4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

Master Shiori wrote...

Anders' idea was for mages to be free without any supervision and the abolishment of the templars, the Circles and possibly the Chantry. Ofc, the Chantry wasn't going to accept such radical demands.

If he proposed a reform of the Circles that gave greater freedom to mages within and a system of control that would prevent abuses at the hands of the templars, then that could have been acceptable to the less conservative elements within the Chantry.

And you think that Anders is the first mage to ever resent Chantry oppression?  That in a thousand years, no mage ever tried to say "Hey, this system kinda sucks for mages, let us get together and work out a more equitable solution for everybody"?  

The Chantry has held all the power for a millenium.  When one group and has all the authority and power, and the other side has a...nicely articulated argument...what exactly are the odds of the dominant group having any motivation to relinquish anything?

Modifié par Silfren, 13 mai 2011 - 08:22 .

[Master Shiori]

IanPolaris wrote...

That's not what Cassandra says.  She says, "Not all of us support war".  She says nothing about the Chantry.  The scene works equally well if the Seekers (who Varric assumes are part of the Templars if you'll recall) have gone rogue themselves.

What reason would the Seekers have to go rogue?

IanPolaris wrote...



We don't know exactly what the Chantry wants.

-Polaris

We know what it doesn't want.

If the templars had to break off from the Chantry to wage war, that means the Chantry doesn't support armed conflict. Otherwise it would give the templars it's full support.

Since the possibility that the Chantry would support any attempt to abolish the Circles is practicaly non existent we can safely say it doesn't support the rebel mages.

The only thing left is a compromise that would end the conflict peacefully, which would explain why the Seekers would be sent to enlist the aid of people like Hawke, who are respected by either mages or templars and can use their influence to calm the situation.

[jlb524]

Silfren wrote...

I'd expect the corruption of faith would be fanaticism, and perhaps the difference between Anders and Wynne is that she on the whole was a wiser and more serene person than Anders.  But then again maybe Faith as a pure concept has a greater chance of co-existing with human complexity than that of Justice.

I would guess it's more likely the former.  Wynne is serene and I don't see anything pushing her towards fanaticism.

With Anders, he carried resentment towards the Templars and the Circle prior to merging with Justice.

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...


So I shouldn't fear the man pointing a gun at me, because he havn't shot me yet? When you drive through the ghetto, you shouldn't be afraid (depending on which ghetto ofcourse), because you can't be sure wether people you drive by are armed or not. With a mage, you can always be certain that he is a mage. He can't help it. And by being close to you, he is endangering you, wehter he wants to or not. Even if the chance of possession is small, it is ever present.

Holy sh*t.  This logic condemns damn near all of us, because any person, excepting people with severe physical disabilities, has the ability to kill anyone standing next to them.  After all, any person, whether a loved one, acquaintance, or total stranger, who is standing next to me, endangers me because they could randomly decide to strangle me where I stand.  The chance of that happening may be vanishingly small, but it's there

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


If he's pointing a gun at you, then has taken action against you and you have reason to be fearful. Don't twist my words around please.

The poster you're replying to has a habit of this.  Get used to it.

[LobselVith8]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Though it does have its history that did lead to the fall, conquest or no. The elves watched and remained neutral while the Second Blight was devastating Orlais which lead to hostilities for both sides.

Didn't Orlais conquer Nevara after "helping" them during the Third Blight? I can imagine why the elves would have been distrustful of a nation actively seeking to force them to convert to their religion. Nevarra and Ferelden can provide us with some insight on this, given the occupation of both nations.

[IanPolaris]

Master Shiori wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

That's not what Cassandra says.  She says, "Not all of us support war".  She says nothing about the Chantry.  The scene works equally well if the Seekers (who Varric assumes are part of the Templars if you'll recall) have gone rogue themselves.

What reason would the Seekers have to go rogue?

Possibly for the same reason the Templars do.  The Seekers in the codex entry are protrayed as intensely anti-mage and essentailly "super Templars" that guard and are supposed to oversee the Templars (but we all how that works...or rather doesn't work).

