4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Beerfish]

I don't think trying to talk the Divine out of an Exalted March is that much of an action.  She should have been preventing the situation from getting so close to such a dire solution.

Of course it was an action her superior sent an agent that was talking about coming in and that would have been bad for everyone in Kirkwall, she could have easily said, yeah I'll go to Orlais, send in the Divines army but instead she tried to calm things down and negotiate a peaceful settlement.  (At one point she asks to have both leaders meet with her, I think after Petrice gets pin cushioned.)

I think Elthina should have supported Cullen in ousting Meredith. 

Cullen can hardly be considered soft on the mages so he should be hard line enough to satisfy the demands of the Divine.  He also feels like a stickler for the rules.  The rules give him the right (and he probably perceives it as responsibilty) to always mistrust the mages and watch them carefully.  But he doesn't show any real creativity in coming up with new tortures for them.  If he were instructed to make sure all the Templars were obeying the spirit and letter of the law, he'd probably have a good go at it.

When did Cullen call for the ousting of Meredith?  Oh yeah after she goes batty at the end, he has some doubts about her but up until that he is a loyal fellow who has gone along with the plan to arrest the Champion.  We may know that Cullen would be a better alternative as the game went on but Elthina is not privvy to all that is happening in the game and Merediths harsh actions up until when she went beserk could be attributed to the large mage problem in the area.

I don't like him, but I do think he would be an improvement over Meredith while satisfying the Chantry hard-liners.  I think he's a bigot, but not insane.  In this ridiculous over-the-top situation, that's an improvement.  I'm not saying he's good, just better and a shade more reasonable than idol-crazed Meredith.

As I said above, Meredith was a **** was but not idol crazy uuntil after good old mage boy blew up the Chantry, tough for Elthina to do anything then as she floats into the sky.

We're told Elthina is hugely popular in Kirkwall, throwing her support behind someone like Cullen could very well work.

No question at all that it would have worked but at the time she did not have sufficient reason to strip Meredith

[IanPolaris]

Beerfish wrote...
No question at all that it would have worked but at the time she did not have sufficient reason to strip Meredith

False.  Knight Commander Meredith either by her own authority or official inaction had allowed the Templars to flout Chantry Law for years.  That diminishes the authority of the Chantry.  What's worse, Elthina's inactions worked to aid and abet Meredith's claim to Temporal power that was not legally hers to take.

Both actions are more than sufficient to strip Meredith of her authority.

-Polaris

[Silfren]

TJPags wrote...

Gaider's quote does not, at all, tell me what Natural Order is.  It defines nothing.  So it's not very helpful in that way.  It does mention the similarity of the Qun and the religion of Rivain.  So, how do they treat their mages?  They won't be parted from them, sure - but how are they treated?  In other words, those in the Chantry are not parted from their mages - they keep them in Circles.

The quote about Rivaini comes from a codex concerning a book written by Brother Genitivi.  Since Genitivi is a lay brother of the Chantry, I always took his phrase about the Rivaini refusing to be parted from their Seers to refer to them refusing to follow the Chantry practice of locking mages away, but keeping them as a part of the general community.  I think that's a reasonable interpretation, as it wouldn't really make sense otherwise.  Context is everything, and part of that context includes the person doing the writing.  Brother Genitivi comes from a nation that embraces the Chantry practice of imprisoning mages, so his wording in that codex seems to indicate that the Rivaini are contrary to that tradition. 

Then again, I've paid enough attention to language and how people use it both when writing and when speaking that a lot of times I don't see a shred of ambiguity where other people insist there's nothing but.  There are certain turns of phrase that people simply don't use in certain contexts unless they're trying to convey a specific meaning, unless they are absolute masters of deception and completely impeccable in their application of words.  I don't think that's the case here.  And now I've gone off on some unrelated tangent that may start yet another argument, but there it is.

[Silfren]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

In any case, I think it's established that Elthina is an incompetent idiot (and far from being the only one) and that was my main point.  

