171 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

XxDeonxX wrote...
First of all, Bias Chantry writings are not "hard facts" thats bs. Alot of evidence in favor of the chantry.. Their own damn scholars have written its bias as dude.. Likewise alot of arguments against the chantry are bias as well.. But presenting hard facts? Im yet to see any.

Have I ever claimed biased chantry writign as hard facts? I don't think so...

What you think and what you can prove are two completely different things Lotion.

Exactly. But unlike some, I'm well aware fo that fact.
Which is why I don't peddle my thouts as facts.

700 years of peace? Yeah.. that might be true if you have lived under a rock all your life. Wars against the dales.. Justification pending, Wars against Ferelden. Justification? none. Wars against Nevarra, Justfication? none. Wars against Tevinter? Justification? ****ing stupid. "Ohh they insulted our dead divine.. lets go to war"

Wasn't this about the Circle system? And now you're drawing in politics into it.....

*sigh*
Peace in one area. Land is more peacefull and safer than it would be with mages runnign around free.
As for wars...wars happen. Politics. There are several kingdoms and poers - the Chantry doesn't control them. Or do oyu somehow think that wihout the chantry, nations wouldn't go to war against eachoter?
Don't be naive...

The Dales? Whos fault is that war anyway? Don't bring it up if you can't prove the Chantry's fault there.
Nevara? That was Orlais.

Better system? Tevinter minus slavery & Blood magic which btw.. The possibility for that system to be put in place seems to have been presented to us in DA2

Me: "We want to make a starship that's better than the one we have. Got any ideas."
You: "A warp drive. We'll put a warp drive."
Me: "Ok...how does the warp drive work?"
You: "I'ts a warp drive. I sovled the problem. Why do you keep bugging me?"

In other words, not detaield. Not well thought off. You got this hazy idea of a perfect empire, without any clue how to actually get to it.
And even on such a bare-bones idea,  Ican already spot flaws...

but I'll leave that to my fellow forumites.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Scatcat101 wrote...
How exactly do you use a prison as an example? Prisons are made for people that have actually done something bad, The Circle is where a mage is sent because of that persons 'potential' to do something bad.

Comparing a riot of people who have been found guilty to that of people who are assumed guilty without actually doing anything is ridiculous.

It serves to illustrate a point - people, weather guilty or not - will rebel againt things they don't like. Like confinment/imprisoment.

As such, rebellions and malcontent are indicative of nothing. To say the Circle system is wrong because there are mages rebelling and who are not content is flat out silly.

People, as a generela rule, have the capacity to dislike or hate even compltely meaningless things with a intense passion. Being unhappy and rebellious has little to do wiht justice.

[Lotion Soronarr]

pulsar989 wrote...
i accept your challange sir

its safe to say from your privious post and others that untrained (non harrowed) mages are a threat. i will grant you that point. that is why i will accept that a circle of magi system must exsist. that is why after a magi passes the harrowing or fails it (no more forced trancility) he is granted greater freadom. the templars would still be connected to the circle ( a example would be they live on the bottom 2 floors of the tower and can go no higher without cause) but they would no longer be breathing down the mages necks. then the mages in there own societys can have a life (familys, pick there field of study, etc). also with proper aproval a mage can leave the tower to barter magic goods, use healing magic for a rich clint or what have you. its not perfect but at least its a resonable comprimse that all but the most extreme could live with.

1.  Mages are already granted more freedom the more the prove themselves.
2. They can already leave the Tower on variosu trips.
3. If templars arre't allowed on the upper floor, who is watching the mages for illegal activity?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Zeroed55 wrote...
Simple. As has been said before, many, many times - let the Mages govern themselves.

How is that better. And for whom?

Don't forget - we're asking for a better system that is realistic (as in, actualyl feasable to implement in TheDas)

The Circle of Magi should be an independent body, governed, and its tenants enforced by mages. NOT the Chantry.

And non-mages and kings would just agree to this?

Remeber, they wouldn't stand for it.
Mages policing themselves sounds like a good idea only to mages.

Not to mention, mages hunting abominations are at a bigger danger of posesion.
Also, mages are few in numbers..and they are usefull. Mages dying hunting abominations (and they WILL die) just reduces their numbers even more.
Mages policing themselves would also require a large chunk of mages devoted soley to that task - meaning less mages for other tasks. Less mages to brew potions, teach, heal, etc...

Could they really match the efficiency of templars in that regard?

This is why the Circle is ideal - it is a safe haven for mages to study and train, to learn about the forces they control and to learn how to use them responsibly. The Circle is a -good- thing. The fact that it is governed by an oppressive organization which pumps out vehemently anti-mage dogma is -not-.

Pls stick to the facts. Anti-mage dogma is not one of those.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Huntress wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No.

