4350 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz, Templars are not meant to hold worldly power. Cullen addresses this, as well as Thrask if you talk to him repeatedly in the Gallows in Act 3.

The Seekers should've done something about it. It's their fault. Hell, Leliana should've done something about it, as she was the left hand of the Divine.

Not being meant to, and not being allowed is sadly not always the same. A lot of Templars have the rank of Ser, something that a Seeker should take care of, if indeed a Templar wasn't allowed to hold worldly power

Ser is also a title to show respect, not just a title of nobility.

It is a term of respect when spoken to, yes. But many Templars hold it as a title.

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
We're never provided an answer, but we know Wynne said there was a close majority siding with the Libertarians to break free from the Chantry when she was heading to Cumberland, and she needed Ines to sway mages to vote against this. And Meredith mentions that the proclamation made in favor of the Magi boon has an effect on the Circle mages in other kingdoms.

But the Resolutionists, the ones who want a violent uprising, are a minority apparently even amongst Libertarians.

This is one thing that really bothers me about Anders act.

We do get that info in DAA, and from the lack of any mention of it in DA2 - or did I miss that? - I assume that the Libertarians were voted down.  And yes, the Resolutionists seem to be a minority.  (and thanks for the names  - I pay little attention to those ).

Yet Anders, one man who, as is often pointed out is not even a member of any Circle, makes the choice for all others.

I constantly look at this and wonder, what gives him the right to do that?  Yes yes, I know people will tell me he was in a Circle, so he knows how it is, you'll tell me how abusive it is, how wrong, etc. - but if the mages themselves have, apparently, chosen to do nothing, who is he to decide otherwise for every mage in Thedas?

[Plaintiff]

TJPags wrote...
And did every mage in every Circle - or even the majority of the mages in each Circle - want that?

Commonsense indicates yes. You need a vast majority of support for a revolution. A small number of rebel mages would be put down quickly.

You might as well ask "But did a majority of French peasants want to overthrow the monarchy?" Of course they did, or else they never would've got that far. A revolution constitutes a major shift in dichotomy. Sure, a small group can overthrow a leader, but they won't last long without majority support.

Varric explicitly states that "The Circles rose up and lit the world on fire". There's no way that could be interpreted as "a few bad apples decided to make a fuss".

Modifié par Plaintiff, 08 mai 2011 - 04:02 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

TJPags wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
We're never provided an answer, but we know Wynne said there was a close majority siding with the Libertarians to break free from the Chantry when she was heading to Cumberland, and she needed Ines to sway mages to vote against this. And Meredith mentions that the proclamation made in favor of the Magi boon has an effect on the Circle mages in other kingdoms.

But the Resolutionists, the ones who want a violent uprising, are a minority apparently even amongst Libertarians.

This is one thing that really bothers me about Anders act.

We do get that info in DAA, and from the lack of any mention of it in DA2 - or did I miss that? - I assume that the Libertarians were voted down.  And yes, the Resolutionists seem to be a minority.  (and thanks for the names  - I pay little attention to those ).

Yet Anders, one man who, as is often pointed out is not even a member of any Circle, makes the choice for all others.

I constantly look at this and wonder, what gives him the right to do that?  Yes yes, I know people will tell me he was in a Circle, so he knows how it is, you'll tell me how abusive it is, how wrong, etc. - but if the mages themselves have, apparently, chosen to do nothing, who is he to decide otherwise for every mage in Thedas?

Why, he is the one who knows better of course. No one else than Anders can know what all mages want.

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Would is increase their chances? The chances of Abominations running through the ranks of the Fereldan army, on the day before the battle, could seem to detract from Ferelden's chances of succes. You do not commit your entire force in a single battle, unless you absolutely have to. The fighting against the Darkspawn had gone well, people was actually doubting it was even a Blight, what reason could tehre be, to endanger the army with the presence of more mages? In hindsight, perhaps more mages could have turned the fighting in the favor of
Ferelden, but it could also have made it all, so very much worse.

Oh please, did you face abominations at the battle of Denerim? Did the Chantry face huge abomination problems when they fully mobalized the mages to war against the Qunari? No one is saying that they can't have Templars accompanying them to supervise. 

