Was she a member of the Loyalists, or just a bit touched in the head?
I was surprised in game to find out that Wynne wasn't a loyalist.
Does anyone actually LIKE the chantry?
Débuté par
Augustei
, févr. 01 2011 11:13
Retour en haut
#602
Posté 10 février 2011 - 03:51
SpeakingInSilence
-
- Members
- 34 messages
I like the Chantry because these reasons:
Wynne wasn't a loyalist because she knew the dangers of her own power. Mages have the power to manipulate matter at will, and Wynne knew this. The average mage could leave waste to a whole group of foe, so it takes an extraordinary individual to put a cap on their own power for the betterment of people. Wynne knew if you let magic go unchecked then it will eventually consume the user.
The Chantry knows this, and good thing too. Look at the circle of magi, in the matter of hours a whole society of mages were corrupted by demons.
In DAO mages are CONSTANTLY tempted by demons, and a lot of times they are allowed into the host. How can people who are anti-chantry deny this? It would have taken the entire force of the Templar to even quell that kind of uprising.
That is enough about mages. Also if you read about the different cursades of the Chantry you can clearly see that MOST, and I say most of the time not all the time, they were lead against people who were approaching their lands for domination (Qunari), or an opressive government (Tevinter Imperium). On the case of the elves I don't know enough about it.
The Chantry everywhere in DAO always is sheltering refugees, supplying well needed services for the public.
If you think about it there is more evidence in the DAO universe supporting the Chantry's claim then isn't.
Wynne wasn't a loyalist because she knew the dangers of her own power. Mages have the power to manipulate matter at will, and Wynne knew this. The average mage could leave waste to a whole group of foe, so it takes an extraordinary individual to put a cap on their own power for the betterment of people. Wynne knew if you let magic go unchecked then it will eventually consume the user.
The Chantry knows this, and good thing too. Look at the circle of magi, in the matter of hours a whole society of mages were corrupted by demons.
In DAO mages are CONSTANTLY tempted by demons, and a lot of times they are allowed into the host. How can people who are anti-chantry deny this? It would have taken the entire force of the Templar to even quell that kind of uprising.
That is enough about mages. Also if you read about the different cursades of the Chantry you can clearly see that MOST, and I say most of the time not all the time, they were lead against people who were approaching their lands for domination (Qunari), or an opressive government (Tevinter Imperium). On the case of the elves I don't know enough about it.
The Chantry everywhere in DAO always is sheltering refugees, supplying well needed services for the public.
If you think about it there is more evidence in the DAO universe supporting the Chantry's claim then isn't.
#603
Posté 10 février 2011 - 04:28
Mlaar
-
- Members
- 153 messages
Their is no right or wrong answer to be had about the Chantry it is an organization that has been designed to be controversial, It's like two mates down the pub looking at a half filled pint glass one says its half full the other says its half empty both are correct but yet they constantly argue the night away..
I personally am a half full kinda guy, I see the positive in things I look at the Chantry and all the good it has provided in the lands, where as a few folks are the half empty people they focus on the negative side of things i.e mages circle is an abonimation.
So we can either keep arguing semantics or come to the conclusion that we agree to disagree
I personally am a half full kinda guy, I see the positive in things I look at the Chantry and all the good it has provided in the lands, where as a few folks are the half empty people they focus on the negative side of things i.e mages circle is an abonimation.
So we can either keep arguing semantics or come to the conclusion that we agree to disagree
#604
Posté 10 février 2011 - 04:36
Behindyounow
-
- Members
- 1 612 messages
The normal Chantry I dislike.
The Imperial Chantry on the other hand...
The Imperial Chantry on the other hand...
#605
Posté 10 février 2011 - 05:24
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I do belive that the Dalish not wanting to help the humans during the Blight was stated as one possible reason for the hostility.
Can't recall exactly in which Codex atm. [/quote]
They didn't help during the Second Blight, but there's no proof any aid was requested. The Emerald Knights are there to guard the borders of the Dales, after all.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Again, no proof that goes either way. and given the danger posed by a Blight, it seems strange humans wouln't ask for help. It also seems strange the Dalish wouldn't asnwer. [/quote]
If they didn't ask for help, what do you expect? If the Emerald Knights left their post, who would warn the people about any possible darkspawn armies marching towards the Dales?
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
They're telling the other nations to come to their aid and follow them into battle in a holy war.[/quote]
And?
"come help us" is very different from "kill all dalish"
Or do you simply assume that a religion defending itself is somehow any differetn from a cultiure or coutnry defending itself? It all comes down to the people indentifying with it and wanting to keep it. [/quote]
Considering that the elves of the Alienages are forbidden from worshipping their old gods and all follow the Chantry of Andraste, it looks like they got exactly what they wanted.
As for defending themselves, it all depends on who started the war. And we don't really know.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You really give the Chantry too much power and influence.
Are you forgeting that Ferleden, a small backwater country, nearly exiled the Chantry? [/quote]
I notice you left out the reason why Loghain and Maric couldn't exile the Chantry of Andraste from Ferelden.[/quote]
Different circumstance. Ferelden isn't belowed or very powerull. But if 2 or 3 nations were to defy the Chantry...do you realyl think the Cahtnry could force them into submission? With what army? It only has templars, and they are not enough to wage a large war.
The Chantry relies on the military of other Andrastian nations. And an internal struge is the last thing anyone wants. Politics is very much like poker...a lot of bluffing and calculating risks. [/quote]
The Chantry of Andraste has a symbiotic relationship with the Orlesian Empire. It's not dependent on other nations for anything. They control all the Circles throughout Thedas, and used mages to fight the Qunari armies during the New Exalted Marches.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Modern standards exist in DA:O. Just look at the treatment of women to recognize this.
Regarding the failings of the Chantry, I can see that templars are made addicts and mages have no rights. I contest what's being done based on what we know to be true. When templars can murder D'Sims because of their suspicions, when the templars can invoke the Rite of Tranquility without providing the evidence to the First Enchanter, when the system in place can be called oppressive in the actual game and is referred to as a prison in the VO, then I don't see why I can't contest what's being done.[/quote]
For one you lack actual evidence. You cannot PROVE anything you say. You SUSPECT. You INFER.
