171 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

XxDeonxX wrote...
The true reasoning IS rediculous because they originally weren't lock up because they were dangerous or anything to that degree.. They were locked up because they locked themselves in a cathedral in protest... Im not saying the reasoning given today is rediculous, im saying the original reasoning is rediculous

The circumstances of non mage possession seems no different to me? The girl in Honnleah was forcibly possessed..

Where does it say the mages weren't dangerous before? Nowhere.

The History of the Circle is a short acount that doesnt, at any point, say that mages weren't a problem and had to be dealt with. Again, people reading afr too much into it..assuming things that are never explicity mentioned.

History often proves that sometimes the right solution to a problem comes from the stranget of circumstancces.

Regarding Honnelath..wasn't that girl the daughter of a mage? So also possibly a mage? I can't recall the situation specific atm, or if the veil was torn.

[Lotion Soronarr]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No actually. You believe people mistrust mages only because of the Chantry. But that is a very limited and narrow view.
As DG himself pointed out, the pesants have completley legitimate reasons to mistrust and fear mages.

You also believe all people are sheep. Some are. but not all. There was struggle in Ferelden, civil war. And most didnt even believe the Grey Wardens were involved in the kings death.
There really is no massive population pressure or will to change anything. The poeple are happy with the way it is. Tehre are even plenty of mages who are happy wiht the way things are.
You cannot lead a revolution when only 2% of the populace wants that revolution. It is doomed to fail.

If thats true.. Then the Tevinter Imperium would have never come into existance... In fact it would not even exist today.. People still follow the Mage Archons there, and the Mage divines.. And the dalish still follow their keepers

2% of the population? The mages would gain Elven and mage support.. The Libertarions we find out in Awakening outnumber the loyalists.. So most mages within the circle want change as well. and like I said, Nevarra would side with them if they could bring down The Orlesian empire in the process.

Actuay no. The Tevinter Imperium is old. It was created before the anti-mage sentiment became so strong. And the mages there are also kept in circles. Not to mention that fear and propaganda can sometimes keep the populace in check, at least for a while.

And mages are a very rare, according to lore. So they are a very small minority.

As for siding with the mages.. The Dalish? They already got burned once and travel in clans to prevent total anihilation. I doubt they would risk the survival of their people just to help some mages in a doomed battle.
Nevarra? Again, just because two empires don't like eachoter, doesn't mean they will got to war on the first occasion - especially if going to war will make Nevarra next on the Chantry hit list, effectively turning most of hte world against them.

Dont recall bringing up mages policing mages but ok? Also Police officers are a modern issue and have no relevency.. And idk about your country, but in mine if a police officer kills unjustly they certainly dont get away with it.

How would you know?
Again, if nothing can be proven, or he does it in secret...he can get away with as many murders as he likes and you would never know.

Considering that prior to the chantrys existance everyone was fine with mages and they were running the show.. Im pretty sure he may be right...

Everyone was fine with mages? Since when?
If everyone was fine with mages, there would have been no massive revolt.

[Lotion Soronarr]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
To ask another question - if a plane was hijacked, and the hijackers
planed to crash it right in the middle of the city, would you support
shooting the plane down? Shooting it down means killinginnocent
passangers. Defintely not moral. But not shooting it down means even
mroe innocents will die. Is not shooting any more moral then?
A hard choice here, morally iffy either way.

Well... Considering said people are going to die in both outcomes of that choice.. I dont see how shooting them down can be considered evil at all... Bad example is bad

And letting the mages run free will result in innocent dying.
So do you keep the mages locked up (and loose a few innocents because of the system in place) or set them free (and loose more innocents).

The Circle is the "shoot down the plane" option. The "free all mages" is the "let the plane crash into the city" one.

And b.t.w. - the only thing the Harrowing proves is that you were
abel to resist a specific demon in a specific point in time. It's no
imunization. No guarantee you will suceed the next time.

And so the point of the harrowing is......?

Test of will and character to a degree. (which is why the details are kept secret. Telling an apprentice exactly what to expect would undermine the whole thing)
It's no imunization, but it proves one is capable of resisting at least one demon. Which is why harrowed mages are given more freedom and responsibilitites.

[Lotion Soronarr]

DKJaigen wrote...

@ lotion

Nobody is arguing that mages hold power and as such they are indeed dangerous without proper training. but you seem to be supporting an organisation that causes more problems then it solves. the chantry is indirectly responsible for the problems in redcliff and the circle tower. because without the templars these events wouldn't have happened.

And wihout the templars other, probably worse events, would have happened.
And putting Redcliffe at the templars feet is just silly.

Again, what system do you propose? You think that whatever system you come up wiht won't have it's own range of problems IT will cause? Don't be naive.

furthermore the templars are incompetent to say the least. despite being under heavy guard the mages of circle where still able to practice bloodmagic under the very noses of the templars.And when abominations did appear they where unable to halt them. This gives a good indication that the templars are not able to prevent abominations from occurring or stopping them.

In 700 years no Circle tower has ever fallen. Adn hte one in Ferelden didnt' either. You can argue that it's because of the Warden, but agian, you have no proof it would have fallen wihout him.
And even if it did, 1 disaster in 700 years is an EXCELLENT track record.

Not to mention that it's not hte templars job to stop abominations from occuring - this is something no one can stop. Their job is to stop the abomination from killing villagers.
As long as they contain the abominations in the tower, even in 99% of hte templars fall, they did their job.

[LobselVith8]

Xewaka wrote...

You forgot to add the Qunari to the grey major choice.

I wonder if that would even be a possibility. The main screen title shows the leader of the templars and the leader of the mages of Kirkwall, so it seems likely that we'll be given the choice to side with either the templars or the mages. I'm certain that the apostates Bethany, Merrill, and Anders will complicate the issue, given that I doubt either Merrill or Anders have much love for the Chantry or the templars given their peoples history. I'm guessing an apostate Hawke might be able to come into power in Kirkwall and have the opportunity to emancipate the mages. With the presence of the Qunari trying to invade Thedas again, Hawke and the mages could be seen as a necessary edge against the invaders and their advanced technology.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

1) I never claimed to know everything about Rivain. I address it as an alternative, because it's a nation where the mages aren't treated as they are in Andrastian society. We know they have no Chantry or templars controlling their mages in the nation of Rivain, as we know from the Genitivi codex about the nation and the DA2 codex. I made no other claim.

2) Despite the Chasind being a different culture than Andrastians, they also have no Chantry or templar oversight. Just like the Dalish clans, who emulate their fallen nation of the Dales.