Both of you are starting from several false assumptions and forgetting some things.

1) That mages policing mages will be free to set up laws and rules as they see fit. No. They would be pressured by others to mantain certain laws. Blood magic will still be illegal - death of tranquilisation will be something everyone will demand. Blood Magic is like hand-held nuke and no sane individual wants to place that power in the hands of a single person.

2) That templars aren't black-and-white. Laws are laws. It's as simple as that. Police officers aren't bound by religious dogma, and they can still kill unjustly and get away with it. They still have to follow the law. If mages police themselves there WILL be dick mages among that force, and mages WILL suffer at hte hands of others mages, just like non-mages can suffer at the hands of non-mages.

3) What the population thinks matters. Always has and always will.Rulers have to follow hte will of the people or risk rebellion and civil war. You can call the population ignorant, but is that true? I'd argue they know more about living in TheDas than you. In fact, I'd call your views rather ignorant of the bigger picture.

1) Blood magic is prohibited because is the ONLY magic that  TEMPLARS can't do anything about, is not about been evil or good, is just TEMPLARS are not able to stop it.

2)So a police/templar can kill anyone because law is law and they can get away with it? wow  Tyrant's thinks this way too!! way to go!

3)So people in Thedas knows better, are you out of your mind good sir? THEDAS is a FANTASY PLACE, the people there only think when WE want them to. The only choices been made there are by Writers choices. We might dissagre of how the writers think a world should be forge,  what rules and the like, but that doesn't mean anyone in Thedas will dissagre or aprove of it.

1) Nope. Blood magic is prohibited because it's too dangerous, too tempting. No sane person would even want anyone to posess blood magic.
And templars are actually perfect to fight mages -even blood mages.

2) No. You miss the point. Mages policing other mages will have to follow the laws. If those laws say that blood mages are to be killed on sight, then mages will be killing mages.
If they're not capable of that, they won't be capable of doing their job as mage-police either.

3) Actually, the writers did a fantastic job of emulating how real people would react. TheDas was modeled for medieval europe and if mages was real..that's eaxctly how things would work.
I'm pointing out that the inhabitants of thedas know their world, and are familiar with mages - after all, they lived there their whole lives. So you just declaring the public oppinion of 98% of TheDas population irrelevant and misguided is rather silly.

[Augustei]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Have I ever claimed biased chantry writign as hard facts? I don't think so...

Ok.. When you make assumptions and claim them as hard fact.. your wrong
Assumptions dont = facts

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Wasn't this about the Circle system? And now you're drawing in politics into it.....
*sigh*
Peace in one area. Land is more peacefull and safer than it would be with mages runnign around free.
As
for wars...wars happen. Politics. There are several kingdoms and poers -
the Chantry doesn't control them. Or do oyu somehow think that wihout
the chantry, nations wouldn't go to war against eachoter?
Don't be naive...

The Dales? Whos fault is that war anyway? Don't bring it up if you can't prove the Chantry's fault there.
Nevara? That was Orlais.

Your first sentence is entirely an assumption just like when I say lands are peaceful and safe in non chantry controlled lands such as Rivain, Tevinter both now and past, and among the dalish and chasind tribes.
And yes, obviously wars happen.. And wars a criticized if the reasons why they were started are stupid ones or non existant ones.. Thats what i'm doing im criticising them and their rediculous reasons for war..

And as for bringing up the dales... I didn't say it was the chantrys fault.. I suggested the possibility of such. Thats why I said "Justification pending" nothing wrong with pointing out that war is yet to be justified.. Like I always say though its yet to be condemned as well.. Im not condemning it.. Im just pointing out obvious facts that are there.

Me: "We want to make a starship that's better than the one we have. Got any ideas."
You: "A warp drive. We'll put a warp drive."
Me: "Ok...how does the warp drive work?"
You: "I'ts a warp drive. I sovled the problem. Why do you keep bugging me?"

In
other words, not detaield. Not well thought off. You got this hazy idea
of a perfect empire, without any clue how to actually get to it.
And even on such a bare-bones idea,  Ican already spot flaws...

but I'll leave that to my fellow forumites.

I cbf going into extreme detail regarding it but the generalisation of the idea is a generally good concept because it worked for 800 years without issue.. Only issue which is generally non related was the slavery and blood magic.. without them.. The system still works

Otherwise another alternative was my previous post regarding the Isolationists theory

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 02 mars 2011 - 04:23 .

[pulsar989]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

pulsar989 wrote...
i accept your challange sir

its safe to say from your privious post and others that untrained (non harrowed) mages are a threat. i will grant you that point. that is why i will accept that a circle of magi system must exsist. that is why after a magi passes the harrowing or fails it (no more forced trancility) he is granted greater freadom. the templars would still be connected to the circle ( a example would be they live on the bottom 2 floors of the tower and can go no higher without cause) but they would no longer be breathing down the mages necks. then the mages in there own societys can have a life (familys, pick there field of study, etc). also with proper aproval a mage can leave the tower to barter magic goods, use healing magic for a rich clint or what have you. its not perfect but at least its a resonable comprimse that all but the most extreme could live with.

