1019 réponses à ce sujet

[Augustei]

LobselVith8 wrote...

We don't know any innocent people were slaughtered, that's the
problem. We have claims by Orlais about what happened, and claims from
the Dalish. One side says the war was started because the Dalish
attacked the town of Red Crossing, and the other says the Chantry tried
to force conversion and sent in templars when they kicked out their
Chantry missionaries. There's no proof who started the war, but based on
what we do know - Orlais did invade Ferelden, where women were raped
(like Loghain's mother) and the Chantry fully supported the invasion in
the name of the Maker.

We cannot base the actions of the past of an organisation based on its future actions however. Back then they also had different leadership, noble lords, Different everything pretty much.Thats like saying England wouldn't have fought the American revolution in the past.. Because they are allies today?

LobselVith8 wrote...

There's no evidence either way, but if one were to make an educated
guess, Orlais has a history of taking over other nations and claiming
them as their own - Ferelden only being the latest nation they
commandered, with the full support of the Chantry (which is why Maric
and Loghain contemplates dissolving the Chantry in Ferelden), and the
Orlesians were kicked out only 30 years prior to DA:O.

The only nations they had taken over prior to Ferelden is The Dales and a portion of The Free Marches. No evidence suggests that the chantry supported The Free Marches incident.. Likewise nothing says they didn't though.. Same can be said about everything regarding the dales incident. The is no evidence either way and because they supported occupying Ferelden many hundreds of years after said event. Doesn't mean they would have supported the Dales incident initially.
Theres no evidence either way, so like I said The dales incident cannot be condemned nor justified.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Ian means the loss of their religious power center - not the Orlesian
claims that elves attacked the innocent. The moment that the Chantry's
center of power was threatened, an Exalted March was called against the
Dales. If the war started because the Chantry was trying to force the
conversion of the elves and wouldn't take no for an answer, then the
elves were merely trying to prevent a nemesis from being able to
re-organize themselves by deconstructing the nation that neighbored them
and threatened their way of life.

No evidence suggests they initially supported it though. And if they didn't support the war and their chantrys were being sacked simply because they were in Orlesian territory then of course the Chantrys call for an exalted march would be justifyable.. That is, if that were the scenario.

[LobselVith8]

XxDeonxX wrote...

We cannot base the actions of the past of an organisation based on its future actions however. Back then they also had different leadership, noble lords, Different everything pretty much.Thats like saying England wouldn't have fought the American revolution in the past.. Because they are allies today?

Except the Orlesian occupation of Ferelden only ended thirty years ago. The American revolution happened some time ago, not thirty years prior. We only have to have RtO to see that Empress Celene I would have taken control of Ferelden through her marriage to King Cailan.

XxDeonxX wrote...

The only nations they had taken over prior to Ferelden is The Dales and a portion of The Free Marches. No evidence suggests that the chantry supported The Free Marches incident.. Likewise nothing says they didn't though.. Same can be said about everything regarding the dales incident. The is no evidence either way and because they supported occupying Ferelden many hundreds of years after said event. Doesn't mean they would have supported the Dales incident initially.
Theres no evidence either way, so like I said The dales incident cannot be condemned nor justified.

That isn't accurate. The Orlesian Empire began because Emperor Kordillus Drakon I started a number of Exalted Marches and took over the surrounding region.

XxDeonxX wrote...

No evidence suggests they initially supported it though. And if they didn't support the war and their chantrys were being sacked simply because they were in Orlesian territory then of course the Chantrys call for an exalted march would be justifyable.. That is, if that were the scenario.

The Dalish codex illustrates that the war started because the Dalish refused to convert to the Chantry of Andraste. We don't know what the truth is, but I'd hesitate to trust a nation that has a history of taking over other nations with Chantry support behind it.

[Augustei]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Except the Orlesian occupation of Ferelden only ended thirty years ago.
The American revolution happened some time ago, not thirty years prior.
We only have to have RtO to see that Empress Celene I would have taken
control of Ferelden through her marriage to King Cailan.

Yes but the difference in time between The Orlesian occupation of Ferelden and the Dales was very very distant.
The Difference in time between The American revolution and now is quite distant. Besides the fact that it ended recently isnt at all relevant to the discussion. Because Orlais invaded Ferelden recently with Chantry support. Does not mean they would have had Chantry support back then. When future actions are made by a country, you cant really use it to help determine their past actions. Especially if said past actions were several hundred years ago.

Empress Celene wants to make an Alliance with Ferelden for fear of fighting a war on two fronts when Nevarra finally decides to strike at them being the growing superpower that Nevarra is.

LobselVith8 wrote...
That isn't accurate. The Orlesian Empire began because Emperor Kordillus
Drakon I started a number of Exalted Marches and took over the
surrounding region.

The surronding region being what is present day Orlais... He had to war with the other noble lords and landowners of the area.. Like Calenhad had to war with the Teyrnirs and Arlings of Ferelden.