In short, while you can't think of  reason doesn't mean there isn't one and certainly Varric believes the Seekers are part of the Templars (and so I expect that's the common perception).  Also Casandra's reply could very easily mean that most Seekers have gone rogue and she is one of the few that hasn't.

IanPolaris wrote...



We don't know exactly what the Chantry wants.

-Polaris

We know what it doesn't want.

Do we?  At best we know what Cassandra and Lellianna (DA2 Lelliana) want and I'm not so sure about Lellianna given the differences in her persona from DAO to DA2.

If the templars had to break off from the Chantry to wage war, that means the Chantry doesn't support armed conflict. Otherwise it would give the templars it's full support.

Actually what we are told was that the Templars broke from the Chantry to hunt the mages.  That doesn't mean the Chantry might not want war.  It could very easily be a difference in strategy rather than objective.

Since the possibility that the Chantry would support any attempt to abolish the Circles is practicaly non existent we can safely say it doesn't support the rebel mages.

First thing I've agreed with this entire post.

The only thing left is a compromise that would end the conflict peacefully, which would explain why the Seekers would be sent to enlist the aid of people like Hawke, who are respected by either mages or templars and can use their influence to calm the situation.

You are engaging in the fallacy of the excluded middle.  We don't KNOW what the Chantry wants or even if the Chantry has a unified policy.  Please don't pretend that we do.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Master Shiori wrote...

The better solution would have been for all the Circles to present a united front and propose reforms that would improve the current system.

The mages live in a system where they run the risk of getting made tranquil or killed. Why would mages try to propose reforms in a dictatorship? What would make the Chantry care? Why would the people, who have been indocturinated for nearly a thousand years to hate and fear mages in Andrastian nations, care? Andraste changed the plight of her people through war, she didn't ask Tevinter to change through reform. Why would anyone expect the Chantry to change when they are controlling the lives of mages across the continent?

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


If he's pointing a gun at you, then has taken action against you and you have reason to be fearful. Don't twist my words around please.

The poster you're replying to has a habit of this.  Get used to it.

okey dokey!



*has gotten used to it*

[LobselVith8]

Sylvianus wrote...

Mother Hannah is an example of the goodness of the priestesses within a system that has failed, yeah.

Doesn't Mother Hannah assure an Amell Warden that she won't let a mob get him for being a mage? Isn't this indicative of the society that the anti-mage propoganda produced by the Chantry has lead to, where a representative of the Chantry has to assure a mage who can save the village that the people won't try to kill him simply for being a mage?

Sylvianus wrote...

Leliana thinks with her heart as many of them.

Before her appearance in "Faith," I would have agreed completely, but I get the feeling that the writers are making her very pro-Chantry and anti-mage given how she came off when speaking to Hawke. She didn't even consider the Knight-Commander becoming a dictator could have played a role in the unrest with Kirkwall, she simply focused her attention on a mage group who we only hear about once over the course of seven years. And we get the impression from Varric that the Seekers are with the templars in hunting the mages when we says, "I thought you left the Chantry to hunt the mages" when he's addressing the Seeker Cassandra.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...


So I shouldn't fear the man pointing a gun at me, because he havn't shot me yet? When you drive through the ghetto, you shouldn't be afraid (depending on which ghetto ofcourse), because you can't be sure wether people you drive by are armed or not. With a mage, you can always be certain that he is a mage. He can't help it. And by being close to you, he is endangering you, wehter he wants to or not. Even if the chance of possession is small, it is ever present.

If he's pointing a gun at you, then has taken action against you and you have reason to be fearful. Don't twist my words around please.

And you can always tell who is a mage? No you can't. Mages are good at hiding their powers with their training (especially in the case of Kirkwall when you can make Fireball fireworks, wear magically enchanted robes, and carry huge staves). Proper training against spirits would make the chance of possession nonexistent. The Dalish way of training their Keepers and Firsts is the right way to go. The Circle's is only decent. They're launching a person into the Fade with no knowledge of what they'll face.