1.  Mages are already granted more freedom the more the prove themselves.
2. They can already leave the Tower on variosu trips.
3. If templars arre't allowed on the upper floor, who is watching the mages for illegal activity?

1. that is not true yes the first inchanter has that freadom but everyone else is still at the wim of the chantry and cant make alot of ther decisions im just saying that if they play by the chantrys circle system that they should also be alowed more trust in there choices
2. there barly allowed to leave the tower. i mean during ostgar only a handfull were allowed to leave (which in hindsight was a good thing for the latter battle) so im proposing that its not only the templars that get to decide when and who leaves let the first inchanter have a say to.
3. im sorry if you cant trust people who are trusting you.

[DKJaigen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Zeroed55 wrote...
Simple. As has been said before, many, many times - let the Mages govern themselves.

How is that better. And for whom?

To all people around them.we already established that the templars can be bought. despite your nay saying their is irrefutable proof that the templars can be bought and this happens on a large scale and for quite some time.

Don't forget - we're asking for a better system that is realistic (as in, actualyl feasable to implement in TheDas)

The Circle of Magi should be an independent body, governed, and its tenants enforced by mages. NOT the Chantry.

And non-mages and kings would just agree to this?

Yes. ever heard of : let sleeping dogs lie. As soon as the templars are out of the way i doubt many people will risk to face the mages as they are quite capable of defending themselves. especially if mages bring additional benefits like healing or protection. they can offer themselves up to become warmages to local lords.

Remeber, they wouldn't stand for it.

you they will. have way to much faith in people.


Mages policing themselves sounds like a good idea only to mages.

yeah and corrupt templars is also a good idea then?

Not to mention, mages hunting abominations are at a bigger danger of posesion.

Bollocks. for an abomination to create another abomination   he needs time. also an abomination can create another possessed human from templars.

Also, mages are few in numbers..and they are usefull. Mages dying hunting abominations (and they WILL die) just reduces their numbers even more.

So? templars are also a rare commodity as lyrium is not an abundant resource. and ffs what prevent mages to train their own mage hunters?

Mages policing themselves would also require a large chunk of mages devoted soley to that task - meaning less mages for other tasks. Less mages to brew potions, teach, heal, etc...

you claim to know the codex much yet you dont know that the tranquil is the economic centre of the circle. epic fial their lotion

Could they really match the efficiency of templars in that regard?

far better.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

HA! Where does it say this? Nowhere. At no point in the Codex does it say "Abominations and mages were no issue. Everything is fun, sunshine and lollipops". [/quote]

It reads that in the complete absense of any mention of blood mages or abominations as the factor in mages being restricted of their rights for Emperor Drakon's religious views (History of the Chantry Part Four), and the fact that Divine Ambrosia II was talked down by the templars from declaring an Exalted March on her own cathedral because mages held a nonviolent protest there (History of the Circle).[/quote]

No, it doesn't.
You cannot simply look for what isn't mentions specificly and immediately assume the worswt as a fact.

As other people have told you already before - that specific codex entries is not concerned with the details about the creation of the Circles. You assume a singualr reason, but that is not a given. I cna, in fact, give you examples of text that cna be read similary as you did that one, and one could come to the wrong conclusion. [/quote]

An absense of evidence doesn't mean it's evidence; there's nothing to infer that blood mages or abominations played a role in History of the Chantry Part Four or History of the Circle, especially when we are given the reasons. If your biggest argument for supporting the Chantry controlled Circles is the blood mages and the abominations, and those two elements are completely missing from the inception of the Circle and the reason behind the subsequent imprisonment of the mages, it stands as a significant reason to call into doubt the Chantry's role in controlling the Circles like a dictatorship (the term used by Michael Hamilton).

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What you think and what you can prove are two Ccompletely different things Lob.

You belive the Harrowing is seting up mages to fail..but that is a redicolous and idiotic view...especially considering it's the invention of MAGED and is used even in Tevinter.
Obvipously it has come to this point - blaming the chantry for something the mages did themselves -and
something that isn't evil, broken or needs changing to boot. [/quote]

Maybe you should try to keep your composure, Lotion, instead of tossing insults around. I said nothing about who established the Harrowing, I addressed the current system in place.[/quote]

Setting up the mages to fail? You talked about the Harrowing like that before.
Be more specific in the future.

