189 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

IanPolaris wrote...

If a group believes they act in the name of [insert Diety here] then a negotiated peaceful resolution is essentially impossible.

Just like followers of Andraste who was telling them the words of Maker himself razed Tevinter to the ground.

Oh wait, they didn't. They got cold feet once they realized they weren't guaranteed the win, and settled for selling out their very prophet in exchange for peace.

So, just like the Chantry keeps fighting these qunari heathens because that's what they believe their Maker tells them, to spread his word to all corners of Thedas.

Oh wait, they don't. For some odd reasons they've chosen to negotiate a truce.

Any actual examples of conflict in Thedas that didn't end in peaceful resolution because a group involved believes they act in the name of [insert Deity here]?

Modifié par tmp7704, 29 octobre 2011 - 02:46 .

[IanPolaris]

tmp7704 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

If a group believes they act in the name of [insert Diety here] then a negotiated peaceful resolution is essentially impossible.

Just like followers of Andraste who was telling them the words of Maker himself razed Tevinter to the ground.

Oh wait, they didn't. They got cold feet once they realized they weren't guaranteed the win, and settled for selling out their very prophet in exchange for peace.

So, just like the Chantry keeps fighting these qunari heathens because that's what they believe their Maker tells them, to spread his word to all corners of Thedas.

Oh wait, they don't. For some odd reasons they've chosen to negotiate a truce.

Any actual examples of conflict in Thedas that didn't end in peaceful resolution because a group involved believes they act in the name of [insert Deity here]?

There are many examples in real history and culture where religious fanaticism precludes a peaceful solution.  You are IMO deliberately and less than honestly comparing apples to kumquats.  Most of Andraste's army while certainly believers and faithful were not the fanatics that the Templars (or prior order of Inquisition) are.  Most regarded the followers of Tevinter as human beings, abeit flawed and mistaken human beings.

The Templars don't.  The Templars regard all mages as inherently subhuman.  Cullen out and out says this.  That precludes a peaceful solution.

-Polaris

[tmp7704]

IanPolaris wrote...

There are many examples in real history and culture where religious fanaticism precludes a peaceful solution. 

And there's many examples where it doesn't. Which renders the claim how it's impossible or unrealistic to reach peaceful solution in such situation false. Which in turn renders the thread over.

You are IMO deliberately and less than honestly comparing apples to kumquats.  Most of Andraste's army while certainly believers and faithful were not the fanatics that the Templars (or prior order of Inquisition) are.

We don't know squat about what most of the templars thinks.But there's certainly distinct lack of hordes of templars clamouring for mage blood and for the knight-commander to just murder them all in both DA games released so far. (there's an occasional individual but oddly enough they don't gain momentum which should be easy if they were surrounded by little else but other such fanatics) As such, you're painting false image of them where it suits you, imo. Whether you honestly believe in that image or not... well, i don't know, and it doesn't exactly matter.

(we also don't know what most of Andraste's army actually thought, which leaves your claim that they weren't fanatics unfounded at best, but that's another story)

Modifié par tmp7704, 29 octobre 2011 - 03:20 .

[IanPolaris]

tmp7704 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

There are many examples in real history and culture where religious fanaticism precludes a peaceful solution. 

And there's many examples where it doesn't. Which renders the claim how it's impossible or unrealistic to reach peaceful solution in such situation false. Which in turn renders the thread over.

Actually you are wrong about this.  The only time a peaceful solution comes about in such cases is when religion somehow is taken out of the picture and that often never happens.  For example many radical muslims are still fighting the crusades almost a thousand years later.

So no.  You are wrong.

You are IMO deliberately and less than honestly comparing apples to kumquats.  Most of Andraste's army while certainly believers and faithful were not the fanatics that the Templars (or prior order of Inquisition) are.

We don't know squat about what most of the templars thinks.But there's certainly distinct lack of hordes of templars clamouring for mage blood and for the knight-commander to just murder them all in both DA games released so far. (there's an occasional individual but oddly enough they don't gain momentum which should be easy if they were surrounded by little else but other such fanatics) As such, you're painting false image of them where it suits you, imo. Whether you honestly believe in that image or not... well, i don't know, and it doesn't exactly matter.

(we also don't know what most of Andraste's army actually thought, which leaves your claim that they weren't fanatics unfounded at best, but that's another story)

Actually you are wrong twice more:

1.  Last point first, we do know basically what Andraste's army fought because in DAO we get to speak with the Guardian who was one of Andraste's disciples and knew her personally.  Futhermore we get on the spot insight from spirits that knew her personally and first hand what the attitudes really were.  They all revered Andraste and thought they fought for the Maker.  They did NOT think they had Divine Right, however, over all others the way the Templars these days clearly do.

