24 odpowiedzi w tym temacie

[Foryou]

Okay say what you will about Anders blowing up the Chantery, but was Anders Justified for what he did even if it was wrong. I mean is he justified for blowing up the chantery. Due to him thinking that it was the only way to solve the Mage Templar Problem.
To be honest I think he is justified I mean he thought that the end would justify the means. To add on he took complete responsiblity for his action and didn't put up a fight when he confessed to what he did. He was fine with being killed as well.

[David Gaider]

The mages aren't slaves.

Some people might refer to them as such-- Anders, for one, though I don't know if he's the sort of supporting argument you want to use-- but I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that not being free and being a slave are different things.

They are definitely not free. In Kirkwall, they are tantamount to prisoners. According to the law of the Circle of Magi, they have a certain amount of rights if very limited personal freedom. How much those laws are respected will vary from tower to tower. Either way, however, they are not owned by the Chantry, nor are they forced into servitude (meaning they are not forced to perform work or any other service on the Chantry's behalf).

If someone wishes to see the Chantry as heartless oppressors, by all means-- there are many ways to interpret the situation, and that's intentional. If someone tries to argue that there are absolutes involved, or that anything we've written suggests there are, they're quite simply deluded-- not to put too fine a point on it.

[David Gaider]

LPPrince wrote...
Please relate this to the birthing process of qunari.

I'm sorry-- what?

[David Gaider]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Hawke, for another, can use the terms servitude and slavery to describe the Chantry controlled Circle.

Fair enough. And that means what, precisely, other than that Hawke-- who has never been part of the Circle-- has an opinion?

Użytkownik David Gaider edytował ten post 03 kwiecień 2011 - 05:54

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
Please explain to me, very carefully, how a tranquil mage isn't a slave.  I'm listening, ....but with prejudice since everything I know about slavery matches what is done to these lobomized mages (often illegally and aganst their will).  There is at least one reference to using such as sex-surrogates.

How is that not slavery?  If the Templars don't have to respect mage's rights then how can you honestly say that mages have any rghts?  We see very clearly that there is no viable and respectalbe force that makes Templars respect any mage's so-called rights.

So frankly, I find this response rather pathethic at best.

Pathetic?

Ooookay. I'll just simply suggest you look up a definition of slave and make an attempt not to mix it up with righteous indignation and imagined facts any more than you already are... and leave you to it.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Son of Malcolm Hawke, but fair enough. So
every codex and character that refers to servitude, servant, or slavery
in relation to the Chantry controlled Circles is wrong? I don't see why
characters and codex entries use the term if it's not supposed to be
applicable.

They're not wrong. They're opinions. Almost every codex entry is written as a point of view-- you can't start picking and choosing which ones are absolute facts when it suits you, that's all I'm saying.

Some people (nobody on this thread, clearly) are going to equate imprisonment and loss of freedom with slavery. As wrong as someone might think the oppression of mages is, it's not really slavery.

Użytkownik David Gaider edytował ten post 03 kwiecień 2011 - 06:01

[David Gaider]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I don't believe people on the thread equate loss of freedom with slavery. People are equating it with slavery because some codex entries reference mages preferring freedom over being a servant of the Chantry or being forced into servitude, not merely because of the lack of freedom. There's also the issue of tranquility, where we have Anders former lover Karl begging not to remain a "templar puppet" and there's a conversation where a tranquil mage openly says that only Cullen can command her.

Indeed, I would agree the Tranquil are the templars at their morally murky best.

I would say, however, that the situation of the Tranquil is not the situation of all mages. All mages are not Tranquil. There are many things that one could object to about the Circle -- the Rite of Tranquility being one of them-- and one could even be outraged about these things, but to say that all mages are slaves would be incorrect. Not unless one considers prisoners to be slaves.

As for that codex entry, I don't imagine he was referring to literal servitude. The Tranquil are put to work-- as a matter of convenience, because they have no other option (I wouldn't call it 'volunteering", per se) -- but mages are not. They don't perform a service for the Chantry except when called into war, and that's for a First Enchanter to decide. They are the advocates of the mages under their charge, an ombudsman if you will.

Does the system work? There are many reasons to say not at all-- and also many reasons to say that there's no good alternative. I only meant to clarify that there is no absolute, at least insofar as we ever intended to express... but some people evidently know our world better than we do. So there you go.