And...NO [/quote]

"No" isn't a defense, Lotion. You're entitled to your opinion on the issue, but I still see the Harrowing as setting mages up to fail and a form of torture, which is instituted by the current system in place, which is under the control of the Chantry and the templars. So far we have nothing to indicate it's even necessary.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

700 years of peace? And after the war is over..another 700?

Or do you have a better system? We are waiting..... [/quote]

It's not peace when it involves violent conflict, Lotion. Peace is defined as:

n. The absence of war or other hostilities.

That isn't the case because of the existance of the Circles of Magi, where you have an entire group of people across the continent who have their rights being stripped away, can be killed or given a lobotomy under suspect conditions, are being imprisoned because of a nonviolent protest mages held in Orlais centuries ago, and where countless men, women, and children were killed across seven hundred years of the Rites, because of the conlict and hostilities between templars and mages.[/quote]

Ahh..the dictionary approach. No man. It is peace.[/quote]

If by dictionary you mean what it actually means, then yes, it means you were factually incorrect in your statement.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The country is safer. The people are safer
So yes..peace.. [/quote]

You have no proof the people are safer because of what the Chantry does.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No - we challange you to come up with a better alternative. One that has less holes than the Circle system.
You know you can't. We know that we will find lots and lots of holes in that system - just like we do in your arguments. That's not disagreeing before you write - that expecting you to fail at an impossible task you claims youe can accomplish. [/quote]

I know this discussion is the same as every other discussion where mages and templars have been debated, and no consensus is reached.[/quote]

Consensuss is irrelveant.
You providing a better system with less hols is relevant. [/quote]

Considering how you dismiss the factual definitions of words, I doubt anything I say will make any difference. You've already made up your mind, so I don't see any purpose behind you making demands for me to prove something to you when you clearly aren't going to change your mind on the matter at hand.

I don't think we'll reach a consensus. What bothers me is that you seem to think we're not allowed to like the Chantry when we read about Fiona in The Calling seeing her life in the Circle as no better than her life as the sex slave of an Orlesian noble. We have the Grey Warden having the chance to call the Circle a "prison" and "an oppressive place," and Wynne never contests either of those terms. Wynne actually says the Warden can change that if he goes back to the Circle. The Magi boon is probably the biggest indicator of how we can express our opinion about the Chantry and the templars by asking for the Circle of Ferelden to be given it's independence, and the ruler agrees completely.

Interestingly, the dev Michael Hamilton said (about the Magi boon being turned down):

[quote]Michael Hamilton wrote...

Since when has any dictatorship ever been turned over by asking politely?

Really think about what you're saying.

"I asked and they said no!" [/quote]

It's not impossible, that's all I'm saying.

[Lotion Soronarr]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Have I ever claimed biased chantry writign as hard facts? I don't think so...

Ok.. When you make assumptions and claim them as hard fact.. your wrong
Assumptions dont = facts

Again..when have I done that?

Your first sentence is entirely an assumption just like when I say lands are peaceful and safe in non chantry controlled lands such as Rivain, Tevinter both now and past, and among the dalish and chasind tribes.

Not an assumption.
Confirmed by both DG and basic logic.

And yes, obviously wars happen.. And wars a criticized if the reasons why they were started are stupid ones or non existant ones.. Thats what i'm doing im criticising them and their rediculous reasons for war..

And as for bringing up the dales... I didn't say it was the chantrys fault.. I suggested the possibility of such. Thats why I said "Justification pending" nothing wrong with pointing out that war is yet to be justified.. Like I always say though its yet to be condemned as well.. Im not condemning it.. Im just pointing out obvious facts that are there.

Granted, you did say "justification pending." My bad.

And well..wars...do tehy ever have a good reason for starting?
I'm just reminding you not to their every war at the Chantrys feet. Kings have minds of their own, goals and ambitions. If europes history proves anything, is that the Church, for all of it's power, couldn't stop wars. Evan during crusades, nations would still bicker and take pot shots at eachoter.

I cbf going into extreme detail regarding it but the generalisation of the idea is a generally good concept because it worked for 800 years without issue.. Only issue which is generally non related was the slavery and blood magic.. without them.. The system still works

But how do you ensure no slavery and blood magic? It is, after all, what keeps Tevinter afloat. Without blood magic, would hte magisters have enough pwoer to keep the populace under control?
How do you ensure the system works?
How do you ensure such system is accepted and enforced?


A simple generalisation doesn't adress those issues.

[Lotion Soronarr]

pulsar989 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
1.  Mages are already granted more freedom the more the prove themselves.
2. They can already leave the Tower on variosu trips.
3. If templars arre't allowed on the upper floor, who is watching the mages for illegal activity?

1. that is not true yes the first inchanter has that freadom but everyone else is still at the wim of the chantry and cant make alot of ther decisions im just saying that if they play by the chantrys circle system that they should also be alowed more trust in there choices
2. there barly allowed to leave the tower. i mean during ostgar only a handfull were allowed to leave (which in hindsight was a good thing for the latter battle) so im proposing that its not only the templars that get to decide when and who leaves let the first inchanter have a say to.
3. im sorry if you cant trust people who are trusting you.