1) Incorret. There are Codex mentions of a circle in Rivian.
The seers/witches in rivian are a special case IIRC, similar to Wynne.

2) No proof that the Dalish structure completely emulated the Dales. For one it would be impossible given that the Dales were a kingdom, and the dalish are tribal/clan-based nomads.
Again, applying such lifestyle and culture to a large empire would be impossible.

Go ahead, try to force people of the US to adopt the culture and lifestyle of some african tribe. It's just not doable.
They will not want it.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Wrong. This "cursed" obession of yours is flat out wrong.
The stigma of mages depends on several factors - history, exposure, knowledge (of the wrokings of magic), culture and area.
Your conclusion is premature.

The storyline from the Magi Origin is canon. So is the dialogue.

And I don't see anything clearly supporting what you said in there...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Other societies? Like the Qun?
Funny to note that all large, advanced empires seem to have such a stygma, while tribal societies (Dalish, Chasind) don't.

You mean like the nation of the Dales, which we know because the descendants of the nobility who ruled the Dales are now the Keepers, and the ones we've seen were mages? Your theory doesn't stand up to canon.

Again, provide proof of your claims about the Dales. I know you can't, because the Dales are a big unknown.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And your comment ignores the OTHER findamental differences between those societies, beside the Chantry.

The difference is in the anti-magic stigma with the Andrastian nations and the mage tolerant societies of the Chasind, the Dalish, the people of Rivain, and even the isolated society of Haven. Hatred of mages and fear of magic is not automatic, it's taught.

No. Again, you only see one difference, when there are many. You only see what you want to see insted of what is.

Hatered of magic is taught in a sense - just like fear of fire. Get burned, and it sticks.
Or do you think that the people who suffered at the hands of power-hungry mages and abominations mistrust and fear them only because of the Chantry? Or because of hteir experience and common knowledge?

[LobselVith8]

@ Lotion, it's clear you side with the Chantry, given your templar avatar and pro-Chantry views, so is there a point to discussing the issue with you when it won't change anything?

Those of us who side with the mages see no reason to support an institution that we see as oppressive and fundamentally flawed in its actions against the mages. The History of the Circle and the History of the Chantry Part Four are two historical accounts that illustrate how imprisoning mages and restricting their rights had nothing to do with protecting innocent people. Despite being short accounts, they made no mention of the claim that virtually everyone on the pro-Chantry side of the debate makes - and it becomes entirely suspect when this explanation is entirely absent in their historical account. We have Grey Wardens, who are freed from the Chantry and can raise their own children, and even Wilhelm was given the royal boon of allowing him to live a life with a wife and children outside the Circle for his heroic actions in aiding Moira the Rebel Queen and Prince Maric the Savior. Restricting mage rights and imprisoning them had to do with the Chantry, and that's why many people don't like what they're doing in the Circles, especially when Genitivi's codex about Rivain addresses that it's a nation where the Chantry has never reached them, since the people refuse to be parted from their seers.

The anti-mage sentiment that we see is paramount in Andrastian nations, while it's not there in the Dalish clans, the Chasind tribes, the isolated town of Haven, or the nation of Rivain. Its clear that the Tevinter Imperium didn't make everyone hate mages when there are societies of people who were adversely affected by them (like the Dalish) and didn't hate mages. We also have the Dalish, who emulate the lost nation of the Dales by trying to reclaim their lost culture and the leaders of the clans being the former nobility who once ruled the Dales, as Lanaya reveals.

As the Magi Origin explicitly reveals in dialogue with Knight-Commander Greagoir, Keli, and Lily, we see how the Chantry indocturinates people to see mages as "cursed," and this is paramount with Isolde in Redcliffe, who wants her son to be taught not to be a mage because she's a pious woman. Clearly, the Chantry preaches hatred and intolerance of mages. That's why there are people here who don't like what the Chantry and the templars are doing to mages.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 01 mars 2011 - 04:37 .

[DKJaigen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


And wihout the templars other, probably worse events, would have happened.

And yet you have no evidence of that yet their is plenty of evidence that mages can live without templar oversight.look at the dalish and the barbarians.

And putting Redcliffe at the templars feet is just silly.

I dont blame the templars i blame the chantry for creating social stigma's .get your facts straight.

Again, what system do you propose? You think that whatever system you come up wiht won't have it's own range of problems IT will cause? Don't be naive.

Of course it has problems. but the current corrupt and incompetent templars are in dire need of replacement. the best way to fight mages is with other mages as they can recognize bloodmagic or possion far better then the incompetent templars. A mage-judge will recruit several warriors and train them in anti-magic abilities. this form of oversight is far less corruptible and far more effective then your silly templars who are ignorant and completely unable to deal with abominations on their own.



In 700 years no Circle tower has ever fallen. Adn hte one in Ferelden didnt' either. You can argue that it's because of the Warden, but agian, you have no proof it would have fallen wihout him.

No it didnt fall because of wynne. she erected the barrier that prevented the demons from advancing. the templars , cowards as they are , holed up and left the other templars and mages to die. The tower would have fallen if it wasnt for wynne


And even if it did, 1 disaster in 700 years is an EXCELLENT track record.

We dont know the full story of the templars or what happend in those 700 years. Yet you believe that an organisation that can be corrupted by simply buying them lyrium is a GOOD thing? how many abominations and mage criminals slipped the net by bribing templars. so the templars are definitely ineffective. not to mention vulnerable. As soon the lyrium dries up they will jump on command to the ones who has the most lyrium. But hey to you the templars are effective.

Not to mention that it's not hte templars job to stop abominations from occuring - this is something no one can stop. Their job is to stop the abomination from killing villagers.

And yet they failed spectacularly in the circle tower. if they cannot beat abominations on their own ground then they are an ineffective fighting force.

As long as they contain the abominations in the tower, even in 99% of hte templars fall, they did their job.

They did but they did it badly, if it wasnt for wynne the circle tower would have been overrun.

Modifié par DKJaigen, 28 février 2011 - 09:19 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

@ Lotion, it's clear you side with the Chantry, given your templar avatar and pro-Chantry views, so is there a point to discussing the issue with you when it won't change anything?

There is always a point in unearthing the truth.

My avatar has a custom armor b.t.w.

Those of us who side with the mages see no reason to support an institution that we see as oppressive and fundamentally flawed in its actions against the mages.

That's jsut it - it's not fundamentally flawed.
You infer thing that aren't there.

