127 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

DRTJR wrote...

The removed the Chantical of Shartan (the Elf who faught with Andraste against Tevinter) during the exalted march on the Dales. it is now Hericy to speak openly of Shartan

It's such huge heresy that a chantry sister will tell you all about it right in the middle of Denerim market and in front of the templars and other sisters, if only you ask whether there's any elves mentioned in the Chant.

[Herr Uhl]

tmp7704 wrote...

DRTJR wrote...

The removed the Chantical of Shartan (the Elf who faught with Andraste against Tevinter) during the exalted march on the Dales. it is now Hericy to speak openly of Shartan

It's such huge heresy that a chantry sister will tell you all about it right in the middle of Denerim market and in front of the templars and other sisters, if only you ask whether there's any elves mentioned in the Chant.

Worst whitewashing of history ever.

Modifié par Herr Uhl, 10 juillet 2011 - 08:47 .

[Marduksdragon]

tmp7704 wrote...

Marduksdragon wrote...

Not unless you count being human against me.

I don't count it against you, i count it against the argument you make. It makes that point about ad hominem somewhat ironic. While at it, ad hominem can be actually relevant to the issue and a valid argument in some instances -- when someone advocates a person should be kicked out of a window and you know they hate said person, it's only logical to question to what degree that stance is dictated by reason as opposed to their feelings.

Also, hate is a very short word for that huge explanation for my feelings about Orlais (which I seriously doubt most people care about if they only came here for my look at the Templars).

Short words can be used for huge and even complicated feelings just fine. For another example see: love.  And let's not forget it was you who'd decided to describe your own feelings as "hate" in the first place, not me.

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal
attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in
order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also
involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions
that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically
fallacious because insults and negative facts about the opponent's
personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the
opponent's arguments or assertions.<< from the Wiki. It even gives an example that someone who doesn't like LeBron James isn't invalidated when making a statement about his failures.

I want to kick her out a window not because she's Orlesian, but because of what she's allowed ot occur and encouraged under her watch. If I found out the White Divine was from Rivain or Ferelden it wouldn't make me want to kill her any less. It's her deeds that have superceeded anything else about her. (Liselle is Orlesian and I don't want to kick her out a window.)

My feelings about Orlais have nothing to do with the Templars or my argument (except where I was accused, in the other thread, of supporting the Divine-- which I do not and wished to make abundently clear) and by championing them, it kind of shows that I can differentiate between them and the fact they're based out of Orlais-- which would point to me being more reasonable about my feelings, not less.

Yes, I did. But I never expected anyone to charge in here, ignore my arguments, and bicker over how I felt about the Orlesians because the thread isn't, in fact, about the Orlesians beyond the fact that the Grand Cathedral is sitting in Orlais (just like it's not about the mages, despite being involved in Templar things). Or, try to disallow the facts of my argument because of them.

Modifié par Marduksdragon, 10 juillet 2011 - 09:01 .

[Marduksdragon]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chantry had to make the Canticle of Shartan heretical to justify an Exalted March on the Dales. The Exalted Marches are suppsoed to be holy, and thus it would look bad for a holy war to be waged against a people who was granted their land, by the very "god" you worship. It is all very political, and not a lot of actual religion, is involved in this act.

On topic: Templars aren't slaves since they submit to the trainning and lyrium willingly, and they can quit whenever they want. Hence "slave" does not fit their situation.

If a mage submits willingly to the Circle, does this make them less in need of liberation? Should the other mages say "no, you believed the hogwash about being evil in the sight of Andraste and showed up and turned yourself in, so you get to stay"?

Also, they take the lyrium because they're lied to about needing it. That's in the first DAO.

And Templars 'leaving' is kind of a joke considering what happens to them. If you would please read the rest of the thread I have dealt with my reasoning for thinking the way I do.

[Marduksdragon]

Herr Uhl wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

DRTJR wrote...

