1207 réponses à ce sujet

[GavrielKay]

Ryzaki wrote...
Hundreds? We have no way of  knowing how many mages were in thecircle (like with how many people were in the Chantry). 

Someone pointed out a codex from Genitivi a while back that numbered the Kirkwall circle in the hundreds even before the arrival of the Starkhaven mages.  As we see at most a few dozen who escape and attack us, it is reasonable to assume there are still hundreds left in the circle, including the young and elderly who aren't fit for an escape attempt.

[IanPolaris]

Wulfram wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
States are every bit as corrupt as religious organizations,

But less likely to view magic as a curse and not a resource.

Just as likely to view a free mage as a threat.

Actually no,  Even in Thedas, Nobles think in terms of armies and control.  The templars are more of a threat to noble and royal authority than mages have ever been, and most nobles know it (and in Kirkwall will privately tell you as much if you sided with Orsino).

A mage may be a greater individual threat, but only perhaps 1 mage in 10 gerations (being generous) is ever powerful enough to be like a Flemeth and able to rule a nation just based on his or her own personal power (and oddly the one that was born recently is a Grey Warden).

And more likely to encourage use of the more dubious and dangerous types of magic.

You say that like it's a bad thing.  It's not.  One of the huge problems with the Chantry is that pretty much all research including medicinal research, research into the hows and whys of possession has been ground to a standstill largely because of religious intolerance.  It's yet one more reason why secular control is better.

A secular system is far more likely to honestly evaluate the balance between public safety and public weal for dangerous types of research and regulate it appropriately.

-Polaris

[Beerfish]

GavrielKay wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
People are assuming that religions are inherently more unchanging- more "dogmatic"- than other human groupings/ organizations, and that's not true.  Human beings tend to hang on to our prejudices, but that's the case no matter where they come from.

Religions are more inherently unchanging.  Their whole basis revolves around having some sort of higher truth handed down from an infalible source.  Every case of evolving relgion I've ever heard of has been inflicted on the religion, not come about from self-scrutiny.  An outside force or loss of membership due to outside influence is always part of revising doctrine.

Other forms of human society do not rely on having any kind of ultimate truth and can therefore simply rethink things when it is necessary or advantageous.

1st bolded part, funny, that sounds just like the Arishok and the Qun.  I find it interesting that on these forums everyone and their dog hates the Chantry and yet heaps praise on the Arishok and the Qun.

2nd bolded part, we don't want to get into politics on these forums but more and more these days many people will have one politicla view and will not change it no matter how blatantly obivious that their party is very wrong in an instance.  Politics has become religion in may parts of the world.

[Ryzaki]

GavrielKay wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
Hundreds? We have no way of  knowing how many mages were in thecircle (like with how many people were in the Chantry). 

Someone pointed out a codex from Genitivi a while back that numbered the Kirkwall circle in the hundreds even before the arrival of the Starkhaven mages.  As we see at most a few dozen who escape and attack us, it is reasonable to assume there are still hundreds left in the circle, including the young and elderly who aren't fit for an escape attempt.

 

Which codex? 

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...
This is why I say an answer to the mage issue in White Andrastian societies will best come from within (i.e. doctrinal reform) and not imposed on them from above, imposed by law and with greedy rulers to play arbiter. 

Violence and the threat of violence has solved more problems and permitted more POSITIVE change in the human condition than all other methods combined.  Just a fact.

The problem is an institutional religion WON"T change unless outside forces make it change and that's precisely why the regulation of magic needs to be removed from the Chantry by force if necessary (and given the nature of the Chantry, force will be necessary).  The mages won't be able to do it themselves, but the nobility has a strong vested self interest in seeing magic under secular control as well (if for no other reason than it denies the Chantry the excuse needed to have a very threatening private army).

-Polaris

[Addai]

GavrielKay wrote...
Religions are more inherently unchanging.  Their whole basis revolves around having some sort of higher truth handed down from an infalible source.  Every case of evolving relgion I've ever heard of has been inflicted on the religion, not come about from self-scrutiny.  An outside force or loss of membership due to outside influence is always part of revising doctrine.

Other forms of human society do not rely on having any kind of ultimate truth and can therefore simply rethink things when it is necessary or advantageous.

You haven't studied much history, then.  Or have done so with a jaundiced eye.