No one said they should commit al the mages to the battle, but it should be up to Ferelden, the ones actually doing all the fighting, to decide. The Chantry put a limit on how many mages can be fielded, for no reason other than fearing the loss of their monopoly. Don't try to make it look like a strategic decision, it's not their prerogative. The idiot mother wouldn't even have Uldred replace the beacon, despite it being more practical than a beacon.

Tevinter was Andrastians aswell, when the Exalted Marches was called on them. Albeit heretics, but nevertheless Andrastians.

Heretics who are outside the Divine's control, who have their own divine...etc. For all intents and purposes, they are not Andrastrian as the Orlesian Chantry would define it.

There won't be a people to hate her, after the Exalted March is done.

Oh so now you are even saying that the Divine has a right to perform a genocide on Kirkwall?

And even if she had the right. It's idiotic for her to even consider it as her first reaction. The political implications are too numerous to count and the dangers of setting such a precedent are too high.
If the Divine is seriously reasoning like you are now, that "I have the right to Exalt any state I wantz!!!", then the hag should be removed as well.

The main pillar of Templar power is not popular support. At all. The main pillar of their power is Chantry support. Something the Templars did not have in Kirkwall. Nor did the Chantry oppose them, but it didn't help them either.

Yes it is one of its main pillars, and Cullen mentionned it. Templars cannot hunt for mages as effectively without popular support. Once the people start helping the mages or at least stop helping the Templars, like they did in Kirkwall, then it turns into a disaster for the Templars.

The Chantry can't do much if Meredith keeps excelling at making people hate her and her Templars.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 mai 2011 - 04:05 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Plaintiff wrote...

TJPags wrote...
And did every mage in every Circle - or even the majority of the mages in each Circle - want that?

Commonsense indicates yes. You need a vast majority of support for a revolution. A small number of rebel mages would be put down quickly.

You might as well ask "But did a majority of French peasants want to overthrow the monarchy?" Of course they did, or else they never would've got that far. A revolution constitutes a major shift in dichotomy. Sure, a small group can overthrow a leader, but they won't last long without majority support.

Varric explicitly states that "The Circles rose up and lit the world on fire". There's no way that could be interpreted as "a few bad apples decided to make a fuss".

Most revolutions have started in the very small. Once the revolution is started, it needs majority support, or at least a very vocal minority that can coerce the majority into following. What we are asking is that wether or not, before the revolution, that the majority of the mages even wanted an armed rebellion.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 08 mai 2011 - 04:07 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

TJPags wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
We're never provided an answer, but we know Wynne said there was a close majority siding with the Libertarians to break free from the Chantry when she was heading to Cumberland, and she needed Ines to sway mages to vote against this. And Meredith mentions that the proclamation made in favor of the Magi boon has an effect on the Circle mages in other kingdoms.

But the Resolutionists, the ones who want a violent uprising, are a minority apparently even amongst Libertarians.

This is one thing that really bothers me about Anders act.

We do get that info in DAA, and from the lack of any mention of it in DA2 - or did I miss that? - I assume that the Libertarians were voted down.  And yes, the Resolutionists seem to be a minority.  (and thanks for the names  - I pay little attention to those ).

I think that the Libertarians were voted down after a schism in their ranks (Resolutionists are an offshoot of Libertarians).

I think it's safe to say that a large number of mages want independence, but a few want to bring it about in a violent uprising. Unless the resolutionists not only want that, but also to put mages in power, which now that I think of it, sounds a bit familiar. Does anyone remember what the Resolutionists stand for exactly? 

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz, Templars are not meant to hold worldly power. Cullen addresses this, as well as Thrask if you talk to him repeatedly in the Gallows in Act 3.

The Seekers should've done something about it. It's their fault. Hell, Leliana should've done something about it, as she was the left hand of the Divine.

Not being meant to, and not being allowed is sadly not always the same. A lot of Templars have the rank of Ser, something that a Seeker should take care of, if indeed a Templar wasn't allowed to hold worldly power

Ser is also a title to show respect, not just a title of nobility.

It is a term of respect when spoken to, yes. But many Templars hold it as a title.

to show respect only. Nobility cut off all ties to their noble backgrounds when they become a part of the Chantry or the Templars.