The removed the Chantical of Shartan (the Elf who faught with Andraste against Tevinter) during the exalted march on the Dales. it is now Hericy to speak openly of Shartan

It's such huge heresy that a chantry sister will tell you all about it right in the middle of Denerim market and in front of the templars and other sisters, if only you ask whether there's any elves mentioned in the Chant.

Worst whitewashing of history ever.

One of the priests is close to heretical herself and is being scolded by the other one, I might point out.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Marduksdragon wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chantry had to make the Canticle of Shartan heretical to justify an Exalted March on the Dales. The Exalted Marches are suppsoed to be holy, and thus it would look bad for a holy war to be waged against a people who was granted their land, by the very "god" you worship. It is all very political, and not a lot of actual religion, is involved in this act.

On topic: Templars aren't slaves since they submit to the trainning and lyrium willingly, and they can quit whenever they want. Hence "slave" does not fit their situation.

If a mage submits willingly to the Circle, does this make them less in need of liberation? Should the other mages say "no, you believed the hogwash about being evil in the sight of Andraste and showed up and turned yourself in, so you get to stay"?

Also, they take the lyrium because they're lied to about needing it. That's in the first DAO.

And Templars 'leaving' is kind of a joke considering what happens to them. If you would please read the rest of the thread I have dealt with my reasoning for thinking the way I do.

You are talking to a person who doesn't even think the mages were in need of liberation in the first place.... But if a amge actually believed in the Circle system, chances are they won't be joinning the rebellion.

Templars need the lyrium.  Some don't need it, but the average Templar needs lyrium, hence why there are so few Templars in Tevinter which actually possess anti-magic capabilities. Alistair speculates wether or not lyirum is needed, but he doesn't know. DA2 flat out states that lyrium is needed. Conclusion: Some Templars need it, others don't, and/or lyrium enhances the abilities to the required power level.

They go through lyrium withdrawal. So? It doesn't neccesarily kill them. If they have the willpower, they can overcome it, just like any addiction. They may not even be addicted to it in the first place, since all such drugs have a different compulsion on every person. And no matter how many times I would read your reasonings, wouldn't make me agree with them...

[Herr Uhl]

Marduksdragon wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Worst whitewashing of history ever.

One of the priests is close to heretical herself and is being scolded by the other one, I might point out.

That it seems to be common knowledge amongst scholars centuries after it was instigated makes it a really bad whitewash.

[Marduksdragon]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Marduksdragon wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chantry had to make the Canticle of Shartan heretical to justify an Exalted March on the Dales. The Exalted Marches are suppsoed to be holy, and thus it would look bad for a holy war to be waged against a people who was granted their land, by the very "god" you worship. It is all very political, and not a lot of actual religion, is involved in this act.

On topic: Templars aren't slaves since they submit to the trainning and lyrium willingly, and they can quit whenever they want. Hence "slave" does not fit their situation.

If a mage submits willingly to the Circle, does this make them less in need of liberation? Should the other mages say "no, you believed the hogwash about being evil in the sight of Andraste and showed up and turned yourself in, so you get to stay"?

Also, they take the lyrium because they're lied to about needing it. That's in the first DAO.

And Templars 'leaving' is kind of a joke considering what happens to them. If you would please read the rest of the thread I have dealt with my reasoning for thinking the way I do.

You are talking to a person who doesn't even think the mages were in need of liberation in the first place.... But if a amge actually believed in the Circle system, chances are they won't be joinning the rebellion.

Templars need the lyrium.  Some don't need it, but the average Templar needs lyrium, hence why there are so few Templars in Tevinter which actually possess anti-magic capabilities. Alistair speculates wether or not lyirum is needed, but he doesn't know. DA2 flat out states that lyrium is needed. Conclusion: Some Templars need it, others don't, and/or lyrium enhances the abilities to the required power level.

