4350 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

Report this post Quote Link Created about 9 hours ago

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And what we pro-Templars usually claim is that you have unrealistic ideas as to how you wish to improve the system. We are also quick to point out how you generalize all Templars, while you refuse to do the same with mages, and that we don't know enough about the other cultures to use them as viable examples of how a system could function.
Basically we are trying to point out that all your grand ideas are pipe dreams until we get additional info.



1. A person can recognize the corruption and injustice of a system without having a solid, point-by-point analysis of how to fix it. Sure, it'd be great if we did, but not having one does not in any way whatsoever invalidate the idea that the current system is broken and wrong. Disputing our reasons for finding the current system corrupt and unjust is one thing. Trying to imply that our not having a clear idea for a replacement means that the current system is preferable to any other option is not.

2. We actually have come up with sound ideas. You can have your reasons for believing those ideas are unrealistic, but that doesn't mean your refutations are actually correct.


Uhm.. I wasn't trying to say you were wrong, but rather state the general opinion amongst pro-templars. We pro-templars do generally think you pro-mage fellas are wrong though. And vice versa I imagine.

And no one is disputing the fact that some Templars misuse their power, but instead of working to fix the problems, you want to tear down the entire system, which we pro-templars don't agree with. Further more, several of you come to some questionable conclusions about all the nations which don't have a Circle system, which we simply point out.

...I don't recall reading pro-mages saying tear down the entire system. We argue for reformation. But the corrupt people within a corrupt system will never allow that to happen. And we all agree that templars are required. No one argues against that either.

I guess the point I argue is that templars and the chantry shouldn't control mages lives to the extent of denying them families and children, not to mention all the abuses the system allows templars to inflict on mages.

Nor am I saying that mages are united. The fraternities speak for themselves on that issue. Loyalists and Libertarians never got along anyway.

I don't generalize all mages and templars. I accept both for what they are, having good and bad people. I blame the system's corruption for all the problems. Does that mean I want to tear down the system and replace it with another? Only if peaceful actions don't work. And so far, they haven't.

[HSHAW]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Page 145 on a forum? Should we call Guiness or something? Jebus...

What about the Anders thread? That's about 1600 pages.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

That one in particular, yes. For instance, we got one codex entry on Rivain in total, and suddenly their society is completely Abomination free and a mage haven, even though the very same codex says that their seers let themselves become possessed.

You're missing the point.  Codices aside, there's nothing anywhere in the game to even hint that societies that don't lock mages into Circles have major problems with abominations.  It stands to reason that the Chantry would be alllll over that if it was the case and we would at least hear about it. 

It's true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  But given that the whole crux of the Chantry's position is that mages outside of Circles are a direct and ever-present threat, it's not unreasonable to assume that they would be all "Lookit what goes on in Rivain and among the Chasind and the Dalish" if that were so.  Certainly there should be some mention of it,  because it would stand to reason that the Chantry would be involved in ongoing efforts to force its Circle system onto those societies.  You know, in order to prevent possible abominations from raining havoc elsewhere.  Since that does seem to be one of the Chantry's primary objectives for existing.

And that codex's mention of Rivaini seers letting them become possessed as already been addressed several times as being the whole freaking point: the codex acknowledges that the seers allow themselves to become possessed, but also makes no mention of abominations.  It is a reasonable conclusion to draw from reading such that becoming possessed does not lead to an inevitable conclusion as the Chantry would have people believe.  Take note that that codex is written by a brother of the Chantry, too, no less.

Context is everything.

If anything, the fact that it is written by a Chantry brother means, that he knows they become Abominations when possessed. Moving on. You are comming to a whole lot of conclussions based on precious little data. Data which doesn't even speak in anyone's favor to begin with. That is my major issue. How do you know that the Chantry doesn't use Rivain as an example against free mages? Why do you think they need to? They have enough bad**** crazy apostates within their own borders to prove the need for the Circle.
And furhtermore, the Chantrry DOES mention Rivian, it says that Rivain is torn between the Chantry, the Qun, and their own traditions about hedge mages, which gets themselves possessed, not one of those sentences are speaking in favor of the RIvain system.