Irminric did. Sebastian Vael did.

They are not meant to hold worldly power. The only way they could hold power logically and legally by Thedosian law is if they renounce all ties to the Chantry. Which for a Templar could be deadly due to Lyrium withdrawal.

[TJPags]

Plaintiff wrote...

TJPags wrote...
And did every mage in every Circle - or even the majority of the mages in each Circle - want that?

Commonsense indicates yes. You need a vast majority of support for a revolution. A small number of rebel mages would be put down quickly.

You might as well ask "But did a majority of French peasants want to overthrow the monarchy?" Of course they did, or else they never would've got that far. A revolution constitutes a major shift in dichotomy. Sure, a small group can overthrow a leader, but they won't last long without majority support.

Varric explicitly states that "The Circles rose up and lit the world on fire". There's no way that could be interpreted as "a few bad apples decided to make a fuss".

Well, first, you miss my point.  Second, game evidence seems to indicate otherwise,

Second point first - as I indicated earlier, we are told in DAA that there is some kind of mage college thing going on - Wynne wants you to get Ines there to add her voice.  Some mages want to break away from the Circle/Chantry, and Wynne is going to try to speak against that, and she wants Ines' help.  And btw, even Anders will comment that mages breaking from the Chantry is a bad idea.

No revolt comes until years later, after Anders and the end of DA2.  From this, I think we can assume the move to break away was defeated.

Now, first point - once the revolution starts, I of course expect that mages will fight for their lives.  Just as I don't condemn mages who do so during the RoA of DA2 who fight back, I certainly expect mages elsewhere to fight for their lives if forced to.  We don't, of course, know how much support they have.  They may be a huge army, they may simply be bands of 2-3, or 10-20, mages, each alone, each difficult to kill, causing havoc during such battles.  We have no information otherwise, I'd say.

But if the mages chose NOT to leave the Circle/Chantry as a group, why does one man - Anders  - get to make it so that they MUST?

[Plaintiff]

TJPags wrote...

This is one thing that really bothers me about Anders act.

We do get that info in DAA, and from the lack of any mention of it in DA2 - or did I miss that? - I assume that the Libertarians were voted down.  And yes, the Resolutionists seem to be a minority.  (and thanks for the names  - I pay little attention to those ).

Democrats seemed to be a minority for the better part of a decade, so what? The events of DA2 occur almost seven years after the events of Awakening. Things change.  

Yet Anders, one man who, as is often pointed out is not even a member of any Circle, makes the choice for all others.

No he doesn't. Anders' actions could conceivably be said to trigger the Kirkwall Rebellion, but that's as far as it goes. The Kirkwall Rebellion did not start the war. The mages in other Circles rose up of their own volition. They were under no threat from the templars. They had the option to go on with their lives as if nothing ever happened. But they did not do so. The minute they were givena reason, they jumped at the chance. The Circle mages struck the first blow and, as much as he might like to, Anders cannot claim reponsibility for that.

I constantly look at this and wonder, what gives him the right to do that?  Yes yes, I know people will tell me he was in a Circle, so he knows how it is, you'll tell me how abusive it is, how wrong, etc. - but if the mages themselves have, apparently, chosen to do nothing, who is he to decide otherwise for every mage in Thedas?

Except the choice was always surrounded by debate from within the Circles themselves. They were never happy, there was always unrest and as soon as they received news of what went down in Kirkwall, they went on the offensive. And they decided to do so on their own. Anders may've created incentive, but that's not the same thing at all. Laying the blame on Anders ignores the fact that damn near every single mage in Thedas would have to agree with his views for a rebellion to even work.

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Oh please, did you face abominations at the battle of Denerim? Did the Chantry face huge abomination problems when they fully mobalized the mages to war against the Qunari? No one is saying that they can't have Templars accompanying them to supervise.

Oh please, do you really think they writers themselves have even thought about how to explain this? Abominations only pop up when it's convenient for them and are ignored when it's not.

Dragon Age lacks consistency. I have a very strong feeling they're simply making things up as they go.

And I hate when the only explanation that's left is "the character is incompetent". That's a sure sign of bad writing.

