1019 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The Dales had mages? What the hell does THAT have to do with anything???? [/quote]

A nation of mages and non-mages disproves the idea that mages in power will always lead to the Tevinter Imperium.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And no, we DON'T know what you claim. As always, full of BS. [/quote]

Here's an idea: act like an adult. Try to keep your composure when engaging in dialogue with other people, even if they don't share your particular perspective.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

A few interesting things to note... [/quote]

You mean a summary of events that doesn't support your claim that Orlais asked the Dales for help against the darkspawn? We already know that the Dales wanted nothing to do with humanity because of their prior history as slaves to humanity, and that there's no evidence that anybody from the Orlesian Empire asked the Dalish elves to help them against the Blight.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

And if the Dalish were defending their family, then they had the right to fight back against Orlesian armies and the templars. Again, it depends on who started the war.[/quote]

You miss the obvious and repeat what I already said. [/quote]

You mean the very point I brought up in the first place?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I never claimed the Emperor or Empress were a puppet to the Divine, but the Chantry does have a relationship with the Empire. The Chantry supported the occupation of Ferelden, after all. So far you've failed to prove that the Chantry calling a "holy war" against an enemy would be out of their hands, especially when we see that the end result was elves being converted to the Chantry. [/quote]

And you have failed to provide ANY prrof that the Chantry did have full control over the war. Common sense and historical precedents dictate that it isn't the case however.
You got several nations involved in a time where communications are extreemly slow and tensions are high. [/quote]

You have the Chantry of Andraste leading a holy war against the Dales because of a war they may have started with the Dalish. There's also no historical precedents of the Chantry not being in charge of the Exalted Marches they've lead against others, from the Tevinter Imperium to the Qunari. In fact, Genitivi's codex about the New Exalted Marches places responsibility for the use of mages with the Chantry. "Faced with cannons, the Chantry responded with lightning and balls of fire and it proved effective indeed." Also, "As each year passed, the Chantry pushed further and further into the qunari lines." Clearly, your notion that the Chantry isn't in control of the Exalted Marches doesn't match reality.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

We know D'Sims was murdered by tempars who thought he was a mage, and we know that he wasn't a mage. A regular person isn't a threat to armored soldiers, especially when he's carrying a staff he can't use.
We know Morrigan has displayed no blood magic abilities, so it doesn't seem likely anyone would think she is a blood mage.
We have no proof Aneirin was a maleficar, and nobody treats it as fact.
And most importantly, Lotion, you have no proof to back up your assertions that the templars were innocent.
Furthermore, Irving said he didn't see the evidence, and the Rite of Tranquility was already signed.[/quote]

D'Sims was killed, but YOU DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS. So shut up about it already. [/quote]

We know a person was killed because the templars thought he was a mage. And try to act like an adult if you're going to engage me in discussion, Lotion.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You're too entrentched into your position ot even thinks. A regular person is no threat to a templar? Or really? Are daggers uddenly harmles? And let's not forget that the temaprs THOUGHT he was a maleficar. If he thretened them or did a sudden move - anything resembling magic - it isn't uncocievable that the templars reacted.
After all, you dont' have to have a gun for a ploice officer to shoot you. If you have something that resembles a gun and so some rapid movements, a ploice officer may panic and shoot. That would be an act of self-defense. Actually a terrible mistake, but the police officer is still somewhat justified. [/quote]

D'Sims pretended to heal people, Lotion. That's the simple fact you're leaving out - he pretended he had the power to heal the sick. The templars thought he was healing people, and he ended up with his head cut off. Regardless of what they thought, they could have used their magic disabiling abiltiies to nullify any movements that they could have interpreted to be based on magic.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

We KNOW Morrigan displayed magic SHE HERSELF claims poeple would label as blood magic.

I don't even need to repeat myself on the others. You got no proof. You got assertions. You got theories. Fantasises. Fanfiction! [/quote]

It's not fantasy to point out Morrigan displays no blood magic abilities like Jowan or the blood mage revolutonaries do.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

None of the facts that we know support your assertions and defense of the templars, that's the problem. D'Sims couldn't have been so dangerous that he had to be killed by armored soldiers, because he was a carrying a staff that he couldn't use. Morrigan never displays any blood magic abilities during DA:O or Witch Hunt.[/quote]

Wrong on both acounts. Read above for both.
Epic fail. [/quote]

The only failure to provide any proof to support their arguments is yours. You ignore the codex entries that explain the Circle's history and come up with your own fanwanking to explain the information we're provided.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Lobselvith8 wrote...

