes, and Leliana lived? When I did it, she just turned on me. 

If she is hardened before the quest, you can use a conversation option to get her to back off and not fight.

Hardening Leliana is evil. Just don't take her with you and say in the camp "What ashes? Lol i did not know it was  Andraste stuff xD" when she begins to ask questions.

[moilami]

Addai67 wrote...

Gavinthelocust wrote...

Problem being is that when you actually take a good look at any religion there's a lot of ****s in them. Being mostly based on Christianity, arguably the religion with the widest variety of believers and many of them being pricks, doesn't help. If they incorporated the good parts of Christianity more than the bigoted nonsensical parts people would like them more. Makes sense as Christianity in the middle ages where at best a bunch of hooting devoted **** and at worst hypocritical murderous zealots in denial.

  My, we are a tolerant sort, aren't we?  I could provide some RL historical examples of the positive impact of all three major monotheistic religions on medieval society, but not sure it matters.  It's a story and the parallels to the actual historical medieval world are extremely loose.

You are now supposing that without those religions nothing good would had happened. There is this buddha spiritualism what people practise in oriental countries (don't have better word now) and other less known religions or ways of life like some nature religions which has not been forced for people to adapt. Also there is logic, which is what I believe on. It gives more answers, and better yet, new questions, more than you can think.

Modifié par moilami, 02 février 2011 - 09:04 .

[Heimdall]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...
Proof? Okay. 
That Templar that was pulling that Mage child by a leash, and threatening him with a knife to perform a "trick" for the blacksmith. (Once again Dragon age comic) 

Uldred pretty much despises anyone who has to do with the chantry.

Those Templars who tried to ambush Anders in Awakening.

Cullen mentions to the mage warden when he says he's glad that he didnt have to kill you. That the Templars he knows discuss culling mages with glee.

I mean honestly. You actually think Templars.. The people who's job it is to constantly watch Mages, and kill, or capture them. Actually like each other.. Even a little? Sure they might not be openly hostile but to think the majority of them even respect each other is laughable.

What idocity.

Fist of all DA comics are crap (And written by different poeple..that bring their own biases with them).

Secondly, actions of specific individuals does NOT present everyone. We have plenty of proof of both sides of the coin.

On the bad side, yes we have Cullen mentioningthat SOME templars talk about killing mages with glee, we know the ones that tried to kill Anders were d***, etc...

But since when does that make THEM the basiline and NOT the exception? On what do you base that?

We have plenty of examples of perfectly friendly templars (when you paly a mage). From Irwing, Ser Bryant, Cullen and many others.


HATE?
Your basic knowledge of human psychology is attrocious if you actually think like that.
How can it be possible they don't HATE eachoter? Simple man. Proximity.
Guards and prisoners can be rather freindly. There has to be no hate involved.

Makes ever MORE sense with templars, as they get to know mages from young age...watch them grow. See them every day.

And lets not forget Wynne's story of when she was brought to the tower.  One Templar just ignored her, the other bought her treats and put her up on his shoulders.

I think the point of that story for the writers was to show that Templars vary on their feelings toward mages, there is no uniform rule.

[Heimdall]

moilami wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Gavinthelocust wrote...

Problem being is that when you actually take a good look at any religion there's a lot of ****s in them. Being mostly based on Christianity, arguably the religion with the widest variety of believers and many of them being pricks, doesn't help. If they incorporated the good parts of Christianity more than the bigoted nonsensical parts people would like them more. Makes sense as Christianity in the middle ages where at best a bunch of hooting devoted **** and at worst hypocritical murderous zealots in denial.

  My, we are a tolerant sort, aren't we?  I could provide some RL historical examples of the positive impact of all three major monotheistic religions on medieval society, but not sure it matters.  It's a story and the parallels to the actual historical medieval world are extremely loose.

You are now supposing that without those religions nothing good would had happened. There is this buddha spiritualism what people practise in oriental countries (don't have better word now) and other less known religions or ways of life like some nature religions which has not been forced for people to adapt. Also there is logic, which is what I believe on. It gives more answers, and better yet, new questions, more than you can think.

  He never supposed that.  He only told you that the three monotheistic religions did good things that may have not happened otherwise.  Do not try to put them down because their ideals have been misused and ignored by their followers in history at times.

[MorningBird]

Mlaar wrote...
was just thinking about the people who dislike the chantry using the argument that mages are prisoned in the circle infact was mulling over this for a while before I came to the conclusion that its a lot of hogwash!! sure mages as they are discovered are sent to the circle sounds terrible dosnt it to be confined in a place where they can learn to manage thier powers in a controlled enviroment but a prison it is not...

