181 réponses à ce sujet

[Marduksdragon]

@Rifneno

Christ denied being a pacifist and he attacked men who profaned the temple with a braided scourge, whipping them and upsetting their goods. He engaged in supernatural combat with the demons called Legion and cast them into pigs. Those are just two examples. He also killed a tree in a fury because it offered him no fruit when he was hungry. In some of the excised books of the Bible, he fought more than just men and demons-- but also the occasional dragon. It may be true that he didn't prefer violence, but he was no buddhist monk to set himself on fire and quietly wait for death to make a point about the evils of bloodshed.

When you start to call names, it influences others to pick it up in a thread. I don't care that it wasn't directed at me-- name calling is more disasterous (and pointless on a board) even in frustration over hypotheticals than quietly discussing antique religious motivations. I think we're doing quite well, actually. No fire and brimstone, all opinions and facts listened to and discussed.

I never supported wiping out the Templars. They're slaves of an evil empire under the influence of a mind-altering substance. If the mages must be freed of the Chantry, so must the Templars. Quid pro quo.

As for the diabetes jab-- I politely ask you to desist for the thread's sake. I'm here to talk, not sling insults. If anything that whole section of mine should be read with a tone of disgust. I would expound further on my private views -which are hardly sugary anything- but this isn't the place.

If you think the Crusades were about conversion you are mistaken. That was an after-effect of the original purpose that is blown up (much like the nonsense about the Templars, or even slavery being the 'reason' behind the American Civil War. Certainly it became a rallying cry later, but not in the beginning) to encompass the entire event. The reason behind the original Crusade was an attempt to reunify the Eastern and Western churches. The 'saracens' were hardly innocently sitting on their hands the entire time even before the first Crusade, waiting to be attacked. They were actively aggrivating the communities of eastern Christians in their own borders-- despite the Quran forbidding such things against fellow 'people of the book' so long as they were respectful of the muslims. It's one of the reasons the Eastern church would even deign to accept help from the West after the split over ideologies (that often caused fights even during the Crusades). Everyone eventually ended up allying with or fighting everyone else--- with mixed forces of muslims and christians on both sides (most memorably during the fifth crusade) depending on how the political winds were blowing.

http://www.glossary....ry.php?q=Church
By the definition of the word, the Chantry is a church.

church, church building -- (a place for public (especially Christian) worship; "the church was empty")[/list]church service, church -- (a service conducted in a house of worship; "don't be late for church")[/list]church -- (the body of people who attend or belong to a particular local church; "our church is hosting a picnic next week")[/list]Three of the four listed definitions apply to the Chantry. It says "especially" Christian, not exclusively.

Vengeance blew up a church.

As an example of differing beliefs in the Chantries themselves-- the Black Divine and the White Divine and all that entails. Sure, this is the most extreme example--- but we can also add Haven's Chantry as an example of a heretical chantry. If we go a step further we can say the proto-chantry mentioned by the Guardian is even further different--- especially when compared to the Orlesian Chantry of the White Divine. That's at least four big differences right there.

[Rifneno]

R0vena wrote...

What I am saying that it is a game, it has certain game mechanics and to make the conclusion for the nature of the character out of one moment of the game does not seem right to me.

Am I to assume the irony of the fact this thread is about judging a character, Anders, by a single moment out of the game has eluded you?

Marduksdragon wrote...

When you start to call names, it influences others to pick it up in a thread.

Again, it's not wrong to insult a hypothetical person. I did not insult a fellow poster, I insulted a fictional being that existed nowhere outside of that sentence. I think he can take it. I certainly haven't heard any complaints.

I never supported wiping out the Templars. They're slaves of an evil empire under the influence of a mind-altering substance. If the mages must be freed of the Chantry, so must the Templars. Quid pro quo.

I never said you supported it. I support it. There are some like Alistair that didn't join by choice and that's unfortunate. However it's hardly possible to separate them. War is not a trial where only the guilty are punished. An enemy soldier is an enemy soldier.

As for the diabetes jab-- I politely ask you to desist for the thread's sake. I'm here to talk, not sling insults. If anything that whole section of mine should be read with a tone of disgust. I would expound further on my private views -which are hardly sugary anything- but this isn't the place.

It was said with humorous intent, not malicious intent. If you want to get offended, be my guest. I'm not going to apologize though; referring to not killing people who disagree with you as "not being honest about religion anymore" is sugar-coating it to a jawdropping degree. No one has the right to kill "heathens," whether they're real life templars centuries ago or the Chantry's fictional crack junkies.

That said, if my overall tone came across negatively, I do apologize for that. Having been through the Chantry debate too many times, sometimes my irritation with a few of the mainstays on the other side bleeds through to others undeserving. That isn't my intention however, as while we disagree you make a well thought-out response rather than spew "you won't be happy until mages have total freedom to rape!" like those that got me irritated in the first place.

http://www.glossary.com/dictionary.php?q=Church
By the definition of the word, the Chantry is a church.

Hmm. I did a few searches about the word. There are some conflicting theories on it it seems, as I found several long and well written articles about what the word means that differed greatly. However I can't find a single usage of the word that isn't Christian. As in, an actual organization calling itself a church that does not worship Christ. There's one mention of a non-Christian church in one of the bibles, but it's a mistranslation apparently (I know, shocker right?).

Vengeance blew up a church.

That was in charge of an army responsible for violently oppression. Honestly I don't care if people call the Chantry a blue oak, I just don't want the Chantry to be associated with peaceful religious organizations that actually are innocent. The Chantry doesn't deserve to be associated with modern churches any more than al-qaeda.

[Marduksdragon]

@Rifneno

Same respect back to you. I think we're having a lovely conversation, despite disagreeing.

Do you imagine  war to be only a neatly as you describe?-- my point with the Crusades is that it's never that easy. Enemies today, friends tomorrow, even across relgious lines. You extoll the modern pacifism of religion to the point where you are continually misunderstanding what I've said previously (and honestly I give up, I can't explain here- no fault on you, this just isn't the place to differentiate my disdain) and taking it as sugar then decry the ability to forgive and discern between types of enemies and simply call it the wages of war. There's something off about that. An enemy soldier is a man first-- even trained marines miss more shots than they hit because there's an instinctive lack of wanting to kill people hardwired into most human beings.

Hardliner? I hate the Chantry in Orlais with the same kind of blinding ire that I reserve for the Orlesians in general. Supporting the Templars and what they do as a function (protect mages and the general population from them) is entirely seperate than thinking the Divine has a right to come in and stomp on things because she's in a tiff over how uppity the mages have gotten. I play mages, I like mages, but as a general rule I would feel safer as a mage knowing that the Templars were on hand to help me. If help me means a sword because I've become and Abomination, so be it. I'd choose death over harming loads of people if I were sane. All that was required to make that decision in DA2 was think about how much I like Carver and Gamlen, and then relay it onto Ygraine-- she loves them to pieces despite them being so onery-- if she became possessed she would absolutely rather Cullen or Keran or whomever strike her down than do harm to them. Mages can't police themselves effectively because of what we've seen in Uldred's case--- Possessed mages can implant demons in other Mages even if they're only made willing by torture (thus unleashing more abominations) or sleep--- not genuine interest in whatever "gift" the spirit wishes to bestow. To do this to a Templar requires days more work with several mages working together. This means the Templars are necessary. I just think they should be secular and regulated like the Guard. It doesn't mean they have to be any less religious themselves if they choose to be, just that they don't need to be commanded by a religious leader who does not have their best interests in mind - let alone the best interests of their charges. And they already choose not to be, by game's end titles.

The difference is that Al Qaeda was always a terrorist organization, one the American CIA funded during the cold war to bedevil the communists- (unlike the Templars you lump them in with, who had the unpleasant main task of fighting off bandits trying to accost people on the road, and keeping the smaller unwalled villages clear of criminals.) it was specifically formed to "annoy the neighbors" in various ways. Anders, who is starting this 'glorious revolution' is the one blowing up buildings full of innocent people. Granted there were Templars in there too, but Vengeance hardly checked for the serving staff, that guy with the pox who is always praying in there, etc... And the fallout from the building is going to do a great deal of harm to a lot of innocent people- none of which Vengeance cares about at all. (I'd kill anyone in this city to see mages free)  He cares about only his ideals-- much like Meredith (who is also crazy). Compared to Cullen, who will stand up to Meredith to protect the mages when push comes to shove -- who will differentiate even during a fight between combatants as 'enemies' or 'innocents', Vengeance is more clearly the type of terrorist you describe with the "Al Qaeda" label. But i don't put that label on Anders. What he really reminds me of is Guy Fawkes and Herostratus (the man who burned the Temple of Artemis to make a point and 'be remembered forever' although most people do not, in fact, know his name)- only the demon he's ridden by isn't faith or pride-- it's a literal Demon.