Modifié par klarabella, 08 mai 2011 - 04:24 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Would is increase their chances? The chances of Abominations running through the ranks of the Fereldan army, on the day before the battle, could seem to detract from Ferelden's chances of succes. You do not commit your entire force in a single battle, unless you absolutely have to. The fighting against the Darkspawn had gone well, people was actually doubting it was even a Blight, what reason could tehre be, to endanger the army with the presence of more mages? In hindsight, perhaps more mages could have turned the fighting in the favor of
Ferelden, but it could also have made it all, so very much worse.

Oh please, did you face abominations at the battle of Denerim? Did the Chantry face huge abomination problems when they fully mobalized the mages to war against the Qunari? No one is saying that they can't have Templars accompanying them to supervise. 

No one said they should commit al the mages to the battle, but it should be up to Ferelden, the ones actually doing all the fighting, to decide. The Chantry put a limit on how many mages can be fielded, for no reason other than fearing the loss of their monopoly. Don't try to make it look like a strategic decision, it's not their prerogative. The idiot mother wouldn't even have Uldred replace the beacon, despite it being more practical than a beacon.

Tevinter was Andrastians aswell, when the Exalted Marches was called on them. Albeit heretics, but nevertheless Andrastians.

Heretics who are outside the Divine's control, who have their own divine...etc. For all intents and purposes, they are not Andrastrian as the Orlesian Chantry would define it.

There won't be a people to hate her, after the Exalted March is done.

Oh so now you are even saying that the Divine has a right to perform a genocide on Kirkwall?

And even if she had the right. It's idiotic for her to even consider it as her first reaction. The political implications are too numerous to count and the dangers of setting such a precedent are too high.
If the Divine is seriously reasoning like you are now, that "I have the right to Exalt any state I wantz!!!", then the hag should be removed as well.

The main pillar of Templar power is not popular support. At all. The main pillar of their power is Chantry support. Something the Templars did not have in Kirkwall. Nor did the Chantry oppose them, but it didn't help them either.

Yes it is one of its main pillars, and Cullen mentionned it. Templars cannot hunt for mages as effectively without popular support. Once the people start helping the mages or at least stop helping the Templars, like they did in Kirkwall, then it turns into a disaster for the Templars.

The Chantry can't do much if Meredith keeps excelling at making people hate her and her Templars.

Only the Templars and the Mages are trained to udnerstand the dangers of magic, and only the Templars are trained to combat it. And now you want to place this incredible power, into the hands of ignorants and politicians? Politicians who would rather commit the mages to protect their own lands than Ostagar, or who wouldn't risk their most powerful tool in a battle which was assumed to be won already? At least the Chantry can act decisevely, and cares nohting for politics of that sort.

Just becasue I didn't face an abomination during the fight in Denerim doesn't mean there weren't actually one, or more, which were created in the fight. Even if there weren't, the chance of one being created, is still present, which could have spelled doom for Ferelden.

All the previous Exalted Marches has resulted in genocide, I have no reason to think the Kirkwall one, would have been any different. It is, however, not the Divine who calls for genocide, it is the generals who joins the Exalted March, who in their fervor, destroys the enemy.
And she has the right to call it. There is no way around it. You can whine all you want. It won't cahnge that the announcement of an Exalted March is within the rights of a Divine. Of course when she announces it, she needs to have the right reasons, to create conviction within the nations she is hoping will join. Her reasons aren't going to be "because I said so!", but more likely "We can not allow this Tevinter Mk. II to gain foothold!" which is a prospect most of Thedas would agree with, and would therefore join the Exalted March.

[TobiTobsen]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It is a term of respect when spoken to, yes. But many Templars hold it as a title.

to show respect only. Nobility cut off all ties to their noble backgrounds when they become a part of the Chantry or the Templars.

Irminric did. Sebastian Vael did.

I think so too. Carver is also Ser Carver after he joined the templars. Or at least that's what Meredith calls him.

Modifié par TobiTobsen, 08 mai 2011 - 04:24 .

