1411 réponses à ce sujet

[TheRevanchist]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Kyle, just because Greagoir delegated responsibilities to Irving doesn't change that the Circles are under Chantry control and run by the Order of Templars, as we see with Meredith - who isn't as sympathetic as Greagoir was.

And as we see with Cullen...Meredith is the exception rather then the rule, just becuse she acts that way does not mean Gregior is wrong.

[LobselVith8]

Seriously, look up the actual terms for slavery, and you'll see the Chantry controlled Circles can be referenced as such. Cherry-picking one line when there are multiple lines for the definition doesn't help your argument. You disagree with the term slavery for the Chantry controlled Circles? Take it up with the writers who had characters refer to it as such.

[TheRevanchist]

LobselVith8 wrote...

You realize the boon is properly imported if Alistair and Anora married, and Loghain was spared since Anora technically gives the boon, correct?

No it does not...because I went with that and it didnt work correctly.

[LobselVith8]

Meredith ran the Kirkwall Circle, not the mages. If your theory on the mages running the Circles was remotely accurate, this wouldn't be be case.

[LobselVith8]

Kyle, it does work. Ask the people who do unofficial patches and look at the coding and flags for the games. They will tell you the same thing.

[KnightofPhoenix]

"It is no simple matter, safeguarding ordinary men from mages, and mages from themselves. Each Circle tower must have some measure of self-government, for it is ever the Maker's will that men be given the power to take responsibility for our own actions: To sin and fail, as well as to achieve the highest grace and glory on our own strength.

You, who will be tasked with the protection of the Circle, must be aware of its workings. The first enchanter is the heart of any tower. He will determine the course his Circle will take, he will choose which apprentices may be tested and made full mages, and you will work most closely with him."

- Knight-Commander Serain of the Chantry templars, in a letter to his successor.

The Circle has some level of autonomy. What the Chantry does is oversight it and perform what we could call indirect control, via the Templars advising and supervising. The Chantry however does not dominate and completely control the Circle as some suggest. 

Can that be improved? Sure. But let's all be talking about the same thing first.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 mars 2011 - 03:36 .

[Vandicus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Seriously, look up the actual terms for slavery, and you'll see the Chantry controlled Circles can be referenced as such. Cherry-picking one line when there are multiple lines for the definition doesn't help your argument. You disagree with the term slavery for the Chantry controlled Circles? Take it up with the writers who had characters refer to it as such.

Cherry picking one line? Slavery is defined across history as being forced to work for another.

Say we look at it from your POV. People who don't have complete freedom are slaves. Prisoners do not have complete freedom. Therefore all prisoners are slaves.

*EDIT
To quote a more reliable source for emphasis

Webster 9th edition

1. A person held in servitude as the chattel of another. 2. zone that is completely subservient to a dominating influnce

Mages are neither of those. A mage has rights. A slave does not. They are by definition property. This is why they are not considered to have rights. It is the entire argument behind slaves not being represented in courts in US history.

Modifié par Vandicus, 17 mars 2011 - 03:38 .

[LobselVith8]

Meredith isn't the exception, Greagoir is because he delegates authority to Irving. If her running the Circle was illegal without the First Enchanter, she would have been removed from her position.

[LobselVith8]

You're using one line when multiple lines are provided for the definition of slave and slavery, Vandicus. That's what I take issue with. Again, you dislike the term of slavery for the Chantry controlled Circles? Take it up with the creators of DA2.

[Vandicus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

You're using one line when multiple lines are provided for the definition of slave and slavery, Vandicus. That's what I take issue with. Again, you dislike the term of slavery for the Chantry controlled Circles? Take it up with the creators of DA2.

You don't like the idea that mages are evil bastards? Take it up with the writers. They wrote in Meredith, all that she says is therefore word of god and must be accepted as true and factual.

[LobselVith8]

A personal letter from one templar to another doesn't mean the Circle has autonomy, KoP. If it did, Meredith wouldn't be in control of the Kirkwall Circle and giving orders to the First Enchanter.

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

Excellent. The Chantry will fall, and a New order will rise from the ashes of the old to shake the foundation of the world.

[LobselVith8]

I could say the ams thing about the templars, Vandicus. Rape, torture, making people disappear, taking away peoples' humanity, these are hardly the actions of "good" people. I thought you would have figured out that nobody in DA2 is wearing a white or black hat. People on both sides are flawed and conflicted.