As far as the lumping in general-- you're entitled to your opinion as am I.

As far as Churches--- I can name two off the top of my head. Church of Satan. They decadently worship themselves as the highest power in the universe. Or the Humanist Church-- who believes in doing good works simply because they are good and not because some divine presence compells them to.

Modifié par Marduksdragon, 02 juillet 2011 - 03:38 .

[dgcatanisiri]

Staying on topic, I recently killed Anders. Even though I liked the basic fact of keeping Sebastian on my side, as a character, if not from a practical standpoint since I didn't use him in the final fight, the fact of the matter is he speaks of exactly why I normally don't. He dies as a martyr to the cause. I don't want him to become a martyr, to hear mages of later generations speak his name with the same reverence as Andraste for the fact that he blew up a place of worship in the name of denying compromise. I have my issues with Elthina's methods, but he blew up the chantry not because Elthina refused to take action but because he WANTED to spark a war. Elthina and the chantry represented compromise, and he wouldn't allow one to be found. Unless the mages got total freedom, the Circles abolished entirely, he wasn't satisfied.

In that moment, Anders wanted to die. I would rather he live with his guilt. Kill him, people make up their own stories about his motivations. Let him live and he will have to have his story told.

[Vit246]

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Do not mistake the chantry as a modern real-life church. It is so much more than a "place of worship".

Anders WANTED compromise, but there is none. Anders blew up the chantry precisely because Elthina refused to do anything about the conflict. Is there compromise in Elthina's inaction? He didn't want a war, but there really was no alternative to it, no real compromise. Again, there is no existing compromise to deny. He actually gave Elthina the benefit of the doubt when he heard how she rejected the tranquil solution. He waited years for Elthina to do more, but she just did not want to do anything about the templars, her own subordinates. He gave her one last chance to renounce her naive pretense of "neutrality", but she was stubborn. How can Elthina and the chantry represent compromise when things got so much progressively worse for mages in the later years with the templars raping, torturing, and illegally tranquilling harrowed mages?. The chantry is the problem. It created the current system in the first place. It has all the power and authority over mages. The templars under their authority are given the power of life and death over mages. Hell, Elthina knew of Meredith's methods and what templars were doing under Meredith's authority, but did nothing about it, hoping for the whole thing to just blow over. She didn't do anything like order all templars to stand down or get a replacement for Meredith. Elthina and the chantry as a whole did nothing. That is not compromise.

Modifié par Vit246, 03 juillet 2011 - 02:28 .

[LobselVith8]

Marduksdragon wrote...

Mages can't police themselves effectively because of what we've seen in Uldred's case--- Possessed mages can implant demons in other Mages even if they're only made willing by torture (thus unleashing more abominations) or sleep--- not genuine interest in whatever "gift" the spirit wishes to bestow.

Uldred's case is one of a Circle mage fighting to be free of the Chantry and the Order of Templars, and the templars stationed at the Circle of Ferelden didn't seem capable of dealing with the threat that Uldred posed. In fact, a mage protagonist can succeed where they failed.

Marduksdragon wrote...

To do this to a Templar requires days more work with several mages working together. This means the Templars are necessary.

 
The templars don't exist among the seers in the Kingdom of Rivain, among the Chasind Wilders, within the Avvar tribes, or in the Dalish clans - and all these societies have free mages. I suppose the ideal situation would be the premise that Ser Thrask tried to initiate, but he was killed and now the continent seems to be on the brink of a war between templars and mages.

[dgcatanisiri]

I don't give Elthina a free pass in what occurred in the events leading up to the Chantry's destruction. It wouldn't take much to go out and find out just what is happening out there in Kirkwall as Meredith orders illegal Tranquil-izing and blood mages running amuk, but instead, she remained in her Chantry, implicitly supporting the actions of both sides. But ELTHINA was the symbol of compromise that Anders wanted removed. And to do so, he blew up the Chantry, which had who knows how many people inside it. Not to mention how many people who were nearby got killed as well. I agree with his reasons. I vehemently oppose his methods of getting there. Even with the stranglehold that the Chantry has on the people of Thedas, the collateral damage of Anders' extreme decision, when Meredith and Orsino were about to force a decision to be made, make it an unconscionable act in my book.

The point I'm making about killing Anders is that by taking that action, he wants to die. I would rather not allow him to be a martyr. He needs to live with his guilt far more than he needs to die for his transgressions.

[Marduksdragon]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Marduksdragon wrote...

Mages can't police themselves effectively because of what we've seen in Uldred's case--- Possessed mages can implant demons in other Mages even if they're only made willing by torture (thus unleashing more abominations) or sleep--- not genuine interest in whatever "gift" the spirit wishes to bestow.

Uldred's case is one of a Circle mage fighting to be free of the Chantry and the Order of Templars, and the templars stationed at the Circle of Ferelden didn't seem capable of dealing with the threat that Uldred posed. In fact, a mage protagonist can succeed where they failed.

Marduksdragon wrote...

To do this to a Templar requires days more work with several mages working together. This means the Templars are necessary.

 
The templars don't exist among the seers in the Kingdom of Rivain, among the Chasind Wilders, within the Avvar tribes, or in the Dalish clans - and all these societies have free mages. I suppose the ideal situation would be the premise that Ser Thrask tried to initiate, but he was killed and now the continent seems to be on the brink of a war between templars and mages.

Uldred was possessed by a Pride Demon during his 'freedom fight' (I hesitate to call it that with any genuine agreement). Prior to that he is described as kind of a jerk, self-centered and unpleasant-  more of a scholar than a tutor- often refusing to train apprentices and very keen on rooting out "blood mages" which Greagoir and Irving value him for. The Fereldan Templars didn't want to hurt anyone (Greagoir acts towards the mages as if they are his children, referring to them as "our" when speaking to Irving) and the blood mages exploited that-- Cullen himself brings that up, and Greagoir is very eager to just get everyone safe and settled afterwards rather than put the survivors to the question. You have to force the issue if you want that to happen.

To be fair, so can a Templar protagonist who learned the specialization from Alistair and it is much easier to play through the tower with two Templars than a mage team.

Yes, and what happens with the mages in those places that go nuts? According to what we've heard they butcher entire villages and go on rampages that require many many people to put them down. The Templars are already trained for such things.

[LobselVith8]

Marduksdragon wrote...

Uldred was possessed by a Pride Demon during his 'freedom fight' (I hesitate to call it that with any genuine agreement). Prior to that he is described as kind of a jerk, self-centered and unpleasant-  more of a scholar than a tutor- often refusing to train apprentices and very keen on rooting out "blood mages" which Greagoir and Irving value him for.

According to Wynne, who Ines describes as thinking that the Fade shines out of her bum.

Marduksdragon wrote...

The Fereldan Templars didn't want to hurt anyone (Greagoir acts towards the mages as if they are his children, referring to them as "our" when speaking to Irving) and the blood mages exploited that-- Cullen himself brings that up, and Greagoir is very eager to just get everyone safe and settled afterwards rather than put the survivors to the question. You have to force the issue if you want that to happen.

That contradicts Cullen admitting that some templars talk about killing mages with glee - Magi Origin.

Marduksdragon wrote...

To be fair, so can a Templar protagonist who learned the specialization from Alistair and it is much easier to play through the tower with two Templars than a mage team.

My point was that a mage can resolve the issue, not that it was impossible for any templar to. If a mage can resolve a crisis in the Circle Tower that Knight-Commander Greagoir is incapable of handling, I don't see why it's impossible for mages to govern themselves. Even the new ruler of Ferelden will agree that mages have earned the right to govern themselves, if the Hero of Ferelden asks for the Magi boon, and Irving will thank the Hero for freeing the Circle from its "shackles." Of course, the Chantry turns this down, but it doesn't change that people clearly disagree with the Chantry controlled Circles.

Marduksdragon wrote...

Yes, and what happens with the mages in those places that go nuts? According to what we've heard they butcher entire villages and go on rampages that require many many people to put them down. The Templars are already trained for such things.

The abominations are killed - even Merrill addressed that. And the Chantry controlled Circles seemed to create their own share of abominations, from Starkhaven Circle's Grace to Kirkwall Circle's Evelina.

[Marduksdragon]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Marduksdragon wrote...

Uldred was possessed by a Pride Demon during his 'freedom fight' (I hesitate to call it that with any genuine agreement). Prior to that he is described as kind of a jerk, self-centered and unpleasant-  more of a scholar than a tutor- often refusing to train apprentices and very keen on rooting out "blood mages" which Greagoir and Irving value him for.

According to Wynne, who Ines describes as thinking that the Fade shines out of her bum.

Marduksdragon wrote...

