1207 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

Addai67 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

What does that have to do with anything?  I'm talking about the method you use to go about changing what you want to see changed.  How are you going to carry out a violent war against something that is ingrained in many, many people's minds, something which is part of their religious belief?  What's the plan for that?

No, you said "As for the whole happy "well it won't be another Tevinter," how do you know that?"  I'm answering.  The burden of proof is on you, not us.

There's no "burden of proof" for future events.  But like I've been saying, let's start with the fact that the mage overlords began their new world order in violent jihad, and go from there.

One occurrence does not equal a trend.  If you had two or three examples, sure, you might have a point, but as it stands, you don't.  There is no basis on which to believe the rise of another magocracy is inevitable.  Especially given the general flavor of Andrastianism outside of Tevinter.  Even mages who want to be free are still likely to be religious to some degree or other, which means that will inform their general outlook.  Yes, Tevinter itself is Andrastian, although of a completely different sort than elsewhere in Thedas, but they also had a pre-existing history to which they shaped the new religion.  Nations outside of the Imperium have lived under a specific flavor of Andrastianism for a millenium without the background of Tevinter to (re)shape it.

[Mirthadrond]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I agree that the storyline was bad - from the lack of agency and control Hawke had, to everyone holding the Idiot Ball. Orsino becoming a Harvester for no reason, Meredith becoming a Super-Saiyan, and Hawke being reactive to such heights that he felt more like a caricature than a character.

I just finished 'replaying' the ending with my mage, except this time I went with the Templars.

Very different battle.  Now my character killed regular mages, they dont all appear to be blood mages.  I also got a piece of dialog from Fenris, who warns me that they will likely resort to blood magic in desperation.

Orisor (head mage, however his name is spelled) also declares that he's 'never' used blood magic before, until this moment.  Though he did protect that douche who killed my mother, so he needed to die anyway.

It made A LOT more sense for him to turn into a Harvester in desperation, knowing I'm on his door step about to come kill him.
It makes NO sense when I'm fighting at his side, we are winning, and he resorts to blood magic.  That just made me think he was evil all along, I just didn't know it.

[Addai]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
If in a thousand years the idea has not even gained sufficient momentum that your clergy are aware of it, I see it being utter madness to assume a rapid turnaround on that issue is particularly likely.

Sebastian's not the sharpest tool in the shed.  I'm not going to justify blowing up a building based on him any more than on Anders' tenuous grasp on reality.

I also never said there would be a "rapid turnaround."  It still does not justify acts of mass terror.  Nothing does, really, so the discussion is only bound to go in circles- as it usually does.

Modifié par Addai67, 31 mai 2011 - 09:13 .

[Silfren]

Addai67 wrote...

Queen-Of-Stuff wrote...

Why do you keep calling them 'mage overlords'? There is no reason to think that freeing mages will lead to a magocracy when there is no cultural basis for one in any of the other countries outside of Tevinter. What Anders and co want is freedom from the Circle. If this revolution leads to that remains to be seen.

And what if the population isn't compliant?  They're going to have to enforce these new rules somehow.

For lack of a better real world example, look at the American Civil War and the resulting fall out between North and South.  The purpose of the war was to put an end to slavery--without getting into the debate over whether that was the "real" reason or some other nonsense--and the South wasn't having it.  And things were bloody, very bloody for a while, because even after the war and the official end of slavery, slavery in practical terms existed for some time afterward.  Not to mention the other problems that came of the federal government having to force the South, often with brutal measures, to comply with the new laws, to varying degrees of effect.

I don't think anyone in the pro-mage camp believes that things could, much less will, end with minimal bloodshed and as little destruction as possible, with everyone suddenly holding hands and singing kum-ba-ya.  Change is never easy, especially when what's being changed is a cultural tradition that stretches back for a thousand years.  People like to hold up Gandhi as the pinnacle of a bloodless revolution, without understanding that that kind of thing is exceedingly rare for a reason.  Gandhi's revolution was successful as much because of WHO they were fighting against as their methods.  I assure you, Gandhi's peaceful means would not have persevered against, say, Stalin.  

Getting back on point, yes, things are likely to be rocky for a good while, and it's very likely that a government in favor of mage freedom--King Alistair of Ferelden, for example--would have to step in and force the issue.  The question isn't really about whether the initial phase of mages living free will require a heavy-handed approach in order to force the general population to comply, but whether, if you believe mages deserve the right to live as freely as other persons, the ends justify the means.  Personally, I think they do.

