1207 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Yes, it's your speculation that the Right of Annulment was warranted when there's no proof it was justified, particularly when the person who invoked it mentions she's doing so to appease the mob.

As for antagonists, we face many of them outside the Gallows, and most of them have no known affiliation with the Kirkwall Circle. I see no reason to condemn an entire population to execution any more than one should kill every dwarf in Kirkwall because of the "waves" of carta members we can face as Hawke.

 

Letter from the circle in the serial killer's office about O and being given books. 

Grace and Alain being bloodmages and being supported by templars. 

Huon escapes from the circle and is a bloodmage. 

The other chick is a abomination. 

How is that no proof that there was no justiifcation for the RoA? You have several bloodmages freely moving within the circle and even converting some of the templars to their side. You end up breaking a group of bloodmages and templars trying to overthrow Meredith. As for Meredith's reasonings yeah they were weak. However the RoA was sent for far before Anders' bomb. Elthina just kept stopping Meredith. 

The divine is considering an Exalted March to deal with the mage problem. I'd rather annull the circle than having the divine see the whole city as an enemy. (this is frankly the justification Meredith should've given. Not the people revolting). 

And waves of dwarves can't control people's minds. But we're not going to agree on that. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juin 2011 - 12:55 .

[LobselVith8]

Ryzaki wrote...

Letter from the circle in the serial killer's office about O and being given books. 

Grace and Alain being bloodmages and being supported by templars. 

Huon escapes from the circle and is a bloodmage. 

The other chick is a abomination. 

So hundreds of men, women, and children should be brutally murdered because of five people? Much less, three of those people are already dead by the time the Right of Annulment is invoked.

Ryzaki wrote...

How is that no proof that there was no justiifcation for the RoA?

Out of hundreds of enchanters, mages, and apprentices, you provided five people.

Ryzaki wrote...

You have several bloodmages freely moving within the circle and even converting some of the templars to their side.

Are you talking about "Best Served Cold"? The mages allied with the renegade templars in that quest because they wanted to remove Meredith from her position as the dictator of Kirkwall.

Ryzaki wrote...

You end up breaking a group of bloodmages and templars trying to overthrow Meredith.

Considering that even her own templars wanted to oust her from power, I think there was a serious problem.

Ryzaki wrote...

As for Meredith's reasonings yeah they were weak. However the RoA was sent for far before Anders' bomb. Elthina just kept stopping Meredith. 

We're still back to the fact that we have no evidence that the Right of Annulment was justified.

Ryzaki wrote...

The divine is considering an Exalted March to deal with the mage problem.

 
Because Leliana's too inept to realize that the problems in Kirkwall are caused by Meredith, and instead blames a group of mages we only hear about from her own lips; had Leliana bothered to investigate the issue, she would've realized that Meredith caused unrest among the people of Kirkwall when she illegally took power, which is why the civilians, the nobles, the mages, and even her own templars wanted her gone.

Ryzaki wrote...

I'd rather annull the circle than having the divine see the whole city as an enemy. (this is frankly the justification Meredith should've given. Not the people revolting). 

I'd rather protect the innocent than murder them in cold blood, which is precisely what the Circle of Kirkwall is since Anders alone is responsible for the destruction of the Kirkwall Chantry.

Ryzaki wrote...

And waves of dwarves can't control people's minds. But we're not going to agree on that. 

The mages can't commit a legal act of genocide, either.

[Ryzaki]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Grace is an abomination, and Alain was raped by templars and sided with Thrask to remove a dictator from power.[/quote]

I wasn't aware that rape made kidnapping and conspiracy okay. As for Grace being an abomination that's even worse. Several well trained templars couldn't tell they had an abomination in their midst? 

[quote]

I see no reason to side with Knight-Commander Meredith over the mages. I have no incentive to murder hundreds of innocent men, women, and children to appease the mob.[/quote]
And when those innocent women men and children have people dangerous enough to have the Divine considering the declare an exalted march on the whole city yes I'll side against them. Needs of the many beat the needs of the few 

[quote]
It's not justified. The opinion of a mentally unbalanced Knight-Commander who became a dictator over the city-state to the point where civilians, nobles, mages, and even her own templars wanted to remove her from power doesn't convince me that hundreds of mages should be murdered.[/quote]

The threat of the Divine and the fact that there was bloodmages roaming around within the circle convinces me that hundreds of mages should be purged. 



