244 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

ZeroDotZero wrote...

I like the Chantry, but not the templars. The chantry do good, but their templar organisation opresses the mages. I like mages, I like Chantry. I do not like templars.

Well the templars are no seperate faction, they are part of the Chantry.

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...



As a Warden, Anders is legally outside Chantry control, per David Gaider. They have no legal right over a Warden Mage nor to try to murder the Warden-Commander for refusing to hand Anders over for going into a building in the Warden's arling.

Well, is breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny not a crime any more?



I'll tell you this, if the President of the United States breaks into my house at night to steal something, I'm going to shoot the guy.



Arresting a thief, and his accomplices, is not something I'd consider evil. Nor is killing them when they resist arrest.



Now, if the Arl of Amaranthine showed up in daylight, with an order to turn it over, that might be different. He still may not have the authority to do that - as Grey Wardens are outside of Chantry jurisdiction, I'm sure the Chantry is outside Grey Warden or Ferelden jurisdiction - but it would at least no longer justify an attack.

Amaranthine is not the U.S., its the arling of the Grey Wardens. The Warden-Commander decides disputes, land ownership, and life and death. Rylock is acting outside her boundaries by trying to arrest a Grey Warden who was outside her juristiction long before the Wardens received Amaranthine as their arling. Trying to murder the Hero of Ferelden in his own arling is criminal, there's no getting around it.

[TJPags]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

1.  They set a trap for Anders, by telling his "spy" where the phylactery is - it's not actually there.  They wanted legal justification for arresting him, and when he broke into their warehouse with the intent to commit theft, they got it.  It's just like an undercover cop posing as a prostitute - if you take the bait, you broke the law.

2.  It is an option - let us arrest the criminal, and we'll forget that YOU'RE a criminal too.  Now, I don't take it either, nor do I let them arrest me.  I don't let Cauthrien arrest me after I break into Howe's house and kill him, either.  Doesn't mean I didn't commit a criminal act.

3.  The phylactery is, actually, Chantry property.  How do you dispute this?

4.  So, we should let a criminal go free because he did something good once?  How far do we let that go?  If the Hero of Ferelden becomes a mass murderer, or a serial rapist, or a child molester, do we let all that go too?

We can debate this, but again, I'm even willing - for this discussion - to concede that these Templars were evil.  I ask again - does that make the entire Chantry evil?

The Arl of Amaranthine isn't a criminal - this is his arling, and he has the right of high justice, not the Chantry. Rylock is defying the Right of Conscription of Anders in an attempt to capture Anders, who is legally outside her juristiction as a Grey Warden. The issue is that Rylock is criminal in her attempt to murder the de facto Arl of Amaranthine in his own arling.

If the Arl of Amaranthine breaks into private property in an attempt to commit a crime, he is indeed a criminal.  He has the right of High Justice, which allows him to judge and try criminals - not become one.  Unless you want to argue he is above the law - that's a little different, and I'm not sure we have evidence for this in game.

She is trying to capture Anders, and sets up a legal reason to do so - he is committing a crime against the Arl by breaking and entering, and attempting to commit a crime against the Chantry by stealing their property.  That's not the same as ambushing him as he's walking down the street in Amaranthine and kidnapping or killing him.

Is it criminal to kill a criminal who is in the act of committing a crime?

SunnKingg wrote...

TJPags wrote...


3.  The phylactery is, actually, Chantry property.  How do you dispute this?

The phylactery is filled with Anders'  blood, which was taken forcefully from him by the chantry. They have no claim over anders' blood. They may not be evil, but they are close when they use the mage's blood to track them down then condemn and execute the mage on just the suspicion of blood magic. The only person Anders' blood belongs to is Anders.

Forcefully?  How so?  Did they drag him to a room, hold him down and cut him?  Or did they ask him?  Do you know which?

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Arl of Amaranthine isn't a criminal - this is his arling, and he has the right of high justice, not the Chantry. Rylock is defying the Right of Conscription of Anders in an attempt to capture Anders, who is legally outside her juristiction as a Grey Warden. The issue is that Rylock is criminal in her attempt to murder the de facto Arl of Amaranthine in his own arling.

If the Arl of Amaranthine breaks into private property in an attempt to commit a crime, he is indeed a criminal.  He has the right of High Justice, which allows him to judge and try criminals - not become one.  Unless you want to argue he is above the law - that's a little different, and I'm not sure we have evidence for this in game.

He isn't breaking into private property, he's walking into a warehouse with another Grey Warden in his own arling where he is the law. That's why he is the arbiter of disputes between nobles, why he can try to arrest the second "Dark Wolf," why he can spare or execute the Messenger, because he is the Arl of Amaranthine and he decides the law. As for breaking into the warehouse, he walked in. The door wasn't locked (and we've encountered enough locked doors in DA:O to tell the difference) and Rylock had no legitiment claim on either the Warden-Commander or Anders.