You BELIEVE.
As I said. Innocent untill proven guilty. You did not prove that guilt.
All the arguments you and Ian made here are not solid. They wouldn't fly in any court in the world.
You say "what we KNOW to be true". And that is incorrect. You don't know it to be true. you belive it to be true.
If it was a known fact, then there would be no debate possible here.
So, using the same modern standards, the Cahntry cannot be proclaimed evil criminals wihout aditional proof. Solid proof. [/quote]
I don't suspect or infer the murder of D'Sims at the hands of the templars - it happened. I don't suspect or infer the templars placing a bounty on Morrigan due to their suspicions of her being a blood mage - it happened. Anieirin was nearly killed because he was labelled as maleficar, and there's no evidence that he ever was or is one. We also know First Enchanter Irving had no say and didn't see the evidence against Jowan. You are welcome to believe that the Chantry and the Order of Templars are in the right, but I don't see it.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
No, you veered into asking questions that had little to do with the actual argument because you consistently take the Chantry's side. You make accusations without proof but then ask for evidence whenever anyone makes a comment against the Chantry or the Order of Templars that we clearly learn about or see in the actual game or novels. You're pro-Chantry, you have for over a year now, which is fine except for the fact that you seem to love attacking people who disagree with you.[/quote]
The only one constantly vering off-topic and not providing any proof is you.
I don't make accusations against the mages or dalish. I simply poke hols in your arguments. Since I'm not trying to prove that the Chantry is undeniably right, I'm showing that your theory that is it undeinably wrong is incorrect.
And since you have no actual proof, all I need to do is provide alternate explanations for some of the facts. The ver existance of those alternate explanations undermines your claims. [/quote]
You don't poke holes in the arguments. You fan fic that D'Sims was so dangerous when he pretended to heal people that armored templars had to kill him. You fan fic that Morrigan could secretly be a blood mage in order to justify the bounty on her in Witch Hunt. You fan fic how Aneirin is secretly a maleficar and hiding it from every Dalish clan member. All you do is provide speculation in leui of evidence. You claim it's necessary for mages to be imprisoned, but we see that the inception of their imprisonment had nothing to do with protecting innocents from mages (History of the Circle codex) and even the limitations placed on magic and the establishment of the Circle had to do with Emperor Drakon's religious beliefs (History of the Chantry Part Four).
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
It is YOU how throw accusations and theories around as hard facts. It is you who try to prove to anyone just how eeeebil the Chatnry is and how wrong it is. [/quote]
How is pointing out that the inception of the Circle and the reasons behind the mages segregation have nothing to do with protecting innocents mere speculation, Lotion? If the Chantry's own history doesn't back up the claims that mages are imprisoned to protect people, why should I believe them?
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Get it into your thick skull. I'm not pro-Chantry. I'm anti- YOU.
But since you contantly take an anti-Chantry side you will find me arguing agasint you. [/quote]
I don't condone imprisoning innocent people because of what they may do, especially in an oppressive system many seem to be fighting against.
I do belive that the Dalish not wanting to help the humans during the Blight was stated as one possible reason for the hostility.
Can't recall exactly in which Codex atm. [/quote]
They didn't help during the Second Blight, but there's no proof any aid was requested. The Emerald Knights are there to guard the borders of the Dales, after all.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Again, no proof that goes either way. and given the danger posed by a Blight, it seems strange humans wouln't ask for help. It also seems strange the Dalish wouldn't asnwer. [/quote]
If they didn't ask for help, what do you expect? If the Emerald Knights left their post, who would warn the people about any possible darkspawn armies marching towards the Dales?
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
They're telling the other nations to come to their aid and follow them into battle in a holy war.[/quote]
And?
"come help us" is very different from "kill all dalish"
Or do you simply assume that a religion defending itself is somehow any differetn from a cultiure or coutnry defending itself? It all comes down to the people indentifying with it and wanting to keep it. [/quote]
Considering that the elves of the Alienages are forbidden from worshipping their old gods and all follow the Chantry of Andraste, it looks like they got exactly what they wanted.
As for defending themselves, it all depends on who started the war. And we don't really know.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You really give the Chantry too much power and influence.
Are you forgeting that Ferleden, a small backwater country, nearly exiled the Chantry? [/quote]
I notice you left out the reason why Loghain and Maric couldn't exile the Chantry of Andraste from Ferelden.[/quote]
Different circumstance. Ferelden isn't belowed or very powerull. But if 2 or 3 nations were to defy the Chantry...do you realyl think the Cahtnry could force them into submission? With what army? It only has templars, and they are not enough to wage a large war.
The Chantry relies on the military of other Andrastian nations. And an internal struge is the last thing anyone wants. Politics is very much like poker...a lot of bluffing and calculating risks. [/quote]
The Chantry of Andraste has a symbiotic relationship with the Orlesian Empire. It's not dependent on other nations for anything. They control all the Circles throughout Thedas, and used mages to fight the Qunari armies during the New Exalted Marches.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Modern standards exist in DA:O. Just look at the treatment of women to recognize this.
Regarding the failings of the Chantry, I can see that templars are made addicts and mages have no rights. I contest what's being done based on what we know to be true. When templars can murder D'Sims because of their suspicions, when the templars can invoke the Rite of Tranquility without providing the evidence to the First Enchanter, when the system in place can be called oppressive in the actual game and is referred to as a prison in the VO, then I don't see why I can't contest what's being done.[/quote]
For one you lack actual evidence. You cannot PROVE anything you say. You SUSPECT. You INFER.
You BELIEVE.
As I said. Innocent untill proven guilty. You did not prove that guilt.
All the arguments you and Ian made here are not solid. They wouldn't fly in any court in the world.
You say "what we KNOW to be true". And that is incorrect. You don't know it to be true. you belive it to be true.
If it was a known fact, then there would be no debate possible here.