Nevarra is a country derived from the Free Marches, not Orlais so his original marches weren't against them.. Especially considering how costly it would have initially been to fight against the other Orlesian nobles.

The Anderels would definitly not have been part of The Orlesian Empire because they were part of tevinter then became independant and only joined the chantry after Kordillus helped free them from the darkspawn seiges.

The Dalish codex illustrates that the war started because the Dalish
refused to convert to the Chantry of Andraste. We don't know what the
truth is, but I'd hesitate to trust a nation that has a history of
taking over other nations with Chantry support behind it.

A History? You mean Ferelden occupation.. which isn't history during the dales incident. Like I said, future events cannot be related to almost ancient past events.

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

[LobselVith8]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Yes but the difference in time between The Orlesian occupation of Ferelden and the Dales was very very distant.
The Difference in time between The American revolution and now is quite distant. Besides the fact that it ended recently isnt at all relevant to the discussion. Because Orlais invaded Ferelden recently with Chantry support. Does not mean they would have had Chantry support back then. When future actions are made by a country, you cant really use it to help determine their past actions. Especially if said past actions were several hundred years ago.

Empress Celene wants to make an Alliance with Ferelden for fear of fighting a war on two fronts when Nevarra finally decides to strike at them being the growing superpower that Nevarra is.

Are you speculating on why Empress Celene I wanted to marry King Cailan, or has this been established as the reason for the marriage by one of TPTB? Because RtO never provides us with a reason behind the marriage, only that it was going to happen (if Loghain is brought along).

XxDeonxX wrote...

The surronding region being what is present day Orlais... He had to war with the other noble lords and landowners of the area.. Like Calenhad had to war with the Teyrnirs and Arlings of Ferelden.

Nevarra is a country derived from the Free Marches, not Orlais so his original marches weren't against them.. Especially considering how costly it would have initially been to fight against the other Orlesian nobles.

Yet Nevarra and Orlais are struggling for control over the Blasted Hills to this day. During the Exalted Age, the first Van Markham king of Nevarra, Tylus, fought wars with Orlais so Nevarra could establish itself as an independent superpower from the Orlesian Empire.

XxDeonxX wrote...

A History? You mean Ferelden occupation.. which isn't history during the dales incident. Like I said, future events cannot be related to almost ancient past events.

Their inception began with conquests, their current cold war with Nevarra exists because of their war for control of the western hills around Perendale, there is the questionable Exalted March against the Dales, and the multiple attempts to gain control of Ferelden (the actual occupation was the second attempt on their part to take control of Ferelden). So it's clearly not an issue of it simply being Ferelden.

[Augustei]

There is like.. an 800 Year gap between The Dales and now. Why would you assume The Chantry would have the same attitude towards the world now as they did 800 years ago. I can see where your point is coming from, but its not valid to assume because a country, a people, a religion etc. does something 800 years ago, that they are likely to do the same thing today. If that were the case, nobody would admit to being Athiest for fear of an Inqusition.I mean the church has had 4 before in the past, that means they will likely have more. Yet there are still plenty of Athiests in the world

[LobselVith8]

XxDeonxX wrote...

There is like.. an 800 Year gap between The Dales and now. Why would you assume The Chantry would have the same attitude towards the world now as they did 800 years ago. I can see where your point is coming from, but its not valid to assume because a country, a people, a religion etc. does something 800 years ago, that they are likely to do the same thing today. If that were the case, nobody would admit to being Athiest for fear of an Inqusition.I mean the church has had 4 before in the past, that means they will likely have more. Yet there are still plenty of Athiests in the world

Except what almost happened with Celene and Cailan (Orlais taking control of Ferelden through an alliance with a weak King), as well as the struggle between Orlais and Nevarra over the Blasted Hills, is taking place here and now. If Orlais does something Ages ago (according to the Dalish POV), and it's doing the same thing in the present day with Ferelden and Nevarra, I don't see the issue in pointing it out.

[Beren082]

I don't like them because they claim to have a monopoly on "good" magic, as well as "salvation". Because a few mages from Tevinter supposedly got a little big for their britches, everyone's damned? Screw that, I'm not one of them and I've got nothing to apologize for. Not all mages outside of the circle are insane, and those that are are no more dangerous then a tyrannical king (which there are plenty of).



This, paired with the fact that their "charity" does not extend past those that hold their particular faith. If you don't march to their tune, you can go blow yourself.

[the_one_54321]

Beren082 wrote...
I don't like them because they claim to have a monopoly on "good" magic, as well as "salvation". Because a few mages from Tevinter supposedly got a little big for their britches, everyone's damned? Screw that, I'm not one of them and I've got nothing to apologize for. Not all mages outside of the circle are insane, and those that are are no more dangerous then a tyrannical king (which there are plenty of).

This, paired with the fact that their "charity" does not extend past those that hold their particular faith. If you don't march to their tune, you can go blow yourself.