She's old, and that exempts her from being incompetent.  Didn't you get the memo?

[Silfren]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

EDIT: to elaborate. At best, she is barely dealing with the symptoms of the problem. She nowhere comes near to try to mediate and find solutions to the problem itself.

You mean telling everyone to go home (having Orsino taken back, and telling Meredith to go back like a good girl, which rather pointedly illustrates the power difference, I think) isn't mediating?  I'm shocked, I tell you.  Shocked!

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

Beerfish wrote...
No question at all that it would have worked but at the time she did not have sufficient reason to strip Meredith

False.  Knight Commander Meredith either by her own authority or official inaction had allowed the Templars to flout Chantry Law for years.  That diminishes the authority of the Chantry.  What's worse, Elthina's inactions worked to aid and abet Meredith's claim to Temporal power that was not legally hers to take.

Both actions are more than sufficient to strip Meredith of her authority.

-Polaris

Which law did Meredith "flout" as you say?

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Beerfish wrote...
No question at all that it would have worked but at the time she did not have sufficient reason to strip Meredith

False.  Knight Commander Meredith either by her own authority or official inaction had allowed the Templars to flout Chantry Law for years.  That diminishes the authority of the Chantry.  What's worse, Elthina's inactions worked to aid and abet Meredith's claim to Temporal power that was not legally hers to take.

Both actions are more than sufficient to strip Meredith of her authority.

-Polaris

Which law did Meredith "flout" as you say?

WTF? are you trolling? we are not going to post time and time again because you are so damn ignorant. figure it out on your own.i suggest noone shoudl respond to this trollpost.

[Rifneno]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Did I mention that DA2 has the biggest amount of stupid ever assembled in one game?

Yes? Worth saying again.

The next DLC will feature a new companion: A well meaning blood mage suffering from leukemia, whose spells always backfire like the senile old aunt on Bewitched.

GavrielKay wrote...

For me (and I'm speaking ONLY for myself here), I think you've touched on the one justifiable pro-Templar position:  that supporting the Templars may save more lives in the short term than trying to save the mages.  I can understand that view, the game does try to give you supporting evidence for that.

I never understood that viewpoint. All the legal, legit mages are locked in the Gallows. Honestly I think the only reason we see ANY fighting on the way *to* the Gallows is for gameplay reasons. Hawke can't make a cup of coffee without killing stuff. Any damage in the city is almost certainly going to be looters and rioting. Which is the job of the city guard to put down, not the templars. So... I really don't see the logic in it saving lives even short term.

Silfren wrote...

Those are two different questions. Trying to point out that stable =/= good is a straw man if you are arguing whether or not mages are capable of living freely without endangering the society as far as being able to resist demons and control their abilities. Whether they would usurp power and enslave everyone around them a la Tevinter is a separate discussion.

Even whether mages would usurp power is a different issue from whether they'd enslave everyone else. It's quite possible they'd rule benevolently. To say they'd automatically stomp on the rights of non-mages is like domestic abuse and rape must not be crimes in the US because every president has been male. Many of the pro-templar posters are working under not one but two assumptions: that mages will automatically end up ruling and that they'll rule as evil tyrants. And most of the basis for that is the Chantry's fearmongering. I get how characters in the game, living in Thedas can be taken in by the Chantry's propaganda but it really surprises me that so many real people believe it.

In Exile wrote...

Another poster (Rifneno, I believe) argued that Orsino was not responsible for blood magic in Kirkwall and especially not responsible for Quentin's murders because, even if he knew Quentin was an apostate practicing potentially forbidden magic, he did not commit any of the crime himself.

I did not argue that. I argued that the Chantry shares the blame for coming up with an awful system. Orsino specifically says he didn't turn in Quentin once he learned of his depravity because Meredith would use Quentin's crimes as ammunition against the Circle. The Chantry has a system where legal mages are discouraged from turning in maleficar. That's idiotic and a recipe for failure.

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Finally someone who understands Elthina's posistion. Yet, it won't change anything. All the Elthina haters aren't hating because she didn't take a side. They are hating because she didn't take their side.

