176 réponses à ce sujet

[Kartikeya]

AshenEndemion wrote...

No, we have Alain saying that a templar was in his room.  Nothing about rape.  Why is the templar in Alian's room?  Who knows.  Perhaps Alain is an escaped mage from Sunderholt, and like all such mages that were caught, suspected of using blood magic and the visit was an inspection to see if he was or was not using blood magic...  In my last run, Ser Karras was dead when Alain made the statement.  Perhaps Alain is being visited by a demon in his sleep, and cannot tell the difference between his dreams and reality?

We have Ser Alrik saying that the templars with him would rape a mage when she was made tranquil,

Implied.  Not actually said...  Besides, I've already stated that Alrik was fraking insane.  His actions(alone) do not mean the templars as a whole are evil (just as blood magic use by a few mages does not mean the entire Circle is tainted).

Ah, the old 'if the word rape isn't used, we can't say it's rape' thing. Yeah this...this is used pretty often in real life. And I thought the rape stuff was overt to the point of bludgeoning the player over the head. Silly me. They didn't use the word 'rape', so it doesn't count. It's probably something totes perfectly legitimate, and the victims are just making it up to further their agenda.

Ugh.

[LobselVith8]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You're conflating game mechanics with lore when the cut-scene for the mages marching to Denerim illustrates that more than seven mages survived. We're not given an estimate on how many mages actually survived, while we only see three mages in the scene being spared by Knight-Captain Cullen because they beg for mercy and accept any punishment that is deemed necessary. If we were intended to believe more than three were being spared in this cut-scene, they could have presented more.

They could have presented more mages at the Uldred fight too, but they didn't.

How does the cutscene with Uldred have anything to do with the mages who survived throughout the Circle Tower?

hoorayforicecream wrote...

We certainly weren't given an estimate of how many mages survived the battle at the Gallows either way. We weren't shown anything. Your conclusion is "because we didn't see anything, it must have been literal". Mine is "it could have been literal, or it could have been figurative".

No, your line of reasoning is to see three mages and assume it must mean more than three. Mine to see three mages and acknowledge that it's only three mages.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

It would have been silly to see a small army of surrendering mages, considering that up to that point you only fought something like 5 or 6 mages in the courtyard. Seeing a whole crowd of mages surrender after five get killed would seem strange.

If only three mages surrender, I see no reason to assume it's more. If it was intended to be more, that would have been made explicitly clear.

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I usually find an overly literal interpretation silly, because there's never really any indication of how many mages there are in the Kirkwall circle to begin with. You keep throwing the terms "hundreds" or "thousands" around, but there's never been any indication whatsoever how many there are. The purpose of the ferelden circle example is to support the theory that "what you see isn't necessarily what you get"... but like I said, YMMV.

I address the terms of hundreds or thousands because I don't have the specific number of mages and apprentices who are living in the Gallows, but if there are only two Circles throughout the Free Marches, and one of them burned down, then I'm going to estimate that there's a substantial population of mages residing in the only Circle in the Free Marches.

[AshenEndymion]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

We have templars admitting they tortured a child.[/quote]

When and where was this?  Because I don't recall it ever occurring, or being stated.  Or is it that Dalish confrontation in Act 2?  Because he wasn't a child, as far as I recall the statement going.  But, I chalk that up to overzealous persuit of an apostate... I agree not good...  (Obligatory racist remark: But it was only an elf.  Who cares about an elf?) [/quote]

The "Dalish" who was captured and tortured by the templars in their pursuit of Feynriel was indeed a child.[/quote]

As much of a "child" as Merrill is.  We never see the Dalish captive.  And the descripter used is the same one that the keeper uses regarding Merrill.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

We have templars who plan on killing Ser Thrask.[/quote]

Thrask was protecting known blood mages.  The templars did not turn their weapons on Thrask (or Hawke) until it became obvious that the he was harboring the blood mages, rather than turning them in to the Circle, as was his duty.  It is not murder, as Thrask (and Hawke) was resisting arrest. [/quote]

They make it clear that they plan on killing Thrask even when Hawke turns the Starkhaven mages over to the templars.[/quote]

And yet, Thrask lives for the next 7 years if you turn them in.  They expected to have to kill Thrask because they expected him to be protecting the mages and refuse to turn them in.  That is not murder, or even intent to murder.  That's being prepared for the situation.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

We have Alain admitting he was raped by a templar in Act II (and likely serves as the reason why he followed Ser Thrask in Act III).[/quote]

No, we have Alain saying that a templar was in his room.  Nothing about rape.  Why is the templar in Alian's room?  Who knows.  Perhaps Alain is an escaped mage from Sunderholt, and like all such mages that were caught, suspected of using blood magic and the visit was an inspection to see if he was or was not using blood magic...  In my last run, Ser Karras was dead when Alain made the statement.  Perhaps Alain is being visited by a demon in his sleep, and cannot tell the difference between his dreams and reality? [/quote]

So he threatened to make Alain tranquil if he told anyone simply because he was doing a routine inspection?[/quote]

Honestly?  I don't even think that a templar was in Alain's room(because he says it when Karras is dead, although I'll accept "bug" as an explination).  But I don't know that, and neither does anyone else.  It really depends on whether one believes Alain or not.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

We have Ser Alrik saying that the templars with him would rape a mage when she was made tranquil[/quote]

Implied.  Not actually said...  Besides, I've already stated that Alrik was fraking insane.  His actions(alone) do not mean the templars as a whole are evil (just as blood magic use by a few mages does not mean the entire Circle is tainted). [/quote]

Technically, if he implied they would rape her, then he verbally said it. Also, I never claimed the templars as a whole were evil.[/quote]

"When you're tranquil, you'll do whatever I say."  Could be an implication of future rape.  It could also be an implication that in the future, the tranquil will be doing massive amounts of laundry.  Again, the idea of rape is not verbalized.  Only implied.  And the implication is based on what we know of Alric at the time and following the events.  And for the record, I agree.  Alric implies rape.  But Alric himself is not the whole of the templar order.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

and we hunt down two mages who were sane before they entered the Gallows (and one of them was a member of the Circle of Ferelden) and mentally unstable when they left the Gallows.[/quote]