The Fereldan Templars didn't want to hurt anyone (Greagoir acts towards the mages as if they are his children, referring to them as "our" when speaking to Irving) and the blood mages exploited that-- Cullen himself brings that up, and Greagoir is very eager to just get everyone safe and settled afterwards rather than put the survivors to the question. You have to force the issue if you want that to happen.

That contradicts Cullen admitting that some templars talk about killing mages with glee - Magi Origin.

Marduksdragon wrote...

To be fair, so can a Templar protagonist who learned the specialization from Alistair and it is much easier to play through the tower with two Templars than a mage team.

My point was that a mage can resolve the issue, not that it was impossible for any templar to. If a mage can resolve a crisis in the Circle Tower that Knight-Commander Greagoir is incapable of handling, I don't see why it's impossible for mages to govern themselves. Even the new ruler of Ferelden will agree that mages have earned the right to govern themselves, if the Hero of Ferelden asks for the Magi boon, and Irving will thank the Hero for freeing the Circle from its "shackles." Of course, the Chantry turns this down, but it doesn't change that people clearly disagree with the Chantry controlled Circles.

Marduksdragon wrote...

Yes, and what happens with the mages in those places that go nuts? According to what we've heard they butcher entire villages and go on rampages that require many many people to put them down. The Templars are already trained for such things.

The abominations are killed - even Merrill addressed that. And the Chantry controlled Circles seemed to create their own share of abominations, from Starkhaven Circle's Grace to Kirkwall Circle's Evelina.

According to Irving, Greagoir, Niall and Jowan as well.

But the majority did not and were friendly to the mage Warden so long as the mage approached them in a polite manner (much like anyone else). There are a few bad apples everywhere. There are some police officers who will admit to their fellows that they really love to abuse suspects. Are all policemen responsible? No. In the case of the Tower, Greagoir frowned on abusing mages and as Knight-Commander had the authority to make those men behave when complained about.

A mage can resolve the issue, but is also more easily compromised which then compounds the problem. I didn't say couldn't-- I said they were more vulnerable.

:PDoes no one see the big "I hate the Chantry" things I stick in almost all my posts? Supporting the Templars and seeing the necessity of them and Circles does not mean giving the Chantry in Orlais free reign to do whatever it pleases and stomp on people, opress elves, mages or keep the Templars drugged and servile. I see no problem with a unified circle, as Thrask envisioned, or a secularized Templar Order that is answerable to the governing body of their nation or to their own Grandmaster (like the Wardens under the authority of the First Warden) seperate from Chantry control.

I didn't say there were no abominations. I said Templars were trained to deal with them and very adept at doing so (which is even proven in combat as it's easier to put them down as a Templar than a mage- especially in the first game). And the Abominations are killed after they ravage everything. The Templars at least have the skills to give them an edge in combat versus the things and minimize collateral damage.

@Vit246
Considering previous comments mentioning the crusades and the difference in medieval and modern churches were addressed, I think we figured that out already even if we don't agree exactly on what that means. We were also discussing what constitutes a church at all.

The Chantry
building is a place of worship, that can't be divorced from the fact
that there are also jerks running around in it (Petrice, for example)
with a lot of innocent people between them and the door (servants,
lesser clergy, parishoners, the afflicted that come to touch the saint
bones in the basement... etc etc). Just because it doesn't suit modern
sensibilities doesn't mean it's not a church in a very literal sense of the word.

Modifié par Marduksdragon, 03 juillet 2011 - 04:23 .

[LobselVith8]

Marduksdragon wrote...

According to Irving, Greagoir, Niall and Jowan as well.

Greagoir, Irving, and Niall never seem to comment on Uldred's personality, only on the outbreak that transpired. The Knight-Commander and the First Enchanter don't go into Uldred's personality, but the events of rebuilding the Circle. Even Cullen is solem about sparing the Circle of Ferelden or being left behind. In the Fade, Niall addresses the power of the blood mages in the Fade when he explains what happened to the enchanters, but we never really receive an impression on who he is personally. Niall does address he believes Uldred was dealing in demonology because he summoned demons, but he doesn't seem to go into Uldred's personality. Wynne is the one who seems to make the comments you described about Uldred, and in Amaranthine, Ines mentions that Wynne nagged Uldred about his duties and probably drove him insane.

Marduksdragon wrote...

But the majority did not and were friendly to the mage Warden so long as the mage approached them in a polite manner (much like anyone else). There are a few bad apples everywhere. There are some police officers who will admit to their fellows that they really love to abuse suspects. Are all policemen responsible? No. In the case of the Tower, Greagoir frowned on abusing mages and as Knight-Commander had the authority to make those men behave when complained about.

You can't claim the majority of the templars didn't, since we don't have such facts. The rebellion does tell us that some mages wanted to be free of the current system, and the unnamed blood mage that The Warden encounters speaks of the templars when he explains her desire for freedom.

Marduksdragon wrote...

A mage can resolve the issue, but is also more easily compromised which then compounds the problem. I didn't say couldn't-- I said they were more vulnerable.

I don't agree. A mage who can use magic from a distance can deal with blood mages in a way that a templar who isn't capable of nullifying their abilities cannot.

Marduksdragon wrote...

Does no one see the big "I hate the Chantry" things I stick in almost all my posts? Supporting the Templars and seeing the necessity of them and Circles does not mean giving the Chantry in Orlais free reign to do whatever it pleases and stomp on people, opress elves, mages or keep the Templars drugged and servile. I see no problem with a unified circle, as Thrask envisioned, or a secularized Templar Order that is answerable to the governing body of their nation or to their own Grandmaster (like the Wardens under the authority of the First Warden) seperate from Chantry control.

The problem is the developers denied the players the chance to make Ser Thrask's vision a reality, and instead plummetted the Order of Templars and the Circles of Magi into a continential war - one which we'll likely have no control over, given that it would mean accomodating every sequel into a pro-templar or pro-mage outcome.

Marduksdragon wrote...

I didn't say there were no abominations. I said Templars were trained to deal with them and very adept at doing so (which is even proven in combat as it's easier to put them down as a Templar than a mage- especially in the first game). And the Abominations are killed after they ravage everything. The Templars at least have the skills to give them an edge in combat versus the things and minimize collateral damage.

Cullen didn't even know what an abomination looked like, which he admits when discussing The Warden's Harrowing. I'm not certain how well trained the templars are to deal with an abomination besides killing the possessed mage with their sword of mercy.

Marduksdragon wrote...

@Vit246
Considering previous comments mentioning the crusades and the difference in medieval and modern churches were addressed, I think we figured that out already even if we don't agree exactly on what that means. We were also discussing what constitutes a church at all.

The Chantry building is a place of worship, that can't be divorced from the fact that there are also jerks running around in it (Petrice, for example) with a lot of innocent people between them and the door (servants, lesser clergy, parishoners, the afflicted that come to touch the saint bones in the basement... etc etc). Just because it doesn't suit modern sensibilities doesn't mean it's not a church in a very literal sense of the word.

It was late at night, when we know civilians aren't inside, and we see a scarce number of people inside - clergy and templars. The same clergy and templars that seem to be causing problems for the Dalish, since Hawke can see an encounter with the templars who tortured a child hunter in Act II, and gets informed the Dalish are being threatened to convert in Act III.

[nightscrawl]

SurelyForth wrote...

But, according to the short story by Jennifer Hepler, he wasn't even safe from the templars in the Wardens, as they allowed one to join to keep him in line.

I'm not an Anders fan, but I wasn't pleased when I read this. My Warden was usually a mage, and one of the reasons I conscripted Anders in the first place was to save him from the templars. Knowing that it didn't stay that way after I left my post in Amaranthine pisses me off.

At any rate, I think the OP's question of companion reaction to Anders's death is an interesting one. Before you make your final decision you can choose to ask their opinions, but that's really as far as it goes. I suppose you could take it as them just deferring to Hawke as their leader.

As far as the rivalry between Anders and Fenris goes, it really is a serious issue with those two. You see this if you are in a romance with Fenris. When you go with Anders into the sewer for the sela petrae Anders will pause right at the entrance and mention this. He actually says that he sees Fenris as "more of a wild dog than a man." Wow... There is some additional dialogue that Fenris has if he is in your party at the time and you choose to defend him instead of just telling Anders to shut up. There is also the matter of Anders's comments during the confrontation with Fenris's sister. After finding out that she is a mage, Anders calls Fenris a "bloody hypocrite," and Fenris naturally glares back.

Party banter between Anders and Sebastian as well as Sebastian and Fenris regarding Anders (and Merrill) is quite interesting.

As an aside, I think if you are in a romance with Anders, you should have the option to murder knife him while you're kissing him goodbye. That is something I would do in the heat of the moment while still being totally pissed off at him for lying to me and using me to get the ingredients as well as sneak into the chantry. I'd regret it later on of course, but oh well, what's done is done ;D.

