1019 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
You are wrong about this Lotion.  I happen to be a veteran and I know wherefore I speak.  Oversight is never perfect in the field, true, but it's definately there, and I was talking about POLICE procedures as you were.  If you are talking about a war zone, then yes, oversight becomes more difficult, but it's definately there.  Don't trust the stuff from Wikialeaks, etc.  It's easy to hype and accentuate the cases where oversight fails.

And that is exactly what you are doing. Using a few instances where oversight fails and overblowing them and using them as standard.
It's clear that tamplars have prodecures and rules. They too have paperwork.
What they don't have is some of the modern marvels that make oversight so much easier.

If some county sherrif/deputy turns out to be a dickasaurus and kills a homeless guy back in the woods, what does that tell you about the police force?

You say templars have no oversight, but that is clearly not true.

Really?  The only evidence we see that Templars get disciplined is when one chases too much tail!  We see no evidence either in the game or game-lore that Templars are accountable in the field whatsoever!

-Polaris

Just because you don't see it, it doesn't mean it isn't there. The game is not called "CSI: Templars".. It's Dragon Age. Templars doing their job in a orderly fashion is hardly news worthy...but when one steps out of line you hear about it...
Bad news travels fast...which is why things often seem worse than they are.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
You are wrong about this Lotion.  I happen to be a veteran and I know wherefore I speak.  Oversight is never perfect in the field, true, but it's definately there, and I was talking about POLICE procedures as you were.  If you are talking about a war zone, then yes, oversight becomes more difficult, but it's definately there.  Don't trust the stuff from Wikialeaks, etc.  It's easy to hype and accentuate the cases where oversight fails.

And that is exactly what you are doing. Using a few instances where oversight fails and overblowing them and using them as standard.
It's clear that tamplars have prodecures and rules. They too have paperwork.
What they don't have is some of the modern marvels that make oversight so much easier.

If some county sherrif/deputy turns out to be a dickasaurus and kills a homeless guy back in the woods, what does that tell you about the police force?

Here is the difference.  Every time the issue comes up in the game, the Templar has complete authority and complete jurisdiction (at least in their minds).  We never hear about ANY punishment or any oversight when a templar makes a mistake regarding mages but we do hear about mistakes.   Oversight that is NOT visible and doesn't produce "object lessons" from time to time isn't true oversight.  The Templars have been in business for 9 centuries and if what you say is true, then we should hear at least a few cases where *gasp* Templars were actually publically held accountable for their actions.

We do not.  We DO have object lessons and hear about it with soldiers and police.

Thus your comparison fails.

You say templars have no oversight, but that is clearly not true.

Really?  The only evidence we see that Templars get disciplined is when one chases too much tail!  We see no evidence either in the game or game-lore that Templars are accountable in the field whatsoever!

-Polaris

Just because you don't see it, it doesn't mean it isn't there. The game is not called "CSI: Templars".. It's Dragon Age. Templars doing their job in a orderly fashion is hardly news worthy...but when one steps out of line you hear about it...
Bad news travels fast...which is why things often seem worse than they are.

Accountability that isn't visible is NOT true accountability.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

Buffy-Summers wrote...

After playing through my Mage in DAO I now despise the Chantry

Anyone who locks every mage into a tower against their free will is little more then dictators

A person is innocent until they do something not because what they might do or what could happen

The chantry's treatment of mages is akin to locking up the offspring of criminal because they MIGHT cause a problem.

There is no resemblance there whatsoever. The comparison doesn't work.

Government and pople in power have confined people or entire groups of pople before..and do it now, if they belive it is warranted. With mages it certanly is so.

Mages are exceptionally dangerous people. They are capable of causing massive damage and chaos, even when they don't want it.
You can ask yourself if it's morally right to lock people just because of that. But one should also ask oneself if it is morally justified to let them go (and face the consequences).
It's not a black-and-white matter.

It's similar to a quarantene scenario. The people in the quarantene didn't do anything to you. Most of them probably don't even want to hurt you in any way. They don want to be trapped in the small quarantene zone.
Yet, would it be morally right to let them go? Would it be a smart thing to do?

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Here is the difference.  Every time the issue comes up in the game, the Templar has complete authority and complete jurisdiction (at least in their minds).  We never hear about ANY punishment or any oversight when a templar makes a mistake regarding mages but we do hear about mistakes.   Oversight that is NOT visible and doesn't produce "object lessons" from time to time isn't true oversight.  The Templars have been in business for 9 centuries and if what you say is true, then we should hear at least a few cases where *gasp* Templars were actually publically held accountable for their actions.