[TJPags]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

TJPags wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
We're never provided an answer, but we know Wynne said there was a close majority siding with the Libertarians to break free from the Chantry when she was heading to Cumberland, and she needed Ines to sway mages to vote against this. And Meredith mentions that the proclamation made in favor of the Magi boon has an effect on the Circle mages in other kingdoms.

But the Resolutionists, the ones who want a violent uprising, are a minority apparently even amongst Libertarians.

This is one thing that really bothers me about Anders act.

We do get that info in DAA, and from the lack of any mention of it in DA2 - or did I miss that? - I assume that the Libertarians were voted down.  And yes, the Resolutionists seem to be a minority.  (and thanks for the names  - I pay little attention to those ).

I think that the Libertarians were voted down after a schism in their ranks (Resolutionists are an offshoot of Libertarians).

I think it's safe to say that a large number of mages want independence, but a few want to bring it about in a violent uprising. Unless the resolutionists not only want that, but also to put mages in power, which now that I think of it, sounds a bit familiar. Does anyone remember what the Resolutionists stand for exactly? 

Good questions, and good points.

Asuuming - as we seem to think - that the majority of mages voted against any kind of revolution/rebellion, why does the minority  get to decide?  And I'm being generous here by saying " minority" when the one we see act is actually one person.  Those who want a violent rebellion seem to be an even smaller minority.

I know that actions such as this often start with a small group, and sometimes one person.  But if that one person or that small group is not acting on the wishes of the majority of the people they act for, do they have the authority, the right, to do so?

In other words, it's fine to say "group X should get <this>"  But if most of group X does not actually WANT <this>, and if most of even those who want it do NOT want to use violence to get it, is it right to start a war on their behalf?

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Oh please, did you face abominations at the battle of Denerim? Did the Chantry face huge abomination problems when they fully mobalized the mages to war against the Qunari? No one is saying that they can't have Templars accompanying them to supervise.

Oh please, do you really think they writers themselves have even thought about how to explain this? Abominations only pop up, when it's convenient for them and are ignored when it's not.

Dragon Age lacks consistency. I have a very strong feeling they're simply making things up as they go.

And I hate when the only explanation that's left is "the character is incompetent". That's a sure sign of bad writing.

That's only with DA2, when they made abominations pop up like summoned creatures (what were they thinking?).
With DA:O, it was mostly consistent.

Not denying that the writers don't seem to know what they are doing, seeing how DA2 turned out. Still, the historical evidence we have seems to indicate that the Chantry did not face huge abomination problems when fighting the Qunari. So the excuse that mages are a terrible threat to the army hence we shouldn't use them is weak.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 mai 2011 - 04:38 .

[Plaintiff]

TJPags wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

TJPags wrote...
And did every mage in every Circle - or even the majority of the mages in each Circle - want that?

Commonsense indicates yes. You need a vast majority of support for a revolution. A small number of rebel mages would be put down quickly.

You might as well ask "But did a majority of French peasants want to overthrow the monarchy?" Of course they did, or else they never would've got that far. A revolution constitutes a major shift in dichotomy. Sure, a small group can overthrow a leader, but they won't last long without majority support.

Varric explicitly states that "The Circles rose up and lit the world on fire". There's no way that could be interpreted as "a few bad apples decided to make a fuss".

Well, first, you miss my point.  Second, game evidence seems to indicate otherwise,

Second point first - as I indicated earlier, we are told in DAA that there is some kind of mage college thing going on - Wynne wants you to get Ines there to add her voice.  Some mages want to break away from the Circle/Chantry, and Wynne is going to try to speak against that, and she wants Ines' help.  And btw, even Anders will comment that mages breaking from the Chantry is a bad idea.

No revolt comes until years later, after Anders and the end of DA2.  From this, I think we can assume the move to break away was defeated.

Now, first point - once the revolution starts, I of course expect that mages will fight for their lives.  Just as I don't condemn mages who do so during the RoA of DA2 who fight back, I certainly expect mages elsewhere to fight for their lives if forced to.  We don't, of course, know how much support they have.  They may be a huge army, they may simply be bands of 2-3, or 10-20, mages, each alone, each difficult to kill, causing havoc during such battles.  We have no information otherwise, I'd say.

But if the mages chose NOT to leave the Circle/Chantry as a group, why does one man - Anders  - get to make it so that they MUST?