[Addai]

Silfren wrote...
One occurrence does not equal a trend.  If you had two or three examples, sure, you might have a point, but as it stands, you don't. 

Well, let's see.  Mages also rule in Dalish society and in Rivain.  That's three.  Where mage power is respected rather than seen as a curse, mages are at the top of the pecking order.

You're going to at least need mages co-ruling, in order to enforce the new standards on a (likely) unwilling public.

Modifié par Addai67, 31 mai 2011 - 09:15 .

[Silfren]

AndreaDraco wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
[...] Grand Cleric Elthina didn't do anything even when Hawke presented her with evidence of wrong-doing.

There's more. She was a slothful, pusillanimous coward who, de facto, by doing absolutely nothing but sitting on her hands and telling herself that everything was the Maker's will, allowed Meredith and her zealots to run Kirkwall as they pleased, torturing and enslaving the Mages.

For this reason, why I wouldn't have chosen his course of action, I understand why Anders did what he did. His is an act of revolution and, appropriately, he struck the very symbol of Kirkwall's immobilism.

I love you just for using a term guaranteed to send at least a few forumites running for their dictionaries. Pusillanimous FTW!

[Silfren]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

They should raze the city, and then do something to the cliffs along the channel, so that there's no impetus to ever try to rebuild. Maybe it's for the best that Seb's gonna raze Kirkwall.

Nah.  He'll put a post on a Chanter's board in Tantervale asking someone else to do it for him.

[GavrielKay]

Addai67 wrote...

Silfren wrote...
One occurrence does not equal a trend.  If you had two or three examples, sure, you might have a point, but as it stands, you don't. 

Well, let's see.  Mages also rule in Dalish society and in Rivain.  That's three.  Where mage power is respected rather than seen as a curse, mages are at the top of the pecking order.

You're going to at least need mages co-ruling, in order to enforce the new standards on a (likely) unwilling public.

Mages ruling isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Certainly the Tevinter version seems pretty lousy, but that's just one version.  The Dalish seem quite happy to trust their lives to their Keeper.  I don't think mages ruling is at all inevitable, but even if it were to happen, it isn't in and of itself a bad thing.  The Chantry keeping Thedas in a state of fear and backwards technology is at least as bad.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Addai67 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
If in a thousand years the idea has not even gained sufficient momentum that your clergy are aware of it, I see it being utter madness to assume a rapid turnaround on that issue is particularly likely.

Sebastian's not the sharpest tool in the shed.  I'm not going to justify blowing up a building based on him any more than on Anders' tenuous grasp on reality.

I also never said there would be a "rapid turnaround."  It still does not justify acts of mass terror.  Nothing does, really, so the discussion is only bound to go in circles- as it usually does.

Indeed, especially if you refer to a single act of terrorism as "mass terror," and say that nothing could justify such a thing, as I disagree with both those things.

Let's say that tomorrow, Ferelden is invaded by Tevinter. Two years later, there is no more Ferelden government, all cities are ruled by Tevinter magisters. Now let's say that Hawke and his crew blow up the Tevinter senate's offices in Ferelden. I'd say that was completely and totally justified, but I'd also say that it's an act of terrorism, which would probably kill quite a few innocent Imperial citizens and slaves in the blast. It would be an act intended to show the Tevinter imperium that we will not all become slaves, but if it was just Hawke deciding to do it, it would still be terrorism. Still, if I could kill the majority of the Tevinter Magisters who exist in one fell swoop, I would not hesitate simply because I was not authorized to do so by a currently existing governing body. I'd just kill 'em. Because they're slave-owning, blood-magic-using, mass-murdering jerks.

An act of terrorism is very different when you are acting against a police state. The problem is that Fascism isn't a modern bogeyman, and terrorism is, so people aren't actually afraid of  fascism anymore. If you read a lot of old 50s and 60s SF novels, you'll see a lot of protagonists committing terrorism against fascists, because we were more scared of fascism than terrorism, back then. The fear pendulum has swung again, now, though. V for Vendetta is the closest we've gotten in modern times, to a story about terrorism overcoming fascism, and I'd say that Anders is actually less morally grey than V, who is a crazy mofo. (Seriously, you think ANDERS is crazy? Hahahah. Read that friggin comic.)