So, using the same modern standards, the Cahntry cannot be proclaimed evil criminals wihout aditional proof. Solid proof. [/quote]
I don't suspect or infer the murder of D'Sims at the hands of the templars - it happened. I don't suspect or infer the templars placing a bounty on Morrigan due to their suspicions of her being a blood mage - it happened. Anieirin was nearly killed because he was labelled as maleficar, and there's no evidence that he ever was or is one. We also know First Enchanter Irving had no say and didn't see the evidence against Jowan. You are welcome to believe that the Chantry and the Order of Templars are in the right, but I don't see it.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
No, you veered into asking questions that had little to do with the actual argument because you consistently take the Chantry's side. You make accusations without proof but then ask for evidence whenever anyone makes a comment against the Chantry or the Order of Templars that we clearly learn about or see in the actual game or novels. You're pro-Chantry, you have for over a year now, which is fine except for the fact that you seem to love attacking people who disagree with you.[/quote]
The only one constantly vering off-topic and not providing any proof is you.
I don't make accusations against the mages or dalish. I simply poke hols in your arguments. Since I'm not trying to prove that the Chantry is undeniably right, I'm showing that your theory that is it undeinably wrong is incorrect.
And since you have no actual proof, all I need to do is provide alternate explanations for some of the facts. The ver existance of those alternate explanations undermines your claims. [/quote]
You don't poke holes in the arguments. You fan fic that D'Sims was so dangerous when he pretended to heal people that armored templars had to kill him. You fan fic that Morrigan could secretly be a blood mage in order to justify the bounty on her in Witch Hunt. You fan fic how Aneirin is secretly a maleficar and hiding it from every Dalish clan member. All you do is provide speculation in leui of evidence. You claim it's necessary for mages to be imprisoned, but we see that the inception of their imprisonment had nothing to do with protecting innocents from mages (History of the Circle codex) and even the limitations placed on magic and the establishment of the Circle had to do with Emperor Drakon's religious beliefs (History of the Chantry Part Four).
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
It is YOU how throw accusations and theories around as hard facts. It is you who try to prove to anyone just how eeeebil the Chatnry is and how wrong it is. [/quote]
How is pointing out that the inception of the Circle and the reasons behind the mages segregation have nothing to do with protecting innocents mere speculation, Lotion? If the Chantry's own history doesn't back up the claims that mages are imprisoned to protect people, why should I believe them?
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Get it into your thick skull. I'm not pro-Chantry. I'm anti- YOU.
But since you contantly take an anti-Chantry side you will find me arguing agasint you. [/quote]
I don't condone imprisoning innocent people because of what they may do, especially in an oppressive system many seem to be fighting against.
#606
Posté 10 février 2011 - 05:36
Frocharocha
-
- Members
- 509 messages
The cantry is good and evil for me.At wardeens's keep the mage(i don't remember the name) the chantry isn't full right.And cassandra looks like she works for the chantry.She looks evil of course.And we know she is intersinted at hawke powers.But there is of course the chantry boards quests.That is something good.
#607
Posté 10 février 2011 - 05:57
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
LobselVith8 wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
LobselVith8 wrote...
Getting some pathos? I'm pointing out how you're pro-Chantry but making condescending comments because people take an opposing view. You and Lotion clearly take the pro-Chantry stand every time, so I don't see the need for condescending remarks simply because others take an opposing view.
Ever wondered WHY we argue against you in these threads?
By "we" you mean Emperor and yourself? Emperor, the same person who said freeing mages would be theft of Chantry "property" you mean? Or are we going to discuss how you once claimed abominations were handing out quests for the Mages Collective in one of your pro-Chantry arguments?
Quoting people out of context is a very pitifull strategy.
You know very well that NOT what either of us meant...But hey, that would require some actual though to be put into this.
Very well, because you insisted:
LobselVith8 wrote...
There are free mages; are you forgetting about the mages of the Mages Collective, who police themselves?
You mean the bunch full of blood mages and abominations that hires other people to take care of their mess?
Yes, very effective..especially given that they're so spread out, that by the time any action is taken, the blood mage/abomination has already done enough damage.
As for Emperor's comment about mages being property of the Chantry:
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Mages of the Collective might not be abominations currently, but that does not mean tehy are safe from possession. No matter how you put it, no matter which examples you bring forth, every mage everywhere is constantly under threat of possession. There is no use denying it. The lore states as much. So it stands to reason that some mages in the collective, at some point in the past or in the future might have been or will become abominations, and once that happens, the abomination won't be contained in a tower like circle mages, but it will be free somewhere on the countryside.
The amount of mages amongst the Dalish and the Cult of Andraste is so small that they would have few troubles with abominations to begin with, add to that that they probably can't control them, so they kill them. That is the sole reason we don't see abominations in those groups. Aside from the fact that they are rare to begin with. Just because we don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist or is somehow immune to possession.
Also, the Chantry owns all the Circles. If Ferelden were to expel the Templars and "free" the mages. It would basically be theft of Chantry "property", and borderline heretical. So of course that would result in an Exalted March against Ferelden.
You later supported this view:
tool_bot wrote...
Theft of Chantry property? No. It would be undermining their control and authority in an area they feel the Maker has given them complete control. And it would also be just another excuse to force a monarch in line.
Pharse it as you wish, it doesn't change what it is. The Cirlces are under Chatnry control and they run them. Ergo, they belong to the Chatnry.
#608
Posté 10 février 2011 - 06:03
Eclipse_9990
-
- Members
- 3 116 messages
Behindyounow wrote...
The normal Chantry I dislike.
The Imperial Chantry on the other hand...
For the Emperor! Everyone knows the Emperor was a
#609
Posté 10 février 2011 - 06:06
LobselVith8
-
- Members
- 16 993 messages
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...
What is clear is that the Tevinter civilization was overrun by barbarians, and those barbarians seized power themselves, invented their own crazy religion based around the wife of their leader, and then proceeded to shackle the mages. An improvement over the mages enslaving the barbarians? A matter of perspective.
[/quote]
Erm..the Maker isn't "new".
It was an old religion that was revived.
So those "barbarians" didn't invent anything. Belief in the Maker is older than belief in the Old Gods apparently.