He didn't do anything of the kind. And why do you keep assuming that because the Circles voted one way years ago, that they will continue to vote that way consistently?

Once the Kirkwall rebellion is put down, the Templars go home and get on with their lives. As far as they're concerned, the show's over. Meredith/Cullen/whoever only governs the templars in Kirkwall, and there is no way the Divine learns about what went down until days, if not weeks later, and by that time, the mage rebellion in Kirkwall has already failed. She may send Templars to chase a mage-supporter Hawke, but that's it.

The other Circles across Thedas are under no threat from the Chantry whatsoever. They haven't been "forced" into anything. "Rising up" isn't an act of self-defense, it's an act of aggression, and the mages are acting of their own free will. There is no conceivable way that you could spin it to say Anders forced their hand.

[Xilizhra]

That's only with DA2, when they made abominations pop up like summoned creatures (what were they thinking?).
With DA:O, it was mostly consistent.

They were summoned creatures: summoned from the Fade like any other demon. I believe the vast majority are relics from many years ago, legacies of Kirkwall's tattered Veil.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz, Templars are not meant to hold worldly power. Cullen addresses this, as well as Thrask if you talk to him repeatedly in the Gallows in Act 3.

The Seekers should've done something about it. It's their fault. Hell, Leliana should've done something about it, as she was the left hand of the Divine.

Not being meant to, and not being allowed is sadly not always the same. A lot of Templars have the rank of Ser, something that a Seeker should take care of, if indeed a Templar wasn't allowed to hold worldly power

Ser is also a title to show respect, not just a title of nobility.

It is a term of respect when spoken to, yes. But many Templars hold it as a title.

to show respect only. Nobility cut off all ties to their noble backgrounds when they become a part of the Chantry or the Templars.

Irminric did. Sebastian Vael did.

They are not meant to hold worldly power. The only way they could hold power logically and legally by Thedosian law is if they renounce all ties to the Chantry. Which for a Templar could be deadly due to Lyrium withdrawal.

Sebastian wasn't a Templar, he was a brother in the Chantry. And how do you know Irminric denounced his rank? He may never had had one. Or if had one once, he may of denounced it becasue he felt like it would be easier for him to fulfill his Templar duties without one, not because he must. There was a Knight of Redcliffe who was also a Templar.
If your name is Ser Varnell, it is because you are a Ser. If you are talking to someone and he replies "Can I interest you in my fine wares, ser" it is a show of respect.

[Xilizhra]

The other Circles across Thedas are under no threat from the Chantry whatsoever. They haven't been "forced" into anything. "Rising up" isn't an act of self-defense, it's an act of aggression, and the mages are acting of their own free will. There is no conceivable way that you could spin it to say Anders forced their hand.

I have some doubts of this; it seems likely that the Chantry would overreact and attack the other Circles after this happened, and that the Circles struck first. In any case, I wouldn't call it aggression so much as active defense against an oppressive enemy.

[TJPags]

Plaintiff wrote...

TJPags wrote...

This is one thing that really bothers me about Anders act.

We do get that info in DAA, and from the lack of any mention of it in DA2 - or did I miss that? - I assume that the Libertarians were voted down.  And yes, the Resolutionists seem to be a minority.  (and thanks for the names  - I pay little attention to those ).

Democrats seemed to be a minority for the better part of a decade, so what? The events of DA2 occur almost seven years after the events of Awakening. Things change.  

Sure they do.  But, how did they change? Clearly, you thought that more mages wanted freedom 7 years later.  I wonder why we're not shown any information to make this decision?  Is it because your assumption is not true, or because it's supposed to be self-evident?  I don't know, and I'm not willing to say there was such a huge shift without evidence of it.

Plaintiff wrote...

Yet Anders, one man who, as is often pointed out is not even a member of any Circle, makes the choice for all others.

No he doesn't. Anders' actions could conceivably be said to trigger the Kirkwall Rebellion, but that's as far as it goes. The Kirkwall Rebellion did not start the war. The mages in other Circles rose up of their own volition. They were under no threat from the templars. They had the option to go on with their lives as if nothing ever happened. But they did not do so. The minute they were givena reason, they jumped at the chance. The Circle mages struck the first blow and, as much as he might like to, Anders cannot claim reponsibility for that.