Another example: blowing up the Death Star is borderline terrorism. It isn't quite there, because some of the people involved in the planning are members of a formal government (if a currently disempowered one). But if Han and Luke had just said "let's blow up this Death Star thing, yeah?" one day, it would have been terrorism. It would not, however, have been inherently wrong.

Addai67 wrote...

Silfren wrote...
One occurrence does not equal a trend.  If you had two or three examples, sure, you might have a point, but as it stands, you don't. 

Well, let's see.  Mages also rule in Dalish society and in Rivain.  That's three.  Where mage power is respected rather than seen as a curse, mages are at the top of the pecking order.

You're going to at least need mages co-ruling, in order to enforce the new standards on a (likely) unwilling public.

It's explicitly stated by the Dalish that the Keepers do not rule, no more than a mother can be said to rule over her children. And I have found absolutely no evidence that they rule in Rivain, either. The seers are revered, but it is not the same thing. In other societies, the strongest warriors are revered, or the best scholars, or what-have-you. So both your other examples are explicitly contradicted by lore, unless you can show me some citations I'm missing (I've checked the codex entries and wiki articles for both.)

Being revered =/= ruling.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 31 mai 2011 - 10:39 .

[Addai]

GavrielKay wrote...
Mages ruling isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Certainly the Tevinter version seems pretty lousy, but that's just one version.  The Dalish seem quite happy to trust their lives to their Keeper.  I don't think mages ruling is at all inevitable, but even if it were to happen, it isn't in and of itself a bad thing.  The Chantry keeping Thedas in a state of fear and backwards technology is at least as bad.

I didn't say that I thought it was.  I played mostly mages and Dalish PCs in Origins.  But, a fair number of Andrastians probably will, especially if that takeover is violent.  They would say that the Chantry having political power is not necessarily a bad thing, either.

[Addai]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
An act of terrorism is very different when you are acting against a police state.

You can justify it all you want.  Anders struck at a target that had deep meaning to a lot of people, a place that people frequent and where they gather, not necessarily even political people let alone templars.  There's a reason he did that, rather than blow up the Gallows.

It's explicitly stated by the Dalish that the Keepers do not rule, no more than a mother can be said to rule over her children. And I have found absolutely no evidence that they rule in Rivain, either. The seers are revered, but it is not the same thing. In other societies, the strongest warriors are revered, or the best scholars, or what-have-you. So both your other examples are explicitly contradicted by lore, unless you can show me some citations I'm missing (I've checked the codex entries and wiki articles for both.)

Being revered =/= ruling.

For the Dalish, that's just semantics.  We don't know exactly the structure of Rivaini society, but my examples were to show that where mages are respected, they are at the top of the pecking order.  Their power pretty much demands it.  Either they're feared and loathed for it, or feared and revered for it.  This is why any discussion of RL politics and religion as comparison will fall short- such people don't exist in reality.

[Silfren]

Addai67 wrote...

I'm not saying they should reduce their power.  They should change their doctrines, or rather keep to them- since even White Andrastianism says that magic should serve man.  The Circle system has been wed to the way the Chantry does things, but it doesn't need to be that way.  However, blowing up Chantry buildings just reinforces those who say mages are dangerous and unstable, prone to possession.  Especially when it's done by a mage who's dangerous and unstable, and who's given in to possession. 

Except that Anders' giving himself over to possession happened directly as a result of oppressive Chantry doctrine, not in spite of it.  He blew up the Chantry not because the Chantry is right in its doctrinal statements about mages, but because of its teachings about mages.  Therein lies the difference, and its a crucial one. 

The Chantry is a textbook example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Treat people like dangerous animals for long enough, and that's exactly what they'll become, and not because that's what they inherently are.

[GavrielKay]

Addai67 wrote...

I didn't say that I thought it was.  I played mostly mages and Dalish PCs in Origins.  But, a fair number of Andrastians probably will, especially if that takeover is violent.  They would say that the Chantry having political power is not necessarily a bad thing, either.

Yes, the majority of people may think any given thing - especially when it's their religion telling them to.  Threatening someone's immortal soul is (even in the real world) a pretty good way of getting them to listen to you.  That doesn't make it objectively right.  It certainly doesn't make it objectively wrong to fight back.  Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.  After 1000 years, it really is hard to imagine a fully peaceful solution.  I truly believe that in cases of institutionalized oppression, the oppressed party is going to have to shed some blood to make their point.  Once it is realized by everyone else that things are going to change, you might start to work on diplomacy.  At the point where the mages are in the beginning of this story, they just don't have the clout to bargain.  Geez, even the Hero of Ferelden and its King couldn't get the mages free in that country.