[/quote]
Actually, we can see from the Cult of Andraste in Haven that mages weren't shackled because of Andraste - it's all an issue of how her teachings are interpreted. The Disciples of Andraste in Haven have mages being as free as the non-mages in their society, and Father Eirik (a mage wearing Reaper's Vestments) presides over the entire Haven Chantry.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
You mean you lie and make accusations that aren't true or call people stupid while Ian and others make valid arguments to contest what you say? Even Sir JK can make the argument for the Chantry without resorting to trolling or flaming people.[/quote]
I do not lie. And I do not make unfounded accusations. Simple as that.
Not to mention that all my arguments are valid..which is more than Icna say for yours. [/quote]
Yes, because you clearly never said that abominations were part of the Collective and I clearly made up how Emperor called mages property of the Chantry... unless we look at those quotes above that say otherwise.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
You do adore the Chantry, you've made that clear on multiple threads for over a year now. I don't see why you keep denying it.[/quote]
Becasue it's not true.
You just think it is becasue it fits with your limited worldview. [/quote]
You do think that mages belong to the Chantry, as I quoted you in the above post, so we clearly don't agree on the issues here. I think mages should be emancipated, and you think they should remain as property of the Chantry.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
You mean by calling me stupid, you're poking holes in my arguments? Or when you claimed that I called you a Chantry fanboy but never backed up any links to support it, and then admitted you lied about it? You clearly side with the Chantry all the time. I don't see why you keep denying it when anyone can see it's not true.[/quote]
So you mean you're not calling me pro-chantry and Chantry apologist?
Then what is it you are exactly doing right now?
Oh yes. Living in your own little world as always.
[/quote]
I am saying you're pro-Chantry, because you are. You, on the other hand, lied and said I called you a Chantry fanboy. I also don't see where I called you a Chantry apologist.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
My "good" man, anyone is free to read these threads...And anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can also clearly see I don't hold a strong position. [/quote]
Anyone can look at the above quotes from five months back and see you're still as pro-Chantry as you've ever been, in fact.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Coming from the guy who calls people names and has failed to back up his arguments with any lore, codex entries, or story examples...[/quote]
Oh? I had plenty of codex and lore examples. Not that you would register any of it trough your tinted glasses. [/quote]
You mean the History of the Circle codex, where we clearly see that imprisoning mages had nothing to do with blood magic or abominations?
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
You're welcome to your opinion, Lotion, but not to personally attack people for taking an opposing view. Sir JK supports the Chantry, and I honestly don't care; she's welcome to her opinion. I don't attack her for it like you do everyone who disagrees with the Chantry and the templars.[/quote]
Just you Lob...Just you.
And not because of your view...but because of your broken reasoning. [/quote]
Because you're a troll.
[quote]Spaghetti_Ninja wrote...
What is clear is that the Tevinter civilization was overrun by barbarians, and those barbarians seized power themselves, invented their own crazy religion based around the wife of their leader, and then proceeded to shackle the mages. An improvement over the mages enslaving the barbarians? A matter of perspective.
[/quote]
Erm..the Maker isn't "new".
It was an old religion that was revived.
So those "barbarians" didn't invent anything. Belief in the Maker is older than belief in the Old Gods apparently.
[/quote]
Actually, we can see from the Cult of Andraste in Haven that mages weren't shackled because of Andraste - it's all an issue of how her teachings are interpreted. The Disciples of Andraste in Haven have mages being as free as the non-mages in their society, and Father Eirik (a mage wearing Reaper's Vestments) presides over the entire Haven Chantry.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
You mean you lie and make accusations that aren't true or call people stupid while Ian and others make valid arguments to contest what you say? Even Sir JK can make the argument for the Chantry without resorting to trolling or flaming people.[/quote]
I do not lie. And I do not make unfounded accusations. Simple as that.
Not to mention that all my arguments are valid..which is more than Icna say for yours. [/quote]
Yes, because you clearly never said that abominations were part of the Collective and I clearly made up how Emperor called mages property of the Chantry... unless we look at those quotes above that say otherwise.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
You do adore the Chantry, you've made that clear on multiple threads for over a year now. I don't see why you keep denying it.[/quote]
Becasue it's not true.
You just think it is becasue it fits with your limited worldview. [/quote]
You do think that mages belong to the Chantry, as I quoted you in the above post, so we clearly don't agree on the issues here. I think mages should be emancipated, and you think they should remain as property of the Chantry.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
You mean by calling me stupid, you're poking holes in my arguments? Or when you claimed that I called you a Chantry fanboy but never backed up any links to support it, and then admitted you lied about it? You clearly side with the Chantry all the time. I don't see why you keep denying it when anyone can see it's not true.[/quote]
So you mean you're not calling me pro-chantry and Chantry apologist?
Then what is it you are exactly doing right now?
Oh yes. Living in your own little world as always.
[/quote]I am saying you're pro-Chantry, because you are. You, on the other hand, lied and said I called you a Chantry fanboy. I also don't see where I called you a Chantry apologist.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
My "good" man, anyone is free to read these threads...And anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together can also clearly see I don't hold a strong position. [/quote]
Anyone can look at the above quotes from five months back and see you're still as pro-Chantry as you've ever been, in fact.
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Coming from the guy who calls people names and has failed to back up his arguments with any lore, codex entries, or story examples...[/quote]
Oh? I had plenty of codex and lore examples. Not that you would register any of it trough your tinted glasses. [/quote]
You mean the History of the Circle codex, where we clearly see that imprisoning mages had nothing to do with blood magic or abominations?
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
You're welcome to your opinion, Lotion, but not to personally attack people for taking an opposing view. Sir JK supports the Chantry, and I honestly don't care; she's welcome to her opinion. I don't attack her for it like you do everyone who disagrees with the Chantry and the templars.[/quote]
Just you Lob...Just you.
And not because of your view...but because of your broken reasoning. [/quote]
Because you're a troll.
Modifié par LobselVith8, 10 février 2011 - 06:07 .
#610
Posté 10 février 2011 - 06:09
Augustei
-
- Members
- 3 923 messages
Eclipse_9990 wrote...
Behindyounow wrote...
The normal Chantry I dislike.
The Imperial Chantry on the other hand...
For the Emperor! Everyone knows the Emperor was amagepsyker.
Lies!
For the Glory, of Chaos!!