The irony of you generalizing those that you criticize for generalizing is rather amusing. DA:O itself contains at least one exception to your generalization of the chantry.

[Beren082]

the_one_54321 wrote...
The irony of you generalizing those that you criticize for generalizing is rather amusing. DA:O itself contains at least one exception to your generalization of the chantry.

The organization's unofficial (official) stance is to deny aid to any that do not accept the chant. individuals that deviate themselves do not change this fact, and are a product of their own choices in spite of the chantry, not because of.

[the_one_54321]

Beren082 wrote...
The organization's unofficial (official) stance is to deny aid to any that do not accept the chant. individuals that deviate themselves do not change this fact, and are a product of their own choices in spite of the chantry, not because of.

But they are still part of the Chantry. I'm not saying you're completely wrong. Just pointing out that generalizations always have exceptions.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Beren082 wrote...

I don't like them because they claim to have a monopoly on "good" magic, as well as "salvation". Because a few mages from Tevinter supposedly got a little big for their britches, everyone's damned? Screw that, I'm not one of them and I've got nothing to apologize for. Not all mages outside of the circle are insane, and those that are are no more dangerous then a tyrannical king (which there are plenty of).

This, paired with the fact that their "charity" does not extend past those that hold their particular faith. If you don't march to their tune, you can go blow yourself.

Given that most of Thedas are Andrastian, and that the Chantry is more or less at war with anyone not. I fail to see why they should extend aid to non-Andrastians.
Why should they aid the Dalish? Have the Dalish even asked for help?
Why should they help the Qunari? Have the Qunari even asked for help?
Why should they help the Chasind? Have the Chasind even asked for help?
So on and so forth.

They want to outlaw all the other forms of magic (ie. those not from one of the schools), because they aren't "predictable" in the same way. You can be quite sure that, a mage of the Primal school will be quite handy with the elements, or a Creation school mage will be able to help you. Shapeshifters are unpredictable. One moment they are a normal human being, the next they are a big f***ing Dragon trying to eat you. Blood Mages are unpredictable, in the sense that you can never be sure wether your will is your own when you are near one.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 07 février 2011 - 10:41 .

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Beren082 wrote...

I don't like them because they claim to have a monopoly on "good" magic, as well as "salvation". Because a few mages from Tevinter supposedly got a little big for their britches, everyone's damned? Screw that, I'm not one of them and I've got nothing to apologize for. Not all mages outside of the circle are insane, and those that are are no more dangerous then a tyrannical king (which there are plenty of).

This, paired with the fact that their "charity" does not extend past those that hold their particular faith. If you don't march to their tune, you can go blow yourself.

Given that most of Thedas are Andrastian, and that the Chantry is more or less at war with anyone not. I fail to see why they should extend aid to non-Andrastians.

This point is addressed by the Revered Mother of Redcliffe, who admits that, despite the Warden being different (such as being elven or a mage) he or she is aiding strangers, and acknowledges that many wouldn't do the same if the roles were reversed. There's also the discomfort of a religion that seeks to spread itself across the world, but makes the religion of an entire people illegal in their own lands (the elven religion). You see people of Andrastian faith dismiss people of other religions - like Cullen calling Ogren a cave dwelling heathen, for instance - so there does seem to be the case of some intolerance by Chantry going folk. If people are dismissed as "heathens" for not believing in the "right" religion, then I can see why they'd lend no aid.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why should they aid the Dalish? Have the Dalish even asked for help?

If the Dalish codex is accurate, they sent in templars to invade them, so they helped themselves to the Dalish territory.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why should they help the Qunari? Have the Qunari even asked for help?

Or they could free the mages, who saved the Andrastian nations from the Qunari.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why should they help the Chasind? Have the Chasind even asked for help?
So on and so forth.

They don't seem to have a problem with missionaries trying to convert the Chasind (DA:O). I wonder how the Chantry of Andraste would react if the Chasind were sending missionaries into their lands to spread their faith, and preach the religion of their gods?

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

They want to outlaw all the other forms of magic (ie. those not from one of the schools), because they aren't "predictable" in the same way. You can be quite sure that, a mage of the Primal school will be quite handy with the elements, or a Creation school mage will be able to help you. Shapeshifters are unpredictable. One moment they are a normal human being, the next they are a big f***ing Dragon trying to eat you. Blood Mages are unpredictable, in the sense that you can never be sure wether your will is your own when you are near one.

You're speculating here. Considering that the Warden has never even heard of the kind of magic that Morrigan performs, it seems like the Chantry simply wiped out all the other kinds of magic that didn't adhere to their "One, True Way" of thinking. It seems to be more of an issue of controlling the mages than anything else, and keeping them under their thumb.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Beren082 wrote...

I don't like them because they claim to have a monopoly on "good" magic, as well as "salvation". Because a few mages from Tevinter supposedly got a little big for their britches, everyone's damned? Screw that, I'm not one of them and I've got nothing to apologize for. Not all mages outside of the circle are insane, and those that are are no more dangerous then a tyrannical king (which there are plenty of).