[In Exile]

Vit246 wrote...
Wrong. Anders actually wanted some form of compromise. That's why he gave Elthina the benefit of the doubt when he heard how she rejected Alrik's proposal of the tranquil solution. That's why he waited years after Act 2 for Elthina to do something. He tried giving her one last chance to reconsider her naive pretense of neutrality before planting his explosive, but she just didn't want to do anything about the conflict. Let the Maker solve everything. He blew up the Chantry because Elthina was doing nothing that resembled advocating compromise. He blew up the Chantry so that the Circle would be forced to fight and free themselves from the Chantry and their Templar militant arm.

Anders didn't want compromise when he did what he did. Pointing out how things worked out in the past doesn't excuse what he did in Act III. Blowing up the Chantry just involves Anders' martyr complex and his fetish for a mage genocide, which he recognizes. He's very big as guilty as Meredith for every single mage that died.

Things were geting progressively worse in the seven years that Hawke spends in Kirkwall. By Act 3, the Templars were abusing and raping and tranquiling even harrowed mages for the slightest of perceived crimes. They were cracking down on the families of mages. Elthina herself said she kenw of Meredith's methods, but did nothing about it.  Where is there suppose to be a chance of "compromise"?

Killing Meredith. Or Karras. Or, you know, anyone actually responsible for doing these things to the mages.

[Plaintiff]

Killing Meredith won't do ****. Elthina will just wring her hands and go "Oh deary me", like she has been for the better part of the decade. Meredith's paranoid bull**** will appear justified in the eyes of the templars and the general populace regardless. Word will reach the Divine, who will call an Exalted March on Kirkwall and the Templars will likely annul the Circle anyway, only without the extravagant explosion to serve as a rallying signal, the mages will continue moping around about how hopeless their situation is, right up until they get beheaded.

In any case, Elthina is just as responsible for Meredith's abuse of power as Meredith herself is. She knows exactly what the **** is up and refuses to do anything about it, even though she outranks Meredith in the Chantry chain of command. It is ridiculous to ignore Elthina and the Chantry's culpability in this. The Chantry is not a neutral party by any means, and it is not a hope for compromise. It is the root of all mage abuse. Meredith is just a symptom of the festering cancer that is Andrastism.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 03 juillet 2011 - 02:24 .

[LobselVith8]

nightscrawl wrote...

SurelyForth wrote...

But, according to the short story by Jennifer Hepler, he wasn't even safe from the templars in the Wardens, as they allowed one to join to keep him in line.

I'm not an Anders fan, but I wasn't pleased when I read this. My Warden was usually a mage, and one of the reasons I conscripted Anders in the first place was to save him from the templars. Knowing that it didn't stay that way after I left my post in Amaranthine pisses me off.

It is mentioned a new generation of mages will be trainned in the order, so I suppose the change for Anders leaving is that another mage, or possibly the Warden-Commander from the Circle of Ferelden, will train them. If the Order of Templars want their people in the Grey Wardens as well, I don't see it as a problem. Avernus needs his "shipments," after all. I'm certain Rolan was going to be "transferred" to Soldier's Peak in a little while...

As for Anders, he also gives criticism to Hawke if he's in a relationship with Merrill during "Justice," and I recall the conversation between Fenris and Sebastian where the Prince tries to convince him that they should turn in all the apostates in Hawke's group.

[Marduksdragon]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Marduksdragon wrote...

According to Irving, Greagoir, Niall and Jowan as well.

Greagoir, Irving, and Niall never seem to comment on Uldred's personality, only on the outbreak that transpired. The Knight-Commander and the First Enchanter don't go into Uldred's personality, but the events of rebuilding the Circle. Even Cullen is solem about sparing the Circle of Ferelden or being left behind. In the Fade, Niall addresses the power of the blood mages in the Fade when he explains what happened to the enchanters, but we never really receive an impression on who he is personally. Niall does address he believes Uldred was dealing in demonology because he summoned demons, but he doesn't seem to go into Uldred's personality. Wynne is the one who seems to make the comments you described about Uldred, and in Amaranthine, Ines mentions that Wynne nagged Uldred about his duties and probably drove him insane.

Marduksdragon wrote...

But the majority did not and were friendly to the mage Warden so long as the mage approached them in a polite manner (much like anyone else). There are a few bad apples everywhere. There are some police officers who will admit to their fellows that they really love to abuse suspects. Are all policemen responsible? No. In the case of the Tower, Greagoir frowned on abusing mages and as Knight-Commander had the authority to make those men behave when complained about.

You can't claim the majority of the templars didn't, since we don't have such facts. The rebellion does tell us that some mages wanted to be free of the current system, and the unnamed blood mage that The Warden encounters speaks of the templars when he explains her desire for freedom.

Marduksdragon wrote...

A mage can resolve the issue, but is also more easily compromised which then compounds the problem. I didn't say couldn't-- I said they were more vulnerable.

I don't agree. A mage who can use magic from a distance can deal with blood mages in a way that a templar who isn't capable of nullifying their abilities cannot.

Marduksdragon wrote...

Does no one see the big "I hate the Chantry" things I stick in almost all my posts? Supporting the Templars and seeing the necessity of them and Circles does not mean giving the Chantry in Orlais free reign to do whatever it pleases and stomp on people, opress elves, mages or keep the Templars drugged and servile. I see no problem with a unified circle, as Thrask envisioned, or a secularized Templar Order that is answerable to the governing body of their nation or to their own Grandmaster (like the Wardens under the authority of the First Warden) seperate from Chantry control.

The problem is the developers denied the players the chance to make Ser Thrask's vision a reality, and instead plummetted the Order of Templars and the Circles of Magi into a continential war - one which we'll likely have no control over, given that it would mean accomodating every sequel into a pro-templar or pro-mage outcome.

Marduksdragon wrote...

I didn't say there were no abominations. I said Templars were trained to deal with them and very adept at doing so (which is even proven in combat as it's easier to put them down as a Templar than a mage- especially in the first game). And the Abominations are killed after they ravage everything. The Templars at least have the skills to give them an edge in combat versus the things and minimize collateral damage.

Cullen didn't even know what an abomination looked like, which he admits when discussing The Warden's Harrowing. I'm not certain how well trained the templars are to deal with an abomination besides killing the possessed mage with their sword of mercy.

Marduksdragon wrote...

@Vit246
Considering previous comments mentioning the crusades and the difference in medieval and modern churches were addressed, I think we figured that out already even if we don't agree exactly on what that means. We were also discussing what constitutes a church at all.

The Chantry building is a place of worship, that can't be divorced from the fact that there are also jerks running around in it (Petrice, for example) with a lot of innocent people between them and the door (servants, lesser clergy, parishoners, the afflicted that come to touch the saint bones in the basement... etc etc). Just because it doesn't suit modern sensibilities doesn't mean it's not a church in a very literal sense of the word.

It was late at night, when we know civilians aren't inside, and we see a scarce number of people inside - clergy and templars. The same clergy and templars that seem to be causing problems for the Dalish, since Hawke can see an encounter with the templars who tortured a child hunter in Act II, and gets informed the Dalish are being threatened to convert in Act III.

Greagoir does comment on Uldred's personality in some dialogue if you bring him up turning Jowan in, I believe. Greagoir comments on Uldred's interest in exposing blood mages, as does Irving, before things blow up, because you can ask them about blood magic as soon as Duncan brings it up. Niall comments about Uldred being unpleasant in the meetings. Jowan's Uldred dialogue is cut content, but there and should still be available to listen on youtube.

Far as Wynne, she drove me insane too and ended up getting the "Griffins?" Dialogue a lot because it was fun to torment her back. It doesn't mean she was always wrong.

And every group that wants to rebel must of course be right in that want, or justified? I don't believe that. The mages have it better than any peasant--- free clothes, education, healing, food, a stable roof over their heads, an insular community where they can commune with others with the same gifts. There are lots of arguments to be made for the cloistering to be relaxed and that I agree with. I also agree that there's no need to foster enmity between the mages and Templars once the Chantry is removed from the picture. The rite of Tranquility needs to be brought under review.  What the fleeing mage speaks of is her desire not to be watched. She sounds paranoid, "The Templars are always there, watching us. Judging us."--- and the minute she does magic outside the Circle what does she think would happen--- people would be watching her, or fleeing from her, and judging anyway. I point to the open reaction to Cullen's infatuation with the f! Mage Warden being delight among the other apprentices and humor with some of the mages, and Anders comments about how everyone was "kissing everyone else" as to the general relaxed nature of the Fereldan tower. The fact that sassy pre-Justice Anders wasn't killed despite escaping six times is another good clue. It took Rylock being insane to actually threaten his life.