By Khorne it shall be done!
Chaos is to badass to not follow.. They have Eliphas!!
#611
Posté 10 février 2011 - 06:22
Eclipse_9990
-
- Members
- 3 116 messages
XxDeonxX wrote...
Eclipse_9990 wrote...
Behindyounow wrote...
The normal Chantry I dislike.
The Imperial Chantry on the other hand...
For the Emperor! Everyone knows the Emperor was amagepsyker.
Lies!
For the Glory, of Chaos!!
By Khorne it shall be done!
Chaos is to badass to not follow.. They have Eliphas!!
Pssh.. Khorne followers are just Jason Vorhees wannabe's. It's all about Tzeentch baby.
Edit - Damnit I forgot I was supporting the Emperor. I'm being influence by Chaos already.. Must resist..
Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 10 février 2011 - 06:24 .
#612
Posté 10 février 2011 - 06:55
Augustei
-
- Members
- 3 923 messages
Eclipse_9990 wrote...
XxDeonxX wrote...
Eclipse_9990 wrote...
Behindyounow wrote...
The normal Chantry I dislike.
The Imperial Chantry on the other hand...
For the Emperor! Everyone knows the Emperor was amagepsyker.
Lies!
For the Glory, of Chaos!!
By Khorne it shall be done!
Chaos is to badass to not follow.. They have Eliphas!!
Pssh.. Khorne followers are just Jason Vorhees wannabe's. It's all about Tzeentch baby.
Edit - Damnit I forgot I was supporting the Emperor. I'm being influence by Chaos already.. Must resist..
Bah! Beyond the Thousand Sons which yeah, are way more awesome then everything else in chaos (sept Eliphas) Khorne is way cooler
... Come to Chaos, We have cake! Chocolate...chip...icecream..cake =D
Modifié par XxDeonxX, 10 février 2011 - 06:56 .
#613
Posté 10 février 2011 - 07:01
Taleroth
-
- Members
- 9 136 messages
I rather dislike the chantry. Yeah yeah, Mages can become abominations. So what? It's not as if the chantry is the only organization in existence that can handle it. The Mages can create Templar like warriors from the commonfolk just the same without having to go around murdering unregistered mages who haven't done anything wrong and enslaving the rest.
Modifié par Taleroth, 10 février 2011 - 07:02 .
#614
Posté 10 février 2011 - 11:33
SpeakingInSilence
-
- Members
- 34 messages
Taleroth wrote...
I rather dislike the chantry. Yeah yeah, Mages can become abominations. So what? It's not as if the chantry is the only organization in existence that can handle it. The Mages can create Templar like warriors from the commonfolk just the same without having to go around murdering unregistered mages who haven't done anything wrong and enslaving the rest.
The problem with mage created templar is they would be biased towards the mages cause. Think about it. It would be like a group of farmers picking out a group of farmers to make sure farms don't pollute into the rivers. Why would that be a bad idea? Because the farmers aren't going to purposely limit themselves, they'd be hurting their profit. That is why studies in any field need to have an independant variable. It all goes along the same lines as check and balances in the U.S. government. How much more powerful would the circle of magi be if their templar would have been mages too?
I think you guys are trying to relate the Chantry to the Catholic church too much, when this world and Chantry is VERY different.
#615
Posté 11 février 2011 - 12:38
mauss
-
- Members
- 29 messages
I don't hate the Chantry, it's just a game. Would the game be as fun or interesting if there was no Chantry?
#616
Posté 11 février 2011 - 02:00
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
SpeakingInSilence wrote...
I think you guys are trying to relate the Chantry to the Catholic church too much, when this world and Chantry is VERY different.
Is it? Perhaps in basic theology (although many of the christ-like references shine through loud and clear when it comes to Andraste including betrayal, death, and divine ressurection), but the way the Chantry handles their polical affairs is almost a dead-ringer for the Midaevel Roman Cathlic Church. Frankly I strongly suspect it was meant to be.
-Polaris
#617
Posté 11 février 2011 - 02:07
October Sixth
-
- Members
- 660 messages
How about the Madiveal Rumon Cothalc Church?IanPolaris wrote...
Is it? Perhaps in basic theology (although many of the christ-like references shine through loud and clear when it comes to Andraste including betrayal, death, and divine ressurection), but the way the Chantry handles their polical affairs is almost a dead-ringer for the Midaevel Roman Cathlic Church. Frankly I strongly suspect it was meant to be.
-Polaris
#618
Posté 11 février 2011 - 02:44
Augustei
-
- Members
- 3 923 messages
IanPolaris wrote...
SpeakingInSilence wrote...
I think you guys are trying to relate the Chantry to the Catholic church too much, when this world and Chantry is VERY different.
Is it? Perhaps in basic theology (although many of the christ-like references shine through loud and clear when it comes to Andraste including betrayal, death, and divine ressurection), but the way the Chantry handles their polical affairs is almost a dead-ringer for the Midaevel Roman Cathlic Church. Frankly I strongly suspect it was meant to be.
-Polaris
Divine resurrection? Yeah... Andreste didn't have one of those.. Andreste can mirror all the other things if you simplify them extremely.. But in truth she mirrors the Muslim prophet Muhammad far more then she does Christ.
In fact, How is it a suprise she mirrors any of those things at all though.. Betrayal? Not exactly something that is extremely rare, especially in medieval times. Death.. Yeah thats never happened to anyone before. Divine Resurrection? Never happened
Were we playing the same game? How do they handle things the same? Please explainChantry handles their polical affairs is almost a dead-ringer for the Midaevel Roman Cathlic Church
Also I have another question for you, since you seem to see Similarities between the two. Does your view of the real life church effect your view of the chantry?
Modifié par XxDeonxX, 11 février 2011 - 02:53 .
#619
Posté 11 février 2011 - 03:20
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
XxDeonxX wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
SpeakingInSilence wrote...
I think you guys are trying to relate the Chantry to the Catholic church too much, when this world and Chantry is VERY different.
Is it? Perhaps in basic theology (although many of the christ-like references shine through loud and clear when it comes to Andraste including betrayal, death, and divine ressurection), but the way the Chantry handles their polical affairs is almost a dead-ringer for the Midaevel Roman Cathlic Church. Frankly I strongly suspect it was meant to be.