The nation of Rivain, the Chasind tribes, and the Dalish clans don't imprison mages. Clearly, there are alternatives to what the Chantry does, and there's no proof what the Chantry does is necessary.[/quote]

Those nations also seem to have fewer mages AND have to deal with the death and destruction of abomination ramapges (that, or they let templars take care of their abominations). That is neither better by any stretch, nor is it anything the people would accept. [/quote]

More speculation on your part being used as fact. We have no information on how many mages are residing in Rivain, only that their traditions have lasted for a milennia.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 11 février 2011 - 06:08 .

[IanPolaris]

SpeakinginSilence,

The only reference to the OLD (as in not current) Roman Catholic Church was that they used Jews as scapegoats much in the same way that the Chantry in DA uses Mages (and Dalish Elves) as scapegoats.  That was all.  Point in fact my links proved I was totally correct about the former RCC theology towards the Jews if you'd bother to read them.

That's all.  Any further discussions of real religion outside the context of DA should be taken elsewhere I think.

-Polaris

[SpeakingInSilence]

Ooh, how they hate the Chantry yet do they do the board quest? I think they do!

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Knight-Commander Greagoir prevented any further mages from participating in Ostagar, only allowing seven mages to stop the darkspawn in spite of the King's request for more mages, and this very issue can be brought up by a Warden from the Circle of Magi who says that the Circle will do what the Chantry tells it to do - to which Alistair replies that "technically" the Circle is independent (which he clearly knows is b.s., further proved by the existance of the Magi boon that asks for the Circle to be given independence) and that they don't know the Chantry won't agree to help them.

The Knight-Commander can approve requests to go outside of the Circle, but he cannot order mages to war.

We know that the Circle of Magi was used to battle the Qunari during the New Exalted Marches, but we don't know whether the mages had any choice in the matter:

"The greatest advantage that the Chantry-led forces had against the qunari was, in fact, the Circle of Magi. For all their technology, the qunari appeared to harbor a great hatred for all things magical. They possessed mages, but these were little better than animals kept on leashes… and none of the qunari mages possessed anywhere near the skill that the Circle’s mages had. Faced with cannons, the Chantry responded with lightning and balls of fire and it proved effective indeed. For all the force that the qunari armies had brought to bear on the north, they also lacked the sheer numbers of the humans. As each year passed, the Chantry pushed further and further into the qunari lines. Dealing with those of the local populace which had converted to the qunari religion proved difficult, especially as some of these had lived under the qun now for generations, and the response by many armies was simply to exterminate all those who had converted. Officially the Chantry denies this, claiming most converts fled north into Rivain and Par Vollen, but the mass graves at Nocen Fields and Marnus Pell attest otherwise. Indeed, so many were slain at Marnus Pell that the Veil is said to be permanently sundered, the ruins still plagued by restless corpses to this day. Regardless of how it was done, by 7:84 Storm Age the Qunari had been well and truly pushed back."

[IanPolaris]

SpeakingInSilence wrote...

Ooh, how they hate the Chantry yet do they do the board quest? I think they do!

You've never done a job or a job worth doing for a 'boss' you hated?

Please.

Chantry board quests are just merc jobs.  You pick and choose the worthy ones.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I said the Circles are under Chantry control..And the Circles (institution) are effectively their property (or domain).Where exactly am I lying?

Because you left out Emperor's comment entirely, and tool_bot was responding that mages weren't property of the Chantry. This is what Emperor wrote:

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.

tool_bot responded that emancipating the mages wouldn't be theft of Chantry property, and you clearly supported Emperor's position on the matter:

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

I don't see how you can pretend that your response to tool_bot's assertion that mages aren't property of the Chantry was anything but a defense for Emperor's position that mages belong to the Chantry.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 11 février 2011 - 06:27 .

[LobselVith8]

earl of the north wrote...

The whole D'sims thing sparked my interest since I couldn't recall ever seeing it in any codex......anyway chased it down.

The Magnificent D'Sims was an elven "healer" who "cured" hayseeds of nonexistent ailments. Even though it was all a scam, the templars declared him apostate and took off his head. Oddly, his staff turned out to be genuinely enchanted.

So the only facts seem to be.....D'Sims was a elf conning the poorest in society (probably Fereldan but not stated) out of what little they had....how he conned them is unclear, smooth talking, poisoning them with herbs, drugging the water supply, selling a cure all tonic?

Also no date or locations mentioned so he could have been killed in any Andrastrian nation at any point in their history.