[quote]
So, out of hundreds of men, women, and children, you think they should all be executed because of three people? One who is a dead abomination at the time the Right of Annulment is invoked, and another who is a rape victim?[/quote]

Again I wasn't aware rape made kidnapping and conspiracy okay. Especially not when that person may have helped in the first place. 

And no it's not just those three people. It's also the Divine's threat. 

[quote]
I didn't realize game mechanics qualified as proof. I'd imagine the ability to appear from thin air would be quite the concern for people throughout Kirkwall then.[/quote]

...Obviously the joke was lost on you. 

[quote]

"Best Served Cold" makes it apparent that mages and templars were willing to work together to remove Meredith.[/quote]

As well as the fact that there was several bloodmages (known bloodmages apparently) freely in the Circle. Despite such a thing being against the law. 

[quote]
The fact that Evelina wasn't an abomination when we met her in Act II and the fact that Huon wasn't murdering people left and right, since his wife was still alive before she reunited with her mentally unbalanced husband.[/quote] 

True. 

[quote]
That must explain why Aveline and her guards had to protect the civilians from a situation Meredith caused when she ordered the templars to kill the mages, and didn't once consider protecting the people of Kirkwall during this event.[/quote]

I was unaware that killing bloodmages wasn't protecting people. As Mordin says "sometimes heal patients. Sometimes execute dangerous people. Either way helps." 

[quote]
Besides the Genitivi written codex that notes that there are hundreds of mages in the Kirkwall Circle prior to the Starkhaven Circle being burned down, and the mages from that respective Circle being transferred to Kirkwall.[/quote]

I didn't know about this codex. I was wrong. 
[quote]
You forget the part where Meredith endangered everyone in Kirkwall by ordering a genocide against the Circle mages for an act an apostate was responsible for.[/quote]

That she did. But again between that and an exalted march? The EM would've done far more damage. 

[quote] It means that Meredith wasn't doing her job if abuses of authority are transpiring over the course of seven years without correction. And since Hawke gets a quest in Act III where the templars try to murder a woman for feeding her tortured and starved mage relative, I have little sympathy for Meredith's role as Kirkwall's despot.[/quote]

True. I have plenty of sympathy for Meredith's role however. Having to deal with rogue bloodmages while keeping the mages in the circle in check isn't an easy feat. Probably became even harder once she had todeal with revolts. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juin 2011 - 01:15 .

[Ryzaki]

LobselVith8 wrote...

So hundreds of men, women, and children should be brutally murdered because of five people? Much less, three of those people are already dead by the time the Right of Annulment is invoked.

Those five people didn't act alone. 

Out of hundreds of enchanters, mages, and apprentices, you provided five people.

And that's enough to me. Five bloodmages (and frankly its more than that. Only those five have actual names) is enough danger to civilians to warant a RoA since there was no way of knowing how many others had been taught by them. 

Are you talking about "Best Served Cold"? The mages allied with the renegade templars in that quest because they wanted to remove Meredith from her position as the dictator of Kirkwall.

And that doesn't excuse their bloodmagic. Actually makes it wose since they had templar support. 

Considering that even her own templars wanted to oust her from power, I think there was a serious problem.

Doesn't mean using bloodmagic was the way to go about it. 

We're still back to the fact that we have no evidence that the Right of Annulment was justified.

It was justified to me. The Divine was threatening to march on Kirkwall due to the mage threat. What better way to show her there's no need than by annulling the circle? 

 
Because Leliana's too inept to realize that the problems in Kirkwall are caused by Meredith, and instead blames a group of mages we only hear about from her own lips; had Leliana bothered to investigate the issue, she would've realized that Meredith caused unrest among the people of Kirkwall when she illegally took power, which is why the civilians, the nobles, the mages, and even her own templars wanted her gone.

You do realize those mages you fight beforehand are those resolutionists she's talking about right? You actually fight them. It's not imaginary. 

It was too late by then. The resolutionists had preyed on the situation and were stirring up trouble. 

I'd rather protect the innocent than murder them in cold blood, which is precisely what the Circle of Kirkwall is since Anders alone is responsible for the destruction of the Kirkwall Chantry.

