4350 réponses à ce sujet

[TEWR]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Hypothesis: the Divine approved of Meredith.

That would be the Divine before Justinia V.

Justinia V took charge in 9:34 Dragon, whereas Meredith took charge some years before that.

It's possible that both liked Meridith though as I explain above.

-Polaris

hmmm.... I guess we'll have to see. I don't think Leliana's a mage-hater now. It wouldn't make sense if she was a friend/lover with a Mage Warden.

Justinia V however is a whole different story.

And while we're talking about Leliana and Justinia V, whatever happened to Silas Corthwaite? We've seen what happened to Sketch, we know Tug was killed, but what happened to Silas?

[Silfren]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Silfren wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I personally attribute more responsibility to the Divine than Elthina. The Divine has direct command over the Seekers who are supposed to keep the Templars in line. Elthina only has moral authority, but no stick to threaten or beat Meredith with.

Meredith assuming de facto political control in Kirkwall should have raised a whole lot of alarm bells in the Divine's head. But blindness and incompetence seem to be a rampaging contagious disease in Thedas.

Doesn't it then follow that Elthina should be contacting the Divine to say "Hey, excuse me, I have an out-of-control Knight Commander and several out-of-control templars who are abusing their charges and breaking Chantry laws.  I can't deal with this on my own.  Help kplzthx."

Yes, but I would also expect the Divine to do her own job and actually keep an eye on the *only* Templar in all of Thedas to have de facto political power, in a city bordering on complete collapse, without anyone begging her to.

And she even has the tools to do so. They're called Seekers.

EDIT: and she had 7 bloody years!

I can't speak to that except that I'd figure she expects Elthina to be her eyes and ears for Kirkwall.

[IanPolaris]

Silfren wrote...

Rifneno wrote...



LOL.  NO.  A solider following an order of genocide is not "innocent."

Cue endless discussions of a soldier's moral obligations to follow, or not, an illegal order. 

Actually that's been a settled issue since 1946.  A soldier is obligated to disobey an order he knows is illegal.  Failure to do so makes the soldier just as culpable as his superiors.  (See Nuremburg).

-Polaris

[Silfren]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Hypothesis: the Divine approved of Meredith.

Which makes her as incompetent.

Or just corrupt as hell.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Silfren wrote...
I can't speak to that except that I'd figure she expects Elthina to be her eyes and ears for Kirkwall.

But she has Seekers under her direct command that are supposed to do that and she even sends one to Kirkwall.

She must be either blind, or thinks Meredith is right for the job. In either case she is displaying a remarkable amount of blindness.

[IanPolaris]

Silfren wrote...
I can't speak to that except that I'd figure she expects Elthina to be her eyes and ears for Kirkwall.

Then the Divine is shockingly incompetant.  A competant person (read "The Prince") always has a trusted second source of information for important regions (and Kirkwall/Free Marches certainly is!) even when run by your loyal allies.  That's supposed to be one of the functions of the incompetant Seekers.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

Meredith taking power in Kirkwall was wrong why? "Because it is dictatorship!" False. Kirkwall is already a dictatorship ruled by its Viscount. "because she is a Templar!" where does it say a Templar can't rule? "Because it isn't right!" ... "Because it doesn't fit my view of the world of Thedas!!!1oneeleven"... Right...
Some of you really have to realize that Thedas doesn't function in the modern way, nor is it subject to our normal morals.

Why exactly is Dinve Justinia "imcompetent" at her job, for letting a Templar rule the city, with the all-time highscore for blood mages and abominations? If anything, I can understand why she would let it pass there, more than anywhere else. If you are going to refer to that the Templars did wrongs against the mages, im going to have to point out, that the Templars didn't. It was elements within the Templars.

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Rifneno wrote...



LOL.  NO.  A solider following an order of genocide is not "innocent."

Cue endless discussions of a soldier's moral obligations to follow, or not, an illegal order. 