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Report this post Quote Link Created about 9 hours ago

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And what we pro-Templars usually claim is that you have unrealistic ideas as to how you wish to improve the system. We are also quick to point out how you generalize all Templars, while you refuse to do the same with mages, and that we don't know enough about the other cultures to use them as viable examples of how a system could function.
Basically we are trying to point out that all your grand ideas are pipe dreams until we get additional info.



1. A person can recognize the corruption and injustice of a system without having a solid, point-by-point analysis of how to fix it. Sure, it'd be great if we did, but not having one does not in any way whatsoever invalidate the idea that the current system is broken and wrong. Disputing our reasons for finding the current system corrupt and unjust is one thing. Trying to imply that our not having a clear idea for a replacement means that the current system is preferable to any other option is not.

2. We actually have come up with sound ideas. You can have your reasons for believing those ideas are unrealistic, but that doesn't mean your refutations are actually correct.


Uhm.. I wasn't trying to say you were wrong, but rather state the general opinion amongst pro-templars. We pro-templars do generally think you pro-mage fellas are wrong though. And vice versa I imagine.

And no one is disputing the fact that some Templars misuse their power, but instead of working to fix the problems, you want to tear down the entire system, which we pro-templars don't agree with. Further more, several of you come to some questionable conclusions about all the nations which don't have a Circle system, which we simply point out.

...I don't recall reading pro-mages saying tear down the entire system. We argue for reformation. But the corrupt people within a corrupt system will never allow that to happen. And we all agree that templars are required. No one argues against that either.

I guess the point I argue is that templars and the chantry shouldn't control mages lives to the extent of denying them families and children, not to mention all the abuses the system allows templars to inflict on mages.

Nor am I saying that mages are united. The fraternities speak for themselves on that issue. Loyalists and Libertarians never got along anyway.

I don't generalize all mages and templars. I accept both for what they are, having good and bad people. I blame the system's corruption for all the problems. Does that mean I want to tear down the system and replace it with another? Only if peaceful actions don't work. And so far, they haven't.

Are you trying to say that no pro-mage has advocated the total destrcution of the Chantry and all it stands for?

[SilentK]

I just finished a Hawke with the templar-ending. That feelt much better than I thought it would, not at all crush-all-mages since that wasn't what my Hawke intended. Just trying to keep keep things in order. Sorry, I'll leave the tread to the deep discussions. Just so happy with the ending that I wanted to share a bit =)

[dragonflight288]

Are you trying to say that no pro-mage has advocated the total destrcution of the Chantry and all it stands for?

Nope. Not saying that at all. I'm saying that as a supporter of mages, it's me who's saying that reformation is needed. I'm just realistic to the fact that people in power always want more power. They will do anything to keep it. And the chantry has had power over mages for a millennium. They won't give that power up easily.

And, as I stated, there are fraternities of mages. A loyalist would rather kowtow to the chantry and hope to be given more rights over time than a libertarian after all.

Hmm...Us mage supporters may need to start our own thread or something and determine our own fraternities.

[Rifneno]

In Exile wrote...

But if anyone wants to whitewash Ander's action as military, then that has unforunate implications.

Military? No. Totally justified? Yes.

At the risk of going back to medicore real life analogies, let's say for a moment that bin Laden's compound was bombed by some random insurgent that wants him dead for... I don't know, he slept with his sister, who cares. Just another gun totting lunatic not backed by any institution. Would you find his actions that appalling?

And no, I'm not comparing Elthina to him. I'm trying to make the point that when the target is evil enough, having some high authorization is irrelevant to the morality of the attack.

SilentK wrote...

I just finished a Hawke with the templar-ending. That feelt much better than I thought it would, not at all crush-all-mages since that wasn't what my Hawke intended. Just trying to keep keep things in order. Sorry, I'll leave the tread to the deep discussions. Just so happy with the ending that I wanted to share a bit =)

This is exactly why a lot of people are complaining they sugar coated the Right of Annulment. It should feel terrible. It's genocide, mass murder! But they covered it in enough sugar to give a blue whale diabetes.