1. No, that is true. Mages are often sent out for missions, sometimes even long ones. Take a look at Wynne and Fynne. They can travel around the country for quite a long time.

2. Exactly why only a few were allowed to leave the tower is unknown. Perhaps they simply don't want to let too many out at one time? But again, we do see examples of Circle mages traveling around ferelden.

3. I'ts a bit more complicated that that. Oversight requires monitoring.
Besides, if the mage Origin is any indicator, templars seem more like hall monitors. Only a few stand around the halls, keeping order. Harldy seems super-intrusive.

[panamakira]

I will try both options this time around. I know in the Circle of Magi quest I just couldn't side with the Templars but I'm giving it a shot on my second playthrough. The way I roleplay is by injecting my own prejudices into the character as I'm sure many others do so it's really hard to say, "What would Hawke do here..."....versus "Why would I do if I was raised in this environment, what would my choice be..".

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]DKJaigen wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Zeroed55 wrote...
Simple. As has been said before, many, many times - let the Mages govern themselves. [/quote]

How is that better. And for whom?

To all people around them.we already established that the templars can be bought. despite your nay saying their is irrefutable proof that the templars can be bought and this happens on a large scale and for quite some time.[/quote]

Wrong.
All the time? Large-sacle? Both of those are rubbish and you know it.

And all people around them? Yeh right. Mayhaps you would like to explain that a bit better. Exactly HOW would that make it better?
Mages governing themselves hasn't been sucesfull in the past at all. I'm sure Tevinter is a excellent place for all non-mages to live.<_<




[quote]
[quote]
The Circle of Magi should be an independent body, governed, and its tenants enforced by mages. NOT the Chantry.[/quote]

And non-mages and kings would just agree to this?

Yes. ever heard of : let sleeping dogs lie. As soon as the templars are out of the way i doubt many people will risk to face the mages as they are quite capable of defending themselves. especially if mages bring additional benefits like healing or protection. they can offer themselves up to become warmages to local lords.[/quote]

The same populace that fears and mistrusts them? The same lords who fear a blood mage can take over their mind?
And do you really think anyone would agree to simply disband a anti-mage force..they they wil ldeliberately make themselves vulnerable to mages?:lol::lol:





[quote]
Not to mention, mages hunting abominations are at a bigger danger of posesion.

Bollocks. for an abomination to create another abomination   he needs time. also an abomination can create another possessed human from templars.[/quote]

Nah. As I said, abominations can tear the veil. Mages are in greatest danger there, because mages are like beacon to demons. Tempalrs aren't.
Of course, just because there is a tear inthe veil, that doesn't mean a mage will become possesed. After all demons don't magicly appear near mages - tehy stumble into them or find them. Torn veils are localized phenomena, and demons move around..and the Fade seems quite a big place.

But the danger for a mage is definately greater. The very presence of a mage draws deamons.
Meaning you can expect greater opossition.


[quote]
Also, mages are few in numbers..and they are usefull. Mages dying hunting abominations (and they WILL die) just reduces their numbers even more.

So? templars are also a rare commodity as lyrium is not an abundant resource. and ffs what prevent mages to train their own mage hunters? [/quote]

Templars are easier to replace. And lyrium isn't required, it's just useful.
And a force that polices mages that answers to mages...yeah. Brilliant idea.


[quote]
Mages policing themselves would also require a large chunk of mages devoted soley to that task - meaning less mages for other tasks. Less mages to brew potions, teach, heal, etc...

you claim to know the codex much yet you dont know that the tranquil is the economic centre of the circle. epic fial their lotion[/quote]

Tranquil craft magical items using lyrium. Teaching and other stuff? Mages do that.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 03 mars 2011 - 09:38 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

An absense of evidence doesn't mean it's evidence; there's nothing to infer that blood mages or abominations played a role in History of the Chantry Part Four or History of the Circle, especially when we are given the reasons. If your biggest argument for supporting the Chantry controlled Circles is the blood mages and the abominations, and those two elements are completely missing from the inception of the Circle and the reason behind the subsequent imprisonment of the mages, it stands as a significant reason to call into doubt the Chantry's role in controlling the Circles like a dictatorship (the term used by Michael Hamilton).

Absence of evidence is not evidnce of absence. Just because a single historian, in a a shot, sometwhat comedic blurb, didn't meantions something that is considered common knowledge, you immediately draw the worst conclusion.

Again, there is plenty to infer.
We are never going to agree on this part.

LobselVith8 wrote...

