108 réponses à ce sujet

[Gervaise]

Actually it makes complete and utter sense. The Champion is the only person who can seriously challenge Meredith for power. Now that person has done her dirty work for her, they are dispensible. There is no one present except the Templars and the companions who are witnesses to the arrest and once inside prison, anything could happen. As for the justification, if required to produce one, well evidence of association with the guy who blew up the tower would I assume be sufficient, and bearing in mind that in order to get the maps for the Deep Roads, you have to help Anders and you do end up killing Templars. Do you have to help get the bomb materials for the plot to proceed? As others have said, it is currently a police state, run by a dictator and Anders decision to bomb the Chantry has made it possible for Meredith to justify practically anything. If she had stuck to arresting rather than outright killing, the Templars would not have rebelled and the Champion and companions would be rotting in jail. Oh and if anyone queries where the Champion is, unfortunately they died in the fighting, immolated by a blood mage, no remains to show, let's raise a statue to them to keep the populace happy but where people won't visit much, like deep in the gallows. Everyone satisifed.

[FieryDove]

Gervaise wrote...

As for the justification, if required to produce one, well evidence of association with the guy who blew up the tower would I assume be sufficient, and bearing in mind that in order to get the maps for the Deep Roads, you have to help Anders and you do end up killing Templars. Do you have to help get the bomb materials for the plot to proceed? As others have said, it is currently a police state, run by a dictator and Anders decision to bomb the Chantry has made it possible for Meredith to justify practically anything. 

Let’s try an alternative, if Anders had not bombed the Chantry.
Meredith would have searched the tower and found what? Quentin’s research. Orsino would most likely have been executed on the spot and the RoA would have happened. All those circle mages die (For no good reason). Or Orsino would have done his crazy thing ahead of time and the RoA would happen anyhow since the first enchanter is corrupt therefore all of Kirkwall’s circle mages are corrupt BM’s.

No matter what Hawke or Anders did or didn't do I believe the RoA would have still happened.

Just my take on the whole mess.

[GavrielKay]

FieryDove wrote...

No matter what Hawke or Anders did or didn't do I believe the RoA would have still happened.

Just my take on the whole mess.

I agree with this and with Gervaise as far as Meredith's justification goes.  I think Meredith is beyond the sort of justification that ordinary folks would need.  Of course the fact that she was trying to go so far outside of her actual duties should have been reason for her to be either removed from office or at least forced to give up her de facto Viscount status and allow a proper leader to be selected.

Anyway, we're told by Cullen (I think it was him anyway) that Meredith has sent off to the Divine for permission for the RoA.  Given the Divine has shown willingness to approve a freaking Exalted March on Kirkwall, I think it's a good bet that she would have approved the RoA.  It was going to happen, Meredith was too determined to find or cause something that would make it happen.

[Marduksdragon]

[quote]Rifneno wrote...

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

If I'm the leader of the group, as Hawke or the Warden are the leaders, I have the authority to dispense corporal punishment.[/quote]

Ahh, I misunderstood. I thought you meant real life. I'm a bit sensitive on the issue after meeting too many women who think "men shouldn't hit women" means they have carte blanche to assult without reprocussions. Most fun was my ex-fiancee's mother, who thought it was her divine right to smack everyone not following her idea of perfect manners.

[quote]I didn't want to either. Who wants to linger in that kind of crap, right? I had a panic attack both times just proof-reading it. But the only way I thought I could make you understand was to rip the scabs off and bleed all over your screen-- figuratively. I didn't want the flippant remarks or what have you. If you really couldn't see where I'm coming from, you had to see where I'm standing at least.[/quote]

Gah. Internet debates aren't important enough to open up old wounds like that. The opinion of a random person on the Internet is never worth suffering over.

[quote]Now that you do I think it may make understanding what I see (and how I reacted to it) easier even if you don't agree. Far as giving Cullen free liscense-- I never have. Not once. I've only applauded his very real motions towards being a good person again (slow and small up until the last they were). I expect his own guilt is eating away at him as well from his comments about the chained apprentice (as mine did quietly at first and then built up into a roar that made me physically ill). And it ends up being a combination of the guilt and the remorse and such that moves you forward and makes changes.[/quote]

The only time I ever saw him do or say anything positive for the mages is sparing that group during the RoA. And I don't consider it big to not execute people literally begging to have their surrender taken. His questioning of Meredith before the Annulment was over her usurping the Viscount's seat. And afterward it was because she wanted to kill Hawke, who for some reason Cullen thinks is awesome no matter how you play him/her.

[quote]I fully expect to go to hell if there is one, even as sorry as I am over the things I did, because part of forgiveness is being able to let things go and I can't do that with things I've done myself. I'm tormented whenever I have a quiet moment and rarely sleep without nightmares.[/quote]

Hell's just another example of people using fear to control through religion. And oneself is always the hardest to forgive. I'm sure you've heard it before, but you should see if professional help wouldn't help with the nightmares and such. Nobody should have to endure that.

[quote]Alrighty, I've kind of gone over this in the enslaved thread with other people but I'll make a light condensed version here for discussion's sake. If a man buys the Chantry doctrine for altruistic reasons (much like a mage turning themselves into the Circle because they believe they are poisoned)-- and then joins the Order is just as lied to as that mage that stupidly turned themselves in to the Circle (and certainly you don't advocate not freeing people who turned themselves in willingly). He deserves to be free. If he is raised by the Chantry and has been lied to his entire life, and is made a Templar, he deserves to be free (just like a mage raised by the Circle). If he joined the Order because he needed coin, only to find out later that it is a horrific mess and that his hands will be involved in the subjugation of innocent people so long as the Chantry can hold lyrium over his head-- he deserves to be free.[/quote]

I was under the impression the lyrium addiction thing was common knowledge in Thedas. And it's debatable whether it's necessary. Until a dev clears it up for certain there'll be debate on whether Alistair's story was just a convient way for DAO players to not deal with the lyrium requirement and addiction. Same with how Hawke covers it by a line in the class description saying s/he gets it from black market connections (thanks Varric). And really, how many soldiers of any army are fully informed and willing? Even now a good number of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are there because they believed a stupid commerical saying "Sign up and we'll pay for your college! We won't send you to a giant sandbox to get shot at by terrorists! Promise!" And that's still more choice than the countless soldiers that were simply conscripted got.

[quote]The Templar situation is insanely complex because you have this group of people who are terribly oppressed who are actively being made to oppress other innocent people by a third party (who uses them both like disposable tools) through chemical means.[/quote]

The templars are "terribly oppressed" while the mages are only oppressed. Right.

[quote]It doesn't matter that the Templars descended from vigilantes and the Mages of today have little relation to the magisters of old--- whatever they were once, they are slaves now, and a shorter timespan doesn't make oppressing the Templars any more righteous than it does the mages.[/quote]

We clearly have different definitions of "oppressed." And I still haven't heard a templar complain about how badly templars are treated by the Chantry or expressing a wish to leave but not being able to. Hell, Keran simply walked out on the Order in Act III.

[quote]Basically I can sum it up in the statement: the Orlesian Chantry is corrupt beyond saving (even though I don't feel the faith should share this demonization as the Guardian seemed to be a decent enough entity and the point of Andraste's march was a good one. Lots of admirable things in there before people started mucking with it).[/quote]

And there we agree.

[quote]The more I talk to Elthina the more I am convinced that she is playing Meredith and Orsino for her own benefit (especially in public). If she screws up in Kirkwall and retreats (which will result in an exalted march) she won't be Grand Cleric anymore (and I do believe that some part of her may believe that she's doing the best for the man on the street-- but mostly I think it's pride and her genuine lack of concern for her own Templars, and definitely for the mages. Neither are people, after all.). When the dust settles and the survivors are counted, it'll be someone else in the high seat because she's proven herself unable to perform her duties and someone's going to say "Hey, wars cost money and we just lost a lot of our expensive slaves and made the survivors in Kirkwall hate us because this woman is an idiot. She needs to be retired" (I'd say killed, but then that would make the Divine look worse than she does already in that scenario). As I've said before, she does not act like someone who loves peace (and definitely not like someone who loves freedom).[/quote]

That reminds me of some musing a while back over the idea that maybe the Chantry higher up's (including Elthina and of course the Divine) knew perfectly well that the veil in Kirkwall would drive the mages nuts and they put the Circle there on purpose. It certainly helps support their case. Even real people who know the whole story are buying into the Chantry's crap. Just look at all the Orsino hate over Quentin. I flatly refuse to believe he would be getting even a fraction of the heat he's getting if Quentin didn't kill part of Hawke's family. But that's another subject. =/

[quote]I would love to play Ghandi, to make my peaceful revolution, but since the game does not allow that I must instead make a similar choice to Anders in hopes for freedom. If we must look at my decision to support the Templars as anything-- let it be my own Chantry explosion. The fallout from that building is going to hurt and kill lots of people Anders has never seen. And any innocent in the building was placed on the pyre of the revolution by him. He paid for freedom in blood- even his own. For me, the Circle of Mages in Kirkwall was the price I was willing to pay to have a foothold in getting the Templars and the rest of the mages (because I am not ever letting that happen again if I have a choice in the matter) loose from the Chantry (if possible. I live in hope, especially after Cassandra thinks Hawke can stop it all)-- because I couldn't see a way from what I was given, to do it the other way round.[/quote]

I don't see how you can condemn Anders for killing innocents and then turn right around and do it.

[quote]That outcome stops all possible exalted marches on Ferelden, on Kirkwall, it potentially puts the mages and Templars (after some culling -in one form or another- in the Templar ranks to get rid of the lunatics.) safely in secular hands.[/quote]

Secular hands?

