1927 réponses à ce sujet

[jlb524]

Foryou wrote...

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.

Yes.....yes...yes....

[LobselVith8]

Vormaerin wrote...

You are arguing that the status quo needs to be changed.  The burden of proof that you are producing a better system and not merely a different system is on you.

But I'll answer that.  In a properly functioning Circle, the KC reports to superiors elsewhere (Possibly the Grand Cleric possibly a Templar General or something).   So its possible to get redress of grievances, in theory.   Elthina can't or won't for some reason, but should.

If the First Enchanter is a tyrant, what are you going to do?  Who does he answer to?

So it's better to have a dictatorship under a religious institution that thinks mages are cursed? If the protagonist of DA3 has the possibility of providing a better system than the Chantry controlled Circles, I'd be welcome to explore the road that leads there.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 03 avril 2011 - 07:22 .

[Vormaerin]

IanPolaris wrote...



You are wrong about scientists, and I say that as Physicist.  Emotions and emotional insight is just as essential as careful calculation if you want to do good, groundbreaking science.  An utter tranquil-like person makes a terrible scientist.  Intuition depends on emotion.  Don't take my word.  Ask any repulable and well respected scientist and he'll almost certainly say the same.

-Polaris

Well, he's wrong except that your quote has nothing to do with his point.   Which is that Tranquil /can/ devise new methodologies, but only if presented with some reason to change the one they have.   You are right a great scientist will be creative and logical.   No one said Tranquil would be great scientists.   This is an argument by distraction, practically a strawman.

[Statulos]

IanPolaris wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

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.

You are wrong about scientists, and I say that as Physicist.  Emotions and emotional insight is just as essential as careful calculation if you want to do good, groundbreaking science.  An utter tranquil-like person makes a terrible scientist.  Intuition depends on emotion.  Don't take my word.  Ask any repulable and well respected scientist and he'll almost certainly say the same.

-Polaris

As an antrhopologist I will tell you that emotions are not a requirement to do good science. Paradigms are what makes science and shifting them or working on them is the key to progress. Insight does not have to be irrational and your words show a bias that sounds like the romantic conception of artist but applied to scientists.

[Leonia]

Given the subjective nature of the codex entries and continously being told by the writing team to take them with a grain of salt on their accuracy, it seems a bit silly to base an entire argument around the wording of a particular entry (or the absence of such wording). It also seems silly to ignore Word of God outright. Is this how all arguments run in these forums?

I see IanPolaris' posting style hasn't changed in months, you'd think he'd have found a new way to approach this debate by now. I wonder if he's a real life mage? Perhaps he ignored the portions of the game that didn't agree with his sensibilities and it is futile to try to make him see the truth.

Modifié par leonia42, 03 avril 2011 - 07:21 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

@ David Gaider

Would it be too much to ask for a clarification of what Varric meant by the Templars "abandoning the Chantry"?
It came up in another discussion about Anders and we reached an impasse vis a vis this. Or is too spoilery?

Thanks!

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 avril 2011 - 07:20 .

[KawaiiKatie]

David Gaider wrote...

A Tranquil would no doubt be happy to explain the difference...

If by "happy" you mean "calm, collected, and generally inclinded to oblige."

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

[Dave of Canada]

LobselVith8 wrote...

When did I call you a bigot who supports slavery? You realize I never said David Gaider's posts were pathetic? Do you even realize who you're addressing?

I know who I'm addressing. I'm talking in general about these arguments and how they work out, it's happened in the DA:O forum and the DA2 forum with the same posters both times and both dismissed arguments by calling people bigots and stuff.

Then you said it's okay because they have the " audacity to disagree". That isn't disagreeing, that's handwaiving an argument by trying to make the other person seem like the villain.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 03 avril 2011 - 07:24 .

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

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?

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).