TJPags wrote...

She is trying to capture Anders, and sets up a legal reason to do so - he is committing a crime against the Arl by breaking and entering, and attempting to commit a crime against the Chantry by stealing their property.  That's not the same as ambushing him as he's walking down the street in Amaranthine and kidnapping or killing him.

Is it criminal to kill a criminal who is in the act of committing a crime?

The Arl of Amaranthine isn't a criminal in his own arling; even the guards can't arrest him for aiding the smugglers, after all. The Chantry and the templars have no claim over Grey Wardens, and Rylock is already breaking the law trying to arrest a Warden who is outside her juristiction to begin with. She's the criminal here. The Warden is well within his rights to execute her because he has the right of high justice.

[SunnKingg]

I doubt that any mage would want to give his blood to the Chantry. Forcefully doesn't mean just physical abuse. If he chose to fight instead of give them his blood he would have been slain, which doesn't seem like much of a choice to me. But we are getting of the issue and that is that the blood is Anders' and not the Chantry's.

[The Spirit of Dance]

I never saw the chantry as evil to be honest...

[LobselVith8]

SunnKingg wrote...

TJPags wrote...


3.  The phylactery is, actually, Chantry property.  How do you dispute this?

The phylactery is filled with Anders'  blood, which was taken forcefully from him by the chantry. They have no claim over anders' blood. They may not be evil, but they are close when they use the mage's blood to track them down then condemn and execute the mage on just the suspicion of blood magic. The only person Anders' blood belongs to is Anders.

It doesn't even matter, though. Rylock has no legitimate claim over Anders now that he's a Grey Warden. Even David Gaider addresses the issue of Grey Warden mages and the Chantry:

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Yes, married or not the child of a mage is taken away by the Chantry.

Would the same happen if the mage was also a Grey Warden, such as the Warden-Commander of DA:O and Awakenings?

A mage who is not part of the Circle is not subject to the will of the Chantry. So, no.

Clearly, Rylock has no legal right to try to arrest Anders now that he's a Grey Warden.

[SunnKingg]

LobselVith8 wrote...

It doesn't even matter, though. Rylock has no legitimate claim over Anders now that he's a Grey Warden. Even David Gaider addresses the issue of Grey Warden mages and the Chantry:

.

I understand that. Im sorry for the misunderstanding, but i was using Anders because he seamed to be the topic of debat between you and TJPacs. My statements were aimed at the whole phylactery system.

[LobselVith8]

SunnKingg wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It doesn't even matter, though. Rylock has no legitimate claim over Anders now that he's a Grey Warden. Even David Gaider addresses the issue of Grey Warden mages and the Chantry:

.

I understand that. Im sorry for the misunderstanding, but i was using Anders because he seamed to be the topic of debat between you and TJPacs. My statements were aimed at the whole phylactery system.

No need to apologize! I actually agree with what you were saying, because I don't think what the Chantry is doing to the mages of the Circles is productive or effective. It's why I helped Jowan get his phylactery, and why I try to aid Anders in getting his. It's simply that, regardless of whether one agrees with what the Chantry does or not, Rylock had no legal right to go after Anders or the Warden-Commander.

[TJPags]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Arl of Amaranthine isn't a criminal - this is his arling, and he has the right of high justice, not the Chantry. Rylock is defying the Right of Conscription of Anders in an attempt to capture Anders, who is legally outside her juristiction as a Grey Warden. The issue is that Rylock is criminal in her attempt to murder the de facto Arl of Amaranthine in his own arling.

If the Arl of Amaranthine breaks into private property in an attempt to commit a crime, he is indeed a criminal.  He has the right of High Justice, which allows him to judge and try criminals - not become one.  Unless you want to argue he is above the law - that's a little different, and I'm not sure we have evidence for this in game.

He isn't breaking into private property, he's walking into a warehouse with another Grey Warden in his own arling where he is the law. That's why he is the arbiter of disputes between nobles, why he can try to arrest the second "Dark Wolf," why he can spare or execute the Messenger, because he is the Arl of Amaranthine and he decides the law. As for breaking into the warehouse, he walked in. The door wasn't locked (and we've encountered enough locked doors in DA:O to tell the difference) and Rylock had no legitiment claim on either the Warden-Commander or Anders.

TJPags wrote...

She is trying to capture Anders, and sets up a legal reason to do so - he is committing a crime against the Arl by breaking and entering, and attempting to commit a crime against the Chantry by stealing their property.  That's not the same as ambushing him as he's walking down the street in Amaranthine and kidnapping or killing him.

Is it criminal to kill a criminal who is in the act of committing a crime?