[quote]Sometimes talking about real-world problems does help. If more people did it, it might help even more. But you are right-- it's much more pleasurable to discuss fictional problems that one can dismiss at the end.[/quote]

Well I guess it depends on the problem. Personal problems, sometimes. Full-fledged society failures like the ones we're discussing about DA? That's just depressing.
[/quote]

This is kind of out of order, but I think it's pretty much clear enough what goes with what. Sorry about your ex-fianceé, she sounds like a real booby prize.

I'm not much in the way of persuasive speech. I tell stories better. If my story could make you understand where my words couldn't, I thought it was worth a try. This is important to me to get out on the board, I think, only because no one else seems to see it.

A lot of the worst things that happened to the Templars happen in DAO (and I did list a great many of them over in the Enslaved thread). Alistair complains about how they're treated, for one. There's even a codex entry about how Templar abilities permanently scar the soul of the person using them (Ser Andrew). DA2 is more about the mages and so the Templars are used to show us the abuse of power and the abuses of power against them are not as flamboyant. They're quieter. Ambient conversation. The initiate being murdered. Samson being kicked out to be the jittering junkie over a letter. Executions. Thrask's rebellion... it still adds up. It's still horrible. Keran leaves to become a madman, or he's executed or he remains a Templar. Doesn't sound that great to me.

On the lyrium-- they're told they need it, when they obviously don't (Alistair and anyone he trains in DAO). I've gone over this in the Enslaved thread and there's just as much proof of what I'm saying as what you are. If it's a game mechanic that should be ignored-- why did Alistair have so much dialogue dedicated to the injustice of it? Why would there be a scripted approval drop from him if you support it? Sounds to me like that's more evidence than a couple lines that aren't even spoken in DA2.

Cullen tries for leniency towards the mages several times before then. He's in favor of education over Meredith's whipping, for one, and tries to go to Elthina about it if you follow that conversation to it's end. Elthina does nothing. He waffles back and forth on what his duty is before the finale (Like I said, it's that guilt building, you can hear it in his voice when he's talking about the chained apprentice)--- but I think Hawke is the final push because Meredith has no authority over Hawke beyond possibly arresting him/her for sheltering Anders or being an apostate and she's taking it anyway. It's the final proof that her lust for control isn't going to stop-- she's grown beyond her bounds. The final proof that what she's been feeding her Templars is madness.

I'm arguing for the Templars at the moment (since no one seems-- not even the 'kill all the mages!' people, not that I'd want them to-- to be.). Never have I said that what's been done to the mages is anything less than inhumane and evil. They are also terribly opressed (did I really need to repeat the word terribly? Terribly!  Honestly Gavriel and you do a pretty bang up job pointing out the stuff that goes on with the mages that I don't feel I have to.). The mages are being ground into the dirt. Just because the mages have it worse, doesn't mean what's being done to the Templars isn't awful. If we take the mages out of the equation and set up the Templars by themselves as the soldiers of an uncaring despot-- the control via drugs alone would be horrific enough to want to free them. That they're paid means nothing. I've brought up in the Enslaved thread evidence of "paid" slaves. That they carry weapons and fight others/contain people does not make them not slaves (also brought up in the Enslaved thread with historical evidence). That they have something close to autonomy outside their duties does not make them not slaves (as brought up with historical evidence in the Enslaved thread). The fact that they do not have free permission to marry (Wesley is confirmed the exception and not the rule according to the wiki), that they cannot own property (from Ser Andrew's book in DAO), that they are drugged to control them (Alistair and basically everywhere else), that they must go wherever the order sends them and can't even speak out when a Templar is killed or expelled for an infraction (DA2).... all of that spells opressed to me. Fighting men in an army have the option of leaving the service if they are ill informed once their contracts are up-- and will not die from withdrawal or be made human wrecks by a substance they don't need given to them under the false pretenses that they do (and if some people need it and others don't-- why let them men who do be Templars unless it's to control them all?). Soldiers in the military have rights and recourse against their superiors that's not dependent on their superiors for enforcement. That's why JAG and other such offices exist. If they fail a soldier, a soldier may go to secular means for justice--- a Templar cannot.  A man in the army can have a home, and a family. A Templar can't have the former, and must beg for the latter.

The thing about the veil is a good question. I wouldn't put it past the Divine. Dorothea seems all to eager too call a march instantly when Elthina falters.

I killed Anders not because of what he did at the Chantry, but because of what happened in Dissent and after that when he tried to take Ygraine's face off as Vengeance for questioning him. I felt he would become increasingly dangerous and unstable and it was kinder to let him rest. Once he blew up the Chantry, I had only the decisions given to me. I never would have called for the ROA myself or blown the Chantry (althought I would have killed Meredith long ago, and likely Elthina, had the game let me, and gotten the common people -who already had sympathy for the mages- to stand with me in protest along with Thrask's men). Anders' actions percipitated the very difficult choice I made but the deaths are on my head and I expect Ygraine to die for them at some point. I hardly think Ygraine is innocent for the choice she made.

Mhm--- a chance to make the Templars like a specialized watchguard, and gainful employment for the mages in the Army and other places, should they want it,  and a Circle more like a boarding school/college rather than being cooped up under bizarre religious laws. The ability to own property for both (since they can't-- Templars can't by DAO codex, Mages can't by, well, look at them-- they're prisoners). Secular hands. That's my goal. I hope bioware allows me to do this.

Edit: I also do go to therapy every week and have for many years.

Modifié par Marduksdragon, 21 juillet 2011 - 04:39 .

[GavrielKay]

Marduksdragon wrote...
On the lyrium-- they're told they need it, when they obviously don't (Alistair and anyone he trains in DAO). I've gone over this in the Enslaved thread and there's just as much proof of what I'm saying as what you are. If it's a game mechanic that should be ignored-- why did Alistair have so much dialogue dedicated to the injustice of it? Why would there be a scripted approval drop from him if you support it? Sounds to me like that's more evidence than a couple lines that aren't even spoken in DA2.

The one thing we don't know from Alistair's assertions is whether he or any other Termplar is more powerful with lyrium than without.  It is possible that you get enhanced Templar powers when they use lyrium and so the Chantry combines that with the control aspect and runs with it.

Debate over whether Templars are slaves is about emotion.  It is like the old genocide and terrorist debates where people are trying to evoke feelings one way or the other and the dictionary definition doesn't matter.  You shouldn't need the word if the point is clear, and having the word won't help if it isn't.

There are good and bad Templars, forced and unforced.  They are people just like the rest with a whole spectrum of motivations and inner demons.  To the extent that some Templars use their position of authority over the mages to abuse them, I couldn't care less whether they are acting out their own feelings of impotence and quashed dreams. 

The ones who gladly or reluctantly take on their duties and try to do right by them, I feel bad that they are doped and controlled.

I still fail to see how joining the Templars and killing the mages helps either the Templars or mages though.  You could just as well say it is a good lesson for the Templars that their church and Knight Commander can be defied and not everyone will condone oppression.

The Chantry has multiple personality disorder.  On the one hand they stick around and help Lothering, on the other, they sit by and let Kirkwall happen.  It is a problem whenever a person or organization feels they are divinely allowed or even required to behave a certain way.  If that behavior is objectively evil - like getting Templars hooked on a destructive substance, or annulling a circle for doing nothing - they still believe they have divine dispensation.

It's just about impossible to reason with anyone who believes they are acting by divine will.

[Rifneno]

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

This is kind of out of order, but I think it's pretty much clear enough what goes with what. Sorry about your ex-fianceé, she sounds like a real booby prize.[/quote]

It was her mother, actually. Fortuantely I need had to meet her mother face-to-face. She warned me what would happen if I, say, dared to make a barely audible burp at home and didn't immediately say "excuse me." So I responded that she (the mother) better know how to counter a hammerlock because she wasn't gonna get that slap hand back easily. Once she realized I wasn't kidding she made sure the two of us were kept well apart (she was only visiting from overseas).

[quote]I'm not much in the way of persuasive speech. I tell stories better. If my story could make you understand where my words couldn't, I thought it was worth a try. This is important to me to get out on the board, I think, only because no one else seems to see it.[/quote]

It being the templar-slave interpretation? Not sure what you mean exactly... the whole thing stemmed from the danger of stalkers discussion and I can't imagine you mean that.

I still can't imagine how it's worth it to dredge up such terrible emotions for a video game debate. Even if it did influence a few people (and making anyone change their mind about anything via 'net debates or arguments is harder than Ser Alrik in the lobotomy ward), is that truly worth it?

[quote]A lot of the worst things that happened to the Templars happen in DAO (and I did list a great many of them over in the Enslaved thread). Alistair complains about how they're treated, for one. There's even a codex entry about how Templar abilities permanently scar the soul of the person using them (Ser Andrew). DA2 is more about the mages and so the Templars are used to show us the abuse of power and the abuses of power against them are not as flamboyant. They're quieter. Ambient conversation. The initiate being murdered. Samson being kicked out to be the jittering junkie over a letter. Executions. Thrask's rebellion... it still adds up. It's still horrible. Keran leaves to become a madman, or he's executed or he remains a Templar. Doesn't sound that great to me.[/quote]

I haven't played DAO in quite a while... I lost a HDD and it just seems so much work to find, download, and install all the mods I wanted, get settings back where I want them, ect. So I'll have to take your word on that part. That said, I really don't think they would have glossed over what the templars have to go through in DA2. The whole game seemed to be based around the devs (or maybe just Gaider, I don't know) trying to 'enlighten' us after finding out nearly everyone sided with the mages in DAO. They wanted it to be more even, or at least less of a landslide, and whitewashing abuses against the templars would be counter to that goal. Most of the things you mention (Samson, executions, ect.) were because of Meredith, a templar herself, not the Chantry. I don't think there was ever any conclusion on what happens to Keran. He leaves the order because he feels he can't work with Meredith after Best Served Cold. But the very next quest is the last one in the game. So we never get a conclusion on how that worked out. Perhaps he had some connections to get enough lyrium to stave off withdrawal.

