1411 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

Rifneno wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

But could we at least try to avoid the naive belief that the Chantry can simply order about the de facto ruler of an independent state without contradiction or consequence?

Mage origin boon says hi.

That's about Alistair's ability to order the Chantry around, not the Chantry's ability to order him around. 

[Agamo45]

Anders blew up a building full of innocent, unarmed civilians(priests no less). What would you call that other than a cowardly act of terrorism?

[GavrielKay]

Harid wrote...
I have trouble believing based on the mages we've run into in Dragon Age Origins and in Two, that a large enough contingent of mages aren't going to rape and pillage.

Why?  We don't meet all that many circle mages.  Mostly we meet apostates and malificar.  I would think many escaped mages would either hide or leave the country for someplace more friendly towards mages.  They could even try to go to Ferelden where the King (in my canon anyway) is rather more friendly to mages than the average.

Given most mages are raised by the Chantry and Templars, it would be nice to be able to believe that good values were instilled in them.

[CrimsonZephyr]

Harid wrote...

Tidra wrote...

If you make the conflict mages vs. the Chantry, then not only will the
bloodshed be insane (because the mages political goal essentially is
overthrowing the religion of Thedas) but the conflict becomes non-mages
vs. mages, so you've essentially just turned Thedas into a huge ethnic
conflict.

I don't really see how you don't think this is a conflict between Mages and the Chantry, when the Templars are a militant group that are under direct order from the Chantry. The chantry even fuels their lyrium addiction. And now apparently the Chantry has ANOTHER group, the seekers, that work for them. Templars are an arm of the Chantry, its not about overthrowing the religion it's about overthrowing the ideal that all mages need to be imprisoned in a giant circle tower for the rest of their lives under command of the Chantry. If the Templar Order has gone off the reigns then the Chantry needs to do something about it, which is where the Seekers come in.

I think what he's saying is that if you make the conflict mages versus chantry, you make it increasingly implausible for mages to 'win.'

People who are indoctrinated by 900 years of Chantry existance are not going to fight on behalf of the mages.

But I don't want to talk for the guy.

There are other concerns besides religion and the Chantry has political power. For example, Fereldan mages are by and large rational people, especially since the rebels have already been killed in DA:O, and the Templars there are more reasonable. But there is mistrust for the Chantry because the Chantry preached that Orlais should rule Ferelden. The same Orlais that is now rattling sabers at Denerim. Yeah, Ferelden would be real tight with an organization that is so Orlesian. There are nobles with mage children, the Circle might have nearly been freed, Alistair turned the country into a haven for fleeing apostates, and chances are, mage supporters fled back to Ferelden during Meredith's reign.

Then there is Rivain, where mages are kind of just ignored, or Antiva. Neither are as straight up hardcore Andrastian as Orlais or the Anderfels. It's not a one-sided fight. Plenty of mages can hand the Templars their asses on a plate.

[GavrielKay]

Agamo45 wrote...
Anders blew up a building full of innocent, unarmed civilians(priests no less). What would you call that other than a cowardly act of terrorism?

Anders blew up a building that was possibly but not provably full of people who were representatives of a religion that is both militant and oppressive.  I take issue with the idea that they must be innocent just because they are priests.

What he did was hardly cowardly.  Misguided and over the top perhaps, but he did it assuming he'd be executed for it.  That took some courage.

The Chantry is not like real world religions.  The Chantry has a military arm that is often more powerful than the local government.  They keep those highly trained soldiers dependent on lyrium so they will be loyal.  They preach bigotry and oppression.  They disobey edicts issued by the rulers of the countries they work in (see mage boon in Ferelden).  Elthina allows Meredith to take over a city-state.

They make themselves a target.

[Harid]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

There are other concerns besides religion and the Chantry has political power. For example, Fereldan mages are by and large rational people, especially since the rebels have already been killed in DA:O, and the Templars there are more reasonable. But there is mistrust for the Chantry because the Chantry preached that Orlais should rule Ferelden. The same Orlais that is now rattling sabers at Denerim. Yeah, Ferelden would be real tight with an organization that is so Orlesian. There are nobles with mage children, the Circle might have nearly been freed, Alistair turned the country into a haven for fleeing apostates, and chances are, mage supporters fled back to Ferelden during Meredith's reign.