I'll speak for myself in expressing why I hate the Grand Cleric, thank you.  I hate her incompetent ass because nothing I've seen indicates that she made any effort in reining in abusive templars and their leader.  I'd have been satisfied with her efforts if she had been shown actually trying to mediate.  

Someone else states that there's dialog with her where she expresses having talked with Orsino and Meredith.  Fine.  I haven't seen that dialog, so I can't say much about it.  But no, I do not despise the woman because she didn't take "my" side.  I hate her because she knew that her templars and her knight commander were out of control, and she did nothing to put a stop to it.

She didn't have to "take sides" in order to issue a cease and desist order against abuse.  Unless someone is now going to actually attempt to argue that preventing illegal practices and outright abuses amounts to unfairly taking sides. 

[IanPolaris]

Silfren,

I would argue in fact that the fact that Grand Cleric Elthina did NOT crack down on Meredith for abuse of power meant that she was negotiating in bad faith (I also recall the snippet where she said she had discussions with Orsino and Meredith). The fact remains (and I wanted to wring her scrawny neck because it's obvious and she failed to understand it), it takes TWO to be reasonable and negotiate, and Meredith was never reasonable and never wanted to negotiate....and because Elthina was always willing to cover for her (or at least turn a blind eye), she never had any incentive to negotiate.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Silfren wrote...

The quote about Rivaini comes from a codex concerning a book written by Brother Genitivi.

The issue of the free mages among the Chasind and in the kingdom of Rivain had been addressed to David Gaider a while back, and his response wasn't that mages were chained or locked up in these societies, but that when there is an abomination, they deal with it (it was the same thread where he said we know nothing about Arlathan). Merrill pretty much says that's how the Dalish deal with abominations as well.

[GavrielKay]

In Exile wrote...

But if we have a system were mages are identical to non-mages, with the only difference being that mages have powerful magic, then we suddenly have a system where there is a danger of abuse.

We've already got a system that's open to abuse.  Open to heinous abuse against mages amd their families.

A mage living as an apostate probably couldn't inherit much more than the family farm in current day Ferelden or the Free Marches without attracting too much unwanted attention, so I suppose the current system does keep mages out of positions of authority.  Most Andrastians would count that a good thing.  You can have dangerous rulers who aren't mages though.  Looking at King Cailan vs. Teyrn Loghain and the resulting carnage from their dispute it isn't obvious that a mage in charge would have been worse.

There are already free mages - Hawke can even be one of them.  Some of those free mages are, other than their obvious apostate status, innocent of any crimes.  Bethany and Hawke were apparently doing just fine in Lothering.  Morrigan wasn't going on blood magic rampages through the local villages.  We have in game evidence that a mage can be raised and trained to resist demons completely outside the circle.

We also have evidence that mages in the circle can go bad despite being locked up.  Didn't the lore say that 17 Rights of Annulment have been called?  Certainly Kirkwall's circle doesn't seem to be keeping anybody safe.

Isolde may still have been an idiot even if the circles weren't life long prisons - but lots of other parents might not.  You could very well reduce the occurrence of dangerous mages in general by overhauling the circle to be something along the lines of a mandatory boarding school.  Isolde was also very devout and subscribed to the notion that magic was a curse from the Maker upon her son.  Slowly whittling away from that cultural stigma might save a lot a trouble as well.

As to whether mages should be allowed to inherit real positions of power, I don't know.  I could imagine worse rulers than Bethany, and better rulers than Arl Howe.  That issue would be difficult.

I think a desire to determine one's own destiny is a powerful motivator though and the current system was bound to eventually push the mages to rebellion.

[EmperorSahlertz]

DKJaigen wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Beerfish wrote...
No question at all that it would have worked but at the time she did not have sufficient reason to strip Meredith

False.  Knight Commander Meredith either by her own authority or official inaction had allowed the Templars to flout Chantry Law for years.  That diminishes the authority of the Chantry.  What's worse, Elthina's inactions worked to aid and abet Meredith's claim to Temporal power that was not legally hers to take.