There is no evidence that the instability was caused by the Templars.  It could have been caused by Orsino, or any other blood mage in the Circle, attempting to gain allies.  The instability only proves that the Templars are right to be concerned about the blood mage prevelance. [/quote]

I. Orsino claimed he never used blood magic before. There's no evidence to contradict this.
II. The instability illustrates how toxic the Gallows Prison is for mages when even a Harrowed mage from the Ferelden Circle can be mentally broken down.[/quote]

I. True.
II. There is no evidence that the instability is caused by the Templars.  There could be various factors.  The fact that the crazy escapees are both blood mages could mean that the blood mage aspect is more of a factor than the Templars in the cause.  Or that could mean nothing as well.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Besides the large group of templars with him.[/quote]

Very well.  The templars with Alric know.  Do any others?  If this proves that they do, then every mage knows about the blood magic the few crazies perform, right?  I didn't think so... [/quote]

It illustrates he wasn't alone in raping mages.[/quote]

No. It illustrates that people know that Alric was.  Knowing and participating are two different things.  There is no evidence that the other templars participate in the rapes.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Which explains why Anders came to Kirkwall after Karl told him about the abuses going on in the Gallows, when he was later illegally made tranquil despite having passed the Harrowing.[/quote]

Again, this is if we believe Anders at his word, that Karl told him about the abuses... or even that Karl ever passed the Harrowing.  Karl doesn't ever make these statements to us... [/quote]

Considering how old Karl is, you're really stretching it to claim that he hasn't passed his Harrowing. You either pass the Harrowing or you're made tranquil.

Also, you're welcome to believe that Anders never says a truthful word, but since he was correct about a templar trying to push forth the "Tranquil Solution," I have to respectfully disagree.[/quote]

Fair enough.  But being correct about one thing does not mean Anders is correct about all of it...  Only that he is correct about the one thing.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

Look... I'm not saying that there isn't sketchy things going on in that Circle.  There are.  On both sides.  But the templars of Kirkwall are not 100% PURE EVILZ, any more than the mages are 100% PURE EVILZ.  I am skeptical about anything Anders says with regards to the Templars because he is biased.  No accusation against any Templar has any evidence supporting it (besides Alric)... Especially since all the "murder/torture" claims, if they are true, are acceptable under the course of apprehending apostates and maleficarum. [/quote]

I never claimed the templars were pure evil, but it's completely false to say no evidence exists to show templar abuse besides what we know about Ser Alric.[/quote]

Fair enough.  But it would also be false to say that the evidence is more than circumstancial.  Or that it proves that the templar abuse is pervasive throughout the ranks (or even more than just isolated cases).

[Kartikeya]

Someone does not have to say 'so I'm going to rape you' to actually threaten rape.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

The "Dalish" who was captured and tortured by the templars in their pursuit of Feynriel was indeed a child.[/quote]

As much of a "child" as Merrill is.  We never see the Dalish captive.  And the descripter used is the same one that the keeper uses regarding Merrill. [/quote]

Actually, len is child, da'len references a young child; basically a person who is prepubescent.

Merrill clearly isn't a prepubescent child, but Marethari refers to Merrill as da'len because Merrill is her "surrogate daughter" and the Keeper acts as the matriarch of the clan, while the hunters refer to the tortured Dalish as len.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

They make it clear that they plan on killing Thrask even when Hawke turns the Starkhaven mages over to the templars.[/quote]

And yet, Thrask lives for the next 7 years if you turn them in.  They expected to have to kill Thrask because they expected him to be protecting the mages and refuse to turn them in.  That is not murder, or even intent to murder.  That's being prepared for the situation. [/quote]

Karras makes it clear he intends to execute the mages instead of simply taking them back, and when Thrask says he'll return them unharmed, Karras retorts that Thrask will not live long enough to do so. How is that being "prepared for the situation"?

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

So he threatened to make Alain tranquil if he told anyone simply because he was doing a routine inspection?[/quote]

Honestly?  I don't even think that a templar was in Alain's room(because he says it when Karras is dead, although I'll accept "bug" as an explination).  But I don't know that, and neither does anyone else.  It really depends on whether one believes Alain or not. [/quote]

The dialogue we hear is, "Ser Korus said I'd be made tranquil if I told anyone he's been in my room at night." I'm not certain why you'd assume he means room inspection or think he's lying when he voluntarily went to the templars.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Technically, if he implied they would rape her, then he verbally said it. Also, I never claimed the templars as a whole were evil.[/quote]

"When you're tranquil, you'll do whatever I say."  Could be an implication of future rape.  It could also be an implication that in the future, the tranquil will be doing massive amounts of laundry.  Again, the idea of rape is not verbalized.  Only implied.  And the implication is based on what we know of Alric at the time and following the events.  And for the record, I agree.  Alric implies rape.  But Alric himself is not the whole of the templar order. [/quote]

I remember that she pleaded, "Don't make me tranquil! I'll do anything!" and then Ser Alrik responded that, "Yes, you will do anything I want after we make you tranquil." It's clearly intended, as even Hawke addresses it in his response. Even Anders addresses it when Justice takes over and he says they'll never touch a mage again. Considering how many templars were with Alric, I don't see how you can claim it was simply him.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I. Orsino claimed he never used blood magic before. There's no evidence to contradict this.
II. The instability illustrates how toxic the Gallows Prison is for mages when even a Harrowed mage from the Ferelden Circle can be mentally broken down.[/quote]

I. True.
II. There is no evidence that the instability is caused by the Templars.  There could be various factors.  The fact that the crazy escapees are both blood mages could mean that the blood mage aspect is more of a factor than the Templars in the cause.  Or that could mean nothing as well. [/quote]

Considering one of the "crazy escapees" was formerly a member of the Ferelden Circle and both of them were sane before being imprisoned in the Gallows, I don't see how we can label this all on blood magic.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Considering how old Karl is, you're really stretching it to claim that he hasn't passed his Harrowing. You either pass the Harrowing or you're made tranquil.