Oh, we don't know that at all, do we?  Do we really know that Templars all across Thedas in every other Circle didn't begin some kind of purge?  Some variation of the methods Meredith used?  Do we know that mages were not treated worse after Anders actions, thus forcing them to take action they otherwise did not want?

Plaintiff wrote...

I constantly look at this and wonder, what gives him the right to do that?  Yes yes, I know people will tell me he was in a Circle, so he knows how it is, you'll tell me how abusive it is, how wrong, etc. - but if the mages themselves have, apparently, chosen to do nothing, who is he to decide otherwise for every mage in Thedas?

Except the choice was always surrounded by debate from within the Circles themselves. They were never happy, there was always unrest and as soon as they received news of what went down in Kirkwall, they went on the offensive. And they decided to do so on their own. Anders may've created incentive, but that's not the same thing at all. Laying the blame on Anders ignores the fact that damn near every single mage in Thedas would have to agree with his views for a rebellion to even work.

Again, do we know this?  Do we know that each Circle found out and said, "yea, us too!!!!!"?  Or did the Templars act in such a way to make it, at least in the mages minds, necessary to do so?  Suppose, for instance, Templars began torturing mages in other Circles to find out what they knew?  That could certainly be enough to rebel, but is it because they so strongly want freedom, or because they don't want such abuse?

I'm not saying your assumptions are wrong.  I'm saying that, from evidence in game, there is not a lot of support for them.  They could be true, of course.  But is it fact? 

Is it fact that a large group of mages wanted this - "this" being an all out war for freedom?  I don't see the game evidence for this.  KoP pointed out the Libertarians were voted down, and the Resolutions are a minority splinter group of the Libertarians.  How large, we don't know.  But they don't seem to trumpet the view of even most of their own group, let alone most of all mages.

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Only the Templars and the Mages are trained to udnerstand the dangers of magic, and only the Templars are trained to combat it. And now you want to place this incredible power, into the hands of ignorants and politicians? Politicians who would rather commit the mages to protect their own lands than Ostagar, or who wouldn't risk their most powerful tool in a battle which was assumed to be won already? At least the Chantry can act decisevely, and cares nohting for politics of that sort.

The Chantry cares nothing about politics? lol
Yes the Chantry was so decisive, that they only sent 7 mages to war.

Yes, I'd rather have politicians handle it. Furthermore, Templar like warirors can be maintainned by the state. And it should be under the control of the crown, not the nobility. If Ferelden's nobility can't handle it, then it's the fault of the state in question itself, not the system or the idea. 

As for "ignorance". Who is responsable for breeding that ignorance amongst the populace hmm?

Just becasue I didn't face an abomination during the fight in Denerim doesn't mean there weren't actually one, or more, which were created in the fight. Even if there weren't, the chance of one being created, is still present, which could have spelled doom for Ferelden.

One or two is not going to be disastrous. 
With enough supervision and strong training to be able to withstand psychological pressure, such a risk would be alleviated.

There is always risk in war.

All the previous Exalted Marches has resulted in genocide, I have no reason to think the Kirkwall one, would have been any different. It is, however, not the Divine who calls for genocide, it is the generals who joins the Exalted March, who in their fervor, destroys the enemy.

Of course, the poor Chantry has nothing to do with it. They just call the others unbelieving heretical scum, call for an exalted march and don't set up rules of engagement, but all the bad things that happen are not due to the Chantry at all.

Both are at fault and to try to absolve the Chantry of responsability constantly is just futile.

And she has the right to call it. There is no way around it. You can whine all you want. It won't cahnge that the announcement of an Exalted March is within the rights of a Divine. Of course when she announces it, she needs to have the right reasons, to create conviction within the nations she is hoping will join. Her reasons aren't going to be "because I said so!", but more likely "We can not allow this Tevinter Mk. II to gain foothold!" which is a prospect most of Thedas would agree with, and would therefore join the Exalted March.