We do not.  We DO have object lessons and hear about it with soldiers and police.

Thus your comparison fails.[/quote]

What exactly do we hear/know?

We know of 4-5 cases, of which some are not really clear. That's hardly compeling or overwhelming evidence - definately not enough to make blanket conclusions about all templars.
Furthermore, all cases we heard of happened in the field, an area where oversight is lesser.

Not to mention that DA2 timeline and technology doesn't have newspapers, google, youtube and investigative reporters to spread the news, so public happeneings and public news of anything were rare.
If templars lived in our ime, then yes...I'd be very suspicious too.
But teh conditions and working of that world are different and applying impossible standards doesn't help.


[quote]
Just because you don't see it, it doesn't mean it isn't there. The game is not called "CSI: Templars".. It's Dragon Age. Templars doing their job in a orderly fashion is hardly news worthy...but when one steps out of line you hear about it...
Bad news travels fast...which is why things often seem worse than they are.

[/quote]

Accountability that isn't visible is NOT true accountability.
[/quote]

Sez you.
Ever heard of handling things internally? I kinda dobut when something similar happened in the middle ages, it was all in the news.
As I say, acountabiltiy can happen only when the guily party is caught. There is no CSI in Thedas. Which makes all the legal talk about it kinda moot, since if you replaced the templars with anyone else (even mages) you wont' have a system that's any more accountable.

Only insted of a dick templar that kills a mage out in the woods and blames it on bandits, it will be a mage that fries the other mage with lightning and blames it on someome else..Assuming they even bother to say anything and just let the body to rot.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion,



Over 900 years, we should have seen SOME public accountability for how Templars treat mages if there were any true oversight at all.



If I have to explain to you why oversight that isn't public isn't true oversight, then we have nothing more to talk about. That should be obvious to anyone. Sometimes "object lessons" are mandatory if you want outsiders to sincerely believe you police your own. I should not have to explain this.



-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

Except in the middle ages nobody gave a damn. The police is actively under the scrutiny of the populace, which is why we hear about it.



Besides, we don't hear any instance of abominations in Rivain..does that mean it never happened? Again, this is a game - the devlopers have a limited amount of time to put in a limited amount of content, so they put in what they decide.



We lack confirmation on so many things in TheDas, yet pretty much no one goes around claiming they don't exist.





And no, you don't have to explain it to me... But isn't something I necessarily have to agree with.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Except in the middle ages nobody gave a damn. The police is actively under the scrutiny of the populace, which is why we hear about it.

That's not true and you know it.  The Peasent Wars (very bloody affairs) are testiment to that.  For that matter, so is what happened to the RL Templars.  Public opinion even in the middle ages did matter and it mattered a great deal and heads of state both secular and sacred worried about it (and with good reason).

It's also why punishments for high crimes and misdemeanors (such as treason) were publically held and often very gruesome.  Object lessons.  That was especially true if the guilty party were of the noble class (the execution might be nicer, but it would be done publically in the commons as an object lesson).

Besides, we don't hear any instance of abominations in Rivain..does that mean it never happened? Again, this is a game - the devlopers have a limited amount of time to put in a limited amount of content, so they put in what they decide.

We can reasonably conclude that if abominations happened at the rate the chantry claimed, then the society in Rivain as presented simply would not exist.  Same applies to the Dales, Chasind, and many others.  You've been on the short end of this argumentation for a long time now....try something new.

We lack confirmation on so many things in TheDas, yet pretty much no one goes around claiming they don't exist.

Oh?  I'm denying it (or at least saying that it's so rare as to be essentially meaningless).

And no, you don't have to explain it to me... But isn't something I necessarily have to agree with.

You wouldn't agree with me if I said water is wet, so why should this be any different?

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 14 février 2011 - 11:41 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Except in the middle ages nobody gave a damn. The police is actively under the scrutiny of the populace, which is why we hear about it.

That's not true and you know it.  The Peasent Wars (very bloody affairs) are testiment to that.  For that matter, so is what happened to the RL Templars.  Public opinion even in the middle ages did matter and it mattered a great deal and heads of state both secular and sacred worried about it (and with good reason).

It's also why punishments for high crimes and misdemeanors (such as treason) were publically held and often very gruesome.  Object lessons.  That was especially true if the guilty party were of the noble class (the execution might be nicer, but it would be done publically in the commons as an object lesson).