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
Tranquil are forced to work with all possibility of freewill (and thus objection) taken away?  By it's very defination, how is that not slavery?  It seems to be slavery to me (and I m not the only one).  I am just using words and their correct definitions is all.  I am not saying that all mages are slaves (but they are definately unjustly held prisoners), but involtunary tranquil certainly are.  {I say involtunary because a volunartary tranquile made a freewill decision that was meanful before becoming tranquil...see Orwain}

Words have meanings.

The Tranquil are not forced to do anything. They are free to leave the Circle, as they are no longer mages. They remain because they have no other life, and the world beyond the Circle would hardly be welcoming to someone like them-- and would probably not distinguish between "mage" and "ex-mage" anyhow. They can serve in a useful capacity in the Circle and live comfortably, so they do so.

The fact they were made that way by the Circle-- yes, that makes the definition of "forced" rather murky. But they are no longer prisoners, even if the mages themselves are.

If you're not saying that all mages are slaves, that's good-- because it did seem like you were using the argument interchangeably.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Aren't the mages venturing into an
alternative to Chantry control with the continential revolution of the
Circles of Magi?

"Continental revolution"? You might be getting ahead of yourself, there.

As for an alternative, sure-- the alternative is anarchy and warfare. Everyone involved knows that's the alternative. If there's something else on the table, we certainly haven't broached the subject just yet.

Użytkownik David Gaider edytował ten post 03 kwiecień 2011 - 06:34

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
if Meridith doesn't call for an ILLEGAL Rite of Annulment, there still could have been peace

Sorry-- how is Meredith's invocation illegal, exactly?

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
I'm sorry but that doesn't fly.  You can not remove a person's emotions and therefor their desire to be free (or even potential desire to be free) and then say that they are free not to obey.  Tranquil must obey unless told explicitly by higher authority not to because the emotional context that permits freewill is removed.  Calling tranquil free is a bitter joke.  They are as free to disobey as your IPod....and that makes them slaves.

If you wish. You're the one who claimed they were forced to stay-- I'm simply telling you they're not. They're free to go, and some in fact do if there's a logical place for them elsewhere (which is rare). They're certainly not blind to the fact that the world would not welcome them. I'm also not sure how you equate the loss of emotion with the loss of free will. If the Tranquil saw a reason not to follow an order, they would do so. They are not automotons.

Użytkownik David Gaider edytował ten post 03 kwiecień 2011 - 06:55

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
Meridith is not a member of the Chantry Clergy and certainly not the Grand Cleric.  She had no more right to declare a Right of Annulment than KCGregoire did (under far more dire conditions).  She was obligated to seek permission from Divine Justina in absence of a local Grand Cleric,

And you decided this when, exactly?

A Knight-Commander is second-in-command next to the Grand Cleric. With Elthina's death, Meredith was legally in command of the Kirkwall Chantry-- such as it was, and certainly in the absence of any ranking Revered Mother or the Divine herself. Cullen's objection was not that her invocation of the Rite was illegal, it was that it was unjustified.

Użytkownik David Gaider edytował ten post 03 kwiecień 2011 - 07:00

[David Gaider]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Also, without creativity I'm dubious that the Formari would have ever been able to discover how to create half the magical items/runes/mabari they do.

The subject of creativity with regards to Tranquil is an interesting one. There are all sorts of assumptions that people-- such as Templars-- make about Tranquil that are very likely quite off base. A Tranquil would no doubt be happy to explain the difference, if anyone cared to ask them. Few do.

Tranquil can be creative-- insofar as a very logical scientist might be. They pursue a means to an end, and are capable of coming up with alternate solutions to problems. They are, however, methodical to a fault. They will pursue the most reasonable solution at hand until it proves inviable. They will not change their methods or seek to create something different unless there is a clear reason to. They are not taken by inspiration, and some might say what they lack is intuition or the ability to act on hunches. The fact that they do not get bored and take no pleasure out creating (other than a certain satisfaction that comes from a task well-performed) takes much of the impetus away for them to change what they do. Some would mistake this for a lack of free will. Perhaps some day they will be surprised to learn how very wrong they are.

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
Since when?  It was always my understanding (based on what KC Gregoire says in DAO in a much more dire situation in the middle of a civil war where he is out of contact with the Grand Cleric) that the Templars don't have that authority and AREN'T in the Chantry chain of command at all.  Your own codex entries regarding the structure of the chantry also denies what you just posted, so please explain again why all these prior lore and codex entries are wrong?