2.  Cullen was protrayed as a moderate Templar in DA2 and he obviously and explicitly not only denies the basic humanity of mages, but also thinks the Templars control mages by "Divine Right".   Given the complete lack of resistance against Meredith when she was clearly off her rocker when she issued her "Right of Annulment", I think it's very safe to say that this is the mainstream Templar position.  Varic seems to think so which prompts Cassandra to say that not all Templars desire war (which clearly indicates that most people think the Templars DO desire war or at leat most Templars do).

So you are wrong three times over.

-Polaris

[tmp7704]

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually you are wrong about this.  The only time a peaceful solution comes about in such cases is when religion somehow is taken out of the picture and that often never happens.  For example many radical muslims are still fighting the crusades almost a thousand years later.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. How exactly was religon "taken out of the picture" in the medieval ages, which is when the christian leaders stopped organizing these very crusades you mention?

1.  Last point first, we do know basically what Andraste's army fought because in DAO we get to speak with the Guardian who was one of Andraste's disciples and knew her personally.  Futhermore we get on the spot insight from spirits that knew her personally and first hand what the attitudes really were.  They all revered Andraste and thought they fought for the Maker.  They did NOT think they had Divine Right, however, over all others the way the Templars these days clearly do.

There was nothing about some "divine right" in your original post. Merely statement that as long as people think they act in the name of some deity, then peaceful resolution is not possible. Which is, as you say yourself, what the followers of Andraste believed. Please don't move the goalposts.

Also, what exactly is that "divine right" that you believe the templars think to have? Please provide quotes which explain the nature of said right, and statements from templars which demonstrate they indeed generally think they have such right. And when i say templars, i mean multiple characters.

2.  Cullen was protrayed as a moderate Templar in DA2 and he obviously and explicitly not only denies the basic humanity of mages, but also thinks the Templars control mages by "Divine Right".

And given these facts, what exactly makes you believe Cullen was supposed to be a moderate character? I can easily think he's supposed to be an unhinged individual (as result of his past experiences) and only slightly more sane/radical than the guy who advocated lobotomy for all mages. Key word being slightly.

Additionally, why are the attitudes displayed by the templars in Kirkwall (which is pretty much the hell hole of Thedas by the looks of it) supposed to represent the way of thinking for templars world-wide? It gets mentioned in the game that the Kirkwall circle is extremely harsh in dealing with its mages, after all. Why do you think anyone would make such distinction if these attitudes were the norm?

Varic seems to think so which prompts Cassandra to say that not all Templars desire war (which clearly indicates that most people think the Templars DO desire war or at leat most Templars do).

No, it indicates that Varric may think the templars do desire war. You really like to make these generalizations from single individual's beliefs to worldwide beliefs with nothing in-between, don't you?

Modifié par tmp7704, 29 octobre 2011 - 05:06 .

[IanPolaris]

tmp7704 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually you are wrong about this.  The only time a peaceful solution comes about in such cases is when religion somehow is taken out of the picture and that often never happens.  For example many radical muslims are still fighting the crusades almost a thousand years later.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. How exactly was religon "taken out of the picture" in the medieval ages, which is when the christian leaders stopped organizing these very crusades you mention?

That's easy.  You should read your history.  Eventually the Roman Catholic Church lost political influence.  At no time (at least during the middle ages) was the Crusades ever called off, and as I say there are people in the Middle East that are still fighiting them...so wrong again.

1.  Last point first, we do know basically what Andraste's army fought because in DAO we get to speak with the Guardian who was one of Andraste's disciples and knew her personally.  Futhermore we get on the spot insight from spirits that knew her personally and first hand what the attitudes really were.  They all revered Andraste and thought they fought for the Maker.  They did NOT think they had Divine Right, however, over all others the way the Templars these days clearly do.

There was nothing about some "divine right" in your original post. Merely statement that as long as people think they act in the name of some deity, then peaceful resolution is not possible. Which is, as you say yourself, what the followers of Andraste believed. Please don't move the goalposts.

I am not.  You are.  What I am saying is very clear.  Whever people view another group as less than human or when a group feels that they are given a divine mandate over another group than peace isn't possible until that changes.  This goes way beyond "Gott mit uns" and into sheer religious fanatcism.  You are moving the goalposts not me.

Also, what exactly is that "divine right" that you believe the templars think to have? Please provide quotes which explain the nature of said right, and statements from templars which demonstrate they indeed generally think they have such right. And when i say templars, i mean multiple characters.