-Polaris
Divine resurrection? Yeah... Andreste didn't have one of those.. Andreste can mirror all the other things if you simplify them extremely.. But in truth she mirrors the Muslim prophet Muhammad far more then she does Christ.
In fact, How is it a suprise she mirrors any of those things at all though.. Betrayal? Not exactly something that is extremely rare, especially in medieval times. Death.. Yeah thats never happened to anyone before. Divine Resurrection? Never happened
Andraste was raised and seated at the right hand of the Maker. That is Pentecost. Also Andraste was the Divine Bride of the Maker. I agree the theology is arguable, but the effect really is not.
Were we playing the same game? How do they handle things the same? Please explainChantry handles their polical affairs is almost a dead-ringer for the Midaevel Roman Cathlic Church
Also I have another question for you, since you seem to see Similarities between the two. Does your view of the real life church effect your view of the chantry?
IRL I am an Atheist, and frankly the modern RCC is a very different sort of creature than the medaeval RCC anyway (for example the books you will find on the shelf of the office of a typical Parish Priest in the modern RCC would make that Priest a Heretic....with all the fun consequences thereof...in the midaeval version). [Point being that I don't care much about the modern RCC one way or the other.]
As for the rest, let's see: The Chantry has an organized priesthood and structure that is designed to permeate down to the very lowest level of society. Islam never had this (technically Islam doesn't have a priesthood). Divine==Pope, Grand-Cleric==Cardinal, and I am sure you can go down from there. Also like the midaeval RCC, the Chantry is a state and military power (Templars) in it's own right with a monopoly on the most game-changing ability of all in war....magic. Very similiar to the RCC with it's Papal States and Holy Orders of Knighood and even Bishops, Archbishops, and the like who didn't bother to answer to any local temporal authority. [Also like the RCC the chantry has it's scapegoats (Dalish, mages) while the RCC used Jews to be it's scapegoat among others]
Again, since it's a game, the parallels won't be perfect, but I see obvious correlations between the Chantry and the midaeval RCC and I believe we are meant to.
#621
Posté 11 février 2011 - 05:34
SpeakingInSilence
-
- Members
- 34 messages
Used
the Jews as a scape goat? No pope ever called a Crusade against Jews. During the First Crusade a large band of riffraff, not associated with the main army, descended on the towns of the Rhineland and decided to rob and kill the Jews they found there. In part this was pure greed. In part it also stemmed from the incorrect belief that the Jews, as the crucifiers of Christ, were legitimate targets of the war. Pope Urban II and subsequent popes strongly condemned these attacks on Jews. Local bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success. Similarly, during the opening phase of the Second Crusade a group of renegades killed many Jews in Germany before St. Bernard was able to catch up to them and put a stop to it. These misfires of the movement were an unfortunate by-product of Crusade enthusiasm, but they were not the purpose of the Crusades. To use a modern analogy, during the Second World War some American soldiers committed crimes while overseas. They were arrested and punished for those crimes. But the purpose of the Second World War was not to commit crimes.
Furthermore what started the events of the first crusade? It was the Byzantine Empire calling for aid because the Seljuk Turks were invading. The first crusade was won by the crusaders and there was a time of relative peace, but what caused the second crusade do you ask? It came as a response to the fall of the County of Edessa when the Seljuk Turks invaded. Shall I continue? Do you get the point? If anything much of the crusades were defensive wars against Muslim invaders.
Also once again... Andraste might of ascended into heaven, but so DID Muhammad. So did Budda, and so did countless prophets. What makes religious characters important is NOT the similarities but the differences. Christ never once raised arms against a foe. Christ did not simply ascend to heaven to sit at the right hand of god. He ascended into heaven because he was God. Trinity? Three in one? Three different functions yet all the same being, much like H2O. Solid, liquid, gas. Andraste was only a prophet, like Muhammad. Andraste used force to convert, like Mohammad. The Chantry structure is similar to the Catholic church, but their leader is vastly different.
the Jews as a scape goat? No pope ever called a Crusade against Jews. During the First Crusade a large band of riffraff, not associated with the main army, descended on the towns of the Rhineland and decided to rob and kill the Jews they found there. In part this was pure greed. In part it also stemmed from the incorrect belief that the Jews, as the crucifiers of Christ, were legitimate targets of the war. Pope Urban II and subsequent popes strongly condemned these attacks on Jews. Local bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success. Similarly, during the opening phase of the Second Crusade a group of renegades killed many Jews in Germany before St. Bernard was able to catch up to them and put a stop to it. These misfires of the movement were an unfortunate by-product of Crusade enthusiasm, but they were not the purpose of the Crusades. To use a modern analogy, during the Second World War some American soldiers committed crimes while overseas. They were arrested and punished for those crimes. But the purpose of the Second World War was not to commit crimes.
Furthermore what started the events of the first crusade? It was the Byzantine Empire calling for aid because the Seljuk Turks were invading. The first crusade was won by the crusaders and there was a time of relative peace, but what caused the second crusade do you ask? It came as a response to the fall of the County of Edessa when the Seljuk Turks invaded. Shall I continue? Do you get the point? If anything much of the crusades were defensive wars against Muslim invaders.
Also once again... Andraste might of ascended into heaven, but so DID Muhammad. So did Budda, and so did countless prophets. What makes religious characters important is NOT the similarities but the differences. Christ never once raised arms against a foe. Christ did not simply ascend to heaven to sit at the right hand of god. He ascended into heaven because he was God. Trinity? Three in one? Three different functions yet all the same being, much like H2O. Solid, liquid, gas. Andraste was only a prophet, like Muhammad. Andraste used force to convert, like Mohammad. The Chantry structure is similar to the Catholic church, but their leader is vastly different.
Modifié par SpeakingInSilence, 11 février 2011 - 05:37 .
#622
Posté 11 février 2011 - 05:38
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
Actually the blaming of Jews as the Betrayers of Christ was RCC doctrine until very, very recently, and there is even reason to believe that the Pope may have assisted the Axis against the Jews in WWII.
