1927 réponses à ce sujet

[ddv.rsa]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Kirkwall is "bound" to accomodate the templars because the last ruler who tried to expel them was murdered. It's the reason why Loghain and Maric contemplated removing the Chantry from Ferelden after the occupation (when they supported the Orlesian occupation for over a century), but decided against it.

The mages of Ferelden, like the other mages of the Circles across Thedas, wanted to no longer be slaves of the Chantry (and it's the argument Hawke can use to convince Fenris to side with the mages). I don't blame them.

Every Andrastian state must accomodate them, it goes with the religion. It's nothing against Kirkwall, every other nation in Thedas has them too.

As for the mages, they aren't actually  slaves or even servants. I'll quote Gaider:

David Gaider wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...
Forcing people into a life of imprisonment and slavery is punishment.  I am sure back when slavery was common in the real world there where a lot of slaves who where happy with their lot in life, as I am sure there where as many nice and pleasant masters as there where brutal and abusive ones, that doesnt mean that it wasnt a life forced on them with no choice of their own.

Imprisonment, sure, but I'm not sure you can equate the mages to being slaves. Their life is not their own, but they are not servants to anyone.

Not to mention the fact that the mages are not even allowed to love or have families, they are denied that right, if a relationship is discovered the mages are separated, and if a child is born in is taken from them.

Relationships are only discouraged because fraternization inside such a closed community can make things quite complicated. It's not technically forbidden, though marriages generally aren't allowed. As for families, that's discouraged for the same reason -- not least of which is that it makes the mage much more susceptible to demonic influence. Remember Connor? Manipulating someone through the people they care about is the oldest trick in the book for demons.

In my eyes its a very easy answer,and that answer is that it is punishment.

I'm certain that easy answers to complex problems can never go wrong. [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/wink.png[/smilie]

Incidentally, isn't this thread about Meredith? Or is this sort of debate the thing that's going to pop up simply because the templars have been invoked? Not that I mind, it's a decent discussion, but not particularly related to Meredith.

 

[IanPolaris]

Vormaerin wrote...

err, 'white coat syndrome' is a hypertensive response to visiting doctors. Its an anxiety disorder.

Er, it's also the innate tendency of people to follow orders by those in clear authority (i.e. those in white coats).  Study after study showed that good people are willing to commit acts including overt murder if someone in clear authority tells them to.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

I'm not going to bother to respond in line, I'll do it all here:

1.  In Ferelden, there is still a Grand Cleric to ask.  In Kirkwall, there isn't.  Different enough?

When there's a civil war and an outbreak of abominations, and the Knight-Commander of Ferelden can't make an exception to enact the Rite of Annulment? No.

TJPags wrote...

2.  Pure speculation on your part.

All you've provided is speculation that doesn't match up with the actual storyline. You're dictating your theory on the actions of a dictator who is ruling Kirkwall as the de facto Viscount. She's already breaking the law, and you think she isn't going to continue doing so?

TJPags wrote...

3.  You speculate she doesn't have the authority in this situation.  I speculate she does.  I read nothing that says "even if the entire Chantry hierarchy is wiped out by an terroist-abomination, the KC still isn't in charge".  And even if I did, don't argue based on codex entries - they're as fallible as epilogue slides, per DG.

When Greagoir clearly addresses that he's waiting for approval as the abominations have virtually taken over the Circle Tower, it doesn't require two different codex entries to show that he has no legal right to call for the Rite of Annulment.

TJPags wrote...

4. So, you argue that nobody argues it's illegal, because nobody cares about legalities, in the middle of trying to convince me its illegal?

She's already enacted a dictatorship over the city-state when it's illegal for the Knight-Commander to do so; she clearly isn't too concerned about the law.
 

TJPags wrote...

And stop - its not every man woman and child of the gallows - its the mage circle.  And I agree its wrong, only because they didn't do it.  But the question is not whether the Rite should have been called, but whether Meredith could do so.

You're wrong - it is every man, woman, and child of the Kirkwall Circle - all the denizens of the Gallows; all the mages.

TJPags wrote...

And on that point, you have nothing but your opinion and speculation to support it.  I have speculated she has the authority.  Stalemate.  Have a nice night, or call me when you have some actual evidence and we can resume.

All you've done is provided opinion and speculation that directly contradicts the storyline we have, and even Greagoir's past actions. Again, she had no right to call for the Rite of Annulment when she isn't the Grand Cleric. There's a difference between taking control of the situation, and going beyond the scope of your authority.