They go through lyrium withdrawal. So? It doesn't neccesarily kill them. If they have the willpower, they can overcome it, just like any addiction. They may not even be addicted to it in the first place, since all such drugs have a different compulsion on every person. And no matter how many times I would read your reasonings, wouldn't make me agree with them...

If they changed their mind and couldn't leave, they would.

I support the Circle system, if it were brought under review and edited to make it more humane. I think the Templars and the mages need to be liberated from the Chantry and it's brutal opression and set themselves up closer to Thrask's vision. A unified circle would be best for everyone-- mage and mundane. Humane vigilance.

DA2 is written by a dwarf. The entry about Templars may be based on common knowledge-- and common knowledge says Templars require lyrium because most don't know they don't need it. I would chalk the guys in Tevinter up to immense concentration using those abilities takes. Alistair says the anti-magic capabilities take willpower and focus. Not everyone is going to have the same amount and since there seems to be little in the way of quality control not all the men may be able to produce the effects. Also, in Tevinter, a Templar could hardly afford lyrium potions unless he was very very rich.

Even if it doesn't kill them, it leaves them addicts or mentally wrecked. Some 'leaving' that is. It's fine to disagree. I've met some nice friends disagreeing.

[Marduksdragon]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Marduksdragon wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

Worst whitewashing of history ever.

One of the priests is close to heretical herself and is being scolded by the other one, I might point out.

That it seems to be common knowledge amongst scholars centuries after it was instigated makes it a really bad whitewash.

They have archaeologist-like priests in Denerim. You talk to one of them to decide to turn the scrolls you find in Haven over to her. Because they have such a keen interest in history they may talk about it more in passing than say, Kirkwall.

[Herr Uhl]

Marduksdragon wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

That it seems to be common knowledge amongst scholars centuries after it was instigated makes it a really bad whitewash.

They have archaeologist-like priests in Denerim. You talk to one of them to decide to turn the scrolls you find in Haven over to her. Because they have such a keen interest in history they may talk about it more in passing than say, Kirkwall.

What does Kirkwall have to do with anything? I think any chantry would be accepting of something that could be new (well, old) information about their prophet. I don't see that as archaeology.

[Marduksdragon]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Marduksdragon wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

That it seems to be common knowledge amongst scholars centuries after it was instigated makes it a really bad whitewash.

They have archaeologist-like priests in Denerim. You talk to one of them to decide to turn the scrolls you find in Haven over to her. Because they have such a keen interest in history they may talk about it more in passing than say, Kirkwall.

What does Kirkwall have to do with anything? I think any chantry would be accepting of something that could be new (well, old) information about their prophet. I don't see that as archaeology.

She oversees a section they have at the Denerim Chantry that specifically investigates relics and legends (and is very proud of her work debunking things). Kirkwall has nothing like this that we ever hear about, even in ambient conversation. I can think of several reasons why those scrolls might be burned upon producing them to a priest in Kirkwall. Not everyone is as open-minded as most Fereldans seem to be. Even Brother Genitivi's research into the history of the Chantry was frowned on by the Divine.

[tmp7704]

Marduksdragon wrote...

Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal
attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in
order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument, but can also
involve pointing out factual but apparent character flaws or actions
that are irrelevant to the opponent's argument.

This accent is more important, i think. And i'd argue in situations like this one when conclusions are formed on very thin evidence (additionally with instances where evidence which doesn't support the claim gets ignored) then personal bias should be factored in as something potentially affecting quality of the argument. Much like say, you're given to wonder whether a person who claims 2 + 2 = 5 but is known to have poor grasp on math... actually got it right.

Note, this is imo reasonable basis to question the argument, not discard it. The Wikipedia example you cite does the latter. Dismissing argument outright just because "X is a hater" obviously doesn't make sense.
 

I want to kick her out a window not because she's Orlesian, but because of what she's allowed ot occur and encouraged under her watch.