Then we simply have different prorities. I'd rather defend the innocents from the Chantry's DM than potential bloodmages. 

The mages can't commit a legal act of genocide, either.

 
Edit: read that wrong. Nevermind. 

And I disagree about the RoA being genocide. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juin 2011 - 01:13 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Ugh linequoting, how I hate linequoting. The bane of discourse. I understand it on a fundamental level, and I engage in it from time to time, but oh the frustration of seeing page after page of linequoting in a formerly rich wall-of-text discussion.

I really see the blood mage problem in Kirkwall as a chicken-egg situation, and the problem is that one side will always call chicken, while I am firmly of the belief that egg. I suppose there is no good way to determine which is the case: if the inmates at the asylum hadn't been tortured and raped and threatened with lobotomies, would they really have all been mad? I'll definitely agree that some would have been... there's always some real crazy. But eventually you can't always tell the difference between the girl who goes in crazy and the girl who goes in mildly troubled and is beaten by orderlies during her entire adolescence until she's completely disassociative.

I can tell you this: fear, beatings, solitary confinement... these are all going to cause mental instability. We already know that mental instability is very very very bad for mages. For God's Sake, people, stop doing things that UNQUESTIONABLY MAKE IT WORSE. Essentially you're chaining up a dog, beating it, starving it, and then when it attacks you're labeling it as mad. Maybe it is, now. But you made it that way!

It's been theorized that the reason they put Anders in solitary for a year was to try to get him to resort to blood magic. Being put in solitary for a year will break just about anyone's mind, and then once they turn to blood magic or get possessed they can be safely and legally executed.

Based on the number of bloodmages we see in the various circumstances where we encounter the circle, versus the apparent number that occur among the Dalish and the Rivani, it really does seem like the Templars create more blood mages throught their abuses than they could possibly be preventing. In some cases it's almost definitely deliberate. In other cases, it's probably just a side-effect of institutionalized corruption. But I honestly think that, if "preventing blood magic" Is your goal, the Templars are doing more harm than good.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 04 juin 2011 - 01:36 .

[Ryzaki]

And letting the bloodmages the institution created run around freely helps how exactly?

[ElvaliaRavenHart]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

My speculation?

Yes those bloodmages attacking me was all my imagination then.  

Yes, it's your speculation that the Right of Annulment was warranted when there's no proof it was justified, particularly when the person who invoked it mentions she's doing so to appease the mob.

As for antagonists, we face many of them outside the Gallows, and most of them have no known affiliation with the Kirkwall Circle. I see no reason to condemn an entire population to execution any more than one should kill every dwarf in Kirkwall because of the "waves" of carta members we can face as Hawke.

I don't know, but I think Varric might appreciate it if you kill off all of the Dwarven Merchants Guild.  (Don't take this to heart I'm joking here, maybe the owner of the Hanged Man since Aveline wouldn't do it. 

I see alot of those bloodmages we were fighting all over the place had more of a connection to Trevinter and the Slave hunters than anyone else, those we see outside of the Gallows.  We have just a few bloodmages inside of the gallows and didn't most of them come from Starkhaven and the only true bloodmage from Kirkwall was Orsino until all of the abuse started.

Also, can someone clue me in on when Alain says he was raped, I missed this in the game apparently.

Where Meredith is concerned with mages being made tranquil after their harrowing, I can see her having full knowledge of this.  I also see her knowing about the other things as well and she just didn't give a darn where mages are concerned.  She probably ordered templars who were loyal to her to do these things.

 She also didn't strike me as someone who doesn't fully know what is going on in her keep and Kirkwall itself.  She caught Alistair trying to sneek in under the wire, this is when she made herself dictator of Kirkwall.  Don't forget in the "Enemies Among Us Quest" there were rumors she was allowing some type of torture of her own templars. 

The way I see it she invoked the ROA more for gaining the support of the nobility and gaining of their trust for her postion as ruler of Kirkwall.   She didn't have a legal standing ordering all mages killed when the person responsible was Anders and he was right there in her grasp.  This didn't give her the right to order mages within the circle that had done no wrong in slaughtering them.  Even if you side with Templars you still have to kill circle mages that still want the cirlce and they stand with the templars. 

