1019 réponses à ce sujet

[moilami]

Crimea River wrote...


Anyway, I wouldn't hate mages for being what they are.  I'd hate magic itself.  I'd view it as a curse.  I'd be grateful I had no magic, and if I did have magic, I'd probably beg the templars to kill me.

At least you would not then be hypocrit. Respects for that.

However anything not mainstream can be perceived as curse. Magic is great gift and talent, which is admitted even in the game.

[moilami]

wicNKWD37 wrote...

My human noble donated 5 sovereigns and Im gonna help the templars to kill the mages >

*can't do that while stunned*
*can't do that while stunned*
*can't do that while stunned*
*can't do that while stunned*
*you have died*
*you are dead*

[lnicol1900]

moilami wrote...

Mages are not more dangerous than rogues or warriors. Rogues can be extremely dangerous. Well trained rogue (hide four ranks) could kill possibly hundreds of people and not ever get caught of it, if he wanted. Two naked warriors armed with axes can storm a church, one guarding the doorway and one chasing people, killing everyone inside and possibly escaping afterwards to do more storming later.

And all that mind control is just broken crap. If mages could mind control so good they would destroy the chantry and circle and whatever they want. You would not ever be safe of them as long as there would be mages. It is chantry who controls minds by using propaganda (and possibly lyrium) instead of magic.



Edit: It is a question of will. What a person wants to do. Don't fall in chantry propaganda. Mages in general don't want to cause mass destruction like rogues don't want to, even though they can. Being able to do something doesn't mean you would do it. Or do you say you could not use machine gun and slay tens of people? You could, but you don't want to do it. The same goes with mages.

I think dangerous is a a matter perspective. Yes, rogues and warriors can be very dangerous when they want to be, but like you said, the key word is "want". And I like the gun example, it's very true. Just because someone has a gun and can use it to kil, it doesn't that they will use it.

What I meant by mages becoming more dangerous was that the Chantry goes around saying "mages are bad, mages are evil, they could turn into an abomination at any moment". It can undermine a mage's self confidence. The mind is a powerful thing, and if you believe "I'm dangerous, I'm evil, I might turn into an abomination whenever I cast a spell" then you're more likely to let these things happen, because you're expecting them to. Of course, some people will rebel against that kind of thing just to prove people wrong.

But, what do I know of psychology, I'm learning genetics.

[Russalka]

Faith? Isn't that like, what poor people have instead of, you know... things?

[atheelogos]

Nope I don't like the Chantry one bit

[Trintrin86]

Erani wrote...

I don't hate the Chantry, but their self-righteous and intolerant attitude towards elves and mages is just plain wrong. I dislike the Chantry a lot, and also dislike how they control Templars by exploiting their lyrium addition. I believe in the "Maker" and overall the religious lore in the game is pretty interesting, but I don't think the Chantry should be all-powerful. To me, they self-nominated to be divine enforcers. The Maker has left and so the Chantry has no authority to speak in "his" name.

People keep saying that the Chantry has an intolerent attitude towards elves. The Chantry has an intolerent attitude towards the *Dalish* elves for reasons that are completely in line with their philosphy. The Dalish worship "false gods", they must accept the Maker into their hearts and that will bring Him one step closer to returning. In that regard the Chantry is no different from any other expansionist religion.

But I can't think of a single in game instance where the Chantry as a whole shows a bias against elves simply for being elves. The priestess in the city elf orgin seems more than happy to preside over the wedding. The Grand Cleric is outraged on behalf of the city elves in the Landsmeet if you mention that Loghain is selling them into slavery. The subjegation of the elves is cultural on a level far beyond the Chantry.

Treatment of mages is as talked about in another thread, a sticky point and there are very good arguments on both sides.

The Templar issue is the one point where I have to say that the Chantry seems to be taking what is arguably an "evil" act. They are forcing an addiction to Lyrium for no apparent benefit. But of course we as players don't know the whole story behind that, and I'm sure David Gaider and crew have a lovely, morally ambigious answer for why they do that.

[moilami]

lnicol1900 wrote...

moilami wrote...

Mages are not more dangerous than rogues or warriors. Rogues can be extremely dangerous. Well trained rogue (hide four ranks) could kill possibly hundreds of people and not ever get caught of it, if he wanted. Two naked warriors armed with axes can storm a church, one guarding the doorway and one chasing people, killing everyone inside and possibly escaping afterwards to do more storming later.