Are you agreeing then, that you fear what a man aiming a gun at you might do to you? But okay, let us scrap that example and offer another. A man walking down the street with a gun drawn. Do you not mind him at all, and walk on your merry way. Or do you feel the sting of fear? Why is the gun drawn? What is he planning? Why is he doing this?
With a gun you could feel more or less safe, as the gun can be put away, or the clip may be empty. With a mage, the safety is always off, and everything depends on the dscipline, and luck, of the mage. THere are lots of reasons to fear mages for what they might do, since half of the things they might do, aren't intentional.

I didn't say you could always tell who is  mage. I'm saying that you can always be sure that a mage is under threat of possession. There is no going around it.

Tarohne wasn't possessed..

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

To the best of our knowledge anyway.

No. She really wasn't possessed. As Anders states himself, that when ever you attack the host of a demon, the demon would surface to defend itself. No demon ever shows itself with Tarohone. It is far more likely that she was actually emulating the Magisters of the Imperium, who held the demons in check (exactly like she says herself). When she talks about "embracing" the demons, she is more likely talking about her blood magic. Which, funnily enough, Anders himself, also states is only learned through demons.

[Silfren]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Mother Hannah is an example of the goodness of the priestesses within a system that has failed, yeah.

Doesn't Mother Hannah assure an Amell Warden that she won't let a mob get him for being a mage? Isn't this indicative of the society that the anti-mage propoganda produced by the Chantry has lead to, where a representative of the Chantry has to assure a mage who can save the village that the people won't try to kill him simply for being a mage?

Mother Hannah's the Lothering priest, right?  The woman whose idea of justice was to lock a Qunari in a cage for the darkpsawn to rip apart?  Not arguing that Sten wasn't deserving of death for his crime of killing those farmers, but it wouldn't have been less just to have him executed by hanging or being run through with one of those swords of mercy.  Locking someone in a cage and leaving them to the elements, starvation, or the darkspawn is barbaric.  The disconnect between taking up collections to help the needy and resorting to an act of barbarism in the name of justice is not one I'm able to reconcile.

Even so, it's one thing for individual village chantries to engage in acts of beneficience for the community.  That doesn't mitigate the damage caused by the overarching organization.  To draw on the obvious parallel yet again, there's a local Catholic priest that I find to be a rather likable fellow, and his particular teachings (which I've no doubt would be considered heretical and get his ass excommunicated, which rather supports my bias but that's another story) run, as far as I can tell, the gamut between harmlessly benign and genuinely helpful.  That doesn't change the fact that I consider the organization he belongs to to be corrupt in irredeemable ways

[IanPolaris]

If you mean Emperor, would I mind walking down the streets full of people with weapons openly carried, the answer is NO. In fact in Alaska I've done and seen it (not on the military base where I was but in the neighboring town).

An openly armed society is a polite one I've found. Low burglery rates too.....

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Sifren,

No. Mother Hanna is the Reverend Mother of Redcliff villiage, and she is the one that (in her own way) apologizes about the Chantry and would understand why you as a mage might like to see the viallage burn and is grateful that you don't.....and she assures you that no mob will attack you for using magic in defense of the villiage.

The fact such a reassurance is needed is....disturbing.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

If you mean Emperor, would I mind walking down the streets full of people with weapons openly carried, the answer is NO. In fact in Alaska I've done and seen it (not on the military base where I was but in the neighboring town).

An openly armed society is a polite one I've found. Low burglery rates too.....

-Polaris

Im guessing you were armed too, and even then, I doubt you all went about with your weapons drawn, lock'n'loaded, mages do that.
If "everyone" is armed, the playing field is even. However, everyone can't be mages.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 13 mai 2011 - 08:57 .

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

If you mean Emperor, would I mind walking down the streets full of people with weapons openly carried, the answer is NO. In fact in Alaska I've done and seen it (not on the military base where I was but in the neighboring town).

An openly armed society is a polite one I've found. Low burglery rates too.....

