1019 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

earl of the north wrote...

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.

By the Maker, you're right! He pretended he could heal people! Thank the Maker the templars killed him!

Junri wrote...

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 right yet again! It's not like templars have the power to disrupt magic or anything like that... they had to kill him! They thought he was healing people!

Junri wrote...

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?).

Right yet again, it's not like we ever see templars investigate suspected maleficar activity or anything... certainly not in the Alienage, and certainly not by Ser Otto, of course...

Junri wrote...

No, but we do know he was a conman, we know he was caught and we know that either way (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.  

Thank goodness the templars murdered him! To imagine, they thought he was healing people! What next, maybe they thought he would cure the blind or something! Thankfully they don't let facts get in the way of killing someone.

[LobselVith8]

earl of the north wrote...

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.

Did you have help coming up with something so witty? I wish you put as much effort into your actual arguments as you do your snide remarks.

earl of the north wrote...

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.  

Please don't lie about what I've said or not said. I've addressed it several times in three different threads about mages and the Chantry. I addressed that he was elven and that he pretended to heal people, and got killed for it. Lotion and Emperor have also referenced this in debate and argued that he could have had a knife in response to the fact that he wasn't an actual mage and only pretending to be one; I didn't forget to mention anything.

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

Sorry for pointing out what? That the templars didn't do their job and murdered him because they frakked up? Yeah, wow, what an argument you have.

[earl of the north]

Ah Lob, if only you could live up to your own rules......hold off on the snide comments to me and i'll do the same, but don't take a swing and then act outraged when the other guy swings back.


I'm not arguing the Templars were right to kill D'Sims, I'm arguing that its an inevitable consequence to his actions.......being an apostate mage is a sentence of death in the Andrastrian nations (right or wrong) and he took that risk to fleece innocents and died for it.

I therefore do not view D'Sims as an 'Innocent' victim, just a truly foolish man who provided more than enough false evidence to justify his death.

Now Wynne pupil is an innocent victim, but legally the Templars are totally justified in killing him as well (even if they only wounded him in reality).

Modifié par earl of the north, 11 février 2011 - 09:59 .

[earl of the north]

Also could you point out anywhere that I said the Templars HAD to kill D'Sims, we only know he was killed (beheading), not when this happened, for all we know there was a trial where lots and lots of villagers pointed out the man who magically 'healed' them.
 
There is no evidence either way as to how D'Sims died.....immediately upon capture or after a lengthy trial.


PS What the hell is the Junri thing you added to my quotes?

Modifié par earl of the north, 11 février 2011 - 10:14 .

[LobselVith8]

earl of the north wrote...

Ah Lob, if only you could live up to your own rules......hold off on the snide comments to me and i'll do the same, but don't take a swing and then act outraged when the other guy swings back.  

We got off on the wrong foot, let's start over.

earl of the north wrote...

I'm not arguing the Templars were right to kill D'Sims, I'm arguing that its an inevitable consequence to his actions.......being an apostate mage is a sentence of death in the Andrastrian nations (right or wrong) and he took that risk to fleece innocents and died for it.

Killing D'Sims on heresay is a dangerous precedent, that's the problem. He was killed because templars thought he was a mage. They have anti-magic capabilities intended to nullify magical ability, and D'Sims still got his head cut off.

earl of the north wrote...

I therefore do not view D'Sims as an 'Innocent' victim, just a truly foolish man who provided more than enough false evidence to justify his death.

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not arguing that he's a bastion of innocence here. It doesn't matter what the content of his character is. If it happened once... it can happen again. If the templars made one mistake, have they made others? Do they have any oversight when they're made an error? The only reprimand that we see is in the case of a templar "chasing tail" (as Ian said) but we see no delegation of responsibility in terms of how they can conduct themselves with mages, which is more troubling given that an anti-mage Cullen can rule the Circle in fear as the new Knight-Commander.

earl of the north wrote...

Now Wynne pupil is an innocent victim, but legally the Templars are totally justified in killing him as well (even if they only wounded him in reality).

