1207 réponses à ce sujet

[The Baconer]

Ryzaki wrote...
First off I wrote that not Addai

Second of the Qunari already have gunpowder or did you not realize that? 

The Baconer wrote...
human civilization

[CitizenThom]

Elthina was one of my favorite characters in the game, Anders killed the wrong person if he was trying to advance the cause of the mages. Anders should've consulted Hawke for a few political and military pointers, because Anders has a diminutive IQ in both regards.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

CitizenThom wrote...

Elthina was one of my favorite characters in the game, Anders killed the wrong person if he was trying to advance the cause of the mages. Anders should've consulted Hawke for a few political and military pointers, because Anders has a diminutive IQ in both regards.

Man, have you missed the point or have you missed the point? 

Anders isn't being rational anymore. He's not strategizing politically. Those are things that humans do. Anders isn't human anymore, not purely. He lacks some of our toolset. He lacks the ability to look at something awful that is happening in the world and say "that's not my problem." Justice has stripped away this fundamental human quality, especially when it comes to the topic of mages.

Oh he starts out with some of this, sure. But it's the gradual chipping away of the "not my problem" field that seems like insanity to us, because humans literally cannot survive without it. If every time you saw injustice on the TV, every time you passed a homeless person on the street, every time you saw someone who looks overworked waiting for the bus with their head in their hands... if you couldn't think "that's not my problem" and walk on, you'd go crazy in a matter of days. There's too much horror in this world, too much pain, and if we care about all of it, we'll go mad. That's why Anders went mad. He wasn't stupid, he had just lost the part of his brain that allows one to say "there's nothing I can do about that right now." He lost the part that lets your eyes pass right over a problem, feel a moment of sadness, and then go home, eat dinner, sleep at night.

At the end, there is no best case scenario. There is no strategy. There is only action and inaction. There is only allowing injustice to stand vs. doing the best thing you can think of at that particular moment. There's only doing something or doing nothing. For a spirit, that's all there is. And for the man who is along for the ride, there are no filters, no walls, no little lies to dull the pain of all the bad things in the world. All of that pain breaks over him, crashing like a wave. It is not something I would wish upon my worst enemy. It's not a thing that leaves you human, capable of making little deals with yourself, contenting yourself with false hopes. It is something that makes you act.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 03 juin 2011 - 12:24 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

[quote]Rifneno wrote...

[quote]Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

I kinda wish someone close to Hawke had died when the Chantry blew. It's too easy to say 'Poo-poo, civilians die
in war all the time, you just have to accept that as a fact of life. It's for the greater good!' when you don't know any of the victims, or their families or friends.[/quote]

Wouldn't that require someone close to Hawke to have actually survived that long?[/quote][/quote]

Like a companion (possibly an LI)? Or surviving sibling? That's what they did for the Thrask quest, kidnapping someone close. I'm sure the writers could have thought of something neat.

[quote]
You know what doesn't impress me? People who judge others for having a strong opinion about a story in a post on a forum about that story.[/quote]

People should start making t-shirts. I'll pass on replying to your follow-up post, since it's mostly personal attacks. I'd like to say it's funny that a generalised comment of mine about detesting the attitudes of those who say stuff like "I always kill Zevran because he's ******" gets people all hot and bothered...but it's not, really.

[Silfren]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...


Few people sympathize with terrorists now. But prior to 1795, there wasn't even a word for terrorist. It wasn't a concept, because, for the concept to represent the same idea it represents today, it must exist in a world where there are other ways for the common man to change governments and world institutions.

This is precisely why I don't have a problem with what Anders did.  Yes, he possibly killed innocent people and I'm not exactly all sunshine and roses over that prospect.  But he DID NOT HAVE OTHER VIABLE OPTIONS.

[LobselVith8]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

I kinda wish someone close to Hawke had died when the Chantry blew. It's too easy to say 'Poo-poo, civilians die
in war all the time, you just have to accept that as a fact of life. It's for the greater good!' when you don't know any of the victims, or their families or friends.

Wouldn't that require someone close to Hawke to have actually survived that long?

Like a companion (possibly an LI)? Or surviving sibling? That's what they did for the Thrask quest, kidnapping someone close. I'm sure the writers could have thought of something neat.