Also, you're welcome to believe that Anders never says a truthful word, but since he was correct about a templar trying to push forth the "Tranquil Solution," I have to respectfully disagree.[/quote]

Fair enough.  But being correct about one thing does not mean Anders is correct about all of it...  Only that he is correct about the one thing. [/quote]

It addresses that he didn't make it up, especially since he managed the mage underground. Listen to Justice's outburst in Dissent. He says, "I will have every last templar for these abuses."

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I never claimed the templars were pure evil, but it's completely false to say no evidence exists to show templar abuse besides what we know about Ser Alric.[/quote]

Fair enough.  But it would also be false to say that the evidence is more than circumstancial.  Or that it proves that the templar abuse is pervasive throughout the ranks (or even more than just isolated cases). [/quote]

When Bethany addresses that she's avoiding specific templars, it's clear that it's not merely an isolated incident.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 02 avril 2011 - 02:03 .

[AshenEndymion]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

As much of a "child" as Merrill is.  We never see the Dalish captive.  And the descripter used is the same one that the keeper uses regarding Merrill. [/quote]

Actually, len is child, da'len references a young child; basically a person who is prepubescent.[/quote]

And da'len is used to reference Merrill.... If the term "len" is used to describe the captive, would they not be older than Merrill?  Without seeing the captive ourselves, there is no way to know. 

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

And yet, Thrask lives for the next 7 years if you turn them in.  They expected to have to kill Thrask because they expected him to be protecting the mages and refuse to turn them in.  That is not murder, or even intent to murder.  That's being prepared for the situation. [/quote]

Karras makes it clear he intends to execute the mages instead of simply taking them back, and when Thrask says he'll return them unharmed, Karras retorts that Thrask will not live long enough to do so. How is that being "prepared for the situation"?[/quote]

That conversation is overheard before Hawke and the mages come out of the cave.  If Karras and his men/women enter the cave, every mage inside was dead.  If Thrask intended to return them unharmed, how would Thrask intend to do so alone?  Thrask is not killed when the mages are brought out, and the mages are not killed when they are brought out.... If Karras is intending to kill them all anyway, why does he not attempt to?

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

Honestly?  I don't even think that a templar was in Alain's room(because he says it when Karras is dead, although I'll accept "bug" as an explination).  But I don't know that, and neither does anyone else.  It really depends on whether one believes Alain or not. [/quote]

The dialogue we hear is, "Ser Korus said I'd be made tranquil if I told anyone he's been in my room at night." I'm not certain why you'd assume he means room inspection or think he's lying when he voluntarily went to the templars.[/quote]

I think he's lying and that Karras was never in his room to begin with(not that it was voluntary).  But that is because he makes the exact same statement if Karras died trying to bring them in to the Circle.  I do not accept just the statement, without corroboration, as the truth just because it is said.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

"When you're tranquil, you'll do whatever I say."  Could be an implication of future rape.  It could also be an implication that in the future, the tranquil will be doing massive amounts of laundry.  Again, the idea of rape is not verbalized.  Only implied.  And the implication is based on what we know of Alric at the time and following the events.  And for the record, I agree.  Alric implies rape.  But Alric himself is not the whole of the templar order. [/quote]

I remember that she pleaded, "Don't make me tranquil! I'll do anything!" and then Ser Alrik responded that, "Yes, you will do anything I want after we make you tranquil." It's clearly intended, as even Hawke addresses it in his response. Even Anders addresses it when Justice takes over and he says they'll never touch a mage again. Considering how many templars were with Alric, I don't see how you can claim it was simply him.[/quote]

I always assumed Anders and Hawke were responding to the statement about Alrik turning her tranquil.  And that Vengence was claiming that Alrik, specifically, would never touch a mage again(as he says "you").  As none of the other Templars voice agreement, I cannot claim they were in agreement with Alric's implication.  Yes they are "with Alric" in the fight... but an Abomination just showed up and threatened them all with death.  They're supposed to lay down and die?

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I. Orsino claimed he never used blood magic before. There's no evidence to contradict this.
II. The instability illustrates how toxic the Gallows Prison is for mages when even a Harrowed mage from the Ferelden Circle can be mentally broken down.[/quote]

I. True.
II. There is no evidence that the instability is caused by the Templars.  There could be various factors.  The fact that the crazy escapees are both blood mages could mean that the blood mage aspect is more of a factor than the Templars in the cause.  Or that could mean nothing as well. [/quote]

Considering one of the "crazy escapees" was formerly a member of the Ferelden Circle and both of them were sane before being imprisoned in the Gallows, I don't see how we can label this all on blood magic.[/quote]

Unless you're claiming that both crazy escapees were blood mages prior to entering the Gallows, then it could be blood magic.  It could be Templars, it could be anything.  But there is no evidence pointing to anything saying "this is the reason."

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

Fair enough.  But being correct about one thing does not mean Anders is correct about all of it...  Only that he is correct about the one thing. [/quote]

It addresses that he didn't make it up, especially since he managed the mage underground. Listen to Justice's outburst in Dissent. He says, "I will have every last templar for these abuses."[/quote]

It addresses that he didn't make that one claim up.  Not that he didn't make others up.  Just as the lie he tells about being able to remove Vengence from his body doesn't mean that everything Anders says is a lie.  But the key thing is, that not everything Anders says is the truth.  You choose to give Anders the benefit of the doubt.  I don't.  Neither is wrong.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

Fair enough.  But it would also be false to say that the evidence is more than circumstancial.  Or that it proves that the templar abuse is pervasive throughout the ranks (or even more than just isolated cases). [/quote]

When Bethany addresses that she's avoiding specific templars, it's clear that it's not merely an isolated incident.[/quote]

And yet, Bethany doesn't ever mention who those tempars are.  I never put Bethany in the Circle, so I don't know when she says this.  But if the statement is made in Act 2, she could just mean Alric (and Karras if Alain's claim is true).  And the fact that she says specific templars rather than all templars, or a majority of them, it does mean that it is just an isolated incident.