Only if he wasd a maleficar, because if he wasn't, they're supposed to bring him back, like Anders. The problem is there's no evidence to support he's a maleficar, especially when he's known as Aneirin the healer and we see no maleficar abilities from him (added to the fact that Wynne and the Dalish don't even seem to regard him having any maleficarum abilities as well).

[earl of the north]

I think the D'Sims case is a weak one through, its his action that lead the Templars to believe he's an apostate mage and we have nothing to go on after that beyond his death so I don't recommend using it as an example for that reason. All evidence of wrong doing in DA is hearsay, even at the Landsmeet you can only present hearsay evidence to back up your side of the argument.

Wynne pupil on the other hand is very troubling.......I know that apostates are supposed to be taken back but Anders seems to be only (documented in game) case of this happening, maybe because of personal connections, maybe because its known that he doesn't attempt to fight back or run once cornered.

Its inevitable that Templars that regularly hunt maleficar and blood mages will be more heavy handed and not taken any risks with themselves when facing suspected mages......kill them all and let the Maker sort them out is probably a common belief amongst mage hunters. Accusing an apostate of being a maleficar seems to be enough to cover any breakages in those being hunted.

Modifié par earl of the north, 11 février 2011 - 10:32 .

[LobselVith8]

earl of the north wrote...

I think the D'Sims case is a weak one through, its his action that lead the Templars to believe he's an apostate mage and we have nothing to go on after that beyond his death so I don't recommend using it as an example for that reason.

The problem is templars are trained to dispel magics, so even if they thought D'Sims was going to threaten them, they could disable his ability to use any magic (or find out that he wasn't actually a mage in the process) After all, anything that they would have heard would have pointed to him claiming to heal people, nothing more. I mention it because I think it's a bad precedent, especially when coupled with the bounty placed on Morrigan (for an Orlesian Warden) in Witch Hunt for thinking that she's a blood mage. It doesn't seem like they need any solid proof before going after someone.

earl of the north wrote...

Wynne pupil on the other hand is very troubling.......I know that apostates are supposed to be taken back but Anders seems to be only (documented in game) case of this happening, maybe because of personal connections, maybe because its known that he doesn't attempt to fight back or run once cornered.

Except the Warden from the Circle of Magi can outright ask Wynne why Aneirin wasn't brought back, and it's because he was declared maleficar. It'd agree that it's because Knight-Commander Greagoir delegates some authority to First Enchanter Irving, but that's technically how it's supposed to be.

earl of the north wrote...

Its inevitable that Templars that regularly hunt maleficar and blood mages will be more heavy handed and not taken any risks with themselves when facing suspected mages......kill them all and let the Maker sort them out is probably a common belief amongst mage hunters. Accusing an apostate of being a maleficar seems to be enough to cover any breakages in those being hunted.

That's my problem with the Chantry controlled Circles and the templars who only answer to the Chantry (as Alistair pointed out that nobles have no authority over templars, and the Grand Cleric said that interfering in a templar's duty is an "offense against the Maker").

[earl of the north]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The problem is templars are trained to dispel magics, so even if they thought D'Sims was going to threaten them, they could disable his ability to use any magic (or find out that he wasn't actually a mage in the process) After all, anything that they would have heard would have pointed to him claiming to heal people, nothing more. I mention it because I think it's a bad precedent, especially when coupled with the bounty placed on Morrigan (for an Orlesian Warden) in Witch Hunt for thinking that she's a blood mage. It doesn't seem like they need any solid proof before going after someone.

Its difficult to judge through, was he killed on the spot or dragged off to the local chantry for a trial?

My belief (based on the gamelore) is that Templars can sense magic being used, but they cannot tell if your a mage until you actually use a spell......I may have missed something that says different.

I see D'Sims as the same as the snakeoil salesman from Red Dead Redemption, who talked himself into trouble with a crowd of peasants condeming him as a mage, even if they are only praising him for his 'cures' to the local Chantry and then couldn't talk himself out of it again.