Peasants take interest in peasants.
Not so in mages.

If something is sufficiently large and horrible, then it might get heard. A mage killed in the middle of nowhere is hardly newsworthy, nor is it something the populace would give a damn about.

Besides, we don't hear any instance of abominations in Rivain..does that mean it never happened? Again, this is a game - the devlopers have a limited amount of time to put in a limited amount of content, so they put in what they decide.

We can reasonably conclude that if abominations happened at the rate the chantry claimed, then the society in Rivain as presented simply would not exist.  Same applies to the Dales, Chasind, and many others.  You've been on the short end of this argumentation for a long time now....try something new.

No, you cannot reasonably conclude that.
That has nothing to do with reason. It doesn't come even close.

I have already debunked this redicolous claim of yours and Lob's. Perhaps it is you who should try something new?

And I see you avoided actually answering the question, but attempt to deflect the issue..as usual. Every time you cannot come up with a satisfactory asnwer, you just try to defelct it.

I aks again - Rivain has been there for hunderds of years. You honestly telling me not a single abomination ever happened there? If it did, wouldn't we have heard about it?

And no, you don't have to explain it to me... But isn't something I necessarily have to agree with.

You wouldn't agree with me if I said water is wet, so why should this be any different?

Water is moist and liquid!

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Except in the middle ages nobody gave a damn. The police is actively under the scrutiny of the populace, which is why we hear about it.

That's not true and you know it.  The Peasent Wars (very bloody affairs) are testiment to that.  For that matter, so is what happened to the RL Templars.  Public opinion even in the middle ages did matter and it mattered a great deal and heads of state both secular and sacred worried about it (and with good reason).

It's also why punishments for high crimes and misdemeanors (such as treason) were publically held and often very gruesome.  Object lessons.  That was especially true if the guilty party were of the noble class (the execution might be nicer, but it would be done publically in the commons as an object lesson).

Peasants take interest in peasants.
Not so in mages.

If something is sufficiently large and horrible, then it might get heard. A mage killed in the middle of nowhere is hardly newsworthy, nor is it something the populace would give a damn about.

Again, you are wrong.  Nobles and Churchemen even in the real middle-ages cared very much what the third and fourth estates thought.  Not enough to give any meaningful political power, no, but they very much did care.

As for caring about mages, the Chantry very much cares about mages!  That's why the lock them up and throw away the key!!

Besides, we don't hear any instance of abominations in Rivain..does that mean it never happened? Again, this is a game - the devlopers have a limited amount of time to put in a limited amount of content, so they put in what they decide.

We can reasonably conclude that if abominations happened at the rate the chantry claimed, then the society in Rivain as presented simply would not exist.  Same applies to the Dales, Chasind, and many others.  You've been on the short end of this argumentation for a long time now....try something new.

No, you cannot reasonably conclude that.
That has nothing to do with reason. It doesn't come even close.

I have already debunked this redicolous claim of yours and Lob's. Perhaps it is you who should try something new?

And I see you avoided actually answering the question, but attempt to deflect the issue..as usual. Every time you cannot come up with a satisfactory asnwer, you just try to defelct it.

I aks again - Rivain has been there for hunderds of years. You honestly telling me not a single abomination ever happened there? If it did, wouldn't we have heard about it?

I don't have to.  You have to show me that Rivain has a worse abomination problem without a Circle Tower system than nations with a Circle Tower system.  You haven't even come close to showing that or for that matter debunking anything except maybe in your own mind.

What we do know leads us to reasonably conclude that if there were abominations in Rivain, they must be so rare and/or handled so efficiently that society doesn't consider the mage-abomination threat to be much of a concern.  That's enough to completely cut any moral justification for the Chantry system off at the knees.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

XxDeonxX wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

In addition (to XxDeonxX), you do realize that the Chnatry did support and back the (very brutal by all acounts) conquest and occupation of Fereldan by Orlais starting in 8:34 as I recall, and the Chantry only later changed it's stance when:

1. Gen Loghain looked like he might actually win.
2. King Maric and Gen Loghain privately but not too subtlely threatened to dissolve the Chantry within Fereldan borders.

The Chantry's pro-Orlais bias is well known and is becoming an increasing problem for it not just in Fereldan but Nevarra and other places.

-Polaris

Yes I know of the ferelden incident which doesn't at all count since it happens a wopping 600+ years after the dales. And with the chantrys actions with the dales incident only the follow up actions really taken by them can be taken into account not the actual war itself.
I know they have a Pro-Orlais bias but the chantry seemingly has an annoying habit of supporting those in which side the wind is blowing.