[ddv.rsa]

Btw, when did Maric and Loghain almost expel the Chantry?

[IanPolaris]

Yeah, that DG quote has been shot down ages ago. Especially in Kirkwall, Mages are essentially either slaves (if tranquil) or prisoners who are imprisoned for no fault of their own. Such acts are EVIL at least in western thought and societies (and Thedas certainly qualifies). The Chant of Light even forbids and condemns acts of agression against the innocent.

Andraste would never have approved of the circle system. We know this because it didn't even get established until centuries after her death and only because a nutty divine wanted to break up a magical worker's strike (see History of the Chantry).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

In the case of Kirkwall, all Meridith had to do was send a messenger to the Divine who certainly could act as Grand Cleric until she appointed a new one. After all a Divine IS a Grand Cleric. Meridith didn't even bother to justify not following Chantry law....and yes, Lob is right. Annulment means the slaughter of allmages, men, women, and children no matter what. That's why it's supposted to be of last resort and expressly a right NOT given to the Templars (not even the Knight Valiant in Val Royaleux).

-Polaris

[Mnemnosyne]

ddv.rsa wrote...

It can be argued that he had no business trying to expel the templars. Secular rulers have no authority over the Chantry, even in their own lands.

While this is to some degree true - although, if a ruler wanted to expel the Chantry and was confident in their ability to stand against any retaliation to that, both internal and external, that's their business - it seems reasonable to assume that the Chantry can't just set themselves up anywhere they damn well please.

The Viscount is therefore within his rights to for instance, expel the templars and the circle from the Gallows, telling them they need to establish the Circle outside the city walls.  This would actually be a pretty reasonable setup, since geographic separation seems to serve the Circle of Ferelden quite well.

[LobselVith8]

ddv.rsa wrote...

Every Andrastian state must accomodate them, it goes with the religion. It's nothing against Kirkwall, every other nation in Thedas has them too.

As for the mages, they aren't actually  slaves or even servants. I'll quote Gaider:

David Gaider provided no absolutes in that quote. We have information from Dragon Age 2 that addresses the idea that the Chantry controlled Circles are forcing mages into servitude, when we read about Adain:

"Adain of Starkhaven escaped from the Circle of Magi in the winter of 8:76 Blessed, the coldest winter that the Free Marches had seen in decades. He decided that it was better to die a free man than remain a servant to the Chantry and broke out of the Circle's stronghold, fleeing into an unforgiving blizzard."

There's also the dialogue written by writer Jennifer Hepler, who had Anders say that the Chantry controlled Circles were slavery and that mages are slaves:

Fenris: The moment they are free, mages will make themselves magisters.

Anders: They're slaves! You should want to help them.

Fenris: I don't.

You know who else can refer to the Chantry controlled Circles as servitude and slavery? Hawke.

[IanPolaris]

Koyasha wrote...

ddv.rsa wrote...

It can be argued that he had no business trying to expel the templars. Secular rulers have no authority over the Chantry, even in their own lands.

While this is to some degree true - although, if a ruler wanted to expel the Chantry and was confident in their ability to stand against any retaliation to that, both internal and external, that's their business - it seems reasonable to assume that the Chantry can't just set themselves up anywhere they damn well please.

The Viscount is therefore within his rights to for instance, expel the templars and the circle from the Gallows, telling them they need to establish the Circle outside the city walls.  This would actually be a pretty reasonable setup, since geographic separation seems to serve the Circle of Ferelden quite well.

Not only was the Viscount within his rights, but it's the safe and sane thing to do if you read the Enigma of Kirkwell entries. Putting a circle of magi untop of an old Tevinter ritual slaughter rite were the Veil is so thing that Demons can cross and possess/trick even non-mages (like Lady Harriman) is a stupid, stupid thing to do.  It's like opening up a children's centre on top of a toxic waste dump.  If the Templars actually cared about mages (which they didn't), they should have been happy to move to a place where the Vel was stronger.

-Polaris

[Rifneno]

IanPolaris wrote...

Again, since when is Lelianna of all people concerned that especially what happened in Fereldan (if you got Anora/Alister to free the circles) does she say rather snarkily that Kirkwall "can not be allowed to fall to magic" and equally snarkily says, "we have tolerated those that argued the circle should be seperated from the Chantry".