All humans believe in their own ultimate truths and believe their own prejudices to be infallible.  It's ingrained in us.  A child thinks he's the center of the universe, that his mom and dad are gods, and it goes on from there.  Yet all people self-reflect and can revise these assumptions, including religious people and organizations.  It happens all the time.  The idea that religions are inherently more rigid and backward is, in my view, a holdover from the Enlightenment smarty pants who wanted to believe themselves smarter and all-around better than the knuckle-draggers who went before them, and to believe that society is on an inevitable march towards glorious progress.  That means that whatever they do in the service of progress is justified, and conveniently that their own assumptions about the world are less suspect than others'.

That's some of what I see in the discussion of what Anders did- this idea that a change towards modernity is inevitable and a good thing, so it doesn't matter what Anders did, it'll all work out in the end.

[Beerfish]

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually no,  Even in Thedas, Nobles think in terms of armies and control.  The templars are more of a threat to noble and royal authority than mages have ever been, and most nobles know it (and in Kirkwall will privately tell you as much if you sided with Orsino).

A mage may be a greater individual threat, but only perhaps 1 mage in 10 gerations (being generous) is ever powerful enough to be like a Flemeth and able to rule a nation just based on his or her own personal power (and oddly the one that was born recently is a Grey Warden).

And you know why this is?  Because of the circles and the Templars that have been taking care of potential mage problem over the years.  Free mages waltzing around the countryside is a rare thing and the circles do their job.  You can bet that the nobles, peasants who have you will be much more fearful of mages once they are 'free' and the incidents of abominations and slaughters increases significantly.


You say that like it's a bad thing.  It's not.  One of the huge problems with the Chantry is that pretty much all research including medicinal research, research into the hows and whys of possession has been ground to a standstill largely because of religious intolerance.  It's yet one more reason why secular control is better.

A secular system is far more likely to honestly evaluate the balance between public safety and public weal for dangerous types of research and regulate it appropriately.

Yeah, like how Orsino evaluated the work of Quentin.  Or how Avernus did his research,

-Polaris

[Wulfram]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

If they continously preach that magic is a curse (to legitimate their own power), then how isn't it part of why magic is hated? It isn't the sole reason, sure. But one of the main reasons. And more importantly, that which blocks alternative thinking.

I've seen no clear evidence that the Chantry does preach that magic is a curse.  It's clearly common belief, particularly among Templars, but it's not in what we've seen of the Chant of Light, or any of the relevant codexes written from a Chantry point of view.

Why wouldn't it? Medieval Europe banned the use of crossbows for instance. With self-interest in mind.

The Pope may have attempted to ban - wikipedia suggests some dispute on this point - but if so it failed utterly.

Furthermore, unless a magocracy, states would not have an interest in providing mages with unlimited power via blood, they would be signing their own death warrant.

So I don't see why states would deliberately allow their mages to acquire as much power as possible without making sure they are controlled (and weren't you just saying that states would rather enslave them?).

They would allow it because the ones who didn't would be at a disadvantage. 

How long after Orlesian Chevaliers crossed the Frostbacks would it take before Teyrn Loghain thought handing some of the unruly residents of the Alienage to his mages as blood sacrifice was worthwhile?

And while error is part of human nature and is inevitable, states are better equipped to handle such things. Both individually, and multilaterally, in international accords and treaties.

In the sort of period in which Dragon Age is et, the only effective way for states to act multilaterally was the Church.

Modifié par Wulfram, 03 juin 2011 - 10:44 .

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

Like you're ignoring the definition of terrorist? 'kay. 

What, do we have to go into another discussion over how there is no singular, universally accepted definition of terrorism?

[GavrielKay]

Ryzaki wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
Hundreds? We have no way of  knowing how many mages were in thecircle (like with how many people were in the Chantry). 

Someone pointed out a codex from Genitivi a while back that numbered the Kirkwall circle in the hundreds even before the arrival of the Starkhaven mages.  As we see at most a few dozen who escape and attack us, it is reasonable to assume there are still hundreds left in the circle, including the young and elderly who aren't fit for an escape attempt.

 

Which codex? 

I wish I could remember.  But whatever thread it came up in had several posters in agreement

[IanPolaris]

Beerfish wrote...

Actually no,  Even in Thedas, Nobles think in terms of armies and control.  The templars are more of a threat to noble and royal authority than mages have ever been, and most nobles know it (and in Kirkwall will privately tell you as much if you sided with Orsino).

A mage may be a greater individual threat, but only perhaps 1 mage in 10 gerations (being generous) is ever powerful enough to be like a Flemeth and able to rule a nation just based on his or her own personal power (and oddly the one that was born recently is a Grey Warden).