The problem with the D'Sims case is there is literaly no evidence either way as to what happened between the Templars catching up with and his death.

Morrigans a tricky once (always a blood mage for me in game, since I think it suits her personality), she is already pretty much on the Templars hit list due to being Flemeths daughter (and being involved in Templar deaths) and once she abandons the GW pre-final battle or leaves after the final battle she's no longer under any sort of protection from being with the GW's.

There's no evidence she's a blood mage, but she is a malifecar so they can order he death for that without the blood mage charge anyway, maybe the Chantry just want to up the stakes to ensure those hunting her kill her on sight rather than attempting to capture her.

I don't think they need any proof at all to start a mage hunt, it would be mostly rumours anyway since its a medieval setting, stories would probably be enough to start up a hunt.

Except the Warden from the Circle of Magi can outright ask Wynne why Aneirin wasn't brought back, and it's because he was declared maleficar. It'd agree that it's because Knight-Commander Greagoir delegates some authority to First Enchanter Irving, but that's technically how it's supposed to be.

As I said I'm sure the maleficar charge is used occassionaly (maybe even regularly) to cover 'breakages' when the Templars go to far, when attempting to hunt down apostate mages. 

That's my problem with the Chantry controlled Circles and the templars who only answer to the Chantry (as Alistair pointed out that nobles have no authority over templars, and the Grand Cleric said that interfering in a templar's duty is an "offense against the Maker").

So far the Templars are just shown as guards for the Circles and the Chantries, they seem to be little more than armed thugs for the Chantry according to the lore and nice guys if you talk to them directly, indeed I didn't meet a bad templar in game (even as a mage)......witch hunt has a nice bit of background about Cullen you can hear, about him being sent away from the tower until he's less twitchy which made me chuckle.

It seems that the Templars are getting a bigger role in DA2, so maybe we will learn more about them and there will be more depth given to who the Templars really are......one really scarey thought for the Chantry would be a Templar/Mage alliance.  Likely no, but at least some Templars seem to be co-operating with the Mage Collective for lyrim bribes, maybe a suggestion that the Templars aren't all happy at being totally under Chantry control.

Edit: Damn, is that the time! Off to bed for me.

Modifié par earl of the north, 11 février 2011 - 11:35 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[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]

Even if that was the point...I still fail what it had to do with the post you quoted.
And Dales proving mages in power are a good thing? The Dales were destroyed as they apparenlty pi**ed off all around them.



[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]

Here's an idea for you - start thinking before posting....and making some sense would be nice too.



[quote]
[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]

No, a summary of things you claimed aren't mentioned anywhere at all.
Like chantry peace offer. Orlais (not Chantry) destroying the Dales and abolishing their religion.
And more.. All things clearly mentioned.
So they AREN'T things I picked out of thin air.


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

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]

The Chantry is not in charge in any military or government sense.
The Divine hardly rides ar the front lines and commands the armies. Armies are lead by their kings and nobles. People with their own agendas and ideas.

And when talking about historical precedent, I'm talking RL history.
And agian, taking a single line of text and arguing semantics is pointless.
"The Chantry responded" can be interpreted in several ways.




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

Accusations of childlike behavior are ineffectual (and a pitiful attempt to undermine the arguments of the opposition)

I'm asking you what we KNOW, not what you THINK.
You're simply not using your brain enough on this one. WHY was D'Sims killed? Because the templars thought he was a mage? Probably, that is why they confronted him after all. But is that ALL that is too it? Again, dig deeper. Ask more questions.

I've given you several examples of what might have led to D'sims death, nothing which conflicts anything in any codex or game lore.
Can you prove, beyond hte shadow of doubt, your claims? no, you cannot. So quit repeating them like broken records.



[quote]
[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]

Could they? Are you sure? Do all templars have those powers? Can they be used instantly wihout any preparation?
Why risk faliure i na disable attmpt, when you can kill and make sure you're safe?
You know police officers are trained to put two bullets in the center mass when using a gun...not to shoot at knees or something.