I didn't say blood mages. That is definitely better handled by another mage. I said Abominations (and other horrors, really, Shades-- Demons-- etc). Not everyone who gets possessed is a blood mage. Mages and Templars working in concert would present a formidable united front against most threats-- one of the reasons the Chantry encourages zealotry and suspicion to drive them apart. Close quarters breeds friendship if nothing else, unless those things are in place.

Unless the unified outcome is the outcome that everyone is allowed to have (considering there was only one way to blow up the Chantry, this seems likely as well). I think the unified outcome is the only one that makes any kind of sense at all. The other two are just extremes to be batted back and forth and soak up game time. The developers only denied moderation for now. I personally supported the mages where I could, and the Templars where I had to during my mage run-- so I was being moderate. The ability still exists even if in the end I had to stand with the Templars because of what Alistair asked my Hawke to do. Fereldan will need her allies, and while my Hawke will regret for the rest of her days any innocents that died and Cullen didn't intercede for, she did it for Kirkwall and for Fereldan. There are things more important than bickering over a house as it burns down (as Templar Bryant so aptly put it if you're a mage, in Lothering).

Cullen was a young Templar at the time. The mage Warden's harrowing was also his first. That hardly means all Templars have that same lack of skill. He more than made up for it in DA2-- valiantly facing the lyrium abomination that is Meredith.

The rest was directed to another person but I'll say this-- it wouldn't have mattered to Vengeance when that bomb went off, so your argument rings hollow. There's only some luck involved that Orsino and Meredith's confrontation happened at night (and there are usually a few people still hanging around even at night). If he'd been really smart, he'd have waited for them to go meet Elthina then blew the building. With Cullen in charge and the mages without "O" who gives books to murderous necromancers and that seems fine to thim--- there may have been a chance to do some good. As far as the Dalish--- Meredith is an evil woman even before she gets the sword (she kills people to make examples of them, which Thrask and Cullen both comment on-- both with some worry) I never said I supported her and a definitely do not support the Chantry. Far as the Templar "missionaries"-- isn't their behavior on Meredith and themselves? Elthina can't even decide what she wants for breakfast (waffles!) let alone deciding she's going to convert the Dalish.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

Greagoir does comment on Uldred's personality in some dialogue if you bring him up turning Jowan in, I believe. Greagoir comments on Uldred's interest in exposing blood mages, as does Irving, before things blow up, because you can ask them about blood magic as soon as Duncan brings it up. Niall comments about Uldred being unpleasant in the meetings. Jowan's Uldred dialogue is cut content, but there and should still be available to listen on youtube.

Far as Wynne, she drove me insane too and ended up getting the "Griffins?" Dialogue a lot because it was fun to torment her back. It doesn't mean she was always wrong. [/quote]

We can read the codex "Irving's Mistake" to see that Uldred was playing Irving, but that doesn't tell us any more about who he really is, and neither does Greagoir or Irving commenting on the same information we get from the codex entry in "A Broken Circle." We don't know what Uldred was really like before becoming an abomination.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

And every group that wants to rebel must of course be right in that want, or justified? I don't believe that. [/quote]

I never addressed that they were right, I addressed that they had their reasons to want to rebel, and the blood mage notes the templars as part of her reason for siding with Uldred.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

The mages have it better than any peasant--- free clothes, education, healing, food, a stable roof over their heads, an insular community where they can commune with others with the same gifts. [/quote]

No freedom, running the risk of losing their humanity and their free will, being an oucast from society and living a life of servitude. Some people would prefer to die on their feet than live on their knees.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

There are lots of arguments to be made for the cloistering to be relaxed and that I agree with. I also agree that there's no need to foster enmity between the mages and Templars once the Chantry is removed from the picture. The rite of Tranquility needs to be brought under review.  What the fleeing mage speaks of is her desire not to be watched. She sounds paranoid, "The Templars are always there, watching us. Judging us."[/quote]

The templars are watching the mages, and the templars are judging them. We can hear Cullen in DA2 judge that mages can't be treated as people and are weapons, and Knight-Commander Meredith judges mages as cursed. Even Greagoir says that mages are cursed in the opening for the Magi Origin.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

--- and the minute she does magic outside the Circle what does she think would happen--- people would be watching her, or fleeing from her, and judging anyway. [/quote]

Or she could be an apostate, like Malcolm Hawke.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

I point to the open reaction to Cullen's infatuation with the f! Mage Warden being delight among the other apprentices and humor with some of the mages, and Anders comments about how everyone was "kissing everyone else" as to the general relaxed nature of the Fereldan tower. The fact that sassy pre-Justice Anders wasn't killed despite escaping six times is another good clue. It took Rylock being insane to actually threaten his life. [/quote]

Anders wasn't killed only because of Irving's intervention on the matter, since pre-Irving resulted in Aneirin nearly getting killed by templars who put a sword of mercy into him and left him to die in a pool of his own blood at fourteen years old, while Anders was put in solitary confinement for a year.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

I didn't say blood mages. That is definitely better handled by another mage. I said Abominations (and other horrors, really, Shades-- Demons-- etc). Not everyone who gets possessed is a blood mage. Mages and Templars working in concert would present a formidable united front against most threats-- one of the reasons the Chantry encourages zealotry and suspicion to drive them apart. Close quarters breeds friendship if nothing else, unless those things are in place. [/quote]

That would only be a reality if Ser Thrask wasn't killed, since the continent of Thedas is on the verge of a war between templars and mages.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

Unless the unified outcome is the outcome that everyone is allowed to have (considering there was only one way to blow up the Chantry, this seems likely as well). I think the unified outcome is the only one that makes any kind of sense at all. The other two are just extremes to be batted back and forth and soak up game time. The developers only denied moderation for now. I personally supported the mages where I could, and the Templars where I had to during my mage run-- so I was being moderate. The ability still exists even if in the end I had to stand with the Templars because of what Alistair asked my Hawke to do. Fereldan will need her allies, and while my Hawke will regret for the rest of her days any innocents that died and Cullen didn't intercede for, she did it for Kirkwall and for Fereldan. There are things more important than bickering over a house as it burns down (as Templar Bryant so aptly put it if you're a mage, in Lothering). [/quote]

There's no hope of a unified outcome - a pro-templar Hawke is a villain to the mages, and a pro-mage Hawke is a villain to the templars. The templars want control, and the mages want freedom. There's no middle ground between subjugation and independence. And Ser Bryant mentions that comment in reference to Loghain trying to become King (per the rumors), not in reference to being a mage.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

Cullen was a young Templar at the time. The mage Warden's harrowing was also his first. That hardly means all Templars have that same lack of skill. He more than made up for it in DA2-- valiantly facing the lyrium abomination that is Meredith. [/quote]

Cullen faced Meredith even when it didn't make any sense - the pro-mage scenerio, where Hawke is killing templars to cut a path to freedom, leading to many survivors living to tell the tale.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

The rest was directed to another person but I'll say this-- it wouldn't have mattered to Vengeance when that bomb went off, so your argument rings hollow. [/quote]

That's speculation.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

There's only some luck involved that Orsino and Meredith's confrontation happened at night (and there are usually a few people still hanging around even at night). If he'd been really smart, he'd have waited for them to go meet Elthina then blew the building. With Cullen in charge and the mages without "O" who gives books to murderous necromancers and that seems fine to thim--- there may have been a chance to do some good. [/quote]

Orsino knowing the Starkhaven mage Quentin didn't make any sense, either, but that's par the course with Dragon Age 2. If the writers wanted to address the dangers of magic, they probably shouldn't mage mages insane coming from the Chantry controlled Circles - Decimus, Quentin, Huon, Grace. It's a failure of the writing, really.

And I'd assume forcing the mages to fight for their freedom was the entire point of what Anders did - which lead to the Circles of Magi across Thedas emancipating themselves from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars.

[Marduksdragon]

@lobselvith8

And I think we have a fair guess. I do applaud him trying to be helpful at Ostagar though. Just think, had the beacon bit lit by him- Loghain would have charged at the right time instead of having to retreat to save the Army. Since Gaider confimed it was because the beacon was late and the retreat was a tactical decision, Uldred could have saved the day. I give him props for that.

The Templars also live a life of servitude, many of which have no other means to do so-- either from being poor (like Keran) or given to the Chantry as children. Even if they realize the Order is flawed and want nothing more to do with it, they have to suffer lyrium withdrawal if they leave. They too are subjected to injustice by being drugged and brainwashed. Mages will continue to be outcast from society even if they're all free-- look at Jowan's mother's reaction to his powers, as example. Or the fact that Malcom Hawke had to hide and Bethany and Mage! Hawke were rarely let out of their own house. Even if you dispense with the Chantry entirely, those prejudices are not going to change overnight and will lead to more killing which leads to more fear. Not every village is Honnleath (or even Haven, their mages worked side by side with everyone else, despite being crazy as privy mice). There's another good reason for Templars-- those poor mages were stuck in a barrier, caught between Darkspawn and Demons, and could have used some magic nullifying swords against the demons in the basement (and they got some with the Warden, but still).