You are connvinced about Chantry propaganda, templar inefficiency, Chantry corruption ,etc, etc..and yet you have no hard evidence about any of it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

DKJaigen wrote...

And wihout the templars other, probably worse events, would have happened.

And yet you have no evidence of that yet their is plenty of evidence that mages can live without templar oversight.look at the dalish and the barbarians.

Dalish and barbaridans live in a completely different circumstances and social structured. And they just live with the destruction and death abominations and loose mages bring. Not to mention they have less mages to deal with.

If mages weren't constricted to the tower, then the damage and abomination rampages would happen among the populace. Calculate the death toll of that.
Mages running around free is not VIABLE. Dreams are nice - but solutions that will actualy lwork are more important.



I dont blame the templars i blame the chantry for creating social stigma's .get your facts straight.
The Chantry isn't the sole creator of the social stigma. That in itself is easy to prove by simple logic (as there are plenty of poeple who belive mages are dangerous and aren't Chantry followers) and DG's own quotes.
Redcliffe happened because Isolde was possesive.

Again, what system do you propose? You think that whatever system you come up wiht won't have it's own range of problems IT will cause? Don't be naive.

Of course it has problems. but the current corrupt and incompetent templars are in dire need of replacement. the best way to fight mages is with other mages as they can recognize bloodmagic or possion far better then the incompetent templars. A mage-judge will recruit several warriors and train them in anti-magic abilities. this form of oversight is far less corruptible and far more effective then your silly templars who are ignorant and completely unable to deal with abominations on their own.

Waht corruption and what incompetence? You make claims you cannot back up.
A mage better at fighting mages? Since when?
And that statement of yours is a clear indicator of your completel lack of clarity. The system you propose is fantasy. It would not hold under scrutiny.
Mage-judges? Mages being less corrutable? Better at recognizing blood magic and possesion? Templars ignorant and incompetent?
Who would want that system? Who would support that? Who would finance it? How do you prevent the damage from abomination with it? I can go on listing question to which you will have no satisfactory answer.
Again, ideas are nice...but tehy have to be groundedin reality. If you want another system, then that one has to be grounded in the reality of Thedas. It has to be workable. Effective. It has to be plausible on ALL levels (logistical, social, economical, cultural)

In 700 years no Circle tower has ever fallen. Adn hte one in Ferelden didnt' either. You can argue that it's because of the Warden, but agian, you have no proof it would have fallen wihout him.

No it didnt fall because of wynne. she erected the barrier that prevented the demons from advancing. the templars , cowards as they are , holed up and left the other templars and mages to die. The tower would have fallen if it wasnt for wynne

Ignorance.... forgetting about the special doors? About the templars behind those doors? About the reainforcements?
Again, PROOF that the tower would have fallen. Not your beliefs.

And b.t.w - falling back and diging in is not cowardice. If you had any war experience whatsoever, you'd know that. You sound like a kid with fantasies of epic battles, glory and badassery. Real war ain't like that.
Join the army, serve a few yers in actual combat, THEN come back to me and talk about cowardice and tactics. Cause it's obvious you dont' know the meaning of either.
The temaplrs decision at the tower was tacticly the right one.

And even if it did, 1 disaster in 700 years is an EXCELLENT track record.

We dont know the full story of the templars or what happend in those 700 years. Yet you believe that an organisation that can be corrupted by simply buying them lyrium is a GOOD thing? how many abominations and mage criminals slipped the net by bribing templars. so the templars are definitely ineffective. not to mention vulnerable. As soon the lyrium dries up they will jump on command to the ones who has the most lyrium. But hey to you the templars are effective.

The Codex doesn't mention a tower ever falling completely in 700 years.
And again, buying them with lyrium? You mean like SOME cops can be bought with money? Geez, does that mean the police forces of the world are corrupt and should be abolished? Because acording to you, that is hte case.
Now, let's look at the actual facts here.

There is no proof of the templar ineffectivenes. The only codex information we have actually paints them as very effective at their job.

Not to mention that it's not hte templars job to stop abominations from occuring - this is something no one can stop. Their job is to stop the abomination from killing villagers.

And yet they failed spectacularly in the circle tower. if they cannot beat abominations on their own ground then they are an ineffective fighting force.

How have they failed? The abominations were contained. They never left the tower and killed villagers.

Not to metnion that something like the Broken Circle is a extreemly rare event.
Even if the templars failed there - compeltely and utterly - that would still be one such faliure in 700 years. And excellent track record by any standards.
I can dig up some statistics from various special forces or armies, even the police - and how many times they have faield. Hint: A lot. A single loss doesn't mean anything.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 01 mars 2011 - 09:27 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

The biggest gripe here seesm to be the "sufering" and "unjust" treatment of mages.

People see the situation s far worse than it is. Heck, I can provide examples of our modern government doing the same thing, and the general populace approving.

CONFINEMENT:
prisons, unstable or mentally ill individuals, suspects, quarantene conditions

CAN'T RAISE THEIR CHILDREN:
Social services can take children awa from abusive parent. Or any parents that the government deems unfit.
Reatrded couples also get their children taken away.

The same thing. Only it's the Chantry that acts as a government. The basics are the same - the only difference is that you agree to to the above examples, but disagree with the mages one.

The mages aren't slaves. DG said as much. Plenty of mages like their life in the tower. And it is a nice life. The magi Origin paints it almost like a boarding school. Most templars in teh game are a civil and friendly bunch.

And life in those tiems could be incredibly taxing and harsh.
Historical knowledge of the culture, laws and general lifestyle of the middle ages helps put things in perspective. Without that knowledge - looking only trough the lens of modern life - the image gets distorted.
This I cannot stress enough. Talking about any subject without proper knowledge and perspective is bound to result in bad judgment.


Mages can marry.
Mages can travel outside of tower.
Yes, they need permission for both, but is that so horrible?

You need a passport to travel outside of the country. You need a license to own a gun. You need singend papers to be legally married..or the approval of the Church for a church marriage.

Bottom point - mages aren't "horribly opressed slaves" beatend down and mistreated by "eeeevul templars".

[Augustei]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...
The true reasoning IS rediculous because they originally weren't lock up because they were dangerous or anything to that degree.. They were locked up because they locked themselves in a cathedral in protest... Im not saying the reasoning given today is rediculous, im saying the original reasoning is rediculous

The circumstances of non mage possession seems no different to me? The girl in Honnleah was forcibly possessed..

Where does it say the mages weren't dangerous before? Nowhere.