[Kartikeya]

So, in a situation where Alain could be telling the truth or lying, you assume he's lying. Why?
In a situation where rape was threatened in every way other than using the word 'rape', you go with the idea that it's something else. Why?

Where Bethany says she's avoiding certain templars, presumably because certain Templars have a REPUTATION for certain things, you say this proves it's an isolated incident. Bzuh? How does that even compute? If it's a single isolated incident, why would Bethany know to avoid certain Templars (plural at that)? How would said Templars have a reputation if it's an 'isolated incident'. Patterns of abuse are not, by definition, isolated incidents. These things don't happen in a vaccuum.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

And da'len is used to reference Merrill.... If the term "len" is used to describe the captive, would they not be older than Merrill?  Without seeing the captive ourselves, there is no way to know. [/quote]

Merrill is referred to as da'len by Marethari while the Dalish who was tortured was referenced as len, and len is considered a young child.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Karras makes it clear he intends to execute the mages instead of simply taking them back, and when Thrask says he'll return them unharmed, Karras retorts that Thrask will not live long enough to do so. How is that being "prepared for the situation"?[/quote]

That conversation is overheard before Hawke and the mages come out of the cave.  If Karras and his men/women enter the cave, every mage inside was dead.  If Thrask intended to return them unharmed, how would Thrask intend to do so alone?  Thrask is not killed when the mages are brought out, and the mages are not killed when they are brought out.... If Karras is intending to kill them all anyway, why does he not attempt to? [/quote]

Why doesn't he follow through on his promise to make certain Thrask doesn't survive? Probably because we follow a linear progression in the story and hardly any of our choices matter.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

The dialogue we hear is, "Ser Karras said I'd be made tranquil if I told anyone he's been in my room at night." I'm not certain why you'd assume he means room inspection or think he's lying when he voluntarily went to the templars.[/quote]

I think he's lying and that Karras was never in his room to begin with(not that it was voluntary).  But that is because he makes the exact same statement if Karras died trying to bring them in to the Circle.  I do not accept just the statement, without corroboration, as the truth just because it is said. [/quote]

Why would he lie, exactly? And since nobody recognizes Hawke or Bethany as an apostate despite using magic in front of the city guard and templars, along with the numerous other bugs, I wouldn't write off his statement simply because Karras could be dead.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I remember that she pleaded, "Don't make me tranquil! I'll do anything!" and then Ser Alrik responded that, "Yes, you will do anything I want after we make you tranquil." It's clearly intended, as even Hawke addresses it in his response. Even Anders addresses it when Justice takes over and he says they'll never touch a mage again. Considering how many templars were with Alric, I don't see how you can claim it was simply him.[/quote]

I always assumed Anders and Hawke were responding to the statement about Alrik turning her tranquil.  And that Vengence was claiming that Alrik, specifically, would never touch a mage again(as he says "you").  As none of the other Templars voice agreement, I cannot claim they were in agreement with Alric's implication.  Yes they are "with Alric" in the fight... but an Abomination just showed up and threatened them all with death.  They're supposed to lay down and die? [/quote]

Considering he openly implied he would rape her without a care in the world that he was surrounded by his fellow templars, I don't see why you think he was trying to hide his purpose.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Considering one of the "crazy escapees" was formerly a member of the Ferelden Circle and both of them were sane before being imprisoned in the Gallows, I don't see how we can label this all on blood magic.[/quote]

Unless you're claiming that both crazy escapees were blood mages prior to entering the Gallows, then it could be blood magic.  It could be Templars, it could be anything.  But there is no evidence pointing to anything saying "this is the reason." [/quote]

Except that outside the Gallows, they are sane, and when they were imprisoned in the Gallows, they became mentally unbalanced.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

It addresses that he didn't make it up, especially since he managed the mage underground. Listen to Justice's outburst in Dissent. He says, "I will have every last templar for these abuses."[/quote]

It addresses that he didn't make that one claim up.  Not that he didn't make others up.  Just as the lie he tells about being able to remove Vengence from his body doesn't mean that everything Anders says is a lie.  But the key thing is, that not everything Anders says is the truth.  You choose to give Anders the benefit of the doubt.  I don't.  Neither is wrong. [/quote]

Technically, he's telling the truth, because he expects to die from his actions. Death = being seperated from Justice. It's a very roundabout way, but Justice's anger towards the templars isn't coming from Anders making everything up.

[quote]AshenEndemion wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

When Bethany addresses that she's avoiding specific templars, it's clear that it's not merely an isolated incident.[/quote]

And yet, Bethany doesn't ever mention who those tempars are.  I never put Bethany in the Circle, so I don't know when she says this.  But if the statement is made in Act 2, she could just mean Alric (and Karras if Alain's claim is true).  And the fact that she says specific templars rather than all templars, or a majority of them, it does mean that it is just an isolated incident.
[/quote]

I'm not saying all templars or a majority of them, though. I don't think every templar is evil incarnate. I thought Ser Thrask was a good guy, and I refused to kill him when it was provided as an option. If Hawke was actually allowed choice in DA2, I would have supported his goal to have templars and mages working together, but instead I got a quest where everyone Hawke was facing carried the stupid ball, and I ended up facing the recycled nemesis from GoA and discovering the Big Bad was an "evil" sword made of lyrium.

[Kartikeya]

You know, and this is a point. Justice would not have become Vengeance if Anders was just making everything up. Justice would've probably been pretty pissed at Anders for being a freaking liar, rather than, you know, going so far off the deep end that the mere SIGHT of Templars threatens to make him lose control.

[AshenEndymion]

Kartikeya wrote...