I prefer choices to linear storytelling. I hated "Best Served Cold" because I found out that none of Hawke's actions mattered, it all lead to the same outcome. What happened to Kirkwall being shaped by the choices made by Hawke?

Modifié par LobselVith8, 03 juin 2011 - 12:32 .

[Silfren]

Wulfram wrote...

Yet Anders feels the need to force the Mages of Kirkwall into a hopeless rebellion.  He knows that if offered the prospect of a less unpleasant imprisonment, they would choose it over death and this is unacceptable to him. 

Dieing for freedom may be a noble ideal, but is forcing others to do so?

I like how you state that mages would unilaterally choose a less unpleasant imprisonment.  

There are plenty of people in real life who would choose death over ANY sort of imprisonment, because for some of us imprisonment is never going to be anything but intolerable.  I think the same would hold true for mages of Thedas.

The argument of whether Anders had the right to speak for the mages is an interesting one.  Never in my life have I ever heard anyone argue that the American revolutionaries had the right to speak for all the people, and yet they most certainly did.  Never have I heard anyone argue that the American abolitionists DIDN'T have the right to decide the question of slavery for all people, yet they most certainly did.

People who say that Anders is wrong because he didn't have the right to speak for all mages...do you apply that same reasoning to all the various revolutionary movements throughout real world history?  Because there is NO revolution in existence which ever had an absolute following, and not all even had a majority following, especially in the earliest stages.

[LobselVith8]

Addai67 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
You know...reading this just makes me think this is a whole ugly cycle that is not gonna stop. The need to keep their power safe and secure is gonna lead to both sides constantly trying to dominate each other and constantly coming to blows over it. 
I don't see anything changing until there's a means to equate magical beings with non-mages. (Most likely as a nother poster said guns and the like). Until then fear and oppression are gonna keep going in a cycle. 

Technology isn't really going to even the score.  Mages with access to technology are going to be just that much more dangerous.  See, Anders @ Kirkwall Act 3.

Apparently, the mages emancipated themselves from the Chantry and the Order of Templars because of Anders' actions, but it's the templars who are actively seeking out the mages to hunt them down.

Addai67 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Also, the Divine knew about everything that was happening in Kirkwall. She could have taken Meredith out, put in someone more reasonable. The fact that Ser Alrik was allowed to continue being a Templar after even PROPOSING the Tranquil solution is evidence of how completely corrupt and unsalvageable the current institution is. And he did propose it... if Meredith and the Divine rejected the idea, they must have known of it... but neither of them saw it as a warning sign dire enough to cause them to remove Alrik from duty.

Anyone living in a city which is wall to wall with bat**** insane mages  would see this as a rational, if extreme, measure. 

I didn't realize the game mechanics with its "waves" of enemies was now canon. I wonder if the criminals who can appear out of thin air wouldn't be a bigger concern for the nobles, the Chantry, and the templars.

Addai67 wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

One Warden, who may be dead or disappeared, who can't even protect Warden!Anders, isn't going to be able to change the Chantry 

I did not mean to imply that the Warden could.  Just giving her as an example of one person who could assert a positive influence, without resorting to blowing up Chantry buildings.

The Hero of Ferelden from the Circle of Magi can be a positive influence in Ferelden and for the image of mages, but it's clear Kirkwall and the Circles of Magi aren't going to change being dictatorships - even when the Hero and the ruler of Ferelden ask for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its independence.

[Silfren]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

I'm probably the sole person who would go so far to say that I was "happy" over Anders' decision in Act III. My only objection to it is how it might damage him, personally... which is heavily, and definitely. He basically sold out his own soul in exchange for a small chance for freedom for his people, and, alive or dead, I mourn him. I wish it had not come to that.

Nevertheless, my thoughts upon seeing the chantry go up were:
1. Bold move
2. I wouldn't want to get blamed for this, or have it on my conscience, so I'm happy you kept me out of it.
3. Crap. Now, which is better for mage freedom, killing you or letting you live? I want to keep you around, but killing you gives me even more plausible deniability, plus makes me seem like an impartial problem-solver who doesn't pick sides.

Whatever my Hawke does with the knife, she walks off humming.

"Do you hear the people sing, singing the songs of angry men?
It is the music of a people who will not be slaves again.
When the beating of your heart echoes the beating of a drum,
there is a life about to start when tomorrow comes."