Then there is Rivain, where mages are kind of just ignored, or Antiva. Neither are as straight up hardcore Andrastian as Orlais or the Anderfels. It's not a one-sided fight. Plenty of mages can hand the Templars their asses on a plate.

Your first point doesn't matter as so far as we saw no proof in DA:O that people had an issue with the Chantry rather than Orlais.  Fereldans had issue with Orlais.  Fereldans still believed in the Maker.  We saw no evidence of otherwise.  It seems as if you are randomly making things up to suit your argument.

Secondly, you are using blood ties to mean something when many nobles through our history, as well as history of the game had and have no problem cutting down their own family.  While some nobles may want to aid their families, I doubt it would be a large enough amount or a powerful enough amount to do anything, because all of the regular people you rule could literally give 2 ****s about your mage family.  They don't want Mad mages running their streets and destroying their way of life.

As for Rivain, they have no reason to fight for the honor of chantry mages, as we have little evidence of deep seeded hatred from the Llomerynn Accords, given hwo we haven't actually, you know, been to Rivain, and we know nothing of Antiva's Circle because Bioware hotshotted this mage Templar war without proper build, and we haven't actually been to Antiva.

As for the above poster, that train of thought is the same the Hamas and Al Qaeda use to justify their killing of innocents, just saying.  What he did was cowardly.  He killed a bunch of people who are the people who carry out orders regardless of their feelings on them.  They barely even do that, if he wanted to attack people who deserved it he would have bombed the Templar HQ, he did not.  If he wasn't a coward he would have went to Orlais and went all Abomination on the people who actually institute the goddamned rules.  As for the Templar's power, as far as we've seen that only really applies to Kirkwall, as we've seen how powerless Templars are firsthand in DA:O and have no reason to believe that was an isolated incident, as it's is unlikely for Templars to have power in Antiva or Orlais given the strength of the Chevalier force as well as the Crows.

Modifié par Harid, 12 juillet 2011 - 12:05 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

I'm pretty sure the Chantry supporting Orlais was from The Stolen Throne. Anyway, believing in the Maker and supporting the Templars are two very different things. As for the nobles, why would they support the Templars over their own family when they already have popular support and the troops necessary to oppose them? History always has plenty of examples of nobles and royalty who have given religious institutions the finger time and again and lived to tell the tale.

Also, Ferelden has the possibility of being explicitly PRO-MAGE. Alistair explicitly gives shelter to apostates fleeing from Kirkwall. Seriously, I'm making things up?

[Rifneno]

[quote]HTTP 404 wrote...

I am not convinced that all options except violence has been exhausted.  Thats all.  You and I actually would like to see the same goal (mage freedom), but the path to get there is quite different.... I don't think you will change your mind and I know I won't on it.  So BSN truce on agreeing to disagree?  [/quote]

Fair enough.

[quote]Wulfram wrote...

They're all pretty irrelevant. The power in Kirkwall lies with the Templars.[/quote]

True. Damn, if only they had some method of controlling the templars!

[quote]Elthina attempts to negotiate a compromise because it is both what she believes -she doesn't want the Mages to be free, but she clearly finds Meredith too extreme - and because it is what she has a chance of achieving.[/quote]

If Andraste herself rose from the ashes and told Meredith "hey, maybe you guys should lay off the rape and murder?" she'd accuse her of being a blood mage thrall and order her execution. But that's irrelevant because there's no evidence Elthina actually was trying to do anything except keep an open rebellion from happening.