It's really a no win situation all the way around.

Modifié par ElvaliaRavenHart, 04 juin 2011 - 02:44 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Ryzaki wrote...

And letting the bloodmages the institution created run around freely helps how exactly?

That is the strawest of all the possible strawmen. Even Anders is for killing blood mages.

Still, let's play pretend.

Assume there are 200 mages in the Kirkwall Circle right now. 10 are blood mages. If we keep the Templars in charge, 60 will be blood mages by next year. The mages who are most likely to be able to escape and cause chaos are blood mages. Mages who are stressed and abused are more likely to become blood mages. Blood mages are also the most likely to be able to avoid capture, or escape, as their magic is undetectable and cannot be countered by Templars as easily.

Now, assume we have no way of knowing who the ten blood mages are. I still think it's safer to avoid creating those extra 50 blood mages, even if it means a blood mage or two gets away. I think that having 50 blood mages in a city is worse than 10, whether or not they're "locked up."

You seem to be arguing that any time there is a significant blood mage presence in a circle, every mage in that circle should be murdered whether or not they are a blood mage. This means that if the templars wish to murder their charges, they need only torture and drive insane a few of them to be justified in murdering them all. This encourages torture and rape and beatings, and creates more blood mages, which endanger more people. Basically I'm saying that without the Templars, the problem in Kirkwall would never have been remotely as bad as it was. And you're saying that the people who set up this dogfighting ring should be able to go door to door and murder everyone's puppies, because they proved that dogs can be dangerous.

That just encourages the people running the dogfighting ring to keep training dogs to kill, and keep letting them free on the streets. That means that there will always be a job for the puppy drowners, because there will always be dangerous dogs around. The templars are creating blood mages, so there will always be a reason to torture mages, so there will always be blood mages. If we don't stop it now, more people will die than would if we didn't torture mages.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Okay, I'm gunna toss my hat in real quick. I have a very simple and pragmatic reason why I helped Meredith kill all those poor mages: I just wanted it over with.

From Hawke's position, its either help the Templers kill the bloodmages and regular mages together and bring order to the city... or fight both the bloodmages AND the Templers AND Orsino and only then not have any real order to the city. There is still a power vacuum. And you have a situation that the Chantry really can't combat in any other way OTHER than a Divine March.

Protecting the mages may be all well and noble but is it the quickest way to restore order to the city? From my point of view, no. This is, honestly, debatable.

But when I played through the game a second time and had the Templers at my back when I went up against those Bloodmages... I felt a lot better. Sure I had to kill innocent mages later. But at least I could save the innocent Templers. On my first playthough I had to kill them all. And that sucks. When your choices are kill mages or kill everyone, it was easy for me to pick the former option.

[Ryzaki]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
That is the strawest of all the possible strawmen. Even Anders is for killing blood mages. 

Still, let's play pretend.

Assume there are 200 mages in the Kirkwall Circle right now. 10 are blood mages. If we keep the Templars in charge, 60 will be blood mages by next year. The mages who are most likely to be able to escape and cause chaos are blood mages. Mages who are stressed and abused are more likely to become blood mages. Blood mages are also the most likely to be able to avoid capture, or escape, as their magic is undetectable and cannot be countered by Templars as easily.

Now, assume we have no way of knowing who the ten blood mages are. I still think it's safer to avoid creating those extra 50 blood mages, even if it means a blood mage or two gets away. I think that having 50 blood mages in a city is worse than 10, whether or not they're "locked up."

You seem to be arguing that any time there is a significant blood mage presence in a circle, every mage in that circle should be murdered whether or not they are a blood mage. This means that if the templars wish to murder their charges, they need only torture and drive insane a few of them to be justified in murdering them all. This encourages torture and rape and beatings, and creates more blood mages, which endanger more people. Basically I'm saying that without the Templars, the problem in Kirkwall would never have been remotely as bad as it was. And you're saying that the people who set up this dogfighting ring should be able to go door to door and murder everyone's puppies, because they proved that dogs can be dangerous.

That just encourages the people running the dogfighting ring to keep training dogs to kill, and keep letting them free on the streets. That means that there will always be a job for the puppy drowners, because there will always be dangerous dogs around. The templars are creating blood mages, so there will always be a reason to torture mages, so there will always be blood mages. If we don't stop it now, more people will die than would if we didn't torture mages.

