118 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

megski wrote...

Wouldn't it though?

Maybe we shouldn't be surprised. If it follows the same pattern as Malcolm Hawke getting three different stories for how he left Kirkwall with Leandra, we'll end up getting three different, contradicting accounts for the "real" reason that mages rebelled.

[TheCreeper]

There is a difference, We didn't play Malcolm Hawke, we did playthrough what we were directly told was start of the mage-templar war.

[EmperorSahlertz]

TheCreeper wrote...

The book says it will change the fate of mages forever and it goes over HOW Mages and Templars broke away from the chantry. We know the reasons, and retconning DA2's ending to not really be the cause of the mage-templar war would be...an odd move to say the least.

DA2 didn't give us THE reason for the mages and Templars breaking away from the Chantry... It gave us A reason.
It won't be a retcon to further expand upon and explaining what had been going on in Thedas on a grander scale than just Kirkwall.

[TheRevanchist]

Heres a thought people...if the mages thought at Cumberland that it was pointless to rebel since they would totaly be destroid....how has that situation changed since that meeting? they are not any less likely to be destroid by the Chantry then they were then. unless of course theres other things at play then "Oh Kirkwall was awful, lets rebel!" Because lets not forget...the Templar's have also rebelled from the Chantry. Why would they do such a thing? They have no conceivable reason to do this. Unless of course there are other things at play besides...actually no...theres no reason at all for this in the games.

[jamesp81]

kylecouch wrote...

Heres a thought people...if the mages thought at Cumberland that it was pointless to rebel since they would totaly be destroid....how has that situation changed since that meeting? they are not any less likely to be destroid by the Chantry then they were then. unless of course theres other things at play then "Oh Kirkwall was awful, lets rebel!" Because lets not forget...the Templar's have also rebelled from the Chantry. Why would they do such a thing? They have no conceivable reason to do this. Unless of course there are other things at play besides...actually no...theres no reason at all for this in the games.

The simple explanation is that the mages at Cumberland made an inaccurate assessment of their own combat capables as opposed to those of the Templars.

As for the templars rebelling,  I find it completely believable.  The templars have long believed a heavier hand should've been used and see this as their chance to use it.  They believe it's their divine duty whether the Chantry agrees or not.

[IanPolaris]

kylecouch wrote...

Heres a thought people...if the mages thought at Cumberland that it was pointless to rebel since they would totaly be destroid....how has that situation changed since that meeting? they are not any less likely to be destroid by the Chantry then they were then. unless of course theres other things at play then "Oh Kirkwall was awful, lets rebel!" Because lets not forget...the Templar's have also rebelled from the Chantry. Why would they do such a thing? They have no conceivable reason to do this. Unless of course there are other things at play besides...actually no...theres no reason at all for this in the games.

Here's what you're missing.  The mages are rebelling now not just because Kirkwall is so awful.  That is indeed old news.  The mages are rebelling now because a Knight Commander that was clearly insane just tried to MURDER an entire circle with no real justification (and worse for crimes comitted by those not even in the circle) and the Chantry refuses and refused to do anything about it.

Better to die on your feet than die on your knees.  Basically the mages concluded after the Kirkwall incident that the Chantry is prone to murder them without regard anyway, so rebellion becomes the only viable option.  Put any creature into a corner and it wil fight back.  Mages are no exception.

-Polaris

[GavrielKay]

Perhaps they will give us some back story on why the Templars had to leave the Chantry to focus on hunting mages. I would have thought the Chantry would send them out en masse with whatever support they needed. We know that the Chantry picks zealots to serve as Templars, so it makes perfect sense they'd go into the countryside to retrieve and/or murder their former wards.

I don't get why the Chantry wasn't portrayed as %110 behind them though.

[LobselVith8]

kylecouch wrote...

Heres a thought people...if the mages thought at Cumberland that it was pointless to rebel since they would totaly be destroid....how has that situation changed since that meeting? they are not any less likely to be destroid by the Chantry then they were then. unless of course theres other things at play then "Oh Kirkwall was awful, lets rebel!" Because lets not forget...the Templar's have also rebelled from the Chantry. Why would they do such a thing? They have no conceivable reason to do this. Unless of course there are other things at play besides...actually no...theres no reason at all for this in the games.

But if Wynne's argument is the same for The Warden in Amaranthine - that the Chantry would kill the mages rather than see them free - learning that the Circle of Kirkwall was annulled for an act that no member of the Circle of Kirkwall was responsible for is going to make it apparent that none of them are safe. If an entire population of mages run the same risk of getting killed for an act that they aren't responsible for, why remain under the thumb of the Chantry and the Order of Templars?

[TheCreeper]

Kirkwall I think showed the Chantry was a paper tiger when it came to both Mages and Templars. The Chantry (both in kirkwall and the divine) could have done many things to stop meredith or deal with the tevinter mages fueling things in kirkwall but they did nothing besides send Leliana.

[AlexXIV]

Well you get the impression that the Chantry 'does not mind' the death of a couple of mages. At least not as much as they would mind normal people killed by mages. It's basically racism with an excuse. They are different, they are dangerous, so they are not real people. Not like you and me, you know.