And you know why this is?  Because of the circles and the Templars that have been taking care of potential mage problem over the years.  Free mages waltzing around the countryside is a rare thing and the circles do their job.  You can bet that the nobles, peasants who have you will be much more fearful of mages once they are 'free' and the incidents of abominations and slaughters increases significantly.

Oh really? I must have imagined all those apostate mages running around in both DAO, DAA, and DA2.  In fact we have NO actual objective evidence at all that the rate of abominations outside the towers is actually smaller than it was before the tower system, and at least some accedotal game and lore evidence that suggests that the problem is actually worse.

The fact is that when you have an ARMY (and the Templars ARE an army) that you don't control as a noble on your land, and serve and organization that not only can but has bullied secular nobles to get it's own way WITH that army, most rational nobles will view the Templars as a far more real and objective threat than the mages.

You say that like it's a bad thing.  It's not.  One of the huge problems with the Chantry is that pretty much all research including medicinal research, research into the hows and whys of possession has been ground to a standstill largely because of religious intolerance.  It's yet one more reason why secular control is better.

A secular system is far more likely to honestly evaluate the balance between public safety and public weal for dangerous types of research and regulate it appropriately.

Yeah, like how Orsino evaluated the work of Quentin.  Or how Avernus did his research,

Thank you.  You have proven my point actually.  Because the Chantry was and is so heavy handed against research, what research that has happened has occured WITHOUT ANY oversight and often by people with 'questionable' moral character....which is something that secular states routinely screen for.  In fact if the Crown were responsible for research oversight, what Avernus and Orisino did might not have been possible and at the very minimum been rendered far more difficult.

-Polaris

[GavrielKay]

Beerfish wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
People are assuming that religions are inherently more unchanging- more "dogmatic"- than other human groupings/ organizations, and that's not true.  Human beings tend to hang on to our prejudices, but that's the case no matter where they come from.

Religions are more inherently unchanging.  Their whole basis revolves around having some sort of higher truth handed down from an infalible source.  Every case of evolving relgion I've ever heard of has been inflicted on the religion, not come about from self-scrutiny.  An outside force or loss of membership due to outside influence is always part of revising doctrine.

Other forms of human society do not rely on having any kind of ultimate truth and can therefore simply rethink things when it is necessary or advantageous.

1st bolded part, funny, that sounds just like the Arishok and the Qun.  I find it interesting that on these forums everyone and their dog hates the Chantry and yet heaps praise on the Arishok and the Qun.

2nd bolded part, we don't want to get into politics on these forums but more and more these days many people will have one politicla view and will not change it no matter how blatantly obivious that their party is very wrong in an instance.  Politics has become religion in may parts of the world.

I hate the Qun as well.  Anything that survives mostly by brainwashing people from birth doesn't sit well with me.  If you couldn't possibly come up with the notion by doing some real critical thinking, then I probably don't agree with it.  That's just me of course

And yes, modern politics (at least in America where I live) is becoming more and more like religion all the time.  I hate that too. 

[IanPolaris]

Wulfram wrote...

I've seen no clear evidence that the Chantry does preach that magic is a curse.  It's clearly common belief, particularly among Templars, but it's not in what we've seen of the Chant of Light, or any of the relevant codexes written from a Chantry point of view.

The Reverend mother openly admits that the Chantry preaches that magic is a curse, and (if a human mage warden) apologizes for it, and assures you that she will not raise any mob against you while you defend the village.  There are other examples, but that sticks out in my mind.

The chantry clearly preaches fear of magic and directly benefits from preaching fear of magic.

-Polaris

[Ryzaki]

Silfren wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Like you're ignoring the definition of terrorist? 'kay. 

What, do we have to go into another discussion over how there is no singular, universally accepted definition of terrorism?

 

Alright then. There's no singular universally accepted definition of genocide either. 

GavrielKay wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
Hundreds? We have no way of  knowing how many mages were in thecircle (like with how many people were in the Chantry). 

Someone pointed out a codex from Genitivi a while back that numbered the Kirkwall circle in the hundreds even before the arrival of the Starkhaven mages.  As we see at most a few dozen who escape and attack us, it is reasonable to assume there are still hundreds left in the circle, including the young and elderly who aren't fit for an escape attempt.

 

Which codex? 

I wish I could remember.  But whatever thread it came up in had several posters in agreement

 

Yeah I need more than several posters in agreement unless those posters were on opposite sides of the issue. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juin 2011 - 10:55 .