However we know very little about what she's actually allowed to occur. And we certainly don't know what, if anything, she's encouraged or discouraged. Are you absolutely positive that the presumptions you make about her character and decisions aren't influenced by your idea of what the Orlesians are like, and the tendency to "treat them with suspicion"? Especially since there's pretty much next to nothing else to go by, when it comes to making these presumptions about her?

If the answer is "no", what do you base your presumptions concerning her, on?

(incidentally, there's two White Divines during the events of DAO and DA2. The latter takes charge at some point during DA2, we get to talk to her while she's still Revered Mother Dorothea in Leliana's Song)

[tmp7704]

Marduksdragon wrote...

One of the priests is close to heretical herself and is being scolded by the other one, I might point out.

The sister in question doesn't get scolded for talking with the PC openly about this supposedly heretical info. And that's despite the other, Mother Perpetua, "is a serious, pious priest who is largely trying to keep Sister Theohild out of trouble".

There's also no evidence that sisters other than Justine are "archaeologist-like priests" and as such especially knowledgeable. They certainly don't display any interest in this area.

(also, sister Justine is "close to heretical" in large part because it's part of her "job" to question whether presented relics and artifacts are actually true relics. She's the one who is obliged to go "wait, this finger bone might not be Maker's after all" when everyone else is busy worshipping the piece)

Modifié par tmp7704, 10 juillet 2011 - 10:25 .

[Marduksdragon]

Then does it need to be said? I was assuming everyone who came to the thread was questioning my argument (kind of why I put it up here rather than just leaving it swimming in my brain and leaving it unquestioned), or they wouldn't bother reading or posting about it. If you notice there's been a lot of silence and a lot of "you're wrong because of x". Not one "OMG, you're right". I object, however, to your assertions that my dislike for Orlesians has anything to do with this thread other than making clear a point that was in question in the other. I dislike Orlesians, so I'm not allowed to criticize and call for the death of someone I think is responsible for allowing evil to thrive under her watch--- because she's Orlesian and since I dislike them I could never have a clear view on one (and that's not even the point of this topic anyway, but something that came up along the way)... that is exactly like saying you can't criticize LeBron because you don't like him. (And then adding on top of that, "because you're crticizing LeBron and you don't personally know him, all your other judgments about basketball are called into question.") Question what I'm saying because you find fault with my arguments, not because I happen not to like Orlesians. If someone actually pulls up something that refutes my stand without question (like a comment from the Devs that the Templars are in fact soulless bastards that aren't oppressed at all)-- I'd call this time well spent because at least I would have learned something-- if not at least I made a case and put it out there for people to think about.

You think my case is thin with the Templars? That's fine. Show me in the facts where it's thin and lets talk about it because that's why I posted this.

Edit: Also, I have ignored nothing. I have dealt with each point brought up to me in the case of the Templars, with some deep thought given, until dealt with to my satisfaction. I have also admitted that I am not intractable and if sufficient evidence is given for anything, including Orlesians, my opinions are open to change.

In real life, I treat everyone with suspicion unless I've known them for a good long while (for personal reasons). "Next to nothing" is up for argument as is your accusation of thin evidence. The actions of Orlais have shaped the whole of Thedas practically. Extrapolating backwards from them and with input from the NPCs gives me the sense that Orlais isn't a very nice place (even if it's probably beautiful, given the rhapsodizing about the architecture and everything) and this has gone on for at least the last few hundred years or so. That this colors my views of the Orlesians is hardly abnormal. I do however do my best to temper that and the exceptions do help with reminding me. It's not as if I'm ignoring them out of hand.

I know. I felt sorry that Marjolaine used her like she did. Dorothea had her good points, but that doesn't mean she's automatically excused from the evil she allows to go on around her. By that logic I would have to exclude Elthina from punishment since it was only by her inaction that evil occurred around her. We also know that in DA2 that Dorothea has threatened an Exhaulted March on Kirkwall and the only thing stopping that is Elthina. We also know that Elthina is afraid of her scrutiny-- and fears for the citizens. That doesn't exactly sound great to me.