The Arl of Amaranthine isn't a criminal in his own arling; even the guards can't arrest him for aiding the smugglers, after all. The Chantry and the templars have no claim over Grey Wardens, and Rylock is already breaking the law trying to arrest a Warden who is outside her juristiction to begin with. She's the criminal here. The Warden is well within his rights to execute her because he has the right of high justice.

1.  Is the warehouse public property, or is ir private property?  If it's private property, he's committing a crime (I'll get that more in the second part) whethere the door is locked or not.  He's there to commit another crime - theft of Chantry property.  Does the Chantry not have the right to protest the theft of their property, even by the Arl of Amaranthine?  I think they do.

2.  You seem to be arguing the Arl of Amaranthine is above the law, or that the law doesn't apply to him.  Dispensing justice to a criminal is one thing, killing someone in cold blood or committing another crime is something different, isn't it?

I admit I never played out the smuggler's quest in Awakening - does the Arl actually get caught, and do the guards actually say they can't arrest him?  If so, that would seem to point in favor of your position.  If, however, the guards do NOT actually catch him, or don't actually say they can't arrest him during that quest, I think the argument swings back my way, or at least this becomes a moot issue.

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

1.  Is the warehouse public property, or is ir private property?  If it's private property, he's committing a crime (I'll get that more in the second part) whethere the door is locked or not.  He's there to commit another crime - theft of Chantry property.  Does the Chantry not have the right to protest the theft of their property, even by the Arl of Amaranthine?  I think they do.

He's the Arl of Amaranthine. There's nothing stopping him from investigating the warehouse in his own arling. He has certain privledges as Commander of the Grey. That's why the Commander tells Ariane they have to let him into the Circle of Magi in Witch Hunt when she brings up that they wouldn't permit a Dalish elf to enter.

TJPags wrote...

2.  You seem to be arguing the Arl of Amaranthine is above the law, or that the law doesn't apply to him.  Dispensing justice to a criminal is one thing, killing someone in cold blood or committing another crime is something different, isn't it?

If he determines what the law is in his own arling, he isn't a criminal. Especially since Rylock has no legal right to try to arrest Anders. Feel free to read over Gaider's comment again: Grey Warden mages aren't under Chantry control.

TJPags wrote...

I admit I never played out the smuggler's quest in Awakening - does the Arl actually get caught, and do the guards actually say they can't arrest him?  If so, that would seem to point in favor of your position.  If, however, the guards do NOT actually catch him, or don't actually say they can't arrest him during that quest, I think the argument swings back my way, or at least this becomes a moot issue.

The guards can't arrest him because he's the Arl of Amaranthine, and they all call him on the fact that he's working with the Smugglers.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 19 février 2011 - 08:52 .

[TJPags]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

1.  Is the warehouse public property, or is ir private property?  If it's private property, he's committing a crime (I'll get that more in the second part) whethere the door is locked or not.  He's there to commit another crime - theft of Chantry property.  Does the Chantry not have the right to protest the theft of their property, even by the Arl of Amaranthine?  I think they do.

He's the Arl of Amaranthine. There's nothing stopping him from investigating the warehouse in his own arling. He has certain privledges as Commander of the Grey. That's why the Commander tells Ariane they have to let him into the Circle of Magi in Witch Hunt when she brings up that they wouldn't permit a Dalish elf to enter.

TJPags wrote...

2.  You seem to be arguing the Arl of Amaranthine is above the law, or that the law doesn't apply to him.  Dispensing justice to a criminal is one thing, killing someone in cold blood or committing another crime is something different, isn't it?

If he determines what the law is in his own arling, he isn't a criminal. Especially since Rylock has no legal right to try to arrest Anders. Feel free to read over Gaider's comment again: Grey Warden mages aren't under Chantry control.

TJPags wrote...

I admit I never played out the smuggler's quest in Awakening - does the Arl actually get caught, and do the guards actually say they can't arrest him?  If so, that would seem to point in favor of your position.  If, however, the guards do NOT actually catch him, or don't actually say they can't arrest him during that quest, I think the argument swings back my way, or at least this becomes a moot issue.

The guards can't arrest him because he's the Arl of Amaranthine, and they all call him on the fact that he's working with the Smugglers.

1.  But he wasn't investigating that warehouse, he was trying to steal something from it.  Not everything in it is his - in fact, nothing in it may be his.  The phylactery isn't his - it belongs to the Chantry.  He may be able to investigate things, but that's not what he was doing here.

2.  Gaider's comment refers to Anders - it does NOT refer to his phylactery, nor does it indicate that the Chantry can't stop him from stealing from them.  Thus, it's not relevant to this discussion.

3.  Well, then there is in-game evidence that he is above the law.  That is quite different then your earlier argument, in this same post.  ie, determining what the law is making him not a criminal.  If I determine that it is illegal to steal, and then I steal, I have broken the law.  If I determine that murder is legal, then I kill someone, I have not broken the law.