[quote]On the lyrium-- they're told they need it, when they obviously don't (Alistair and anyone he trains in DAO). I've gone over this in the Enslaved thread and there's just as much proof of what I'm saying as what you are. If it's a game mechanic that should be ignored-- why did Alistair have so much dialogue dedicated to the injustice of it? Why would there be a scripted approval drop from him if you support it? Sounds to me like that's more evidence than a couple lines that aren't even spoken in DA2.[/quote]

Like I said, it'll just be a matter of opinion until a dev clears it up. Unfortunately, if it is indeed a retcon, they're unlikely to ever address it. Look at the daft reasoning they gave to avoid admitting epilogue slides were retconned.

[quote]Cullen tries for leniency towards the mages several times before then. He's in favor of education over Meredith's whipping, for one, and tries to go to Elthina about it if you follow that conversation to it's end. Elthina does nothing. He waffles back and forth on what his duty is before the finale (Like I said, it's that guilt building, you can hear it in his voice when he's talking about the chained apprentice)--- but I think Hawke is the final push because Meredith has no authority over Hawke beyond possibly arresting him/her for sheltering Anders or being an apostate and she's taking it anyway. It's the final proof that her lust for control isn't going to stop-- she's grown beyond her bounds. The final proof that what she's been feeding her Templars is madness.[/quote]

Chained apprentice? I don't remember anything along those lines. Or the education/whipping thing. When do these scenes or conversations happen? Is it only available if you take the templar path (which I've never been able to stomach doing)?

[quote]I'm arguing for the Templars at the moment (since no one seems-- not even the 'kill all the mages!' people, not that I'd want them to-- to be.). Never have I said that what's been done to the mages is anything less than inhumane and evil. They are also terribly opressed (did I really need to repeat the word terribly? Terribly! [/quote]

Fair enough. Sorry, too used to debating the issue with people whose argument can be summed up with "a mage killed Leandra, jihad!".

[quote]Honestly Gavriel and you do a pretty bang up job pointing out the stuff that goes on with the mages that I don't feel I have to.). The mages are being ground into the dirt. Just because the mages have it worse, doesn't mean what's being done to the Templars isn't awful. If we take the mages out of the equation and set up the Templars by themselves as the soldiers of an uncaring despot-- the control via drugs alone would be horrific enough to want to free them.[/quote]

Okay. But they themselves don't seem to want free. At least until the mages rebelled, when they left the Chantry to hunt them. Which implies that a) they could've left whenever they wanted, albeit they probably had to do it as a group so they could do... whatever it is they're doing to get their lyrium, and they want to stomp the mages more than anything else.

Even if you could save them from the Chantry, you have to get them to want to be saved. Whatever the reason, the fact is that they're dead-set on oppressing the mages if not just killing them all. How could you change that?

[quote]The fact that they do not have free permission to marry (Wesley is confirmed the exception and not the rule according to the wiki), that they cannot own property (from Ser Andrew's book in DAO), that they are drugged to control them (Alistair and basically everywhere else), that they must go wherever the order sends them and can't even speak out when a Templar is killed or expelled for an infraction (DA2).... all of that spells opressed to me.[/quote]

Interesting. I didn't know that part about marrying. That was one of the things that bothered me the most about Circles. Being able to marry and have a family is one of the most basic human rights, and was the best reason for the better Circles like Ferelden's to fight for freedom. If that's not worth fighting for, I don't know what the hell is.

Can't own property? What are they paid for then? Which part of that codex are you referring to? It seems kind of... philosophical flowery crap to me. Honestly I don't even know what half of it is supposed to mean. You're refering to the codex, "Death of a Templar" correct?

I think the killed or expelled for minor stuff is Meredith (again I must stress, a templar herself) being a massive douchebag. And Elthina being the world's most powerful sloth demon for not doing anything about it.

[quote]Soldiers in the military have rights and recourse against their superiors that's not dependent on their superiors for enforcement. That's why JAG and other such offices exist. If they fail a soldier, a soldier may go to secular means for justice--- a Templar cannot. A man in the army can have a home, and a family. A Templar can't have the former, and must beg for the latter.[/quote]

Well it depends upon the army. An army run by a country making a real effort to be good and fair will be like that. Dictatorships, not so much.

[quote]The thing about the veil is a good question. I wouldn't put it past the Divine. Dorothea seems all to eager too call a march instantly when Elthina falters.[/quote]

To take this rampant speculation on my part a step further, what if that's why they appointed Meredith? If the Circle was only suffering but not totally imploding as they'd hoped the Veil would do, so they put them in the hands of a known psychopath who would actively make their lives a living hell?

Ahhh, I love theorycrafting.

[quote]I killed Anders not because of what he did at the Chantry, but because of what happened in Dissent and after that when he tried to take Ygraine's face off as Vengeance for questioning him. I felt he would become increasingly dangerous and unstable and it was kinder to let him rest.[/quote]

Ahh, fair enough. Even as a total Anders fan, I have to admit in playthroughs where he kills Ella he should be executed ASAP. Plot armor and all that though...

[quote]Once he blew up the Chantry, I had only the decisions given to me. I never would have called for the ROA myself or blown the Chantry (althought I would have killed Meredith long ago, and likely Elthina, had the game let me, and gotten the common people -who already had sympathy for the mages- to stand with me in protest along with Thrask's men). Anders' actions percipitated the very difficult choice I made but the deaths are on my head and I expect Ygraine to die for them at some point. I hardly think Ygraine is innocent for the choice she made.[/quote]

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen someone arguing for the RoA take responsibility (or rather, their Hawke) for the innocents there. Much kudos.

[quote]Mhm--- a chance to make the Templars like a specialized watchguard, and gainful employment for the mages in the Army and other places, should they want it, and a Circle more like a boarding school/college rather than being cooped up under bizarre religious laws. The ability to own property for both (since they can't-- Templars can't by DAO codex, Mages can't by, well, look at them-- they're prisoners). Secular hands. That's my goal. I hope bioware allows me to do this.[/quote]

I hope so too. Those kinds of things should always be secular.

[quote]
Edit: I also do go to therapy every week and have for many years.
[/quote]

Ahh. Sorry to hear that it's not stopped it... Deepest sympathies.

[LobselVith8]

Marduksdragon wrote...

A lot of the worst things that happened to the Templars happen in DAO (and I did list a great many of them over in the Enslaved thread). Alistair complains about how they're treated, for one. There's even a codex entry about how Templar abilities permanently scar the soul of the person using them (Ser Andrew). DA2 is more about the mages and so the Templars are used to show us the abuse of power and the abuses of power against them are not as flamboyant. They're quieter. Ambient conversation. The initiate being murdered. Samson being kicked out to be the jittering junkie over a letter. Executions. Thrask's rebellion... it still adds up. It's still horrible. Keran leaves to become a madman, or he's executed or he remains a Templar. Doesn't sound that great to me.

A madman? I found Keran standing in front of the Hanged Man with basic armor, as though he was now a mercenary or something. He seemed to be more coherent than Samson, who keeps begging for dust. I know Hawke can kill him because he was part of Thrask's rebellion, but he says he left because he can't tolerate Meredith being in charge of the Templar Order stationed in Kirkwall.

As for the plight of the templars, Alistair does seem to think that the Chantry uses lyrium as a means of control, doubts whether the lyrium actually improves their abilities or only keeps them addicted to the substance that the Chantry has exclusive rights over, and seems to find the Chantry's treatment of its templars repellant.

Marduksdragon wrote...

On the lyrium-- they're told they need it, when they obviously don't (Alistair and anyone he trains in DAO). I've gone over this in the Enslaved thread and there's just as much proof of what I'm saying as what you are. If it's a game mechanic that should be ignored-- why did Alistair have so much dialogue dedicated to the injustice of it? Why would there be a scripted approval drop from him if you support it? Sounds to me like that's more evidence than a couple lines that aren't even spoken in DA2.

Alistair clearly knows how to use the abilities despite not taking lyrium, as he mentions it's one of the reasons why Duncan conscripted him, so I agree that it's not likely a game mechanic.

Marduksdragon wrote...

Cullen tries for leniency towards the mages several times before then. He's in favor of education over Meredith's whipping, for one, and tries to go to Elthina about it if you follow that conversation to it's end. Elthina does nothing. He waffles back and forth on what his duty is before the finale (Like I said, it's that guilt building, you can hear it in his voice when he's talking about the chained apprentice)--- but I think Hawke is the final push because Meredith has no authority over Hawke beyond possibly arresting him/her for sheltering Anders or being an apostate and she's taking it anyway. It's the final proof that her lust for control isn't going to stop-- she's grown beyond her bounds. The final proof that what she's been feeding her Templars is madness.

Cullen's "transition" is never shown, though; sparing three mages seems like a poor attempt by the writers to show a dramatic change from the Cullen who stated that mages "can't be treated like people" and "are weapons," and this scene ignores the fact that the Right of Annulment is about murdering hundreds of men, women, and children who are innocent of Anders' actions. Three mages are spared? Does that change that hundreds are killed simply for being mages, because Meredith wants to appease the mob? I have no respect for the character when he's only willing to stop Meredith when she tries to kill the Champion; had he stepped in when the lives of hundreds were at stake, it'd be a different story. Sparing three mages doesn't change the senseless murder that transpired, considering that the loss of lives remains whether the three mages are spared or not, and we don't even know whether the three mages will be spared or made tranquil (which Gaider doesn't seem to think is a bad deal, given his comments about tranquility).

Marduksdragon wrote...

Just because the mages have it worse, doesn't mean what's being done to the Templars isn't awful.