"No" isn't a defense, Lotion. You're entitled to your opinion on the issue, but I still see the Harrowing as setting mages up to fail and a form of torture, which is instituted by the current system in place, which is under the control of the Chantry and the templars. So far we have nothing to indicate it's even necessary.

Harrowing was designed by the mages...for mages.
IIRC, it was desigend even before the Chantry (don't quote me on that, I'll have to check).
Mages support it.

I'd say it's bloody obvious it is necessary.

LobselVith8 wrote...
If by dictionary you mean what it actually means, then yes, it means you were factually incorrect in your statement.

No, it judt means you are trying to sound smart while trying to muddy the water. The meaning is clear.
There is nothing factually incorrect about my statement. Deal with it.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The country is safer. The people are safer
So yes..peace..

You have no proof the people are safer because of what the Chantry does.

David Gaider would like to disagree wiht you on that.
If without the Circle system, the populce just has to "deal" with abominations and evil mages as they happen, then it is safer by any possible definition of the word.
You don't get as many abominations running rampant around, you don't get as many incidents with mages.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Consensuss is irrelveant.
You providing a better system with less hols is relevant.

Considering how you dismiss the factual definitions of words, I doubt anything I say will make any difference. You've already made up your mind, so I don't see any purpose behind you making demands for me to prove something to you when you clearly aren't going to change your mind on the matter at hand.

Get off your high horse.
You're now on the defensive. Claiming I don't follow "factual definitions", because of a redicolous argument you made earlier and then going "we will never agree, therefore I don't have to prove anything anymore".
Why don't you jsut admit what you're doing?
You're backing down. You know you can't come up with a better system, but you can't admit it. So you're trying to avoid the issue altogether, by forging a "greacefull departure".

You can certanly choose not to adress the point, but that won't make it go away.
Either provide a better alternative, or fold.

I shall ignore your nausiating anti-Chatry rant that follows...because *I* don't see any reason to adress it.
See? Two can play that game...

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 03 mars 2011 - 01:43 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

An absense of evidence doesn't mean it's evidence; there's nothing to infer that blood mages or abominations played a role in History of the Chantry Part Four or History of the Circle, especially when we are given the reasons. If your biggest argument for supporting the Chantry controlled Circles is the blood mages and the abominations, and those two elements are completely missing from the inception of the Circle and the reason behind the subsequent imprisonment of the mages, it stands as a significant reason to call into doubt the Chantry's role in controlling the Circles like a dictatorship (the term used by Michael Hamilton).[/quote]

Absence of evidence is not evidnce of absence. Just because a single historian, in a a shot, sometwhat comedic blurb, didn't meantions something that is considered common knowledge, you immediately draw the worst conclusion.

Again, there is plenty to infer.
We are never going to agree on this part. [/quote]

When we're provided the historical accounts of what transpired, they specifically leave out blood mages and abominations. Your contention that it's "common knowledge" doesn't excuse that it's not listed as the reason behind either the Circle's creation or the imprisonment of the mages.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

"No" isn't a defense, Lotion. You're entitled to your opinion on the issue, but I still see the Harrowing as setting mages up to fail and a form of torture, which is instituted by the current system in place, which is under the control of the Chantry and the templars. So far we have nothing to indicate it's even necessary.
[/quote]

Harrowing was designed by the mages...for mages.
IIRC, it was desigend even before the Chantry (don't quote me on that, I'll have to check).
Mages support it.

I'd say it's bloody obvious it is necessary. [/quote]

You seem to be ignoring my point here. The Circles are under Chantry control. The Harrowing is under the direction of the Knight-Commander, who would order the possessed mage killed. You can't divorce the Chantry from the Harrowing when the Knight-Commander clearly orders Irving to stop giving advice to the mage protagonist in the Magi Origin.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

If by dictionary you mean what it actually means, then yes, it means you were factually incorrect in your statement.[/quote]

No, it judt means you are trying to sound smart while trying to muddy the water. The meaning is clear.
There is nothing factually incorrect about my statement. Deal with it. [/quote]

If it defies the definition of peace, then the Chantry and the templars didn't provide Thedas or the Circles with peace when it incited violent and death.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The country is safer. The people are safer
So yes..peace.. [/quote]

You have no proof the people are safer because of what the Chantry does.[/quote]

David Gaider would like to disagree wiht you on that.
If without the Circle system, the populce just has to "deal" with abominations and evil mages as they happen, then it is safer by any possible definition of the word.
You don't get as many abominations running rampant around, you don't get as many incidents with mages. [/quote]

Why would David Gaider disagree with me when he's never stated one way or the other whether people are safer with the Circles or not? He's never said things are better because of what the Chantry and the templars do, all he did was attack people because of the "perceived" notion that they were lumping the templars as "evil" which wasn't accurate of the discussion. As for the number of abominations, most of the abominations that we've seen and read about happened as a direct result of the templars - the Abomination codex, the Rite of Anulment codex, and A Broken Circle - so I don't see how your comments are factually accurate when the toxic enviornment of the Circle is leading to blood mages and abominations.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Consensuss is irrelveant.
You providing a better system with less hols is relevant. [/quote]