The History of the Circle is a short acount that doesnt, at any point, say that mages weren't a problem and had to be dealt with. Again, people reading afr too much into it..assuming things that are never explicity mentioned.

History often proves that sometimes the right solution to a problem comes from the stranget of circumstancces.

What are you talking about? Im not referring to the danger of mages in the reasoning of my point. Im saying that the reason.. The Original reason that mages were locked up wasn't because they were dangerous.. I didn't say they weren't dangerous I was pointing out that the chantry had them locked up because of the outrage over their protest in a cathedral and that that original reasoning isn't a good reason to lock up mages.. Not talking about them being dangerous. Im just saying, thats whats initially triggered it for the chantry and that its not a good reason for their actions.. Them being dangerous is a potentially better reason, the one im referring to is not.

Actuay no. The Tevinter Imperium is old. It was created before the
anti-mage sentiment became so strong. And the mages there are also kept
in circles. Not to mention that fear and propaganda can sometimes keep
the populace in check, at least for a while.

And mages are a very rare, according to lore. So they are a very small minority.

As
for siding with the mages.. The Dalish? They already got burned once
and travel in clans to prevent total anihilation. I doubt they would
risk the survival of their people just to help some mages in a doomed
battle.
Nevarra? Again, just because two empires don't like eachoter,
doesn't mean they will got to war on the first occasion - especially if
going to war will make Nevarra next on the Chantry hit list,
effectively turning most of hte world against them.

Tevinter is old yes, and has survived and still is strong despite the anti mage sentiment, Despite facing the full force of the first blights and a large chunk of the second, and dispite being invaded by barbarians as well. And yes they have circles. But they are quite different to the rest of the worlds.. For one, Mages run the place and are cosidered above normal society there

The Dalish and Nevarra wont fear a chantry thats been severely crippled by 1) A Qunari invasion and 2) Hawke and his allys.. We already know in Dragon age 2 that the chantrys eastern power essentially collapses.. And considering the Chantry is entwined with Orlais and that Nevarra has been fighting against Orlais for such a long time. When the oppotunity to finally obtain power for themselves and weaken the strength of their enemy arises. They will take, Looking to history - The founding of the church of England is an example here.

Also yes, mages are less in nunber than the rest of society.. But you have to keep in mind that one mage is far greater in strength to many non mages. So a unification of mages could definitly put an end to the chantry. Especially since they have lost their Eastern power.

How would you know?
Again, if nothing can be proven, or he does
it in secret...he can get away with as many murders as he likes and you
would never know.

and Rarely is one able to cover things up as such you are suggesting it. Can get away with as many murders as he likes? Yeah.. I dont think so.. This topic also has no relevency to the argument so.. It kind of serves no purpose anyway.

Everyone was fine with mages? Since when?
If everyone was fine with mages, there would have been no massive revolt.

Well considering the was no massive revolt for 800 years i'd say that prior to it they must have been fine.. And considering the majority of people were under their dominion and they and their empire were prospering and said empire controlled nearly the whole of thedas i'd say they were fine..

Wereas with their replacement (The chantry) has been hated and had revolts since.. 3 years after it was created.. The Elves all hate it, Majority of the mages definitly hate it (which can bee seen by the fact that Libertarions outnumber loyalists as we discover in awakening. They declare wars in the name of a women who if she was alive would most likely dispise the chantry and evidence suggests they imprison the same people who their prophet was actually one of (Mages).. I'd say Tevinter looks like it was accepted more than the chantry.

Dwarves dont care for chantry
Elves dont care for chantry - majority hate it
mages dont care for chantry - majority hate it
Tevinter & Rivain dont care for chantry - Tevinter hates it, Rivain simply doesn't care.
Ferelden doesn't care for the chantry - Was almost kicked out of Ferelden after Orlesian occupation. Maric and Loghain considered it.. And I think its safe to say that Ferelden would side with Maric and Loghain over the chantry.
Nevarra doesn't like the orlesian empire. and by extension the chantry. They assume control of their lands and fight wars with each other constantly. If the oppotunity to weaken their enemy and strengen themselves arose. They would take it... History points to it happening all the time

And letting the mages run free will result in innocent dying.
So
do you keep the mages locked up (and loose a few innocents because of
the system in place) or set them free (and loose more innocents).

The Circle is the "shoot down the plane" option. The "free all mages" is the "let the plane crash into the city" one.

I agree with your last sentence but not exactly for the same reasons.. In DA2 (Just going off speculation here) If we free the mages. Then to do that we have to pretty much destroy or at least severely damage the power and influence of the chantry... To do this, alot of innocents would have to die and thats why what I was trying to originally say was; Would this really be worth it?

Its really Present vs Future.. What do we place as higher priority. Present seems to be siding with the chantry.. people will be opressed and downtrodden etc.. Basically the same as things are now.. Or Future; We remove chantry mages are free, lots of people died but for a good cause.. I think when it comes to mages. The Isolationists have the best idea. Let them live free from the templars but Isolate themselves from the rest of society. Maybe let a few of them go to the other cities / villages to buy supplies etc. Take turns allowing mages to go outside their society but as a whole.. idk give them their own lands somewhere and they should stay there. Not watched over by the bias religious nut drug addicts.. The codex's say that Templars aren't recruited because of their skill in combat nor because of their moral beliefs and actions but based on their religious dedication.. This system is open to abuse.. They will be like.. well like they are now where if somebody is not under their dominion they are evil Zealots, Heathens etc etc.
The chantry definitly should not have a place in politics.. The only good purpose it serves is as a unifyier of nations against common threats that aren't Darkspawn.. It serves more half then good half the time (Like in the stolen throne)

In 700 years no Circle tower has ever fallen. Adn hte one in Ferelden
didnt' either. You can argue that it's because of the Warden, but agian,
you have no proof it would have fallen wihout him.
And even if it did, 1 disaster in 700 years is an EXCELLENT track record.

That would be a good fact if it were true and not complete guessing... You think that that circle incident in ferelden was the first event ever? Now who's being naive =P... You know the right of annulment exists for a reason? Most likely scenario being that that **** has happened before?
We dont know enough about those things to be making such rediculous assumptions.

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 01 mars 2011 - 09:53 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]XxDeonxX wrote...
What are you talking about? Im not referring to the danger of mages in the reasoning of my point. Im saying that the reason.. The Original reason that mages were locked up wasn't because they were dangerous.. I didn't say they weren't dangerous I was pointing out that the chantry had them locked up because of the outrage over their protest in a cathedral and that that original reasoning isn't a good reason to lock up mages.. Not talking about them being dangerous. Im just saying, thats whats initially triggered it for the chantry and that its not a good reason for their actions.. Them being dangerous is a potentially better reason, the one im referring to is not.[/quote]

Again, why do you assume only a single reason?
Does that Codex say that the Chantry wasn't looking for a way to deal with mages? Does it say that whatever system it has in place was good? Did it even have a system?