[quote]
[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]

What are you? Deaf? Blind? ignorant? All 3?

She HERSELF mentions that the Dark Ritual is what some (Chantry) would call Blood Magic. This is her line from the game. It is undesputable proof.
And if she can do the DR, then we know she has knowledge of such magics.




[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]

Drawing different conclusions fro ma small set of facts, or interpreting passages differently is not fanwanking. As long as it doesn't directly contradict lore that is.. and nothnig I said contradicts lore directly.

As I said..you had nothing, got nothing and will continue to have nothing.



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

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.[/quote]

There is mention of a Cirlce in Rivian..so most mages there would be in the Tower.
I suspect the witches are apostates...but I have no confirmation on that.

Either way, what works for A may not necessarily work for B.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

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.

It isn't.
You'r dellusional fantasises are begining to really bore me.

There's really little point in any discourse with you, if you continue to twist and turn every thing I write, and do your damnest to interpret anything in the worst possible way.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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...

Only some do. And it's not even always effective.

Again...a police officer seeing a criminal pulling a gun, he will shoot. And not in the knees, as he would be taking risks. He will shoot to kill. And if it turns out that that wasn't a real gun....tragic, but you can't really blame the police officer for wanting to save his life.

You cannot really tell me that that is not what happened with D'Sims.
I don't know. Nether do you.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Agian, you got no proof that that is actualyl the standard modus operandi.

As I told you before, the biggest abuses of power in any force - police, military or templars - will happen in the field. Becase there's no hard oversight there.

Interestingly enough, all known cases of possible abuse are out there in the field - Aenerin, D'Sims, Rylock.

I do not count Morrigan, becase we know she knows some weird magics and have no ideas what she's been up to.
Nor do I count the Rite of Tranqulity, since we know little about the specific procedure and legalities involved.

[Urazz]

I like some people in the Chantry but overall I dislike the organization.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

earl of the north wrote...

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.

The point is that we have only a counple of disjointed information. I'ts like only having a newspaper article bombastic title and deriving everything from it. And if oyu ever read any newspaper, you'd see that the inital image hte title gives you, and the full story can be VASTLY different.

It is my personal belief that D'Sim really was murdered by templars unjustly, but I do not have HARD proof. Such proof doesn't exist. The devs and the game didn't give it to us.

Killing someone for something that turns out not to be true is something I find to be a problem.

And this NEVER happns in Real Life? In our modern and highly controled societies and systems?

Oh truly, hearing of 1-2 cases of templar injustice is all the reason in the world to lead a crusade agaisnt them.

Go ahead. Goggole "police brutality".. Let me do it for you:
www.youtube.com/results

Now, will you lead the crusade against hte whole legal and police syystem?

[Daidoji Tangen]

City Elf: Good little Chantry worshipping girl.



Human Mage: Hates it with a passion (Data is likely gone).



Noble Dwarf: Simply did not care either way until he began romance with Lelieana. Then he began making an effort to support the Chantry for her sake, though he himself still worshipped the Stone (Data is likely gone).



Noble Human: Believes in the Chantry, but is not overly religious.



Dalish Elf: Hates the Chantry.



Elven Mage: Good little Chantry girl (I'm playing as she really remembers nothing of life before the Circle and grew up in religious indoctrination, though she'll probably see the Chantry's flaws as the game goes on and will support some reform [like freeing the Circle], but will still support the Chantry in general).

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Even if that was the point...I still fail what it had to do with the post you quoted.
And Dales proving mages in power are a good thing? The Dales were destroyed as they apparenlty pi**ed off all around them. [/quote]

Inserting speculation as proof again, Lotion? We already know there are two versions of what happened: the Orlesian version, and the Dalish version. Don't put forth your speculation on lore as proof yet again.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Here's an idea for you - start thinking before posting....and making some sense would be nice too. [/quote]

Coming from the person who doesn't want to acknowledge that the Chantry had to abide by the Right of Conscription when Alistair was recruited by Duncan, I don't think you care about the substance of arguments as much as you want people to agree with you.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Lobselvith8 wrote...