Let's assume that it is her right to be an idiot. Prudence would dictate that she shouldnt' be an idiot.
Whether she has the legal right to is completely irrelevent to me. What matters is that an Exalted march on Kirkwall would have been stupid, especially when she could just at least try to remove Meredith, regardless of whether she has the right to or not. 

And that's her first reaction to seemingly every problem that arises (see Orzammar and Berkel as well).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 mai 2011 - 04:38 .

[Xilizhra]

Personally, I believe that the Circles should form their own international collaborative, meshing with an independent templar organization. I'm not so sure nationalizing Circle control is wise myself.

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Sebastian wasn't a Templar, he was a brother in the Chantry. And how do you know Irminric denounced his rank? He may never had had one. Or if had one once, he may of denounced it becasue he felt like it would be easier for him to fulfill his Templar duties without one, not because he must. There was a Knight of Redcliffe who was also a Templar.
If your name is Ser Varnell, it is because you are a Ser. If you are talking to someone and he replies "Can I interest you in my fine wares, ser" it is a show of respect.

Exactly. The Templars are a part of the Chantry. They go hand in hand with one another.

Irminric is the brother to one of the Banns at the Landsmeet. You meet her in the Gnawed Noble Tavern. I know she said something about her brother being unable to rule now that he was a Templar.


I don't remember any knight of Redcliffe that was also a Templar. There was a Knight Commander at Redcliffe, but no Knight of Redcliffe.

Not all Templars with the title of Ser are able to hold power when they become Templars. None are. Capitalization of the S doesn't change that fact.

One good reason why is this: LYRIUM. You really think people would let a lyrium addled Templar hold power?

[Silfren]

Agamo45 wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Indeed, this is a big part of the problem.  The Chantry is so monumentally stupid that they think someone severely psychologically scarred by a magical atrocity is a good candidate for the organization watching over them.  We know the backgrounds of very few templars and we already know of two such examples (the other of course being Cullen).

It does make me wonder how anyone can defend the Chantry's motives as somehow being the best for all concerned.  I get much more of a hate the mages vibe than a protect the citizens vibe.

You don't protect citizens by having guards who drive the mages to their limits.  When the violence is happening because of how the mages are treated, then treating them worse can hardly be considered the actual solution.  It's pathetic that the Templar solution to 'oops, we've driven the mages insane and now they threaten the population' is to blame the mages and slaughter them all. 

They don't even play at addressing the real problem with any sort of 'while we're at it, we'll get rid of guards who think raping helpless mages is just in an evening's work.'

Annuling the Circle was the only viable short-term solution. After Anders blew up the Chantry the mages were going on a rampage in the streets, as evidenced by the blood mages and abominations that you encounter. Order had to be restored to protect the citizens of Kirkwall, and the only way to do that was to wipe out the rebelling Circle.

True, but you completely ignore the bit of Gav's point I bolded: what about the abuses that are going on long before Meredith calls for the Annulment?  Even if you do decide that annulment is the only option, whatever your reasons, what about the systemic abuse of the mages?  The rape, the illegal Tranquiling, the torture, all that lovely ****?  It is so very true that you can hardly push a people to their utmost limits, so that they finally snap, and then use that snapping to justify having pushed them so brutally in the first place. 

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
As for Chantry supervision. It proved to be utterly pathetic in DA2. I would buy the lack of technology as a very serious obstacle, if DA2 didn't have a span of 7 years. The Divine, instead of trying to fix the problem by removing one of its sources (Meredith), has the audacity to seriously contemplate an Exalted March on an Andrastrian country as her first reaction. As if she already determined that Kirkwall is no longer a sovereign state and that it's Chantry property because her pet Meredith has taken control of it.

That's something that annoyed me, too. The big time jumps are so incredibly pointless. The framed narrative doesn't work at all.

Calling an Exalted March on Kirkwall made no sense to me. What for?
You mean, she called an Exalted March because the nobles and the people would seek to oppose Meredith?
Of course, the nobles would grow impatient. Tell Meredith to vacate the viscount's seat and appoint a new Knight-Commander, while you're at it.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this level of idiocy. I firmly believe the writers neither meant Elthina nor the Divine to be utter morons.

Modifié par klarabella, 08 mai 2011 - 04:48 .