Simply saying, "please couldn't we talk about other ways to do things" was not going to work.

[Silfren]

Addai67 wrote...

Silfren wrote...
One occurrence does not equal a trend.  If you had two or three examples, sure, you might have a point, but as it stands, you don't. 

Well, let's see.  Mages also rule in Dalish society and in Rivain.  That's three.  Where mage power is respected rather than seen as a curse, mages are at the top of the pecking order.

You're going to at least need mages co-ruling, in order to enforce the new standards on a (likely) unwilling public.

......

Are we talking about the generality of mages having access to positions of rulership, or specifically about the tyrannical, slave-owning, blood magic-practicing magocracy of Tevinter?  Because I was fairly certain we were discussing the latter.  Turning it around into the former is being extremely dishonest, as they are distinctively different scenarios.  Keepers being leaders of their clan is so NOT the same thing as ancient or modern Tevinter. 

[IanPolaris]

Let's look at the other cases. Keepers "rule" their clans because the clan wants them to an because they represent the best and purest source of knowledge of Ancient Arlathan (which usually means the purest blood...which is why Lenaya had to work twice as hard as other firsts because she lacked the provable ancient blood). If you'd bother to examine Dalish Lore, the Dalish claim that ALL elves had magic in the days of Arlathan and as such being a mage is a birthright and a sign of purer blood than normal.

I am not saying the Dalish are right, but Keepers rule the Dalish clans because of Dalish ideas about purity and ancient lineage and NOT because they are mages per se. Just because you are a mage does not mean you will be taken as a Keeper's first (although that's more likely as the pure blood thins....i.e. mages become less and less common in the Dalish).

BTW this does NOT mean mages are rare within the Dalish when comparied with humans, only rare when compared to how it 'used' to be.

As for the Chasind and Avaar, a mage is usually a member of the tribal council, but A member and not the ruling chief. His or her word is respected and followed if within their expertise, but it would be a mistake to say that mages rule either. The same seems to apply to the Rivanni Witches....they are respected and have great influence but don't seem to "rule".

-Polaris

[Rifneno]

[quote]Addai67 wrote...

Fenris says the only reason the Qunari haven't overtaken Tevinter is that they don't want to.
[/quote]

And I'm sure that fantasy about horned fascists coming and slaughtering all the evil mages gave him many a happy dream. But until I see some in-game evidence, I'm inclined to disbelieve an escaped slave when he says a culture his former masters are at war with "could like, totally crush them anytime man!" without giving a reason why he thinks they could OR a reason why they'd want to continue wasting resources and lives by prolonging a war they could win anytime.

In fact, if anything, I'm inclined to believe the opposite is true, that the Tevinters are the ones holding back. The fearsome magisters are rarely out fighting the qunari themselves, they just throw slaves at it. They're too cowardly to get into the thick of it themselves, but if they did, my money's on the ruthless blood mages.

[quote]Addai67 wrote...

There's no "burden of proof" for future events.  But like I've been saying, let's start with the fact that the mage overlords began their new world order in violent jihad, and go from there.
[/quote]

Bull**** there's no burden of proof for accusing someone of future crimes. If I said you were going to kill 3 blonde hookers and bury them under your toolshed next June, it'd be on me to prove it by digging up the ones already under the rosebush behind your garage. Otherwise it just sounds like I took the wrong medication. When you say that someone is likely to do something, you have to establish a pattern. And I mean a pattern of the accused themselves, not someone else with a genetic trait in common. That's called "prejudice." And it's generally frowned upon, believe it or not.

[quote]Addai67 wrote...

And all of this was done in cooperation with civil governments. Kirkwall has none, which is the only reason the Chantry is filling that void.
[/quote]

It has none because the Chantry is filling that void. You could be a political spinster. That was a nice job of implying a falsehood by telling half a story. And no, that's not a compliment.

[quote]Lethys1 wrote...