Cullen says it directly.  He says that the Templars control and rule over the mages by divine right.  That is virtually a direct quote from the game.

2.  Cullen was protrayed as a moderate Templar in DA2 and he obviously and explicitly not only denies the basic humanity of mages, but also thinks the Templars control mages by "Divine Right".

And given these facts, what exactly makes you believe Cullen was supposed to be a moderate character? I can easily think he's supposed to be an unhinged individual (as result of his past experiences) and only slightly more sane/radical than the guy who advocated lobotomy for all mages. Key word being slightly.

Cullen is consistantly protrayed as the moderate Templar voice in DA2.  Play the game.

Additionally, why are the attitudes displayed by the templars in Kirkwall (which is pretty much the hell hole of Thedas by the looks of it) supposed to represent the way of thinking for templars world-wide? It gets mentioned in the game that the Kirkwall circle is extremely harsh in dealing with its mages, after all. Why do you think anyone would make such distinction if these attitudes were the norm?

In that case why doesn't the Chantry or the game indicate that.  Hint:  It doesn't.  In fact Fereldan is consistantly pointed out as being incredibly liberal and even Fereldan Templars had elements of this thinking (see Rylock in DAA).

Varic seems to think so which prompts Cassandra to say that not all Templars desire war (which clearly indicates that most people think the Templars DO desire war or at leat most Templars do).

No, it indicates that Varric may think the templars do desire war. You really like to make these generalizations from single individual's beliefs to worldwide beliefs with nothing in-between, don't you?

Varic is one of the most level headed and neutrally inclined characters in the entire game.  If Varic thinks the Templars want war, then it's pretty sure that this is the general impression with most in Thedas.  Certainly the Templars themselves did nothing to dissuade anyone reasonable from that view.

-Polaris

[Jedi Master of Orion]

The Crusades were not a single period of constant warfare. Peace between the various parties involved was negotiated several times. Heck, that's even how the Third Crusade ended. Trying to simplify the last thousand years of Middle Eastern History to "They are still fighting the crusades" is ridiculous.

I also fail to see what difference Cullen's line about "Divine Right" makes. It's just semantics. He derives this sentiment from the Chant of Light which was supposedly the words of Andraste. Andraste's followers would have had what they believed to be the Bride of the Maker as their leader,  first hand. They'd have more of a  reason to believe in their cause than Cullen.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 29 octobre 2011 - 06:41 .

[IanPolaris]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

The Crusades were not a single period of constant warfare. Peace between the various parties involved was negotiated several times. Heck, that's even how the Third Crusade ended. Trying to simplify the last thousand years of Middle Eastern History to "They are still fighting the crusades" is ridiculous.

That isn't correct either.  It's true that there wasn't constant warfare but that's because constant warfare is impossible to sustain politically and economically.  That does NOT mean that there was peace between the various parties when there wasn't open fighting.  It was more akin to an armed and suspicious (and volatile) truce.  Why was actual peace unobtainable?  Because neither side wanted it because both sides felt they had the direct line to [insert diety of choice] (although the Saracen side for what little it's worth was marginally more flexible than the crusader side).

Absence of open fighting ==/== peace.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

There is nothing in the Chant of Light that gives the Templars any rights over mages, not even the lines Cullen quotes. Certainly the Grand Cleric doesn't seem to think so....but the Templars DO and that's a major issue.

-Polaris

[Jedi Master of Orion]

He's obviously extrapolating from the "Magic must serve man" line. That's the justification from for whole existence of the Circle.

[megski]

I still believe a peaceful resolution can be met, if both sides have to fight a common enemy. If these two sides had to fight together in battles for years, relationships between them would change. The templars wouldn't be able to kill mages or police them as they have in the past, they would need them for the war. Before too long they have had to trust and work together with one another. I really think that could work. If both sides had to DEPEND on each other, I really think it would vastly improve things between mages and templars. But I am always optimistic about that sort of thing.

[IanPolaris]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

He's obviously extrapolating from the "Magic must serve man" line. That's the justification from for whole existence of the Circle.

I get that, but it's weak sauce.  If the Sisters of the Chantry don't even interpret it that way, then it's pretty clear the Templars are the ones being unreasonable here, and that means until that changes peace is not a realistic option.

For peace to happen, both sides must recognize that:

1.  The other is a worthy (or at least valid) negotiating partner.  Saying that the other side isn't even human does not bode well here.

2.  The other has or is capable of having different but valid perspectives.  If you feel that you and only you have a direct line to the Maker that really isn't possible either.

I can see local truces, but no true peace until and unless the Templars radically change (and lose the religion).  That may happen (at sword point) in Fereldan.  I don't see that happening anywhere else.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

megski wrote...