Could it be that the Chantry was looking for some better way, and it wasn't untill the protest that it finally arrived? And the mages actually wanted it. Nothing in that codex denies this possiblity. Especially if we consider it was a short blurb, written by someone with his own POV. Would he even have written down something he thought obvious (mages being dangerous)?

As I said again, history is full of similar examples, where solution to problems came at unexpected times and from unexpected sources. It would indeed be ironic, that the Circles were created at the incentive of the mages.



[quote]
The Dalish and Nevarra wont fear a chantry thats been severely crippled by 1) A Qunari invasion and 2) Hawke and his allys.. We already know in Dragon age 2 that the chantrys eastern power essentially collapses.. And considering the Chantry is entwined with Orlais and that Nevarra has been fighting against Orlais for such a long time. When the oppotunity to finally obtain power for themselves and weaken the strength of their enemy arises. They will take, Looking to history - The founding of the church of England is an example here.[/quote]

It's not the Chantry itself they should fear. Rather all the other andrastian nations. There is more in Thedas than just Nevarra and Orlais.
Nevarra directly attacking Orlais, directy fighting against the Chatnry - that would mean all other nations having a rather big incentive to join in the fight, and tear Navarra appart.
Just look what happened to the Dales.



[quote] [quote]
How would you know?
Again, if nothing can be proven, or he does it in secret...he can get away with as many murders as he likes and you would never know.
[/quote]
and Rarely is one able to cover things up as such you are suggesting it. Can get away with as many murders as he likes? Yeah.. I dont think so.. This topic also has no relevency to the argument so.. It kind of serves no purpose anyway.[/quote]

O really?
What makes you think so? Remeber - we are talkign about middle-age thedas. No DNA. No fingerprints. No CSI. Large land. Back alleys. A wrold full of monsters. People get mugged or killed daily.
When another farmer or a mage gets stabed in a dark alley or dissapears in the forest....who is going to investigate? Who is going to care?

It doesn't matter it the law is upheld by sherrifs, templars or mages - any one of them could get away with murder. And there's not a damn thing one could do about it.


[quote]
Well considering the was no massive revolt for 800 years i'd say that prior to it they must have been fine.. And considering the majority of people were under their dominion and they and their empire were prospering and said empire controlled nearly the whole of thedas i'd say they were fine..

Wereas with their replacement (The chantry) has been hated and had revolts since.. 3 years after it was created.. The Elves all hate it, Majority of the mages definitly hate it (which can bee seen by the fact that Libertarions outnumber loyalists as we discover in awakening. They declare wars in the name of a women who if she was alive would most likely dispise the chantry and evidence suggests they imprison the same people who their prophet was actually one of (Mages).. I'd say Tevinter looks like it was accepted more than the chantry.[/quote]

Really? The most hated empire in existance is not hated? The empire that had hunderds of slaves killed DAILY?
People were kept in line trough power, propaganda and terror. Like all dictatorships do.
And note that no codex sez there were no revolts in Tevinter..only that no revolt prior to Andrastes uprising suceeded.


[quote]
Dwarves dont care for chantry
Elves dont care for chantry - majority hate it
mages dont care for chantry - majority hate it
Tevinter & Rivain dont care for chantry - Tevinter hates it, Rivain simply doesn't care.
Ferelden doesn't care for the chantry - Was almost kicked out of Ferelden after Orlesian occupation. Maric and Loghain considered it.. And I think its safe to say that Ferelden would side with Maric and Loghain over the chantry.
Nevarra doesn't like the orlesian empire. and by extension the chantry. They assume control of their lands and fight wars with each other constantly. If the oppotunity to weaken their enemy and strengen themselves arose. They would take it... History points to it happening all the time
[/quote]

Given that that religion is the biggest and most widespread, I'd say the haters are definately in the minority. And while Marric and Loghain might not like it - look at the populace. The overwhelming majority of Fereldans are Andrastians.



[quote]
The chantry definitly should not have a place in politics.. The only good purpose it serves is as a unifyier of nations against common threats that aren't Darkspawn.. It serves more half then good half the time (Like in the stolen throne)[/quote]

The Chatnry has influence by it's very nature. Influence IS politics.
It's a natural connection, and nothing can be done about it.


[quote]
[quote]
In 700 years no Circle tower has ever fallen. Adn hte one in Ferelden
didnt' either. You can argue that it's because of the Warden, but agian,
you have no proof it would have fallen wihout him.
And even if it did, 1 disaster in 700 years is an EXCELLENT track record.
[/quote]

That would be a good fact if it were true and not complete guessing... You think that that circle incident in ferelden was the first event ever? Now who's being naive =P... You know the right of annulment exists for a reason? Most likely scenario being that that **** has happened before?
We dont know enough about those things to be making such rediculous assumptions.[/quote]

Actually, a Codex fact.
There have been 17 Annulments in the entire history of the Circles.
It means 17  times the Circle was in danger of falling. And 17 times the revolt was quelled.
The Broken Cricle would be the 18'th, an the only possibly sucesfull rebellion.





[/quote]

[Augustei]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Again, why do you assume only a single reason?
Does that Codex say that the Chantry wasn't looking for a way to deal with mages? Does it say that whatever system it has in place was good? Did it even have a system?

Could it be that the Chantry was looking for some better way, and it wasn't untill the protest that it finally arrived? And the mages actually wanted it. Nothing in that codex denies this possiblity. Especially if we consider it was a short blurb, written by someone with his own POV. Would he even have written down something he thought obvious (mages being dangerous)?

As I said again, history is full of similar examples, where solution to problems came at unexpected times and from unexpected sources. It would indeed be ironic, that the Circles were created at the incentive of the mages.

Im not assuming its the only single reason, your assuming that im assuming that; Which im not.
However as a footnote it should be noted that there is no evidence of them having any incentive or desire to lock the mages up prior to their protest.. And all I'm pointing out that the fact that the protest is what triggered it, Is stupid. Which it is. The divine wanted to call an exalted march on her own bloody cathedral as well? wtf is up with that?

