134 réponses à ce sujet

[Medhia Nox]

I really think the Rite of Tranquility would only be used after the Harrowing in the case of a brilliant blood mage who would make an excellent enchanter.

[Lithuasil]

In any case, we can safely assume it isn't in order with the mage-girl that Ser Alrik caught in the sewer passage

[Pandaman102]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't eyewitness accounts of abuse of authority be considered proof? The Head Enchanter was bringing his objections to the Chantry and every noble can attest that Meredith - who doesn't have authority over the politics of Kirkwall to begin with - froze their political system and instituted martial law for three years.

On the other hand the only proof against mages are maleficars, but that's no more damning against the Circle as that rogue Templar who abused his authority to rape mages was against the entire Templar organization.

[Valus]

Lithuasil wrote...

Point is, if I emotionally detach myself from a game like this, I'm missing the point. The game is about playing Hawke, and she brings a whole lot of emotions into the matter, most of which are likely biased pro mage.

And my point is, if you detach yourself from the story for a moment, you see that it's not as clearly developed as it could have been to support either side or, to use an example we are familiar with, Loghain. I had a REALLY hard time deciding what to do with that joker. Emotions aside he had a very developed case on either side. You could 'almost' justify every single action taken by him in context to what was going on. Were there character contradictions? Sure. Were they plausibly excusable in the context of what was going on? I think so. To me that makes a good 'hard choice'. Not mountains of bloodmages vrs. one tranquil mage and a plethora of suppositions.

[Retserof]

Valus wrote...
Can you show me where it states that the rite of tranquility is prohibited against mages who have not gone through the harrowing?

http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Codex_entry:_The_Tranquil

"Those who fear to undertake this rite of passage, or those who are
deemed weak or unstable, are given the Rite of Tranquility instead." (referencing the harrowing)

Given this codex entry and what Anders has said, it think it's safe to assume it's prohibited barring evidence to the contrary (though I agree there has not been a specific codex entry that defines the rite of tranquility in full).

EDIT: I'm assuming you mean "prohibited against mages who HAVE gone through the harrowing" Karl DID go through the harrowing, which is what Anders stated.

Valus wrote...
I agree that the burden of proof is on the templars, I'm also saying they have alot of proof to back up their claims.

[snip]So far this is the only piece of evidence i've seen to support that the templars were overstepping their authority or acting illegaly.

Do they need to be acting "illegally" or overstepping authority for something to be wrong? The big decision is not based on what's legal or illegal under chantry law, it's about whether or not you think the treatment of mages is right or wrong.

Modifié par Retserof, 21 mars 2011 - 04:30 .

[Lithuasil]

Valus wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

Point is, if I emotionally detach myself from a game like this, I'm missing the point. The game is about playing Hawke, and she brings a whole lot of emotions into the matter, most of which are likely biased pro mage.

And my point is, if you detach yourself from the story for a moment, you see that it's not as clearly developed as it could have been to support either side or, to use an example we are familiar with, Loghain. I had a REALLY hard time deciding what to do with that joker. Emotions aside he had a very developed case on either side. You could 'almost' justify every single action taken by him in context to what was going on. Were there character contradictions? Sure. Were they plausibly excusable in the context of what was going on? I think so. To me that makes a good 'hard choice'. Not mountains of bloodmages vrs. one tranquil mage and a plethora of suppositions.

Aside from my personal opinion that you'd completely need to lack any resemblance of a hard to emotionally detach yourself from this story (no offense) - even if you are capable of such, that puts  you so far from the norm that you can hardly demand being catered for. 
The Lhogain thing needed a good case on both sides, because your character is unbiased towards the conflict. Think if your character in Origins was an Orlesian spy, who intended to betray ferelden, and who lost half his family at ostagar. Suddenly, the case of not killing Lhogain, needs to be a whole lot better then the one for killing him, because that's what your character is far more likely to do. Just as Hawke is far more likely to support her sister / love interest and/or herself.

[lx_theo]

Valus wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

Point is, if I emotionally detach myself from a game like this, I'm missing the point. The game is about playing Hawke, and she brings a whole lot of emotions into the matter, most of which are likely biased pro mage.

And my point is, if you detach yourself from the story for a moment, you see that it's not as clearly developed as it could have been to support either side or, to use an example we are familiar with, Loghain. I had a REALLY hard time deciding what to do with that joker. Emotions aside he had a very developed case on either side. You could 'almost' justify every single action taken by him in context to what was going on. Were there character contradictions? Sure. Were they plausibly excusable in the context of what was going on? I think so. To me that makes a good 'hard choice'. Not mountains of bloodmages vrs. one tranquil mage and a plethora of suppositions.

You still ignore the actual state of the world which the game takes place.

How does any of your supposed proof cover the mages? A few renegade mages suddenly means that all the mages of the Circle must be too dangerous to keep around? Its has no more bearing than the other side of the argument.

[Svest]

Valus wrote...

Can you show me where it states that the rite of tranquility is prohibited against mages who have not gone through the harrowing? I'm not arguing the point, I just don't recall ever reading it aside from what Ander's says. I agree that Anders is a fairly reliable source of info throughout the game but  I thought mages who failed the harrowing were killed, at least that is how I recall it being submitted by Alistair in DA:O but perhaps that was an isolated incident.