[SilentK]

Hmmm... I rp that I saved all mages that didn't want to take part of the fighting, not just those 3 that showed up. Hmmm... and when I spoke with Meredith in the end I didn't agree that you had to kill all mages so I did it as pro-mage as I think my templar-ending could be. Think that Varric said something about Hawke that sounded pretty pro-mage for a templar ending. Or what I think I should hear.

Hmmm... I don't see it as sugar-coated, not at all. But then I don't see either of the ending as sugar-coated. People feel different about it I guess =)

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...

Anders was acting completely alone, so no, the action itself wasn't military.

I know. That's what makes him a terrorist.

[In Exile]

Rifneno wrote...
Military? No. Totally justified? Yes

That's the same twisted logic terrorists use to justify their assaults on Western Europe and North America. Being complicit, not taking action, being a symbol, etc. etc. etc.

It's wrong when they do it, and it's wrong when a fictional character does it.

The Chantry isn't equivalent to a terrorist - it's an abusive institution. You can't whitewash that away by comparing them to a terrorist.

And no, I'm not comparing Elthina to him. I'm trying to make the point that when the target is evil enough, having some high authorization is irrelevant to the morality of the attack.

I disagree, especially since in your example it isn't even a murder on ideological grounds. It'd be like someone stabbing Meredith because she stole his favourite piece of twine.

Modifié par In Exile, 22 mai 2011 - 05:31 .

[upsettingshorts]

This seems like a good time to point out that whether or not something is justifiable, or is motivated by sympathetic ideals is not relevant in terms of deciding whether or not a particular action qualifies as terrorism.

The presence of a political motivation is a required feature, not the details of it.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 05:40 .

[Rifneno]

In Exile wrote...

Rifneno wrote...
Military? No. Totally justified? Yes

That's the same twisted logic terrorists use to justify their assaults on Western Europe and North America. Being complicit, not taking action, being a symbol, etc. etc. etc.

It's wrong when they do it, and it's wrong when a fictional character does it.

The Chantry isn't equivalent to a terrorist - it's an abusive institution. You can't whitewash that away by comparing them to a terrorist.

And no, I'm not comparing Elthina to him. I'm trying to make the point that when the target is evil enough, having some high authorization is irrelevant to the morality of the attack.

I disagree, especially since in your example it isn't even a murder on ideological grounds. It'd be like someone stabbing Meredith because she stole his favourite piece of twine.

I like how you cut out the part that argues it's not the black and white situation you make it out to be because you'd rather rant about how X isn't Y, something I specifically said I wasn't saying.  Don't worry, I won'd make the mistake of attempting an intellectual debate with you again.

[Plaintiff]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Report this post Quote Link Created about 9 hours ago

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And what we pro-Templars usually claim is that you have unrealistic ideas as to how you wish to improve the system. We are also quick to point out how you generalize all Templars, while you refuse to do the same with mages, and that we don't know enough about the other cultures to use them as viable examples of how a system could function.
Basically we are trying to point out that all your grand ideas are pipe dreams until we get additional info.



1. A person can recognize the corruption and injustice of a system without having a solid, point-by-point analysis of how to fix it. Sure, it'd be great if we did, but not having one does not in any way whatsoever invalidate the idea that the current system is broken and wrong. Disputing our reasons for finding the current system corrupt and unjust is one thing. Trying to imply that our not having a clear idea for a replacement means that the current system is preferable to any other option is not.

2. We actually have come up with sound ideas. You can have your reasons for believing those ideas are unrealistic, but that doesn't mean your refutations are actually correct.


Uhm.. I wasn't trying to say you were wrong, but rather state the general opinion amongst pro-templars. We pro-templars do generally think you pro-mage fellas are wrong though. And vice versa I imagine.

And no one is disputing the fact that some Templars misuse their power, but instead of working to fix the problems, you want to tear down the entire system, which we pro-templars don't agree with. Further more, several of you come to some questionable conclusions about all the nations which don't have a Circle system, which we simply point out.