Oh, no, I was happy about it.  Not so much as that I rejoiced in the deaths of innocents (and I maintain that we don't actually see any innocents in the Chantry), but I felt it was a bold move for the freedom of mages, and a necessary one to get the ball revolution rolling...and I damn well think the Grand Cleric deserved it.  And from a story angle, well, I revel in tragedy, so I like the story surrounding a rivaled Anders who wanted to do a friend a good turn AND use his friend's power to fight for justice, only to have it go so badly wrong. 

Yesh, my Anders is a hero, if a tragic one.

Niiiiice song choice.

[LobselVith8]

simbiankillers wrote...

Прикольная игра, но к сожалению ожидал большего ))

I was expecting more from the game, too, especially given the developers talking about how choices were going to matter and how the world would react to what your protagonist did. I was honestly not expecting Hawke to be so reactive.

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

I love when people compare freeing slaves to freeing mages.

Unlike freeing mages the slaves were freed at the END of the war.  The slaves freed during the war weren't part of the North anyway and they actually had no authority to free those slaves. It was a tatical decision. 

But don't let history get in the way of your arguement.

I was unaware that America was the only country to ever have slaves, or that the American Civil War was the only battle ever fought to free slaves.  Thank you for enlightening me.

 

Oh don't try to be smug when you specifically brought up LINCOLN. 

Nice try. 

I was responding within the context you gave. 

But go ahead and rant away. 

And in the end, it really doesn't matter.  The American Civil War WAS fought over the question of slavery.  The details notwithstanding, that was an indisputably integral part of the whole question, and in fact the question of slavery was a point of contention from the founding of the nation.  But the fact remains that mages in Thedas ARE slaves for all intents and purposes, and a war for mage freedom amounts to a war to end legal slavery.  WHY they are locked away and treated as slaves is irrelevant to that being the practical result of their treatment.  

[Silfren]

Addai67 wrote...

Sorry, but I have to laugh at this.  Anders is Exhibit A why mages should be locked up and, if they're even suspected of being abominations or blood mages, killed outright before they kill many others.  At least, that is what people are going to say after the bomb.  A lot of people.  And those people have a very good point.

Only for people who refuse to examine WHY Anders chose to allow himself to be possessed in the first place, which is entirely relevant to the question.  

I'll concede that a lot of people won't look that deeply into the matter, that's a given.  But people's perceptions won't change that fact. 

And one thing keeps being overlooked: a lot of people insist on claiming that Anders will have singlehandedly turned every Thedosian in the world against mages.  While it's true that he probably did turn a great many people against mages, it is certainly not going to be true that he won't have a lot of sympathizers as well, particularly among the apostates who've been running their whole lives, just as Hawke's own family, or the friends and relatives of mages who were killed, abused, or made Tranquil for no justifiable reason.  And then there are people like those that Anders helped: we see during the Tranquility quest that he has supporters who are prepared to fight and die for his sake.  Some of these people may have changed their minds and decided he, and all mages, are evil, after seeing what happened to the Chantry, but there's going to be at least a few who either continue to support Anders and mages outright, or at least consider the problems that led to his act in the first place. 

People who are either neutral or completely anti-Chantry, and/or neutral or pro-mages may well be in the minority, but it won't necessarily be a tiny one. 

[Soul Cool]

Silfren wrote...
And in the end, it really doesn't matter.  The American Civil War WAS fought over the question of slavery.  The details notwithstanding, that was an indisputably integral part of the whole question, and in fact the question of slavery was a point of contention from the founding of the nation.  But the fact remains that mages in Thedas ARE slaves for all intents and purposes, and a war for mage freedom amounts to a war to end legal slavery.  WHY they are locked away and treated as slaves is irrelevant to that being the practical result of their treatment. 

I've always thought of it as the ultimate "turnabout is fair play" expression. After all, who were the indisputably evil, oppressive overlords before Andraste led a rebellion that rocked the foundations of the world?

Modifié par Soul Cool, 03 juin 2011 - 01:22 .

[Silfren]

Addai67 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
He was deep in the forest by choice as the Dalish Elves by Sarel's campfire make clear.  Aneirin is a full member of the tribe (hence the Vasaline on his face) and is a full and honored member of the tribe (if the blood writing didn't make that clear, the elves by Sarel's camp do).  The point is that the Dalish don't control mages nearly as strictly as you tried to claim.