This, paired with the fact that their "charity" does not extend past those that hold their particular faith. If you don't march to their tune, you can go blow yourself.

Given that most of Thedas are Andrastian, and that the Chantry is more or less at war with anyone not. I fail to see why they should extend aid to non-Andrastians.

This point is addressed by the Revered Mother of Redcliffe, who admits that, despite the Warden being different (such as being elven or a mage) he or she is aiding strangers, and acknowledges that many wouldn't do the same if the roles were reversed. There's also the discomfort of a religion that seeks to spread itself across the world, but makes the religion of an entire people illegal in their own lands (the elven religion). You see people of Andrastian faith dismiss people of other religions - like Cullen calling Ogren a cave dwelling heathen, for instance - so there does seem to be the case of some intolerance by Chantry going folk. If people are dismissed as "heathens" for not believing in the "right" religion, then I can see why they'd lend no aid.

The Revered Mother isn't talking about just Andrastians. She is talking about everyone everywhere. You also see people of other faiths dismisssing the Andrastians. So what is the big deal?

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why should they aid the Dalish? Have the Dalish even asked for help?

If the Dalish codex is accurate, they sent in templars to invade them, so they helped themselves to the Dalish territory.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why should they help the Qunari? Have the Qunari even asked for help?

Or they could free the mages, who saved the Andrastian nations from the Qunari.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why should they help the Chasind? Have the Chasind even asked for help?
So on and so forth.

They don't seem to have a problem with missionaries trying to convert the Chasind (DA:O). I wonder how the Chantry of Andraste would react if the Chasind were sending missionaries into their lands to spread their faith, and preach the religion of their gods?

You didn't answer any of the three questions. Try again.

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

They want to outlaw all the other forms of magic (ie. those not from one of the schools), because they aren't "predictable" in the same way. You can be quite sure that, a mage of the Primal school will be quite handy with the elements, or a Creation school mage will be able to help you. Shapeshifters are unpredictable. One moment they are a normal human being, the next they are a big f***ing Dragon trying to eat you. Blood Mages are unpredictable, in the sense that you can never be sure wether your will is your own when you are near one.

You're speculating here. Considering that the Warden has never even heard of the kind of magic that Morrigan performs, it seems like the Chantry simply wiped out all the other kinds of magic that didn't adhere to their "One, True Way" of thinking. It seems to be more of an issue of controlling the mages than anything else, and keeping them under their thumb.

Which would require the magic they want to control to be predictable to be effectively controllable. May be assumption, but at least it is a logical assumption.

[Augustei]

@LobselVith8
@EmperorSahlertz

You both seem pretty well set in your belief's that 1 of you likes The Chantry and thinks everything they do is justifiable. And the other thinking what they do to the elves and mages is completly wrong and would like to thing the Elves were in the right in the war of the dales.

its been 20 pages and with both of you, your stance hasn't changed on anything and we are kinda going in circles Lol.... Still, thats what discussions are about I guess.. They always need two sides, ... carry on

The writers seem to place The Chantry as the oppressors... SEEM, not saying they do. But didn't David Gaider express that the Chantrys actions towards mages are necessary and understandable. And how people compare it to the moral views of modern day society but even nowdays if they were real in his words then we would want something done about.. Rough recollection of what he said.

As for the cases of Mages living freely with non mages.. Aren't most those people nutters? The only good example really is Rivain

...Im gonna get flamed for this, lol.

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 08 février 2011 - 11:18 .

[IanPolaris]

XxDeonxX wrote...

The writers seem to place The Chantry as the oppressors... SEEM, not saying they do. But didn't David Gaider express that the Chantrys actions towards mages are necessary and understandable. And how people compare it to the moral views of modern day society but even nowdays if they were real in his words then we would want something done about.. Rough recollection of what he said.

Don't go by rough recollections when discussing DG quotes.  DG very cleverly tries to make you think he says things that he doesn't in fact actually say.  He should have a law degree.  In this case DG explained by the Chantry's policites were perceived to be necessary and understandable and took a rather unwarrented and personal dig at 21st century morality (which IMO was way over the line for a game writer), but he never actually said in WoG mode that they were. 

As for the cases of Mages living freely with non mages.. Aren't most those people nutters? The only good example really is Rivain

...Im gonna get flamed for this, lol.

Sure you are because it deserves to be flamed.  The only group that had mages living alongside non-mages that were 'nutters' where the Dragon Cultists of Haven.  That's it.  The Chasind may be barbarians but they aren't nutters.  Neither are the Rivvain or the Dalish.  Neither are the Tevinter (ancient or modern).  Remember it was a couple of centuries before even ANDRASTIAN nations started to segretate mages by force.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Is it even necessary for the First Enchanter to see the evidence before the order is signed? The FC is the day-to-day adminitrator of the circle, the KC is there for security.
For an example, if a teacher in the school commits a crime, and hte polcie comes to arrest him, do they have to show the evidence to the school director? I don't think so.
Now, can you tell me that the FC wouldn't see the evidence AT ALL (like, before the rite..or maybe Gregoir showed him while the PC was in the vault?)
In orther words, you know too little and agai nassume too much.