...I don't recall reading pro-mages saying tear down the entire system. We argue for reformation. But the corrupt people within a corrupt system will never allow that to happen. And we all agree that templars are required. No one argues against that either.

I guess the point I argue is that templars and the chantry shouldn't control mages lives to the extent of denying them families and children, not to mention all the abuses the system allows templars to inflict on mages.

Nor am I saying that mages are united. The fraternities speak for themselves on that issue. Loyalists and Libertarians never got along anyway.

I don't generalize all mages and templars. I accept both for what they are, having good and bad people. I blame the system's corruption for all the problems. Does that mean I want to tear down the system and replace it with another? Only if peaceful actions don't work. And so far, they haven't.

Are you trying to say that no pro-mage has advocated the total destrcution of the Chantry and all it stands for?

Plenty have, but that's not what he said at all. Pro-mages do not advocate the destruction of the system, but they certainly do advocate the removal of the Chantry, and the severe limitation of its power.

Destroying the Chantry would not ruin the "system", it would simply necessitat e a change in management.

[Rifneno]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

This seems like a good time to point out that whether or not something is justifiable, or is motivated by sympathetic ideals is not relevant in terms of deciding whether or not a particular action qualifies as terrorism.

The presence of a political motivation is a required feature, not the details of it

And this seems like a good time to point out "terrorism" has over 100 known definitions, ranging from bomb attacks to changing a friend's wallpaper without their permission.  It's a buzzword, a crutch used when people can't come up with a better argument for their attack on a character than to spam the word "terror" knowing full well that 90% of the readers immediately associate the word with 9/11.

[TEWR]

wow hours ago I thought this thread was starting to die. Good to see it isn't just yet.

[upsettingshorts]

I'm not one of those people that uses it as a buzzword, nor do I hate Anders or feel like describing his actions accurately constitutes an attack.

And when it comes to Anders and the Chantry, what comes to mind for me is Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 06:12 .

[In Exile]

Rifneno wrote...
I like how you cut out the part that argues it's not the black and white situation you make it out to be because you'd rather rant about how X isn't Y, something I specifically said I wasn't saying.  Don't worry, I won'd make the mistake of attempting an intellectual debate with you again.

Which part?

You don't actually say it's not black and white here:

At the risk of going back to medicore real life analogies, let's say
for a moment that bin Laden's compound was bombed by some random
insurgent that wants him dead for... I don't know, he slept with his
sister, who cares. Just another gun totting lunatic not backed by any
institution. Would you find his actions that appalling?

All you said was that it's a mediocre analogy.

You said Anders was totally justified and offered a mediocre real-life analogy, in your own terms.

All I said was that it was not convincing: that person in your case would be a murder, and would even be doing it for the wrong reasons, killing Bin Laden not out of a sense of vindication (because of his crimes), but because of personal beef (which is what you set it up as).

To be more specific, if someone kills someone else for sleeping with their sister that person isn't the least bit morally justified. At least you could have tried to say it was a victim; that would give it some semblance of a parallel (because Anders was a mage, after all, and you're trying to argue the persecution of mages justifies the bombing of the Chantry).

Don't get all bothered that you offered a mediocre analogy. 

But please, don't debate with me. It's hard to keep track of all the thing you never actually say.

Modifié par In Exile, 22 mai 2011 - 06:18 .

[Rifneno]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'm not one of those people that uses it as a buzzword.

And when it comes to Anders and the Chantry, what comes to mind for me is Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing.

What comes to mind for me is Alrik, Karras, Mettin, Varnell, and the countless unnamed templars they let run rampant to murder and rape.  The Chantry didn't deserve what it got... it deserved a hell of a lot more.

[upsettingshorts]

Rifneno wrote...

What comes to mind for me is Alrik, Karras, Mettin, Varnell, and the countless unnamed templars they let run rampant to murder and rape.  The Chantry didn't deserve what it got... it deserved a hell of a lot more.

Were those men inside the Chantry when it was destroyed?  Otherwise:

"Think about the people as if they were storm troopers in Star Wars. They may be individually innocent, but they are guilty because they work for the Evil Empire."