How is that a strawman when thats exactly what occurs in the mage ending? I don't recall fightig those same bloodmages in the mage ending. Anders is all for killing bloodmages yet he doesn't kill that one in the room right behind him after you finish him off. You do release bloodmages in the mage ending. Just like you help kill rape victims and help rapists in the templar ending. Neither side is pure. I really didn't think you were the type to throw the word strawman around. 

And I agree on stopping it. I just diagree that setting all the mages loose at the same time is the way to do it. Using your abused dog scenario when there's a group of abused and wild dgs once you close the bullfighting ring you don't just let them out into the world. You recouperate them. 

And I'm fully aware of the sysem creating more bloodmages. You seem to think I'm in favor of the current system. I'm not. I'm just not infavor of turning all of them all mages (bloodmages would be included because there's no real way of knowing until they use bloodmagic ) loose at once. My choice is either kill em all blodmages included or release em all bloodmages included. I err on the side of caution and kill them all. Yes that means I killed a lot of innocent people. I believe its worth it. You may not. It's all opinion in the end. 

As for templars the abuses and the likes of the templars do need to be stopped. Never said they didn't. With the circle completely annulled you can rebuild *without* the rampant abuses and the like. (Made even more likely when Cullen replaces Meredith). But of course menot wanting to do it your way means I don't want to stop it at all. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juin 2011 - 02:09 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

The problem is that everyone who says "I'm in favor of stopping it, but not this way" has failed to provide a decent way of stopping it... well, except for KoP, who provided a plan that it would take a Xanatos or Vetinari-level mind to pull off... something that is in short supply in Thedas and shorter supply in Kirkwall.

I said this before, and I'll say it again: if you side with the Templars, there is no reason for the status quo to change. There is no indication that you will or can do anything to break the cycle. With the mages, there's no telling how this will turn out, I will admit. I just feel that the Status Quo is inherently more dangerous than the vast majority of possible results of a single circle of mages going free and a widespread mage revolution being stirred up.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

@CGG: I do not agree with your premise that abuse 'creates' blood mages. Is Anders a blood mage? No. Was he abused? Most definitely.

Deals with demons create blood mages. And even though the Templers seemed to be particularly cruel to their charges in Kirwall, I would say it was the thin veil, the thing that keeps the demons from interacting with mages, that led to the rampant blood mage problem in Kirkwall.

If demons can more easily reach mages, they are able to exert a more powerful pull, it is only natural that more mages will take the deal, right?

Also,

"You seem to be arguing that any time there is a SIGNIFICANT blood mage presence in a circle, every mage in that circle should be murdered whether or not they are a blood mage."

This is certainly the Qunari view on mages. Blood mages can exert a powerful corruptive force on their fellows. Remember Uldred? Remember what he did to the other mages? He was turning them into abominations left and right. Literally.

'Significant,' is the key word here. In the case of Uldred, there was indeed a right of annulment coming for the circle. And the corruption stemmed from ONE SINGLE BLOODMAGE. It takes just one blood mage, a powerful one though, to spoil the whole pot. The chantry indeed seems to preach exaclty what you seem to balk at. If a circle is 'significantly currupted' it must burn.

Now wether Kirwall's curruption was significant enough is open to interpretation.

[Ryzaki]

Actually I was more in favor of something like KoP's plan.

And I disagree. I feel that rocking the boat with no plan, no resources and no allies is far more dangerous than the status quo. Running around screaming "FREEDOM" when you have no real plan of what's gonna happen afterwards isn't gonna get you far. 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juin 2011 - 02:15 .

[Shimmer_Gloom]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

The problem is that everyone who says "I'm in favor of stopping it, but not this way" has failed to provide a decent way of stopping it... well, except for KoP, who provided a plan that it would take a Xanatos or Vetinari-level mind to pull off... something that is in short supply in Thedas and shorter supply in Kirkwall.

I said this before, and I'll say it again: if you side with the Templars, there is no reason for the status quo to change. There is no indication that you will or can do anything to break the cycle. With the mages, there's no telling how this will turn out, I will admit. I just feel that the Status Quo is inherently more dangerous than the vast majority of possible results of a single circle of mages going free and a widespread mage revolution being stirred up.