So these Templars have an elf claiming to cure the sick, in possession of magic staff and either a mob of angry peasants or peasants telling them how this magnificent elf performed miracles and cured them......probably leading to a unsurprising result.

Not really a damning example of the evils of the Templars/Chantry really is it...........a criminal lowlife preying on the weekest of Andrastian society, conning himself to his own death.

In other words, it's all right that the templars murdered him under the mistaken impression that he was a mage who people thought was healing the sick, because in reality he wasn't a nice man?

[Augustei]

Well he could have been condemned for a different crime with the same sentence anyway.. Death wanted D'Sims and was going to claim him regardless of whether the chantry got involved or not

Similar case with morrigan.

She got accused of doing a crime she didn't commit.. But she did commit a crime that does give the Chantry the right of high justice.
She was a Maleficar and not a blood mage as the chantry claimed.. But both sentences end in death by Templars anyway.

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 11 février 2011 - 06:37 .

[LobselVith8]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Well he could have been condemned for a different crime with the same sentence anyway.. Death wanted D'Sims and was going to claim him regardless of whether the chantry got involved or not

It's a deadly example of how a person can get killed because the templars make an assumption that the person is an illegal mage.

[earl of the north]

LobselVith8 wrote...

In other words, it's all right that the templars murdered him under the mistaken impression that he was a mage who people thought was healing the sick, because in reality he wasn't a nice man?

No, no 'in other words'....the only facts are he was a conman, pretending to be a mage to rob from the poor, templars believed him and he was killed.

Modifié par earl of the north, 11 février 2011 - 06:45 .

[earl of the north]

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's a deadly example of how a person can get killed because the templars make an assumption that the person is an illegal mage.

It is a deadly example of the 'Darwin Awards', a man doing something really, really dumb and getting himself killed there by improving the gene pool.

Modifié par earl of the north, 11 février 2011 - 06:56 .

[SpeakingInSilence]

IanPolaris wrote...

SpeakinginSilence,

The only reference to the OLD (as in not current) Roman Catholic Church was that they used Jews as scapegoats much in the same way that the Chantry in DA uses Mages (and Dalish Elves) as scapegoats.  That was all.  Point in fact my links proved I was totally correct about the former RCC theology towards the Jews if you'd bother to read them.

That's all.  Any further discussions of real religion outside the context of DA should be taken elsewhere I think.

-Polaris

You
mean... your link from a sight which was an not even Catholic or
Jewish in nature? You mean the site that are experts in Catholicism
Dogma? No, you didn't prove anything man. Through my four links to
people who are in fact experts, including Thomas Madden who probably
is one of the leading experts in the field. Say you're wrong wrong
wrong. Their old and NEW doctrine was not to use Jews as scapegoats,
ever. What you are are doing is taking localized hatred for Jews, and
saying the entire Catholic church supported this. This is the same
logic that says the crusaders were a bunch of crazed men fighting for
loot and booty. Which is not the case at all.
Here is a decent
website http://www.newadvent...then/08399a.htm which
talks about the History of Judaism and it's relationship with
Christianity. Once again you fail to acknowledge Pope Pius action in
protecting Jews which I supplied to you by AICE
(American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise's). What I'm saying is I
absolutely proved you wrong. The Catholic Church never used Jews as
scapegoats. 

Now to one by one pick apart what the
website you supplied says.

1. One of the sources supplied was,
"The Bible tells me So", having read the book I'll go as
far to say the book is not a reasonable source at all. This book is
chalked full of horrible logic. He intends to discredit the entire
Judeo-Christian scriptures because of those in the past who have
abused them out of context to justify whatever they desire to
justify. Any document can be taken out its own sitz im leben (social
context) and used improperly to justify one's own ills. He further
tries to show contradictions by taking specific passages outside of
their context.

2. The Spanish Inquisition though a horrible
blight on the Church’s history has some new data being surfaced
shows it wasn't as bad as we once
though. http://old.nationalr...00406181026.asp .http://news.bbc.co.u...ope/3809983.stm .
3.
Then the dates they have from 1933-1945 have nothing at all to do
with the Catholic Church, and I already proved that the Pope took
steps in helping the Jews during that time.




I
do however love the fact your site makes a note that said many popes
try to stop the violence but they are ineffective. So it shows that
the hatred of Jews was more at the local level then it was in the
Holy See. Several Black sheep in a family doesn't deem that family
wicked.