Sigh.

Greagoir is out of contact with the Grand Cleric. He has no reason to believe she is dead or had no successor.

As for the chain of command, this relates to who is in command of the Circle of Magi specifically. The hierarchy of the Chantry itself is its own, separate structure-- as the codex would explain. I'm pretty certain it does not, however, go into this particular instance. Unless you care to point me to which particular codex I'm contradicting?

LobselVith8 wrote...
Definitions were provided in support of
such a term being used, specifically when we're hearing characters say
the tranquil have no agency in DA2. The language explicitly said in
Dissent and what we hear from the tranquil mage in the Gallows about
being commanded by Cullen, along with the what's said by the main
character, other characters, what we hear from the templars, and what we
read from the codex entries in both installments. It's hardly foolish
to base an argument on the evidence provided.

Look at the codex entries being linked to regarding the Tranquil on the last page or two alone. They say different things. They don't contradict-- they are perspectives based on who's talking. A great number of people don't really understand what the Tranquil are about, and there's no reason for us to explore it further in-game-- yet. If we did, we would have a reason to expound on the topic. Otherwise, it's not something we would do just to provide fodder for forum arguments.

Użytkownik David Gaider edytował ten post 03 kwiecień 2011 - 07:23

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
You are contradicing this codex entry:

http://dragonage.wik...antry_Hierarchy

It clearly talks about the Clerical Chain of command from top to bottom, and guess what?  There isn't a Knight Commander listed anywhere.  This is of course no suprise since the Chantry restricts the Cleric to women only (at least with any authority) in honor of Andraste and many Templars (including Knight Commanders) are men.

The Templar has (by your own blog entries regarding them) their own parallel chain of command subservient to the Chantry headed by the Knight Vigilant.

Yes, you can retcon your own game, but  based on the game lore, Meridith's action was illegal (and so were a lot of her actions in Acts 2 and 3) as you well know (and Grand Cleric Elthina did nothing about them).

Right.

And where in that codex entry does it say who commands the Circle of Magi? Or who holds the authority to invoke the Rite of Annulment? Or what happens when a Grand Cleric dies? It talks about the heirarchy of the Chantry itself, which the templars are not part of but rather adjacent to.

You are drawing inferences that are not explicitly stated, and deciding they are facts. Then, when I tell you there's more to it than that, you say I'm contradicting something you yourself decided. You're wrong. Please deal with it.

Użytkownik David Gaider edytował ten post 03 kwiecień 2011 - 07:31

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
There are other codex entries (specifically dealing with the Rite of Annulment) that clearly state that that the Grand Cleric (not any Templar parallel rank but the GRAND CLERIC) is the only one that has the authority to issue a Rite of Annulment.  Since you can't tell me where KC Meridith falls in the Chantry Chain of Command (and you admit that she doesn't), then you are contradicting your own game lore....and common sense.

Perhaps you mean dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Codex_entry:_The_Rite_of_Annulment?

The one that says Grand Clerics have the authority to issue a Rite of Annulment, but which doesn't say what happens when a Grand Cleric dies? Or what rights a Knight-Commander possesses? And there is no "chain of command"-- that codex defined the heirarchy of a religious order, not a military unit. A religious order that is part of a fantasy world, and one where "common sense" -- especially the brand you've been peddling -- need not apply.

Let me ask you this:  If a KC can do whatever they like (as long as they can remove the Grand Cleric first), then are there any meaningful checks to Templar power at all?

I don't think so.

I'm sorry, am I in the position of defending the templars, now? You're going to sit there with your arms crossed because the fanfic you got going in your head makes more sense to you? To answer your question: yes, I imagine in a theoretical world if a Knight-Commander could conspire to remove a Grand Cleric, and also keep any clear successor from manifesting, they would be able to do as they please with the Circle of Magi-- subject to scrutiny once the Divine got wind of it, no doubt. Or does the possibility of political scheming make no sense to you? Shall I go into the intricacies of authority between the Grand Clerics and the Divine, as well? Or did the fact such things are not all explicitly laid out mean you've decided how it works already?