Just because a crusade was never called against Jews doesn't mean the RCC never scapegoated them. I also note you neglect my overall political point. I've already said the theology was different, but it's not the theology I am talking about. It's the polical power in the hands of an organized priesthood with a fully funded and able military arm.
-Polaris
Edit: You said, "The Chantry structure is similar to the Catholic church, but their leader is vastly different." I wouldn't say "vastly" different since many early (and heretical) sects of Christianity also denied the divinity of Jesus (see Gnostics) but I was talking about the POLICAL structure and you just admit the Chantry is structured much like the midaeval RCC...and IMHO is supposed to appeal to the same sort of imagery (complete with chants, cathedrals, 'graven images' of Andraste...ect, etc).
Just because a crusade was never called against Jews doesn't mean the RCC never scapegoated them. I also note you neglect my overall political point. I've already said the theology was different, but it's not the theology I am talking about. It's the polical power in the hands of an organized priesthood with a fully funded and able military arm.
-Polaris
Edit: You said, "The Chantry structure is similar to the Catholic church, but their leader is vastly different." I wouldn't say "vastly" different since many early (and heretical) sects of Christianity also denied the divinity of Jesus (see Gnostics) but I was talking about the POLICAL structure and you just admit the Chantry is structured much like the midaeval RCC...and IMHO is supposed to appeal to the same sort of imagery (complete with chants, cathedrals, 'graven images' of Andraste...ect, etc).
Modifié par IanPolaris, 11 février 2011 - 05:41 .
#623
Posté 11 février 2011 - 06:23
SpeakingInSilence
-
- Members
- 34 messages
I said," The Chantry structure is similar to the Catholic church, but their leader is vastly different." But you are saying I said the social structure is much like Catholic Church, not sure where you got that. Also, I'm aware of the Gnostic gospel. The Gnostic's were not this huge religious movement, a matter of fact, Gnosticism was more of a set of diverse, syncretistic religious movements in Late Antiquity consisting of various belief systems. It was by no chance the common belief, and would be along the same line as a fringe church.
It was RCC doctrine hu? Assisted the Axis, really? In 1939, the newly elected Pope Pius XII appointed several prominent Jewish scholars to posts at the Vatican after they had been dismissed from Italian universities under Fascist leader Benito Mussolini's racial laws(Dalin, 2005, p. 70). March 1944, through the papal nuncio in Budapest, Angelo Rotta, the pope urged the Hungarian government to moderate its treatment of the Jews.The pope also ordered Rotta and other papal legates to hide and shelter JewsDalin, 2005, p. 87–89. 477 Jews were hidden in the Vatican itself and another 4,238 were protected in Roman monasteries and convents ("The role of the Roman Catholic Church in the Shoah (**** Holocaust)". Religioustolerance.org. Retrieved 2009-05-06.)
And finally The Kaltenbrunner Report to Adolf Hitler dated November 29, 1944 on the background of the July 20, 1944 Plot to assassinate Hitler, states that the Pope was somehow a conspirator, specifically naming Eugenio Pacelli, Pope Pius XII, as being a party in the attempt.
The pope was in on a ploy to assassinate Hitler?! Well, that does sound like an organization that hates Jews.
It was RCC doctrine hu? Assisted the Axis, really? In 1939, the newly elected Pope Pius XII appointed several prominent Jewish scholars to posts at the Vatican after they had been dismissed from Italian universities under Fascist leader Benito Mussolini's racial laws(Dalin, 2005, p. 70). March 1944, through the papal nuncio in Budapest, Angelo Rotta, the pope urged the Hungarian government to moderate its treatment of the Jews.The pope also ordered Rotta and other papal legates to hide and shelter JewsDalin, 2005, p. 87–89. 477 Jews were hidden in the Vatican itself and another 4,238 were protected in Roman monasteries and convents ("The role of the Roman Catholic Church in the Shoah (**** Holocaust)". Religioustolerance.org. Retrieved 2009-05-06.)
And finally The Kaltenbrunner Report to Adolf Hitler dated November 29, 1944 on the background of the July 20, 1944 Plot to assassinate Hitler, states that the Pope was somehow a conspirator, specifically naming Eugenio Pacelli, Pope Pius XII, as being a party in the attempt.
The pope was in on a ploy to assassinate Hitler?! Well, that does sound like an organization that hates Jews.
Modifié par SpeakingInSilence, 11 février 2011 - 06:26 .
#624
Posté 11 février 2011 - 06:43
IanPolaris
-
- Members
- 9 650 messages
SpeakingInSilence,
Actually the RCC was less forgiving than other institutions in Italy w/r/t Jews, and frankly Pope Pious XII did not speak out againt German antisemitism to say the least. In fact there are some very dark rumors about the Pope in this regard. Also most of Italty including prominanent members of Benito's Facist Party were aghast the the racial laws passed under pressure from Germany. Anti-semitism never had the support in Italy that it had elsewhere in Europe, and the RCC did not do much to take a stand...something even JPII admitted much later (and this contraversy held up the beatification of Pious XII).
As for the rest, you need to review your RCC theology. The RCC until very recently has openly hated Jews as the betrayers of Christ. That is a simple fact. [As for opposing the Axis in 1944 when Rome was under allied oocupation, that's a real leap of moral courage....not!]
It also is completely besides the point. The Chanty despite it's somewhat different theology is clearly the DA analog of the midaeval RCC Church...and what matters here is not the theology but policial and social impact of that much social power in the hands of an organized priesthood.
-Polaris
Edit: See http://www.religious...g/vat_hol11.htm
The RCC changed it's official policy towards Jews but only in the last half of the 20th century.
http://www.religious...g/vat_hol13.htm
The above link specifically details the change in Theology by the RCC by Pope John-Paul II.
Actually the RCC was less forgiving than other institutions in Italy w/r/t Jews, and frankly Pope Pious XII did not speak out againt German antisemitism to say the least. In fact there are some very dark rumors about the Pope in this regard. Also most of Italty including prominanent members of Benito's Facist Party were aghast the the racial laws passed under pressure from Germany. Anti-semitism never had the support in Italy that it had elsewhere in Europe, and the RCC did not do much to take a stand...something even JPII admitted much later (and this contraversy held up the beatification of Pious XII).