The difference is that the mages are subservient to the Chantry and the templars, as Cullen points out in Act III that the Chantry has Maker given control over the lives of mages, and points out that as such the Grand Cleric must side with the templars as a result. That doesn't mean the templars don't have it bad, as becoming an addict in the name of a religion that wants to convert the entire world into bending knee to it's Chant is certainly not an ideal situation, but not every templar was in the same position as Alistair; some, like Keran, chose to become templars.

As for templars and marriage:

David Gaider wrote...

Templars do not take vows of chastity.

Chantry priests are considered "married" to the Maker-- though it's not an actual marriage, just a spiritual one-- and thus are indeed celibate.

For templars, the situation is not quite the same. Their duties require them to be dedicated to their duties-- they're going to live in a Circle of Magi (which does not have room for spouses and families) or a chantry, or otherwise be pre-occupied. Marriage is impractical, and the Chantry thus discourages such marriages as having dependants introduces complications that templars can do without (as well as a potential means of leverage).

That said, the Chantry does occasionally give permission for templars to marry, provided the spouse has their own means of support. This is often the case when the spouse owns land or a title. Even so, considering the spouse wouldn't be able to see the templar often, it's not going to happen frequently. Before anyone asks, the Chantry also discourages templars from marrying each other even more so-- that's considered fraternization within the ranks (the templars are run as a military order, remember, and possess the same discipline).

Mages within the Circle are permitted to marry, but it's impractical with outsiders and they also must get permission from the Chantry (so it might be considered a reward for good behavior). Even so, the culture within the typical Circle of Magi tends to make mages unwilling to marry. The policy on fraternization will depend on the individual Circle-- some forbid it, while others do not, though in either case it still occurs. Considering mages live outside normal culture, they also consider themselves free of cultural conventions (especially those who were raised in a Circle from a young age) and thus tend to be quite liberal in their views.

Whew! Okay-- verbose answer of the day. Time for coffee.

I thought you'd find it interesting, given your interest in the templars. The Chantry seems to be the controlling force in permitting templars to marry. The Andrastian Chantry seems incredibly powerful, given how they supported the Orlesian occupation of Ferelden for over a century but remained a part of Ferelden after the defeat of the Empire by Maric and Loghain. The one area where their control is excluded - at least for the mages - is with the Grey Wardens:

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Yes, married or not the child of a mage is taken away by the Chantry.

Would the same happen if the mage was also a Grey Warden, such as the Warden-Commander of DA:O and Awakenings?

A mage who is not part of the Circle is not subject to the will of the Chantry. So, no.

Otherwise, the Chantry of Andraste is one of the most powerful forces in Thedas. How powerful they remain with the inevitable war between the mages and the templars remains to be seen, as well as how the templars and the mages will treat the Grey Wardens (and mage Wardens).

[Marduksdragon]

GavrielKay wrote...

Marduksdragon wrote...
On the lyrium-- they're told they need it, when they obviously don't (Alistair and anyone he trains in DAO). I've gone over this in the Enslaved thread and there's just as much proof of what I'm saying as what you are. If it's a game mechanic that should be ignored-- why did Alistair have so much dialogue dedicated to the injustice of it? Why would there be a scripted approval drop from him if you support it? Sounds to me like that's more evidence than a couple lines that aren't even spoken in DA2.

The one thing we don't know from Alistair's assertions is whether he or any other Termplar is more powerful with lyrium than without.  It is possible that you get enhanced Templar powers when they use lyrium and so the Chantry combines that with the control aspect and runs with it.

Debate over whether Templars are slaves is about emotion.  It is like the old genocide and terrorist debates where people are trying to evoke feelings one way or the other and the dictionary definition doesn't matter.  You shouldn't need the word if the point is clear, and having the word won't help if it isn't.

There are good and bad Templars, forced and unforced.  They are people just like the rest with a whole spectrum of motivations and inner demons.  To the extent that some Templars use their position of authority over the mages to abuse them, I couldn't care less whether they are acting out their own feelings of impotence and quashed dreams. 

The ones who gladly or reluctantly take on their duties and try to do right by them, I feel bad that they are doped and controlled.

I still fail to see how joining the Templars and killing the mages helps either the Templars or mages though.  You could just as well say it is a good lesson for the Templars that their church and Knight Commander can be defied and not everyone will condone oppression.

The Chantry has multiple personality disorder.  On the one hand they stick around and help Lothering, on the other, they sit by and let Kirkwall happen.  It is a problem whenever a person or organization feels they are divinely allowed or even required to behave a certain way.  If that behavior is objectively evil - like getting Templars hooked on a destructive substance, or annulling a circle for doing nothing - they still believe they have divine dispensation.

It's just about impossible to reason with anyone who believes they are acting by divine will.

Considering Alistair seems to be more powerful than any Templar you face in DAO, it would kind of lean towards it being mostly about the control. True, he's a companion, but still.

--
slave  (slv)n.1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence: "I was still the slave of education and prejudice" (Edward Gibbon).3. One who works extremely hard.4. A machine or component controlled by another machine or component.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
--
1. The Templars are bound in servitude and property of the Chantry. 2. They are abjectly subservient to the Chantry to the point that they can be murdered by it. 3. They are worked extremely hard to the point it leaves permanent scars on their souls and destroys their minds and bodies, ultimately.

How are they not slaves?

Many points aren't simple black and white, especially when a lot of people aren't familiar with history. I've pulled up evidence of slaves who have been paid, had something close to autonomy, have opressed other slaves--- and at the end of the day, they were still slaves themselves.

Just as you wouldn't unleash insane mages on people, I wouldn't do that or vote for the insane or otherwise unfit Templars to be released into the populace either. Especially considering their need for lyrium. But the others-- like the innocent mages-- there's no reason to support them still being enslaved.

If Hawke is there, she can continue to be a 'subversive apostate' (I laughed when Cassandra said that, and went "yeah. totally polluting your Templars. slap me in irons, Cassie.") and influence them to further acts of rebellion under the shield of the Viscount's office (and as Viscountess she is now the most powerful person in Kirkwall and the entire city looks to her for leadership, so Varric says)-- possibly free them, since the Templars seem to rebel right after she disappears in the Viscount ending (and it's unclear why since the statement seems to me to say the Seekers left the Chantry to hunt mages-- it doesn't make any sense that the Templars would have to rebel from the Chantry to hunt mages since it's one of their primary functions and the Chantry is absolutely going to want those mages back.). If the Templars are freed-- how is the Chantry going to make them oppress anyone (thus freeing the mages)? True, some of them are dirtbags and need to die and are probably fighting the mages in raiding bands (and raiding the Chantry's lyrium storehouses). I expect to be killing them in the DLC or the next game and pointing out to the rest why (if they're like Thrask or the others, they'll gladly help against dirtbags). If Kirkwall is destroyed by the Chantry (which is what Elthina says will happen if it falls to magic-- which it does if you help the mages revolt), then Ferelden is left without an important ally in the Freemarches (or Alistair wouldn't have asked-- and Alistair is a man offering mages shelter in his country against the orders of the Divine-- if Ferelden is destroyed the mages ultimately lose an important ally) and there is a war coming. Heck, Kirkwall could have been engineered just to get it out of the way for Orlais to march on Ferelden. And you're right, defying them could be an example- I thought about that myself. If I knew it would be a good example ahead of time and that the Templars would take it as such and shoot the finger at the Chantry and leave (Thus preventing them being used against Ferelden or the mages) I'd do it in a heartbeat and raid the deep roads for their lyrium-- but what happens afterward when they're left with no leader save Cullen and orders to burn the city? Cullen would hold out as the last ranking officer, due to his conscience, until more Templars arrived to make him obey--- if he still didn't there's a good possibility he'd be executed along with anyone else that refused. Is it any more right to save one band of slaves than the other? If I have to abandon the Templars to save the mages, isn't that like saying that only the most opressed people deserve freedom? If I can side with the Templars and thereby sabotage the opression of the mages (as it's shown throughout DA2 that you can influence the Templars aside the monsters like Alrik and Karras-- but Thrask and the others wanted them dead anyway and would have succeeded in their rebellion and seized control of the Gallows -and possibly Kirkwall if Elthina tried to stop them- if not for Grace)-- possibly freeing them both-- isn't that something to hold out for? I am not proud of siding with the Templars in that it costs the lives of innocent people who did nothing wrong and are what they are by an accident of genetics-- but with the Chantry explosion we're already talking about the lives of innocent people being spent in freedom for the mages-- people who may have done nothing more wrong than come to work that evening-- or people in their houses crushed and burned by fallout from the building or dying in the riot crossfire between the mages and Templars. I just choose to say that all the slaves of  the Chantry should be free, not just the mages. I may be wrong that I can do these things. I may have to go back and replay the end of Ygraine's game and abandon the Templars to achieve them-- but from what I saw I could not steer the Templars in the right direction from the mage side and I think steering the Templars towards freedom is going to be an important facet of keeping the mages free. Freedom is for everyone and I lament having to spend the lives of innocent people to achieve it. If I had to kill or abandon Cullen or his men for guaranteed freedom for the rest of  the mages and the Templars, I would.

[Marduksdragon]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Marduksdragon wrote...

A lot of the worst things that happened to the Templars happen in DAO (and I did list a great many of them over in the Enslaved thread). Alistair complains about how they're treated, for one. There's even a codex entry about how Templar abilities permanently scar the soul of the person using them (Ser Andrew). DA2 is more about the mages and so the Templars are used to show us the abuse of power and the abuses of power against them are not as flamboyant. They're quieter. Ambient conversation. The initiate being murdered. Samson being kicked out to be the jittering junkie over a letter. Executions. Thrask's rebellion... it still adds up. It's still horrible. Keran leaves to become a madman, or he's executed or he remains a Templar. Doesn't sound that great to me.

