4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Deztyn]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

The Codex says he was hung after Threshold's mercenary army attacked the Gallows. He was executed.

Isn't the codex written by Brother Genitivi, who excuses the templar power play in Kirkwall as one of them being forced to assume control and is the siurce behind the claim that the previous Knight-Commander did not want power? The same author who said humans were the masters of Thedas in the entry about the New Exalted Marches, which sounds odd considering Thedas has people who aren't human living in Thedas. I'm not certain Genitivi is an unbiased source of information.

The History of Kirkwall is written by Genitivi, but Meredith's character entry says the same thing. He was executed.

Genitivi also says in the History of Kirkwall that Orlais was pressuring the templars to get involved and the KC initially refused. If he was just whitewashing the templars and villifying Threnhold why admit the Divine herself wanted the templars involved?

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

The Viscount probably thought, and with very good reason, that the Chantry is merely an extension of Orlesian imperial influence (see Ferelden in Stolen Throne), or at the very least an ally.  And Kirkwall being weak cannot afford to have a foreign armed branch within its walls.

He may not have been the most prudent man, but I respect his desire to establish real and total independence for Kirkwall. 

He wasn't entirely wrong.

But blocking the harbor, asking for exorbitant taxes from the Orlesian ships, ignoring their threats of Invasion, ticking off the Templars and somehow expecting it all to work out well seems to be just more of the Good Old Kirkwall Intelligence.

That said, I understand the Templars fighting back.

Exactly. You don't have to think the Templars were right in everything they did after, or even before, but you can't put all the blame on them.

Modifié par Deztyn, 13 mai 2011 - 06:15 .

[Dave of Canada]

Silfren wrote...

All the good it does won't nullify Exalted Marches

Depends who you ask.

I doubt many people doesn't give a damn about the Exalted Marches, maybe they'd view them in a positive light. You have to consider, the Exalted Marches against Tevinter and the Qunari are probably worshipped by society as being the best thing ever.

mage oppression

Once again, depends who you ask. The average person or people from non-Chantry countries are probably likely to praise it's control of the mages. The only people who seem to be arguing against mage oppression are the mages themselves and a few other normal people.

or its maltreatment of elves

Chantry doesn't mistreat elves, the people do. It's fantasy racism (xenophobia?), you don't see priests going around telling people to spit on elves because it's funny.

or the psychologically damaging effects of bull**** doctrine that leads to people like Sebastian suggesting that the Maker allows for evil in order to make a point*.

Fanaticism exists for everything, doesn't mean it's evil / corrupt.

I believe there's some dialogue with an NPC somewhere that indicates the Chantry isn't doing so much to help with widows and orphans

Except Origins and Dragon Age 2 have shown that it does, even the Orzammar Chantry in it's brief existence (if you create it) can help a dwarf and an orphan.

Nope.  A stopped clock is right twice a day, but that doesn't excuse or justify the rest of the time.

Your anti-religion bias is showing.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 mai 2011 - 06:07 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

She can't do it? Bring in the Seekers, that's their job.

I don't recall, is Leliana a Seeker at that point in time?

I don't know. I'd think she became a Seeker between Act 2 and 3, possibly before. Some theorize that she was always a Seeker.

Would explain why she had a necklace called Seeker's Circle. 

/conspiracy theories abound. 

I personally think that she was offered the position but she wasn't that interested until later, when Dorothea become Divine.

But if the conspiracy theory is true, Leliana being that good of a trickster is something of a turn on...

[Dave of Canada]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

But if the conspiracy theory is true, Leliana being that good of a trickster is something of a turn on...

She even had Marjolaine and the people in the Lothering Chantry fooled!

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 mai 2011 - 06:10 .

[Ryzaki]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I personally think that she was offered the position but she wasn't that interested until later, when Dorothea become Divine. 

But if the conspiracy theory is true, Leliana being that good of a trickster is something of a turn on...

Ah would make sense. 

*gasps* Her sweet demeanor to my Warden was a lie! 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Deztyn wrote...
He wasn't entirely wrong.