And when the whole city is literally burning down, and you have blood mages and freaking DESIRE DEMONS in the street, you want to what... not return the city to its status quo?  I think that is EXACTLY what you would want to do.

Why not kill the bloodmages and demons and put out the fires and protect the city THEN worry about the darned 'status quo.'  I mean, this is like saying lets work on finacial legislation and tort reform durring the Zombie Doomsday.   I think one should return to the status quo first, then worry about reform.

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Ryzaki wrote...

Actually I was more in favor of something like KoP's plan.

And I disagree. I feel that rocking the boat with no plan, no resources and no allies is far more dangerous than the status quo. Running around screaming "FREEDOM" when you have no real plan of what's gonna happen afterwards isn't gonna get you far. 

Dang it!  Thats what I just said!

... oh no...

You must be a blood mage because you are READING MY MIND!!!!!!!!!

[Ryzaki]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Actually I was more in favor of something like KoP's plan.

And I disagree. I feel that rocking the boat with no plan, no resources and no allies is far more dangerous than the status quo. Running around screaming "FREEDOM" when you have no real plan of what's gonna happen afterwards isn't gonna get you far. 

Dang it!  Thats what I just said!

... oh no...

You must be a blood mage because you are READING MY MIND!!!!!!!!!

 

My bad that was supposed to originally be towards CGG. And you posted too quickly.  

Though maybe I am a bloodmage. :innocent: 

Modifié par Ryzaki, 04 juin 2011 - 02:28 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
I don't think it's bad for a religious institution to have political power, but we're probably just going to differ on that.  For one thing, if the army is not all in one set of hands, it's less difficult for tyranny to exist on either side. 

So now you think that Orlais is not a tyranny?

I don't see "modernity" either as inevitable or inevitably good.

Let's assume that it's not, but that it is happening in Thedas. Would you stop it?

I would agree if the "above" we're talking about is within the Chantry itself and not an outside power imposing a doctrinal reform on them. 

I dont' see any reason for the Chantry to change by itself without being pressured to. And leaderxhip is not "external" to society, it's a part of it.

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.

I know, any group / institution / organizations can be stubborn and opposing change unless pressured to.

Well look around.  They're hardly the only ones.

They are the most prominent ones, at least in DA2.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

The problem is that everyone who says "I'm in favor of stopping it, but not this way" has failed to provide a decent way of stopping it... well, except for KoP, who provided a plan that it would take a Xanatos or Vetinari-level mind to pull off... something that is in short supply in Thedas and shorter supply in Kirkwall.

I said this before, and I'll say it again: if you side with the Templars, there is no reason for the status quo to change. There is no indication that you will or can do anything to break the cycle. With the mages, there's no telling how this will turn out, I will admit. I just feel that the Status Quo is inherently more dangerous than the vast majority of possible results of a single circle of mages going free and a widespread mage revolution being stirred up.

And when the whole city is literally burning down, and you have blood mages and freaking DESIRE DEMONS in the street, you want to what... not return the city to its status quo?  I think that is EXACTLY what you would want to do.

Why not kill the bloodmages and demons and put out the fires and protect the city THEN worry about the darned 'status quo.'  I mean, this is like saying lets work on finacial legislation and tort reform durring the Zombie Doomsday.   I think one should return to the status quo first, then worry about reform.

The problem is that this is how, as they say, "they get you." 

"Reform!" someone shouts.
"Crap, we'd better torture a bunch of mages so they go insane and everyone forgets about reform." 
"Hey guys, maybe stop torturing mages so much?"
"Oh look... bloodmages, running amok! Help us murder ever mage."
"Ok, but you'll do some reforms once we're done here, yeah?"
"Suuuuuure we will. We promise." 

Repeat for 1000 years.

[KnightofPhoenix]

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 self-hating mage in Origins. She referred to what the priestess said if I recall. So either the Chantry preached it to her, or did not try to change her mind and took advantage of it. In both cases, the Chantry is feeding off of popular hatred, whether it's something they created or not, and are not trying to change it.

Why would they? It would compromise their power.