A madman? I found Keran standing in front of the Hanged Man with basic armor, as though he was now a mercenary or something. He seemed to be more coherent than Samson, who keeps begging for dust. I know Hawke can kill him because he was part of Thrask's rebellion, but he says he left because he can't tolerate Meredith being in charge of the Templar Order stationed in Kirkwall.

As for the plight of the templars, Alistair does seem to think that the Chantry uses lyrium as a means of control, doubts whether the lyrium actually improves their abilities or only keeps them addicted to the substance that the Chantry has exclusive rights over, and seems to find the Chantry's treatment of its templars repellant.

Marduksdragon wrote...

On the lyrium-- they're told they need it, when they obviously don't (Alistair and anyone he trains in DAO). I've gone over this in the Enslaved thread and there's just as much proof of what I'm saying as what you are. If it's a game mechanic that should be ignored-- why did Alistair have so much dialogue dedicated to the injustice of it? Why would there be a scripted approval drop from him if you support it? Sounds to me like that's more evidence than a couple lines that aren't even spoken in DA2.

Alistair clearly knows how to use the abilities despite not taking lyrium, as he mentions it's one of the reasons why Duncan conscripted him, so I agree that it's not likely a game mechanic.

Marduksdragon wrote...

Cullen tries for leniency towards the mages several times before then. He's in favor of education over Meredith's whipping, for one, and tries to go to Elthina about it if you follow that conversation to it's end. Elthina does nothing. He waffles back and forth on what his duty is before the finale (Like I said, it's that guilt building, you can hear it in his voice when he's talking about the chained apprentice)--- but I think Hawke is the final push because Meredith has no authority over Hawke beyond possibly arresting him/her for sheltering Anders or being an apostate and she's taking it anyway. It's the final proof that her lust for control isn't going to stop-- she's grown beyond her bounds. The final proof that what she's been feeding her Templars is madness.

Cullen's "transition" is never shown, though; sparing three mages seems like a poor attempt by the writers to show a dramatic change from the Cullen who stated that mages "can't be treated like people" and "are weapons," and this scene ignores the fact that the Right of Annulment is about murdering hundreds of men, women, and children who are innocent of Anders' actions. Three mages are spared? Does that change that hundreds are killed simply for being mages, because Meredith wants to appease the mob? I have no respect for the character when he's only willing to stop Meredith when she tries to kill the Champion; had he stepped in when the lives of hundreds were at stake, it'd be a different story. Sparing three mages doesn't change the senseless murder that transpired, considering that the loss of lives remains whether the three mages are spared or not, and we don't even know whether the three mages will be spared or made tranquil (which Gaider doesn't seem to think is a bad deal, given his comments about tranquility).

Marduksdragon wrote...

Just because the mages have it worse, doesn't mean what's being done to the Templars isn't awful.

The difference is that the mages are subservient to the Chantry and the templars, as Cullen points out in Act III that the Chantry has Maker given control over the lives of mages, and points out that as such the Grand Cleric must side with the templars as a result. That doesn't mean the templars don't have it bad, as becoming an addict in the name of a religion that wants to convert the entire world into bending knee to it's Chant is certainly not an ideal situation, but not every templar was in the same position as Alistair; some, like Keran, chose to become templars.

As for templars and marriage:

David Gaider wrote...

Templars do not take vows of chastity.

Chantry priests are considered "married" to the Maker-- though it's not an actual marriage, just a spiritual one-- and thus are indeed celibate.

For templars, the situation is not quite the same. Their duties require them to be dedicated to their duties-- they're going to live in a Circle of Magi (which does not have room for spouses and families) or a chantry, or otherwise be pre-occupied. Marriage is impractical, and the Chantry thus discourages such marriages as having dependants introduces complications that templars can do without (as well as a potential means of leverage).

That said, the Chantry does occasionally give permission for templars to marry, provided the spouse has their own means of support. This is often the case when the spouse owns land or a title. Even so, considering the spouse wouldn't be able to see the templar often, it's not going to happen frequently. Before anyone asks, the Chantry also discourages templars from marrying each other even more so-- that's considered fraternization within the ranks (the templars are run as a military order, remember, and possess the same discipline).

Mages within the Circle are permitted to marry, but it's impractical with outsiders and they also must get permission from the Chantry (so it might be considered a reward for good behavior). Even so, the culture within the typical Circle of Magi tends to make mages unwilling to marry. The policy on fraternization will depend on the individual Circle-- some forbid it, while others do not, though in either case it still occurs. Considering mages live outside normal culture, they also consider themselves free of cultural conventions (especially those who were raised in a Circle from a young age) and thus tend to be quite liberal in their views.

Whew! Okay-- verbose answer of the day. Time for coffee.

I thought you'd find it interesting, given your interest in the templars. The Chantry seems to be the controlling force in permitting templars to marry. The Andrastian Chantry seems incredibly powerful, given how they supported the Orlesian occupation of Ferelden for over a century but remained a part of Ferelden after the defeat of the Empire by Maric and Loghain. The one area where their control is excluded - at least for the mages - is with the Grey Wardens:

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Yes, married or not the child of a mage is taken away by the Chantry.

Would the same happen if the mage was also a Grey Warden, such as the Warden-Commander of DA:O and Awakenings?

A mage who is not part of the Circle is not subject to the will of the Chantry. So, no.

Otherwise, the Chantry of Andraste is one of the most powerful forces in Thedas. How powerful they remain with the inevitable war between the mages and the templars remains to be seen, as well as how the templars and the mages will treat the Grey Wardens (and mage Wardens).

I've never found Keran at the Hanged Man even when I let him go. How do you accomplish this? I wish to speak with him! I've gotten in ambient that he's gone crazy, I've known him to be executed and I've seen him as a Templar.

Far as Cullen, his progression is more than just the three mages. I don't know if you have to aid the Templars to get him to talk about it in the previous acts though. In rebellion runs with other Hawkes I don't tend to hang around the gallows as much. I need to do that. My lone male Hawke is annoying enough to play poke the Templar so I'll fire him up and do it with him.

Keran also didn't realize what the Order was like, which is a subject of worry from him and his sister. He's also a main player in Thrask's rebellion.

And thanks for the information! I appreciate it. It's much to mull over.

Modifié par Marduksdragon, 21 juillet 2011 - 08:25 .

[Marduksdragon]

[quote]Rifneno wrote...

[quote]Marduksdragon wrote...

This is kind of out of order, but I think it's pretty much clear enough what goes with what. Sorry about your ex-fianceé, she sounds like a real booby prize.[/quote]

It was her mother, actually. Fortuantely I need had to meet her mother face-to-face. She warned me what would happen if I, say, dared to make a barely audible burp at home and didn't immediately say "excuse me." So I responded that she (the mother) better know how to counter a hammerlock because she wasn't gonna get that slap hand back easily. Once she realized I wasn't kidding she made sure the two of us were kept well apart (she was only visiting from overseas).

[quote]I'm not much in the way of persuasive speech. I tell stories better. If my story could make you understand where my words couldn't, I thought it was worth a try. This is important to me to get out on the board, I think, only because no one else seems to see it.[/quote]

It being the templar-slave interpretation? Not sure what you mean exactly... the whole thing stemmed from the danger of stalkers discussion and I can't imagine you mean that.

I still can't imagine how it's worth it to dredge up such terrible emotions for a video game debate. Even if it did influence a few people (and making anyone change their mind about anything via 'net debates or arguments is harder than Ser Alrik in the lobotomy ward), is that truly worth it?

[quote]A lot of the worst things that happened to the Templars happen in DAO (and I did list a great many of them over in the Enslaved thread). Alistair complains about how they're treated, for one. There's even a codex entry about how Templar abilities permanently scar the soul of the person using them (Ser Andrew). DA2 is more about the mages and so the Templars are used to show us the abuse of power and the abuses of power against them are not as flamboyant. They're quieter. Ambient conversation. The initiate being murdered. Samson being kicked out to be the jittering junkie over a letter. Executions. Thrask's rebellion... it still adds up. It's still horrible. Keran leaves to become a madman, or he's executed or he remains a Templar. Doesn't sound that great to me.[/quote]

I haven't played DAO in quite a while... I lost a HDD and it just seems so much work to find, download, and install all the mods I wanted, get settings back where I want them, ect. So I'll have to take your word on that part. That said, I really don't think they would have glossed over what the templars have to go through in DA2. The whole game seemed to be based around the devs (or maybe just Gaider, I don't know) trying to 'enlighten' us after finding out nearly everyone sided with the mages in DAO. They wanted it to be more even, or at least less of a landslide, and whitewashing abuses against the templars would be counter to that goal. Most of the things you mention (Samson, executions, ect.) were because of Meredith, a templar herself, not the Chantry. I don't think there was ever any conclusion on what happens to Keran. He leaves the order because he feels he can't work with Meredith after Best Served Cold. But the very next quest is the last one in the game. So we never get a conclusion on how that worked out. Perhaps he had some connections to get enough lyrium to stave off withdrawal.

[quote]On the lyrium-- they're told they need it, when they obviously don't (Alistair and anyone he trains in DAO). I've gone over this in the Enslaved thread and there's just as much proof of what I'm saying as what you are. If it's a game mechanic that should be ignored-- why did Alistair have so much dialogue dedicated to the injustice of it? Why would there be a scripted approval drop from him if you support it? Sounds to me like that's more evidence than a couple lines that aren't even spoken in DA2.[/quote]

Like I said, it'll just be a matter of opinion until a dev clears it up. Unfortunately, if it is indeed a retcon, they're unlikely to ever address it. Look at the daft reasoning they gave to avoid admitting epilogue slides were retconned.