-Polaris

It doesn't mean they don't have controls on magic at all.  He's not with the tribe in DA2, so I don't know how you can so definitively say that he was a member of the Sabrae clan.

But this is a pointless angle of discussion.  No one's saying magic should be completely unregulated (I thnk), and I'm not saying the Circle system as it exists now is justified.  So what exactly are we arguing about?

Having controls over magic is a different animal altogether from locking mages away.  Also, um, Aneirin is allowed to live free, on his own, away from anyone's supervision.  Obviously the Dalish aren't terrified of his becoming an abomination, are they?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Silfren wrote...
And in the end, it really doesn't matter.  The American Civil War WAS fought over the question of slavery. 

Eh no. A lot of social, economic and political factors were at play then, and was the result of a economic lagging behind of the South compared to the North (as evidenced when they established barriers to European manufactured goods and imposed on the South American domestic products which at the time were of lesser quality and were more expensive). In essence, it was the culmination of a trend: the North overpowering the South and the latter imposing on the former the Union which they technically and constitutionally could secede from.  Another trend was the establishment of a real American State with a more centralized authority, albeit still in a Federal context (though no longer of the classical liberal variety).

Slavery was at best one of the facets of the conflict which resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands. At worst, a propaganda tool.

Wouldn't be new, as Europeans used the emancipation of slavery to legitimately colonize mainland Africa in the 19th century.

Didn't the Simpsons often mock the over-simplification of probably the most important historical event in the history of the USA?

Silfren wrote...
 Obviously the Dalish aren't terrified of his becoming an abomination, are they?

A more pertinente comparision would be comparing the system with that of the Dales as a state. A tribal structure and context is drastically different, especially since mages in every clan are limited numerically.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 juin 2011 - 01:56 .

[Silfren]

Addai67 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Marethari's clan isn't the same as Zathrian's clan, and Aneirin was a member of Zathrian's clan (which can become Lanaya's clan once he's killed or after the curse is broken). We never see Zathrian's clan in DA2.

Oh right, I always forget.  I don't see the point in this angle of the discussion though, as I've said now numerous times.

In my opinion, the Chantry controlled Circles aren't jusitifed when templars have the authority to torture mages and steal their humanity from them, and the legal right to commit genocide against an entire population of men, women, and children in the Circle of Magi for an act no Circle mage is responsible for.

If people are going to object to use of the term terrorism, the term genocide shouldn't be used, either.  Mages aren't an ethnic group, and they aren't killed simply for being mages, but for being in a Circle which is deemed irretrievably corrrupted to the point that it poses a danger to innocent people outside it.  [/endless circle of arguments]

Anyway we're not discussing Meredith's actions after the bomb, rather Anders' actions, and as I said, he gave the templars the best argument for mage oppression they've had since the magisters were murdering people to power their spells.

Wynne specifically uses the term genocide herself in Awakening, in reference to her opinion of the Chantry's response to setting mages free.  So genocide IS a valid concept to apply to the game.

[Rifneno]

Soul Cool wrote...

This is like saying burning Milan would cause the Roman Catholic Church to collapse in on itself because someone in Paris got mad at Rome for Milan burning. Monlithic entities don't disintegrate overnight. Even if they are in decline, which I don't think they are if the player character is on their side, they still have the biggest stick by a very large margin.

Tell it to Bioware. I was repeating Varric's own phrasing: the Chantry is in shambles. Which is an accurate assessment since its own military has left it to go on a witchhunt.

Wulfram wrote...

I cite Justinia I because she is conveniently quoted in the Codex. I believe her sermon is found near Elthina's pulpit, so it seems likely to be current Chantry doctrine.
Knight Commander Greagoir is respectful of mages, and does not demonize them, so such attitudes are not ubiquitous even among Templars.

Honestly, what does it matter what a millennium-dead Divine said? What matters is the Chantry's actions. The Chantry I'm seeing now is a brutal tyrant that rules by fear and force. And the blame can't be placed solely on Meredith and Elthina. The Divine sends not just her right hand but the only Chantry member most players know to be good and ethical, to tell Elthina to get out of dodge before the Exalted March comes down on Kirkwall. And does this seeker look at the crimes of the Chantry's own that caused the mages' uprising? No, she places the blame on the mages who got sick of letting the change rape and murder them at will.