It makes we wish I had killed her in DAO.  Where does she come off when her BFF (and sometimes Lover) is a mage (and often a bloodmage?!?)   Especially when she cheers the Warden on in the post coranation (after asking the King to free the circle)?

-Polaris

I was wondering if I was the only one that wanted to scalp her for that.  Complete change from her character in DAO.  Then again, maybe not.  When she's giving her spiel about bards she talks about basically playing a role to get people to trust her.  Perhaps her whole time with the Warden is just an act.  In which case, I'll make sure dragon's blood isn't the bodily fluid she sees me put in Andraste's Urn next time.

TJPags wrote...

You say that with such certainty.  Based on what?  That the game doesn't tell us your scenario has happened before? 
 
I'd venture to say that the Chantry has a provision for the assassination of a Grand Cleric - as in, someone else takes charge until a new one is elected.

Nice idea, but there's nothing to justify it.

Are you familiar with "burden of proof?"  Because it falls on you.  YOU have nothing to justify YOUR claims.

ddv.rsa wrote...

It can be argued that he had no business trying to expel the templars. Secular rulers have no authority over the Chantry, even in their own lands.

Says who?  It's simply a matter of military might.  The reason he can't just toss them out isn't because there's some Thedas United Nations law on it, it's because they'd gather their army of zealots from various countries and attack Ferelden like the scum they are rather than acknowledging that people should have freedom of religion.

Modifié par Rifneno, 03 avril 2011 - 05:45 .

[Vormaerin]

IanPolaris wrote...

Somehow I don't see either King Alister or Queen Anora being very much impressed with what the dotty old Justina in Orlais thinks.  Unlike Kirkwall, the Templars got shown during the last blight (sometimes rather brutally if the old triggers are enabled) just who is in charge in Fereldan, and it's not the Templars and not the Chantry.  Indeed King Maric and Gen Loghain very nearly kicked the Chantry out on it's ear.  The Chantry is far less popular and has far less authority in Fereldan than perhaps any other Andrastian nation in part because Orlais is hated and the Chantry backed the hated Orlesian occupiers for far too long.

Once again, when did Lelianna get her anti-mage brain transplant?

-Polaris

Now you are just wandering off into imagination land.  We don't have any evidence that Justinia is "dotty".  If anything, she's considered too forgiving, not too authoritarian.  Second, you have zero information on what is going on in Fereldan over the last ten years.   Third, kicking out a religion is a lot harder said than done.   Smacking around the Templars is one thing.   Telling everyone they can't go to church anymore is entirely different.

Some of the most brutal wars in Europe were over religious matters and that was just trying to change one kind of Christianity for another.  Just booting it out without replacing it?   *snickers*  Right.  That's going to work.

Considering that mage boon only applies if you happened to play a mage who didn't die (a distinct minority of play throughs) and factor in that its not the reaction of the largely powerless King or Queen of Fereldan that matters there, but instead the Landsmeet and the hordes of rather devout looking freemen, your post is completely off the wall.

[IanPolaris]

Not only that, but if you've got Fenris at 50+ friendship, and you encounter him right before the first battle in the Gallows, you can ask him if he wants to side with slavery or not (paraphrasing). This will make Fenris switch sides (to the mages and you). Despite his anti-mage stance, at some deep level, evedn Fenris gets that the circle of magi outside the Imperium is little more than legal slavery.

-Polaris

[ddv.rsa]

LobselVith8 wrote...

David Gaider provided no absolutes in that quote. We have information from Dragon Age 2 that addresses the idea that the Chantry controlled Circles are forcing mages into servitude, when we read about Adain:

"Adain of Starkhaven escaped from the Circle of Magi in the winter of 8:76 Blessed, the coldest winter that the Free Marches had seen in decades. He decided that it was better to die a free man than remain a servant to the Chantry and broke out of the Circle's stronghold, fleeing into an unforgiving blizzard."

There's also the dialogue written by writer Jennifer Hepler, who had Anders say that the Chantry controlled Circles were slavery and that mages are slaves:

Fenris: The moment they are free, mages will make themselves magisters.

Anders: They're slaves! You should want to help them.

Fenris: I don't.

You know who else can refer to the Chantry controlled Circles as servitude and slavery? Hawke.

I have a hard time viewing mages as slaves. I'll concede that they're denied many rights and are imprisioned, but that doesn't neccessarily add up to slavery. They aren't engaged in forced labour. They can't be bought and sold. They  have certain rights and can't legally be abused. 