[quote]Cullen tries for leniency towards the mages several times before then. He's in favor of education over Meredith's whipping, for one, and tries to go to Elthina about it if you follow that conversation to it's end. Elthina does nothing. He waffles back and forth on what his duty is before the finale (Like I said, it's that guilt building, you can hear it in his voice when he's talking about the chained apprentice)--- but I think Hawke is the final push because Meredith has no authority over Hawke beyond possibly arresting him/her for sheltering Anders or being an apostate and she's taking it anyway. It's the final proof that her lust for control isn't going to stop-- she's grown beyond her bounds. The final proof that what she's been feeding her Templars is madness.[/quote]

Chained apprentice? I don't remember anything along those lines. Or the education/whipping thing. When do these scenes or conversations happen? Is it only available if you take the templar path (which I've never been able to stomach doing)?

[quote]I'm arguing for the Templars at the moment (since no one seems-- not even the 'kill all the mages!' people, not that I'd want them to-- to be.). Never have I said that what's been done to the mages is anything less than inhumane and evil. They are also terribly opressed (did I really need to repeat the word terribly? Terribly! [/quote]

Fair enough. Sorry, too used to debating the issue with people whose argument can be summed up with "a mage killed Leandra, jihad!".

[quote]Honestly Gavriel and you do a pretty bang up job pointing out the stuff that goes on with the mages that I don't feel I have to.). The mages are being ground into the dirt. Just because the mages have it worse, doesn't mean what's being done to the Templars isn't awful. If we take the mages out of the equation and set up the Templars by themselves as the soldiers of an uncaring despot-- the control via drugs alone would be horrific enough to want to free them.[/quote]

Okay. But they themselves don't seem to want free. At least until the mages rebelled, when they left the Chantry to hunt them. Which implies that a) they could've left whenever they wanted, albeit they probably had to do it as a group so they could do... whatever it is they're doing to get their lyrium, and they want to stomp the mages more than anything else.

Even if you could save them from the Chantry, you have to get them to want to be saved. Whatever the reason, the fact is that they're dead-set on oppressing the mages if not just killing them all. How could you change that?

[quote]The fact that they do not have free permission to marry (Wesley is confirmed the exception and not the rule according to the wiki), that they cannot own property (from Ser Andrew's book in DAO), that they are drugged to control them (Alistair and basically everywhere else), that they must go wherever the order sends them and can't even speak out when a Templar is killed or expelled for an infraction (DA2).... all of that spells opressed to me.[/quote]

Interesting. I didn't know that part about marrying. That was one of the things that bothered me the most about Circles. Being able to marry and have a family is one of the most basic human rights, and was the best reason for the better Circles like Ferelden's to fight for freedom. If that's not worth fighting for, I don't know what the hell is.

Can't own property? What are they paid for then? Which part of that codex are you referring to? It seems kind of... philosophical flowery crap to me. Honestly I don't even know what half of it is supposed to mean. You're refering to the codex, "Death of a Templar" correct?

I think the killed or expelled for minor stuff is Meredith (again I must stress, a templar herself) being a massive douchebag. And Elthina being the world's most powerful sloth demon for not doing anything about it.

[quote]Soldiers in the military have rights and recourse against their superiors that's not dependent on their superiors for enforcement. That's why JAG and other such offices exist. If they fail a soldier, a soldier may go to secular means for justice--- a Templar cannot. A man in the army can have a home, and a family. A Templar can't have the former, and must beg for the latter.[/quote]

Well it depends upon the army. An army run by a country making a real effort to be good and fair will be like that. Dictatorships, not so much.

[quote]The thing about the veil is a good question. I wouldn't put it past the Divine. Dorothea seems all to eager too call a march instantly when Elthina falters.[/quote]

To take this rampant speculation on my part a step further, what if that's why they appointed Meredith? If the Circle was only suffering but not totally imploding as they'd hoped the Veil would do, so they put them in the hands of a known psychopath who would actively make their lives a living hell?

Ahhh, I love theorycrafting.

[quote]I killed Anders not because of what he did at the Chantry, but because of what happened in Dissent and after that when he tried to take Ygraine's face off as Vengeance for questioning him. I felt he would become increasingly dangerous and unstable and it was kinder to let him rest.[/quote]

Ahh, fair enough. Even as a total Anders fan, I have to admit in playthroughs where he kills Ella he should be executed ASAP. Plot armor and all that though...

[quote]Once he blew up the Chantry, I had only the decisions given to me. I never would have called for the ROA myself or blown the Chantry (althought I would have killed Meredith long ago, and likely Elthina, had the game let me, and gotten the common people -who already had sympathy for the mages- to stand with me in protest along with Thrask's men). Anders' actions percipitated the very difficult choice I made but the deaths are on my head and I expect Ygraine to die for them at some point. I hardly think Ygraine is innocent for the choice she made.[/quote]

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen someone arguing for the RoA take responsibility (or rather, their Hawke) for the innocents there. Much kudos.

[quote]Mhm--- a chance to make the Templars like a specialized watchguard, and gainful employment for the mages in the Army and other places, should they want it, and a Circle more like a boarding school/college rather than being cooped up under bizarre religious laws. The ability to own property for both (since they can't-- Templars can't by DAO codex, Mages can't by, well, look at them-- they're prisoners). Secular hands. That's my goal. I hope bioware allows me to do this.[/quote]

I hope so too. Those kinds of things should always be secular.

[quote]
Edit: I also do go to therapy every week and have for many years.
[/quote]

Ahh. Sorry to hear that it's not stopped it... Deepest sympathies.
[/quote]

Yikes.

Templar-slave and stalkers actually. A lot of people have only been exposed to monsters and forced action through TV and books. It becomes a more important issue to your heart if you've experienced both yourself. Maybe overreaction akin to showing you all my scars-- yeah, sure. I have been known to over-react on occasion. Lots of anger in me looking for an excuse to do stuff-- I've had worse explosions than this in RL. Probably not worth it on reflection. But it's already said. Can't take it back after everyone and their dogs have seen it.

Meredith was allowed to do these things by the Chantry. The Templars go to Elthina for help behind Meredith's back several times and she does nothing. I don't know how we can excuse the Chantry when Elthina is the only reason that Meredith is allowed to do what she's doing. One insane Templar, drunk with her own power, is still subject to control by the Chantry-- that Elthina doesn't exercise this control makes her stupid or monstrous or both.--- far as not showing it in DA2, DAO is chock full of miserable Templars (where the mages don't get quite as much airtime) including Alistair (although he wasn't a full Templar). Maybe they thought it would be overkill to do it again in DA2. Maybe they want most people to side with the mages again for storytelling purposes. I dunno.

Far as the epilogues. Yeah. I'm hoping it was just based on Varric's common knowledge since there was no dialogue that said it.

I'm not sure-- I think it's in ACT II. You might have to side with the Templars on some things (I did on some and not on others-- Feynriel, for example, went to Tevinter and I got the Arcane Supporter achievement on that run even though I was helping the Templars).

A Tranquil doesn't know enough to want to be free. Should we leave them behind? These men have been conditioned to obey with a chemical that makes it incredibly pleasurable to do what their master is telling them and believe what they're told (because the alternative is pretty horrible to contemplate), it's going to take work, but I think one of the first steps I'd take as leader of Rebel Templars is have them train people to use the skills without lyrium and SHOW them they don't need it--- showing them that that is just the first of many huge lies they've been told will be important. Once you've got that through their heads, it's only a matter of turning all the anger they've got at the right source. The Chantry has ruined your lives boys, not the mages, let's get those douchebags where they live.

They could be paid for incidentals-- like food and such. Some slaves were. A serf owned nothing but the clothes on his or her back-- their tools, houses, equipment and such were all property of their masters. Even their children. What money they recieved was often taken in taxes and the rest was so they could stay out of their lord's hair as much as possible until it was time to do something for him.

Wooo... Ser Andrew's book is a doozy. I read it four or five times before I realized what Andrew was saying.
Living comfortably amongst material possessions, it is easy to misunderstand the true meaning of uncontrollable hate. Failing to understand the power of fighting against pure, unfaltering beliefs, against foes that listen only to their soul. Uncontrollable hate. Influenced and thus removed from innocence. The scar is permanent and internal.
This is Ser Andrew speaking, as a Templar, about what a Templar goes through to the common man "living comfortably amongst material posessions".

On the theory-- yeah. I wouldn't put it past them. It would also explain part of why Elthina is sitting on her hands and the immense BS factory she turns into with Hawke.

Yeah. I don't get the "boy howdy, kill them mages" people either.

Modifié par Marduksdragon, 21 juillet 2011 - 09:11 .

[GavrielKay]

Skipping past the walls of text... my problem with calling the Templars slaves is that aside from the lyrium addiction, I'm not seeing how their lives are significantly different from other soldiers. Soldiers face stiff penalties for disobedience, desertion and if they have a lousy commanding officer - who knows what else. I seem to recall the US military liked to give out cigarettes for the soldiers in past wars to keep them calm and we've now been told those are quite addictive as well.

Anyway, I am all for finding ways to free the Templars who want out. And I'm all for hating on the Chantry and their brutal oppressive ways. Elthina is, to use someone else's words, "a miserable harpy" and deserves her fate. But it would be ignoring in game evidence to say that every Templar hates his life and wants out.

I STILL fail to accept siding with the Templars in the end game. We see enough Templars who act against Meredith to know that it is possible (even if there is personal risk for them) so the ones who obey her have chosen to. That doesn't sit well with me. Saving the mages who've done nothing wrong is higher on my list as it's more immediate. The Templars are not being threatened except for Meredith insisting that they come against Hawke rather than back down and see reason.

[Marduksdragon]

GavrielKay wrote...