-Polaris

Im guessing you were armed too, and even then, I doubt you all went about with your weapons drawn, lock'n'loaded, mages do that.
If "everyone" is armed, the playing field is even. However, everyone can't be mages.

*whap* Bad analogy, bad.

Mages aren't like that either.  Most mages will go through their whole lives and NEVER be in danger of demonic possession.  Proper education and dealing with mages as people is the key....and do not judge things by Kirkwall.  The writers have already admitted to skewing the sample there.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  Actually I wasn't.  I was walking off base where carrying of weapons is generally strictly prohibited.  I felt perfectly safe.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 13 mai 2011 - 09:02 .

[TEWR]

Are you agreeing then, that you fear what a man aiming a gun at you might do to you? But okay, let us scrap that example and offer another. A man walking down the street with a gun drawn. Do you not mind him at all, and walk on your merry way. Or do you feel the sting of fear? Why is the gun drawn? What is he planning? Why is he doing this?
With a gun you could feel more or less safe, as the gun can be put away, or the clip may be empty. With a mage, the safety is always off, and everything depends on the dscipline, and luck, of the mage. THere are lots of reasons to fear mages for what they might do, since half of the things they might do, aren't intentional.

I didn't say you could always tell who is mage. I'm saying that you can always be sure that a mage is under threat of possession. There is no going around it.

Your exact words: With a mage, you can always be certain that he is a mage

that was you saying you can always know a person is a mage.


As for your new example, why would a person walk down a street in daylight with a gun already drawn? If he has the gun drawn, he has it drawn for a reason. And it's not just to compensate for something. There is another reason there. So there is a reason to be fearful because he is planning something.

now I admit I'm not the best person to dissect this particular example you have given, but I'm sure someone else will be able to do a better job of it.

No. She really wasn't possessed. As Anders states himself, that when ever you attack the host of a demon, the demon would surface to defend itself. No demon ever shows itself with Tarohone. It is far more likely that she was actually emulating the Magisters of the Imperium, who held the demons in check (exactly like she says herself). When she talks about "embracing" the demons, she is more likely talking about her blood magic. Which, funnily enough, Anders himself, also states is only learned through demons.

Anders says that blood magic can only be learned from demons in banter with Fenris. He also says in banter with Merrill that you can accidentally discover the powers it possesses. I take this to mean demons have the knowledge of how to use it, but anyone can discover it.

And what the hell do you think her attacking me was when I attacked her? There was an attack dialogue in there. What, do you think she was just pouring me tea?

[LobselVith8]

How many times are you going to ignore that Jowan learned blood magic through books, the Orlesian Warden learned blood magic through a book, Finn performed a ritual he read about that was blood magic, Morrigan perfumed a ritual that was taught to her that was blood magic, and Anders even asks Merrill if she learned blood magic by accident? I'm curious, EmperorSahlertz, because you keep professing the only way to learn blood magic is through demons, when we know this isn't true.

[Sylvianus]

Mother Hannah, the woman at the Redcliffe's Chantry who refuses to give lie to Ser Gurvan and his knights  that the maker is with them. A woman of pure goodness.

That doesn't change the fact that I consider the organization he belongs to to be corrupt in irredeemable ways

And Silfiren. It's funny because it  is exactly what pro-templar thought  about the circle or Kirkwall became corrupt.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 13 mai 2011 - 09:11 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

A demon would show itself, as in literally showing itself, its true form, to defend itself. All abominations do that. Whenver they feel their form is threatened.

Tarohone was NOT an Abomination. She isn't even stated as a fade creature purely gameplaywise.

My wording were "With a mage, you can always be certain that he is a mage" which means, that when you got a amge, you know he is a mage. I didn't say you can always spot a mage in a crowd. I say that when you have a amge, you can be sure that he attracts demons.