It's completely idiotic of Anders to blow up the chantry, and anyone who can't see that the Grand Cleric was the only chance mages had at being more free is completely idiotic as well.[/quote]

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

I'd say the next move is King Alistair going "Church of England" on the Chantry over magic.
[/quote]

Damnit, I'm all out of Thank You cards too. I didn't want to go to the store today. <sigh>

[quote]Addai67 wrote...

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Reforms almost never happen without external pressure. Mages on their own can't provide that kind of pressure (hence why I reject Anders' route). States can.

[/quote]
I don't know how you can say that so definitively.[/quote]

Pattern recognition. Now how can you complain about Anders while posting with a Loghain sig? The main difference between them is after blowing up the Chantry, Loghain would've sold the kids he just made orphans into slavery. I mean I'm not judging anybody that looks at Loghain as a hero, but some consistency would be just awesome.

[quote]Silfren wrote...

Dude. What are you doing basing a drinking game around that strawman? Do you want to kill off all your friends?!
[/quote]

Look, the insurance guy didn't ask those kind of questions, you shouldn't either.

[quote]Addai67 wrote...

[quote]Silfren wrote...
One occurrence does not equal a trend.  If you had two or three examples, sure, you might have a point, but as it stands, you don't.  [/quote]
Well, let's see.  Mages also rule in Dalish society and in Rivain.  That's three.  Where mage power is respected rather than seen as a curse, mages are at the top of the pecking order.

You're going to at least need mages co-ruling, in order to enforce the new standards on a (likely) unwilling public.[/quote]

Wait. We need to clarify things, because I think I've seriously overestimated you. By arguing this is bad because it'll lead to "Tevinter 2.0," are you saying it'll lead to mages brutally crushing everyone else, or that this is bad because some retarded farmers will suicidally attack a guy that can control lightning, and hence mages will end up having to rule just to be free and that's bad because the jackass farmer has more of a right to be safe with his violent prejudice than the actually innocent mage has to basic freedoms? Because the former is at least a fear with some basis even if it's not one I think is well founded. The latter, however... that makes less sense than the plot to The Cable Guy.

[quote]Silfren wrote...

I love you just for using a term guaranteed to send at least a few forumites running for their dictionaries. Pusillanimous FTW!
[/quote]

That was a good one, but to be fair half of them already had their dictionaries out in preparation to argue over the definition to the word "genocide."

[GavrielKay]

Rifneno wrote...

Wait. We need to clarify things, because I think I've seriously overestimated you. By arguing this is bad because it'll lead to "Tevinter 2.0," are you saying it'll lead to mages brutally crushing everyone else, or that this is bad because some retarded farmers will suicidally attack a guy that can control lightning, and hence mages will end up having to rule just to be free and that's bad because the jackass farmer has more of a right to be safe with his violent prejudice than the actually innocent mage has to basic freedoms? Because the former is at least a fear with some basis even if it's not one I think is well founded. The latter, however... that makes less sense than the plot to The Cable Guy.

I love this bit.

It's hard to believe that some players think that the Chantry is a good thing because it preaches such hatred of the mages that it somehow makes itself necessary in the minds of the rabble.  When lots of people have been duped into supporting institutionalized oppression, that's a reason to destroy the oppressive regime, not support it.

[Silfren]

Rifneno wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Dude. What are you doing basing a drinking game around that strawman? Do you want to kill off all your friends?!

Look, the insurance guy didn't ask those kind of questions, you shouldn't either.

...Hocked for the insurance.  Poor Larry.

[Addai]

GavrielKay wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Wait. We need to clarify things, because I think I've seriously overestimated you. By arguing this is bad because it'll lead to "Tevinter 2.0," are you saying it'll lead to mages brutally crushing everyone else, or that this is bad because some retarded farmers will suicidally attack a guy that can control lightning, and hence mages will end up having to rule just to be free and that's bad because the jackass farmer has more of a right to be safe with his violent prejudice than the actually innocent mage has to basic freedoms? Because the former is at least a fear with some basis even if it's not one I think is well founded. The latter, however... that makes less sense than the plot to The Cable Guy.

I love this bit.

It's hard to believe that some players think that the Chantry is a good thing because it preaches such hatred of the mages that it somehow makes itself necessary in the minds of the rabble.  When lots of people have been duped into supporting institutionalized oppression, that's a reason to destroy the oppressive regime, not support it.

I find the anti-religious bias in the discussion pretty distracting.  I don't think the Chantry is a good or evil thing.  But if you claim to be interested in ending tyranny, consider that it's pretty hypocritical to go about changing their minds using magical explosives.