Skipping past the walls of text... my problem with calling the Templars slaves is that aside from the lyrium addiction, I'm not seeing how their lives are significantly different from other soldiers. Soldiers face stiff penalties for disobedience, desertion and if they have a lousy commanding officer - who knows what else. I seem to recall the US military liked to give out cigarettes for the soldiers in past wars to keep them calm and we've now been told those are quite addictive as well.

Anyway, I am all for finding ways to free the Templars who want out. And I'm all for hating on the Chantry and their brutal oppressive ways. Elthina is, to use someone else's words, "a miserable harpy" and deserves her fate. But it would be ignoring in game evidence to say that every Templar hates his life and wants out.

I STILL fail to accept siding with the Templars in the end game. We see enough Templars who act against Meredith to know that it is possible (even if there is personal risk for them) so the ones who obey her have chosen to. That doesn't sit well with me. Saving the mages who've done nothing wrong is higher on my list as it's more immediate. The Templars are not being threatened except for Meredith insisting that they come against Hawke rather than back down and see reason.

They can't own property. They can't marry without permission. They have no recourse against their superiors, unlike in a normal military-- and can be murdered wholesale by them without anyone being able to do anything about it. That's pretty far from regular military. (Edit: Also comparing cigarettes to lyrium is kind of weak, you have to admit.)

I didn't say every. Some mages don't want freedom either for one reason or another (Tranquils can't even think enough to want freedom because of what's been done to them). I'm not willing to shelve the entire Order as a lost cause because some of the men are too stupid or drugged to realize they're slaves or are genuinely evil.

(as an aside Harpy!  reminds me of this cartoon where there was this male harpy-thing that followed people, screwing things up and breaking stuff and going "I'm helping! I'm helping" all the while. Now I won't be able to get the image out of my head, talking to Elthina.)

They choose to like the mages choose to up to a point-- because they don't want to die (that mass hanging was still fresh in their minds during the ROA). Death is kind of a huge deterrant. They stand up behind Cullen in more than just the thing with Meredith. They also disobey to spare the mages-- listening to him rather than to Meredith (who becomes furious). I agree that saving the mages is a good thing to do. I'm not saying it's not. I have some concerns about it because of things like Hawke's speech to the mages and the fact you don't get to address the survivors afterward--- but it is definitely a good thing. I just think I can do more good the other way, even at the cost of those people's lives (just like Anders did when he blew the Chantry), which I fully expect to pay for in some manner or other (probably death).

Modifié par Marduksdragon, 21 juillet 2011 - 09:14 .

[GavrielKay]

Marduksdragon wrote...
I just think I can do more good the other way, even at the cost of those people's lives (just like Anders did when he blew the Chantry), which I fully expect to pay for in some manner or other (probably death).

In what way do you feel you can do more good supporting the Templars in the RoA?

[Marduksdragon]

GavrielKay wrote...

Marduksdragon wrote...
I just think I can do more good the other way, even at the cost of those people's lives (just like Anders did when he blew the Chantry), which I fully expect to pay for in some manner or other (probably death).

In what way do you feel you can do more good supporting the Templars in the RoA?

It's in that wall of text you skipped. A long explanation of what was going on in my mind when I finally decided what i was going to try to do and why.

Marduksdragon wrote...
If Hawke is there, she can continue to be a 'subversive apostate' (I
laughed when Cassandra said that, and went "yeah. totally polluting your
Templars. slap me in irons, Cassie.") and influence them to further
acts of rebellion under the shield of the Viscount's office (and as
Viscountess she is now the most powerful person in Kirkwall and the
entire city looks to her for leadership, so Varric says)-- possibly free
them, since the Templars seem to rebel right after she disappears in
the Viscount ending (and it's unclear why since the statement seems to
me to say the Seekers left the Chantry to hunt mages-- it doesn't make
any sense that the Templars would have to rebel from the Chantry to hunt
mages since it's one of their primary functions and the Chantry is
absolutely going to want those mages back.). If the Templars are freed--
how is the Chantry going to make them oppress anyone (thus freeing the
mages)? True, some of them are dirtbags and need to die and are probably
fighting the mages in raiding bands (and raiding the Chantry's lyrium
storehouses). I expect to be killing them in the DLC or the next game
and pointing out to the rest why (if they're like Thrask or the others,
they'll gladly help against dirtbags). If Kirkwall is destroyed by the
Chantry (which is what Elthina says will happen if it falls to magic--
which it does if you help the mages revolt), then Ferelden is left
without an important ally in the Freemarches (or Alistair wouldn't have
asked-- and Alistair is a man offering mages shelter in his country
against the orders of the Divine-- if Ferelden is destroyed the mages
ultimately lose an important ally) and there is a war coming. Heck,
Kirkwall could have been engineered just to get it out of the way for
Orlais to march on Ferelden. And you're right, defying them could be an
example- I thought about that myself. If I knew it would be a good
example ahead of time and that the Templars would take it as such and
shoot the finger at the Chantry and leave (Thus preventing them being
used against Ferelden or the mages) I'd do it in a heartbeat and raid
the deep roads for their lyrium-- but what happens afterward when
they're left with no leader save Cullen and orders to burn the city?
Cullen would hold out as the last ranking officer, due to his
conscience, until more Templars arrived to make him obey--- if he still
didn't there's a good possibility he'd be executed along with anyone
else that refused. Is it any more right to save one band of slaves than
the other? If I have to abandon the Templars to save the mages, isn't
that like saying that only the most opressed people deserve freedom? If I
can side with the Templars and thereby sabotage the opression of the
mages (as it's shown throughout DA2 that you can influence the Templars
aside the monsters like Alrik and Karras-- but Thrask and the others
wanted them dead anyway and would have succeeded in their rebellion and
seized control of the Gallows -and possibly Kirkwall if Elthina tried to
stop them- if not for Grace)-- possibly freeing them both-- isn't that
something to hold out for? I am not proud of siding with the Templars in
that it costs the lives of innocent people who did nothing wrong and
are what they are by an accident of genetics-- but with the Chantry
explosion we're already talking about the lives of innocent people being
spent in freedom for the mages-- people who may have done nothing more
wrong than come to work that evening-- or people in their houses crushed
and burned by fallout from the building or dying in the riot crossfire
between the mages and Templars. I just choose to say that all the slaves
of  the Chantry should be free, not just the mages. I may be wrong that
I can do these things. I may have to go back and replay the end of
Ygraine's game and abandon the Templars to achieve them-- but from what I
saw I could not steer the Templars in the right direction from the mage
side and I think steering the Templars towards freedom is going to be
an important facet of keeping the mages free. Freedom is for everyone
and I lament having to spend the lives of innocent people to achieve it.
If I had to kill or abandon Cullen or his men for guaranteed freedom
for the rest of  the mages and the Templars, I would.

Point being is that I see possible ways to free everyone if I hold out. This may not be true, but that was my thought and motivation and none of that self-righteous BS about the mages deserving the ROA I see all over the place. (That all the blood mages were shown to be insane irked me so I was kinda angry at Orsino for doing it too, as I don't hold with blood magic being evil in itself, and I was kind of pissed at that-- but that's hardly the mages fault.) It's more important to give freedom to them all, than just the mages, to me. The mages alone were Anders' war-- my war is against the Chantry to free all their slaves. I agree that there can be no compromise with the Chantry. Especially not for the Templars because of the lyrium-- compromise for them would just be a foothold to try and grab their leash again. I intend to accept the consequences if I can fight this war properly. If the mages, at the end, call for her death for the ROA she'd put her head on the block gladly so long as everyone is free.

Edit: I also trust the mages to make pretty much good decisions from the start. Not everyone is Tahrone and once free, they can take care of the crazies among them themselves. Their judgement is not chemically impaired. The Templars have to be led until they can lead themselves- otherwise they get swallowed back up by the Chantry because they need their drugs-- or at the very least the Chantry's doctrine.

Modifié par Marduksdragon, 22 juillet 2011 - 01:32 .

[Sepewrath]

Well I remember that one girl in Origins, who was ready to jump on a sword because she was going on about how magic is evil, she had to get that from somewhere. And I don't think the short time spent in the tower in the mage origins provides a clear enough picture of what life was like in the tower. So you really cant do much but take Anders word for it.

[GavrielKay]

Marduksdragon wrote...
It's in that wall of text you skipped. A long explanation of what was going on in my mind when I finally decided what i was going to try to do and why.

I worded that badly, I didn't skip reading it, only skipped quoting it in my reply.

If I can side with the Templars and thereby sabotage the opression of the mages (as it's shown throughout DA2 that you can influence the Templars aside the monsters like Alrik and Karras-- but Thrask and the others wanted them dead anyway and would have succeeded in their rebellion and seized control of the Gallows -and possibly Kirkwall if Elthina tried to stop them- if not for Grace)-- possibly freeing them both-- isn't that something to hold out for?

You don't sabotage the oppression of the mages by carrying it to its extreme in slaughtering them.  What you do, is encourage the Templars to kill the mages and thus, encourage one of the worst aspects of their duty.  If they are slaves as you believe, surely the RoA is among the worst of the acts they are forced to perform.

Those Templars who perform the RoA will have memories for the rest of their lives of men, women and children having their throats slit just because Meredith was an insane tyrant.  Whatever faith they may have tried to have in the basic "goodness" of their duties is crushed when they find out they've slaughtered innocents because of a corrupted lyrium idol.  Far better for those Templars to have seen real defiance and strive for that.

I feel you'd do the Templars more good in preventing as much of the slaughter as possible.  Witnessing brave acts in defense of innocents can be an inspriation.  If you want to free the Templars, free their minds first.  Give them hope.