The office of the White Divine may change hands but the oppression stays the same because it's built into the system. Oh, you people are having problems in Kirkwall... instead of sending a mediator to help your inept Grand Cleric-- lets send someone to murder some of the troublemakers (Leliana). And if that doesn't work-- let's send an army to stomp on people (and Elthina indicates to Sebastian that there's little distinction made between combatant and non when an Exhaulted March is called). I don't know if that's hubris or just malevolence or what.

Modifié par Marduksdragon, 11 juillet 2011 - 02:03 .

[Marduksdragon]

tmp7704 wrote...

Marduksdragon wrote...

One of the priests is close to heretical herself and is being scolded by the other one, I might point out.

The sister in question doesn't get scolded for talking with the PC openly about this supposedly heretical info. And that's despite the other, Mother Perpetua, "is a serious, pious priest who is largely trying to keep Sister Theohild out of trouble".

There's also no evidence that sisters other than Justine are "archaeologist-like priests" and as such especially knowledgeable. They certainly don't display any interest in this area.

(also, sister Justine is "close to heretical" in large part because it's part of her "job" to question whether presented relics and artifacts are actually true relics. She's the one who is obliged to go "wait, this finger bone might not be Maker's after all" when everyone else is busy worshipping the piece)

I was talking about these ladies who are the ones who tell you about Shartan when I spoke of heresy. The irreverance of the older priest in general is what the younger one was scolding her for.

I wasn't talking about Justine except with the archaeology (and I believe she says she oversees a department or such, indicating she sits over others-- I was trying to see if I could find a clip of the conversation on youtube but I might have to fire up the game to check if it's really a bone of contention).

But they're all in Denerim with Brother Genitivi which just goes to show that the Chantry in Denerim is more open-minded than perhaps the rest of Thedas. We know from Genitivi his own research was frowned on and that's how he fell out of favor with the Divine. And that was kind of the point of my comment in the first place--- not all Chantries are the same (just like not all Circles are). Some places may indeed consider shartan vile heresy, but Denerim is very relaxed. We have to look at who penned the codex entries, where and when sometimes to judge where their povs come from.

Modifié par Marduksdragon, 11 juillet 2011 - 12:53 .

[DRTJR]

Mother Petrice was the source of the codex, which matches her character, She's Over zealous woman who wants the Faithful(regardless of race) to remain so.

[EmperorSahlertz]

To my knowledge Sister/Mother Petrice is the source of no codex entries. You sure you aren't mistaking Sister Petrine for Sister Petrice? And this Petrine seems to be rather liberal in her view on the faith, and not at all close to the religious fanatic Petrice is.

[DRTJR]

Wow... it's amazing how much and n can look like a c when you get an average of four hours of sleep. still Elves should be allowed to be Templars.

[Sinaxi]

lol @ templars being slaves. It's not like they don't volunteer for the jobs or anything. It seems like pretty common knowledge around Thedas that they're addicted to lyrium. I'm not saying they aren't being abused but they are willing soldiers to this abuse and to the cause. They follow orders because it is what they are supposed to do but they still have a mind of their own and are able to act of their own volition...the only time it seems they have to somewhat hide these things is when it goes against a direct order.
Other than that I really don't view them as slaves they are simply tools, which is to be expected. If they all hated their lives so much you would think that more templars would step forward that have pity for the mages living conditions (if it reflected how they felt about their own lives) But the epilogue does state that there are templars that join in with the mage cause.

[Marduksdragon]

Tidra wrote...

lol @ templars being slaves. It's not like they don't volunteer for the jobs or anything. It seems like pretty common knowledge around Thedas that they're addicted to lyrium. I'm not saying they aren't being abused but they are willing soldiers to this abuse and to the cause. They follow orders because it is what they are supposed to do but they still have a mind of their own and are able to act of their own volition...the only time it seems they have to somewhat hide these things is when it goes against a direct order.
Other than that I really don't view them as slaves they are simply tools, which is to be expected. If they all hated their lives so much you would think that more templars would step forward that have pity for the mages living conditions (if it reflected how they felt about their own lives) But the epilogue does state that there are templars that join in with the mage cause.

