244 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Chantry is awesome. Mages are abominations waiting to happen.

[Nutermunger]

 I liked the Chantry! Both Chantry and Mages have their saints and psychos.  If made to choose I don't think I could.  It would depend on the situation I suppose.  But no, I don't hate the Chantry and think it is evil. <3

[LobselVith8]

Andraste and Shartan are two examples of violent revolutionaries who emancipated their people. Your Uldred example isn't absolute. Sometimes, you need more than a strongly worded letter to change things.



No mention of the Black Panther Party, Water?

[Housecarl]

The Water God wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

The Water God wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You clearly aren't familar with civil rights movement of the United States, then. They didn't wait for the people, they fought for their rights.

You obiviousley aren't familiar with the civil rights movement. MLK fought for black rights through non violent protest and speeches. He never once lashed out and attacked a white man or suggested that blacks should go out and rebel against whites. Protesters in the civil rights movement would even refuse to fight back when white people literally beat the living hell out of them.

I don't think LobselVith8 was using the expression "fought for their rights" to imply that they literally used violence.  It was about not being passive.

*facepalm*Not being passive means you are violent.....

And I knew he wasn't being literal I was making a point.

Passive:
not reacting visibly to something that might be expected to produce manifestations of an emotion or feeling. 2. not participating readily or actively; inactive: a passive member of a committee. 3. not involving visible reaction or active participation: to play a passive role. 4. inert or quiescent.

No mention of violence there. To be passive is to do nothing, to be unresponsive. It is unfair to simply say that if you are not passive, you are violent.

ON TOPIC: I think the Chantry are abit like how the Medieval Church would be if they had the Knight's Templar on a leash. There are alot of good people, but there alot of bad ones aswell, but most of them are somewhere inbetween. Greagoir, for example, seemed to have a huge prejudice against Mages, but didn't actually want to annul the Circle. I always thought he saw it as a failure of his duty if the Circle fell.
So not really a bad guy, as he doesn't want to kill all the Mages, and he seems to be very good at hunting Abominations, judging from what others say about him. But he's not good; he dislikes them, and strongly believes in a tight leash. I think 90% of the Chantry may be in this kind of grey area.

[LobselVith8]

You were making a poor point, Water. You brush off a great deal of history in your retort to me and ignore the basic message of my post to prop your "argument." Also, your example with Anora and the elves ignores how Alistair can give them representation at the royal court without a riot.

[Fishy]

The Water God wrote...

marshalleck wrote...

TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

kjdhgfiliuhwe wrote...

How in the world do we know the Dalish are fine? Because we don't run into any problems they have with mages running wild in our adventures?

I mean seriously. Look into a mirror and ask yourself if you really, really, really believe people who have access to the type of power magic brings will generally spit out responsible, well adjusted members of society. Really.

We could really go loopy and say the reason the Dalish are still so few in number is because half their leaders end up massaccaring them all. ;p The point being that we have no idea really what the state of mage....irresponsibility is in the Dalish community. A reasonable person though can probably hazard some guesses though.

I have to agree with this. Not all Dalish mages are well adjusted. Look at Zath or Velanna. They both used their magical abilities to bring harm to others to quench their thirst for vengeance

As if Circle mages are well-adjusted? Look at Uldred. Cherry-picking contrary examples doesn't advance the conversation. And please, it's not MAGIC that powered their thirst for vengeance, it was their personalities. If they couldn't shoot fire from their fingertips they'd use swords and arrows instead. And if they couldn't use those, they'd drop boulders on their foes. 

And thats why magic in the hands of those people is dangerous in the first place.

Remove the police for 1 week in your city and watch what might happens.Give a weapons to a bullied when he's bullied and watch.

It's not like a mage can become a dentist.He need to control his magic power.
Think about the kid that bullied poor Wynne .. She almost made him burst in fire.

Emotion control magery ..

Modifié par Suprez30, 19 février 2011 - 09:22 .

[PinkShoes]

religoins arent evil, people are.

[lovecraftiangod]

the chantry is like all organized religion mostly corrupt

[Russalka]

Buddhists do not seem like the evil and maniacal sort to me.

[Nonoru]

Chantry isn't evil.On the contrary they try to protect people.

They are a bit radical though but not as much as the Qunaris.