Considering how you dismiss the factual definitions of words, I doubt anything I say will make any difference. You've already made up your mind, so I don't see any purpose behind you making demands for me to prove something to you when you clearly aren't going to change your mind on the matter at hand.[/quote]

Get off your high horse.
You're now on the defensive. Claiming I don't follow "factual definitions", because of a redicolous argument you made earlier and then going "we will never agree, therefore I don't have to prove anything anymore". [/quote]

I'm not on a high horse, I simply don't think anything constructive is coming out of these arguments besides the fact that we disagree.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Why don't you jsut admit what you're doing?
You're backing down. You know you can't come up with a better system, but you can't admit it. So you're trying to avoid the issue altogether, by forging a "greacefull departure". [/quote]

Considering you already said you were going to dismiss anything I said, there's no purpose behind engaging a pointless discussion with you on the issue.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I shall ignore your nausiating anti-Chatry rant that follows...because *I* don't see any reason to adress it.
See? Two can play that game... [/quote]

If you want to drop this discussion, I'd be more than happy to simply agree to disagree.

Getting back on-topic, I think we'll face the dicotomy between the templars and the mages in the storyline of DA2. Anders will likely be an apostate. Merrill is an apostate as a Dalish mage. We either have an apostate Hawke or Bethany. Given how the Chantry and the mages of the Circle are, Anders is likely to side against them. Merrill's people also blame them for taking away their knowledge and destroying the Dales (as the templars are specifically referenced in the Dalish codex) so we have two to three apostates who will likely side with Hawke if he decides to go against them. What makes it interesting is that we might also have the opportunity to help Merrill establish a permanent place for the Dalish to live in the Free Marches, where they can try to rebuild their lost culture. There's so much myth behind the lost civilization of Arlathan, for instance. There's no proof the Arlathan elves were immortal, because all we have is the stories that have been passed down. It's a point that's addressed in conversation between Nathaniel and Velanna. Maybe the Dalish will finally get a chance to discover the clandestine knowledge of their people and uncover the truth from the myth.

I think DA2 will give us the opportunity to side with either the Chantry or the Circle. There are clearly people on both sides of the argument, and I'd imagine that people it wouldn't be too much of a leap for an apostate Hawke, Bethany, Anders, or Merrill to have negative feelings about the Chantry and the templars because of their background and experiences.

Apostate Hawke and Merrill, from the Merrill Appreciation Thread:

[quote]Eclipse_9990 wrote...




[/quote]

How long is it going to take before the templars see an apostate Hawke or an apostate Merrill performing magic (like in this scene) before it becomes an issue of life and death?

I can imagine that many players have already established their views on the Chantry, like the people who played as a Dalish Warden and believe in the Dalish POV of events of the fall of the Dales. For DA2, I'd imagine that would be Merrill's reason. Even Ariane, who wasn't a mage, didn't seem to like them when she accompanies the Warden to the Circle Tower. I'd imagine part of the reason is that the Dalish clans seem to take their version of the fall of the Dales as fact, and since we know the mages (like the Keepers) are also hunted by the templars, I'd imagine that it causes friction between the two groups.

If Merrill comes to encounter the elves of the Alienage, I wonder how that would impact her views. Would she try to bring the lore of the Dalish to them? Would she try to make strides to improve their living conditions and be a voice for them against the ruling authority of Kirkwall? Might she try to encourage them to find sanctuary with the Dalish clan to fulfill the promise of teaching the elves of the city about their lost history and culture? We're fully allowed to disagree with what the Chantry does - it's the reason quite a few have contested the Chantry and the templars in DA:O when they were a Grey Warden from the Circle of Magi, and asked for the Circle of Ferelden to be given it's independence because they didn't agree with what is being done to the mages. I'd imagine it'll come into play with Bethany or the apostate Hawke, who will likely be faced with the aiding the Dalish clan and the Kirkwall Circle of Magi. If the mages are trying to emancipate themselves, they'll come into conflict with the Order of Templars. If the Dalish are trying to establish a permanent settlement for their people, I'd imagine the same because they have free mages among them (like the Keeper).

[Hellscream]

Here would be my suggestion to how the towers, chantry and templars should be run.

- Separation of Church and State. Most important. The Chantry should not influence how any government is run in Thedas. Chantry clerics should be answerable to the law of a nation and should not be able to collect tithes. That said, the Chantry's allegiance should be towards the people, not the state.