[GavrielKay]

IanPolaris wrote...
The chantry clearly preaches fear of magic and directly benefits from preaching fear of magic.
-Polaris

Indeed.

And, even if you could somehow convince me that the Chantry's written doctrine didn't preach that...  there's always Meredith to prove the point.  A woman whose childhood trauma should have clearly rendered her unsuitable for any Templar duty higher than washing robes in the basement, was promoted to Knight Commander of the most precarious circle mentioned in the whole game world.  The tacit support of the Divine and Grand Cleric for Meredith shows the Chantry's true colors more than whatever verse you may point to in the Chant of Light.

[Wulfram]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Reverend mother openly admits that the Chantry preaches that magic is a curse, and (if a human mage warden) apologizes for it, and assures you that she will not raise any mob against you while you defend the village.  There are other examples, but that sticks out in my mind.

Looking in the toolset, she doesn't seem to mention anything about a curse, and the VO notes suggest that she finds the idea that she might "raise a rabble" amusing.

The chantry clearly preaches fear of magic and directly benefits from preaching fear of magic.

-Polaris

It advocates the control of magic.  For secular, pragmatic reasons, not doctrinal ones.

[IanPolaris]

Wulfram wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The Reverend mother openly admits that the Chantry preaches that magic is a curse, and (if a human mage warden) apologizes for it, and assures you that she will not raise any mob against you while you defend the village.  There are other examples, but that sticks out in my mind.

Looking in the toolset, she doesn't seem to mention anything about a curse, and the VO notes suggest that she finds the idea that she might "raise a rabble" amusing.

It's an ongoing theme, and there wasn't anything humorous about the Rev Mother in Redcliff.  Indeed she had no sense of humor at all (and VO notes are opinion and not lore).  You hear the theme as a mage starting from the very start of DAO (Keli and KC Gregoire) and it never varies.  The Chantry regards magic as a curse.

The chantry clearly preaches fear of magic and directly benefits from preaching fear of magic.

-Polaris

It advocates the control of magic.  For secular, pragmatic reasons, not doctrinal ones.

No they don't except for themselves.  The Chantry pretty clearly teaches people to hate and fear magic and all that practice it.  If that weren't so, the Chantry would have long ago made Templar training techniques public.

-Polaris

[Phoenix_Loftian]

GavrielKay wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
People are assuming that religions are inherently more unchanging- more "dogmatic"- than other human groupings/ organizations, and that's not true.  Human beings tend to hang on to our prejudices, but that's the case no matter where they come from.

Religions are more inherently unchanging.  Their whole basis revolves around having some sort of higher truth handed down from an infalible source.  Every case of evolving relgion I've ever heard of has been inflicted on the religion, not come about from self-scrutiny.  An outside force or loss of membership due to outside influence is always part of revising doctrine.

Other forms of human society do not rely on having any kind of ultimate truth and can therefore simply rethink things when it is necessary or advantageous.

1st bolded part, funny, that sounds just like the Arishok and the Qun.  I find it interesting that on these forums everyone and their dog hates the Chantry and yet heaps praise on the Arishok and the Qun.

2nd bolded part, we don't want to get into politics on these forums but more and more these days many people will have one politicla view and will not change it no matter how blatantly obivious that their party is very wrong in an instance.  Politics has become religion in may parts of the world.

I hate the Qun as well.  Anything that survives mostly by brainwashing people from birth doesn't sit well with me.  If you couldn't possibly come up with the notion by doing some real critical thinking, then I probably don't agree with it.  That's just me of course

And yes, modern politics (at least in America where I live) is becoming more and more like religion all the time.  I hate that too. 

Honestly, I agree with this but..I'd like to point out that the praise is more about how the Arishok doesn't hide, cower, cheat, or lie like the Chantry did.

He actually does have good points when he talks about the problems in Kirkwall and why it should be changed. He had some rather valid points about how stupid the Chantry was to pick a fight simply because the Qunari happened to be there.

Don't forget, it was HIS people being murdered by the Chantry, not the other way around. What happened to Petrice, in some scenarios, she ultimately asked for with her shady actions.

There is also one part I found interesting. The Arishok admitted that the Qun demanded he exploit the Viscount son's connection to his father to further the Qun's ends but the Arishok promised not to do that despite the Qun.

Petrice, of course, arranges the poor kid's death soon after.

[GavrielKay]

Ryzaki wrote...
Yeah I need more than several posters in agreement unless those posters were on opposite sides of the issue. 

Found it:

http://dragonage.wik..._The_Spiral_Eye

[Ryzaki]

GavrielKay wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
Yeah I need more than several posters in agreement unless those posters were on opposite sides of the issue. 