Oddly enough, I've thought of this as well.  However, I ultimately disagree with you.  Reason being: while mages are allowed to leave the Circle Tower on occasion, it is always with purpose, and always with supervision.  They cannot leave for reasons of pleasure or interest.

If a noble wants a magically fit body guard, they can be contracted out.  If the King wants mages in his army, they can be contracted out.  If a Grey Warden or Templar were to request magical assistance/the assistance of a mage, they can be contracted out.

They must, however, always return.

Mlaar wrote...
  why I hear you ask, well as their knowledge in the arts improve and they become more responsible with thier powers more liberties are given to the extent where they leave the tower settle, marry have children, travel the land this is shown time and time again throughout the game, infact the only mages truely complaining are the younger generations and this is typically the most rebellious stage of life as they havnt enough maturity or responsibility, take Anders for example willing to throw lightning bolts at anybody he deems is a fool his words alone condemn his lack of responsibilty.

This is only half true.  While they are granted certain liberties, they seem to be granted rather late in life... when the best years of their lives have already past them by.  It's not a matter of, "You passed your Harrowing, we trust you now.  Go get married and have kids and make a home on a farm somewhere.'  It's more like, "well, you've been with us for about 60 years now and haven't yet tried to take over the world... so sure, I guess it's okay if you go off with the Grey Warden.'

To my knowledge, the only mage to actually be granted freedom was Wilhem, and I think that had more to do with him and Shale helping King Meric rebel against the Orlesian invaders than the Chantry and Templars 'trusting' him.  He was a key figure in the war, and was likely granted boons (not unlike the Warden) by Meric upon the war's end.  Plus, while Wilhem was allowed to marry, settle down and have children, it would be a far cry to assume that every mage is afforded the same right.

Do not forget that Wynne had a son in the Circle who was taken away by the Chantry because she was a mage, and the children of mages belong to the Chantry.

Mlaar wrote...
I would infact praise the chantry for not caving into fear and actually making a stance by saying look mages you were born with these gifts from the maker now you must learn how to use them without causing terror in the populace,so they lose a few years due to study but they come away from it much the wiser, the fact that so many choose to remain with the confines of the tower shows that it is actually something they care for a great deal the more knowledgable they become.

While I agree with the Chantry's stance that mages need to be trained, I see no reason for them to remain captive once they've passed their Harrowing.  After all, a mage may be gifted with magic, and wish to gain proper control of their powers so that they do not pose a threat to themself or those around them... but heck, what if they had aspirations of becoming a baker as a child? =/  Fact is, they can't.

Mlaar wrote...
From what I saw the Templars and mages relationship was one of mutal respect with the only tension being caused by the strain that perhaps they would have to take a life of one who couldnt control his actions.
So no the chantry is not evil foul cruel for having mages put into the tower for it is in the best intentions.

Not all Templars are cruel, but they're not all nice either.

Look at the group that tried to do away with Anders, or the ones who left Aneirin for dead.  'Bad' Templars exist.

Modifié par MorningBird, 02 février 2011 - 10:01 .

[Addai]

moilami wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Gavinthelocust wrote...

Problem being is that when you actually take a good look at any religion there's a lot of ****s in them. Being mostly based on Christianity, arguably the religion with the widest variety of believers and many of them being pricks, doesn't help. If they incorporated the good parts of Christianity more than the bigoted nonsensical parts people would like them more. Makes sense as Christianity in the middle ages where at best a bunch of hooting devoted **** and at worst hypocritical murderous zealots in denial.

  My, we are a tolerant sort, aren't we?  I could provide some RL historical examples of the positive impact of all three major monotheistic religions on medieval society, but not sure it matters.  It's a story and the parallels to the actual historical medieval world are extremely loose.

You are now supposing that without those religions nothing good would had happened. There is this buddha spiritualism what people practise in oriental countries (don't have better word now) and other less known religions or ways of life like some nature religions which has not been forced for people to adapt. Also there is logic, which is what I believe on. It gives more answers, and better yet, new questions, more than you can think.

I guess you missed the point, which is that it doesn't matter if you're a pastafarian or worship your dog.  The Chantry figures in a fantasy setting which is only loosely based on the medieval world.  I have my own views of religion like anyone else, but I don't evaluate the Chantry based on those, rather on the story.

All in all I think the Chantry sucks because of its oppression of mages and elves.  I like mages and elves, I play them a lot, so that's what influences my view.  OTOH I've also played Andrastian characters, and think that the Chantry also has positive effects on Ferelden, which is the only society we've seen up close.