[quote]The populace's fear of mages is the root of mage oppression. The Chantry's doctrine - which is always expressed in terms of practical necessity rather than divine mandate - simply reflects that.[/quote]

This is a chicken/egg thing. As much as I'd like to simply say you're wrong, beings that all we've seen of Thedas is from a thousand years after the fall of the Imperium, we can't know how much fear people would have of mages without the Chantry. A thousand years is a hell of a long time. A thousand years ago for us, paper was finally starting to replace vellum (calfskin prepared for writing on) and the population of the entire world was roughly what the population of the United States is now. What I can say is that the Chantry actively pours gasoline on that fire. If there was a fear, the Chantry makes it far worse so they can justify themselves in what is likely a conscious power play.

[quote]Because we know that the Templars are not very loyal to the Chantry, and are unlikely to accept the Grand Cleric interfering with their duty to protect people from the mages. And because it makes sense of Elthina's actions during the game.[/quote]

We know that, do we? When did we learn that?

[quote]Or, she has a better understanding of the politics of Kirkwall than you do.[/quote]

And she (GavrielKay, not Elthina) has a better understanding of how to make a point than you do, by backing it up rather than simply saying "you're wrong."

[quote]Agamo45 wrote...

I'm sure Osama and his buddies also thought they were doing the right thing. Terrorists usually find some justification for their crimes.[/quote]

The Boston Tea Party was called terrorism in its day. All you've got to rely on is screaming a buzzword loudly and hoping it convinces someone. What I do find amusing is someone complaining about Anders being a terrorist while using a renegade Shepard avatar. Because renegade Shepard NEVER killed people who got in the way of the 'greater good.'

[quote]Wulfram wrote...

We don't have much evidence of the extent of this other than the unreliable testimony of Anders himself[/quote]

The same is true of your claim that the Chantry couldn't have reigned in the templars.

[quote]Without these intervening, it's unclear how successful her policy of quiet diplomacy might have been - though we know Anders found it threatening enough for him to kill her in order to "remove the chance of compromise"[/quote]

Merely your personal interpretation. Given that he then says "because there can be no compromise," I interpreted it to mean he killed her to ensure the mages would give up their false hope that Elthina would eventually make Meredith answer for her crimes.

[quote]Hawke can help him resist the urge to murder the girl, but the demon behind that urge is there, it's not going away and it's not prepared to accept compromise.

If I was feeling cynical, I might suggest that winning the loyalty of the refugees was why he was healing them.[/quote]

- Justice is not clearly a demon. We don't know what he is. And ffs, please don't give me the "demons are spirits corrupted by their desires" quote from DAA. If I have to dig up the follow-up quote where he clarifies he doesn't really know one more time, I'm going to puke.

- And you would have no basis whatsoever for that.

[quote]beckaliz wrote...

Ha ha ha alright. I didn't quite mean it the way I think you're taking it, though.
[/quote]

I only twisted it for the purpose of a joke. I know you didn't mean it that way.

[quote]In Exile wrote...

He wanted mages to either be free or dead, and he chose the "or dead" part of it for them in Kirkwall. His justification for the Chantry attack (and even scarier - the justification others offer for him) is also similar to the justification real-life terrorists use to justify attacks on civilian targets.
[/quote]

- The Chantry is not civilian. They command a military. They have lots of members of that military around at all times. Stop confusing the Chantry with the church down the street from your house. It's getting REALLY tiresome.

- If he wanted them dead, why is he so eager to fight the templars to save them again?

[quote]Harid wrote...

And to the above poster, mages aren't an ethnicity.  It would not be an ethnic conflict.[/quote]

"You people should stop saying it's not terrorism when it's really no! Oh BTW, that totally isn't ethnicity." Thanks for clearing that up, Captain Dictionary.

[quote]Harid wrote...

I have trouble believing based on the mages we've run into in Dragon Age Origins and in Two, that a large enough contingent of mages aren't going to rape and pillage.[/quote]

Ladies and gentlemen, Racism Justification 101.

[quote]Wulfram wrote...

That's about Alistair's ability to order the Chantry around, not the Chantry's ability to order him around.[/quote]

Semantics. They're blatantly disobeying a royal order, and a very important one at that, on the king's own land.

[quote]Agamo45 wrote...