And all that mind control is just broken crap. If mages could mind control so good they would destroy the chantry and circle and whatever they want. You would not ever be safe of them as long as there would be mages. It is chantry who controls minds by using propaganda (and possibly lyrium) instead of magic.



Edit: It is a question of will. What a person wants to do. Don't fall in chantry propaganda. Mages in general don't want to cause mass destruction like rogues don't want to, even though they can. Being able to do something doesn't mean you would do it. Or do you say you could not use machine gun and slay tens of people? You could, but you don't want to do it. The same goes with mages.

I think dangerous is a a matter perspective. Yes, rogues and warriors can be very dangerous when they want to be, but like you said, the key word is "want". And I like the gun example, it's very true. Just because someone has a gun and can use it to kil, it doesn't that they will use it.

What I meant by mages becoming more dangerous was that the Chantry goes around saying "mages are bad, mages are evil, they could turn into an abomination at any moment". It can undermine a mage's self confidence. The mind is a powerful thing, and if you believe "I'm dangerous, I'm evil, I might turn into an abomination whenever I cast a spell" then you're more likely to let these things happen, because you're expecting them to. Of course, some people will rebel against that kind of thing just to prove people wrong.

But, what do I know of psychology, I'm learning genetics.

Good point. And of that chantry can be blamed.

[the_one_54321]

XxDeonxX wrote...
But what im asking is, Why so much hate for the chantry? And is there anyone here that likes the Chantry?

I think the Chantry is pretty awesome, actually. My Warden did a whole lot of good deeds in Ferelden specifically because the Chantry posted about such things on the Chantry board. Also, I don't believe the "mages are dangerous" rhetoric is entirely unfair. Strictly speaking, mages are indeed a danger. The events in the Mage's Tower illustrated this fairly well. Maybe relations with the mages in Ferelden aren't handled as ideally or peacefully as they could, but that doesn't mean the whole concept is such a bad idea.

[moilami]

the_one_54321 wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...
But what im asking is, Why so much hate for the chantry? And is there anyone here that likes the Chantry?

I think the Chantry is pretty awesome, actually. My Warden did a whole lot of good deeds in Ferelden specifically because the Chantry posted about such things on the Chantry board. Also, I don't believe the "mages are dangerous" rhetoric is entirely unfair. Strictly speaking, mages are indeed a danger. The events in the Mage's Tower illustrated this fairly well. Maybe relations with the mages in Ferelden aren't handled as ideally or peacefully as they could, but that doesn't mean the whole concept is such a bad idea.

Any human can be dangerous. Why only hunt mages? What sense it does make? What crime mages has done?

Tower illustrated how chantry fails. The mages wanted freedom, and they were ready to fight for it, and they managed to fight for it even when locked in a tower.

[Russalka]

How many mages versus the Chantry / the Templars threads are there by now?

Modifié par Russalka, 01 février 2011 - 06:04 .

[Maria Caliban]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Does anyone actually LIKE the chantry?

I love the Chantry.

That I was introduced to it by a red-haired bard with a French accent who eventually made her way to my tent helps a great deal.

[moilami]

Russalka wrote...

How many mages versus the Chantry / the Templars threads are there by now?

y

Give something else to fight for. Like boobs. I can be passionate to care on that too

[the_one_54321]

moilami wrote...
Any human can be dangerous. Why only hunt mages? What sense it does make? What crime mages has done?

Tower illustrated how chantry fails. The mages wanted freedom, and they were ready to fight for it, and they managed to fight for it even when locked in a tower.

Only mages can channel demons into the material world. That's not made up or unfairly skewed. People are all people and all people are capable of being very dangerous based on their physical or mental prowess, but only a mage can actually be possesed by a demon and bring demons out of the fade.

The argument was made tha a rouge or a warrior can also kill a whole lot of people. That's true. So can someone with magical potential, if that person trains for it. But only a person with magical potential can also access the fade and the spirits within.

As for the chantry managing to fail at completely controlling the mages, well maybe they should have been even more authoritorian? Maybe the system used by the Qun for mages would be better, hmmm? No system is perfect. Saying "here is an instance where the system failed" can potenially be an opportunity for improvement and not a reason why the whole thing should be abandoned. My car wouldn't start the other day. I fixed it. Should I have just called a tow truck and had it taken to the dump instead? 

[cha0s5000]

The only think i like about the chantry is the gold they pay me to do errands.  Little do they know it is likely going towards a sword i would gladly turn against them if they tried to turn their overy oppresive religious grasp on me.