But blocking the harbor, asking for exorbitant taxes from the Orlesian ships, ignoring their threats of Invasion, ticking off the Templars and somehow expecting it all to work out well seems to be just more of the Good Old Kirkwall Intelligence.

Yea, imprudent and unwise. Though I sympathise.
He didn't have that many options. Allying with Nevarra would be exchanging, in his mind, one foreign invader with another (except Nevarrans are Free Marchers. They need a Bismarck to make them embrace nationalism).

However at the end of the day, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."

Exactly. You don't have to think the Templars were right in everything they did after, or even before, but you can't put all the blame on them.

Studied too much political science and history to ever think that any one party can get all the blame, or even most of it.

But as a neo-classical realist, I prefer to look at systemic causes first, specific events / individuals second.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 13 mai 2011 - 06:13 .

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Rifneno wrote...
The Circle doesn't punish abominations, it punishes mages.  So a more apt analogy would be "protecting" people from all drivers on the basis that they may become drunk drivers.

 

The Circle doesn't punish anyone. It's a safety precaution. It involves stipping away a group's rights fo the majority's safety. 

It's not ideal in the least but I see why its done. 

...You're joking, right?  It may be acting in the claim of safety, but there's no disputing that the Circle exists to punish an entire group of people for the crime of how they were born.

The reason, for that action, ostensible or otherwise, doesn't change the fact it's a punishment.  You'd have to be engaging in some serious cognitive dissonance not to see that it's nevertheless a de facto punishment againt a group of people for having the audacity to exist.
The Chantry has basically decided to punish all mages in existence for the actions of the Magisters of the far distant past.

[Ryzaki]

*le sigh* And I already said I'm gonna agree to disagree with people on that point. If you're gonna bring up posts from pages past at least bother to read the arguments conclusion.

And no you saying that isn't going to convince me it's a punishement. Period.  Just like you don't believe Anders murdered the Grand Cleric or the word "you" isn't a way of saying her. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 mai 2011 - 06:20 .

[Dave of Canada]

Silfren wrote...

...You're joking, right?  It may be acting in the claim of safety, but there's no disputing that the Circle exists to punish an entire group of people for the crime of how they were born.

I disagree, so doesn't that invalidate "no disputing"?

[GavrielKay]

Silfren wrote...

The reason, for that action, ostensible or otherwise, doesn't change the fact it's a punishment.  You'd have to be engaging in some serious cognitive dissonance not to see that it's nevertheless a de facto punishment againt a group of people for having the audacity to exist.
The Chantry has basically decided to punish all mages in existence for the actions of the Magisters of the far distant past.

A man I admire was once interviewed for a news program and asked about the conflict between privacy and safety and how we could catch more terrorists if we had less strict privacy laws.  His answer was that more people were just going to have to die.  This sounds cold at first, but I think it is a brave answer.  You shouldn't give up or take away too much freedom in the quest for safety.

We don't give DNA samples at birth to create a giant database of potential criminals.  We don't give everyone a lie detector test to see if they are plotting something before getting on an airplane (though, now that I've said it, I hope no one tries to implement it...)

All normal functioning humans have a thought to safety, but it's hardly our only concern.  We also want love and happiness and creativity and comfort and good food...  We trade safety for ease and enjoyment all the time.  Heck, some people even risk their lives intentionally for pure enjoyment (thinking things like sky-diving or base jumping).

It feels wrong at a very basic level to me to really believe that non-mages so deserve to feel safe from abominations etc. that they should be able to use their greater numbers to deprive the mages of so much of what life is all about.  And I say "feel" specifically here because we don't really see any evidence that they actually are safer because of the circles. 

The evil mages that get cited again and again exist in game right now despite 1000 years of circles.  Most of the abominations we see in game are the direct result of the oppression of the circles and could well have been avoided by a gentler system.  So, the system mostly makes people feel safer without actually being safer.

Taking away someone's right to live a life of their choosing is a punishment.  And that's the best that mages can hope for under the Chantry system.

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
Punishment is in the eye of the beholder.  I'd feel awfully punished under the best of circumstances being locked up in a circle.  Depriving someone of their freedom is an extreme action.

Not even remotely. 

They're not being forcibly disabled, they're not being killed. 