If you wish to ask for clarification, do so. Otherwise, I'd suggest you maintain the notion that you are speculating, and basing at least part of that speculation on the opinions of in-world characters (vis a vis the codex or not). You are free to draw what judgements from that you wish-- whether it be that the templars are a horribly corrupt organization or what have you. We have intentionally left that part of the page blank.

Enjoy.

[David Gaider]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Maybe we should take the opportunity to ask David Gaider why Leliana seemed to take such a harsh view of magic and mages as Sister Nightingale since the thread derailed from the topic of Anders being Justified?

Hm? Which harsh view of magic and mages is this?

[David Gaider]

AlexXIV wrote...
I am not so much concerned about change of lore, but more about having a skewed view on morality. I mean if you say say tranquility is fine, then there is a small step to actually saying slavery is fine. And then maybe everything else is also fine.

I must have missed a step-- I think rape and murder is fine? Slavery is fine? When did I say these things?

Is K-Mart having a fire sale on reductio ad absurdum? What's the deal?

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
When you meed "Sister Nightengale"/Lelianna, she overtly says that the world is watching and Kirkwall must "not be allowd to fall to magic" (a phraseology you normally hear from only the most hard-core templars).

Why? Would Kirkwall falling be a good thing in any instance? Would it be better if she said "Kirkwall must not be allowed to fall... but if it falls by magic, I guess that would be okay."?

If Alistair/Anora granted the mages boon, she adds especially after what happened in Fereldan.

Well, what happened in Ferelden? Do you know?

She goes on to say rather snarkily IMHO, that the chantry has always "tolerated those that wanted to be free of the chantry" but the resolutionsists have taken it a step farther.

Haven't they?

She sounds pretty hard-core anti-mage to me and completly unlike the BFF (and sometimes lover) of mages in DAO.

So after killing a group of Resolutionists out to kill her, she wasn't sufficiently sympathetic? She specifically stated that a peaceful compromise wasn't a good idea? Perhaps she should have mused more on how silly the whole thing was, maybe sang a song?

I dunno. I'm at a loss.

[David Gaider]

AlexXIV wrote...
Well you are defending the chantry for making mages tranquil, or are you not?

When did I do this?

[David Gaider]

Camenae wrote...
He's saying that because you said "Mages/Tranquil mages aren't slaves" that means you think slavery is okay. 

Really? Just the lack of slavery is an endorsement? The fact that they are oppressed and virtual prisoners isn't bad enough in and of itself?

[David Gaider]

AlexXIV wrote...
Well I thought I read it between the lines, but I could probably have read it wrong. In which case I apologize.

No worries. You threw me for a loop there-- I almost thought I'd maybe called the Qunari "Islamic borg" again by accident. And I don't want to do that.

The whole deal with saying they are free, just stripped of the desire to use their freedom. And they can be creative, if there was a logical reason kinda sounded like an excuse for me. I mean one can't take people's motivation to do something and then say 'Well they could do it, if they had any motivation'. I mean, you can say that, but that's not right in my eyes.

Ah. No, I'm not saying it's right. The question was regarding whether or not they were forced to stay in the Circle of Magi-- and my answer was no, they were not. If you read what I wrote, I did say that "forced" becomes a bit murky since they are more or less stripped of their capacity to form anything other than a logical opinion, but they stay primarily because it's logical: they're welcome nowhere else and can serve in a productive capacity.

There are, however, all sorts of reasons to consider the Rite of Tranquility abhorrent... and the Tranquil as an embarassing reminder of an inadequate solution. They are not, however, objects. They do not wish to die, and to many that alone would mean that Tranquility is a better option than execution... which, let's face it, would be the templars' only solution remaining to them. But that's an entirely different argument.

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
First of all, I apologize for snapping at you.  You do write the lore and your word is official.  I disagree with the continuity and legality issues, but it's your call tomake and I was out of line.

Fair enough.

Now, hopefully on a more positive note, let me explain where and why I got my impressions because I fear we may be talking past each other.  I really (along with others) would really like to know if Lelianna has changed and if so why...and how much of her words were hers and how much were Divine Justina's.  With that, I'll respond point by point.

Just a caution that I'm only going to answer evasively. There are lots of explanations regarding Leliana that you are meant to be curious about, and which I'm not going to spoil by waxing eloquent on the forums.