My point is everyone makes judgements. Being outside the Tower is not going to stop her from being watched and judged. Can you say Cullen is wrong about them being weapons? Mages are living weapons. Anders proved it himself in large scale, doing something to the Chantry that only a Dwarven lyrium bomb or the Qunari canons could do. He will also soften his stance as to not trusting gradually if encouraged to think for himself-- and even after Anders at the end, is ready to defend those mages that want nothing to do with Orsino's crazy against Meredith. People also say women are cursed because they have to endure the cycles of child-bearing-- and it's a miserable thing so it's not entirely false. Greagoir calling it a curse isn't necessarily a judgement made without sympathy. Meredith is crazy even before the sword. I discount pretty much everything she says after the fallout from the first encounter with the Starkhaven mages.

An Apostate that lived in constant fear (sounds familiar) and almost total seclusion (sounds familiar) and required the help and trust of a good Templar (also sounds familiar). The state of a mage doesn't change much. They are still what they are. They will still be feared, and possibly afraid themselves of their abilities (like Feynriel even as an apostate among the Dalish), and have to seperate themselves out from others -even if just by never living directly in town or in a community geared towards magic like Honnleath- if they don't wish to cause harm (Sandal is just an enchanter and he's burned houses down by accident)--- and the Templars have been the cavalry against evil mages in history- that's mentioned more than once. Magic should be feared, even by those who wield it, because it is the ability to call in to being your thoughts. The mind is the dirtiest and least safe part of a person-- and not everyone given magic is a good person. It's a gene, like eye-color or having an extra toe. So it should always be treated with trepidation, even by the mages themselves. To act otherwise is to be irresponsible with flamethrower attached permanently to your arm.

Yes, Irving and Greagoir working together made things better. Irving could have hardly made any difference at all with what Templars did if Greagoir wasn't sympathetic. That's the point I'm trying to make. Templars and mages work best together as a team. Aneiran's flight wasn't caused by the Templars-- it was caused by the demands of young Wynne who saw nothing of the boy in front of her intimidated by his surroundings and sullen over a responsibility he never asked for, and only a mage that she'd been tasked with educating.

If you listen to Cassandra, she has broken from the Chantry with her men and she wants peace. She is our Thrask and will be the means to settle differences. Her opinion towards mages changes as she hears Varric spin his tale-- and so she is in a largely neutral state, ready to be that middle path. As far as Hawke--- in DLC I expect, being a mage viscount whom the Templars look up to, to be able to do some good and set plotflags that will soften some of the mage hate against my mage and get her back to that good third path.

Cullen faced Meredith and it made sense every time because she was evil and the time had come to stop her. Cullen, for all his flaws, hates evil.

He didn't just wave his hands and do it-- he put the bomb in there days before the confrontation went down. You're telling me that Anders would have stopped Vengeance had the fight between Meredith and Orsino happened during as sunshiney morning where everyone was listening to the Chant? After he admitted to Hawke that he'd kill anyone who stood in the way of his plans? No way. You're speculating too, with a lot less ammunition.

There's also an insane mage from the Dalish-- Merrill. And several very dangerous Apostates who've never been in Circles. And yes, the writing fails but that can actually be chalked up to Varric in game being a pulp novelist and not a historian.

Of course it was. I never said it wasn't. I just don't look at it as some kind of glorious emancipation. It's foolish and idealistic at best and terribly ill-thought-out at worst. It's like the Chantry replacing the Imperium as our evil empire right down to the slaves--- unless you actually change the system and get everyone to play along nothing will change except the wallpaper. The only way to do that is actually work for understanding between both groups and point them at their real enemy-- the Chantry.

Modifié par Marduksdragon, 03 juillet 2011 - 04:46 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

@lobselvith8

And I think we have a fair guess. I do applaud him trying to be helpful at Ostagar though. Just think, had the beacon bit lit by him- Loghain would have charged at the right time instead of having to retreat to save the Army. Since Gaider confimed it was because the beacon was late and the retreat was a tactical decision, Uldred could have saved the day. I give him props for that. [/quote]

Uldred wasn't trying to be helpful, he already made a deal with Loghain and was trying to control the situation on the Teyrn's behalf. We do see the Grand Cleric's hatred of magic and mages in that scene, though. I don't think that King Cailan's army could have won against the darkspawn horde. Then again, the Chantry and the Knight-Commander only allowed seven mages at Ostagar, so we're free to speculate how different the battle would have been if Duncan had been permitted to have his mages - as the King of Ferelden requested - instead of simply seven.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

The Templars also live a life of servitude, many of which have no other means to do so-- either from being poor (like Keran) or given to the Chantry as children. Even if they realize the Order is flawed and want nothing more to do with it, they have to suffer lyrium withdrawal if they leave. [/quote]

I don't think all templars are evil - I respect templars like Ser Bryant and the templars at Lothering who stayed to keep the people safe, before DA2 rectonned it into the templars abandoning the people (which seemed OOC for Bryant in my humble opinion). I respect Ser Otto and his desire to deal with the "evil" he sensed in the Alienage. And I would argue that Greagoir was a good man and Knight-Commander. Even Alistair - who was nearly a templar and seems to be regarded as a former templar at times - has disdain for the Chantry's use of lyrium with the templars.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

They too are subjected to injustice by being drugged and brainwashed. Mages will continue to be outcast from society even if they're all free-- look at Jowan's mother's reaction to his powers, as example. Or the fact that Malcom Hawke had to hide and Bethany and Mage! [/quote]

That happens because of the Chantry of Andraste, which is why magic and mages are viewed differently among the Chasind Wilders, the Avvar tribes, among the Rivanni people who keep their seers close in the Kingdom of Rivain, and in the Dalish clans.

And Malcolm kept Bethany and apostate Hawke safe from the templars, who are the military arm of the Chantry.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

Hawke were rarely let out of their own house. Even if you dispense with the Chantry entirely, those prejudices are not going to change overnight and will lead to more killing which leads to more fear. Not every village is Honnleath (or even Haven, their mages worked side by side with everyone else, despite being crazy as privy mice). There's another good reason for Templars-- those poor mages were stuck in a barrier, caught between Darkspawn and Demons, and could have used some magic nullifying swords against the demons in the basement (and they got some with the Warden, but still). [/quote]

Honnleath seems to be an exception because Wilhelm was a war hero of the Orlesian occupation for two rightful rulers of the crown, and likely got a royal boon to be free of the Circle of Magi and have a family - which is expressly forbidden for Circle mages, as their children are always taken by the Chantry (with the only exception being Grey Warden mages).

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

My point is everyone makes judgements. Being outside the Tower is not going to stop her from being watched and judged. Can you say Cullen is wrong about them being weapons? Mages are living weapons. [/quote]

My apostate Hawke disagreed - pointing out that he's wrong, mages are people.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

Anders proved it himself in large scale, doing something to the Chantry that only a Dwarven lyrium bomb or the Qunari canons could do. [/quote]

Anders used a bomb - the dwarves and the Qunari use explosives as well. In fact, it's noted that Anders was asking Sandal about his explosive knowledge in Act III, which means he did precisely what Sandal was capable of doing if "enchantment" was not enough.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

He will also soften his stance as to not trusting gradually if encouraged to think for himself-- and even after Anders at the end, is ready to defend those mages that want nothing to do with Orsino's crazy against Meredith. People also say women are cursed because they have to endure the cycles of child-bearing-- and it's a miserable thing so it's not entirely false. Greagoir calling it a curse isn't necessarily a judgement made without sympathy. Meredith is crazy even before the sword. I discount pretty much everything she says after the fallout from the first encounter with the Starkhaven mages. [/quote]

Andrastians address mages as cursed throughout Origins and Dragon Age 2. It's not a healthy system for mages to live in when their existance is preached to be a sin, as we see with Keili in the Circle Tower, and even Bethany feels remorse over being an Andrastian and a free mage.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

An Apostate that lived in constant fear (sounds familiar) and almost total seclusion (sounds familiar) and required the help and trust of a good Templar (also sounds familiar). The state of a mage doesn't change much. They are still what they are. They will still be feared, and possibly afraid themselves of their abilities (like Feynriel even as an apostate among the Dalish), and have to seperate themselves out from others -even if just by never living directly in town or in a community geared towards magic like Honnleath- if they don't wish to cause harm (Sandal is just an enchanter and he's burned houses down by accident)--- and the Templars have been the cavalry against evil mages in history- that's mentioned more than once. [/quote]