The Rite was already signed against Jowan and Irving never saw the evidence against him. Don't you see the problem here? If this was a mage-hating Cullen as the new KC giving an innocent mage the Rite of Tranquility and the First Enchanter doesn't even see the evidence, how does anyone know that the evidence in question is valid?

You don't know if hte evidence is valid. That doesnt' mean it's not.

I refer to you to again read my post because you're missing the point and not answerign the important questions.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The only one fanwanking here is you Lob.

Since there's no evidence Morrigan is a blood mage in DA:O when her primary skill is changing shape, the burden of proof lies on you to prove the Chantry correct in putting a bounty on her for being a blood mage.

Dark Ritual. We KNOW Morrigan is capable of it.
Did she do something to tip the Chantry off during the 2 years in Orlais? Maybe. Maybe not.

You again assume too much.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Alistair never completed his vows. He was never officialy a real templar.
But as I sad before, this is ultimatively irrelevant for the discussion.

It's not irrelevant. You're ignoring the fact that the Chantry had to accept the Rite of Conscription when it came to Alistair being recruited by Duncan.

But you are again missing the point.
Assuming Alistair wasn't officialy chantry, the Grand Cleric can STILL protest, even tough she has no real reason too.
But as I said again, ultimatively irrelevant to the discussion.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No. As always you seem to argue things you want, insted things that are written.

I'm asking you to prove the templars were wrong in both of those accounts.

Alos, what Morrigan did IS what the Chstnry would label as blood magic. We KNOW she is capable of it.
We don't know how much the Chatnry knows of what proof if has.

The burden of proof isn't on me to fanwank explanations for why the templars suspect Morrigan of being a blood mage when she never demonstrates the blood magic abilities we see with Jowan. You want to argue that it was justified, you need to provide proof that it was.

I'm putting forth plausable explanations.

Fan wanking is using your own fantasies and theories as FACTS. Which is why you are constantly doing.

Again we KNOW Morrigan is capable of it. We KNOW Morrigan can learn it. We KNOW the Dark Ritual is something the Chatnry would label as Blood Magic.
We don't know what's she's been up to lately.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No. You first calim absolute knowledge...which you don't have.
You claim absolute proof of guilt...which you don't have, given you'r lack of knowledge of the circumstances.
And most importantly, you assume the two incidents are the standatrd modus operandi, again, without anything to support it.

So the burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof isn't on me to justify the murder of an innocent man who templars assumed was a mage healing people, nor is it up to me to justify the attempted murder of Aenirin when we have no evidence that he's maleficar. In fact, he's known among the Dalish as "Aenirin the healer."

You first have to prove that is was a murder in the first palce.
You also cannot prove that Aenerin is NOT a maleficar.
And you also cannot prove that - even if both cases are perfect examples of templar dickery - that that is common behavior for templars.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
Regardless, the Chantry did not have to destroy the Dales and did not have to outlaw the old Elven religion when they did.  That makes them guilty of cultural genocide.

Chantry? Or the nations involved in the march?

While you belive Chantry = Orlais, you've really got no proof to back it up. So it remans nothing more than a theory.
Also, even if that were true, what about the other countries involved? You just assume the Divine can order every king and queen around.
If the king of nation X answered to call to the March and order his troops to burn down every Dalish village, is hte Chantry to blame for his orders?

The Exalted March went WAY beyond the defense of Orlais, however.  There is absolutely no indication that the chantry even considered brokering a peace with the Dales once Orlais had been saved.  Absolutely none at all.  Most wars are NOT fought to their bitter end.  The destruction of the Dales was most certainly motivated by religious intolerance and extremism and was a blatent disregard of the promise Andraste made to the elves (and was conveniently removed from the Chant of Light).

Proof?
I forget...you have none.

Sure it does.  It means the Chantry was not really outraged about anything the Elves did until their own cathedrals were threatened which makes the Chantry's later actions less excuseable.

OR it means they avoided going to war until lthe last second, and tried to mediate peace...and when that failed, responeded with furious vengance.

Same basic facts, different possible interpretations,

The Simple Fact of the matter is, which I keep saying is that the Chantrys actions cannot be condemned nor can they be Justified.

Not true.  Even IF the chantry's version were completely true (which we both doubt), there is no reason why the Chantry had to destroy the Dales and outlaw the old religion.  The Chantry wanted to do that and it should and needs to be roundly condemned.