It just doesn't fit with what I learned about slavery in school.

[IanPolaris]

Vormaerin wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Somehow I don't see either King Alister or Queen Anora being very much impressed with what the dotty old Justina in Orlais thinks.  Unlike Kirkwall, the Templars got shown during the last blight (sometimes rather brutally if the old triggers are enabled) just who is in charge in Fereldan, and it's not the Templars and not the Chantry.  Indeed King Maric and Gen Loghain very nearly kicked the Chantry out on it's ear.  The Chantry is far less popular and has far less authority in Fereldan than perhaps any other Andrastian nation in part because Orlais is hated and the Chantry backed the hated Orlesian occupiers for far too long.

Once again, when did Lelianna get her anti-mage brain transplant?

-Polaris

Now you are just wandering off into imagination land.  We don't have any evidence that Justinia is "dotty".  If anything, she's considered too forgiving, not too authoritarian.  Second, you have zero information on what is going on in Fereldan over the last ten years.   Third, kicking out a religion is a lot harder said than done.   Smacking around the Templars is one thing.   Telling everyone they can't go to church anymore is entirely different.

If you read the Calling and other Dragon Age books, there was never the plan.  King Maric nor Gen Loghain ever imagined they would stop people from worshipping the Maker.  However, they coiuld outlaw all Templars, could say that the Chantry in Fereldan gets no state support and no state sanction, and that essentially the Chantry would have no legal status.  That CAN be done (and is done in parts of Rivain).  Fereldan would have become a giant version of Orzammar in that regard.

Some of the most brutal wars in Europe were over religious matters and that was just trying to change one kind of Christianity for another.  Just booting it out without replacing it?   *snickers*  Right.  That's going to work.

Denying the Chantry the status of state religion is not the same thing as saying the Chantry can't preach though.

Considering that mage boon only applies if you happened to play a mage who didn't die (a distinct minority of play throughs) and factor in that its not the reaction of the largely powerless King or Queen of Fereldan that matters there, but instead the Landsmeet and the hordes of rather devout looking freemen, your post is completely off the wall.

No it's not.  Even if the King (or Queen) didn't grant the boon, he STILL nationalizes all mages outside the circle (and says so openly) and it's this that draws Meridith's ire.  Even without the boon, Alister/Anora is staunchly pro-mage.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

ddv.rsa wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

David Gaider provided no absolutes in that quote. We have information from Dragon Age 2 that addresses the idea that the Chantry controlled Circles are forcing mages into servitude, when we read about Adain:

"Adain of Starkhaven escaped from the Circle of Magi in the winter of 8:76 Blessed, the coldest winter that the Free Marches had seen in decades. He decided that it was better to die a free man than remain a servant to the Chantry and broke out of the Circle's stronghold, fleeing into an unforgiving blizzard."

There's also the dialogue written by writer Jennifer Hepler, who had Anders say that the Chantry controlled Circles were slavery and that mages are slaves:

Fenris: The moment they are free, mages will make themselves magisters.

Anders: They're slaves! You should want to help them.

Fenris: I don't.

You know who else can refer to the Chantry controlled Circles as servitude and slavery? Hawke.

I have a hard time viewing mages as slaves. I'll concede that they're denied many rights and are imprisioned, but that doesn't neccessarily add up to slavery. They aren't engaged in forced labour. They can't be bought and sold. They  have certain rights and can't legally be abused. 

It just doesn't fit with what I learned about slavery in school.

You don't consider the Tranquil to be legalized slaves?  I do, especially when the Templars can turn any mage tranquil deserved or not and chantry law or not, for any reason including personal sex-slave.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Vormaerin wrote...

Now you are just wandering off into imagination land.  We don't have any evidence that Justinia is "dotty". 

 
Ian probably based that comment on how Justina V acts in Leliana's Song.

Vormaerin wrote...

Second, you have zero information on what is going on in Fereldan over the last ten years.  

King Alistair provides information about Ferelden when the Warden greets him at the Viscount's Keep.

Vormaerin wrote...

Third, kicking out a religion is a lot harder said than done.   Smacking around the Templars is one thing.   Telling everyone they can't go to church anymore is entirely different.

Dissolving the Chantry of Andraste when they supported an occupation that lead to the rape and murder of many Ferelden citizens over the course of a century doesn't mean preventing people from worshipping Andraste or the Maker.