Anders blew up a building full of innocent, unarmed civilians(priests no less). What would you call that other than a cowardly act of terrorism? [/quote]

"Priests no less." Ahh yes, the ever-innocent priests. Goodie, another one who apparently has no idea how the world functions outside of his own time and country. Go pick up a history book sometime, you might learn something.

Modifié par Rifneno, 12 juillet 2011 - 12:08 .

[Harid]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

I'm pretty sure the Chantry supporting Orlais was from The Stolen Throne. Anyway, believing in the Maker and supporting the Templars are two very different things. As for the nobles, why would they support the Templars over their own family when they already have popular support and the troops necessary to oppose them? History always has plenty of examples of nobles and royalty who have given religious institutions the finger time and again and lived to tell the tale.

Also, Ferelden has the possibility of being explicitly PRO-MAGE. Alistair explicitly gives shelter to apostates fleeing from Kirkwall. Seriously, I'm making things up?

And why would people support a noble forcing them to fight against the Chantry, your religion, for one mage, people who are borderline pariahs?  That's the definition of selfish, bad leadership and you are more likely to be assassinated.  And by the way, history have plenty of examples of nobles who would cut their families throats if it meant seizing power for themselves, the Wars of the Roses, for instance.  It's meaningless.

Sparing 3 mages is not pro mage, but sure, if you think that.  Even if they are, they have their own **** to deal with with Orlais, and would not openly support mages in open conflict, nor would have the military might to do anything given the fact that they are recovering from the Blight.

Modifié par Harid, 12 juillet 2011 - 12:14 .

[Harid]

Rifneno wrote...

Harid wrote...

And to the above poster, mages aren't an ethnicity.  It would not be an ethnic conflict.

"You people should stop saying it's not terrorism when it's really no! Oh BTW, that totally isn't ethnicity." Thanks for clearing that up, Captain Dictionary.

Harid wrote...

I have trouble believing based on the mages we've run into in Dragon Age Origins and in Two, that a large enough contingent of mages aren't going to rape and pillage.

Ladies and gentlemen, Racism Justification 101.

I am not going to waste time with you as I feel you and the dude with the old guy with a white beard and glasses as an avatar are bat**** insane mage sympathisers or whatever you want to call yourselves, but, I never made the first statement in your ****ty analogy.

As for your second point, that isn't racism justification as mages are as much of a race as like. . .little people in real life, it's in game justification of trusting some of those mages to be the type that agree with the rule of the Tevinter Imperium and then try to impose their will because of it, or mages going Abomination will kill innocents.  It is inevitable.  We've seen this in both games.

Modifié par Harid, 12 juillet 2011 - 12:19 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

Harid wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

I'm pretty sure the Chantry supporting Orlais was from The Stolen Throne. Anyway, believing in the Maker and supporting the Templars are two very different things. As for the nobles, why would they support the Templars over their own family when they already have popular support and the troops necessary to oppose them? History always has plenty of examples of nobles and royalty who have given religious institutions the finger time and again and lived to tell the tale.

Also, Ferelden has the possibility of being explicitly PRO-MAGE. Alistair explicitly gives shelter to apostates fleeing from Kirkwall. Seriously, I'm making things up?

And why would people support a noble forcing them to fight against the Chantry, your religion, for one mage, people who are borderline pariahs?  That's the definition of selfish, bad leadership and you are more likely to be assassinated.  And by the way, history have plenty of examples of nobles who would cut their families throats if it meant seizing power for themselves, the War of the Roses, for instance.  It's meaningless.

Sparing 3 mages is not pro mage, but sure, if you think that.  Even if they are, they have their own **** to deal with with Orlais, and would not openly support mages in open conflict, nor would have the military might to do anything given the fact that they are recovering from the Blight.

The enemy of your enemy is your friend. It's entirely possible Fereldan mages fighting Orlais would be granted concessions. That's how politics work. And forcing your populace to fall in line and not go on witch hunts for innocent people isn't bad leadership. People don't give two ****s about religion if their purses are bare, or if their bellies empty, or if their country is being invaded. Preventing Templar armies from using their land as a playground is good leadership. Where do you think roving Templar brigades, complete with knights, archers, crossbowmen, squires, and scouts are going to get their supplies? By pillaging the countryside of course! That results in almost imediate drops in public approval.