[Gervaise]

In Origins one of the Templars (it may even have been Cullen) admitted how awful it was having to kill a mage who fails the jharrowing because you have got to know them and possibly even like them. Should imagine a similar sentiment might exist in some Templars when an apprentice they have got to know and like is made Tranquil. I remember I had no remorse about helping Jowan escape at the time, when he was afraid of being made Tranquil, not because he would lose his magic but because he would no longer appreciate the lovely singing of Lily. I'm sure many Templars hate that part of their duty and are much happier scowering the countryside for apostates, particularly if, like Anders, they don't have to kill them but just catch them. May be that is why he escaped so many times - it wasn't that he was that good at it but that certain Templars made it easy for him so they could get out of the tower too.

[GavrielKay]

Gervaise wrote...
May be that is why he escaped so many times - it wasn't that he was that good at it but that certain Templars made it easy for him so they could get out of the tower too.

It would be interesting if anything like that was ever made official.  Of couse they could also regret their game when he ends up in solitary confinement for a year.  Who knows. 

I'm sure there is a great variety in motivation and dedication to duty among the Templars.

[Marduksdragon]

GavrielKay wrote...

Marduksdragon wrote...
It's in that wall of text you skipped. A long explanation of what was going on in my mind when I finally decided what i was going to try to do and why.

I worded that badly, I didn't skip reading it, only skipped quoting it in my reply.

If I can side with the Templars and thereby sabotage the opression of the mages (as it's shown throughout DA2 that you can influence the Templars aside the monsters like Alrik and Karras-- but Thrask and the others wanted them dead anyway and would have succeeded in their rebellion and seized control of the Gallows -and possibly Kirkwall if Elthina tried to stop them- if not for Grace)-- possibly freeing them both-- isn't that something to hold out for?

You don't sabotage the oppression of the mages by carrying it to its extreme in slaughtering them.  What you do, is encourage the Templars to kill the mages and thus, encourage one of the worst aspects of their duty.  If they are slaves as you believe, surely the RoA is among the worst of the acts they are forced to perform.

Those Templars who perform the RoA will have memories for the rest of their lives of men, women and children having their throats slit just because Meredith was an insane tyrant.  Whatever faith they may have tried to have in the basic "goodness" of their duties is crushed when they find out they've slaughtered innocents because of a corrupted lyrium idol.  Far better for those Templars to have seen real defiance and strive for that.

I feel you'd do the Templars more good in preventing as much of the slaughter as possible.  Witnessing brave acts in defense of innocents can be an inspriation.  If you want to free the Templars, free their minds first.  Give them hope.

Thing is- I'm not sanctioning the slaughter of all mages with that act, nor would I. Cullen and the others (as friends of Hawke) would know this, given that I spent ten years visiting the Gallows working on them. Througout that game, despite telling the Templars that they had value as people and were necessary (and they are, just not in the setup the Chantry has them in), I attained the Arcane Supporter achievement and was called a subversive apostate because what I was striving for was the conscience of the Templars to wake up under the drug haze. It does work as the good Templars' dialogue changes to be more introspective. They go behind Meredith's back for Elthina's help (and are ignored) among other things.

I feel that way too (about the slaughter) and admitted as such, but I don't feel it's that simple as the events aren't limited to just that choice. On the mage freedom ending it's said that more Templars descend on Kirkwall and it is very possible that Cullen and his men are killed by them (because the other half of the mages being victorious was an exalted march on Kirkwall and I can't see Cullen going for that). We don't know. If the men I made the stand before to hearten them die-- then all that's left is the Chantry's lies about what happened to the rest of the Order--- the rest of the mages of Thedas are still in peril and they may have lost a powerful ally in Ferelden if Orlais succeeds in swamping them without Kirkwall as buffer, among other things that I've already explained. If I am with the men, sharing in their horrible guilt, the guilt can be a method to turn them to the right path (Davy Crockett, as I brought up a long time ago, although that was about how Meredith was not like him at all. His family was killed by Native Americans, and he fought against them much of his life into adulthood, but once he was in a position of power in Congress, he fought for their rights so they would not be driven to such desperation anymore. When his policies earned him disfavor and he wasn't re-elected, freedom became so dear to the man that he gave his life fighting for other people's freedom thousands of miles away at the Alamo.). Also if siding with the mages stopped the ROA entirely, I would do it. Thing is--  it doesn't and the guilt over being the tools of a madwoman is still there and there's no one to tell the Templars what to do with it. These men will still feel awful, but there's no one to share it with them. No one to tell them "Remember this, remember how you feel, and you never have to do this again." As I did for that entire ten years of hanging around the Gallows. Instead it'll be the Chantry, if they survive, plugging them with lyrium and telling them that they were good boys and damn those mages anyway. It's so easy to just take the drugs and believe what you're told because it hurts less than facing the truth. It's harder with a living reminder there telling you that not only did she herself fail but you did and that together you can make sure it never happens again.

[Marduksdragon]

Gervaise wrote...

In Origins one of the Templars (it may even have been Cullen) admitted how awful it was having to kill a mage who fails the jharrowing because you have got to know them and possibly even like them. Should imagine a similar sentiment might exist in some Templars when an apprentice they have got to know and like is made Tranquil. I remember I had no remorse about helping Jowan escape at the time, when he was afraid of being made Tranquil, not because he would lose his magic but because he would no longer appreciate the lovely singing of Lily. I'm sure many Templars hate that part of their duty and are much happier scowering the countryside for apostates, particularly if, like Anders, they don't have to kill them but just catch them. May be that is why he escaped so many times - it wasn't that he was that good at it but that certain Templars made it easy for him so they could get out of the tower too.

It's funny, but I always think Carroll is probably the one who let Anders out of the tower initially (being as easily frightened and addled as he is). Far as the others--  in Ferelden, sure, why not. Be fun so long as no one got hurt (and jerks like Rylock didn't get involved). The Templars could enjoy the countryside, take off their helmets and appreciate the sun, the mage gets a chance to stretch his or her legs and experience life. If they don't find him or her Knight-Captain Harrith would still know where they were through the Collective (he has to know who he and his men are protecting, after all) so it's not like there's any real danger.And as we know, Ser Carver at least helped Malcom escape in Kirkwall--- and Tobrias mentioned that it used to be a more common thing. I think all these people are miserable-- any excuse to get out and behave halfway like normal human beings has to be very tempting.

And yeah, it would be interesting if something like that was made canon as far as Anders. I'd also like to hear, if so, how the helpful Templars felt when he was locked up for a year.

[dragonflight288]

Let's not forget that in Origins, Cullen said there are templars who discuss slaughtering mages in the Harrowing with glee. There are only two things I see keeping Kinloch Hold from being like Kirkwall.

The first thing is Gregoire. He is a reasonable man who calls off the Right of Annulment on the word of Irving. He sends Cullen away when he feels Cullen is too unhinged to perform his duty. He cracks down on both priests and mages (Lily and Jowan), He is willing to work with Irving, even if they argue constantly, they have an amicable relationship.

The second thing is that it's housed in Ferelden itself. It is a country where those in power are not as powerful as the nobles in Orlais, and the commoners aren't as helpless as the commoners in other countries are. I cannot believe Isolde, Connor and Jowan were the only ones who knew Connor was a mage. Isolde was only trying to keep his magical talents hidden and did everything she could to keep Eamon from finding out. Owen the Blacksmith mentioned his daughter was saying Isolde was up to something. But she did manage to avoid sending Connor to the Circle until he was possessed by a Desire Demon.

[DPSSOC]

Marduksdragon wrote...
It's funny, but I always think Carroll is probably the one who let Anders out of the tower initially (being as easily frightened and addled as he is).

Anders sneaking out of the tower.
Carroll: Hey Anders, escaping again?
Anders: You know it.
Carroll: Well have fun, and bring me back some cookies if you can.

[Ayanko]

I'm pretty sure Anders says this:-
"The Fereldan tower was more fun, everyone was kissing everyone"

I'm guessing Fereldan is much more lenient to mages than Kirkwall or Orlais, probably due to Kirkwall being under both Trevinter and Orliesan rule, while Fereldan pretty much didn't take up anything from it's past usurpers, stubborn Fereldan is stubborn.
What confused me how ever is how the Mage Human Warden end up in Fereldan and not Kirkwall? Was it due to their nobility?

[Rifneno]

DPSSOC wrote...

Marduksdragon wrote...
It's funny, but I always think Carroll is probably the one who let Anders out of the tower initially (being as easily frightened and addled as he is).

Anders sneaking out of the tower.
Carroll: Hey Anders, escaping again?
Anders: You know it.
Carroll: Well have fun, and bring me back some cookies if you can.

I would pay for a DLC just to see that scene.

Ayanko wrote...

I'm pretty sure Anders says this:-
"The Fereldan tower was more fun, everyone was kissing everyone"

I'm guessing Fereldan is much more lenient to mages than Kirkwall or Orlais, probably due to Kirkwall being under both Trevinter and Orliesan rule, while Fereldan pretty much didn't take up anything from it's past usurpers, stubborn Fereldan is stubborn.
What confused me how ever is how the Mage Human Warden end up in Fereldan and not Kirkwall? Was it due to their nobility?

He said it in jest. Not that Ferelden's Circle wasn't more lenient. There were concentration camps more lenient than Kirkwall's Circle. As for how the Amell Warden wound up in Ferelden... that's a good question. I don't think it's ever been explained. Maybe they were the only person not in the Band of Three that happened to notice an entire city shouldn't be like the house in Poltergeist.

[Ayanko]

Hmm, I guess his parents had them moved to the Fereldan chantry or they feared that the Amells retaliating against it. Can be assumed that the Warden Amell was the youngest out of there siblings, no mention of them was noted in the Fereldan tower, so they were in a different tower, and are most likely presumably dead due to there being no mention in the Kirkwall tower from Bethany of her finding her siblings....what the hell happened O.o