-Polaris

[Oneiropolos]

Ian,

First, I respectfully point out that actually quite a few of the codex entries were written by Brother Genetivi. And we met him in DA:O and can even control what he does or doesn't tell people about. As a history major, the first thing we learn... at least if your professor is any good at all... is to be able to tell the bias from which the historical document is coming from. If you take Richard III for example, we have proof (in so much as anything can ever be proved historically, given that no one is still alive) that the historian of the king after him burned quite alot of documents and books that would not agree with his official history of England. Why? Because the Tudor family wanted certain things written about them and Ricard III had to look like a horrible, malicious bad guy who murdered his two nephews. And then this obscure fellow named Shakespeare wrote a whole play about an evil king who murdered his nephews and the rest... is POPULAR history. It's something I ended up writing around 300+ pages on over my years in college, and every single book I researched from..I had to stop and go "Is this a Ricardian or an anti-Ricardian? What facts are being presented and WHY?" Because no matter how you cut it, every writer has a bias. Every single person has a bias in this world. We can try to write as objectively as possible, but as it's been stated that the codex entries are written by people within the world of Thedas...they are informative, and certainly good to know, but they cannot be taken as hard fact. Most people would be shocked to hear how much of the history they are convinced of is not quite as clear as they think it is. History books for schools are some of the most notorious offenders. :/

Secondly, ignoring Codex entries, we also have the issue of Kirkwall being an independent city state. Just as Starkhaven has it's own royal family, the Viscount of Kirkwall one of the marks left over from the Tevinter Imperium.Since every, country has its own Grand Cleric , and Kirkwall is basically its own country, it's not the same as the issue we ran into in Fereldan. The Grand Cleric was in Denerim there, at the most important church, supposedly, and they were waiting for news. The circle itself, is actually not that near, unlike the situation in Kirkwall where the Grand Cleric is right there and present. Do chantry documents actually say "Look, if the grand Cleric meets a grisly end, you have to wait for the Divine even if your mages are rioting"? Because it seems like the most logical course to me that the Knight Commander would be able to make that call if necessary. Kinda like how the United Stated Government has a chain of leadership that ridiculously way down, but it ensures that if somehow all of the above on that list were knocked out of action, it still falls on SOMEONE'S shoulders.

EDIT: Also, on the page you linked it expressly says the information is "--From a guide for ambassadors from Rivain."
[/i]Do Ambassadors from Rivain need to know about the knight commanders if, presuming from the location it is found (within Brother Genetivi's house in Denerim) the chances of them running into them in Denerim is low considering Knight Commanders stay with the circle? 

Modifié par Oneiropolos, 03 avril 2011 - 07:30 .

[Camenae]

I think it's already been explained plenty why a codex entry might not be the gospel truth...

This one says "FROM A GUIDE FOR AMBASSADORS FROM RIVAIN."

As a scientist, don't you need to know how to evaluate the reliability of sources?

[LobselVith8]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I know who I'm addressing. I'm talking in general about these arguments and how they work out, it's happened in the DA:O forum and the DA2 forum with the same posters both times and both dismissed arguments by calling people bigots and stuff.

Then you said it's okay because they have the " audacity to disagree".

First, I don't call people "bigots and stuff." I've been called names and harrassed plenty of times by people who disagreed with me.

Second, I also don't see why you seem to intentionally be labelling actions another person took on me.

[IanPolaris]

Statulos wrote...

As an antrhopologist I will tell you that emotions are not a requirement to do good science. Paradigms are what makes science and shifting them or working on them is the key to progress. Insight does not have to be irrational and your words show a bias that sounds like the romantic conception of artist but applied to scientists.

Having worked along great, good, and frankly mediocre scientists, you are mistaken.  You probably use a lot more emotion in your work than you realize.  Most people (and not just scientists!) do.  In fact a good (esp great) theoretical scientist is nt all that far removed in some ways (not all to be sure) from an artist, and insignt in my very strong experience DOES seem grounded in emotion.  That doesn't mean that insight isalways irrational, but emotions while seldom rational are seldom completly irrational either.  You are grossly underetimating the drive that emotion gives to even our most mundane decisions such as what to have for lunch.  It's these little things that are critical in determining freewill.

-Polaris

[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.

Modifié par David Gaider, 03 avril 2011 - 07:31 .

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

I know who I'm addressing. I'm talking in general about these arguments and how they work out, it's happened in the DA:O forum and the DA2 forum with the same posters both times and both dismissed arguments by calling people bigots and stuff.

Then you said it's okay because they have the " audacity to disagree".

First, I don't call people "bigots and stuff." I've been called names and harrassed plenty of times by people who disagreed with me.