And Polaris, you don't think that if the fact that mages are udner constant threat, that the mages THEMSELVES would teach eachother differently? THey have taught eachother for more than 1000 years that they are udner constant threat, and now you claim they have been lying all the time. I'm sorry, but that is highly unlikely. I'm just gonna stick with what the codex says, and leave your speculation in the gutter, until it can be proven.
On another note, just because you don't like an analogy does not make it bad. Magic is a too. A tool that can enver be put away, which is always drawn, and which is always on. They will always pose a threat to everyone around them.

[TEWR]

LobselVith8 wrote...

How many times are you going to ignore that Jowan learned blood magic through books, the Orlesian Warden learned blood magic through a book, Finn performed a ritual he read about that was blood magic, Morrigan perfumed a ritual that was taught to her that was blood magic, and Anders even asks Merrill if she learned blood magic by accident? I'm curious, EmperorSahlertz, because you keep professing the only way to learn blood magic is through demons, when we know this isn't true.

and then there's what Lob is saying here. Jowan did learn blood magic through books. Irving even confiscates them.

Blood magic is just a tool. It isn't inherently evil. one that should only be restricted to a person using their own blood and not the blood of others.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

How many times are you going to ignore that Jowan learned blood magic through books, the Orlesian Warden learned blood magic through a book, Finn performed a ritual he read about that was blood magic, Morrigan perfumed a ritual that was taught to her that was blood magic, and Anders even asks Merrill if she learned blood magic by accident? I'm curious, EmperorSahlertz, because you keep professing the only way to learn blood magic is through demons, when we know this isn't true.

How many times are you ging to have to be told. No. Spoone fed, that we don't know what Jiwan read about. The Spec books are gameplay, purely gameplay. The Finn's ritual ISN'T Blood magic, but could be viewed as such. Ditto with Morrigan's ritual, and even if it were, she could have made a deal with a demon. And that Anders was clearly being sarcastic, and that Anders himself states that you need to make a deal with a demon to learn blood magic? Cause it is really getting tiresome.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 13 mai 2011 - 09:15 .

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

If you mean Emperor, would I mind walking down the streets full of people with weapons openly carried, the answer is NO. In fact in Alaska I've done and seen it (not on the military base where I was but in the neighboring town).

An openly armed society is a polite one I've found. Low burglery rates too.....

-Polaris

Im guessing you were armed too, and even then, I doubt you all went about with your weapons drawn, lock'n'loaded, mages do that.
If "everyone" is armed, the playing field is even. However, everyone can't be mages.

Nice.  Someone invalidated your analogy by telling you what you didn't expect to read, and so now you're having to change in order to maintain its relevance.

[LobselVith8]

Sylvianus wrote...

Mother Hannah, the woman at the Redcliffe's Chantry who refuses to lie to Ser Guvan and his knights that the maker is with them. A woman of pure goodness.

Actually, The Warden can convince her to lie to the knights, and that's precisely what I did to boost morale among the Andrastian Knights. Furthermore, the very institution of the Chantry made it necessary for Mother Hannah to assure an Amell Warden that he won't be in danger for being a mage in Redcliffe (the Surana Warden gets the elven dialogue instead of the mage dialogue) since Wynne notes in another conversation that Andrastians have killed mages simply for being mages.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Silfren wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

If you mean Emperor, would I mind walking down the streets full of people with weapons openly carried, the answer is NO. In fact in Alaska I've done and seen it (not on the military base where I was but in the neighboring town).

An openly armed society is a polite one I've found. Low burglery rates too.....

-Polaris

Im guessing you were armed too, and even then, I doubt you all went about with your weapons drawn, lock'n'loaded, mages do that.
If "everyone" is armed, the playing field is even. However, everyone can't be mages.

Nice.  Someone invalidated your analogy by telling you what you didn't expect to read, and so now you're having to change in order to maintain its relevance.

What? He didn't invalidate. He brought additional data. The analogy adapts.
To make it easier for you: Does a mage fear walking amongst mages? No. Does an armed man fear walking amongst armed men? No. Does unarmed men fear an armed man walking amongst them (an obviously armed)? Yes. Does unarmed men fear a mage walking amongst them? Yes. Do they have a reason to? Yes.