[LobselVith8]

earl of the north wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

In other words, it's all right that the templars murdered him under the mistaken impression that he was a mage who people thought was healing the sick, because in reality he wasn't a nice man?

No, no 'in other words'....the only facts are he was a conman, pretending to be a mage to rob from the poor, templars believed him and he was killed.

You're ignoring that they had no proof he was a mage, and their suspicions for going after him were that he was healing people. That's the reason he got his head cut off. I don't see why we should excuse it because D'Sims was a conman.

[LobselVith8]

earl of the north wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's a deadly example of how a person can get killed because the templars make an assumption that the person is an illegal mage.

It is a deadly example of the 'Darwin Awards', a man doing something really, really dumb and getting himself killed there by improving the gene pool.

It's an example of how dangerous it is for templars to even think someone is a mage if all it takes is mere suspicion and heresay to get someone killed. But D'Sims wasn't a nice guy, apparently, so I suppose that makes it all right that he was murdered.

[earl of the north]

LobselVith8 wrote...

You're ignoring that they had no proof he was a mage, and their suspicions for going after him were that he was healing people. That's the reason he got his head cut off. I don't see why we should excuse it because D'Sims was a conman.

It's an example of how dangerous it is for templars to even think someone is a mage if all it takes is mere suspicion and heresay to get someone killed. But D'Sims wasn't a nice guy, apparently, so I suppose that makes it all right that he was murdered.

No, He was actively pretending to be a mage, conning poor people by pretending to heal them......so strangely the Templars 'apparently' thought he was a mage.

The Magnificent D'Sims was an elven "healer" who "cured" hayseeds of nonexistent ailments.

He wasn't healing anybody.


As an example.......try pretending your a gunman to some police officers and there is a good chance you'll get your ass blown away, just as if you pretend your a mage in Thedas, there is a good chance you'll get killed by Templars.
 

Modifié par earl of the north, 11 février 2011 - 08:08 .

[SpeakingInSilence]

earl of the north wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You're ignoring that they had no proof he was a mage, and their suspicions for going after him were that he was healing people. That's the reason he got his head cut off. I don't see why we should excuse it because D'Sims was a conman.

It's an example of how dangerous it is for templars to even think someone is a mage if all it takes is mere suspicion and heresay to get someone killed. But D'Sims wasn't a nice guy, apparently, so I suppose that makes it all right that he was murdered.

No, He was actively pretending to be a mage, conning poor people by pretending to heal them......so strangely the Templars 'apparently' thought he was a mage.

The Magnificent D'Sims was an elven "healer" who "cured" hayseeds of nonexistent ailments.

He wasn't healing anybody.


As an example.......try pretending your a gunman to some police officers and there is a good chance you'll get your ass blown away, just as if you pretend your a mage in Thedas, there is a good chance you'll get killed by Templars.
 

Good point, you also have to add in he had an enchanted staff! He might've not known how to use it, but that would be like your analogy of someone pretending to be a gunmen with a gun!

[LobselVith8]

earl of the north wrote...

No, He was actively pretending to be a mage, conning poor people by pretending to heal them......so strangely the Templars 'apparently' thought he was a mage.

Yeah, apparently he was so dangerous when he pretended to heal people that they cut off his head. I suppose doing some work to find out whether he was an actual mage or not isn't relevant to you?

earl of the north wrote...

He wasn't healing anybody.

I'm certain you have a point with that comment, but I don't see it. So what? He was elven. Did he have a grudge against humanity for the loss of the Dales and the enslavement of the elves of Arlathan? Does it even matter when the fact is that he wasn't a mage, and was killed because the templars thought he was healing people? Should we simply ignore that the templars killed him because they made a mistake?

earl of the north wrote...

As an example.......try pretending your a gunman to some police officers and there is a good chance you'll get your ass blown away, just as if you pretend your a mage in Thedas, there is a good chance you'll get killed by Templars.

So instead of doing any detective work to find out if this person was actually a mage or not, like Ser Otto when he was investigating the Alienage, they killed him. Instead of mages having basic rights, they get killed - maybe you fail to see the problem, but killing people because you think the person is a mage is a serious flaw with the system to me.

[LobselVith8]

SpeakingInSilence wrote...

Good point, you also have to add in he had an enchanted staff! He might've not known how to use it, but that would be like your analogy of someone pretending to be a gunmen with a gun!

The point would make more sense if we all forgot that templars have the power to disable magical ability, too...

[earl of the north]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Yeah, apparently he was so dangerous when he pretended to heal people that they cut off his head. I suppose doing some work to find out whether he was an actual mage or not isn't relevant to you?