So, if a mage volunteers for the circle because of the Chantry's teachings, they deserve what they get?

Yes, but they're addicted because they believe they need it. We know by at least Alistair this is not true (and I argue with the entry about Templars in DA2 because Varric is telling this story to a Seeker). Varric, if he does know the truth at all, would not be so blithe to exposing that he knows to a member of the Chantry.

Willing and being conditioned to obey are two different things. Some of them may come through the door willingly, much like any mage feeling guilt over being free, but after they're there it's something different.

Conditioning theories hold that addiction is
the cumulative result of the reinforcement of drug administration. The
central tenet of conditioning theories is that (Donegan et al. 1983:
112):

To say that a substance is used at a level considered to be
excessive by the standards of the individual or society and that
reducing the level of use is difficult is one way of saying that the
substance has gained considerable control over the individual's
behavior. In the language of behavior theory the substance acts as a
powerful reinforcer: behaviors instrumental in obtaining the substance
become more frequent, vigorous, or persistent.

Conditioning theories offer the potential for considering all
excessive activities along with drug abuse within a single framework,
that of highly rewarding behavior.

This is from http://peele.net/lib/moa3.html .

The Templars are going to obey whatever order their given almost in institnct because of the lyrium. That any of them have the power to overcome this is amazing to me. As far as the excessive nature of a Templar's use, that was mentioned several times in the last game--- and now with Anders' comic, we see they chug lyrium at least every time they go into a fight as well as whatever doses they need to maintain their sanity during the day. That's going to build a strong relationship between the idea "fight mages = feel awesome" if they survive the confrontation-- at least. "Obey orders = feel awesome" is already taken care of with the daily doses.

Serfs had close to autonomy, and they were still slaves. Their lives, dignity and anything else were forfeit to a master they hardly saw unless he/she wanted something from them or the Serfs refused to do their duty of follow a direct order. Refusing was a death sentence (much as with the Templars)-- as was trying to run (unless there was a law in place -as some villages had- that if you lived there for a year and the authorities didn't catch you, you were free).

Viewing someone as an object is exactly what is done to a slave. A slave is not a person. A slave is a tool-- a means to an end to the person holding the leash (whatever that may be). Slavers encourage other people to see them as objects as well (and many books have been written over the centuries in an attempt to make the idea more palatable to everyone)-- because if the slave has no one to turn to for freedom, it makes their chances (and hope) of escape thinner.

A third of the preceptory in Kirkwall sneaking around to try to help Grace and the other mages -- even though they know Meredith is going to make a body orchard out of them if they can't kill her before she rallies her cronies, that doesn't look like a rebellion to you? The constant "this isn't right. This isn't how this is supposed to be" from the other 'good' Templars. That several wonder why the Mages must be penned up all the time-- certainly they need to be watched (these men admit) but must it be in a prison-- must the children? Their fears over being executed for voicing dissent or helping the mages--- and then actually being executed by Meredith means nothing? Some of the Templars are zealots (who wouldn't care) just as some mages are crazy for demons. Most Templars probably don't immediately realize what's being done to them because of the conditioning ("contain mages = happy time" is a hard idea to get through), much like most Circle raised mages wouldn't understand the injustice done to them unless pointed out. And in the last group we have the Templars and mages who are painfully aware of their slavery. These Templars may have not generated the right word for it yet, but Thrask and Keran (etc) were painfully close and by their actions showed those that remained how caught they were. Even Cullen (who was having a harder and harder time justifying his behavior and Meredith's)  could no longer deny the inustice being done through him and struck down Meredith even if your Champion, up until that point, had been slaughtering Templars. Like the idea of rebellion from any Templar (given the consequences), it's almost suicidal. Cullen had no way to know if Hawke was going to spare him or his men-- he could only be sure that Meredith would be gone and that was more important. It's why, for me, that's an amazing moment no matter which way I'm playing.