So, in a situation where Alain could be telling the truth or lying, you assume he's lying. Why?
In a situation where rape was threatened in every way other than using the word 'rape', you go with the idea that it's something else. Why?

I am distrustful by nature.    This is why I am more apt to assume someone is not telling the truth if the only thing I have is their word. 
And the game uses the word rape.  Anders actively uses it in his accusations.  I understand that someone can be threatened with rape, and it not being specified as such.  I have even admitted that this is likely the case, with regards to Alric.  But why should I assume rape in the case of Alain/Karras?  When there is only Alain's word, and that word is sketchy, at best (he's not a blood mage, remember?).

Kartikeya wrote...

Where Bethany says she's avoiding certain templars, presumably because certain Templars have a REPUTATION for certain things, you say this proves it's an isolated incident. Bzuh? How does that even compute? If it's a single isolated incident, why would Bethany know to avoid certain Templars (plural at that)? How would said Templars have a reputation if it's an 'isolated incident'. Patterns of abuse are not, by definition, isolated incidents. These things don't happen in a vaccuum.

If there are only 2 templars (out of say, 1000) accused, how can you say it is not isolated?  It isn't pervasive.  Nor a pattern of abuse by all, a majority, or even some templars.  That it would be allowed by other templars would be wrong... But that, again, assumes that other templars know of the events.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Merrill is referred to as da'len by Marethari while the Dalish who
was tortured was referenced as len, and len is considered a young child.

First da'len is young child, and len is child.  Then it's the other way around.  Hint: the first is correct.  Which would imply the dalish who is captured is older than Merrill.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Why would he lie, exactly? And since nobody recognizes Hawke or
Bethany as an apostate despite using magic in front of the city guard
and templars, along with the numerous other bugs, I wouldn't write off
his statement simply because Karras could be dead.

Why would he lie?  To gain simpathy so Hawke will help with his next escape?  To imply that templars are bad?  Because he's a blood mage?

LobselVith8 wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

Unless you're claiming that both crazy escapees were blood mages prior to entering the Gallows, then it could
be blood magic.  It could be Templars, it could be anything.  But there
is no evidence pointing to anything saying "this is the reason."

Except that outside the Gallows, they are sane, and when they were imprisoned in the Gallows, they became mentally unbalanced.

Then we are in agreement.  The Circle caused the mages to go insane.  Not the Templars.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Technically, he's telling the truth, because he expects to die from
his actions. Death = being seperated from Justice. It's a very
roundabout way, but Justice's anger towards the templars isn't coming
from Anders making everything up.

And technically, the Circle blew up the Chantry since mages of the Circle knew where Anders was located and refused to divulge it.

Justice is angry towards the templars based on Anders perception of the templars.  This does not mean that any statement Vengence and Anders says about them is true.  The anger is from what Anders experienced in Ferelden.  The lies are what he claims to see in Kirkwall, to justify his actions.

[LobselVith8]

AshenEndemion wrote...

First da'len is young child, and len is child.  Then it's the other way around.  Hint: the first is correct.  Which would imply the dalish who is captured is older than Merrill.

If he's referenced as a child by the hunters and not by a character who sees Merrill as her surrogate daughter, why would you assume that?

AshenEndemion wrote...

Why would he lie?  To gain simpathy so Hawke will help with his next escape?  To imply that templars are bad?  Because he's a blood mage?

Except he never tries to ask for Hawke to aid his escape. You seem to be coming up with a myraid of scenerios that don't address that a man is openly admitting that he's being raped by a templar.

AshenEndemion wrote...

Then we are in agreement.  The Circle caused the mages to go insane.  Not the Templars.

The templars govern the Gallows and the Kirkwall Circle. I don't see how you can seperate the two.

AshenEndemion wrote...

And technically, the Circle blew up the Chantry since mages of the Circle knew where Anders was located and refused to divulge it.

This isn't accurate. If Anders has a romance with Anders, it's his status as Champion that protects Anders as an apostate. Otherwise, it's still Anders as an apostate who is protected by Hawke because he can confront the Knight-Commander about the treatment of mages and she knows he's a mage. It boils down to the genocide of mages for something they are completely innocent of.

AshenEndemion wrote...

Justice is angry towards the templars based on Anders perception of the templars.  This does not mean that any statement Vengence and Anders says about them is true.  The anger is from what Anders experienced in Ferelden.  The lies are what he claims to see in Kirkwall, to justify his actions.

That's a long way to go to rationalize that Anders must be lying about everything instead of having valid reasons to despise the Chantry controlled Circles and the templars. I don't see why he would have made a deal with Justice if he was fabricating everything about the abuses that mages endure.

[sphinxess]

I blame it all on the seekers - where were they all those years as the oversite branch of the chantry

[IanPolaris]

sphinxess wrote...

I blame it all on the seekers - where were they all those years as the oversite branch of the chantry

I am not sure if you wrote that in jest, but this is an excellent point.  Once Lelianna/Sister Nightengale found out the Resolutionists were behind much of the violence (if not much sooner), they should have interviewed not just the Champion but Anders and many others (with the promise of immunity if need be) and should have come down on KC Meridith like ton of bricks and removed her from command in chains and in public if need be....since the KC was openly and brazenly violating Chantry Law (such as tranquiling mages that had already been harrowed).

Where WERE the Seekers when they are just know years later starting to "seek the truth"?

-Polaris

[Darth Krytie]

LobselVith8 wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

Justice is angry towards the templars based on Anders perception of the templars.  This does not mean that any statement Vengence and Anders says about them is true.  The anger is from what Anders experienced in Ferelden.  The lies are what he claims to see in Kirkwall, to justify his actions.

That's a long way to go to rationalize that Anders must be lying about everything instead of having valid reasons to despise the Chantry controlled Circles and the templars. I don't see why he would have made a deal with Justice if he was fabricating everything about the abuses that mages endure.

I agree. Anders isn't imagining things. Anders anger at the Chantry (and decision to blow it up) isn't unfounded and isn't striking out at an innocent party.