We have no idea what work if any was done, we have a two line bit of lore. In which he is shown to be pretending to be something that carries a death sentence and got himself killed.

I'm certain you have a point with that comment, but I don't see it. So what? He was elven. Did he have a grudge against humanity for the loss of the Dales and the enslavement of the elves of Arlathan? Does it even matter when the fact is that he wasn't a mage, and was killed because the templars thought he was healing people? Should we simply ignore that the templars killed him because they made a mistake?

It was a reply to your.......

You're ignoring that they had no proof he was a mage, and their suspicions for going after him were that he was healing people.

The lore is pretty clear, he caused his death by being a conman pretending to be a apostate mage healer.

So instead of doing any detective work to find out if this person was actually a mage or not, like Ser Otto when he was investigating the Alienage, they killed him. Instead of mages having basic rights, they get killed - maybe you fail to see the problem, but killing people because you think the person is a mage is a serious flaw with the system to me.

Again, no evidence either way and since D'Sims was actively pretending to be a mage there would be lots of evidence to convict him......all those poor villagers he conned.

Modifié par earl of the north, 11 février 2011 - 08:47 .

[earl of the north]

This is all we know about D'Sims....

The Magnificent D'Sims was an elven "healer" who "cured" hayseeds of nonexistent ailments. Even though it was all a scam, the templars declared him apostate and took off his head. Oddly, his staff turned out to be genuinely enchanted.

We know he was elven

We know he was a conman

We know he was pretending to be a Mage.

We know the Templars declared him to be an apostate (he was apparently a good conman)

We know the Templars chopped his head off

We know he had a geniune magic staff



Should he have been killed by the Templars, probably not but its his own con apparently that made the Templars think he was an apostate. Which legally gives the Templars the right to kill him, case closed, no right to appeal and last minute reprieves from the Arl.



The argument of whether the Templars should have the legal right to kill apostate mages is a different one, but it seems in Fereldan at least you can be executed for theft (Awakenings) so yes, D'Sims was probably dead either way once caught either he was a mage (Templars) or he was a thief (local Lord), either one he seems to be totally *bleeped* at that point.

[LobselVith8]

earl of the north wrote...

We have no idea what work if any was done, we have a two line bit of lore. In which he is shown to be pretending to be something that carries a death sentence and got himself killed.

He pretended he could heal people, and got killed for it. That's why some people have a problem with the Chantry.

earl of the north wrote...

The lore is pretty clear, he caused his death by being a conman pretending to be a apostate mage healer.

He got killed by templars who thought he was a mage, and I find that to be a problem that mere suspicion can get someone killed. A core problem that people have with the Chantry is their treatment of mages, which is why the murder of the Magnificent D'Sims is mentioned along with the Rite of Tranquility, the bounty on Morrigan, Aneirin's near death at the hands of templars when there's no evidence to support he was a maleficar and none of the characters treat it as such, and the Chantry's own history revealing that mages were isolated from society because of a protest they held in a cathedral. You're welcome to think D'Sims deserved to get killed for the crime of pretending he could heal people, but I find it to be a serious flaw with the Chantry and the templars when a person can get killed for heresay.

earl of the north wrote...

Again, no evidence either way and since D'Sims was actively pretending to be a mage there would be lots of evidence to convict him......all those poor villagers he conned.

Given that we don't know who he conned, it doesn't matter - he wasn't charged with fraud, he was killed because the templars cut off his head for the crime of healing people. Doesn't matter whether he actually did it or not, but that's why they killed him. Clearly you have no issue with this, but I do.

[LobselVith8]

earl of the north wrote...

This is all we know about D'Sims....

The Magnificent D'Sims was an elven "healer" who "cured" hayseeds of nonexistent ailments. Even though it was all a scam, the templars declared him apostate and took off his head. Oddly, his staff turned out to be genuinely enchanted.

We know he was elven
We know he was a conman
We know he was pretending to be a Mage.
We know the Templars declared him to be an apostate (he was apparently a good conman)
We know the Templars chopped his head off
We know he had a geniune magic staff

Besides your attempt to police this thread and tell people what they should and shouldn't argue, is there a point to this debate? Everybody already knew that the Magnificent D'Sims wasn't a mage, pretended to be one, and he got killed. We know that the armed and armored templars have the ability to disrupt magic, too, but he still ended up dead, so I fail to see the point. Were they afraid that he was going to heal them, too? Is there a point to this debate? Because I don't see it.

earl of the north wrote...