Actually that's been a settled issue since 1946.  A soldier is obligated to disobey an order he knows is illegal.  Failure to do so makes the soldier just as culpable as his superiors.  (See Nuremburg).

-Polaris

Tell that to all the Bush/Tea Party apologists I know.  

[EmperorSahlertz]

Why on earth would the Seekers step in at the Kirkwall situation. If anything they would step in to eliminate Orsino (the cause of the problems). The Seekers more than anyone, probably realized the reasons for Meredith crackdown on the Gallows. And they couldn't care less about wether or not she had the political power in Kirkwall. It is stated nowhere that a Templar can't have political power. Why would the Seekers suddenly care?

[IanPolaris]

Silfren wrote...

Tell that to all the Bush/Tea Party apologists I know.  

Could we leave real US politics out of that please...because I happen to have a different view myself than apparently you do as to what was "legal" and "illegal" and I'd like to leave it at that.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Emperor,

Templars are no more supposed to take POLICIAL leaderhip than the mages are supposed to. This is why even in Kirkwall, the Chantry was very careful to keep and perserve the office of the viscount.

If the Chantry starts getting to overtly into politics (like taking titles either de facto or de jure) then you have a lot of nobles that stop supporting the Chantry....which is already starting to happen.

-Polaris

[TJPags]

Silfren wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Hypothesis: the Divine approved of Meredith.

Which makes her as incompetent.

Or just corrupt as hell.

Did I read this right?

If the Divine believes what Meredith is doing is justified, she is incompetant or corrupt?

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Rifneno wrote...



LOL.  NO.  A solider following an order of genocide is not "innocent."

Cue endless discussions of a soldier's moral obligations to follow, or not, an illegal order. 

Actually that's been a settled issue since 1946.  A soldier is obligated to disobey an order he knows is illegal.  Failure to do so makes the soldier just as culpable as his superiors.  (See Nuremburg).

-Polaris

And what is an illegeal order? The RoA WASN'T illegal, so the Tempalrs wasn't obligated to disobey. WHine all you want. Claim all you want. Cry your bitter tears, all you want. The RoA was NOT illegal. If a Templar disobeyed, he would have been a deserter, and probably executed. Wether or not it is moral (which you are probably going to argue) is completely and utterly irrelevant in regards to the law you just stated. Irrelevant. So don't even bother.
If a soldier is given an "immoral" order, the best he can hope for, ever, is to report his superior, and hope the court recognizes the immorality of the order, and presecute the superior in question.

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Meredith taking power in Kirkwall was wrong why? "Because it is dictatorship!" False. Kirkwall is already a dictatorship ruled by its Viscount.

The Viscount is nothing more than a figurehead. A person can only attain that position with the support of the TEMPLARS. 

"because she is a Templar!" where does it say a Templar can't rule? "Because it isn't right!" ... "Because it doesn't fit my view of the world of Thedas!!!1oneeleven"... Right...

I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in game somewhere that they cannot rule.

[IanPolaris]

TJPags wrote...

Did I read this right?

If the Divine believes what Meredith is doing is justified, she is incompetant or corrupt?

If she believes that up to and including willing to overlook her subordinate FLOUTING the laws that the Divine (ultimately) is supposed to uphold then yes.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And what is an illegeal order? The RoA WASN'T illegal, so the Tempalrs wasn't obligated to disobey. WHine all you want. Claim all you want. Cry your bitter tears, all you want. The RoA was NOT illegal. If a Templar disobeyed, he would have been a deserter, and probably executed. Wether or not it is moral (which you are probably going to argue) is completely and utterly irrelevant in regards to the law you just stated. Irrelevant. So don't even bother.
If a soldier is given an "immoral" order, the best he can hope for, ever, is to report his superior, and hope the court recognizes the immorality of the order, and presecute the superior in question.

I wasn't talking about the RoA specifically.  I was referring to the fact that Templars had other Templars enagage in illegal activities under order (see Ser Alrik and a letter from one of his Knight-Lieutenants).