- Less emphasis on tradition, more on helping the common people. The chantry should be there to provide spiritual guidance as well as a centre for the religious (and non-religious) population to congregate and help each other (charity and what not)

- No more religious crusades. None.

-Mages should be taken to a tower at a young age to be taught how to manage their powers and ethical usage of their gifts. However, once at an appropriate age the mage should be allowed back out into the world and their families (maybe after the harrowing to increase their resistance to later possession?) They can stay in the mage towers if they wish.

-Mages are allowed to carry on their normal lives, with the choice to use their magic to help their community, not practice it, or at least not use it to harm others. If a mage is seen to be using magic to harm their fellow people, or have turned into an abomination, the templars will find them and either take them back to the tower to be imprisoned/tranquilized, or killed if they cant be pacified (i.e resist arrest)

- The Templar becoming more independent from the chantry and recruitment based on good moral character than piety. Rather than becoming Jailers and executioners, they become a mix between a police force for magic, and defenders of the people (from any threat). So if darkspawn walk into a town one day, the templars at the chantry will be sworn to fight them off for the town.

- In times of war, Templars can take up arms along state troops. So for example, if the Qunari launch an invasion of say... Ferelden, the templar can march along side state-funded troops.

- The Chantry will not deny other religions. They will not force the dwarves/elves/qunari to accept their beliefs, but the templars will defend believers against those who would force them to change theirs

[DKJaigen]

Ah lotion i will quite here and simply agree to disagree for now. Through your support of a drug addicted military force is most stupid thing i ever heard as this would not even be tolerated in out medieval times. i have to wait till da2 to get mote information pulverize your ridiculous notions and ethics into the ground.

[TheCreeper]

The Chantry would never allow other religions to have major hold in nations they control, it goes against the very core of their dogma.

[pulsar989]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

pulsar989 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
1.  Mages are already granted more freedom the more the prove themselves.
2. They can already leave the Tower on variosu trips.
3. If templars arre't allowed on the upper floor, who is watching the mages for illegal activity?

1. that is not true yes the first inchanter has that freadom but everyone else is still at the wim of the chantry and cant make alot of ther decisions im just saying that if they play by the chantrys circle system that they should also be alowed more trust in there choices
2. there barly allowed to leave the tower. i mean during ostgar only a handfull were allowed to leave (which in hindsight was a good thing for the latter battle) so im proposing that its not only the templars that get to decide when and who leaves let the first inchanter have a say to.
3. im sorry if you cant trust people who are trusting you.

1. No, that is true. Mages are often sent out for missions, sometimes even long ones. Take a look at Wynne and Fynne. They can travel around the country for quite a long time.

2. Exactly why only a few were allowed to leave the tower is unknown. Perhaps they simply don't want to let too many out at one time? But again, we do see examples of Circle mages traveling around ferelden.

3. I'ts a bit more complicated that that. Oversight requires monitoring.
Besides, if the mage Origin is any indicator, templars seem more like hall monitors. Only a few stand around the halls, keeping order. Harldy seems super-intrusive.

1. no its untrue. those examples you have were granted exeptions because a Grey Warden was involved and unlike most folks i don't think the chantry is incompotant (or completle evil). so as you have seen in gameplay and other sources the chantry turns a blind eye to / helps the grey wardens (like in lothering or the landsmeet (I guess there smart enough to now not tot screw over the only folk who can kill a arch demon ( the old dragon gods who are like the devil in there religion))).

2. i think you just proved my point on nummber two in your own words. most of the mages you see in ferelden out side of the tower fall into 3 groups. 1. there appostats mages outside the circle (most of the magi bad guys you fight in the game). 2. there warden related such as the magis you summon during the final battle. 3. they are tranquil so no spells no problem (although its highly hipacratic if forced on a mage considering it comes from a religions orginization that condemds slavery). 

3. at least you admit its a complicated problem. i have never supported a split from the chantry (usully the most just and fair action is one were both groups walk away unsatisfied but alive). However the mages should not have templars down there necks all the time. kept from having some of the things that make life worth living and belong to all free men (making the chantry complete phoneys) such as familys the chance to grow/learn. in short the current system does not work it needs reforms.

[Augustei]

Finn was actually given pardon before the grey warden even met him.
Wynne probably could have left without the grey warden anyway.
The cases aren't extremely common but they dont need to meet an extremely high standard like a grey wardens request or anything

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 03 mars 2011 - 07:19 .

[Augustei]

Hmm interesting development,
*SPOILERS*

Well it seems Knight Commander Meridith is possessed by a demon... probably a demon of pride, going of a screenshot found of her as the end boss and she has red clowing eyes and red electrical sparks around her body..

So Could you keep the chantry in power, as a result maintaining stability in Thedas but leaving a possible Pride Demon in charge of things and keeping the mages and elves being treated the way they are?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

btw added this into my original post as well