Should he have been killed by the Templars, probably not but its his own con apparently that made the Templars think he was an apostate. Which legally gives the Templars the right to kill him, case closed, no right to appeal and last minute reprieves from the Arl.

You're welcome not to care, and I find this debate tedious and pointless, but I fail to see why the case of a person being killed on heresay shouldn't be mentioned, especially when his crime was that templars thought he was healing people.

earl of the north wrote...

The argument of whether the Templars should have the legal right to kill apostate mages is a different one, but it seems in Fereldan at least you can be executed for theft (Awakenings) so yes, D'Sims was probably dead either way once caught either he was a mage (Templars) or he was a thief (local Lord), either one he seems to be totally *bleeped* at that point.

Again, I fail to see the point of you dragging out this topic. D'Sims was killed because the templars made a mistake. If they made it once, maybe they made it before. Killing someone for something that turns out not to be true is something I find to be a problem. That's the entire reason D'Sims is mentioned at all - he was killed by templars who wrongly thought he was a mage. Nobody ever forgot to reference that he wasn't a mage or that he pretended to be a mage, but nobody also forgot to mention that he was killed because the templars had it all wrong, either.

[Braag]

Eh.. not really. They seem really ignorant.

And I don't even play a mage, tho I'm considering to make a mage Hawke in DA2.

Modifié par Braag, 11 février 2011 - 09:14 .

[earl of the north]

LobselVith8 wrote...

He pretended he could heal people, and got killed for it. That's why some people have a problem with the Chantry.

He pretended he was an apostate healer, conned 'hayseeds' and was killed because the Templars believed him......who the hell would be dumb enough to pretend to be an apostate mage?   Well apart from D'Sims.

He got killed by templars who thought he was a mage, and I find that to be a problem that mere suspicion can get someone killed.

There would be more than enough evidence since he was actively creating that fake evidence himself and again we have no idea how much investigating if any was done.

 You're welcome to think D'Sims deserved to get killed for the crime of pretending he could heal people, but I find it to be a serious flaw with the Chantry and the templars when a person can get killed for heresay.

There isn't a CSI Thedas you know, hearsay is all you get in awakenings to decide whether you should execute a suspected thief and a suspected murderer.......this isn't the real world were talking about, your not innocent until proven quilty and you don't have a right to an attorney (are there any lawyer in Thedas?).

Given that we don't know who he conned, it doesn't matter - he wasn't charged with fraud, he was killed because the templars cut off his head for the crime of healing people. Doesn't matter whether he actually did it or not, but that's why they killed him. Clearly you have no issue with this, but I do.

No, but we do know he was a conman, we know he was caught and we know that (assuming its the same as awakenings) he was facing a death sentence either way......so beheading or hanging my good man.


Also, no I've no real issue with a fictional account of a conman who came to sticky end, in a fictional world........strange that.

Modifié par earl of the north, 11 février 2011 - 09:33 .

[earl of the north]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Besides your attempt to police this thread and tell people what they should and shouldn't argue, is there a point to this debate? Everybody already knew that the Magnificent D'Sims wasn't a mage, pretended to be one, and he got killed. We know that the armed and armored templars have the ability to disrupt magic, too, but he still ended up dead, so I fail to see the point. Were they afraid that he was going to heal them, too? Is there a point to this debate? Because I don't see it.

Hmmm.....lets see.

Could you point out where i've attempted to police this thread or told anybody what they should and shouldn't argue?

You're welcome not to care, and I find this debate tedious and pointless, but I fail to see why the case of a person being killed on heresay shouldn't be mentioned, especially when his crime was that templars thought he was healing people.

Then feel free not to contibute to the debate......I'll just re-read the thousand of post where you tediously repeated the same points over and over and over and over.

Again, I fail to see the point of you dragging out this topic. D'Sims was killed because the templars made a mistake. If they made it once, maybe they made it before. Killing someone for something that turns out not to be true is something I find to be a problem. That's the entire reason D'Sims is mentioned at all - he was killed by templars who wrongly thought he was a mage. Nobody ever forgot to reference that he wasn't a mage or that he pretended to be a mage, but nobody also forgot to mention that he was killed because the templars had it all wrong, either.

You mentioned the 'healer' D'Sims repeatedly as an innocent victim of the Templars, you kinda forgot to mention the conman and the bringing his fate onto himself bit quite a lot.

Sorry for pointing out the D'SIms part of your argument is a tiny bit weak all things considered.

Modifié par earl of the north, 11 février 2011 - 09:34 .