The point is that a soldier is in general responsible for following an illegal order even if it came from a lawful superior.  I know you know this.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

Emperor,

Templars are no more supposed to take POLICIAL leaderhip than the mages are supposed to. This is why even in Kirkwall, the Chantry was very careful to keep and perserve the office of the viscount.

If the Chantry starts getting to overtly into politics (like taking titles either de facto or de jure) then you have a lot of nobles that stop supporting the Chantry....which is already starting to happen.

-Polaris

The only reason the title of Viscount has been kept, is because the people of Kirkwall seems to appreciate it. It gives them a sense of nationality. As soon as it didn't. The chantry would likely remove the title all together. A Templars role is not restricted to regulating mages. A Templar has many roles. Some of which are political. They can gather all the political might they want, without it having any bad influence in the office of the Divine.

[Rifneno]

Silfren wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

LOL.  NO.  A solider following an order of genocide is not "innocent."

Cue endless discussions of a soldier's moral obligations to follow, or not, an illegal order. 

Hmm.  You're right, I probably should've let that one go.  Anyone that thinks Hawke is killing innocent people by trying to defend his sister from genocide isn't someone that can be reasoned with.  =/

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in game somewhere that they cannot rule.

Indeed.  It's why Cullen starts having doubts about her, when he sees her usurping the dead Viscount's power and refusing to let a replacement take throne.  I forget his exact words but it was something along the lines of "templars are no more supposed to be a political power than mages are."

[NanoKitty]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why on earth would the Seekers step in at the Kirkwall situation. If anything they would step in to eliminate Orsino (the cause of the problems). The Seekers more than anyone, probably realized the reasons for Meredith crackdown on the Gallows. And they couldn't care less about wether or not she had the political power in Kirkwall. It is stated nowhere that a Templar can't have political power. Why would the Seekers suddenly care?

And how are the problems in Kirkwall - in the Gallows - Orsino's fault?  Especially where it's established that he has very little power?  The cause of the problems in the Gallows are stemming from the Templars' abuses!

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Emperor,

Templars are no more supposed to take POLICIAL leaderhip than the mages are supposed to. This is why even in Kirkwall, the Chantry was very careful to keep and perserve the office of the viscount.

If the Chantry starts getting to overtly into politics (like taking titles either de facto or de jure) then you have a lot of nobles that stop supporting the Chantry....which is already starting to happen.

-Polaris

The only reason the title of Viscount has been kept, is because the people of Kirkwall seems to appreciate it. It gives them a sense of nationality. As soon as it didn't. The chantry would likely remove the title all together. A Templars role is not restricted to regulating mages. A Templar has many roles. Some of which are political. They can gather all the political might they want, without it having any bad influence in the office of the Divine.

I am very sure that eliminating the office would be in violation of Chantry law.  In fact I KNOW this is the case.  If you talk with Ser Irminric and his Sister (I forget which Bann but it's an important one), the moment you take your final oaths to the Chantry, you forfeit your noble inheritance rights.  I do think a Templar that is last of his or her line could get them back but ONLY if they resigned from the Templars and renounced their vows.

-Polaris

[TEWR]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Emperor,

Templars are no more supposed to take POLICIAL leaderhip than the mages are supposed to. This is why even in Kirkwall, the Chantry was very careful to keep and perserve the office of the viscount.

If the Chantry starts getting to overtly into politics (like taking titles either de facto or de jure) then you have a lot of nobles that stop supporting the Chantry....which is already starting to happen.

-Polaris

The only reason the title of Viscount has been kept, is because the people of Kirkwall seems to appreciate it. It gives them a sense of nationality. As soon as it didn't. The chantry would likely remove the title all together. A Templars role is not restricted to regulating mages. A Templar has many roles. Some of which are political. They can gather all the political might they want, without it having any bad influence in the office of the Divine.