Modifié par Addai67, 01 juin 2011 - 06:04 .

[Addai]

Rifneno wrote...
In fact, if anything, I'm inclined to believe the opposite is true, that the Tevinters are the ones holding back. The fearsome magisters are rarely out fighting the qunari themselves, they just throw slaves at it. They're too cowardly to get into the thick of it themselves, but if they did, my money's on the ruthless blood mages.

We've actually fought Qunari.  They did pretty well for being one ship full of guys, some of which drowned, who were stranded without resources for years.  And, they have mages too.

So I'm inclined to believe Fenris could have a point.  I'm at least not going to dismiss what he says outright.

Bull**** there's no burden of proof for accusing someone of future crimes. If I said you were going to kill 3 blonde hookers and bury them under your toolshed next June, it'd be on me to prove it by digging up the ones already under the rosebush behind your garage. Otherwise it just sounds like I took the wrong medication. When you say that someone is likely to do something, you have to establish a pattern. And I mean a pattern of the accused themselves, not someone else with a genetic trait in common. That's called "prejudice." And it's generally frowned upon, believe it or not.

I'm getting pretty tired of your incoherent and belligerent rants.

Ditto for the rest of this tirade.  Nothing worth responding to.

Modifié par Addai67, 01 juin 2011 - 06:03 .

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...
I find the anti-religious bias in the discussion pretty distracting.  I don't think the Chantry is a good or evil thing.  But if you claim to be interested in ending tyranny, consider that it's pretty hypocritical to go about changing their minds using magical explosives.

I think you are reading way too much into it.  I think most of the ire is (rightfully and justifiably) directed at the Political structure that is the Chantry and not necessarily at the underlying religion.  Like historic religions that got way too much secular power, the Chantry has gotten self-indulgent, self-righteous, almost unbelievably corrupt, and hypocritical, and because the authority of the Chantry stems ultimately from religious faith, the Chantry can not change without extreme outside pressure to do so.

It's a reasonable analog to the late midaeval and early Rennsaissance RCC.  A person my be a sincere Caltholic and still think the RCC of that period was full of lying and corrupt sinners (and many did in fact during this same period of time....thirty years war). 

-Polaris

[GavrielKay]

Addai67 wrote...

I find the anti-religious bias in the discussion pretty distracting.  I don't think the Chantry is a good or evil thing.  But if you claim to be interested in ending tyranny, consider that it's pretty hypocritical to go about changing their minds using magical explosives.

One incident committed by a mage who had been held captive for years and then took in a spirit of justice in a quite possibly misguided attempt to make the world better for mages does not constitute tyranny.

You can find the anti-religion bias distracting all you want, but the Act 3 story line is Chantry/Templars vs. Mages.  It's a bit hard to take sides without considering the religion angle.  I am not going to toe the "we must respect religion" line when religion is being used in game to oppress a group of people who are born different.

Posters have made comments about the ordinary population being scared of or hating the mages.  Given Rivain and the Dalish and the Chasind seem to get by just fine without hating mages, it isn't a huge stretch to blame the stated position of a dominant and militant religion for promoting this viewpoint in the setting that Hawke operates in.  You may not like it, but that's the way the game was written.

When the minds of the people are poisoned by 1000 years of religous dogma, it isn't hypocritical to feel that changing those minds is better than playing along.  The Chantry has become so corrupt that a Grand Cleric can't even be bothered to stop rape and torture of mages under her care.  I fail to see how that doesn't count as a "bad thing."

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...
It's a reasonable analog to the late midaeval and early Rennsaissance RCC.  A person my be a sincere Caltholic and still think the RCC of that period was full of lying and corrupt sinners (and many did in fact during this same period of time....thirty years war). 

-Polaris

And becoming what you claim to hate is not better.

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
It's a reasonable analog to the late midaeval and early Rennsaissance RCC.  A person my be a sincere Caltholic and still think the RCC of that period was full of lying and corrupt sinners (and many did in fact during this same period of time....thirty years war). 

-Polaris

And becoming what you claim to hate is not better.

Jefferson himself said that Revolutionaries in time wear the robes of the tyrants that they deposed.  It's called being human.  Given any human being or human organization nearly unlimited power (esp religious power) and it tends to go bad.  Just the way it is.

-Polaris