I agree that the burden of proof is on the templars, I'm also saying they have alot of proof to back up their claims.

But even so, I think this incident is a good example of factual evidence against the Templar which is why I opened this thread in the first place. Opposed to what some earlier posts have stated; I don't mind being wrong. So far this is the only piece of evidence i've seen to support that the templars were overstepping their authority or acting illegaly.

Actually when I said "failed" their harrowing I was being a little vague.  Those who fail their harrowing, in the sense that they get posessed by a demon are in fact killed.  Those that fail their harrowing in that they do not to enter the fade (basically choose not to do it because they are afraid a demon will get them) are made tranquil.  Basically a mage that is made tranquil is supposed to have chosen to be made tranquil.

As for where it is in game, like you said Anders mentions it in DA2 and it is also mentioned in DAO.

[Valus]

Lithuasil wrote...

In any case, we can safely assume it isn't in order with the mage-girl that Ser Alrik caught in the sewer passage

He was doing his job. She was admittedly running away. Templars catch run away mages. Anders even mentioned something to the effect that this wasn't thier place before he hulked out and (in my playthrough) killed the poor runaway mage who was being rescued by the nice Templars before I was forced to murder them all.

It's all in how you interpret stuff. I'd rather see hard evidence then 'safely' assuming anything.

[lx_theo]

Svest wrote...

Valus wrote...

Can you show me where it states that the rite of tranquility is prohibited against mages who have not gone through the harrowing? I'm not arguing the point, I just don't recall ever reading it aside from what Ander's says. I agree that Anders is a fairly reliable source of info throughout the game but  I thought mages who failed the harrowing were killed, at least that is how I recall it being submitted by Alistair in DA:O but perhaps that was an isolated incident.

I agree that the burden of proof is on the templars, I'm also saying they have alot of proof to back up their claims.

But even so, I think this incident is a good example of factual evidence against the Templar which is why I opened this thread in the first place. Opposed to what some earlier posts have stated; I don't mind being wrong. So far this is the only piece of evidence i've seen to support that the templars were overstepping their authority or acting illegaly.

Actually when I said "failed" their harrowing I was being a little vague.  Those who fail their harrowing, in the sense that they get posessed by a demon are in fact killed.  Those that fail their harrowing in that they do not to enter the fade (basically choose not to do it because they are afraid a demon will get them) are made tranquil.  Basically a mage that is made tranquil is supposed to have chosen to be made tranquil.

As for where it is in game, like you said Anders mentions it in DA2 and it is also mentioned in DAO.

That, Mages are identified to be either to dangerous to be allowed to go through a Harrowing and made Tranquil before the Harrowing option. Apprenticeship lasts a long time in the mages.

[Medhia Nox]

Orsino calls the Circle a sanctuary - you don't call something a sanctuary if it's also a concentration camp.

Again - I posted on the last page - Orsino tells you that Templars and Mages both are going out of the tower at night, how "oppressed" can the really be if they're forming a freedom movement so blatantly.

And - they learned blood magic - how did they learn this? Where were the books - and how did these oppressive Templars not find out?

I think there's actually significant proof to the contrary.

[lx_theo]

Valus wrote...

Lithuasil wrote...

In any case, we can safely assume it isn't in order with the mage-girl that Ser Alrik caught in the sewer passage

He was doing his job. She was admittedly running away. Templars catch run away mages. Anders even mentioned something to the effect that this wasn't thier place before he hulked out and (in my playthrough) killed the poor runaway mage who was being rescued by the nice Templars before I was forced to murder them all.

It's all in how you interpret stuff. I'd rather see hard evidence then 'safely' assuming anything.

The Templar was going to make her tranquil... and yes it is based on interpretation, But when someone, specifically what you're doing in this case, bases on argument on solely their interpretation and lashes out at anyone who opposes the interpretation, well... what do you think?

[lx_theo]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Orsino calls the Circle a sanctuary - you don't call something a sanctuary if it's also a concentration camp.

Again - I posted on the last page - Orsino tells you that Templars and Mages both are going out of the tower at night, how "oppressed" can the really be if they're forming a freedom movement so blatantly.

And - they learned blood magic - how did they learn this? Where were the books - and how did these oppressive Templars not find out?

I think there's actually significant proof to the contrary.

In a oppressive system, there will be people who quietly rebel against it, like in the Templars. If it wasn't bad enough, do your really think any Templar would defy their duty and station? Its essentially suicide if you get caught.

[Lithuasil]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Orsino calls the Circle a sanctuary - you don't call something a sanctuary if it's also a concentration camp.

Again - I posted on the last page - Orsino tells you that Templars and Mages both are going out of the tower at night, how "oppressed" can the really be if they're forming a freedom movement so blatantly.

And - they learned blood magic - how did they learn this? Where were the books - and how did these oppressive Templars not find out?

I think there's actually significant proof to the contrary.