It's not the Chantry itself they should fear. Rather all the
other andrastian nations. There is more in Thedas than just Nevarra and
Orlais.
Nevarra directly attacking Orlais, directy fighting against
the Chatnry - that would mean all other nations having a rather big
incentive to join in the fight, and tear Navarra appart.
Just look what happened to the Dales.

The Andrestian nations? Well lets see what support they would get there.
Anderfels: Run by grey wardens, would remain neutral.
Tevinter: Yeah there is no way in hell they will support the chantry
Rivian: Little infuence there, the chantry will get no help from Rivain
Par Vollen and Seheron: Quanri would definitly not support the chantry
Antiva: No army, only the crows who go to the highest bidder.. The chantry wouldn't use them anyway. They have the shadow of the empire.
Free Marches: Would side with Nevarra because A) the primary city state is run by Hawke who is an apostate / has an apostate sister and so would most likely hate the chantry. His ancestor Parlathan wanted freedom for the mages etc. And Nevarra derives from the free marches and so they would unify against the greater threat.... It will be exactly like the founding of germany.. Ironically both countries involved are based on the real world counterparts of this event. Prussia and France.
And Ferelden has a "rich" history with Orlais, They have a king who dispite once being a templar does not like the chantry due to their forcing the templars to take lyrium etc.. So its starting to look like Orlais and their chantry is on its own. Especially since their entire eastern power being shattered.. means they would loose all influence in The Free Marches and Antiva, Rivain (what little they had) and Ferelden anyway

Given that that religion is the biggest and most widespread, I'd say the
haters are definately in the minority. And while Marric and Loghain
might not like it - look at the populace. The overwhelming majority of
Fereldans are Andrastians.

Biggest and most widespread.... until the events of DA2 where they loose their Eastern power.. Then like I said in my previous point they are only really confined to 1 country.. Sure they have followers but having religious followers and having Millitary support are two very different things

The Chatnry has influence by it's very nature. Influence IS politics.
It's a natural connection, and nothing can be done about it.

History begs to differ, Religion has little to no influence in politics today.. If the pope, or Prince Charles or The Dhali Lama or Imam etc. told a country not to go to war or supported a specific country, they are pretty much ignored.

[Red Templar]

LobselVith8 wrote...
@ Lotion, it's clear you side with the Chantry, given your templar avatar and pro-Chantry views, so is there a point to discussing the issue with you when it won't change anything?

Pish. Don't go pulling the "you are biased, there's no point discussing this with you" shtick. You are more guilty of that than anyone. If you want to agree to disagree, just do it and stop trying to get the last word in and dismiss the other guy as the reason the conversation is failing. You don't respond to logical arguments, you spam "freedom is good Chantry is evil" arguments with no regard for practicality, context, or social welfare. You continously cite lack of evidence (things we do not have knowledge of either way) as hard, unquestionable proof that the templars are not needed and then ironically use "you don't have evidence for that" to dismiss the logical arguments proposed by your respondents. You concede no validty to other viewpoints, flatly ignore points that aren't easy to dismiss, and insinst on reducing a complicated, difficult social problem to being a two-dimensional, black and white "templars are bad plain and simple" paradigm in a way that just isn't Dragon Age. And you do this in every thread where the mage vs. templar thing comes up while refusing to let anyone else have the last word.

And that's fine, that is your viewpoint. Just don't put yourself up on a pedestal and pretend like your objectivity is spotless when you are more guilty of bias than anyone else in these conversations.

Modifié par Red Templar, 01 mars 2011 - 11:30 .

[LobselVith8]

@ Red Templar, you didn't read what I wrote. You don't like me because I take an opposing stand on the issue, and that's fine, but I'm addressing the irrevocable gap between those (like you) who support what the Chantry is doing and those (like me) who oppose it. I'm not saying anyone's biased, I'm saying the debate isn't going to go anywhere because we're never going to reach a consensus on the issue. I don't see a point to discussing this when it's clearly going around in circles and we've exhausted ourselves in explaining our positions.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

@ Lotion, it's clear you side with the Chantry, given your templar avatar and pro-Chantry views, so is there a point to discussing the issue with you when it won't change anything?

There is always a point in unearthing the truth.

No one is "uncovering" anything here, people are debating the morality of what the Chantry is doing to the mages, and it's no different than the same debate we see reflected in the DA2 codex about templars and mages. I don't see any progression on the topic than our fundamental disagreement. Discussing this isn't going to change anything because we both hold to our views, and we aren't going to change our stand. It's clear consensus isn't going to be in the cards when it comes to the debate over mages and templars.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Those of us who side with the mages see no reason to support an institution that we see as oppressive and fundamentally flawed in its actions against the mages.

That's jsut it - it's not fundamentally flawed.
You infer thing that aren't there.

You don't think it's fundamentally flawed because you think what they do is justified. I don't. And the rift between us isn't going to be bridged on the issue.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 01 mars 2011 - 12:45 .

[Red Templar]

LobselVith8 wrote...

@ Red Templar, you didn't read what I wrote. You don't like me because I take an opposing stand on the issue, and that's fine, but I'm addressing the irrevocable gap between those (like you) who support what the Chantry is doing and those (like me) who oppose it. I'm not saying anyone's biased, I'm saying the debate isn't going to go anywhere because we're never going to reach a consensus on the issue. I don't see a point to discussing this when it's clearly going around in circles and we've exhausted ourselves in explaining our positions.

Never said I don't like you. I just don't like the way you debate. It makes conversations go nowhere.

But if the debate isn't going to go anywhere and there's no point talking to us biased Chantry sheep... stop talking to us biased Chantry sheep. Your need to get the last word in while pretending that you don't want to have this conversation is contradictory. Stop perpetuating it then. You keep saying the same things.

Modifié par Red Templar, 01 mars 2011 - 12:59 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

XxDeonxX wrote...
Im not assuming its the only single reason, your assuming that im assuming that; Which im not.
However as a footnote it should be noted that there is no evidence of them having any incentive or desire to lock the mages up prior to their protest.. And all I'm pointing out that the fact that the protest is what triggered it, Is stupid. Which it is. The divine wanted to call an exalted march on her own bloody cathedral as well? wtf is up with that?

Doesn't seem like mages were well liked even back then (Divine declaring a march on her own cathedral...however we have to ask ourselves if that event is even true, given the pov of the writer)..or that they were happy with the way it was back then. Otherwise, why the protest?

So things beging all sunshine and roses is definately not correct. And Abominatiosn were a big issue prior to the circle creation. DG confirmed as much.