As soon as Nevarra has the strength to fight Orlais.. The Chantry will most likely side with them, The same case in Ferelden.

You can't dismiss Orlais' history of conquest and say it doesn't count - they've taken over nations since the nation was founded. And you can factor into the end result for the elves when it seems to be the entire purpose behind the Exalted March in the first place - based on the claims made by the Dalish that the Chantry was trying to force conversion to their religion. We don't know for certain, that's true, but Orlais' history of taking over other nations is certainly something to consider when looking at the Exalted March on the Dales.

XxDeonxX wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

While we don't know for certain what happened between Orlais and the Dales, Orlais does have a history of conquest that dates back to its inception (and the Exalted Marches that were declared by Drakon so he could assume the mantle of Emperor) and the recent attempts to take over Ferelden. Empress Celene I's plan for an alliance and marriage to King Cailan would have been the most recent for Orlais to assume control of the nation. You can't ignore its history and dismiss it. You also ignore how Tevinter and Orlais used their victory against the darkspawn to conquer lands they "liberated" from the Archdemon after the Third Blight, since the Orlesian Empire commandered control over the nation of Nevarra while the Tevinter Imperium assumed control over Hunter Fell. Like I said, Orlais has a history of conquest.

History? And how would something that happened 600 years afterwards be considered history when compaired to an event 600 years prior? 

When a nation takes over other nations throughout its history, from its founding under Emperor Drakon to Nevarra after the Third Blight and now with the contest territory with Nevarra and the multiple attempts on Ferelden, it's not something to be dismissed when discussing an incident where they took over another nation by force.

XxDeonxX wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

and the recent attempts to take over Ferelden. Empress Celene I's plan for an alliance and marriage to King Cailan would have been the most recent for Orlais to assume control of the nation

Right, the ones that have nothing to do with the dales incident.. those attempts.

Considering it's a history of conquest of other nations, I don't see why it's not a possible factor to what happened with the Dales. I'm not claiming I know what happened for certain, but I think we should factor in Orlais' history of regime change when we look at the fall of the Dales.

XxDeonxX wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Orlais has a history of conquest.

Right, but thats different to Chantry supported Millitant conquest.. Which we only know of one chantry supported event.
You may say that when the Emperor says jump the divine responds with "How high?"  but three things. 1) That is an assumption and 2) that is a matter of opinion and 3) That is assuming how it really is and its not really the complete other way round. I included 3 for the sake of supporting your side of the discussion.

Im not completely disagreeing with you.. You may be right for all I know, Im simply providing other sides to the discussion which should not and can not easily be factored out

I'm not saying the Emperor commands the Chantry, I'm pointing out that the Chantry and the Orlesian Empire have an interwoven relationship with one another because they were created at the same time by Drakon. The fact that the Chantry named an entire age to support the Orlesian Empire (the Dragon Age) should be more than sufficient to reflect this (and it's not the first time in history this as happened). I'm also not claiming to know what actually happened, but I think Orlais' history makes them suspect in the Exalted March on the Dales.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

You are wrong about this Lotion.  I happen to be a veteran and I know wherefore I speak.  Oversight is never perfect in the field, true, but it's definately there, and I was talking about POLICE procedures as you were.  If you are talking about a war zone, then yes, oversight becomes more difficult, but it's definately there.  Don't trust the stuff from Wikialeaks, etc.  It's easy to hype and accentuate the cases where oversight fails.

And that is exactly what you are doing. Using a few instances where oversight fails and overblowing them and using them as standard.
It's clear that tamplars have prodecures and rules. They too have paperwork.
What they don't have is some of the modern marvels that make oversight so much easier.

If some county sherrif/deputy turns out to be a dickasaurus and kills a homeless guy back in the woods, what does that tell you about the police force?

No one is trying to blow this out of proportion, we're discussing a situation where innocent people are taken from their families and imprisoned under armed guard, have no basic rights, and can be executed or made tranquil on the basis of "evidence" that never has to be shown to the First Enchanter. It's an environment that some have tried to escape from, risking their lives in the process (as Anders admits, they could have labelled him maleficar and killed him) and others desire to be free of the Chantry (as the revolution in A Broken Circle attests to). There are multiple examples of how templars seem to cross the line and go after innocent people, with no reprecussions for their actions. As the Bioware blog entry reveals:

"It is a templar’s place to watch their charges for signs of weakness or corruption, and should they find it to act without hesitation for the good of all. That this occasionally leads to charges of tyranny and abuse is, according to the Chantry, a price that must be paid for the security the templars offer."