As for the rest, you need to review your RCC theology. The RCC until very recently has openly hated Jews as the betrayers of Christ. That is a simple fact. [As for opposing the Axis in 1944 when Rome was under allied oocupation, that's a real leap of moral courage....not!]
It also is completely besides the point. The Chanty despite it's somewhat different theology is clearly the DA analog of the midaeval RCC Church...and what matters here is not the theology but policial and social impact of that much social power in the hands of an organized priesthood.
-Polaris
Edit: See http://www.religious...g/vat_hol11.htm
The RCC changed it's official policy towards Jews but only in the last half of the 20th century.
http://www.religious...g/vat_hol13.htm
The above link specifically details the change in Theology by the RCC by Pope John-Paul II.
Modifié par IanPolaris, 11 février 2011 - 06:48 .
#625
Posté 11 février 2011 - 09:03
Lotion Soronarr
-
- Members
- 14 481 messages
LobselVith8 wrote...
They didn't help during the Second Blight, but there's no proof any aid was requested. The Emerald Knights are there to guard the borders of the Dales, after all.
Orlias implies they did ask for help. Of coruse, they could be lying..
But the Blight IS a danger than threatens EVERYONE. Dales AND Orlais.
It would take extraordinarily stupid leaders on both sides to not ask/grant help.
If they didn't ask for help, what do you expect? If the Emerald Knights left their post, who would warn the people about any possible darkspawn armies marching towards the Dales?
If the Darkspawn destroyed the sorrounding nations, who would be left to help the Dales?
But again, there are people who are too enclosed in their own little world to see the big picture (like Loghain), so it is possible.....
LobselVith8 wrote...
As for defending themselves, it all depends on who started the war. And we don't really know.
I'd say you always have the right to defend your own city/home/family, regardless if your country was the one that started the war or not.
This paints Orlais negatively, but then again, this is only my oppinion and it's paints practicely every country in history negatively.
LobselVith8 wrote...
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Different circumstance. Ferelden isn't belowed or very powerull. But if 2 or 3 nations were to defy the Chantry...do you realyl think the Cahtnry could force them into submission? With what army? It only has templars, and they are not enough to wage a large war.
The Chantry relies on the military of other Andrastian nations. And an internal struge is the last thing anyone wants. Politics is very much like poker...a lot of bluffing and calculating risks.
The Chantry of Andraste has a symbiotic relationship with the Orlesian Empire. It's not dependent on other nations for anything. They control all the Circles throughout Thedas, and used mages to fight the Qunari armies during the New Exalted Marches.
Regardless what you think, the emperor of Orlais is not the puppet of the Chantry. At least there is no proof that it is so. And Orlais is still just one country.
Again, would the Divine (or any leader for that matter) risk a large internal war that would weaken Andrastian nations, just for the sake of the Dalish? From a political/pragmatical standpoint, it is a delicate situation.
And the Chatnry doesn't directly command mages into war.
LobselVith8 wrote...
I don't suspect or infer the murder of D'Sims at the hands of the templars - it happened. I don't suspect or infer the templars placing a bounty on Morrigan due to their suspicions of her being a blood mage - it happened. Anieirin was nearly killed because he was labelled as maleficar, and there's no evidence that he ever was or is one. We also know First Enchanter Irving had no say and didn't see the evidence against Jowan. You are welcome to believe that the Chantry and the Order of Templars are in the right, but I don't see it.
You have no specific on the D'Sims case - you don't know exactly what happened.
You got no proof templars got no proof on Morrigan. This was covered before and your claims were debunked.
You go no proof Aenerin WASN'T a maleficar (other than he sez he wasn't one)
And most importantly, you got NO proof that the Aenerin and D'Sims cases (assuming templars are 100% guilty in both) are not an exception.
You got no proof Irwing wasn't allowd to see evidence - all we know is that he didn't see it YET. Nor do we know the exact procedure.
So no..you got NO evidence. No proof.
You got NOTHING.
Call me when you get some real proof.
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The only one constantly vering off-topic and not providing any proof is you.
I don't make accusations against the mages or dalish. I simply poke hols in your arguments. Since I'm not trying to prove that the Chantry is undeniably right, I'm showing that your theory that is it undeinably wrong is incorrect.
And since you have no actual proof, all I need to do is provide alternate explanations for some of the facts. The ver existance of those alternate explanations undermines your claims.
You don't poke holes in the arguments. You fan fic that D'Sims was so dangerous when he pretended to heal people that armored templars had to kill him. You fan fic that Morrigan could secretly be a blood mage in order to justify the bounty on her in Witch Hunt. You fan fic how Aneirin is secretly a maleficar and hiding it from every Dalish clan member. All you do is provide speculation in leui of evidence. You claim it's necessary for mages to be imprisoned, but we see that the inception of their imprisonment had nothing to do with protecting innocents from mages (History of the Circle codex) and even the limitations placed on magic and the establishment of the Circle had to do with Emperor Drakon's religious beliefs (History of the Chantry Part Four).
So any alternate explanation that fits with know facts that you don't like is a "fanfic".
I ask you again:
PROVE to me that D'Sims didn't act suspiciously or rashly (like pulling a knife or trying to bluff/scare templrs into backing off)
PROVE to me that the Tempalrs don't have any evidence on Morrigan. We know she is fully capable of using what they would label blood magic.
Proof, proof, proof.... I aks it again and again, you provide none whatsoever.
If you cannot provide it, then stop claiming your theories are facts. They are not.
Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Get it into your thick skull. I'm not pro-Chantry. I'm anti- YOU.
But since you contantly take an anti-Chantry side you will find me arguing agasint you.
I don't condone imprisoning innocent people because of what they may do, especially in an oppressive system many seem to be fighting against.
In general, netiher do I. But this is not the real world, and mages don't exist here.
Governments imprison people if they deem it necessary.
You say people cannot be imprisoned based on potential.
They can if that potential for danger/damage gets too high. You may call that system immoral, but isn't it also immoral and irresponsible to let the mages roam free?
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. It's how the world operates.