Malcolm lived in Lothering with Leandra, apostate Hawke lives in Kirkwall, Anders is helping refugees in Darktown, and the Mages Collective exists to aid apostates from the Chantry and the Order of Templars.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

Magic should be feared, even by those who wield it, because it is the ability to call in to being your thoughts. The mind is the dirtiest and least safe part of a person-- and not everyone given magic is a good person. It's a gene, like eye-color or having an extra toe. So it should always be treated with trepidation, even by the mages themselves. To act otherwise is to be irresponsible with flamethrower attached permanently to your arm. [/quote]

It's an argument for mages to be properly trained to use their abilities, while Thedas shows that mages are instead persecuted for being born with magical abiltiies.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

Yes, Irving and Greagoir working together made things better. Irving could have hardly made any difference at all with what Templars did if Greagoir wasn't sympathetic. That's the point I'm trying to make. Templars and mages work best together as a team. [/quote]

Which could have happened with Ser Thrask in Kirkwall, but it seems unlikely with a war that's about to erupt between mages and templars after the demise of Knight-Commander Meredith and the Right of Annulment against the only Circle of Magi in the Free Marches.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

If you listen to Cassandra, she has broken from the Chantry with her men and she wants peace. She is our Thrask and will be the means to settle differences. Her opinion towards mages changes as she hears Varric spin his tale-- and so she is in a largely neutral state, ready to be that middle path. As far as Hawke--- in DLC I expect, being a mage viscount whom the Templars look up to, to be able to do some good and set plotflags that will soften some of the mage hate against my mage and get her back to that good third path. [/quote]

The templars broke from the Chantry to hunt the mages, and Varric seems to include the Seekers in this reference. Cassandra points out that not all of them want war, but we have no idea whether this is true or not. Regardless, she seeks one person to end a continential conflict - how realistic is that? What can Viscount Hawke do to dissuade the mages, since he's a hero to the templars and seen as a symbol of oppression for helping kill hundreds of men, women, and children in the Circle of Kirkwall? What can apostate Hawke do to curb the templars, since he's a villain to them, killed countless templars left and right to cut a path to freedom for his people, and is possibly engaged in the mage revolution as one of it's leaders (as Anders repeatedly tells apostate Hawke that he's the leader the mages have been waiting for)?

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

Cullen faced Meredith and it made sense every time because she was evil and the time had come to stop her. Cullen, for all his flaws, hates evil. [/quote]

Cullen siding with Hawke makes sense for the pro-templar run, but not for the pro-mage run. Meredith doesn't reveal her insanity until Cullen takes a stand against her. Cullen doesn't even try to make an argument about Hawke being the Champion of Kirkwall to dissuade her from killing him, and Hawke gives no indication that he'll even surrender to the templars.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

He didn't just wave his hands and do it-- he put the bomb in there days before the confrontation went down. You're telling me that Anders would have stopped Vengeance had the fight between Meredith and Orsino happened during as sunshiney morning where everyone was listening to the Chant? After he admitted to Hawke that he'd kill anyone who stood in the way of his plans? No way. You're speculating too, with a lot less ammunition. [/quote]

All I'm addressing is that we really can't say for certain, because we don't know.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

There's also an insane mage from the Dalish-- Merrill. And several very dangerous Apostates who've never been in Circles. And yes, the writing fails but that can actually be chalked up to Varric in game being a pulp novelist and not a historian. [/quote]

Merrill isn't insane, she wants to help her people and is willing to risk her life - which makes her no different than The Warden, or even Hawke.

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

Of course it was. I never said it wasn't. I just don't look at it as some kind of glorious emancipation. It's foolish and idealistic at best and terribly ill-thought-out at worst. It's like the Chantry replacing the Imperium as our evil empire right down to the slaves--- unless you actually change the system and get everyone to play along nothing will change except the wallpaper. The only way to do that is actually work for understanding between both groups and point them at their real enemy-- the Chantry.[/quote]

Maybe King Alistair will go "Church of England" and split from the Chantry of Andraste, since he's already protecting apostates from templars and arguing for the Magi boon seven years after the Chantry said no.

[Marduksdragon]

@LobselVith8

Since 'betraying' Cailan wasn't the Teyrn's plan to begin with, just getting him out of Eamon's control, I doubt it went much further than Loghain having a conversation with Uldred about how the mages could better serve in Fereldan's army. Uldred's eagerness to help could either be as you suggested (of his own motivations) or just an honest desire to prove mages useful. This depends on the question of his personality prior to being possessed. I still applaud him asking.

But yet you ask me to champion the mages who are what they are through an accident of birth, and decimate the Templars with a clear heart-- many of whom are what they are due to poverty or abandoment, and kept shackled by lyrium. Further-- if siding with the mages, I do not get a chance to offer fallen Templars mercy-- but I do with the Templars facing the mages. Both groups have suffered at the hands of the Chantry. The Templars are a disposable slave army and the mages disposable weapons. There are good and evil people on both sides, the middle road is the only one that best offers a future for everyone. (as I side note, I love Otto dearly. I think he's one of my favorite NPCs and it makes me spectacularly sad that I managed to save him from his scripted death once, only to be caught in an endless loop of fighting that demon and never being able to leave that room...) I also hated that retconn. I like Ser Bryant (and his statement about houses still holds true to this situation even if I was mistaken in remembering the prompt earlier-- while the mages and Templars fight, everyone else is free to do what they want while resources are being wasted).

The Chantry of Orlais. The Chantry of Andraste only existed before it was perverted in Haven. It was a direct line of faith back to the beginning. And suprise surpsrise, mages lived side by side with everyone else. It's not the religion that's at fault, it's the evil empire using that faith as a cover. I mentioned much earlier in another post about remarks made by the Guardian at the shrine with his scepticism about the Imperium actually being 'weaker'. The gauntlet of Andraste has been my guide through many things in the DA setting (including arguing with Wynne and sparing Loghain). I feel even more confident about my decision to side with the Templars now reflecting that mercy is only granted to the opposing side in siding with them. Far as magic being accepted in other places-- the Chasind certainly do not welcome witches-- see below.

And keep them safe from the people of the village. Don't forget the Chasind guy that threw a fit realizing that Morrigan was a witch. And even among the Dalish, Merrill was unwanted because of her proclivities for playing with things she shouldn't. Just because magic is accepted to some extent in these other communities doesn't mean all magic is. There are still standards and controls. They just aren't embodied by the same mechanics as the Templars. But the Templars are very efficient at what they do and better police.

They can marry, though it happens only rarely and some authorities hold that right back as a reward for particular mages. You are right about the freedom though.

I didn't ask what your Hawke did. I asked you. Can you disagree that they are living weapons? And they are people. Recognizing them as living weapons does not make them any less people--- and I nudged Cullen in that direction. That's like saying that recognizing that someone is deaf or has perfect pitch makes them less than people.

Anders used a magical bomb set off by his own magic. The fact that he needed Sandal and mentioned Tevinter experiments and rituals to Hawke even after admitting there was no potion points that it was definitely magic.

And the Chantry in Tevinter, also worshipping Andraste, does not and the situation there is no better. It just changes who is opressing whom. Not all Andrastians view magic as a sin just as not all Templars believe mages to be evil. This is why it has to change at the base. All this idiotic fighting has to stop and people have to speak like rational beings and point the blame where it really belongs.

The Mages Collective lives in tiny pockets scattered everywhere. Many times in the letters they reference living in out of the way places-- like the man who believed blood mages had moved into his area near the Brecillian Forest and wanted someone to go check it out. The Mages Collective also aids like minded Templars by getting them the lyrium they crave outside the grip of the Chantry-- so they can defy them in small ways that help the free mages without fear of having their supply cut off to make them behave. Enchanter Godwin is doing something similar-- albeit for the money and the influence. Apostate Hawke also has Templars close at hand if they're needed-- or even a brother that is one. Same with Lothering-- there were scads of Templars there. Far as Anders... I don't think he can be reasonably considered in the equation because he's an abomination.

Even the properly trained outside the circles are dangerous to themselves and others. Look at Merrill. She is properly trained and chose to do a series of increasingly ridiculous things when all signs pointed to them being terrible ideas. Even rivaled, at the end, knowing that what she is doing is wrong her last quest she undertakes only because of all the time she's invested--- not because she actually thinks she's doing the right thing. Now that is an extreme writing failure but it makes it no less what happened. And didn't you just bring up that not everyone in Thedas operates the way the Orlesian Chantry does? Magic is a problem (and a solution, actually, to some things). It is never not going to be a problem, but it can be lived with comfortably by everyone if they're willing to give a little from all sides.