[Vandicus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I could say the ams thing about the templars, Vandicus. Rape, torture, making people disappear, taking away peoples' humanity, these are hardly the actions of "good" people. I thought you would have figured out that nobody in DA2 is wearing a white or black hat. People on both sides are flawed and conflicted.

What a suprise. I must now abandon my templar loving ways and go support mages. Oh wait, I already do support mages, as I mentioned previously. Also, TPjag has made some very valid points about the rape, torture,  and making people disappear thing. Completely unrelated to the fact that MAGES ARE NOT PROPERTY.

On a side note, there are cases in human history of policemen raping, torturing, and making people disappear. This does not make all officers of the law bad people. Nor does the action of some templars automatically make anyone who dons the uniform a bad person. For that matter, I have never claimed that the templars were good people, so I question why you even bother mentioning it.

[LobselVith8]

The mages are completely subservient to the Chantry, or were before Anders. They had no basic rights, they could be given a lobotomy that would strip them of their agency and their humanity, and the Knight-Commander had the authority.

We saw even in the Ferelden Circle, Irving had no say over the matter over Jowan's Right of Tranquility because Irving admitted to the mage protagonist that he never saw the evidence against Jowan and that if it were up to him, "things would be different, but the Chantry..." Hardly the words of a man who has equal standing with Greagoir when Greagoir was the one who signed the Right against Jowan and Irving had no say in the matter.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 17 mars 2011 - 03:56 .

[LobselVith8]

The actions of some mages doesn't make all mages bad, either, Vandicus. It goes both ways.

[Dangerfoot]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Meredith calls Alistair out on the Magi boon when he invites Hawke to speak with him, and she said it wasn't his authority to make such a decree, so the Chantry clearly turned it down as Gaider said.

Goody, they gave me a line of dialogue to explain why every choice I made in DAO was promptly ignored so that DA2 could get from A to B with no complications AKA no customization or choices.

<_<

[TJPags]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The mages are completely subservient to the Chantry, or were before Jowan. They had no basic rights, they could be given a lobotomy that would strip them of their agency and their humanity, and as we saw even in the Ferelden Circle, Irving had no say over the matter because he admitted that he never saw the evidence against Jowan and that if it were up to him, "things would be different, but the Chantry..." Hardly the words of a man who has equal standing with Greagoir when Greagoir was the one who signed the Right against Jowan and Irving had no say in the matter.

Oh, this nonsense about Jowan?

You do realize that Jowan was charged with being a blood mage, right?  And he was actually a blood mage?  So he was actually rightfully convicted of such.

Got another example?  because that one stinks.

[KnightofPhoenix]

LobselVith8 wrote...

A personal letter from one templar to another doesn't mean the Circle has autonomy, KoP. If it did, Meredith wouldn't be in control of the Kirkwall Circle and giving orders to the First Enchanter.

Sigh, circular logic.

Yes, it does. That's a Templar telling his succesor how to run things. And since it's a game with limited ways to communicate info, then the codex is here to give us a summary of how the Circle normally works.
By the same logic, I can say that if what Gregoir was doing was illegal, he wouldn't remain in office either.

It seems that the concept of "exception" does not exist wih you.

You can criticize the Chantry for not stopping Meredith from the beginning. That, I can agree too. But the fact that they tolerated her does NOT mean that all the Circles are run the same way.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 mars 2011 - 03:51 .

[Vandicus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The actions of some mages doesn't make all mages bad, either, Vandicus. It goes both ways.

Irrelevant to the question of whether or not mages are property and have absolutely no rights. Even more irrelevant because I've made it clear that I support the mages, despite the overwhelming amount of blood mages in Kirkwall(which I believe can be attributed to the extraordinarily thin Veil there and the treatment they recieved in the last three years).

If a mage had no rights, a fresh templar recruit could kill or rape them at a whim. A templar who does either, would be cast out and/or imprisoned and executed, by Chantry regulations. Therefore, mages have rights, and are not property.

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

Oh, this nonsense about Jowan?

You do realize that Jowan was charged with being a blood mage, right?  And he was actually a blood mage?  So he was actually rightfully convicted of such.

Got another example?  because that one stinks.

You mean an example that gives the complete lack of authority that Irving had in the Ferelden Circle? I already provided it. You're welcome to address that Jowan was, indeed, a blood mage. Let's ask Aneirin the Healer if he was really a maleficar at fourteen years old when the templars ran him through and left him for dead, for example.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yes, it does. That's a Templar telling his succesor how to run things. And since it's a game with limited ways to communicate info, then the codex is here to give us a summary of how the Circle normally works.
By the same logic, I can say that if what Gregoir was doing was illegal, he wouldn't remain in office either.