Also, those mages? They have a ridiculously important role in the military. No noble is going to just want them killed. If allying with them means Orlais is defeated, you bet people would make that deal. Also, sparing 3 mages that Meredith hears about. For all we know, it might have been more.

Also, Ferelden has proven it can defeat three legions of chevaliers, Orlais's finest troops, with untrained farmers. Seriously, these people aren't helpless. And it's not like the Orlesians don't have their own problems, with Templars going rogue. They are Chantry country, after all.

[Rifneno]

Harid wrote...

I am not going to waste time with you as I feel you and the dude with the old guy with a white beard and glasses as an avatar are bat**** insane mage sympathisers or whatever you want to call yourselves, but, I never made the first statement in your ****ty analogy.

As for your second point, that isn't racism justification as mages aren't a race, it's in game justification of trusting some of those mages to be the type that agree with the rule of the Tevinter Imperium and then try to impose their will because of it, or mages going Abomination will kill innocents.  It is inevitable.

I have a similar feeling for you, but I'm going to respect the rules and not voice it. I made a typo, but it's pretty clear which post I was refering to.

"Because I've had bad experiences with people who have a specific genetic trait, I have an inherent mistrust and dislike of people with that trait." Yeah you're right, that's totally different from how racists justify themselves.

[Vit246]

GavrielKay wrote...

Agamo45 wrote...
Anders blew up a building full of innocent, unarmed civilians(priests no less). What would you call that other than a cowardly act of terrorism?

Anders blew up a building that was possibly but not provably full of people who were representatives of a religion that is both militant and oppressive.  I take issue with the idea that they must be innocent just because they are priests.

What he did was hardly cowardly.  Misguided and over the top perhaps, but he did it assuming he'd be executed for it.  That took some courage.

The Chantry is not like real world religions.  The Chantry has a military arm that is often more powerful than the local government.  They keep those highly trained soldiers dependent on lyrium so they will be loyal.  They preach bigotry and oppression.  They disobey edicts issued by the rulers of the countries they work in (see mage boon in Ferelden).  Elthina allows Meredith to take over a city-state.

They make themselves a target.

The Chantry was blown up at night.

The Chantry is always closed to the public at night.

Thus, there cannot be any "innocent civilians" in there. The priests in there are not innocent civilians. Those priests practice and preach a religion that advocates fear and hatred of all mages. By divine mandate, they control mages. They control a military arm through religious indoctrination and lyrium addiction and they use that military arm to control mages, along with religious laws and policies like Tranquility, Rite of Annulment, and Exalted Marches (Crusades).

Let me repeat: The Chantry commands a military in the form of templars. By that definition, they cannot be civilians.

The only people we ever see in the Chantry are the clergy and the templars. Neither of those are "innocent civilians". What they are is a [b]legitimate military target.[b] The chantry is the supreme commander and the templars, even the knight-commander, are the military subordinates. Only a Grand Cleric OR the Divine can appoint a knight-commander and grant permission to invoke Annulment.

People like _agamo_ make the mistake of equating the Chantry with a real-world church. They equate blowing a building to be terrorism. They do not take into context the settings, what actually happened, how it happened, and to whom. 

Modifié par Vit246, 12 juillet 2011 - 12:40 .

[Harid]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

The enemy of your enemy is your friend. It's entirely possible Fereldan mages fighting Orlais would be granted concessions. That's how politics work. And forcing your populace to fall in line and not go on witch hunts for innocent people isn't bad leadership. People don't give two ****s about religion if their purses are bare, or if their bellies empty, or if their country is being invaded. Preventing Templar armies from using their land as a playground is good leadership. Where do you think roving Templar brigades, complete with knights, archers, crossbowmen, squires, and scouts are going to get their supplies? By pillaging the countryside of course! That results in almost imediate drops in public approval.