When does Varric say the Templars specifically broke away to hunt the mages? He says the Seekers left the chantry, he says they lost control of their Templars. Edit: He also never mentions that specifically as the reason for the Templars. He says the Seekers left the chantry to hunt the mages and Cassandra corrects him and says that not everyone wants war. Viscount hawke has the opportunity during the fight to call for mercy for surrendering mages-- which Cullen grants immediately over Meredith's objections. Rebel Hawke has no such gesture of mercy to the opposing side. If anything it should give Viscount Hawke something to recall in negotiations later. "The King of Fereldan asked me to keep the city from falling because worse things were afoot, so I did. I had no love for Meredith and when Knight- Captain Cullen expressed a desire for clemency for surrendering mages, I granted it immediately. When the opportunity came to kill Meredith for her crimes against Kirkwall-- against us all, I did it." etc etc.

Cullen has misgivings about Meredith already if you continue to talk to him, prior to the last straw. He thinks she's lost her mind towards the end of the 3rd chapter. She hung all the Templars that dared help the Starkhaven mages aside Keran if you plead for his life and Samson's and it disgusted him. Cullen stands up for the Champion's arrest because he knows what Meredith did was wrong, despite the champion having murdered his fellow Templars in the process. Cullen not siding against Meredith is what wouldn't make sense, given what we know about the character. He supports her to a point because of training, brainwashing if you want, and then can no longer sustain it. He must be who he is and strike her down because she is evil and Cullen hates evil.

Merrill's own justification for her insanity rings about as hollow as Meredith's-- who also believes she is doing the right thing for her people. Merrill is sweet, of that there is no doubt, but it does not mean she isn't dangerously crazy. Her keeper allowed a dirty Shem to keep a sacred relic of the Dalish as a paperweight rather than let it fall into the girl's hands. I would say that's a pretty big endorsement for crazy right from the Dalish themselves.

Far as Alistair (or Anora, or Alistair and Anora)-- it's something I've considered from the first game after his comments about the Templars being an enemy army in Fereldan and Loghain's fears about the same. I hope it happens.

Modifié par Marduksdragon, 03 juillet 2011 - 11:12 .

[sphinxess]

You do realize the mages Viscount Hawke spares during the right of annulment are to be made tranquel? I can dig up the exact DG quote if you like. Only if you meta-game do you know that Meredith will go crazy and the right of annulment will be cancelled <at least I think it is>.

Mageside Hawke does spare Templars - Hawke and companions could wipe out Cullen and the remaining templars but do not

Anyway back to the Anders question: Supporting the templars basically means a continuation of the chantry system as it has been for the last 700 years. It will go down in the books as just one more right of annulment. I just can't support this. A centralized church doesn't change its teachings to match the political climate - it can't or the beliefs its teaches will look like a joke. Only if the chantry is broken apart perhaps on a national basis can different interpretations be made of Andristes teachings. I think Anders bomb is very effective at shaking up the chantry - for the first time the hierarchy has been attacked directly for ignoring the mages and templars of Kirkwall.

Modifié par sphinxess, 03 juillet 2011 - 08:27 .

[Marduksdragon]

sphinxess wrote...

You do realize the mages Viscount Hawke spares during the right of annulment are to be made tranquel? I can dig up the exact DG quote if you like. Only if you meta-game do you know that Meredith will go crazy and the right of annulment will be cancelled <at least I think it is>.

Mageside Hawke does spare Templars - Hawke and companions could wipe out Cullen and the remaining templars but do not

Anyway back to the Anders question: Supporting the templars basically means a continuation of the chantry system as it has been for the last 700 years. It will go down in the books as just one more right of annulment. I just can't support this. A centralized church doesn't change its teachings to match the political climate - it can't or the beliefs its teaches will look like a joke. Only if the chantry is broken apart perhaps on a national basis can different interpretations be made of Andristes teachings.

And I said I would have had to have sided with the Templars anyway because of Alistair's request to keep Kirkwall in one piece. Please do. I'd like to see it as it is neither mentioned nor hinted in game. Since I know Cullen from the first game, I know that he will go for 'seclusion and questioning' over 'death or tranquility' even at the end of Broken Circle. You do not have to kill the mages to appease Cullen and get him to calm down, just suggest to Greagoir that they all need to be secluded and questioned to make sure none of them are maleficar. Greagoir is unhappy but resigned, as he just prefers to have what 'children' back he has left in the surviving Templars and Mages and his friend Irving safe. Being questioned may not be fun, but Cullen himself says that 'there were many spared at the circle of Fereldan and it was in a much worse state than this' when pleading for mercy for the mages.

No they couldn't have. Varric said Hawke and Co flee into the hills.

No it doesn't. The Chantry is already in ruins by the start of the story meaning no matter how you decide, the Chantry has lost control and is falling apart. I'm just saying take the fight to Orlais itself and finish the job.

As to your edit, it did that, sure. But it did it in the worst possible way.

Modifié par Marduksdragon, 03 juillet 2011 - 08:59 .

[sphinxess]

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

[quote]sphinxess wrote...

You do realize the mages Viscount Hawke spares during the right of annulment are to be made tranquel? I can dig up the exact DG quote if you like. Only if you meta-game do you know that Meredith will go crazy and the right of annulment will be cancelled <at least I think it is>.

Mageside Hawke does spare Templars - Hawke and companions could wipe out Cullen and the remaining templars but do not

Anyway back to the Anders question: Supporting the templars basically means a continuation of the chantry system as it has been for the last 700 years. It will go down in the books as just one more right of annulment. I just can't support this. A centralized church doesn't change its teachings to match the political climate - it can't or the beliefs its teaches will look like a joke. Only if the chantry is broken apart perhaps on a national basis can different interpretations be made of Andristes teachings.[/quote]

And I said I would have had to have sided with the Templars anyway because of Alistair's request to keep Kirkwall in one piece. Please do. I'd like to see it as it is neither mentioned nor hinted in game. Since I know Cullen from the first game, I know that he will go for 'seclusion and questioning' over 'death or tranquility' even at the end of Broken Circle. You do not have to kill the mages to appease Cullen and get him to calm down, just suggest to Greagoir that they all need to be secluded and questioned to make sure none of them are maleficar. Greagoir is unhappy but resigned, as he just prefers to have what 'children' back he has left in the surviving Templars and Mages and his friend Irving safe. Being questioned may not be fun, but Cullen himself says that 'there were many spared at the circle of Fereldan and it was in a much worse state than this' when pleading for mercy for the mages.

No they couldn't have. Varric said Hawke and Co flee into the hills.

No it doesn't. The Chantry is already in ruins by the start of the story meaning no matter how you decide, the Chantry has lost control and is falling apart. I'm just saying take the fight to Orlais itself and finish the job.

As to your edit, it did that, sure. But it did it in the worst possible way.
[/quote]

[/quote]

[quote]David Gaider wrote... <Thread: Why is the Right of Annulment massacre instead of Tranquility>i
The issue is this:

By the time the Right of Annulment is invoked, the tower in question has moved beyond the possibility of mages being brought under control enough that Tranquility would even be possible. It's possible some mages might survive the initial assault, but the order cannot be "take any prisoners you can" simply because by that point a mage might have been corrupted and become a blood mage... something which cannot be detected under normal circumstances. Thus capturing them becomes a means for them to escape the quarantine.

So therefore the order is "kill everyone". At the end of the day, if any mages are still alive for whatever reason... then, yes, I imagine they could theroretically be made Tranquil as opposed to executed outright.[/quote]

And the other part from the promage side:
Varric says::the champions name became a rallying cry - a reminder that  the mighty Templars could be defied - he/she had defended the mages against a brutal injustice and many lived to tell the tale - the circles rose up and set the world on fire - more templars arrived at Kirkwall to restore order but we were already long gone.....

Modifié par sphinxess, 03 juillet 2011 - 09:51 .

[Ryzaki]

DG's quote doesn't actually apply to the Kirkwall Annullment since nothing about that anullment was normal. The fact that Hawke could spare the mages was already unorthodox and wouldn't have usually been allowed.

Not to mention why would the tranquil need to be watched for bloodmagic? The conversation makes no sense if they were gonna be tranquiled afterwards.  

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juillet 2011 - 09:55 .

[Blessed Silence]

frustratemyself wrote...

I believe Sebastian does a happy dance. I can't confirm this though as my Hawke's always run off into the sunset with Anders.

Or I could be v serious and suggest that maybe at that point everyone is in a bit of shock and rather distracted by Kirkwall combusting around their ears.

Sebby doesn't do anything special really.  Heck you don't even get a specail narrative ending like with Anders et all when you do a full romance with Sebby.

So yeah, complete meh on that.

I mean, if you speak to all your companions their opinions, everyone pretty much wants Anders dead for what he did except Merrill (dunno what Isabella says) who thinks he can repent.  They sort of do a "okay that bit is done let's go" and walk over his corpse kinda thing.  Heck Anders doesn't even make a sound ... very lame.