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Really?  The only evidence we see that Templars get disciplined is when one chases too much tail!  We see no evidence either in the game or game-lore that Templars are accountable in the field whatsoever!

-Polaris

Just because you don't see it, it doesn't mean it isn't there. The game is not called "CSI: Templars".. It's Dragon Age. Templars doing their job in a orderly fashion is hardly news worthy...but when one steps out of line you hear about it...
Bad news travels fast...which is why things often seem worse than they are.

It doesn't seem to be there when a mage-hating Cullen can end up as the new Knight-Commander of the Ferelden Circle, and all the mages are at his mercy.

[Mlaar]

LobselVith8 wrote...
In contast, there's nothing to support the templars' assumption that Morrigan is a blood mage.

Thier is nothing that tells the player the templars assumption of Morrigan is a blood mage, Thier is also nothing that denies the templars have knowlege that you the player are unaware of. Simply put you do not have all the facts to make a constructive argument all you or I can do at best is speculate

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Buffy-Summers wrote...

After playing through my Mage in DAO I now despise the Chantry

Anyone who locks every mage into a tower against their free will is little more then dictators

A person is innocent until they do something not because what they might do or what could happen

The chantry's treatment of mages is akin to locking up the offspring of criminal because they MIGHT cause a problem.

There is no resemblance there whatsoever. The comparison doesn't work.

Government and pople in power have confined people or entire groups of pople before..and do it now, if they belive it is warranted. With mages it certanly is so.

The nation of Rivain, the Dalish clans, and the Chasind tribes would disagree with that comment. The Chantry claims it's necessary, and by coincidence it also places all the mages of Andrastian nations under their thumb.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Mages are exceptionally dangerous people. They are capable of causing massive damage and chaos, even when they don't want it.
You can ask yourself if it's morally right to lock people just because of that. But one should also ask oneself if it is morally justified to let them go (and face the consequences).
It's not a black-and-white matter.

Imprisoning them in a system where they have no voice and can be killed - in terms of their personality or their actual physical being - isn't the solution.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It's similar to a quarantene scenario. The people in the quarantene didn't do anything to you. Most of them probably don't even want to hurt you in any way. They don want to be trapped in the small quarantene zone.
Yet, would it be morally right to let them go? Would it be a smart thing to do?

The morally right thing isn't to imprison innocent people. It's also not the smart thing to do when the mages can start a revolution and fight for their freedom. We saw how well the advanced technology of the Qunari did against them, after all...

[LobselVith8]

Mlaar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
In contast, there's nothing to support the templars' assumption that Morrigan is a blood mage.

Thier is nothing that tells the player the templars assumption of Morrigan is a blood mage, Thier is also nothing that denies the templars have knowlege that you the player are unaware of. Simply put you do not have all the facts to make a constructive argument all you or I can do at best is speculate

I do indeed have the facts - I know Morrigan never performs the blood magic abilities that are seen by actual blood mages in DA:O. I know she practices shape-shifting abilities that a Circle mage has never even heard of. Given that she's clearly with the Warden and can fight in his army against the Blight as Sten (a Qunari), Zevran (an Antivan Crow), and the rest can, it's telling that the bounty doesn't list her as an apostate or a maleficar but a blood mage. I know that she offers a ritual of carnal contact that some can construe as blood magic - no different than Finn's ritual of using Dalish blood to locate the Eluvian. Is Morrigan any more a blood mage than Finn is? Are the templars blood mages for using phylacteries that are also blood magic? There's no basis for thinking that Morrigan is a blood mage. There's no reason the templars would hunt her down for the dark ritual when the three possible people who might be aware of it have no intention of revealing it, much less to the Chantry. You have no facts to defend the templars hunting her down.

[Mlaar]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I do indeed have the facts.

I did not say you had no facts I said you do not have all the facts! thierfore all you can do is speculate.

Speculate means to reason with inconclusive evidence

The way you base your argument comes across as saying your view is the correct one! whereas thier can be no correct conclusion to this argument until all facts hidden or unhidden come to light maybe in DA2 thier will be more codex entries you can use to push your case forward but even then I personally doubt enough information will be given to prove guilty or not guilty.

[LobselVith8]

Mlaar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
I do indeed have the facts.