Also, those mages? They have a ridiculously important role in the military. No noble is going to just want them killed. If allying with them means Orlais is defeated, you bet people would make that deal. Also, sparing 3 mages that Meredith hears about. For all we know, it might have been more.

Also, Ferelden has proven it can defeat three legions of chevaliers, Orlais's finest troops, with untrained farmers. Seriously, these people aren't helpless. And it's not like the Orlesians don't have their own problems, with Templars going rogue. They are Chantry country, after all.

I don't know what that has to do with anything.  Who cares if Fereldan mages are granted concession?  It has nothing to do with the fact that people still generally do not like mages Thedas-wide.  Secondly and I want to say this with feeling, not all mages are innocent people.   We've seen plenty of sociopathic crazy mages in both games, and the Templars, some of which revolted in order to help those same people that should 'hate' the chantry are the best equipped to kill them.  And people generally, still care about religion regardless of hungry bellies and empty purses.  We have no evidence the Chantry is using Fereldan as a 'playground.'  And even if the Templars go on raids, people and military of soverign nations will still cut down mages if they wish to maintain their people's support as well as their own support.   We have no evidence of regular people supporting mages in any end, which was part of my initial point of Bioware screwing up by not having a non mage mage support group.  In the scenario where mages and templars are both crazy, the people will pretty much say **** them both, but there is little reason to suggest they will tear down the Chantry when Blood Mages and Abominations are afoot; those mages will pretty much strengthen their faith in the Chantry by proving the Chantry correct.

Secondly, all mages would not be killed in any type of mage rebellion anyway, as there are some mages that would fight against the rebellion and the vast majority of mages have no issue working with Templars in the first place, as the Aequitarians are the majority of mages in Thedas.  Even if that wasn't the case, more mages would be born anyway.

As for three that's dandy, but they will not beat the combined forces of Thedas based on sheer numbers alone.  That is why they would not throw in their lot with this rebellion in the first place.

Modifié par Harid, 12 juillet 2011 - 12:37 .

[Harid]

Rifneno wrote...

Harid wrote...

I am not going to waste time with you as I feel you and the dude with the old guy with a white beard and glasses as an avatar are bat**** insane mage sympathisers or whatever you want to call yourselves, but, I never made the first statement in your ****ty analogy.

As for your second point, that isn't racism justification as mages aren't a race, it's in game justification of trusting some of those mages to be the type that agree with the rule of the Tevinter Imperium and then try to impose their will because of it, or mages going Abomination will kill innocents.  It is inevitable.

I have a similar feeling for you, but I'm going to respect the rules and not voice it. I made a typo, but it's pretty clear which post I was refering to.

"Because I've had bad experiences with people who have a specific genetic trait, I have an inherent mistrust and dislike of people with that trait." Yeah you're right, that's totally different from how racists justify themselves.

You seriously, in your heart, believe that all mages will simply stay in their tower, picking off templars that come by to visit?  Really?  Because if you do then I won't post another reply to you, as I don't argue with people who are crazy.

Why am I even having this argument with you.  Even if I hated all mages, which I don't, mages aren't a race, and by definition, I can't be racist against a ficticious people with a genetic abnormality.

Modifié par Harid, 12 juillet 2011 - 12:44 .

[DPSSOC]

Vit246 wrote...
The only people we ever see in the Chantry are the clergy and the templars. Neither of those are "innocent civilians". What they are is a [b]legitimate military target.[b] The chantry is the supreme commander and the templars, even the knight-commander, are the military subordinates. Only a Grand Cleric OR the Divine can appoint a knight-commander and grant permission to invoke Annulment.

One person in the Kirkwall Chantry was a legitimate target, Elthina.  She was Meredith's superior and as such was responsible for ensuring she conducted herself within the laws of the Chantry.  Her inaction lead to the excessive abuse of mages (I'm assuming like every organization they have acceptable levels of abuse terrible as that sounds) which she could have prevented.