I still believe a peaceful resolution can be met, if both sides have to fight a common enemy. If these two sides had to fight together in battles for years, relationships between them would change. The templars wouldn't be able to kill mages or police them as they have in the past, they would need them for the war. Before too long they have had to trust and work together with one another. I really think that could work. If both sides had to DEPEND on each other, I really think it would vastly improve things between mages and templars. But I am always optimistic about that sort of thing.

I disagree.  If there was a sufficently threatening common enemy (the Qunari seem a good bet), then yes, I could see an extended truce and even limited (and very cautious) cooperation, but that would last until almost exactly one minute after this outside threat was eliminated.  As long as one side view the other as both less than human AND feel they have a divine right to rule over the other group, I don't see how any peace is possible.  The only possible way it would happen the way you suggest would be for those attitudes to chance during the conflict.  Until those Templar attitudes change, I do not think peace is possible or even desirable.

-Polaris

[megski]

IanPolaris wrote...

megski wrote...

I still believe a peaceful resolution can be met, if both sides have to fight a common enemy. If these two sides had to fight together in battles for years, relationships between them would change. The templars wouldn't be able to kill mages or police them as they have in the past, they would need them for the war. Before too long they have had to trust and work together with one another. I really think that could work. If both sides had to DEPEND on each other, I really think it would vastly improve things between mages and templars. But I am always optimistic about that sort of thing.

I disagree.  If there was a sufficently threatening common enemy (the Qunari seem a good bet), then yes, I could see an extended truce and even limited (and very cautious) cooperation, but that would last until almost exactly one minute after this outside threat was eliminated.  As long as one side view the other as both less than human AND feel they have a divine right to rule over the other group, I don't see how any peace is possible.  The only possible way it would happen the way you suggest would be for those attitudes to chance during the conflict.  Until those Templar attitudes change, I do not think peace is possible or even desirable.

-Polaris

I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but I feel like if that enemy was the chantry itself, then that would be the best way.  If templars realize they've been mislead into subjigating mages, I think that could lead to templars wanting to do right by the mages.  I don't think men and women join the templar order to hurt people, I think their reasons are true enough.  I don't think such devout people would take too kindly to being duped into being the strong arm for the chantry.  I was thinking the chantry or at least some component of it because it would have to be something unforgiveable that the chantry did for them to rebel and break away.  

[nightscrawl]

LobselVith8 wrote...

... but when the issues deal with the Chantry and the templars overseeing mages, and mages being free of the templars and the Chantry, I don't see a middle ground.

I really should write some of these arguments down in Notepad and just paste them in these types of threads.

You write as if every single person in every single mage v templar thread is either for mages being dominated by the Chantry, or being free to do whatever (let's not dwell on exactly what that whatever will be at this time.) That's just not true, and I know this because I have posted in those threads and I do believe there is a middle ground. That middle ground however, involves a complete restructuring of the current system.

Overall, I think that in relation to magic, the mages who use it, and what it is used for, that templars do serve a purpose: that being to use their abilities to reign in mages who are out of control. The problem with the current system is that the templars are the military arm of the Chantry. The Chantry, and indeed no church, should have a military arm. It did not work well for our own world, and it has not worked out well for Thedas. If the templars were a separate entity from the Chantry, they could act somewhat like a police force. Use actual investigative techniques to determine if a mage is guilty of a crime, and then use their abilities to subdue said mage and bring her to Circle authorities. If the Circle were run by mages who understood the necessity of using power responsibly, like Irving and Wynne, they would act accordingly, even if it means punishing by Tranquility. This would be Tranquility administered by mages, according to mage laws, to protect mages in addition to non-mages.

I suppose an argument against this method might be that you could not say with certainty that any mage who sits on the Circle Council, or leads it, is an Aequitarian (as Irving and Wynne), but that is the same of leadership anywhere. You cannot say with certainty that any person that you vote for will lead justly and fairly, you can only judge them by their previous actions and their current words. Also, I imagine that particular fraternity might be popular among mages themselves: not only does it tell people that mages are able to be free and responsible and govern themselves, but it's also a far less extreme view than any of the others (total isolation, mage dominance/freedom, or Chantry tools); therefore they are more likely to choose leaders that think that way as well. In addition, you can also have the Knight-Commander have a Council seat. She might not have a deciding vote, but the law enforcement presence should be noted as valuable.

Disregarding all of my previous statements, the important thing is to ensure that the Circle itself (run by mages) stay intact as an entity. It provides a place of education, study, and research for novices and experts alike. It allows mages to associate, learn from, and exchange ideas with their peers. It gives mages a safe place to be away from the rest of the mage-hating public -- yes, even with the current templar problem that even Kirkwall's circle has, a mage is safer there than free to be killed by paranoid, ignorant villagers.