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]

No, a summary of things you claimed aren't mentioned anywhere at all.
Like chantry peace offer. Orlais (not Chantry) destroying the Dales and abolishing their religion.
And more.. All things clearly mentioned.
So they AREN'T things I picked out of thin air. [/quote]

Revisionist history on your part, because the "truce" was forcing elves to worship the Maker, accept that their religion was now illegal, and tossing them into slums. You also left out how the Dalish accused the Chantry of sending in templars to the Dales after they kicked out their missionaries, so according to the Dalish they did start the war. You basically ignored how the Dalish Warden Origin and the Dalish clan stories both reference their refusal to submit to their religion as one of the key reasons that the war happened and why the human nations grew cold against them.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Lobselvith8 wrote...

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]

The Chantry is not in charge in any military or government sense.
The Divine hardly rides ar the front lines and commands the armies. Armies are lead by their kings and nobles. People with their own agendas and ideas.

And when talking about historical precedent, I'm talking RL history.
And agian, taking a single line of text and arguing semantics is pointless.
"The Chantry responded" can be interpreted in several ways. [/quote]

I notice how you ignore the codex entries when it doesn't suit your view on how things should be, just like you ignore the History of the Circle and the History of the Chantry Part Four codex entries. Clearly, Chantry scholars viewed the Chantry leading the charge against the Qunari with their mages in their Exalted March. Evidently, they are in charge of their holy wars. If you have anything to refute this, feel free to provide it.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Lobselvith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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]

Accusations of childlike behavior are ineffectual (and a pitiful attempt to undermine the arguments of the opposition) [/quote]

Maybe you should behave like an adult for once during these discussions, and I could take you seriously.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'm asking you what we KNOW, not what you THINK.
You're simply not using your brain enough on this one. WHY was D'Sims killed? Because the templars thought he was a mage? Probably, that is why they confronted him after all. But is that ALL that is too it? Again, dig deeper. Ask more questions.

I've given you several examples of what might have led to D'sims death, nothing which conflicts anything in any codex or game lore.
Can you prove, beyond hte shadow of doubt, your claims? no, you cannot. So quit repeating them like broken records. [/quote]

You fanwank how armored templars who can disable magic might have been concerned about an elven fraud who had no magical powers and pretended to heal people to the point that they cut off his head. Your theory that D'Sims had a small knife that would have frightened him seems absurd to me.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Lobselvith8 wrote...

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]

Could they? Are you sure? Do all templars have those powers? Can they be used instantly wihout any preparation?
Why risk faliure i na disable attmpt, when you can kill and make sure you're safe?
You know police officers are trained to put two bullets in the center mass when using a gun...not to shoot at knees or something. [/quote]

Suddenly the templars no longer have the ability to disable magic? Isn't that the reason why they're placed in charge over mages by the Chantry?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Lobselvith8 wrote...

[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]

What are you? Deaf? Blind? ignorant? All 3?

She HERSELF mentions that the Dark Ritual is what some (Chantry) would call Blood Magic. This is her line from the game. It is undesputable proof.
And if she can do the DR, then we know she has knowledge of such magics. [/quote]

More speculation put forth as fact. Again, a ritual of carnal contact doesn't make her a blood mage. There's no reason why the templars would have any reason to think she has blood magic capability, and you've failed to provide a reason why they would assume so.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Lobselvith8 wrote...

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]

Drawing different conclusions fro ma small set of facts, or interpreting passages differently is not fanwanking. As long as it doesn't directly contradict lore that is.. and nothnig I said contradicts lore directly.

As I said..you had nothing, got nothing and will continue to have nothing. [/quote]

When you ignore actual canon and come up with alternate explanations for why Alistair was recruited or put abominations into the Mages Collective handing out quests to the Warden, you are fanwanking.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Lobselvith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.[/quote]

There is mention of a Cirlce in Rivian..so most mages there would be in the Tower.
I suspect the witches are apostates...but I have no confirmation on that.