[moilami]

Maria Caliban wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

Does anyone actually LIKE the chantry?

I love the Chantry.

That I was introduced to it by a red-haired bard with a French accent who eventually made her way to my tent helps a great deal.

I just ignored her chantry talk and took what she had to offer for  *me*

[Maria Caliban]

moilami wrote...

I just ignored her chantry talk and took what she had to offer for  *me*

Such a charmer.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Irkalla wrote...


i hate all organized religion, I don't need any other reason to hate it.

The same here.

[Dante Angelo]

I didn't like how at ostegar when the priestess asked if I wanted a blessing and I said no she got all angry and call me a heathen. Also seeing as how the chantry is against blood magic doesn't the whole mage phylactry concept count as blood magic? I could be wrong

[moilami]

the_one_54321 wrote...

moilami wrote...
Any human can be dangerous. Why only hunt mages? What sense it does make? What crime mages has done?

Tower illustrated how chantry fails. The mages wanted freedom, and they were ready to fight for it, and they managed to fight for it even when locked in a tower.

Only mages can channel demons into the material world. That's not made up or unfairly skewed. People are all people and all people are capable of being very dangerous based on their physical or mental prowess, but only a mage can actually be possesed by a demon and bring demons out of the fade.

The argument was made tha a rouge or a warrior can also kill a whole lot of people. That's true. So can someone with magical potential, if that person trains for it. But only a person with magical potential can also access the fade and the spirits within.

As for the chantry managing to fail at completely controlling the mages, well maybe they should have been even more authoritorian? Maybe the system used by the Qun for mages would be better, hmmm? No system is perfect. Saying "here is an instance where the system failed" can potenially be an opportunity for improvement and not a reason why the whole thing should be abandoned. My car wouldn't start the other day. I fixed it. Should I have just called a tow truck and had it taken to the dump instead? 

A rogue can be possessed by "insanity" or "killing spree" "demon" existing only in his head and can kill tons of people without ever even being caught. A mage being possessed by a demon means the mage practically died and after the demon has been killed it is end of story. This is why mages don't want demons posses them. Or would you want to do a suicide?

Mages can on the other hand do very easily a lot of good. Even very novice mage can be trained to learn heal spell. So while mages are potentially dangerous like any other human being, they are very capable to be great asset to the society - both during war and peace.

Anyway, enough for me. Just play the game and have fun. Or have fun arguing and reading forums.

[the_one_54321]

Anything you can do I can do better! I can do anything better than you!

I'm being snide. My apologies. The thing is, for every example you can give that shows how a rogue or warrior can do something that is like what a mage can do, the fact remains that the mage can actually also do that thing you just mentioned. A mage can learn all kinds of crazy combat techniques. A mage can go nuts and murder lots of people. And so on and so forth. The only actual difference between any of them is that a mage can access the fade and release demons. That's it.

[Kenjimaster666]

I like my characters to reflect me, and I'm not a very religious person.



Also, the people of the chantry tend to be slef-rightous cu-

[Eternal Phoenix]

Dante Angelo wrote...

I didn't like how at ostegar when the priestess asked if I wanted a blessing and I said no she got all angry and call me a heathen.

That makes her evil then? Just because she got rude - the WHOLE Chantry is bad? It's like my Maker's Witness storyline:

Regardless of if you believe the Chantry or don't, you've got to admit that they aren't evil or bad and have done many good deeds. Just because they say all unbelievers won't return to The Maker - does that make them bad when they are doing charitable works?

Villager: Thanks for fixing my roof for free.
Maker's Witness: No problem. I did it for The Maker.
Villager: WHAT!? YOU BELIEVE IN THE MAKER! YOU'RE EVIL! *Shoves Maker's Witness out of house*
Maker's Witness: Wait, please take this go--*door slams shut*--ld...

[Veex]

I enjoy all of the religions presented in the game. The Chantry is obviously the most prevalent, but I also find the Dwarven and Dalish religions (or worship) to be equally interesting. I personally don't belong to a specific religion, but have a respect for what I would call spirituality- in all forms, and that helps me take a bit of an unbiased view in fictional material. The Chantry certainly does a fair amount of great deeds for the common people. You only need to look at Lothering and Redcliffe for examples of their support of common folk or those in distress.



That said, the mage and templar debates are obviously very polarizing and I'd struggle (as I would in real life) to say any religion is without flaw.