Both actions are more than sufficient to strip Meredith of her authority.

-Polaris

Which law did Meredith "flout" as you say?

WTF? are you trolling? we are not going to post time and time again because you are so damn ignorant. figure it out on your own.i suggest noone shoudl respond to this trollpost.

I'm gonna take this at face value, and say you can't name a single law she "flouted" either. Anyone else wants to try?

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 11 mai 2011 - 08:14 .

[Rifneno]

In Exile wrote...

And, given the codex entry on the Rite of Annulment, at that point Meredith would actually be justified in evoking it.

Oh, I forgot to reply to this.  And I think it needs to be said.

"The Right has always been a last resort, when every mage involved was beyond salvation. The situation was far more dire in Ferelden's Circle, and yet many mages were saved. We could still do as much here." - Cullen, during the RoA

I'm sure someone will argue otherwise.  I could say the sun is hot and Beerfish would argue it.  But I think it's pretty clear that no, Kirkwall's situation does not justify a RoA under traditional standards.

[LobselVith8]

I recall that EmperorSahlertz and IanPolaris were posting in the same thread three months ago when David Gaider responded to my comments about Rivani and the Chasind by saying: "They exist without controlling mages."

[IanPolaris]

Meredith flouted the laws regarding tranquility through her inaction alone (there is no way she didn't know). She openly flouted the laws regarding Templar seperation from politics. Templars like mages are NOT SUPPOSED to have secular power (See Knight LT Irminric who had to give up his claim to his Bann to be a Templar).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I recall that EmperorSahlertz and IanPolaris were posting in the same thread three months ago when David Gaider responded to my comments about Rivani and the Chasind by saying: "They exist without controlling mages."

Indeed he did.  That must of been like pulling teeth for him, but he did say it.

-Polaris

[Beerfish]

IanPolaris wrote...

Beerfish wrote...
No question at all that it would have worked but at the time she did not have sufficient reason to strip Meredith

False.  Knight Commander Meredith either by her own authority or official inaction had allowed the Templars to flout Chantry Law for years.  That diminishes the authority of the Chantry.  What's worse, Elthina's inactions worked to aid and abet Meredith's claim to Temporal power that was not legally hers to take.

Both actions are more than sufficient to strip Meredith of her authority.

-Polaris

EXACTLY what I posted in my other post.  The pro mages forces will blast her because she didn't do what they want her to do and the pro Templar forces will go along with their own way of thinking.  Thanks for proving my point Polaris.

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

Meredith flouted the laws regarding tranquility through her inaction alone (there is no way she didn't know). She openly flouted the laws regarding Templar seperation from politics. Templars like mages are NOT SUPPOSED to have secular power (See Knight LT Irminric who had to give up his claim to his Bann to be a Templar).

-Polaris

That is not flouting. And Meredith did not have any rank other than Knight-Commander. So she was not breaking any laws. Also, it isn't stated anywhere, that it is law for the Templars to give up any ranks they hold, to become a Templar.
It is very much alike the Templars of our world. They were suppsoed to give up all wordly wealth and power. And they all did. They just gave all they owned and their lands to the Templar Order itself.

Her being unaware of Alrik's schemes does not make Meredith flout the laws either. That just makes her unaware of one of her subordinates actions.

[Beerfish]

Silfren wrote...



I'll speak for myself in expressing why I hate the Grand Cleric, thank you.  I hate her incompetent ass because nothing I've seen indicates that she made any effort in reining in abusive templars and their leader.  I'd have been satisfied with her efforts if she had been shown actually trying to mediate.  

Another person proves my point that any discussion of Elthina will fall 100% along the lines of pro mage/pro templar.  Oh and she did try and mediate as I mentioned in a previous post she called for both of them to meet her in game.  It says nothing about what happened at the meeting though.

[Silfren]

In Exile wrote...