Either way, what works for A may not necessarily work for B. [/quote]

We already have a codex entry from Bioware listing Rivain as one of the places where mages aren't under Chantry control, and Genitivi's codex on Rivain supports this.

[IanPolaris]

Speakinginsilence,

You obviously are very sensitive to any criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, and honestly my only intention was that it was a valid comparison point to the DA Chantry, and really that's it. However since you insist, here's a further link from the American-Israeli cooperative that pretty much debunks the defense of Pope Pious XII and recently at that:

http://www.jewishvir...itism/pius.html

It's also a fact that the OLD RCC (the theology was changed under Pope JP2) did use Jews as scapegoats. That doesn't mean they were targets of Crusades and the like, but the theology was clear. However, I will not respond to any further posts about the RCC unless it directly has to deal with it's comparison with the Chanty in game...and frankly you are IMO going over the line here. Keep it topic topical or let's drop it at least on this forum.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 12 février 2011 - 01:26 .

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It isn't.
You'r dellusional fantasises are begining to really bore me.

There's really little point in any discourse with you, if you continue to twist and turn every thing I write, and do your damnest to interpret anything in the worst possible way.

How is providing the actual quotes of what you and Emperor said make me delusional? He's saying mages are property of the Chantry, and you're supporting this view in a response tool_bot makes to Emperor debating this assertion.

These are the quotes:

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.

Now, here's tool_bot response 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.

Clearly, your quote and Emperor's reveal that you see mages as property of the Chantry.

[Failbox]

I really enjoy the Templar aspect of the Chantry. But the whole revered mother thing rustles my jimmies.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion,



Morrigan doesn't call the Bloodritual "bloodmagic". She is deliberately coy about it. She says, "Some might call it bloodmagic, but that shouldn't bother the likes of you." Since my character at the time was an uber-powerful Arcane Bloodwarrior, I took the point with some amusement.



-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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...

Only some do. And it's not even always effective.

Again...a police officer seeing a criminal pulling a gun, he will shoot. And not in the knees, as he would be taking risks. He will shoot to kill. And if it turns out that that wasn't a real gun....tragic, but you can't really blame the police officer for wanting to save his life.

You cannot really tell me that that is not what happened with D'Sims.
I don't know. Nether do you.

Templars have the ability to disrupt magical ability - even Alistair, who isn't using lyrium, demonstrates this ability. If D'Sims was killed and the templars didn't bother to use their skills to disable any perceived magical ability on his part, then I don't see how you can claim it was justified.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Agian, you got no proof that that is actualyl the standard modus operandi.

As I told you before, the biggest abuses of power in any force - police, military or templars - will happen in the field. Becase there's no hard oversight there.

Interestingly enough, all known cases of possible abuse are out there in the field - Aenerin, D'Sims, Rylock.

I do not count Morrigan, becase we know she knows some weird magics and have no ideas what she's been up to.
Nor do I count the Rite of Tranqulity, since we know little about the specific procedure and legalities involved.

Considering how templars have the power to disrupt magical ability and this wasn't used to try to disable D'Sims (who wasn't even a mage in the first place) and we know that the templars placed a bounty on Morrigan for their suspicion of her being a blood mage, I don't see why we should assume this was an isolated incident.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Inserting speculation as proof again, Lotion? We already know there are two versions of what happened: the Orlesian version, and the Dalish version. Don't put forth your speculation on lore as proof yet again.[/quote]

I used the word "apparently". Just one of the little neuances you are constantly missing.
But again - all mage led empires wee either horriblem, or are backwater and pitifull or were destroyed. Not a good track record.

Also Mr. Pot, you might want to look in the mirror.