Things could be a lot worse. 

I think being made Tranquil qualifies as "forcibly disabled."  

Depriving someone of their freedom isn't even remotely an extreme action?  Um, sure, right.  Never mind that part and parcel of that imprisonment is the complete denial of seeing your family, having to hope for permission to marry, having any children born to you legally removed, having to hope you're not caught reading the wrong books (which amounts to entrapment when the goddamn things are made easily accessible), and hoping that you don't ever ****** off the wrong templar and end up getting branded a maleficar and either killed or Tranquiled. 

And not even for anything you've actually done, just on the off-chance that you might do something.  So of course when the conditions you live under cause you to finally say to yourself, "they already treat me as guilty before proven innocent...what've I got to lose?" it has nothing to do with the oppressive regime you've been forced under...

[KnightofPhoenix]

Why can't we define something with more than one adjective / characteristic?

I personally think that some aspects of the system are a punishment, with explicit examples like taking away their children, or more implicit by giving the message that they are cursed. But I also think that the system to a certain extent protects and trains mages, who would have a much harder time in non-mage settlements due to popular fear and could harm themselves and others. And I also believe that this popular fear is at least partially attributed to the Chantry as it's trying legitimate its political power and ideology (chicken and egg as to which came first).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 13 mai 2011 - 06:27 .

[Silfren]

Sylvianus wrote...

Or do I protect my people against a threat at the same time I killed innocents. Blood calls for blood from the chantry's blow.

The situation went wrong. Butit had already become untenable with all these mages who were going crazy.

Do you really think that the circle was not corrupted ?Actually, they are all beautiful, all innocent. It is to be naive, after all that has been experienced in the game. And the veil acts.

The Circles are a product of the Chantry.  If they're corrupt, looking at the Chantry's chosen methods for running the Circles is the first place one ought to be looking. 

Also, yes, after a thousand years of punishing any and all mages for the past crimes of Tevinter Magisters, that blood definitely called for blood.  The Chantry deserved the bloody nose Anders gave it.

[Silfren]

Eva Galana wrote...

I think the rest of us should just go away, and let Ian have his day. Yes, I'm being snarky, but there is no debate here. IanPolaris obviously supports terrorism. Hence, we have no where to go but a continual downward spiral into the abyss as there is no argument that will move him from the 'you support genocide' rant he has partaken in.

I am so glad I never had to sit as DM across the table from this guy. Roleplaying would have sucked big time.

Nonono, Ian has made it clear they don't support terrorists.  The terror-loving terrorist humper of the group would be me.

[GavrielKay]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Why can't we define something with more than one adjective / characteristic?

I personally think that some aspects of the system are a punishment, with explicit examples like taking away their children, or more implicit by giving the message that they are cursed. But I also think that the system to a certain extent protects and trains mages, who would have a much harder time in non-mage settlements due to popular fear and could harm themselves and others. And I also believe that this popular fear is at least partially attributed to the Chantry as it's trying legitimate its political power and ideology (chicken and egg as to which came first).

I'd agree more fully if the circles were voluntary communities where mages could live together because it was more comfortable for them and safer to be around others who understood their situation.  The Templars could be hired as guards to protect each side from the other, but answerable to the occupants themselves.

The Chantry definetly benefits too much from spreading fear of mages for them to seen as entirely objective and well meaning.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Silfren wrote...
The terror-loving terrorist humper of the group would be me.

[Silfren]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

@ TJ

I personally do not think Hawke would understand what genocide means (and not entirely because he is a moron).
But as players (or indeed, as individuals), we can define actions by our modern understanding, regardless of the time and place such an action has occured.  

But the problem here (like almost everywhere else on the forums), is that the distinction between in-game and out-game thoughts are not made clear. Hawke probably doesn't have a clue what genocide is if he was asked. That doesn't mean players don't and a reasonable argument can be made that the annulment is a genocide. How relevent you think that is, is up to you.

The concept of genocide does exist in Thedas.  Wynne uses the term herself in Awakening.

[KnightofPhoenix]

GavrielKay wrote...
The Chantry definetly benefits too much from spreading fear of mages for them to seen as entirely objective and well meaning.