As for Gregior, I wouldn't trust that dick to feed my fish. He shows his true colors when he tries to have the mage origin PC punished, likely with tranquility, even if Irving attests to the fact s/he was with Jowan under Irving's direct order and was keeping him updated the whole time.

Ryzaki wrote...
Second of the Qunari already have gunpowder or did you not realize that? 

And the word used was "guns" not "gunpowder" or did you not realize that?  They have primitive cannons but they are hardly making gunpowder to near the use it's capable of.

CitizenThom wrote...

Anders killed the wrong person if he was trying to advance the cause of the mages.

The epilogue says otherwise.

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Like a companion (possibly an LI)? Or surviving sibling? That's what they did for the Thrask quest, kidnapping someone close. I'm sure the writers could have thought of something neat.

Right. I'm sure everyone would've loved having another choice taken away from them, as well as a valuable party member.

People should start making t-shirts. I'll pass on replying to your follow-up post, since it's mostly personal attacks. I'd like to say it's funny that a generalised comment of mine about detesting the attitudes of those who say stuff like "I always kill Zevran because he's ******" gets people all hot and bothered...but it's not, really.

Personal attacks? I could say the same for you, judging people based on getting immersed in a work of fiction meant for immersion. But what's really telling is how you switched the target of your judgments from people who thought characters like Elthina or Anders got what was coming to them, to homophobes who want to kill people for being gay.

Soul Cool wrote...

I've always thought of it as the ultimate "turnabout is fair play" expression. After all, who were the indisputably evil, oppressive overlords before Andraste led a rebellion that rocked the foundations of the world?

Ahh, prejudice, the solution to every problem. Mass murder because of a people with a genetic trait because other people long since dead with the same trait did something one didn't approve of. Didn't some guy have a similar idea back in the 30's?

[Silfren]

IanPolaris wrote...

Only in fairy tales do "two wrongs never make a right". In fact in the real world, how one responds to an injustice or even crime can do a lot to determine how that injustice or crime is perceived. In actual life,therefore, a second wrong can indeed make the first a "right" or at least go a long way to mitigate/justify the first wrong in the minds of many outsiders.

-Polaris

Well, I don't buy the whole "two wrongs don't make a right" line either, as it's usually an attempt to draw a moral equivalency to two disparate things that are NOT morally equivalent, but your argument here is actually in favor of the retro-justification people are insisting on for Meredith calling the Right.

[Silfren]

Corto81 wrote...

How can anyone be happy?

It's akin to the Twin Towers.
You just don't massacre hundreds and thousands of civilians because of your political agenda (even if Anders - which IMO he wasn't, especially after the "martyr remembered in history" comment).

My biggest problem with the scene is that I hated the whiny wimp he turned into after Awakening, and I couldn't stand the guy.
Yet no matter what I did, I couldn't ditch him and regardless of the fact I never talked to him apart from his quests, or never had him in the party otherwise, apparently my Hawke's been bros with him for 7 years.

Awesome.

NO.  NO NO NO NO EMPHATICALLY FREAKING NO, it is NOT akin to the Twin Towers!  And I'm an American who cried just as hard that day and cheered just as loudly when bin Laden was killed. 

And can we please cease and desist with the claims that Anders killed "hundreds and thousands"?  There were somewhere between three and six templars in the Chantry, along with Elthina.  No other NPCs were seen.  Whether zero, or "hundreds and thousands" were killed is entirely dependent on player imagination.  The game says nothing at all on the matter.

Modifié par Silfren, 03 juin 2011 - 02:10 .

[IanPolaris]

Silfren wrote...

Well, I don't buy the whole "two wrongs don't make a right" line either, as it's usually an attempt to draw a moral equivalency to two disparate things that are NOT morally equivalent, but your argument here is actually in favor of the retro-justification people are insisting on for Meredith calling the Right.

I realized it could be read that way after I wrote it, but I don't think it's the same at all.  Meredith is committing a clear act of Genocide against a group of people that had nothing to do with the crime committed.  The only possible way you might be able to justify it based on the logic above, is if you were absolutely and positively certain that killing these innocents would save more lives than you are murdering.