Found it:

http://dragonage.wik..._The_Spiral_Eye

 

Sweet. 

Thanks. 

This clears that up. 

[Virginian]

Elthinia was a set on the fence with it firmly shoved up her rear type that would do nothing even if it meant saving lives. She was warned to leave and ignored it. She deserved her fate.

As for blowing up the Chantry regardles of Elthinia, the Chantry is organized religion it deserves to be destroyed. The members of the Chantry support oppression and slavery and actively engage in those acts they deserve nothing less than death from the slowest, cruelest, and most painful way possible.

[GavrielKay]

Ryzaki wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
Yeah I need more than several posters in agreement unless those posters were on opposite sides of the issue. 

Found it:

http://dragonage.wik..._The_Spiral_Eye

 

Sweet. 

Thanks. 

This clears that up. 

I feel like we should have some sort of virtual celebration that at least one point could be cleared up by in game lore provided to the player.

It happens seldom enough  

[Silfren]

Ryzaki wrote...

No I mean those mages like Tarohne who force abominations into templar recruits, bloodmages like Gascard who have no problem killing innocent people to fuel their own ends. Bloodmages like Grace who turn on those who tried to help her and kidnap innocent people with the intention of killing them for vengeance. Mages like Orsino who let a serial murderer get away with his actions. 

If those other mages have to die to stop the above so be it . 

Not to mention GW bloodmages aren't in the circle. No mage in the circle has any necessity for bloodmagic. They're not protecting anyone, they have all the resources they need. As for not being illegally made tranquil or raped by Ser Alrik or Ser Kerras bloodmagic wasn't necessary. What they needed to do was flee. If they decided to fall onto bloodmagic instead of the mage underground then they singed their own death warrant.

If your counter-argument to Grey Warden blood mages is that they aren't in the Circle, well...Tarohne wasn't in the Circle and neither was Gascard.  Your argument may hold for Orsino and Grace but not for the other two.  But mages in the Circle who are fighting against corrupt templars DO have some justification for blood magic.  With templars prowling the place and being especially more vigiliant than in other Circles, as Karl himself stated, then it's not like a mage can simply get up and walk out.  And blood magic is an advantage because it's not detectable the way other magic is, and also more difficult for a templar to counter with their training.  Given just how corrupt and sadistic many of the Kirkwall templars are shown to be, it stuns me that anyone could blame a Circle mage for resorting to the only option that gives them anything close to a fighting chance.

Ryzaki wrote...
Except everyone in the circle *wasn't* innocent. They were innocent of Anders' crime. Not of being bloodmages. The RoA should've been called much earlier but Elthina was in the way. Anders only gave Meredith a convient excuse.

And that's what people are arguing--that the Circle mages are innocent of Anders crime.  Meredith may have initially been seeking out blood mages, but when the Chantry explodes, she completely drops that reason.  From that point onward, her only reason for carrying out the Right of Annulment is because of Anders.  And since that's the reasoning she's explicitly using, she is completely unjustified.

Ryzaki wrote...
Meredith didn't protect the people? So her and her templars killing those rogue mages and abominations wasn't protecting anyone at all? 

Rogue bloodmages and abominations put the people in danger. Aveline helped the people as well but so did Meredith.

And there is ample in-game evidence to support the theory that it was Meredith's extremist anti-mage position that was causing mages within Kirkwall--apostates and Circle mages alike--to turn to blood magic and demons.

Modifié par Silfren, 04 juin 2011 - 12:11 .

[Ryzaki]

GavrielKay wrote...
I feel like we should have some sort of virtual celebration that at least one point could be cleared up by in game lore provided to the player. 

It happens seldom enough  

 

That is very true. 

Sadly it does. We have so little information. *sighs*  Maybe I can get some cookies. 

All I have to say to that Silfren is I disagree. *shrugs* 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juin 2011 - 11:27 .

[Silfren]

Addai67 wrote...

This is why I say an answer to the mage issue in White Andrastian societies will best come from within (i.e. doctrinal reform) and not imposed on them from above, imposed by law and with greedy rulers to play arbiter. 

Except for one glaring problem with that idea that has already been pointed out to you at least once: the Chantry has no incentive to change.  If it does change from within, now, it will be because an external factor forced the Divine to realize that change was necessary if the Chantry was to survive at all. 

Nobody ever gets anywhere if they wait for a religio-political institution a la the Chantry to have sufficient internal motivation to change from within.