Given that that religion is the biggest and most widespread, I'd say the
haters are definately in the minority. And while Marric and Loghain
might not like it - look at the populace. The overwhelming majority of
Fereldans are Andrastians.

Biggest and most widespread.... until the events of DA2 where they loose their Eastern power.. Then like I said in my previous point they are only really confined to 1 country.. Sure they have followers but having religious followers and having Millitary support are two very different things

If you have millions of followers, you have power.
The idea that the Chatnry and Orlais would jsut crumble that easily and that everyone would unite against them, when fighting for them is more profitable...I find it unlikely.

The Chatnry has influence by it's very nature. Influence IS politics.
It's a natural connection, and nothing can be done about it.

History begs to differ, Religion has little to no influence in politics today.. If the pope, or Prince Charles or The Dhali Lama or Imam etc. told a country not to go to war or supported a specific country, they are pretty much ignored.

TODAY.. Ferelden isn't in today....and even today there are many places in the wrold that would disagree with you.

[DKJaigen]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Dalish and barbaridans live in a completely different circumstances and social structured. And they just live with the destruction and death abominations and loose mages bring. Not to mention they have less mages to deal with

They wouldn't have been afforded such a high social standing if the threat of possesion was high.
Also your double standards are annoying. you need to make up your mind if mages are dangerous or not.

If mages weren't constricted to the tower, then the damage and abomination rampages would happen among the populace. Calculate the death toll of that.

The tower is a good idea the templars and their ineffectiveness isn't.

[quote]
Again, what system do you propose? You think that whatever system you come up wiht won't have it's own range of problems IT will cause? Don't be naive.

Waht corruption and what incompetence? You make claims you cannot back up.''

Their are several quests  that detail how templars can be bought . not to mention that several people tell about how the chantry purposely  addicts templars so stop ****ing around


A mage better at fighting mages? Since when?

Since always .because mages have practical experience with magic. templars at best only have theory. and even if they have practical experience it would be paltry compared to the knowledge of a mage

And that statement of yours is a clear indicator of your completel lack of clarity. The system you propose is fantasy. It would not hold under scrutiny.
Mage-judges? Mages being less corrutable? Better at recognizing blood magic and possesion? Templars ignorant and incompetent?

Yes

Who would want that system? Who would support that? Who would finance it? How do you prevent the damage from abomination with it? I can go on listing question to which you will have no satisfactory answer.

The mages themselves are very rich and life comfortable live and as such have the means to police themselves. not to mention it makes them resistant to bribery. Mages themselves do not wish to become abominations. nor do they wish abominations in their midst. and as such mages are better at controlling themselves then templars

Again, ideas are nice...but tehy have to be groundedin reality. If you want another system, then that one has to be grounded in the reality of Thedas.


Explain

It has to be workable. Effective. It has to be plausible on ALL levels (logistical, social, economical, cultural)

3 of these matters are already in place only the cultural one isn't because of chantry propaganda 



Ignorance.... forgetting about the special doors? About the templars behind those doors? About the reainforcements?
Again, PROOF that the tower would have fallen. Not your beliefs.

Your forgetting Wynne again?

And b.t.w - falling back and diging in is not cowardice. If you had any war experience whatsoever, you'd know that. You sound like a kid with fantasies of epic battles, glory and badassery. Real war ain't like that.

I can understand taking your stand on a choke point. what i dont understand why the templars didn't scout the tower after no attacks occured in a few days. If you know anything about war is that information is the key to victory. the templars in this case have not only displayed cowardice but also military incompetence



[quote]
And even if it did, 1 disaster in 700 years is an EXCELLENT track record.

We dont know the full story of the templars or what happend in those 700 years. Yet you believe that an organisation that can be corrupted by simply buying them lyrium is a GOOD thing? how many abominations and mage criminals slipped the net by bribing templars. so the templars are definitely ineffective. not to mention vulnerable. As soon the lyrium dries up they will jump on command to the ones who has the most lyrium. But hey to you the templars are effective.[/quote]

The Codex doesn't mention a tower ever falling completely in 700 years.

Very simply put we dont know what happend. furthermore if such rebellions are not frequent then you have destroyed your own argument that mages are dangerous.

And again, buying them with lyrium? You mean like SOME cops can be bought with money?

Thats not a proper anology. The correct anology would be cops that are addicted to crack. would you live under such law enforcment?

Geez, does that mean the police forces of the world are corrupt and should be abolished? Because acording to you, that is hte case.
Now, let's look at the actual facts here.

There is no proof of the templar ineffectivenes. The only codex information we have actually paints them as very effective at their job.

The codex isnt a good source as it lacks contect. but the epic fail in the fereleden tower combined with corruption paints them as an incomptent military organisation


How have they failed? The abominations were contained. They never left the tower and killed villagers.

Thx to wynne not because of the templars.

[/quote]

p.s. get a damn grammar corrector

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

There is always a point in unearthing the truth.

No one is "uncovering" anything here, people are debating the morality of what the Chantry is doing to the mages, and it's no different than the same debate we see reflected in the DA2 codex about templars and mages. I don't see any progression on the topic than our fundamental disagreement. Discussing this isn't going to change anything because we both hold to our views, and we aren't going to change our stand. It's clear consensus isn't going to be in the cards when it comes to the debate over mages and templars.

You might not see progression, but that depends. If oy define progress as "the other guy taking in my view" then no.
If on the other hand, you define progress as "blowing up massive holes in the oppositions arguments..then I am making FIIIINE progress.

LobselVith8 wrote...

You don't think it's fundamentally flawed because you think what they do is justified. I don't. And the rift between us isn't going to be bridged on the issue.

You think ti's fundamentally flawed because you lack perspective and don't put your own views under nearely enough scrutiny. Alas, that is not something I can give you, I can only point you in the right direction.

[FlintlockJazz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

@ Lotion, it's clear you side with the Chantry, given your templar avatar and pro-Chantry views, so is there a point to discussing the issue with you when it won't change anything?

Isn't your avatar a guy in a mages' outfit?  Just sayin'...

[LobselVith8]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

@ Lotion, it's clear you side with the Chantry, given your templar avatar and pro-Chantry views, so is there a point to discussing the issue with you when it won't change anything?

Isn't your avatar a guy in a mages' outfit?  Just sayin'...

Because the whole point is that we aren't going to agree, so why are we debating it when nothing will change? He's never going to agree with me, and I'm never going to agree with him. The pro-Chantry side is never going to agree with the pro-mage side, and vice versa. Do you see this discussion coming to a resolution?