[Xewaka]

Like any example you can think of an organized, continent spanning religion, the chantry has in it the same variety in people that there is outside. They have those who pay lip service, those who truly believe, those who willfully give themselves to the community, those who try to get away with as little work as they can do, corrupt leaders and not-so-bad leaders, jerks, nice people...
You get the picture. However, Origins gave a poor impression on the Chantry, as most of the perspectives presented to the player within his companion group (that is, the people he'll interact with more and thus will shape the player's perspective of the world) are either neutral or actively anti-chantry.
Dragon Age 2 gives us three apostate party members, so I don't think we'll get a more positive light thrown into the Chantry this time.
This is why I half expect the PC in a hypothetical DA 3 to be a Seeker continuing Cass' investigation. So that we are exposed to the good side of the Chantry playing as one of its elite members.

Modifié par Xewaka, 19 février 2011 - 01:25 .

[Urazz]

Suprez30 wrote...

Remove the police for 1 week in your city and watch what might happens.Give a weapons to a bullied when he's bullied and watch.

It's not like a mage can become a dentist.He need to control his magic power.
Think about the kid that bullied poor Wynne .. She almost made him burst in fire.

Emotion control magery ..

Oh I don't think anyone has said that the Circle should abolished or anything like that.  New mages do need their training, but then the Circle seems more like a prison and more determined to make mage apprentices fail than actually making them strong enough to control their magic and resist possession.

It's the same with the Templars.  They are potentially good at hunting down criminal mages but right now they seem to be used more for supressing the mages than actually watching over them and protecting the people from blood mages.

[ReallyRue]

The Chantry isn't evil, it should be allowed to continue as a religion and refuge for poor and needy. However, it shouldn't be able to dictate rules to entire countries, or have control over the fate of mages.

[HopHazzard]

I don't think the chantry is evil. It's an organization filled with people, many of whom are well-intentioned, and some of whom are utter jerkasses. In other words, it's pretty much like any other large organization. I do think they have too much political authority, they take an active role in the subjugation of the elves, I'm not a fan of their discriminatory hiring practices when it comes to priests, and while I think mages need oversight, I think the chantry is doing it wrong. But do I think your average priest or even templar is a bad person? No.



I do think a reformation is in order.

[ReallyRue]

HopHazzard wrote...

I don't think the chantry is evil. It's an organization filled with people, many of whom are well-intentioned, and some of whom are utter jerkasses. In other words, it's pretty much like any other large organization. I do think they have too much political authority, they take an active role in the subjugation of the elves, I'm not a fan of their discriminatory hiring practices when it comes to priests, and while I think mages need oversight, I think the chantry is doing it wrong. But do I think your average priest or even templar is a bad person? No.

I do think a reformation is in order.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I think. Only you worded better.

Modifié par ReallyRue, 19 février 2011 - 02:07 .

[Haasth]

Like most of us will agree on, religious movements and political power should be separated as much as possible. Human history is a nice proof of such.

Shame the Chantry just went "No u" after my Mage asked for Circle freedom though... 

Modifié par Haasth, 19 février 2011 - 02:25 .

[Noviere]

I don't think the Chantry is evil. Like anything involving humanity, it's a bunch of good-intentioned people with some bad stuff going on in the background.

[TJPags]

[quote]AlexXIV wrote...

[quote]TJPags wrote...

[quote]kjdhgfiliuhwe wrote...

The problem with this argument is half of you are arguing from your personal perspective and the other half is arguing from the perspective of a human inhabitant of Thedas. It's a pointless argument. [/quote]

Good point.

As someone else pointed out, the Chantry takes in orphans and such.  It - like any religion - gives people a sense of purpose and community.  These are good things, I think.

Like all religions - well, most - people who follow it want it to spread.  Obviously, they feel it is a good thing, and that others should be exposed to it.  Again, a good thing, or at least not an evil one.

Now, sometimes they do it by force.  I can agree this is wrong.  Yet as I hinted earlier, many real world relgions have done the same thing.  Does that make these current real world religions evil?  I think that's a stretch.

People who paint the Chantry and those in it as evil - I ask again, as I did earlier - can you find me a Chantry character who does evil things in an of the DA games?[/quote]

The templars in awakenings who try to kill you if you break into the house where anders suspects his phylactery. They don't actually 'do' evil because I kill them first, but if they for example succeeded killing the Commander of the Grey and Hero of Ferelden and his group, then the Mother would probably win and destroy Amaranthine and Vigil keep.
[/quote]

Those Templars aren't after you - they're trying to capture Anders, a known mage who has escaped many times from the Chantry, and who they feel is potentially dangerous.  Which is their job.  You're collateral damage.   Is that wrong?  Yes, he was conscripted.  However, the Chantry answers neither to the Grey Wardens, nor to the ruler of Ferelden.  So, wrong, yes, but evil?  I don't think so.