[quote]
Coming from the person who doesn't want to acknowledge that the Chantry had to abide by the Right of Conscription when Alistair was recruited by Duncan, I don't think you care about the substance of arguments as much as you want people to agree with you.[/quote]

As I said..stop putting words in my mouth. Learn to read and think a bit before making claims about what other people said that are totally wrong.
You consistnetly miss the point of posts other people make.


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

No, a summary of things you claimed aren't mentioned anywhere at all.
Like chantry peace offer. Orlais (not Chantry) destroying the Dales and abolishing their religion.
And more.. All things clearly mentioned.
So they AREN'T things I picked out of thin air. [/quote]

Revisionist history on your part, because the "truce" was forcing elves to worship the Maker, accept that their religion was now illegal, and tossing them into slums. You also left out how the Dalish accused the Chantry of sending in templars to the Dales after they kicked out their missionaries, so according to the Dalish they did start the war. You basically ignored how the Dalish Warden Origin and the Dalish clan stories both reference their refusal to submit to their religion as one of the key reasons that the war happened and why the human nations grew cold against them.[/quote]

What revisionist history?
You claimed there was not even a MENTION of such things anywhere. And as the DA2 wiki just proved, there ARE mentions. Meaning you are full of BS (as always).

That's no revisionist history, that's just pointing out your continuos faliures.
And while it's completley futile to argue with you, given that you hear what you want ot hear insted of what is said, I will still try.
I never ignored the Dalish codex or POV. But since you're always bringing them up as some sort of holy bible, I brought out different POV's and codex entries that give different explanations of events.



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

The Chantry is not in charge in any military or government sense.
The Divine hardly rides ar the front lines and commands the armies. Armies are lead by their kings and nobles. People with their own agendas and ideas.

And when talking about historical precedent, I'm talking RL history.
And agian, taking a single line of text and arguing semantics is pointless.
"The Chantry responded" can be interpreted in several ways. [/quote]

I notice how you ignore the codex entries when it doesn't suit your view on how things should be, just like you ignore the History of the Circle and the History of the Chantry Part Four codex entries. Clearly, Chantry scholars viewed the Chantry leading the charge against the Qunari with their mages in their Exalted March. Evidently, they are in charge of their holy wars. If you have anything to refute this, feel free to provide it.[/quote]

I'm not ignoring anything. I'm pointing out that your fanatical interpretations of every line of the menation Codexes is NOT the only plausible interpretation and hence cannot be used as hard proof. Something you again, and again and again keep ignoring.

You always argue semantics, fully well knowing that you have no definite proof...And yet tend to ignore such semantics wherewer they do not suit you.

to sum it up:
Codex Entry: "Templar came into forest and chopped a tree."
You: "It proves he hates trees and the enviroment."
Me: "Or he could just be cold."
You: "That's not what it sez in the codex. HERESY!!!"



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Maybe you should behave like an adult for once during these discussions, and I could take you seriously.[/quote]

Mybe you should try reasoning like one.



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

I'm asking you what we KNOW, not what you THINK.
You're simply not using your brain enough on this one. WHY was D'Sims killed? Because the templars thought he was a mage? Probably, that is why they confronted him after all. But is that ALL that is too it? Again, dig deeper. Ask more questions.

I've given you several examples of what might have led to D'sims death, nothing which conflicts anything in any codex or game lore.
Can you prove, beyond hte shadow of doubt, your claims? no, you cannot. So quit repeating them like broken records. [/quote]

You fanwank how armored templars who can disable magic might have been concerned about an elven fraud who had no magical powers and pretended to heal people to the point that they cut off his head. Your theory that D'Sims had a small knife that would have frightened him seems absurd to me.[/quote]

Not necessarily a knife. But why wouldn't a knife be enough to make a man jumpy. Again, the threat doesn't have to be real. It has to be PERCIEVED and it has to be sudden enough that the response to it is almsot reflexive in nature.