And in Kirkwall, there actually are abuses. There actually are a lot more Tranquils in the Gallows. There are actual Templars who are bad. You witness it with your own eyes. It is a fact that the Chantry controls the Templars. They get them addicted to Lyrium and the Chantry controls the Lyrium trade. So, the Chantry is a big part of the problem.

[hoorayforicecream]

Darth Krytie wrote...

I agree. Anders isn't imagining things. Anders anger at the Chantry (and decision to blow it up) isn't unfounded and isn't striking out at an innocent party.

And in Kirkwall, there actually are abuses. There actually are a lot more Tranquils in the Gallows. There are actual Templars who are bad. You witness it with your own eyes. It is a fact that the Chantry controls the Templars. They get them addicted to Lyrium and the Chantry controls the Lyrium trade. So, the Chantry is a big part of the problem.

The lyrium is what gives the templars their special anti-mage powers. Without the lyrium, the templars would just be normal soldiers (and thus unable to hunt down maleficars and abominations). It isn't as simple as reducing the Chantry to a drug cartel, because the templars perform a vital service for Thedas. Somebody has to hunt down the maleficar and abominations. Though I am not sure why Orzammar would particularly care why only the Chantry gets the lyrium...

[AshenEndymion]

LobselVith8 wrote...

If he's referenced as a child by the hunters and not by a character who sees Merrill as her surrogate daughter, why would you assume that?

If he isn't referenced as a child by the Templars, why would you assume he is?  Again, I don't take people at their word unless there is additional proof.  And I never did see a child in the camp during Act 1.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Except he never tries to ask for Hawke to aid his escape. You seem to be coming up with a myraid of scenerios that don't address that a man is openly admitting that he's being raped by a templar.

You are mistaken.  I accept that the possibility exists.  I just do not believe the claim.  But you seem to be refusing the possibility that there was no rape.

LobselVith8 wrote...

The templars govern the Gallows and the Kirkwall Circle. I don't see how you can seperate the two.

This implies that there are no mages involved in the governence of a Circle.  The Ferelden Circle proves the opposite.  One cannot maket he claim that the Templars are the only reason for a psychological change without proof.  Especially since there are other factors that could be involved.

LobselVith8 wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

And technically, the Circle blew up the Chantry since mages of the Circle knew where Anders was located and refused to divulge it.

This isn't accurate. If Anders has a romance with Anders, it's his status as Champion that protects Anders as an apostate. Otherwise, it's still Anders as an apostate who is protected by Hawke because he can confront the Knight-Commander about the treatment of mages and she knows he's a mage. It boils down to the genocide of mages for something they are completely innocent of.

If Anders were not a part of a mage underground, I would agree.  Since he is, there are mages within the Circle that know of Anders existance and refuse to divulge his location.  They are as complicit as Hawke is in Anders' actions.  Even more so if Hawke had Anders' leave his party after the events in Act 2.

LobselVith8 wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

Justice is angry towards the templars based on Anders perception of the templars.  This does not mean that any statement Vengence and Anders says about them is true.  The anger is from what Anders experienced in Ferelden.  The lies are what he claims to see in Kirkwall, to justify his actions.

That's a long way to go to rationalize that Anders must be lying about everything instead of having valid reasons to despise the Chantry controlled Circles and the templars. I don't see why he would have made a deal with Justice if he was fabricating everything about the abuses that mages endure.

I am not rationalizing that Anders is lying about everything.  Anders/Vengence intermixes truth with lies.  Judgement is necissary to determine which is which.  You, however, seem to be rationalizing that Anders is lying about nothing. 

[Darth Krytie]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

I agree. Anders isn't imagining things. Anders anger at the Chantry (and decision to blow it up) isn't unfounded and isn't striking out at an innocent party.

And in Kirkwall, there actually are abuses. There actually are a lot more Tranquils in the Gallows. There are actual Templars who are bad. You witness it with your own eyes. It is a fact that the Chantry controls the Templars. They get them addicted to Lyrium and the Chantry controls the Lyrium trade. So, the Chantry is a big part of the problem.

The lyrium is what gives the templars their special anti-mage powers. Without the lyrium, the templars would just be normal soldiers (and thus unable to hunt down maleficars and abominations). It isn't as simple as reducing the Chantry to a drug cartel, because the templars perform a vital service for Thedas. Somebody has to hunt down the maleficar and abominations. Though I am not sure why Orzammar would particularly care why only the Chantry gets the lyrium...

I'm not saying that the Lyrium isn't needed, but when someone controls the very thing you're craving, they have great influence. The Chantry controls the very thing Templars are addcited to, ergo the Chantry can control the policy by which the Templars act.

[Red Panda]

Why save the mages? Well, none of them do anything bad, they're totally innocent. hahaha

Really, it's a matter of who who think

[AshenEndymion]

Darth Krytie wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Darth Krytie wrote...

I agree. Anders isn't imagining things. Anders anger at the Chantry (and decision to blow it up) isn't unfounded and isn't striking out at an innocent party.

And in Kirkwall, there actually are abuses. There actually are a lot more Tranquils in the Gallows. There are actual Templars who are bad. You witness it with your own eyes. It is a fact that the Chantry controls the Templars. They get them addicted to Lyrium and the Chantry controls the Lyrium trade. So, the Chantry is a big part of the problem.

The lyrium is what gives the templars their special anti-mage powers. Without the lyrium, the templars would just be normal soldiers (and thus unable to hunt down maleficars and abominations). It isn't as simple as reducing the Chantry to a drug cartel, because the templars perform a vital service for Thedas. Somebody has to hunt down the maleficar and abominations. Though I am not sure why Orzammar would particularly care why only the Chantry gets the lyrium...

I'm not saying that the Lyrium isn't needed, but when someone controls the very thing you're craving, they have great influence. The Chantry controls the very thing Templars are addcited to, ergo the Chantry can control the policy by which the Templars act.