The point isn't really that they are dangerous. It's that people rather kill others than risk their own life. If you read up enough about n4zi germany you'd probably get what I mean. Or about the resistance in places occupied by the germans.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 26 octobre 2011 - 10:11 .

[DragonSailor]

LobselVith8 wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

Heres a thought people...if the mages thought at Cumberland that it was pointless to rebel since they would totaly be destroid....how has that situation changed since that meeting? they are not any less likely to be destroid by the Chantry then they were then. unless of course theres other things at play then "Oh Kirkwall was awful, lets rebel!" Because lets not forget...the Templar's have also rebelled from the Chantry. Why would they do such a thing? They have no conceivable reason to do this. Unless of course there are other things at play besides...actually no...theres no reason at all for this in the games.

But if Wynne's argument is the same for The Warden in Amaranthine - that the Chantry would kill the mages rather than see them free - learning that the Circle of Kirkwall was annulled for an act that no member of the Circle of Kirkwall was responsible for is going to make it apparent that none of them are safe. If an entire population of mages run the same risk of getting killed for an act that they aren't responsible for, why remain under the thumb of the Chantry and the Order of Templars?

Not only that, but Kirkwall showed that a rebellion - a successful rebellion - was indeed possible. It was no longer just an abstract idea. Kirkwall really did lead the way. Think of examples from history. A revolution in one place often sparks a revolution in another place - a place that could be completely unrelated, under a different government. Why? Because people think 'if they over there could do it, so can we.' And that's what happened here. Kirkwall is a believable spark; it shows that a successful rebellion can succeed, in a way. It also makes sense that the Chantry would be reactionary, too. Like any kingdom stretched too thin, the Chantry couldn't keep tabs on every place. And Kirkwall is a place where theywere losing their main support, the templars. Granted, there were warning signs and the Divnie could have done more to prevent what happened, but I think she wanted to believe that those in charge in Kirkwall could handle it, at least for a time. Also remember that raising an army takes time and that no one really could have predicted Anders' plan and the chaos it would cause. Kirkwall has always been a troubled place. The rebellion could have easily gone the other way.

[Huntress]

kylecouch wrote...

Heres a thought people...if the mages thought at Cumberland that it was pointless to rebel since they would totaly be destroid....how has that situation changed since that meeting? they are not any less likely to be destroid by the Chantry then they were then. unless of course theres other things at play then "Oh Kirkwall was awful, lets rebel!" Because lets not forget...the Templar's have also rebelled from the Chantry. Why would they do such a thing? They have no conceivable reason to do this. Unless of course there are other things at play besides...actually no...theres no reason at all for this in the games.

two reason for templars to break apart from the chantry although there could be more.
1) the templars believe the chantry have become soft with the mages. ( kirkwall)
2) To the templars there is no excuse for what happen in kirkwall and only by leaving the chantry can the templar order bring order back from chaos and do the Maker's work.

[IanPolaris]

Remember that the Templars were originally called the Inquisitors and were an Andrastian Sect that believed that all mages should be destroyed. I can easily see the Templars reverting back to this.

-Polaris

[TEWR]

IanPolaris wrote...

Remember that the Templars were originally called the Inquisitors and were an Andrastian Sect that believed that all mages should be destroyed. I can easily see the Templars reverting back to this.

-Polaris

It wasn't just mages that the Inquisition targeted IIRC. There were also heretics, non-believers, and other groups.

But I can see them becoming a far worse version of the Inquisition. The Inquisition weren't a bunch of lyrium-addicted soldiers (since that's how the Chantry wanted to control them). The Templars are.

They're going to be a far worse version of the Inquisition. The Inquisition is reborn and will be even harsher to the populus.

....Mahogany.

[Obadiah]

To me, that lyrium addiction makes the Templar revolt short-lived. They'd either go into withdrawal or overdose into feebleness. Hope that new novel sheds some light on this.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

The Inquisition had a different purpose than the templars. Even rebel templars won't have the same mandate as the old Inquisition. Their purpose is to hunt mages, not heretics. Hunting heretics among the general populace would be a counterproductive waste of their time and resources.I expect that individual templars will treat the public differently.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 27 octobre 2011 - 03:09 .

[TEWR]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

The Inquisition had a different purpose than the templars. Even rebel templars won't have the same mandate as the old Inquisition. Their purpose is to hunt mages, not heretics. Hunting heretics among the general populace would be a counterproductive waste of their time and resources.I expect that individual templars will treat the public differently.

The Inquisition had the same general purpose as the Templars, but they also hunted heretics among the mages and Abominations and they terrorized Thedas in an attempt to keep it "safe".

They still hunted mages. They just didn't hunt only mages. And I see the Templars as being unable to distinguish between the two or calling anyone who helps a mage a "heretic" because aiding mages is crime to the Andrastian faith.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 27 octobre 2011 - 03:12 .

[TheCreeper]

Yeah Rebel Templars are going to be a very scary thing, this is why you don't base recuritment for a military order on religious fervor.

[TEWR]

TheCreeper wrote...

Yeah Rebel Templars are going to be a very scary thing, this is why you don't base recuritment for a military order on religious fervor.

Indeed. Nor do you go about getting them addicted to a magical and dangerous stone that can potentially kill them and make them go insane.

Especially when your only suppliers may take advantage of any chaos to keep the lyrium to themselves.