Every other member of the Chantry is innocent because they had neither the power, nor to a lesser extent the responsibility, to reign in the Templars.  Again if you want to lump in everyone who supports intolerance, bigotry, and oppression of mages with the guilty you'd have to kill everyone who isn't themself a mage, and probably a few of them too.  Are you honestly going to blame people for the actions of an organization they had no power to stop?

[In Exile]

Rifneno wrote...

- The Chantry is not civilian. They command a military. They have lots of members of that military around at all times. Stop confusing the Chantry with the church down the street from your house. It's getting REALLY tiresome.

The Chantry is a military target in the same way that the House of Representatives is a military target. Templars aren't station as guards in the Chantry. It's either a symbol of repression or the civilian leadership of the templars. 

Do you condone attacks on government buildings? Yes or no?

- If he wanted them dead, why is he so eager to fight the templars to save them again?

Anders wants to fight the templars. He wants all mages to fight the templars. But he'd never (for example) save the life of any mage if it meant the continuance of the Circles. He only cares about the lives of mages insofar as it concerns the Grand and Righteous Crusade. 

[In Exile]

Vit246 wrote...
Thus, there cannot be any "innocent civilians" in there. The priests in there are not innocent civilians. Those priests practice and preach a religion that advocates fear and hatred of all mages. By divine mandate, they control mages. They control a military arm through religious indoctrination and lyrium addiction and they use that military arm to control mages, along with religious laws and policies like Tranquility, Rite of Annulment, and Exalted Marches (Crusades).

This is, once again, the same kind of argument that has been used to justify attacks on political institutions: because they support, condone and encourage the existence and propagation of a system that is exploitative for reasons x, y, and z.

Let me repeat: The Chantry commands a military in the form of templars. By that definition, they cannot be civilians.

So politicians are not civilians? 

The only people we ever see in the Chantry are the clergy and the templars. Neither of those are "innocent civilians". What they are is a [b]legitimate military target.[b] The chantry is the supreme commander and the templars, even the knight-commander, are the military subordinates. Only a Grand Cleric OR the Divine can appoint a knight-commander and grant permission to invoke Annulment.

Again: are politicians civilians or not? Is the Prime Minister of Canada a civilian? What about the Minister of Defence? Is the Queen of England a civilian? 

People like _agamo_ make the mistake of equating the Chantry with a real-world church. They equate blowing a building to be terrorism. They do not take into context the settings, what actually happened, how it happened, and to whom. 

We're equating the Chantry with a political insitution. 

edit:

I'm going to back away from this thread now, given how honestly terrifying some of the attitudes here are. 

Modifié par In Exile, 12 juillet 2011 - 01:23 .

[OldMan91]

In Exile wrote...

Anders wants to fight the templars. He wants all mages to fight the templars. But he'd never (for example) save the life of any mage if it meant the continuance of the Circles. He only cares about the lives of mages insofar as it concerns the Grand and Righteous Crusade.

I like to make a comparison between this and the French Revolution. I recall a passage from Les Miserables which emphasized a similar dilemma in a conversation between the Bishop M. Myriel and G, an ex-member of the Convention.

And ceasing to gaze at the Bishop, the conventionary concluded his thoughts in these tranquil words:--"Yes, the brutalities of progress are called revolutions. When they are over, this fact is recognized,--that the human race has been treated harshly, but that it has progressed."

I always get goosebumps when I read this bit. It's so rich in content, says so much with so little. The end goal of what happened in Kirkwall should serve Progress. If that end is achieved, I would say that it is justified. Or as Anders puts it in a more romantic way, assuming he's your LI: "We will fight for a world where our children can be born mages... and free. Ten years... a hundred years from now, someone like me will love someone like you and there will be no templars to tear them apart."

Modifié par OldMan91, 12 juillet 2011 - 01:36 .

[Harid]

I don't like correlating this war to that of the French Revolution as. . .well. . .that would pretty much be a reformation of the Tevinter Imperium, which is not a future I think will occur.

This isn't a revolution in that sense. Or at least I don't argue my points on that premise.

[River5]

Harid wrote...

Lots of stuff...