In the first point, given that the extra line only happens if your Warden freed the Fereldan circle (and King Alistair doesn't indicate anything to the contrary when you meet him...and neither does Queen Anora), it seems logical and reasonable to presume she's directly refering to the warden boon....or is there something else we don't know about?  [I can only go with what's presented in the game]

There's something else you don't know about.

They have, but that wasn't the snarky part I am talking about.  Lelianna seems to be talking about chantry control over mages and magic as though it were divine right....and that's completely contrary to the Lelianna I remember talking with my mage warden, or even her byplay with Wynne or even Morrigan (who she didn't especially like but never treated with this sort of IMHO off-hand contempt).

I think you're reading into it. What she's probably talking about is the mages forcing their freedom. Unpleasantness could follow-- for everyone-- regardless of whether the mages try to set up Tevinter Imperium mark 2 (whatever that might be). Some people have an odd idea of the Tevinter Imperium being a haven for mages, but if you think that I'd suggest exploring some of  Fenris's dialogues on the subject for a first-hand account of why that might not be so... and why even Leliana might not think it's keen.

Yet during the metastoryline, Lelianna's (apparent) number 2 woman (Cassandra) is desperately trying to find the Champion to find the peaceful solution?  Something seems out of joint here which is why I am asking as politely as I can.

Yep. Sounds like there's a story there.

Użytkownik David Gaider edytował ten post 03 kwiecień 2011 - 09:02

[David Gaider]

Lucy_Glitter wrote...
Don't forget the classic, "You think Miranda is barren, so you obviously hate Miranda and her fandom and want her to die."

Let's not forget "Grey Wardens can't have children" = "you hate all women and kill puppies."

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
I can buy that for a nickle except in DAO when we find an abomination (Mages' circle) draining lifeforce from Tranquil (and making them into shades) we see no sign of them yelling or struggling.  It seems that if they do desire to survive, they are very, very detched from it at best

That's the function of a shade being a demon of Sloth and not a function of a Tranquil being too passive to resist.

Unless the Dalish have it completely wrong (and I would not bet against a Dalish Keeper when it comes to magic) tranquility seems to involve KILLING the soul of a person in the fade which seems to argue (if you believe that the soul....if you accept such things and the game clearly does...houses freewill) that Tranquil really don't have freewill, or an I reading too much into Keeper Merethari's(sp?) words?

I think you can take that as more of a philosophical viewpoint-- as any discussion of the soul would be.

[David Gaider]

Persephone wrote...
Well, I read "Grey Wardens can't have children" and immediately think of the many kids the Warden & Alistair end up having the realm of fan fiction.

Trust me. There is no sin more unforgivable than the contravention of already-written fanfiction.

[David Gaider]

IanPolaris wrote...
OK moving on then I think we can agree with Knight Captain Cullen that per WoG, Meridith's Rite of Annulment was legal (barely) but hardly justied.  Personaly I think that alone cost Meridith the loyalty of most of her Templars when it matters most in confronting the Champion...assuming a pro-mage ending.  If you side with the mages and/or are a mage, Meridith is perfectly and legally justified in calling for your execution but the Templars won't do it even if you are a mage defending the circle.  IMHO it's because most of the Templars know what Varric baldly states to Cassanda.  You were protecting the mages aginst a gross injustice....THEIR injustice...and they know it.

Oh, absolutely. Just because something is legal does not necessarily make it right or moral. I suspect what Cullen would have argued, given the chance, was that the Divine would never have agreed to the Rite of Annulment in this case. Anyone, even a Grand Cleric, would still be responsible for their actions in calling such a desperate measure after the fact.

I was referring to her lines about how the Chantry "tolerated" fraternties that wanted to seperate from the Chantry as though it were the Chantry's divine right to do so.  Also Lelianna got to see first hand what a mess Templar/Chantry oversight did the the circle and how it helped fuel Uldred's rebellion (even to the impassioned plea by  captured bloodmage) and in DAO Lelianna seemed sympathetic....VERY sypathetic to the point of arguing the point with ex-templar Alistair.  No so anymore, and I don't think I'm the only one that noticed the change.  Again perhaps there is more to this than meets the eye.

I think you can see with Anders how very frustrating it might be to deal with mages trying to force a separation even if the act is self-destructive-- in her opinion. As to whether Leliana's viewpoint has changed in the intervening years, that is something that will have to remain unknown for now. I think it's a bit much to judge her on, but I guess everyone will have to wait to find out more.