Is there any institution that is objective and well meaning?
Most if not all get "a life of their own" and end up wanting to retain their position / power.  

That said, I think the Chantry system can and should change. though my idea of it is less liberating than what I assume others here want.

[Ryzaki]

Edit: Ah just me having weird thoughts. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 13 mai 2011 - 06:40 .

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
So human rights boils down to numbers?  If more people think it'd be nice to have slaves do their work for them, then slavery is ok?  If the majority of people decide that someday an AI could destroy the world, we'd better lock up all the computer programmers.  I don't buy then numbers argument.

Why would computer programmers have to be locked up because of an AI? That doesn't even make any sense.  

As for slavery. Slavery was legal for a very very long time. It however isn't simply imprisonment. It's complete dehumanization. I don't support that in any form.

I've yet to see a compelling argument that the imprisonment of mages in Thedas is not tantamount to slavery.  A person doesn't have to be literal, legal property for the term to be an accurate summation of being a Circle mage.  Just like Thedas doesn't have to have a literal, legal defintion of "genocide" for the concept to exist and be accurately used. 

Also, I think the AI thing refers to some people's fear that some day AI will be advanced enough to make computers have human-level sentience, and that the resulting human-like machines will wage war on humankind.  There are actual people who believe this wholeheartedly. 

[KnightofPhoenix]

Silfren wrote...
The concept of genocide does exist in Thedas.  Wynne uses the term herself in Awakening.

And it could be different from the UN definition or lacking key conditions that would expempt  the RoA from being considered a genocide.

For instance, in the past and sadly even today, many do not think that a husband can rape his wife (or vice versa). Because their definition of rape lacks a specific condition (or addition) that we on the otherhand take into consideration.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Ryzaki wrote...

The weird thing is I find the Chantry to be quite nice considering. One would wonder why they don't drown most of the mages as infants. They only need a handful for their armies. A few more as tranquil workers. Housing and feeding all those mages can't be cheap.

Then again I'm used to the "kill all of them!" mentality.

But the Chantry probably doesn't have enough clout to be able to do that freely.  

The chantry doens't use them for their armies unless pushed to a corner.

The Chantry could definitely be worse and more oppressive. Like the Qunari when it pertains to mages.
So yea, I am not a fan of excessive villification of the Chantry. Then again, I am not a fan of any villification at all.

[Dave of Canada]

Silfren wrote...

I've yet to see a compelling argument that the imprisonment of mages in Thedas is not tantamount to slavery.

A mage is given free housing, food and education and aren't forced to do anything but remain within the Tower's halls. Parents are allowed to visit their children, give them gifts and  Should one be kind and follow the rules, they are given permission to marry and leave the tower provided they come back. Wynne can also work by the side of Ferelden's throne.

They are allowed to leave the Circle and gather together, different fraternities have different goals. One of them is for profit (Lucrosians, I think?) which means they have some use of finances. 

Sounds more like they live in a boarding school than slavery.

[LobselVith8]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Your anti-religion bias is showing.

I think the comments focused on the Chantry sending templars into the Dales to force conversion (according to the Dalish) and how they forced elves into ghettos, made their religion illegal, and forced them to convert to their religion. I'd say the Chantry has mistreated elves because of these actions.

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Silfren wrote...

I've yet to see a compelling argument that the imprisonment of mages in Thedas is not tantamount to slavery.

A mage is given free housing, food and education and aren't forced to do anything but remain within the Tower's halls. Parents are allowed to visit their children, give them gifts and  Should one be kind and follow the rules, they are given permission to marry and leave the tower provided they come back. Wynne can also work by the side of Ferelden's throne.

Only by the Knight Commander's sufference.  BTW, many high end household slaves in the Ancient Roman empire could say the same as all the above.

They are allowed to leave the Circle and gather together, different fraternities have different goals. One of them is for profit (Lucrosians, I think?) which means they have some use of finances. 

Sounds more like they live in a boarding school than slavery.

Nope.  They are not allowed to leave without the Knight Commander's and First Enchanter's explicit OK.  That makes them prisoners.

-Polaris