[quote]Eveangaline wrote...

[quote]Riona45 wrote...

[quote]TJPags wrote...
Like all religions - well, most - people who follow it want it to spread.  [/quote]

Do we know for a fact that most religions that have ever existed have been like that?  That seems like a standing assertion that requires some evidence.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure there are some that explicitely don't want to convert people, hell, in judaism rabbis are supposed to try to talk possible converts out of it.[/quote]

Many modern religions do actually send out missionaries to speak to others about the religion.  That's an attempt to convert.  The Greeks and Romans, when they conquered land, built temples to their gods.  That's spreading religion.  The same is true for almost any ancient empire - the Egyptians, Aztecs, Mayans, etc.  Spreading religion doesn't necessarily mean forcible conversion, or outlawing other religions.  SImply building your own church/temple whatever, or starting a school, or sending out missionaries, is an attempt to spread your religion.

So I think my statement is pretty accurate.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]TJPags wrote...
Really, the whole debate, IMO, comes down to people who think it's evil to keep the mages locked up v those who don't think that.[/quote]

Actually, you're very wrong about that, but I'd rather avoid another mages vs. templars debate than point out how ridiculous your comment is.[/quote]

You say this, and the debate immediately becomes one of mages rights - which you participate in.  So the debate did, in fact, come down to that.

But please, I'm not interested in that debate, lets have the one we were having - what evil acts did the Chantry commit?  I've asked that twice before, and the only response is the one at the top of this post, which I discussed.  So share - what evil act do you see the Chantry committing - keeping in mind, of course, your admonition that this is not about keeping the mages locked up.

[quote]TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...

[quote]The RustMonster wrote...

[quote]TJPags wrote...

[quote]mrsph wrote...

Cullen was a severely traumatized man. I don't think anyone would be right in the head after forcing to endure what he endured.[/quote]

Lots of people have been traumatized.

Not all did what he did.[/quote]

Different people react differently to trauma. It all depends on the personality of the victim and what their personal breaking point happens to be. 

[/quote]

I think his point is that regardless of the trauma others have endured their own pains and were made better. Just because you have something bad happen to you doesnt mean you have to let it taint you
[/quote]

This was exactly my point.  And I'm not even trying to argue that Cullen was an evil man - he was clearly traumatized, and that was the reason for his actions, not that he was a generally evil person.  However, his actions are really the closest I can come to finding a member of the Chantry actually doing something that can be considered evil.

Other than the mage issue - which is only an issue if we want to debate whether leeping mages in towers is evil, which I do not want to do, I'm still trying to find evil done in the name of the Chantry, or by members of the Chantry.

[Eveangaline]

TJPags wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

TJPags wrote...
Like all religions - well, most - people who follow it want it to spread. 

Do we know for a fact that most religions that have ever existed have been like that?  That seems like a standing assertion that requires some evidence.

I'm pretty sure there are some that explicitely don't want to convert people, hell, in judaism rabbis are supposed to try to talk possible converts out of it.

Many modern religions do actually send out missionaries to speak to others about the religion.  That's an attempt to convert.  The Greeks and Romans, when they conquered land, built temples to their gods.  That's spreading religion.  The same is true for almost any ancient empire - the Egyptians, Aztecs, Mayans, etc.  Spreading religion doesn't necessarily mean forcible conversion, or outlawing other religions.  SImply building your own church/temple whatever, or starting a school, or sending out missionaries, is an attempt to spread your religion.

Many do yes, but hte problem si that you said ALL. Not all religions try to spread. Again, judeism is a good example. Sending out missionaries may be attempts to convert, but building a school or temple just means you are building a place to teach/pray for the people who are ALREADY OF THAT RELIGION. Trying to say that just building a place of worship is the same as trying to convert others is rediculous.

Modifié par Eveangaline, 19 février 2011 - 04:44 .

[TJPags]

Eveangaline wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

TJPags wrote...
Like all religions - well, most - people who follow it want it to spread. 

Do we know for a fact that most religions that have ever existed have been like that?  That seems like a standing assertion that requires some evidence.