There are only 3 viable alternatives, that I see.  Either no one controls the Lyrium, save the Templars themselves (not exactly appealing if one thinks the Templars are mostly evil with a few good people.  It seems fine if they are mostly good with a few bad apples.  Unless one of those apples gets control of a lyrium distribution center).  The mages control the Lyrium (hello Tivinter Imperium).  Or there are no Templars because the Lyrium is not taken from the Dwarves (hello Tivinter Imperium, pre-Andraste).

Unless you see some other option, Chantry control does not seem so bad considering the above alternatives.

[Darth Krytie]

AshenEndemion wrote...



There are only 3 viable alternatives, that I see.  Either no one controls the Lyrium, save the Templars themselves (not exactly appealing if one thinks the Templars are mostly evil with a few good people.  It seems fine if they are mostly good with a few bad apples.  Unless one of those apples gets control of a lyrium distribution center).  The mages control the Lyrium (hello Tivinter Imperium).  Or there are no Templars because the Lyrium is not taken from the Dwarves (hello Tivinter Imperium, pre-Andraste).

Unless you see some other option, Chantry control does not seem so bad considering the above alternatives.

I think if the Chantry, the Templars, and the Mages worked together and they had checks and balances to prevent abuses from some parties, made sure the mages got what they needed in education and guidance, and still protected the public from abominations, that would work. The way it is now is too unbalanced, leading to mages taking drastic measures (becoming the very thing Templars are trying to prevent) in the end.

[Kartikeya]

AshenEndemion wrote...

I am distrustful by nature.    This is why I am more apt to assume someone is not telling the truth if the only thing I have is their word. 
And the game uses the word rape.  Anders actively uses it in his accusations.  I understand that someone can be threatened with rape, and it not being specified as such.  I have even admitted that this is likely the case, with regards to Alric.  But why should I assume rape in the case of Alain/Karras?  When there is only Alain's word, and that word is sketchy, at best (he's not a blood mage, remember?).

Okay. Look. I'm kind've trying to avoid all the squicky squicky real like counterparts to this, but let me put it plain:

Ulric made a blatant threat of rape. Blatant. There really and truly is not another more likely interpretation. I'm usually open to oposing opinions, but no. Honestly, truly. Even if I were willing to entertain that Ulric somehow meant something else, his victim would not have taken it that way, and, quite frankly, I'm going to go with the potential rape victim over the potential rapist when it comes erring in judgment.

And despite what some popular media likes to say? People don't usually lie about being raped. On the contrary, so many go unreported because people are afraid they won't be believed (and quite often, they aren't). Withholding judgment is one thing. Assuming he's lying is another. And I have to ask...why would he lie? What could he possibly have to gain? In fact, listen to what he said. He said he was threatened with being made Tranquil if he told anyone. I'm fairly sure even if he was making it all up (because making up something that traumatic and humiliating when you don't seem to have any actual recourse for justice makes loads of sense) he certainly could get into huge amounts of trouble for insinuating a Templar did something like that.

AshenEndemion wrote...

If there are only 2 templars (out of say, 1000) accused, how can you say it is not isolated?  It isn't pervasive.  Nor a pattern of abuse by all, a majority, or even some templars.  That it would be allowed by other templars would be wrong... But that, again, assumes that other templars know of the events.

You're pulling numbers out of thin air. If those numbers were true, they'd be isolated. They're not. Hawke personally encounters Ulric (and all of those templars with him were complicit. This is Ulric. Infamously abusive. He's advocating the lobotomy of every mage ever, and blatantly threatening rape to a mage in front of all of them. If it was such a very very very rare thing, and one in which blind eyes were not often turned, why would he feel so secure in making this threat in front of them? Threatening to rape someone in front of police officers sounds pretty freaking stupid, doesn't it?), and gets a confession of sorts from Alain. Anders attests that he was lucky that it didn't happen to him, in a manner that suggests it's common enough (and Anders is from the Ferelden Circle, where the abuse is not nearly so bad). There are other rumors floating all over about this kind of thing. Bethany makes her comment...

That Hawke is not personally witness to it does not mean it did not happen. That Alain can't bring proof (what kind of proof is he going to have, anyway? This isn't CSI: Thedas) does not mean that he is lying. At what point do 'isolated incidents' stop being isolated? This does not, again, happen in a vaccuum. If it happens repeatedly, it's a pattern. If it happens repeatedly and is enabled (abuse is arguably encouraged by the Chantry's position on mages) by the same system put into place to 'control' mages, it's a pattern of abuse that the entire Circle system allows to continue. Do you really believe that there are only two bad Templars in the Templar order? In Kirkwall? People are, sadly, not that noble.

Besides, if there are only two...hell, if there's only ONE, why does it take a psychotic Fade spirit to get rid of him? Where on earth are his superiors? Where is his oversight? Why is there no disciplinary action taken? Why is a man who advocates the full lobotomy of every single person under his care allowed to still be in charge of these people? If some guy who ran a mental hospital sent a proposal to his boss and her boss about how it would be awesome to just kill all the patients and have done, and they left him in charge, then I would damn sure want their heads on a platter too when it came out.

I assume the other Templars knew this was going on because they did know it was going on. Meredith and the Grand Cleric both saw that proposal. It had to have been known outside of those two, because otherwise how would Anders have heard this rumor? There are other Templars with Ulric. How many incidents prior to this has Hawke not had the crazy luck of walking in on? They live in a secure facility on an island, people are all up in each other's business. Cullen is doubting. Thrask is outright going against everything Templars are supposed to do by helping mages escape and plot against Meredith, because the situation is that bad, and Thrask has other Templars with him doing the same thing. Did they all just drink crazy juice that morning and imagine it all? Is Ulrik still being a big bad isolated incident years after his death?

My contention is that there were a significant number (it does not have to be a majority, or even close to even) of Templars who were corrupt. Your contention is that no, they weren't corrupt, they were just amazingly stupid.