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

Because there are no hard counter to crossbows and is hard to regulate. There are to magic: Templar like warriors. And the control of lyrium.

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?

If the situation is desperate, then sacrifices are to be made. That happens with or without blood magic. And indeed, we saw plenty of examples. 

That's not the problem for me. The potential problem is mages getting out of control, hence why I also advocate states holding Templar like warriors and tightly controlling Lyrium. The latter would only make sense if blood magic is regulated. I personally would advocate esoteric and selective usage of blood magic.

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

Not really. I see no evidence that the Chantry actively organized multi-lateral Exalted Marches. Only that they declared them, but the command and control was most likely left to states (especially Orlais). Who wouldn't have joined were it not for percieved interest.

Furthermore, the Chantry failed miserably to act in Blights, and it was left to Wardfens to rally states up effectively.

And finally, this period is coming to an end. The Chantry failed and is collapsing. Its founding state Orlais is degrading. Trying to keep the Chantry is like putting a political dinosaur in life support systems. It's futile.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
I don't think it's bad for a religious institution to have political power, but we're probably just going to differ on that.  For one thing, if the army is not all in one set of hands, it's more difficult for tyranny to exist on either side. 

So now you think that Orlais is not a tyranny?

When did I ever say that?  They were acting as tyrants in Ferelden, to be sure.  Anyway I said more difficult, not impossible.

Let's assume that it's not, but that it is happening in Thedas. Would you stop it?

No one's a god.  The question is nonsense.

I dont' see any reason for the Chantry to change by itself without being pressured to. And leaderxhip is not "external" to society, it's a part of it.

I'm talking about external to the Chantry.  The state should not be allowed to use a religious organization as a tool any more than it should work the other way around.

They are the most prominent ones, at least in DA2.

No, I would say that the viscount and city guard are the most incompetent.  The Divine is actually showing some initiative and the civil government simply doesn't exist.  It's kind of hard to talk about it, though, because the setup makes no sense- how does a city state even exist without a military of some kind?

[Shimmer_Gloom]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Shimmer_Gloom wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

The problem is that everyone who says "I'm in favor of stopping it, but not this way" has failed to provide a decent way of stopping it... well, except for KoP, who provided a plan that it would take a Xanatos or Vetinari-level mind to pull off... something that is in short supply in Thedas and shorter supply in Kirkwall.

I said this before, and I'll say it again: if you side with the Templars, there is no reason for the status quo to change. There is no indication that you will or can do anything to break the cycle. With the mages, there's no telling how this will turn out, I will admit. I just feel that the Status Quo is inherently more dangerous than the vast majority of possible results of a single circle of mages going free and a widespread mage revolution being stirred up.

And when the whole city is literally burning down, and you have blood mages and freaking DESIRE DEMONS in the street, you want to what... not return the city to its status quo?  I think that is EXACTLY what you would want to do.

Why not kill the bloodmages and demons and put out the fires and protect the city THEN worry about the darned 'status quo.'  I mean, this is like saying lets work on finacial legislation and tort reform durring the Zombie Doomsday.   I think one should return to the status quo first, then worry about reform.

The problem is that this is how, as they say, "they get you." 

"Reform!" someone shouts.
"Crap, we'd better torture a bunch of mages so they go insane and everyone forgets about reform." 
"Hey guys, maybe stop torturing mages so much?"

"Oh look... bloodmages, running amok! Help us murder ever mage."
"Ok, but you'll do some reforms once we're done here, yeah?"
"Suuuuuure we will. We promise." 

Repeat for 1000 years.

The first three lines of dialogue have already happened.  You are at the fourth line of dailogue.  You have desire demons walking down three street enslaving people's minds.  People's houses are literally on fire.  It is going down.  Its judgement day.

Are you really going to sit on your hands and go:  "No, I don't believe you really mean it this time.  Mages need to have babies and be able to see their families and blah blah-- BY THE SWEET BALLS OF THE MAKER A DEMON IS EATING MY FOOT."

Sure, killing the mages does not give them freedom.  But at this point, is mage freedom more important than killing blood mages and restoring order?  I say no.