-Polaris

Not true.
You first have to prove that the destruction of the Dales was done by the order of the Cahtnry and NOT by the leader of the arimes in the field.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Regardless, the Chantry did not have to destroy the Dales and did not have to outlaw the old Elven religion when they did.  That makes them guilty of cultural genocide.

Chantry? Or the nations involved in the march?

While you belive Chantry = Orlais, you've really got no proof to back it up. So it remans nothing more than a theory.
Also, even if that were true, what about the other countries involved? You just assume the Divine can order every king and queen around.
If the king of nation X answered to call to the March and order his troops to burn down every Dalish village, is hte Chantry to blame for his orders?

Stop claiming I say things I never say.  I never said that the Chanry equaled Orlais.  I said that Orlais strongly informed Chantry policy to the extent that when Orlais says Jump, the Divine asks, "How High".  That's been pretty evidence thoughout the game world (and one reason why King Maric and Gen Loghain very nearly disolved the Chantry in Fereldan during their ongoing revolt against Orlais).

As for outlawing the Elven religion, that was the Chantry from first to last, and that makes them very much guilty of cultural genocide.  Various Kings may have lent troops, but they marched under the Chantry's banner and that means the Chantry takes moral responsibility for their actions.  No getting around it.

The Exalted March went WAY beyond the defense of Orlais, however.  There is absolutely no indication that the chantry even considered brokering a peace with the Dales once Orlais had been saved.  Absolutely none at all.  Most wars are NOT fought to their bitter end.  The destruction of the Dales was most certainly motivated by religious intolerance and extremism and was a blatent disregard of the promise Andraste made to the elves (and was conveniently removed from the Chant of Light).

Proof?
I forget...you have none.

How about the Verse of Shartan....oh I forget, Divine Renata DELETED IT because it was inconvenient to the chantry!  Andraste did promise the Elves a home of their own.  You find this out during the game when you talk to the shade of the Disciple Shartan.....all generated by a spirit who knew Andraste personally (you can find this out explicitly as well with a very high CUN character).

Sure it does.  It means the Chantry was not really outraged about anything the Elves did until their own cathedrals were threatened which makes the Chantry's later actions less excuseable.

OR it means they avoided going to war until lthe last second, and tried to mediate peace...and when that failed, responeded with furious vengance.

Same basic facts, different possible interpretations,

No evidence that the Chantry every considered peace.  None.  Certainly their actions including the removal of the Verses of Shartan tell me tha thte Chanty only cared about the rule of the sword, and their actions towards "heathens" even today bears this interpretation out.

The Simple Fact of the matter is, which I keep saying is that the Chantrys actions cannot be condemned nor can they be Justified.

They most certainly can be condemned.

Not true.  Even IF the chantry's version were completely true (which we both doubt), there is no reason why the Chantry had to destroy the Dales and outlaw the old religion.  The Chantry wanted to do that and it should and needs to be roundly condemned.

-Polaris

Not true.
You first have to prove that the destruction of the Dales was done by the order of the Cahtnry and NOT by the leader of the arimes in the field.

Those armies were under the banner of the CHantry.  That makes the chantry responsible.  Period.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Is it even necessary for the First Enchanter to see the evidence before the order is signed? The FC is the day-to-day adminitrator of the circle, the KC is there for security.
For an example, if a teacher in the school commits a crime, and hte polcie comes to arrest him, do they have to show the evidence to the school director? I don't think so.
Now, can you tell me that the FC wouldn't see the evidence AT ALL (like, before the rite..or maybe Gregoir showed him while the PC was in the vault?)
In orther words, you know too little and agai nassume too much. [/quote]

The Rite was already signed against Jowan and Irving never saw the evidence against him. Don't you see the problem here? If this was a mage-hating Cullen as the new KC giving an innocent mage the Rite of Tranquility and the First Enchanter doesn't even see the evidence, how does anyone know that the evidence in question is valid?[/quote]

You don't know if hte evidence is valid. That doesnt' mean it's not.

I refer to you to again read my post because you're missing the point and not answerign the important questions.
[/quote]

If the evidence were valid, then why hide it from Irving?  The only thing we hear from Irving is that Gregoire CLAIMS to have eyewitness testimony claiming that Jowan was a bloodmage.

The technical term for that is hearsay.


[quote]
[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The only one fanwanking here is you Lob. [/quote]

Since there's no evidence Morrigan is a blood mage in DA:O when her primary skill is changing shape, the burden of proof lies on you to prove the Chantry correct in putting a bounty on her for being a blood mage.[/quote]

Dark Ritual. We KNOW Morrigan is capable of it.
Did she do something to tip the Chantry off during the 2 years in Orlais? Maybe. Maybe not.