(Edit: One could point to the equal system in Ferelden being a direct
result of Greagoir realizing that he was as much a slave as Irving and
trying to work out a common ground between them that wouldn't cause the
Chantry to come hunting them all. -- It's as much an explanation as anything-- He does, at least, consider the mages
his as much as he does the Templars, and with some affection in his
voice--- and heartbreak when he thinks they're all dead and can't even open the doors to face
that.)

Modifié par Marduksdragon, 13 juillet 2011 - 12:47 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Lyrium doesn't make the Templars more tractable or accepting of their orders. A Templar follows the orders he recieves because he believes in them, not because he is forced to by lyrium. He may stay in the Templar Order, however, because there is no other place to get lyrium.

[CrimsonZephyr]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Lyrium doesn't make the Templars more tractable or accepting of their orders. A Templar follows the orders he recieves because he believes in them, not because he is forced to by lyrium. He may stay in the Templar Order, however, because there is no other place to get lyrium.

Eh, I wouldn't discount addiction, though. If, at the root of every order was a stipulation that lyrium would only be provided in response to compliance of the order, every Templar would be motivated more by that than by devotion the more addicted they became.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Indeed. But no matter how addicted a Templar becomes, once you cross his moral border, he will not follow that order. His border may or may not be pused by his addiction, but the addiction does not make him a mindless drone.

[Marduksdragon]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Indeed. But no matter how addicted a Templar becomes, once you cross his moral border, he will not follow that order. His border may or may not be pused by his addiction, but the addiction does not make him a mindless drone.

Not a mindless drone (slave doesn't mean mindless drone). They wouldn't rebel if they were mindless. They've had their wills and morals compromised by an outside force though (it's a little like being drunk all the time and taken advantage of because your ability to make decisions for yourself is impaired). I would suggest, given the setup, it takes more stimulus for a Templar to act on his own than your average man (as compared to obeying orders) because his body associates obeying with something it now craves (junkies sometimes associate specific places or activities with drugs and even if they've been sober for a long time, passing an alley where they once purchased drugs and took them can make the addict hunger for a fix just as badly as if they'd never stopped using). Of course everyone would have a different emotional threshold for where action is necessary against an order they found heinous, but the suggestion stands.

The moral impulse is changed because of the lyrium and the conditioning through it. Where an un-drugged man may operate solely from his morality, a Templar's impulse must be filtered through his addiction. We already know that even seemingly normal moral people IRL will kill for drugs once sufficiently hooked, how easy would it be then for a Templar who is being told that he's doing the best thing for everyone concerned (and will get happy drugs from it) to follow more questionable orders? For the sake of his sanity wouldn't he rather believe he was doing the right thing than admit the truth? And once the truth was admitted by a moral Templar, what could he do about it but rebel and destroy that which made him commit evil even at the possible cost of his own sanity or life? (Thrask, Cullen, etc fighting against Meredith and her toadies)  And that's what we see. The moral templars look at what they've done under Meredith's authority and react with horror and anger. She has to stop making us do this. This is not how the Order should work. And so on. A large number of them die for it which we know from act 1 (speaking to Thrask) is Meredith's favorite way of saying "behave" to the survivors.

The Templars are absolutely a necessary part of any society that has magic. Their skills and talents are even in demand in Tevinter, where the mages rule. That doesn't mean they should be the disposable tools they've been made by the Chantry-- and certainly they don't need to be drugged as they are.

[EmperorSahlertz]

They didn't really "rebel", they left the Chantry (keyword: left). Probably because the Chantry tried to prevent them from going on a mage killing spree.

And has already been stated, some Templars DO need the lyrium to be Templars.