—McVeigh reflecting on the deaths of victims in the bombing

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 06:21 .

[In Exile]

Rifneno wrote...
What comes to mind for me is Alrik, Karras, Mettin, Varnell, and the countless unnamed templars they let run rampant to murder and rape.  The Chantry didn't deserve what it got... it deserved a hell of a lot more.

So you'd let Varnell, Alirk, Karras... all of them escape, to kill priests and nuns?

Way to dish out that justice.

[Plaintiff]

In Exile wrote...

Rifneno wrote...
What comes to mind for me is Alrik, Karras, Mettin, Varnell, and the countless unnamed templars they let run rampant to murder and rape.  The Chantry didn't deserve what it got... it deserved a hell of a lot more.

So you'd let Varnell, Alirk, Karras... all of them escape, to kill priests and nuns?

Way to dish out that justice.

Priests and nuns who are ultimately responsible for those individuals, who are part of the military force they command.

Those individuals liste deserve to be punished, and are, or can be, over the course of the game. But that does not absolve the Chantry. When police and soldiers commit atrocities against criminals or prisoners of war, their supervising officers are just as responsible for failing to investigate or punish the acts occurring right under their noses.

The Chantry is not innocent. Far from it.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 22 mai 2011 - 06:26 .

[upsettingshorts]

Plaintiff wrote...

Priests and nuns who are ultimately responsible for those individuals, who are part of the military force they command.

The Chantry is not innocent. Far from it.

See the above Timothy McVeigh quote. 

It directly addresses just these kinds of arguments. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 06:27 .

[Plaintiff]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Priests and nuns who are ultimately responsible for those individuals, who are part of the military force they command.

The Chantry is not innocent. Far from it.

See the above Timothy McVeigh quote. 

It directly addresses just these kinds of arguments. 

Are you supporting or discrediting my argument? I'm Australian and TImothy McVeigh was executed before I hit puberty so you're going to have to forgive me for failing to comprehend his relevance to this debate.

If the victims of his bombing effort were indeed part of a fascist theocracy that allowed rape and toture to go on unpunished, they might well have deserved it. Without details, I can't say.

[upsettingshorts]

Plaintiff wrote...

Are you supporting or discrediting my argument? I'm Australian and TImothy McVeigh was executed before I hit puberty so you're going to have to forgive me for failing to comprehend his relevance to this debate.

You can read about him, cantya?   He's relevant because he's a much better real-world comparison to Anders and the Chantry bombing than al-Qaeda and 9/11 or any other popular example I've seen.  And his political motivations and target selection criteria are both well documented.

Plaintiff wrote...

If the victims of his bombing effort were indeed part of a fascist theocracy that allowed rape and toture to go on unpunished, they might well have deserved it. Without details, I can't say.

*blinks*

His argument is that working for an organization that commits actions he finds reprehensible makes them guilty by proxy, even if as individuals they took no direct part in committing them.  It is your position that you agree with his stance on this subject, then?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 22 mai 2011 - 06:37 .

[In Exile]

Plaintiff wrote...
Priests and nuns who are ultimately responsible for those individuals, who are part of the military force they command.

But they aren't. We could, I suppose, say the Knight Commander is beholden to the Grand Cleric, but it isn't actually clear how true that is.

In DA:O, Gregoire runs the Circle without any oversight. It's happenstance that the Circle in DA2 is anywhere near a Chantry figure of power/authority in Elthina.

Those individuals liste deserve to be punished, and are, or can be, over the course of the game. But that does not absolve the Chantry. When police and soldiers commit atrocities against criminals or prisoners of war, their supervising officers are just as responsible for failing to investigate or punish the acts occurring right under their noses.

What about the civilian leadership? If soldiers perform abuses, is the retaliation against the Head of State of the country justified? What about members of government, who are not directly in charge of the military?

Your argument suggests a yes to each.

There are multiple levels between the priest and nun and the templars.

The Chantry is not innocent. Far from it.

I've yet to see any evidence the Chantry has much say at the operational level besides appointing the Knight Commander (and actually, we have no idea how even that is done). It may well all come down from Val Royeaux.