Being above the law means that I've determined that stealing is illegal, but that the law does not apply to me.  It's different.  And in light of what you said about the Smuggler's quest, I concede this point.

But does it mean Anders wasn't stealing? 

[Russalka]

Nothing even resembling agreement or consensus comes out of these threads.

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

1.  But he wasn't investigating that warehouse, he was trying to steal something from it.  Not everything in it is his - in fact, nothing in it may be his.  The phylactery isn't his - it belongs to the Chantry.  He may be able to investigate things, but that's not what he was doing here.

You have proof he was trying to steal something? As the Warden-Commander, he says he was investigating the warehouse. The burden of proof would be on Rylock to show otherwise. Since this is his arling, and he is the law of the land, there's nothing Rylock can legally do - especially since she's illegally trying to capture a mage who is with the Grey Wardens.

TJPags wrote...

2.  Gaider's comment refers to Anders - it does NOT refer to his phylactery, nor does it indicate that the Chantry can't stop him from stealing from them.  Thus, it's not relevant to this discussion.

It doesn't refer to Anders, it refers to all Grey Warden mages. They're no longer under Chantry control. As a result, Rylock is acting criminal by trying to arrest a Grey Warden mage who is not under her juristiction. It's completely relevant to address this point.

TJPags wrote...

3.  Well, then there is in-game evidence that he is above the law.  That is quite different then your earlier argument, in this same post.  ie, determining what the law is making him not a criminal.  If I determine that it is illegal to steal, and then I steal, I have broken the law.  If I determine that murder is legal, then I kill someone, I have not broken the law.

If he determines what the law is in his own arling, then he's not a criminal, which is why he can side with the smugglers and even kill the lieutenant. It doesn't contradict what I said when I addressed that he's not a criminal in his own arling.

TJPags wrote...

Being above the law means that I've determined that stealing is illegal, but that the law does not apply to me.  It's different.  And in light of what you said about the Smuggler's quest, I concede this point.

But does it mean Anders wasn't stealing? 

Stealing his own blood?

[ReallyRue]

Russalka wrote...

Nothing even resembling agreement or consensus comes out of these threads.

I've noticed that too. Makes you wonder what the point is.

[Ziggeh]

ReallyRue wrote...

Russalka wrote...

Nothing even resembling agreement or consensus comes out of these threads.

I've noticed that too. Makes you wonder what the point is.

I think the situation is written intentionally to defy consensus, so as far as I'm concerned the further away we all come away from one, the more successful the discussion.

[Maria Caliban]

Nope. Everyone is the Chantry is evil. Leliana is the most moral Chantry member you'll meet and she lies about receiving visions, enjoys murdering people, and commits numerous acts of fornication.

[OldMan91]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Nope. Everyone is the Chantry is evil. Leliana is the most moral Chantry member you'll meet and she lies about receiving visions, enjoys murdering people, and commits numerous acts of fornication.

Sarcasm. How droll.

[Maderas_]

TJPags wrote...
Forcefully?  How so?  Did they drag him to a room, hold him down and cut him?  Or did they ask him?  Do you know which?

I had to quote this, because it makes no sense. It's established in the mage origin that as a mage under Circle control, your options are basically 1) Do what you're told, 2) be turned into a Tranquil or 3) be killed. Even if he agreed to give them the blood, it's not like he really had much of a say in the matter.

Anyway, people are debating motivations more than actual alignment here. Alignment itself is not grey or ambiguous. The idea of good and evil is by its very nature strict - they are the polar opposites at each end of a spectrum. Ever heard the saying "turn the other cheek"? It can be argued that the Chantry is technically doing "the right thing" by locking up mages in the tower, as mages are dangerous, but that's not how alignment works. At a basic level they are still enslaving people against their will, and the fact that some of those people might turn into abominations and do harm to others is completely irrelevant to the Chantry's actions. People keep saying "Well what about stuff other than locking up the mages?", but really, locking up the mages is the biggest and most obvious moral quandary we're presented about the Chantry. Being "good" isn't about doing what is in everybody's best interests. It's about doing what is morally sacrosanct even if you know it's going to bite you in the ass later.

If I kill somebody who I know is a murderer, does that mean I'm not a murderer myself? No.

Did the murderer have a family of his own, people who loved and respected him? Most likely.

Did I stop the murderer from murdering other people? Yes.

Does that mean I was morally justified in killing him? Not in the strictest sense (which is what the concept of "good" or "evil" is all about). I still murdered somebody.

Modifié par Maderas_, 20 février 2011 - 02:28 .

[Maderas_]

Got to love those double posts that won't show up even after you've refreshed the page three times.

Modifié par Maderas_, 20 février 2011 - 02:02 .