You again assume too much.
[/quote]

Very Questionable.  Morrigan never identifies the Dark Ritual as genuine bloodmagic. She only says that some might call it that.  Then again, the phylacteries the Templars are so fond of can also be called bloodmagic.  For that matter Finn's ritual in Dragon Hunt might be called "bloodmagic" but Finn is no bloodmage.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Alistair never completed his vows. He was never officialy a real templar.
But as I sad before, this is ultimatively irrelevant for the discussion. [/quote]

It's not irrelevant. You're ignoring the fact that the Chantry had to accept the Rite of Conscription when it came to Alistair being recruited by Duncan.[/quote]

But you are again missing the point.
Assuming Alistair wasn't officialy chantry, the Grand Cleric can STILL protest, even tough she has no real reason too.
But as I said again, ultimatively irrelevant to the discussion.
[/quote]

Doesn't matter.  Grey Wardens can conscript anyone including Full Fledged Templars.  The Rite of Conscription is univeral and pretty damned clear.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No. As always you seem to argue things you want, insted things that are written.

I'm asking you to prove the templars were wrong in both of those accounts.

Alos, what Morrigan did IS what the Chstnry would label as blood magic. We KNOW she is capable of it.
We don't know how much the Chatnry knows of what proof if has. [/quote]


The burden of proof isn't on me to fanwank explanations for why the templars suspect Morrigan of being a blood mage when she never demonstrates the blood magic abilities we see with Jowan. You want to argue that it was justified, you need to provide proof that it was.[/quote]

I'm putting forth plausable explanations.

Fan wanking is using your own fantasies and theories as FACTS. Which is why you are constantly doing.

Again we KNOW Morrigan is capable of it. We KNOW Morrigan can learn it. We KNOW the Dark Ritual is something the Chatnry would label as Blood Magic.
We don't know what's she's been up to lately.
[/quote]

No we don't know that.  Morrigan is very coy about whether or not the Dark Ritual is bloodmagic and there is no evidence that Morrigan ever does bloodmagic.  Furthermore, the Dark Ritual is not always common knowledge either.  For example if you romance Morrigan, then everyone else will be in the dark except that somehow Morrigan 'saved' you.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No. You first calim absolute knowledge...which you don't have.
You claim absolute proof of guilt...which you don't have, given you'r lack of knowledge of the circumstances.
And most importantly, you assume the two incidents are the standatrd modus operandi, again, without anything to support it.

So the burden of proof is on you. [/quote]

The burden of proof isn't on me to justify the murder of an innocent man who templars assumed was a mage healing people, nor is it up to me to justify the attempted murder of Aenirin when we have no evidence that he's maleficar. In fact, he's known among the Dalish as "Aenirin the healer."[/quote]

You first have to prove that is was a murder in the first palce.
You also cannot prove that Aenerin is NOT a maleficar.
And you also cannot prove that - even if both cases are perfect examples of templar dickery - that that is common behavior for templars.
[/quote]

If Aenerin were a maleficar, he would have the option to return to the circle but clearly he does.  That's proof enough right there.  As for Templar dickery, D'Sims might have a few words to say about that....oh wait, he can't.  He'd dead by templar.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

As for outlawing the Elven religion, that was the Chantry from first to last, and that makes them very much guilty of cultural genocide.  Various Kings may have lent troops, but they marched under the Chantry's banner and that means the Chantry takes moral responsibility for their actions.  No getting around it.

You are very naive if you think it works like that.
The Chantry calls for an Exhalted March and other nations answer. They send armies, but those armies are commanded by their generals and kings, with their own goals and ambitions. In reality, the Chantry would have little to no control over them, epsecially not far from their territory.

Suppose you have a king that orders his troops to burn and pillage. It would take days, if not weeks for the words of it to reach the Divine, and that much again for any message to go back. Communication and travel in TheDas is slow.
That hypothetical king may have never recieved any message from the Chantry to stop what he's doing...or even if he did, he might ignore it or pretend he didn't get it (messengers can get killed or "accidentaly" lost)

And did they even march under the Chantry's banner, or their own? Not that what banner you are using matters in the end..

How about the Verse of Shartan....oh I forget, Divine Renata DELETED IT because it was inconvenient to the chantry!  Andraste did promise the Elves a home of their own.  You find this out during the game when you talk to the shade of the Disciple Shartan.....all generated by a spirit who knew Andraste personally (you can find this out explicitly as well with a very high CUN character).

Elves did get their home.
As I said again, Andraste never promised that they will never loose that home due to their own actions.

Either way, that's not proof of what you're saying.

OR it means they avoided going to war until lthe last second, and tried to mediate peace...and when that failed, responeded with furious vengance.

Same basic facts, different possible interpretations,

No evidence that the Chantry every considered peace.  None.  Certainly their actions including the removal of the Verses of Shartan tell me tha thte Chanty only cared about the rule of the sword, and their actions towards "heathens" even today bears this interpretation out.

What they tell YOU is irrelevant. What they CLEARLY tell to EVERYONE ELSE is what matters.
And it doesn't say anything.

Interpret things as you want, but don't try to serve em up as indesputable facts.

Not true.
You first have to prove that the destruction of the Dales was done by the order of the Cahtnry and NOT by the leader of the arimes in the field.