I did not say you had no facts I said you do not have all the facts! thierfore all you can do is speculate.

Speculate means to reason with inconclusive evidence

The way you base your argument comes across as saying your view is the correct one! whereas thier can be no correct conclusion to this argument until all facts hidden or unhidden come to light maybe in DA2 thier will be more codex entries you can use to push your case forward but even then I personally doubt enough information will be given to prove guilty or not guilty.

If the writers intended for us to take the accusation seriously, why didn't they write the templars hunting her down for being an apostate? Why not use her shape-shifting to brand her a maleficar? Why intentionally use the word "blood mage" when we clearly know that she never performs such magic?

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

As for caring about mages, the Chantry very much cares about mages!  That's why the lock them up and throw away the key!!

And why they save them from themselves and the angry masses?
The Chantry does care...but the local populace doesn't. Not in a overall sense, but in the sense that the fate of a single mage every now and then doesn't really phase them. They live in a dangerous world, where every day people like Joe Farmer die.

No, you cannot reasonably conclude that.
That has nothing to do with reason. It doesn't come even close.

I have already debunked this redicolous claim of yours and Lob's. Perhaps it is you who should try something new?

And I see you avoided actually answering the question, but attempt to deflect the issue..as usual. Every time you cannot come up with a satisfactory asnwer, you just try to defelct it.

I aks again - Rivain has been there for hunderds of years. You honestly telling me not a single abomination ever happened there? If it did, wouldn't we have heard about it?

I don't have to.  You have to show me that Rivain has a worse abomination problem without a Circle Tower system than nations with a Circle Tower system.  You haven't even come close to showing that or for that matter debunking anything except maybe in your own mind.

What we do know leads us to reasonably conclude that if there were abominations in Rivain, they must be so rare and/or handled so efficiently that society doesn't consider the mage-abomination threat to be much of a concern.  That's enough to completely cut any moral justification for the Chantry system off at the knees.

-Polaris

Yes you do. You have to, because oy udemand the same from me.

You claim - we seen no proof of templar overight - therefore no templar overight exist.
I coutner - we seen no proof of X (in the exmaple abominations in Rivain) - therefore X doesn't exist.

It is clear that your line of reasoning doesn't work, since we do know at least a few happen over the history of that country.
So called "infered or deduced" "rational" conclusion doesn't work.


And thus, your conclusions fall flat on their face. They just don't hold water under scrutiny - scrutiny you never apply.
so no..you don't know. you cna't reasonably conclude what you proclaim.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
You can't dismiss Orlais' history of conquest and say it doesn't count - they've taken over nations since the nation was founded. And you can factor into the end result for the elves when it seems to be the entire purpose behind the Exalted March in the first place - based on the claims made by the Dalish that the Chantry was trying to force conversion to their religion. We don't know for certain, that's true, but Orlais' history of taking over other nations is certainly something to consider when looking at the Exalted March on the Dales.

That would be a valid argumnet if Orlais was a single person. But Orlais is a nation and we're talking about  a LOOONG time span. Nations are prone to changes...people in pwoer and the popoulace change, as well as the worlds.
Even today, national politics can change overnight (or do you think WW2 Germany and the Germany of today are the same?) Given that nations in TheDas are kingdoms, change is even more extreeme, as the external and internal politics depends pretty much on 1 person.

In other words, a national history isn't personal.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And that is exactly what you are doing. Using a few instances where oversight fails and overblowing them and using them as standard.
It's clear that tamplars have prodecures and rules. They too have paperwork.
What they don't have is some of the modern marvels that make oversight so much easier.

If some county sherrif/deputy turns out to be a dickasaurus and kills a homeless guy back in the woods, what does that tell you about the police force?

No one is trying to blow this out of proportion, we're discussing a situation where innocent people are taken from their families and imprisoned under armed guard, have no basic rights, and can be executed or made tranquil on the basis of "evidence" that never has to be shown to the First Enchanter. It's an environment that some have tried to escape from, risking their lives in the process (as Anders admits, they could have labelled him maleficar and killed him) and others desire to be free of the Chantry (as the revolution in A Broken Circle attests to). There are multiple examples of how templars seem to cross the line and go after innocent people, with no reprecussions for their actions. As the Bioware blog entry reveals:

"It is a templar’s place to watch their charges for signs of weakness or corruption, and should they find it to act without hesitation for the good of all. That this occasionally leads to charges of tyranny and abuse is, according to the Chantry, a price that must be paid for the security the templars offer."