If we assume that blood magic comes from demons, wouldn't you literally learn it in your sleep? There's only so much the templars (who are in fact proven to be hilariously bad at their jobs) can do about mages sleeping, and thus conversing with entities from the fade. (Hang on, I can think of a way, I'll work it into the next part of the fanfic story )

[Maria Caliban]

Valus wrote...

Was it intentional to provide absolutely no concrete evidence that the Templars were doing anything wrong?

Was it also intentional to post almost every single npc mage we interact with as a maleficar?

1. You are given evidence that Templars are doing something wrong. People are arguing with you because the basis of your question is flawed.

2. Yes, it was intentional. It was a bad idea, but it was intentional.

[Valus]

lx_theo wrote...

The Templar was going to make her tranquil... and yes it is based on interpretation, But when someone, specifically what you're doing in this case, bases on argument on solely their interpretation and lashes out at anyone who opposes the interpretation, well... what do you think?

I don't remember him saying anything about making her Tranquil. I was merely offering a counter assumption to her assumption. Her assumption is totally valid, just like everyone elses hence why I didn't create this thread to deal in assumptions. Not trying to be snarky but I will continue to do offer up counter assumptions for as long as people decide to go off topic. I'm not 'lashing out' at anyone. I like her posts. I do think you are still deviating from the OT and would prefer you stopped or made your own thread to accomodate the subject matter you wish to discuss.

[Svest]

Valus wrote...

I don't remember him saying anything about making her Tranquil. I was merely offering a counter assumption to her assumption. Her assumption is totally valid, just like everyone elses hence why I didn't create this thread to deal in assumptions. Not trying to be snarky but I will continue to do offer up counter assumptions for as long as people decide to go off topic. I'm not 'lashing out' at anyone. I like her posts. I do think you are still deviating from the OT and would prefer you stopped or made your own thread to accomodate the subject matter you wish to discuss.

He actually specifically says he's going to make her tranquil.  She says something like "Please I'll do anything you want just don't make me tranquil!" To which he replies something like"Yes when you are tranquil you will do anything I want"

[Valus]

Maria Caliban wrote...

1. You are given evidence that Templars are doing something wrong. People are arguing with you because the basis of your question is flawed.

2. Yes, it was intentional. It was a bad idea, but it was intentional.

1. I've been given one piece of concrete evidence so far. Congrats? The basis of my question is flawed but you don't state how. Congrats again?

2. If you say so.

[Retserof]

Valus wrote...
1. I've been given one piece of concrete evidence so far. Congrats? The basis of my question is flawed but you don't state how. Congrats again?

The questions you asked were:

Was it intentional to provide absolutely no concrete evidence whatsoever that Templars were doing anything wrong?
Was it also intentional to post almost every single npc mage you interact with as a maleficar?

There hasn't been a single rep from Bioware, so you're asking for our ASSUMPTIONS.

Valus wrote...
Her assumption is totally valid, just like everyone elses hence why I didn't create this thread to deal in assumptions.

Yet you then state you don't want ASSUMPTIONS? The basis of your question is indeed flawed, good sir.

Modifié par Retserof, 21 mars 2011 - 04:46 .

[Valus]

Svest wrote...

Valus wrote...

I don't remember him saying anything about making her Tranquil. I was merely offering a counter assumption to her assumption. Her assumption is totally valid, just like everyone elses hence why I didn't create this thread to deal in assumptions. Not trying to be snarky but I will continue to do offer up counter assumptions for as long as people decide to go off topic. I'm not 'lashing out' at anyone. I like her posts. I do think you are still deviating from the OT and would prefer you stopped or made your own thread to accomodate the subject matter you wish to discuss.

He actually specifically says he's going to make her tranquil.  She says something like "Please I'll do anything you want just don't make me tranquil!" To which he replies something like"Yes when you are tranquil you will do anything I want"

Ok, I'll take your word on it. I only recall him saying something to the effect of "You know what we do to mages who flee the circle, don't you?" to which she starts begging not to be made tranquil. I suppose the threat of tranquility, however impotent given the subject matter included in his letter (if you believe he has the ability to make a mage tranquil all on his own), could be considered evidence.

[Svest]

Valus wrote...

I've been given one piece of concrete evidence so far. .

I would also argue that another example is simply when Meredith rules the city for 3 years.  It can be debated if her rule was tyrranical but what cannot be debated is she is definitely overstepping the traditional authority of the Knight-Commander.

[Valus]

Retserof wrote...

There hasn't been a single rep from Bioware, so you're asking for our ASSUMPTIONS.

You are free to assume that.

[Retserof]

Valus wrote...
You are free to assume that.

You still havent resolved the logical inconstancy, given your line of questioning and the statement that you do not want assumptions.

[lx_theo]

So the only things that are not assumptions are what you believe? And questioning the topic in the first place is not off topic in any reasonable train of thought. *sigh* Guess I have to concede that it's pointless talking to you.

[Medhia Nox]

@Lithuasil - we know that Irving pulled the books on Blood Magic from the library in the Ferelden Circle.

It was originally taught by demons - and supposedly the Harvesters prove that blood magic energy does come from demons (I haven't looked this up, I saw it confirmed in another thread and not disputed)

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 21 mars 2011 - 04:58 .