[LobselVith8]

AshenEndemion wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If he's referenced as a child by the hunters and not by a character who sees Merrill as her surrogate daughter, why would you assume that?

If he isn't referenced as a child by the Templars, why would you assume he is? Again, I don't take people at their word unless there is additional proof. And I never did see a child in the camp during Act 1.

The Dalish hunters called him a child. I don't see why we're debating this when they specifically addressed him as a child in the elven tounge. Since none of them are the matriarch of the Dalish clan, I don't see why you think they were being liberal with the term.

AshenEndemion wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Except he never tries to ask for Hawke to aid his escape. You seem to be coming up with a myraid of scenerios that don't address that a man is openly admitting that he's being raped by a templar.

You are mistaken. I accept that the possibility exists. I just do not believe the claim. But you seem to be refusing the possibility that there was no rape.

I'm refusing to immediately dismiss the possibility that there was no rape.

AshenEndemion wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The templars govern the Gallows and the Kirkwall Circle. I don't see how you can seperate the two.

This implies that there are no mages involved in the governence of a Circle. The Ferelden Circle proves the opposite. One cannot maket he claim that the Templars are the only reason for a psychological change without proof. Especially since there are other factors that could be involved.

The Ferelden Circle is acknowledged as the most liberal of the fourteen Circles in Thedas, and even there Irving had absolutely no say over the matter of Jowan or the situation at Ostagar because Greagoir was the one who was making the decisions, including saying no to the request made by the King of Ferelden. Considering how many characters address the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery, it's not an issue I'd contest.

AshenEndemion wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

This isn't accurate. If Anders has a romance with Anders, it's his status as Champion that protects Anders as an apostate. Otherwise, it's still Anders as an apostate who is protected by Hawke because he can confront the Knight-Commander about the treatment of mages and she knows he's a mage. It boils down to the genocide of mages for something they are completely innocent of.

If Anders were not a part of a mage underground, I would agree. Since he is, there are mages within the Circle that know of Anders existance and refuse to divulge his location. They are as complicit as Hawke is in Anders' actions. Even more so if Hawke had Anders' leave his party after the events in Act 2.

The genocide of innocent men, women, and children isn't excused simply because Anders is helping mages flee from slavery.

AshenEndemion wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

That's a long way to go to rationalize that Anders must be lying about everything instead of having valid reasons to despise the Chantry controlled Circles and the templars. I don't see why he would have made a deal with Justice if he was fabricating everything about the abuses that mages endure.

I am not rationalizing that Anders is lying about everything. Anders/Vengence intermixes truth with lies. Judgement is necissary to determine which is which. You, however, seem to be rationalizing that Anders is lying about nothing.

You're claiming he's lying about the injustices mages face even when we have a quest that addresses the contrary in "Dissent."

Modifié par LobselVith8, 02 avril 2011 - 02:28 .

[Kartikeya]

AshenEndemion wrote...

You are mistaken.  I accept that the possibility exists.  I just do not believe the claim. 

One of these things is not like the other.

[ddv.rsa]

LobselVith8 wrote...

 If Anders were not a part of a mage underground, I would agree. Since he is, there are mages within the Circle that know of Anders existance and refuse to divulge his location. They are as complicit as Hawke is in Anders' actions. Even more so if Hawke had Anders' leave his party after the events in Act 2.

The genocide of innocent men, women, and children isn't excused simply because Anders is helping mages flee from slavery.

There's no way of knowing how much help Anders received from mages within the Circle. He's certainly the most visible player in the plot, but I doubt he acted alone.

And I can understand why Meredith calls for the Rite of Annulment: at this point in the game the Circle is openly challenging the templars, the First Enchanter is involving himself in politics, and then just as Orsino is busy refusing a search of the Circle for blood mages the Chantry explodes. It is also known that the mages are forming illegal organizations and are in contact with apostates. Despite Orsino's protests there's every reason to think mages from the Circle were involved.

This is the kind of situation that has provoked annulments in the past, and (if you read the codex) why the rite was created in the first place. It has become impossible to isolate the troublemakers and distinguish the innocent from the guilty.

[AshenEndymion]

LobselVith8 wrote...

AshenEndemion wrote...

I am not rationalizing that Anders is lying about everything. Anders/Vengence intermixes truth with lies. Judgement is necissary to determine which is which. You, however, seem to be rationalizing that Anders is lying about nothing.

You're claiming he's lying about the injustices mages face even when we have a quest that addresses the contrary in "Dissent."

And yet, no injustices against mages are proven. Oh, an injustice against a single mage is. And injustices by a single Templar is. But the "Tranquil Solution" was proven to be nothing more than a deluded fantasy concocted by a madman. The Knight Commander and the Chantry turned down the Tranquil Solution. Dissent only proved that Anders does not have any real idea as to what is truly going on within the Circle of Kirkwall.

Kartikeya wrote...

My contention is that there were a significant number (it does not have to be a majority, or even close to even) of Templars who were corrupt. Your contention is that no, they weren't corrupt, they were just amazingly stupid.

Actually, yes. There are a few corrupt Templars (like Alric). But it is not a significant number of the order. And that is because the vast majority are stupid.

The mages of the Kirkwall Circle are headed by a maleficar for 7+ years, and the Templars of Kirkwall, the most suspicious and strict of the lot, do not even suspect it. The stupidity leaps to the extreme when large quantities of Circle mages turn out to be maleficarum. And still no one suspects the First Enchanter. If the idea is that there is mass corruption because a good number of Templars turn a blind eye to "injustices" (even one as large in scope as Alric), then the same amount of mass stupidity applies to the Templars who turn a blind eye towards the maleficarum who associated with Grace. More, actually. Since finding maleficarum and keeping the public safe from mages is their frakking job, not ensuring the safety of said mages.

Also, the idea that a maleficar could not lie, claiming abuses at the hands of templars in order to stir up sympathy and/or resentment (and shifting attention away from the fact that it is a maleficar making the accusation) is astounding to me...