Why am I even having this argument with you.  Even if I hated all mages, which I don't, mages aren't a race, and by definition, I can't be racist against a ficticious people with a genetic abnormality.

Actually, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Definition of RACE

1.a breeding stock of animals.

2. a: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock;
b: a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics.

3. a: an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group;
b : breed;
c : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits.

4 (obsolete) : inherited temperament or disposition.

5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength.

Just saying!

Modifié par River5, 12 juillet 2011 - 02:22 .

[Harid]

River5 wrote...

Harid wrote...

Lots of stuff...

Why am I even having this argument with you.  Even if I hated all mages, which I don't, mages aren't a race, and by definition, I can't be racist against a ficticious people with a genetic abnormality.

Actually, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of RACE1: a breeding stock of animals.

2 [/i]a: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock;
[/i]b[/i]: a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics.

3 a[/i]: an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group;[/i]
[/i]b[/i] : breed;[/i]
[/i]c[/i] : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits.

4 (obsolete) : inherited temperament or disposition.

5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength.
Just saying!

2 and 3 don't really fit.

2) because mages can be elves, human, or Qunari or any other race the game may make capable of magery.  It is independant of race.  These races share different cultures, language and habits, that are independant of their magery.
3) doesn't fit either as mages aren't a subspecies that interbreeds.

It's a genetic abnormality, and like I stated, it's like stating little people, or people with CP are a different race than so-called regular people.  They aren't and neither are mages.

Modifié par Harid, 12 juillet 2011 - 02:25 .

[River5]

Harid wrote...

River5 wrote...

Harid wrote...

Lots of stuff...

Why am I even having this argument with you.  Even if I hated all mages, which I don't, mages aren't a race, and by definition, I can't be racist against a ficticious people with a genetic abnormality.

Actually, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of RACE1: a breeding stock of animals.

2 [/i]a: a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock;
[/i]b[/i]: a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics.

3 a[/i]: an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group;[/i]
[/i]b[/i] : breed;[/i]
[/i]c[/i] : a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits.

4 (obsolete) : inherited temperament or disposition.

5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength.
Just saying!

2 and 3 don't really fit.

2) because mages can be elves, human, or Qunari or any other race the game may make capable of magery.  It is independant of race.  These races share different cultures, language and habits, that are independant of their magery.
3) doesn't fit either as mages aren't a subspecies that interbreeds.

It's a genetic abnormality, and like I stated, it's like stating little people, or people with CP are a different race than so-called regular people.  They aren't and neither are mages.

Except "race" isn't simply biological characteristics.  You are forgetting about the social definition of the term.

Race can also mean "nation".  Mages are a nation.  A people.  And you can belong to more than one single group.

Mages have their own culture, their own way of living, thinking, and doing things.  They have a social culture, past, and history of their own.

Therefore, they qualify as people, and as a race.

[Harid]

River5 wrote...

Except "race" isn't simply biological characteristics.  You are forgetting about the social definition of the term.

Race can also mean "nation".  Mages are a nation.  A people.  And you can belong to more than one single group.

Mages have their own culture, their own way of living, thinking, and doing things.  They have a social culture, past, and history of their own.

Therefore, they qualify as people, and as a race.

Mages aren't a nation.  If they were, someone like Morrigan would not want you to cleanse the Circle because she would be cleansing her own people.  Mages are their own people and many mages have shown no kinship with mages, in the Tevinter imperium, Mages enslave other mages.  Mages do not have their own culture either.  Mages do not follow the same religion.  Riviani culture is different from Fereldan culture is different from Anderfels culture is different from, you get the point.  In every region mages share the same culture as the regular people in that area.  Hawke has a different past than the Warden (if the Warden was a mage), and being mages do not define mages and mages have different rights in different areas which would forge their paths more than being a mage is.

They aren't a race.

Modifié par Harid, 12 juillet 2011 - 02:36 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

I think there is a legitimate case to be made that Circle Mages are a distinct people, due to their seclusion from the rest of the world.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 12 juillet 2011 - 02:44 .