I'm pretty sure there are some that explicitely don't want to convert people, hell, in judaism rabbis are supposed to try to talk possible converts out of it.

Many modern religions do actually send out missionaries to speak to others about the religion.  That's an attempt to convert.  The Greeks and Romans, when they conquered land, built temples to their gods.  That's spreading religion.  The same is true for almost any ancient empire - the Egyptians, Aztecs, Mayans, etc.  Spreading religion doesn't necessarily mean forcible conversion, or outlawing other religions.  SImply building your own church/temple whatever, or starting a school, or sending out missionaries, is an attempt to spread your religion.

Many do yes, but hte problem si that you said ALL. Not all religions try to spread. Again, judeism is a good example. Sending out missionaries may be attempts to convert, but building a school or temple just means you are building a place to teach/pray for the people who are ALREADY OF THAT RELIGION. Trying to say that just building a place of worship is the same as trying to convert others is rediculous.

Well, no, first, I clearly qualified my statement from all to most.  It's right there in my statement, which you quoted. 

Sending out missionaries to teach people who do not know about a religion, about that religion, is absolutely an attempt to convert.  What else would you call it?

As for building temples/schools, etc., let me lay this out for you:

Your empire, which has a central religion, conquers an area which has a different religion.  That region is populated by a large number of people, none of whom practice your religion.  You enter, and begin to build temples/churches, whatever your house of worship is called.  You do this even though there are a lot more people that DON'T practice your religion than there are people who do.  You also build schools, where people, primarioly children, are educated - not mainly in reading and writing, but in how to live within your culture.  What will be a large part of "how to live within your culture"?  Your religion.

People become exposed to it, they become curious.  Or, they just want to make good with the new rulers, so they start attending the services, following the rules of the religion, etc.  What happens to their children?  Yup - they grow up hearing about, learning about, seeing the religion, and prhaps even believing in it.

You've now converted people.

And this is not even discussing a situation where the empire rolls in and actively suppresses the old religion, tears down the temples for it, etc.

So, I'd argue that it is NOT ridiculous in the concept of an expanding empire.  However, yes, if we were considering a situation in which a new temple is built in an area already worshipping that religion, that's not an attempt to convert.  But it's not the situation I meant.  Sorry if that was unclear.

[SnowHeart1]

PinkShoes wrote...

religoins arent evil, people are.

Funny; I would say almost exactly the opposite. Religions can be used for great evil, but many people of faith are of good intent. The Chantry is a case-in-point. I think it is evil. I think it is an oppressive, theocratic, racist and militaristic order that happily discriminates against and enslaves groups of people (mages and elves). That said, some people drawn to the Chantry focus on the positive things it does, such as providing food and shelter to refugees, etc. Others are ready to kill you if you show so much as a scintilla of magical aptitude because, clearly, if you were born a certain way that is different, you are an inferior being that needs to be put in its place and/or culled.

People disagree; that's fine. I'm not looking for "converts" here. But if I wanted to play a truly evil character in Thedas, I'd play a Chantry-loving bastard.

[earl of the north]

Given that the Dalish are apparently (according to Zathrian's apprentice) the descendents of the Dales Nobility, the city elves are probably the common folk they abandoned to the tender mercies of the Chantry when the Dales fell.....who were then housed (in alienages) and converted to the worship of the maker.

Why is this evil?

What was the chantry supposed to with the Elven civilian population left in the Dales after the war, once the Nobility went into self imposed exile.....execute them all, sell them to Tevinter or intern them within Andrastian population centres. Seems like the Chantry took the least evil option available.

Modifié par earl of the north, 19 février 2011 - 05:26 .

[AlexXIV]

The Water God wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

The Water God wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You clearly aren't familar with civil rights movement of the United States, then. They didn't wait for the people, they fought for their rights.

You obiviousley aren't familiar with the civil rights movement. MLK fought for black rights through non violent protest and speeches. He never once lashed out and attacked a white man or suggested that blacks should go out and rebel against whites. Protesters in the civil rights movement would even refuse to fight back when white people literally beat the living hell out of them.

I don't think LobselVith8 was using the expression "fought for their rights" to imply that they literally used violence.  It was about not being passive.

*facepalm*Not being passive means you are violent.....

And I knew he wasn't being literal I was making a point.

Why don't you go to the mirror in your bathroom and facepalm to yourself. Not being passive means being active. If being active would mean being violent then you posting here is being violent as well since you're not being passive ...