[Addai]

Silfren wrote...
More.  Key word there.  You said it yourself.  You followed it with a general statement that human beings tend to hang on to our prejudices regardless of where those prejudices originate, which is true, but the point as you yourself stated in the first bit of that quote is that religions especially are MORE unchanging and prone to clinging to dogma.  That humans have an innate tendency to be stubbornly resistant to change doesn't alter the fact that religious institutions in particular tend to be even more obnoxiously resistant to change than any other human endeavor.  And in particular, religion has an inherent tendency to obstinately resist change even when it is faced with the prospect of losing relevance and dying if it does not.  The institution the Chantry is rather heavily based on is notorious for this.

There are times in history and certain cultures that are more conservative than others, to be sure, but I don't see that it correlates to any particular meaningful distinction.  The "institution" you keep referring to, for instance, went through many changes during the medieval period, not all of these born from or resutling in violent conflict.  There's no value in such judgments except to confirm your own prejudice.

[The Baconer]

Addai67 wrote...
The Divine is actually showing some initiative

Yes, because apparently the Kirkwall branch is so bad she's investigating whether or not they should just purge the entire city.

and the civil government simply doesn't exist.

It doesn't exist because of the Chantry. Or rather, Meredith.

It's kind of hard to talk about it, though, because the setup makes no sense- how does a city state even exist without a military of some kind?

It was dissolved with the Templars taking its place after Viscount Perrin Threnhold's failed attempt to push them out of the city.

Modifié par The Baconer, 04 juin 2011 - 02:44 .

[Shimmer_Gloom]

Also, as my post earlier got sidestepped I'm gunna reiterate my point:

Deals with demons create blood mages. And even though the Templers seemed to be particularly cruel to their charges in Kirwall, I would say it was the thin veil, the thing that keeps the demons from interacting with mages, that led to the rampant blood mage problem in Kirkwall.

We keep going back to 'torturing mages creates blood mages!' 'Reform would stop the problem of blood magic!' 'Freedom for mages is safety for Kirkwall.'

I do not agree with this at all. Anders was tortured. Did he turn to blood magic? Blood magic comes from demons. Period. This is the source. Not Templers.

The blood mage problem and the freedom for mages problem are TWO different problems. Yet they are connected. But not with a straight line. Locking up mages does not keep them from blood magic (walls do not stop a demon). And neither does setting them free for that matter. Let us get that straight.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
When did I ever say that?  They were acting as tyrants in Ferelden, to be sure.  Anyway I said more difficult, not impossible.

If anything, it made Orlesian tyranny in Ferelden easier.

Politics is never as simple as thiunking that checks balance each other out. All you need is mutual political interest and the equation is gone.

And I am not even bringing about the problems with defections, looking out for private interests, and even infighting when it comes to having multiple armed forces in one state. But evidently, you think the bannorn is a good idea.

No one's a god.  The question is nonsense.

It isn't. That's the fundamental difference between realists and idealists. Realist look at the world and how it is and adapt. Idealist look at the world and how it ought to be.

If Thedas is moving beyond the medieval mentality like I think it is, then this is the reality that must be delt with.

I'm talking about external to the Chantry.  The state should not be allowed to use a religious organization as a tool any more than it should work the other way around.

Why not? That's like saying the state should never be allowed to use media. Yea, I don't really care what they "should" or "shouldn't" do, we know that they do. Though rarely do they control it completely. 

Furthermore, again, why would the Chantry change by itself if not pressured to?
By the kindness of some of its priests? Let's assume that such selfless apolitical priests exist, are powerful enough and deliberately weaken the Chantry by changing its dogma. What's to guarantee that it won't reverse back? What are the institutional changes that will happen to prevent such a thing? More importantly, who is going to make  sure those arrangements are imposed?

No, I would say that the viscount and city guard are the most incompetent.  The Divine is actually showing some initiative and the civil government simply doesn't exist.  It's kind of hard to talk about it, though, because the setup makes no sense- how does a city state even exist without a military of some kind?

The Viscount was deliberatly chosen to be weak and the guards were demilitarized and broken by the Chantry.

The Divine showing intiative? LOL yea thinking about an Exalted March on an Andrastrian country. Such initiative. Why didn't she take initiative and fire the two most incompetent people in Kirkwall? Meredith and Elthina.

Kirkwall had a military, and it was defeated by the Templars. Furthermore, Free Marchers generally aunite when facing external threat.