Thank you for proving my point here.
The oversight in NOT a problem you can solve by jsut removing the Chantry. It's a product of the time and means as much as anything else.
Furthermore, why should the first Enchanter be the start and end of any overight? I told you before - Cricle security is NOT the responsibility of the first enchanter, so there no reason why he MUST be shown any evidence. Who else sees that evidence? What  are the procedures? You do not know.

And that quote is interesting because of the two words I underlined.
Ocassionaly implies that things liek this are not common.
Charges implies that there is some form of ac****ability and due process.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Just because you don't see it, it doesn't mean it isn't there. The game is not called "CSI: Templars".. It's Dragon Age. Templars doing their job in a orderly fashion is hardly news worthy...but when one steps out of line you hear about it...
Bad news travels fast...which is why things often seem worse than they are.

It doesn't seem to be there when a mage-hating Cullen can end up as the new Knight-Commander of the Ferelden Circle, and all the mages are at his mercy.

what do we know about that?
2 lines from the epilogue. "Cullen governs the circle with an Iron Fist" .. that tells us what exactly?
Again, tha'ts too little information to draw any reasonalbe conclusions from.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
There is no resemblance there whatsoever. The comparison doesn't work.

Government and pople in power have confined people or entire groups of pople before..and do it now, if they belive it is warranted. With mages it certanly is so.

The nation of Rivain, the Dalish clans, and the Chasind tribes would disagree with that comment. The Chantry claims it's necessary, and by coincidence it also places all the mages of Andrastian nations under their thumb.

What does that prove? That there is difference in oppinion.

Just because a few people think it's a great idea to not kill foxes with rabies, because it's too inhumane, and are willing to live with the conseuqences, doesn't make that a samrt decision.

And ultimatively, you fail to see the big picture - socities cannot just change policies willy-nilly. Some policies ONLY work in specific cultures or circumstances.
Tribes DON'T have the same logistical or cultural mechanics as large nations.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Mages are exceptionally dangerous people. They are capable of causing massive damage and chaos, even when they don't want it.
You can ask yourself if it's morally right to lock people just because of that. But one should also ask oneself if it is morally justified to let them go (and face the consequences).
It's not a black-and-white matter.

Imprisoning them in a system where they have no voice and can be killed - in terms of their personality or their actual physical being - isn't the solution.

Thay have a voice. And they cna be killed anywhere. TheDas is a dangerous place.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It's similar to a quarantene scenario. The people in the quarantene didn't do anything to you. Most of them probably don't even want to hurt you in any way. They don want to be trapped in the small quarantene zone.
Yet, would it be morally right to let them go? Would it be a smart thing to do?

The morally right thing isn't to imprison innocent people. It's also not the smart thing to do when the mages can start a revolution and fight for their freedom. We saw how well the advanced technology of the Qunari did against them, after all...

So do you let the people out of the quarantene then?
Let's not forget, they can fight too if you refuse!

EDIT: Magic is an advantage, but there's no indication TheDas would have lost the war were it not for mages.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
You can't dismiss Orlais' history of conquest and say it doesn't count - they've taken over nations since the nation was founded. And you can factor into the end result for the elves when it seems to be the entire purpose behind the Exalted March in the first place - based on the claims made by the Dalish that the Chantry was trying to force conversion to their religion. We don't know for certain, that's true, but Orlais' history of taking over other nations is certainly something to consider when looking at the Exalted March on the Dales.

That would be a valid argumnet if Orlais was a single person. But Orlais is a nation and we're talking about  a LOOONG time span. Nations are prone to changes...people in pwoer and the popoulace change, as well as the worlds.
Even today, national politics can change overnight (or do you think WW2 Germany and the Germany of today are the same?) Given that nations in TheDas are kingdoms, change is even more extreeme, as the external and internal politics depends pretty much on 1 person.

In other words, a national history isn't personal.

Your argument seems to preclude the fact that despite the long time span and the change in leadership, Orlais has taken over other nations. It's done so since it was first formed by Emperor Drakon I, and it's done so after the Third Blight, and also did also under the current Empress and the previous Emperor. Despite the changes in the person leading the nation, this aspect of their history has remained consistent, even with the current Empress of Orlais.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

If the writers intended for us to take the accusation seriously, why didn't they write the templars hunting her down for being an apostate? Why not use her shape-shifting to brand her a maleficar? Why intentionally use the word "blood mage" when we clearly know that she never performs such magic?