We see how the Circle normally works - with the Chantry and its templars in control. I don't see why this is in dispute when David Gaider already addressed that the Chantry controls the Circles. I also find your example lacking - I never said it was illegal for Greagoir to delegate some responsibility to Irving, but if the Knight-Commander shares responsibility with the First Enchanter, how can Meredith give orders to Orsino? If she's supposed to be running the Circle with him, why is it that even the Grand Cleric gets templars to "escort" him away to the Kirkwall Circle?

Modifié par LobselVith8, 17 mars 2011 - 04:03 .

[LobselVith8]

Vandicus wrote...

Irrelevant to the question of whether or not mages are property and have absolutely no rights. Even more irrelevant because I've made it clear that I support the mages, despite the overwhelming amount of blood mages in Kirkwall(which I believe can be attributed to the extraordinarily thin Veil there and the treatment they recieved in the last three years).

If a mage had no rights, a fresh templar recruit could kill or rape them at a whim. A templar who does either, would be cast out and/or imprisoned and executed, by Chantry regulations. Therefore, mages have rights, and are not property.

That must explain how they can get their humanity and their agency stripped from them, with the mages having no say over the matter - as we saw in DA:O. They don't have basic rights - they're forced to live in a prison where they live under the authority of the Chantry and it's templars. You seem to be arguing with me over the fact that mages are considered slaves by characters in DA2, and I can't help you in contesting what's said in the actual storyline of the sequel.

[TJPags]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Oh, this nonsense about Jowan?

You do realize that Jowan was charged with being a blood mage, right?  And he was actually a blood mage?  So he was actually rightfully convicted of such.

Got another example?  because that one stinks.

You mean an example that gives the complete lack of authority that Irving had in the Ferelden Circle? I already provided it. You're welcome to address that Jowan was, indeed, a blood mage. Let's ask Aneirin the Healer if he was really a maleficar at fourteen years old when the templars ran him through and left him for dead, for example.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yes, it does. That's a Templar telling his succesor how to run things. And since it's a game with limited ways to communicate info, then the codex is here to give us a summary of how the Circle normally works.
By the same logic, I can say that if what Gregoir was doing was illegal, he wouldn't remain in office either.

We see how the Circle normally works - with the Chantry and its templars in control. I don't see why this is in dispute when David Gaider already addressed that the Chantry controls the Circles. I also find your example lacking - I never said it was illegal for Greagoir to delegate some responsibility to Irving, but if the Knight-Commander shares responsibility with the First Enchanter, how can Meredith give orders to Orsino? If she's supposed to be running the Circle with him, why is it that even the Grand Cleric gets templars to "escort" him away to the Kirkwall Circle?

Yes, malificar:

http://da-codex.apps...CxIEUGxvdBjlBgw

Read it.  Also known as an apostate.  As in, mage who runs away from the Circle.  Such as Aneirin, or Anders, or Bethany, or Mage Hawke, or his father, etc.  So, yes, he was one.

Next?

[LobselVith8]

You realize the difference between being an apostate and a maleficar is addressed by Anders in Awakening, considering the distinction is the reason he's alive? Try again, TJPags.

[KnightofPhoenix]

LobselVith8 wrote...
We see how the Circle normally works - with the Chantry and its templars in control. I don't see why this is in dispute when David Gaider already addressed that the Chantry controls the Circles. I also find your example lacking - I never said it was illegal for Greagoir to delegate some responsibility to Irving, but if the Knight-Commander shares responsibility with the First Enchanter, how can Meredith give orders to Orsino? If she's supposed to be running the
Circle with him, why is it that even the Grand Cleric gets templars to "escort" him away to the Kirkwall Circle?

*Sigh*, because we are told from the very beginning that Meredith has more power than any Templar elsewhere and was accumulating  more and more power. We are told by Cullen that he is skeptical of her methods. At the very beginning, when Leandra mentions going to Kirkwall, Bethany and Hawke say it's a bad idea because Kirkwall in pariticular is infamous for its Templars. If this was the same everywhere, they wouldn't complain.

And no, what Gaider said is that the Circle cannot secede from Chantry supervision. This does NOT mean that the Chantry directly controls the Circle in every aspect. No one is denying that the Chantry has control, but its indirect.  

EDIT: but I give up. You've been in the same position for months and no amount of discussion or evidence is going to change that. It's a waste of time for all involved.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 mars 2011 - 04:14 .