The problem is that Dragon Age doesn't do a thing to even begin to make that case (at least not without serious gales of laughter).

-Polaris

[Giggles_Manically]

Heh.

Welcome to FREEDOM LAND!
Where mages run free and can do anything they want!
Like indulge in outright blood magic infused with demons meaning they can control your mind or murder you with a thought and well you cant do much about that.

Just dont look under the rugs because that is where we stuffed the bodies it took to get here.
Also RUN if you see any demons or abominations since.... well no really is there to stop them for the most part.

Now does THAT sound like a country you want to live in?
All we will get is Tevinter 2.0

Freedom comes with a price all its own that people many times simply try and not talk about.
People often cite the Civil War here, a war that claimed well over HALF A MILLION lives.

Freedom is a nice IDEAL, its not so nice in reality.
Nor does it really exist in any real pure form.

[KnightofPhoenix]

I don't think anyone advocated complete freedom for mages. Though there doesn't seem to be a consensus amongst "pro-mages" on how much freedom should be given and perhaps more importantly, how quickly.

For the most part, I think Ian Polaris and I are on the same boat. But I am not sure about the rest.

[Rolenka]

I was both horrified and glad as it happened. I was waiting for a chance to throw a dagger in Sebastian's back as he walked away, promising revenge, but the chance never came.

[Silfren]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Corto81 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...
Well brush up some more, because you believe very, very wrong. Ever hear of "cutting off the enemy's supply line?" War should always be a last resort. But once it comes to that last resort, a good man does not place his own morality and lives of the enemy's few above the lives of his own's many.

Again, as someone who's been through a war - and lived war for 5 years, I certainly understand the strategic attacks on certain civilian aspects of the enemy.

However, like I was replying to Ian Polaris (a poster who I respect), it's not black and white.
(we talked about the Dresden bombing and how justified or not it was - bombing the city centre instead of the industrial area on the city outskirts etc.).

Anyway, without getting too much into politics etc. on a gaming forum....
Anders' action had nothing to do with any military planning or anything like that.
It was an act to destroy, kill and provoke further killing.

I disagree. It was a symbolic act... one that might start a war, true, but this war has far more similarities with a pre-civil-war-era slave revolt than any modern war, and I think that's a key factor that most people neglect to consider. Was the US Civil war a horrible, bloody, brother against brother struggle? Yes. Would it have been better if it never happened? I'm going to say no. Anders actions are more akin to John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry than any modern act of terror - foolish, bloody, but born out of desperation and a deep sense of the injustice of slavery.

In modern times, we have far more alternatives to violence, which is what makes violence so repugnant to many of us. But there wasn't even a word for terrorism prior to 1795, because terrorism is only a really relevant concept in a world where there are other ways to change the future.

Viewing Anders actions strictly in the context of modern war is incomprehensible to me, as is viewing his attack in a similar manner as one would view an attack on a democratic or representative state. Anders attack is against a fascist state, and people who are rebelling against fascism have far fewer options than those who are rebelling against a modern progressive state.

Any time the discussion turns to whether a revolution can be bloodless, someone inevitably refers to Gandhi sooner or later.  One thing that always gets overlooked is that Gandhi's revolution was against the British government, and not, say, **** Germany.  If Gandhi had been fomenting a rebellion against someone like Hitler or Stalin, it is quite likely that his peaceful revolution would have been crushed.  The enemy you're going up against is very much a pertinent part of the equation when debating whether a non-bloody revolution is even possible.

[Silfren]

Wulfram wrote...

The Chantry's official policy is to treat mages with respect, and doesn't demonize those who follow the Chantry's laws.

Divine Justinia I said "Those mages who honor the Maker and keep his laws we welcome as our brothers and sisters."

It's the implementation of this by the Templars that they struggle with. Fundamentally, I guess the problem is that people who like mages probably aren't going to want to sign up to be their jailors.

And yet it is precisely Chantry doctrine that leads to mages like Keili from a moderate Circle that is decidedly more tolerant of mages, believing themselves to have been cursed by the Maker for some unknown sin that they apparently committed prior to birth.  So I'm unsure where you're getting that Chantry policy involves treating mages respectfully, official or not.