ETA:

Regardling Redcfliffe, the existence of the Circle (or not) would not have particularly affected Isolde's behaviour. The only possible scenario where Isolde would not have acted as she did would be one where Connor, as a mage, could inherit land and titles and be otherwise indestinguishable from other nobles, sort of being trained in magic.

Anything else - a period of her son being taken away from her and (especially) a removal from inheritance and you would have Isolde act to protect her son from being ripped (in her PoV) away from her.

But if we have a system were mages are identical to non-mages, with the only difference being that mages have powerful magic, then we suddenly have a system where there is a danger of abuse.

On what do you base your assertion?  If there had been a system where Connor could be sent for training, but that would not have meant losing him for life, why do you think she would not have been willing to part with him even then?

Yes, I'm aware that she says "I was not going to lose my son to, to magic!"  But it could also be argued that she wouldn't feel that way in a culture where the dominant religious body didn't teach that magic is a curse and that mages should be locked away.  And I've also acknowledged that part of her motivation was probably that Connor would be forced to forfeit his rights as his father's heir.

But I don't see why it automatically follows that she would have acted no differently if there was a more reasonable, humane system in place.  People keep saying that the exact same situation would have occurred, but they've not bothered to explain why or how they come by this opinion.

[Silfren]

In Exile wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

The whole argument over Elthina came up when someone said that she was an innocent bystander victim of Anders' terrorism.

She is. She didn't perpetuate any of the abuse. The only argument that you have, the very argument that you have made here (I have it in bold) is that she did nothing.

This seems to be my day for using this phrase, but it's my take that when you are the person whose position grants you the authority and the obligation of dealing with abusive and illegal practices, and you do nothing, you are morally equivalent to the abusers.

[Rifneno]

Beerfish wrote...

EXACTLY what I posted in my other post.  The pro mages forces will blast her because she didn't do what they want her to do and the pro Templar forces will go along with their own way of thinking.  Thanks for proving my point Polaris.

How do you not understand the difference between "free the mages" and "enforce Chantry law"?

[IanPolaris]

Emperor,

Yes it is. Knight LT Irminric had to give up his title of Bann to be a Templar in favor of his sister. Sebastian had to do the same to take vows as a cloistered brother. In order to persue his birthright, Sebastian had to renounce his vows to the Chantry.

-Polaris

[Well]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Well from the one speech Elthina gives about being a patient parent rather than a stern one. I'd say she was in a very tough position and had the same tough choice as Hawke does at the end of the game. There is plenty of evidence that the Templars are out of control or approaching it and there is plenty of evidence that the mage situation around Kirkwall is dire. At that point neither she nor Hawke knows that the leaders of each are totally coco puffs cuckoo.

What are her options? What can she do to 'fix' things? The answer to this will fall along the same lines as our mage vs templar discussion in this thread. All the fervent mages supporters will trumpet that she should have gotten rid of Meredith and appeased the mages. All the pro templar side will say she should support meredith due to the terrible mage threat.

She is in the same boat as the rest of us and was a) a little naive and hoping discussion and time would calm things down.

As far as acting goes, she did in fact take some action. The Divine want to come in and 'deal' with it but she said no, no need for that. She was in a bit of a no win situation and yet she and her followers got it and that is often what happens in conflicts like this party A hates party B, party B hates party A, party C gets beat on.

Finally someone who understands Elthina's posistion. Yet, it won't change anything. All the Elthina haters aren't hating because she didn't take a side. They are hating because she didn't take their side.

Well said.We dont even know how much the Resolutionist were involved.Ok change that.

"The Resolutionists changed all that. Splitting from the main Libertarian fraternity, the Resolutionists are open apostates
who support freedom for mages at all costs. They engaged in acts of
terror and sabotage against the Chantry throughout Thedas, and many are
connected to Kirkwall's mage underground.
They have declared that unless mages are freed to rule themselves, they
will show every person in Thedas how little protection the Circle of
Magi actually offers."

From Wikia

I wonder if some more info can be dug up out of the game.