Second, I also don't see why you seem to intentionally be labelling actions another person took on me.

He's talking about me but doesn't have the cojones to outright say so.

-Polaris

[Leonia]

Camenae wrote...

I think it's already been explained plenty why a codex entry might not be the gospel truth...

This one says "FROM A GUIDE FOR AMBASSADORS FROM RIVAIN."

As a scientist, don't you need to know how to evaluate the reliability of sources?

A good scientist doesn't rely on one source of information and will make sure that the ones he does use are credible and of a high standard.

Time and time again we have been told that the codex is not to be taken as gospel truth, at the very least we should consider who the entry is written by and who the target audience is and even then we cannot be sure of its absolute validity.

Just because the templar command structure is not fully laid out in every gorey detail doesn't mean Word of God is contradicting HIS OWN STORY. Who you going to believe, some fictional historians or the man who, you know, is the lead writer?

Modifié par leonia42, 03 avril 2011 - 07:32 .

[Statulos]

IanPolaris wrote...

Statulos wrote...

As an antrhopologist I will tell you that emotions are not a requirement to do good science. Paradigms are what makes science and shifting them or working on them is the key to progress. Insight does not have to be irrational and your words show a bias that sounds like the romantic conception of artist but applied to scientists.

Having worked along great, good, and frankly mediocre scientists, you are mistaken.  You probably use a lot more emotion in your work than you realize.  Most people (and not just scientists!) do.  In fact a good (esp great) theoretical scientist is nt all that far removed in some ways (not all to be sure) from an artist, and insignt in my very strong experience DOES seem grounded in emotion.  That doesn't mean that insight isalways irrational, but emotions while seldom rational are seldom completly irrational either.  You are grossly underetimating the drive that emotion gives to even our most mundane decisions such as what to have for lunch.  It's these little things that are critical in determining freewill.

-Polaris

I cannot see the emotionality in the propositions of Thomas Khun, And that is, perhaps, the best explanation on how science works.

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...

He's talking about me but doesn't have the cojones to outright say so.

-Polaris

I am, you're just too busy arguing with Gaider.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 03 avril 2011 - 07:33 .

[IanPolaris]

David Gaider wrote...

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? 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.

DG,

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.

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.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

He's talking about me but doesn't have the cojones to outright say so.

-Polaris

I am, you're just too busy arguing with Gaider.

So I'm the elected delegate of the pro-mage side now?

[Vormaerin]

LobselVith8 wrote...



So it's better to have a dictatorship under a religious institution that thinks mages are cursed? If the protagonist of DA3 has the possibility of providing a better system than the Chantry controlled Circles, I'd be welcome to explore the road that leads there.

Better than what?  Give me a what or you have no argument.  Could a better system exist? Yes.  Is it likely?  I wouldn't think so, but there's a lot going on that we aren't aware of.

Besides, what makes you certain mages aren't cursed?  The ability to go insane pretty much guaranteed unless carefully trained not to is not exactly a blessing in most peoples' minds.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

You missed David's edit, Ian. He added that there's no Codex that says what happens when a Grand Cleric dies

[kegra]

Anders is a whining little chump.. i wish he died drinking darkspawn blood but now i have to settle with kicking him out of my team every playthrough oh and no .. he shouldnt have blown the chantry

[IanPolaris]

leonia42 wrote...

Just because the templar command structure is not fully laid out in every gorey detail doesn't mean Word of God is contradicting HIS OWN STORY. Who you going to believe, some fictional historians or the man who, you know, is the lead writer?

Except in this case he is.  DG just admitted that the Templars have their own parallel chain of command subservient to the Chantry.  Since it takes a member of the Clergy (specifically the Grand Cleric) to authorize a Rite of Annulment and since Templars don't fall into that chan of command (as I've shown) Meridith's acts were illegal.  She does that a lot actually.

-Polaris

[Leonia]

What was the Grand Cleric supposed to do to hold Meredith in check, chant her lungs out at her? The lady has a sword and an army at her back, the Cleric only has bunch of priests and lay-sisters/brothers to back her up. Regardless of the actual command structure, I don't think Elthina was in a good position to stand up to Meredith.

What good is the command structure when it is being completely ignored?

Modifié par leonia42, 03 avril 2011 - 07:40 .