Morrigan knows such magic. That is canon fact. She admits so herself.

If you want to harp abotu her not using typcial blood mage abilties in the game, think about this - there is more to blood magis and all magic than we see in the game. Game mechanics and classes aside, for that is not relevant.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
That would be a valid argumnet if Orlais was a single person. But Orlais is a nation and we're talking about  a LOOONG time span. Nations are prone to changes...people in pwoer and the popoulace change, as well as the worlds.
Even today, national politics can change overnight (or do you think WW2 Germany and the Germany of today are the same?) Given that nations in TheDas are kingdoms, change is even more extreeme, as the external and internal politics depends pretty much on 1 person.

In other words, a national history isn't personal.

Your argument seems to preclude the fact that despite the long time span and the change in leadership, Orlais has taken over other nations. It's done so since it was first formed by Emperor Drakon I, and it's done so after the Third Blight, and also did also under the current Empress and the previous Emperor. Despite the changes in the person leading the nation, this aspect of their history has remained consistent, even with the current Empress of Orlais.

Germany was involved in two word wars.
Get my point?

National history is IRRELEVANT when determining the current policy.
As long as the leadership is diffferent, there is no correlation to the earlier policy.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

No one is trying to blow this out of proportion, we're discussing a situation where innocent people are taken from their families and imprisoned under armed guard, have no basic rights, and can be executed or made tranquil on the basis of "evidence" that never has to be shown to the First Enchanter. It's an environment that some have tried to escape from, risking their lives in the process (as Anders admits, they could have labelled him maleficar and killed him) and others desire to be free of the Chantry (as the revolution in A Broken Circle attests to). There are multiple examples of how templars seem to cross the line and go after innocent people, with no reprecussions for their actions. As the Bioware blog entry reveals:

"It is a templar’s place to watch their charges for signs of weakness or corruption, and should they find it to act without hesitation for the good of all. That this occasionally leads to charges of tyranny and abuse is, according to the Chantry, a price that must be paid for the security the templars offer."

Thank you for proving my point here.

The point about charges of tyranny and abuse being levelled at the Chantry and its templars?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The oversight in NOT a problem you can solve by jsut removing the Chantry. It's a product of the time and means as much as anything else.

It's not mere oversight, it's control. Mages have no control over their lives, because they live under the control of the templars and the Chantry. Wynne and Anders voice this in Awakening when they say that the Chantry would rather cull all mages than see them free.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Furthermore, why should the first Enchanter be the start and end of any overight? I told you before - Cricle security is NOT the responsibility of the first enchanter, so there no reason why he MUST be shown any evidence. Who else sees that evidence? What  are the procedures? You do not know.

Do your arguments always steam from twisting the words of other people to suit your pro-Chantry vision of DA? The fact that the First Enchanter is entirely removed from such decision-making is the problem. There's no one capable of maintaining order if the Knight-Commander has no oversight; you'd realize how much of a problem it is when you remember that an anti-mage Cullen can become the new Knight-Commander.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It doesn't seem to be there when a mage-hating Cullen can end up as the new Knight-Commander of the Ferelden Circle, and all the mages are at his mercy.

what do we know about that?
2 lines from the epilogue. "Cullen governs the circle with an Iron Fist" .. that tells us what exactly?
Again, tha'ts too little information to draw any reasonalbe conclusions from.

The same Cullen who decides to murder any mage he encounters if he has no such position is the problem, or are you arguing that the position of Knight-Commander will solve all his mental issues regarding mages?

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If the writers intended for us to take the accusation seriously, why didn't they write the templars hunting her down for being an apostate? Why not use her shape-shifting to brand her a maleficar? Why intentionally use the word "blood mage" when we clearly know that she never performs such magic?

Morrigan knows such magic. That is canon fact. She admits so herself.

If you want to harp abotu her not using typcial blood mage abilties in the game, think about this - there is more to blood magis and all magic than we see in the game. Game mechanics and classes aside, for that is not relevant.

Morrigan never mentions the blood magic ritual that involves Isolde; she never uses blood instead of mana (and the game mechanics even allow Wynne to become a blood mage, so that doesn't count);  Morrigan never admits that she's capable of blood magic, only that she knows an old ritual that can be viewed as such. In that respect, she's no more of a blood mage than Finn is!

One single ritual that only the Warden - and maybe Alistair or Loghain could be privy to, but neither of whom have any intention of revealing such to the Chantry - is hardly an argument to make in support of templars hunting her down for being a blood mage.