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]DKJaigen wrote...
They wouldn't have been afforded such a high social standing if the threat of possesion was high.
Also your double standards are annoying. you need to make up your mind if mages are dangerous or not.[/qutoe]

Hahaha...you know so very little of tribal societies.
That are tribes that do horrible things .. and stupid things.. yet they are so tied into their culture that they don't really question them.
A little research on the subject does wonders.

And no, no double standards. I have no diea what your'e talking about. Mages are dangerous. I never claimed otherwise.


[quote]
If mages weren't constricted to the tower, then the damage and abomination rampages would happen among the populace. Calculate the death toll of that.

The tower is a good idea the templars and their ineffectiveness isn't. [/quote]

Again, templars aren't ineffective. The lore proves otherwise.

Not to mention that if mages are still restricted to tower, then its' still "slavery" according to some of you. You just change the jailor. Yes.. a massive improvement!



[quote]
Again, what system do you propose? You think that whatever system you come up wiht won't have it's own range of problems IT will cause? Don't be naive.

Waht corruption and what incompetence? You make claims you cannot back up.''

Their are several quests  that detail how templars can be bought . not to mention that several people tell about how the chantry purposely  addicts templars so stop ****ing around[/quote]

2 quests IIRC. And people can be bought???? *SCHOCK*  This has NEVER happened in history! Oh dear! How horrible. It indeeds shows how corrupts tempalrs are.and mages..and anything with a brain for that matter.

And about purposefull adiction? List the names please. Only one I can recall from the top of my head i Alistair, and he isn't even a proper templar.


[quote]
A mage better at fighting mages? Since when?

Since always .because mages have practical experience with magic. templars at best only have theory. and even if they have practical experience it would be paltry compared to the knowledge of a mage [/quote]

Some proof of that supposed super-effectiveness would be nice.


[quote]
And that statement of yours is a clear indicator of your completel lack of clarity. The system you propose is fantasy. It would not hold under scrutiny.
Mage-judges? Mages being less corrutable? Better at recognizing blood magic and possesion? Templars ignorant and incompetent?

Yes

[/quote]

No. Again, proof and some commons sense. Taht is all I ask. it isn't much. Provide some pls.


[quote]
Who would want that system? Who would support that? Who would finance it? How do you prevent the damage from abomination with it? I can go on listing question to which you will have no satisfactory answer.

The mages themselves are very rich and life comfortable live and as such have the means to police themselves. not to mention it makes them resistant to bribery. Mages themselves do not wish to become abominations. nor do they wish abominations in their midst. and as such mages are better at controlling themselves then templars[/quote]

Haha..resistant to bribery? Really?
Better at controling themselves?
Again, would the populace and the nobility want mages to govern themselves? How do you prevent abomination damage with mages beign free? How do you deal with mage incidents?

As I said - you provided no satisfactory answers.



[quote]
It has to be workable. Effective. It has to be plausible on ALL levels (logistical, social, economical, cultural)

3 of these matters are already in place only the cultural one isn't because of chantry propaganda  [/quote]

Are they? Really? Think again.
Not to mention that all 4 are needed..and the 4th one isn't  - and not because of Chantry propaganda. We've been over this already.


[quote]
Ignorance.... forgetting about the special doors? About the templars behind those doors? About the reainforcements?
Again, PROOF that the tower would have fallen. Not your beliefs.

Your forgetting Wynne again?[/qutoe]

How is that proof?


[qutoe]
And b.t.w - falling back and diging in is not cowardice. If you had any war experience whatsoever, you'd know that. You sound like a kid with fantasies of epic battles, glory and badassery. Real war ain't like that.

I can understand taking your stand on a choke point. what i dont understand why the templars didn't scout the tower after no attacks occured in a few days. If you know anything about war is that information is the key to victory. the templars in this case have not only displayed cowardice but also military incompetence[/quote]

What few days? Didn't you look at the cutscene?
The Warden arrives shortly after the s*** hits the fans.. We see templars barricading the doors and Gergoir giving orders. You don't barricade the doors several days after.

Your timeline and subsequent accuations are completely wrong.



[quote]
The Codex doesn't mention a tower ever falling completely in 700 years.

Very simply put we dont know what happend. furthermore if such rebellions are not frequent then you have destroyed your own argument that mages are dangerous.[/quote]

Again, CODEX. It mentions exactly how many rites of Annulment were invoked. And we know when such Rites are called for. Meaning there have been 17 major rebelions in 700 years...across all the Cricles.
Which IS an impressive record.

And how does that destroy the "mages are dangerous" argument?


[quote]
There is no proof of the templar ineffectivenes. The only codex information we have actually paints them as very effective at their job.

The codex isnt a good source as it lacks contect. but the epic fail in the fereleden tower combined with corruption paints them as an incomptent military organisation[/quote]

Aha..so the Codex is worthless...when it tells something you don't want to hear?

Obviously there is nothing evident about tempalr ineffectivenes, or more peopel would come to the same conclussion.
Nah...Nothnig in the game paints the templars as incompetent.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 01 mars 2011 - 01:30 .

[LobselVith8]

Red Templar wrote...

Never said I don't like you. I just don't like the way you debate.

I don't like the way you debate, either. I guess that makes us even.

Red Templar wrote...

But if the debate isn't going to go anywhere and there's no point talking to us biased Chantry sheep...

You want me to play the world's smallest violin while you continue? Because all I was hoping for was that people would agree to disagree, but I guess even that's too much to assume for the templar v. mage debate.

[Red Templar]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Because all I was hoping for was that people would agree to disagree, but I guess even that's too much to assume for the templar v. mage debate.

I won't agree to disagree with you, because that means your point of view is at least somewhat valid in a rational universe. It isn't. The Chantry-Mage conflict is a difficult dilemma with no easy answers by design. Both mage and templar perspective are intentionally complicated so that each side has a valid perspective. Your arugment continues to dismiss that, dismiss the Chantry as serving no purpose at all based on a flimsy comparison to Rivain and Chasind, make it out like there is absolutely no problem in mages being unsupervised, and the chantry is just an evil organisation that represses people for its own power with no positive intentions or consequence. That is not valid, it is intentionally one sided, and by advocating that point of view you deliberately cheapen the issue.

How's this for an alternative, to try to salvage some discussion. Why don't you come up with an alternative system that is better than the templars? Come up with your own, detailed idea as to how to solve these problems in a system where no one is oppressed and everyone is protected. I guarantee you I will be able to pick much larger holes in whatever you can come up with than you can pick in the current system