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Could they? Are you sure? Do all templars have those powers? Can they be used instantly wihout any preparation?
Why risk faliure i na disable attmpt, when you can kill and make sure you're safe?
You know police officers are trained to put two bullets in the center mass when using a gun...not to shoot at knees or something. [/quote]

Suddenly the templars no longer have the ability to disable magic? Isn't that the reason why they're placed in charge over mages by the Chantry?[/quote]

Again, that's a higher levle templar ability. And in-game it may not be simple to use, or fast.. Swining a sword at someone who's standing right next ot you when jumped seems a far more normal resposne thant concetrating to unleash a attack that might not even work..or you might not have mastered yet.



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What are you? Deaf? Blind? ignorant? All 3?

She HERSELF mentions that the Dark Ritual is what some (Chantry) would call Blood Magic. This is her line from the game. It is undesputable proof.
And if she can do the DR, then we know she has knowledge of such magics. [/quote]

More speculation put forth as fact. Again, a ritual of carnal contact doesn't make her a blood mage. There's no reason why the templars would have any reason to think she has blood magic capability, and you've failed to provide a reason why they would assume so.[/quote]


You truely are hopeless.
What YOU think is irrelevant. What the CHANTRY thinks is relevant. The question isn't (and never was) what you think of that as blood magic. What other people in Thedas think is the issue.
She said some would label it as Blood Magic. Who did she mean by "some"? Take a guess. The regualr people of thedas? Chantry?
Either way, it is clear that she can perform magic that can be seen and interpreted as (or really is) Blood magic. This is NOT disputable. It is a fact.



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Drawing different conclusions fro ma small set of facts, or interpreting passages differently is not fanwanking. As long as it doesn't directly contradict lore that is.. and nothnig I said contradicts lore directly.

As I said..you had nothing, got nothing and will continue to have nothing. [/quote]

When you ignore actual canon and come up with alternate explanations for why Alistair was recruited or put abominations into the Mages Collective handing out quests to the Warden, you are fanwanking.[/quote]

And you are lying and trolling.
You always keep brining up again and again, things that have been debunked and countered.
That's not smart debating. That's not thing but sheer spammage and trolling in it's purest form.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It isn't.
You'r dellusional fantasises are begining to really bore me.

There's really little point in any discourse with you, if you continue to twist and turn every thing I write, and do your damnest to interpret anything in the worst possible way.

How is providing the actual quotes of what you and Emperor said make me delusional? He's saying mages are property of the Chantry, and you're supporting this view in a response tool_bot makes to Emperor debating this assertion.

Because you're misreading/misinterpreting them. So no, that's NOT what we said. That what YOU think we said. You are pretty much the only one claiming that and dozens of people read our posts.
So what...are other people stupid for not interpreting our posts the same way? Or is it you who read into them somethnig thet really wasn't there?

Take a guess......

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion,

Morrigan doesn't call the Bloodritual "bloodmagic". She is deliberately coy about it. She says, "Some might call it bloodmagic, but that shouldn't bother the likes of you." Since my character at the time was an uber-powerful Arcane Bloodwarrior, I took the point with some amusement.

-Polaris

She's always coy about things..so what?

Again, you cannot say it's NOT blood magic and she confirmes some (Chantry) would see it as such.
So what exactly is the problem here?

Morrigna may think draining slaves of hteir life is a good thing, but that doesn't make it so. What Morrigan thinks or sez, and what the chantry think and sez and what hte pople of Thedas think and say - they are different things.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It isn't.
You'r dellusional fantasises are begining to really bore me.

There's really little point in any discourse with you, if you continue to twist and turn every thing I write, and do your damnest to interpret anything in the worst possible way.

How is providing the actual quotes of what you and Emperor said make me delusional? He's saying mages are property of the Chantry, and you're supporting this view in a response tool_bot makes to Emperor debating this assertion.

These are the quotes:

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.

Now, here's tool_bot response 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.

Clearly, your quote and Emperor's reveal that you see mages as property of the Chantry.

Here we go again....
Would you please  stop misrepresenting my quotes? I'm getting sick of having to explain to you, what was ACTUALLY said. It is kind of odd, that no matter how many times I tell you what was said, you still refuse to listen.