Vormaerin wrote...

Considering that mage boon only applies if you happened to play a mage who didn't die (a distinct minority of play throughs) and factor in that its not the reaction of the largely powerless King or Queen of Fereldan that matters there, but instead the Landsmeet and the hordes of rather devout looking freemen, your post is completely off the wall.

Even if the Magi Warden wasn't imported, Alistair as King is protecting apostates from Meredith. He doesn't simply look out for the mages only if the Warden was specifically from the Circle of Ferelden.

No one Origin is canon; all of them are supposed to count. And we can factor the result of Dragon Age 2, where the mages rebelled against their oppressors and emancipated themselves. I'm certain that, given the rumors of Orlesian nobles wanting to take over Ferelden again, and the pro-mage stand of the rulers of Ferelden, that it's likely Ferelden would be one of the more stable nations in the aftermath of the mage revolution.

[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.

[LPPrince]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

Please relate this to the birthing process of qunari.

[Mnemnosyne]

Vormaerin wrote...

Considering that mage boon only applies if you happened to play a mage who didn't die (a distinct minority of play throughs) and factor in that its not the reaction of the largely powerless King or Queen of Fereldan that matters there, but instead the Landsmeet and the hordes of rather devout looking freemen, your post is completely off the wall.

It does apply, however.  In DA2 the bartender comments on it, stating that the Circle of Magi was given their autonomy.  If there was never any reference to that we could infer that it either never went through or the Chantry successfully blocked it from happening, but since it's referred to as something that has happened, it seems pretty clear it was taken into account.

To bring this around to Anders again somewhat, it does make me think - if the Circle in Ferelden gained its autonomy, Anders' actions throughout DA2 are thrown into a more crazy light, considering that at that point, the best thing to do would be to fully support the Circle's autonomy in Ferelden and make sure that no mages in Ferelden ever abuse that autonomy.  This would increase support for autonomous Circles elsewhere.  In this case, starting a mage/templar war is crazy since real progress has been made in a peaceful manner in Ferelden.

In this case, Anders is pretty much unjustified in doing anything, except helping mages escape Kirkwall and get to Ferelden where they'll be safe (and that only after being certain they're good mages).

[David Gaider]

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

I'm sorry-- what?

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

No one Origin is canon; all of them are supposed to count. And we can factor the result of Dragon Age 2, where the mages rebelled against their oppressors and emancipated themselves. I'm certain that, given the rumors of Orlesian nobles wanting to take over Ferelden again, and the pro-mage stand of the rulers of Ferelden, that it's likely Ferelden would be one of the more stable nations in the aftermath of the mage revolution.

Not only that, but I would be my bottom dollar that Alister/Anora is quietly and forcibly nationalizing all the out of circle mages and apostates to serve in the king's army.  I also an nearly as certain that (persuming King Bhelen is king which is the usual case), that the King/Queen is making covert but careful offers of friendship and alliance with Orzammar.

Given the nature of even the Templars in Fereldan's circle let alone the mages (who by and large are a fairly moderate bunch....many even openly condened the actions of Kirkwell's mages if you listen to the Banter during Witch-Hunt), I suspect that Fereldan will be a stable mage-haven during the civil war and I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Fereldan Templars agree to "nationalize' themselves and swear Fealty to Alister/Anora especially if it means being able to continue to do their jobs and supervise magic (and Alistair as an ex-templar knows full well that untrained and unregulated magic is dangerous).

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

David Gaider wrote...

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.

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

[ddv.rsa]

Templars illegally abusing their authority and the rite of tranquility doesn't make the circle slavery. Under normal circumstances they would be severely punished for it.

As for the tranquil, they aren't exactly forced to work in a plantation for hours on end while being whipped. Yes, they work, but why shouldn't they be engaged in some sort of productive enterprise? Most people are compelled to work for a living. And it's not like anyone is cashing-in off them.The money they earn is used to support the circle. The first enchanter even sets the prices!

[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?

Modifié par David Gaider, 03 avril 2011 - 05:54 .

[Camenae]

Does it even matter? If someone's using slaves then we should bomb and kill them all? Then shouldn't we start with the Tevinter Imperium rather than the Kirkwall Chantry, whose definition is at least still under controversy?

Once again, Do mages need freedom? and Is Anders justified?...NOT the same thing.