Those armies were under the banner of the CHantry.  That makes the chantry responsible.  Period.

-Polaris

See my first post. Period.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion,



I will make it very simple. The chantry is responsible first and last for all actions done during an Exalted March just as ultimately the Roman Catholic Church was (and was held) responsible by the Saracens for the actions of the Crusaders. The fact that nations sent their own armies under their own kings is not relevant. They marched under the Banner of the Chantry, and thus it's up to the Chantry to bear the moral responsibilty for the armies gathered.



If you are so sure the Chantry is lily white w/r/t the Dales, then why was the Verse of Shartan removed by Divine Renata DURING (not after) that march, and why were elves forbidden from practicing their own religion and called heathens.



I think the answer is clear.



-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You don't know if hte evidence is valid. That doesnt' mean it's not.

I refer to you to again read my post because you're missing the point and not answerign the important questions.

If the evidence were valid, then why hide it from Irving?  The only thing we hear from Irving is that Gregoire CLAIMS to have eyewitness testimony claiming that Jowan was a bloodmage.

The technical term for that is hearsay.

Hide? Since when was it hidden?
Irwing only claims he didn't see the evidence...YET. He never said he's not allowed to see it or that he will never see it.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I'm putting forth plausable explanations.

Fan wanking is using your own fantasies and theories as FACTS. Which is why you are constantly doing.

Again we KNOW Morrigan is capable of it. We KNOW Morrigan can learn it. We KNOW the Dark Ritual is something the Chatnry would label as Blood Magic.
We don't know what's she's been up to lately.

No we don't know that.  Morrigan is very coy about whether or not the Dark Ritual is bloodmagic and there is no evidence that Morrigan ever does bloodmagic.  Furthermore, the Dark Ritual is not always common knowledge either.  For example if you romance Morrigan, then everyone else will be in the dark except that somehow Morrigan 'saved' you.

Waht Morrigan would call the DR is irreleevant. Waht the Chantry would call it is important. She does cleary mention some would label it Blood Magic. Whom do you think she meant with that?

And note that I never said hte tempalrs know about the DR. I said that it shows us that Morrigan is quite capalbe of magics the Cahtnry would label as blood magic.....and she was in Orlais for 2 years...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You first have to prove that is was a murder in the first palce.
You also cannot prove that Aenerin is NOT a maleficar.
And you also cannot prove that - even if both cases are perfect examples of templar dickery - that that is common behavior for templars.

If Aenerin were a maleficar, he would have the option to return to the circle but clearly he does.  That's proof enough right there.  As for Templar dickery, D'Sims might have a few words to say about that....oh wait, he can't.  He'd dead by templar.

Does he even have that option really? We know Wynne mentions it, but Wynne belives he isn't a maleficar. Assuming Aenerin really was one, would he tell her the truth?

Again, proof that D'Sims didn't try to threaten(bluff) the tempalrs when they confronted him, or pulled a knife at them.

And lastly, proof that these events aren't exceptions.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion,

I will make it very simple. The chantry is responsible first and last for all actions done during an Exalted March just as ultimately the Roman Catholic Church was (and was held) responsible by the Saracens for the actions of the Crusaders. The fact that nations sent their own armies under their own kings is not relevant. They marched under the Banner of the Chantry, and thus it's up to the Chantry to bear the moral responsibilty for the armies gathered.

If you are so sure the Chantry is lily white w/r/t the Dales, then why was the Verse of Shartan removed by Divine Renata DURING (not after) that march, and why were elves forbidden from practicing their own religion and called heathens.

I think the answer is clear.

-Polaris

bull****.

One cannot claim responsibiltiy for action of another. Each one makes his own decisions. You cannot blame the Chantry just becase it calls for aid against a common foe.
The blame chain doesn't work as an argument, remember?

Heck, if you call 4 of your firends to help you take on a bully, and one of your freinds kills him while you aren't looking, are you to blame?

You're asking for complete control and resposibility on the far battlefield, with slow communications, splintered command structure, different agendas, all within a hastly thrown alliance.

Are you even remotely serious?
That is simply not possible.

[Eclipse_9990]

BOO! The Chantry SUCKS! *leaves*

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

One cannot claim responsibiltiy for action of another. Each one makes his own decisions. You cannot blame the Chantry just becase it calls for aid against a common foe.
The blame chain doesn't work as an argument, remember?

Wrong.

A commander is legally and morally responsible for the conduct of his men even if he lacks personal knowledge.  Multiple German commanders were sentenced to war crimes (and Japanese ones) on that basis alone, and this principle is enshrined in international law.  Even in the middleages, it was accepted that a Lord was responsible for the conduct of his knights and men-at-arms.

The same applies here.  The Chantry calls the exalted march.  That makes the chantry responsible for all actions done in her name during it.  It's not "blame chain".  It's called accountability under the chain of command.

-Polaris