I am very sure that eliminating the office would be in violation of Chantry law.  In fact I KNOW this is the case.  If you talk with Ser Irminric and his Sister (I forget which Bann but it's an important one), the moment you take your final oaths to the Chantry, you forfeit your noble inheritance rights.  I do think a Templar that is last of his or her line could get them back but ONLY if they resigned from the Templars and renounced their vows.

-Polaris

and of course didn't die from the lyrium withdrawal.

[IanPolaris]

Rifneno wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

LOL.  NO.  A solider following an order of genocide is not "innocent."

Cue endless discussions of a soldier's moral obligations to follow, or not, an illegal order. 

Hmm.  You're right, I probably should've let that one go.  Anyone that thinks Hawke is killing innocent people by trying to defend his sister from genocide isn't someone that can be reasoned with.  =/

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I'm pretty sure it was mentioned in game somewhere that they cannot rule.

Indeed.  It's why Cullen starts having doubts about her, when he sees her usurping the dead Viscount's power and refusing to let a replacement take throne.  I forget his exact words but it was something along the lines of "templars are no more supposed to be a political power than mages are."

Like I said, you find this out in DAO with Ser Irminric who had to give up the right to be Bann in favor of his sister to join the Templars.  If you are a Templar (active member with full oaths) then you can not inherit a title.

-Polaris

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Meredith taking power in Kirkwall was wrong why?

1- Diverting resources into something the Templars are not meant to do
2- Alienating the Kirkwall nobility
3- Partially responsable for angering  the people of Kirkwall, who start spitting on Templars and helping mages
4- Add a physical and mental strain on a woman who is barely stable as it is. She didn't need more pressure.
5- She has little understanding of politics

It's not "wrong". It's counter-productive, destabilizing and dangerous.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 07 mai 2011 - 02:17 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And what is an illegeal order? The RoA WASN'T illegal, so the Tempalrs wasn't obligated to disobey. WHine all you want. Claim all you want. Cry your bitter tears, all you want. The RoA was NOT illegal. If a Templar disobeyed, he would have been a deserter, and probably executed. Wether or not it is moral (which you are probably going to argue) is completely and utterly irrelevant in regards to the law you just stated. Irrelevant. So don't even bother.
If a soldier is given an "immoral" order, the best he can hope for, ever, is to report his superior, and hope the court recognizes the immorality of the order, and presecute the superior in question.

I wasn't talking about the RoA specifically.  I was referring to the fact that Templars had other Templars enagage in illegal activities under order (see Ser Alrik and a letter from one of his Knight-Lieutenants).

The point is that a soldier is in general responsible for following an illegal order even if it came from a lawful superior.  I know you know this.

-Polaris

Indeed. A Templar shouldn't follow an illegal order, like the ones of Alrik. It is despicable that they did. However, I also know that sometimes, a subordinate follows the leadership of his officer to the letter, even if it is illegal. It is sadly unavoidable to happen. To crave perfetctiosm from the Tempalrs is simply unreasonable. They are humans like any other. Just like it is unreasonable to expect all mages to avoid blood magic. Someone somewhere is going to fail. It is the job of the system to take care it doesn't happen again. Then you might claim, the system has failed to allow monsters like Alrik and Kerras to pass, to which i must rpply, Kerras was never reported (then you can expect anything to happen), and that I honestly don't know what happens to Alrik, since I have never let him survive act 2.

[IanPolaris]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Meredith taking power in Kirkwall was wrong why?

1- Diverting resources into something the Templars are not meant to do
2- Alienating the Kirkwall nobility
3- Partially responsable for angering  the people of Kirkwall, who start spitting on Templars and helping mages
4- Add a physical and mental strain on a woman who is barely stable as it is. She didn't need more pressure.
5- She has little understanding of politics

It's not "wrong". It's counter-productive, destabilizing and dangerous.

Per existing game lore regarding the Chantry and Templars (both Irminic and Sebestian..who has to give up his vows in order to become Prince of Starkhaven), it's also techncially against Chantry law...at least de-jure.

-Polaris