Modifié par nightscrawl, 29 octobre 2011 - 08:29 .

[AlexXIV]

In a religion as the Chantry I doubt 'mere mortals' are allowed to question the word of their god, the Maker. So the Chantry can't make a compromise without losing face (faith?). I mean what are they going to tell their followers? That their god was wrong? That all the Divines misinterpreted the Maker? That the last thousand years the Chantry made things worse instead better? They cannot admit that without people turning away from the Chantry. Their Chant must be an absolute truth or it loses any claim to be divine. And that's what it takes to happen for any sort of compromise.

Templars in general may justify their actions through divine right, but there is also a practical reason. And if you talk to templars they more often reason practically than ideologically. They will plainly say the mages are dangerous and that they can't live like normal people because they are no normal people. And even those mages who don't ever mean to harm anyone may accidently become a threat to other people's life. If only they draw other, not so nice mages, in their village and set it on fire in persuit of some magic secrets or whatever.

So basically the seperation of templars and the Chantry is a good thing in the long run. Because without divine support the templars will need to question more of their actions and actually grow a conscience which they couldn't grow if they believed that they are doing the Maker's work. Religion too often keeps people from taking responsibility for their own actions. The will of the Maker is just a comfortable excuse to commit any sort of atrocities. Like for example murdering a whole Circle for something a rogue Warden mage did who wasn't even part of the Circle. I mean they are not going to annull the Wardens because Anders was a Warden either, or will they? It's plain simple double standart.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 29 octobre 2011 - 10:54 .

[LobselVith8]

nightscrawl wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

... but when the issues deal with the Chantry and the templars overseeing mages, and mages being free of the templars and the Chantry, I don't see a middle ground.

I really should write some of these arguments down in Notepad and just paste them in these types of threads.

You write as if every single person in every single mage v templar thread is either for mages being dominated by the Chantry, or being free to do whatever (let's not dwell on exactly what that whatever will be at this time.)

No, I'm not. You are making claims about my writing that simply aren't there. I'm not stating that it's as black and white as that. For the most part, people agree with templars overseeing mages, and other people disagree with templars overseeing mages. There are many nuances with both positions, but I'm not addressing every single facet of those positions within the OP. People at this board have argued for solutions outside of the status quo (when the Chantry controlled Circles existed, before all the rebellions took place), but those solutions still come from a position of thinking that the mages need to be overseen by the templars or that another solution is warranted that eliminates Chantry and templar control from the Circles.

I addressed that people agreed with the templars position or the mages position to varying degrees. People have argued in support of the templars, and others have argued in support of the mages. I don't see why you have an issue with this. I don't even see why TJPags went as far as to (apparently) claim that there are no templar supporters on this board when there are people who have supported the templars for over a year.

The entire point of my OP is that I'm addressing that I think it's highly unlikely (if not outright impossible) for a realistic compromise to take place because the templars have rebelled from the Chantry (who should have been able to control them through their monopoly on all lyrium) to hunt down the mages, and the mages emancipated themselves from nearly a millennia of being under the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars. If templars take Cullen's position - that templars have "divine right" over mages - then they are following a course of action motivated by their religious beliefs. If a sufificent amount of mages all across the continent were capable of breaking free from the Chantry and the templars to the point that the Chantry has lost control of all the Circles of Magi, why would they go back? The two factions are already on the brink of war.

nightscrawl wrote...

That's just not true, and I know this because I have posted in those threads and I do believe there is a middle ground. That middle ground however, involves a complete restructuring of the current system.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

nightscrawl wrote...

Overall, I think that in relation to magic, the mages who use it, and what it is used for, that templars do serve a purpose: that being to use their abilities to reign in mages who are out of control. The problem with the current system is that the templars are the military arm of the Chantry. The Chantry, and indeed no church, should have a military arm. It did not work well for our own world, and it has not worked out well for Thedas. If the templars were a separate entity from the Chantry, they could act somewhat like a police force. Use actual investigative techniques to determine if a mage is guilty of a crime, and then use their abilities to subdue said mage and bring her to Circle authorities. If the Circle were run by mages who understood the necessity of using power responsibly, like Irving and Wynne, they would act accordingly, even if it means punishing by Tranquility. This would be Tranquility administered by mages, according to mage laws, to protect mages in addition to non-mages.

Punishing by tranquility? Would turning people into an emotionless husk who would be little more than a slave ever be warranted? I think death would be more humane.

nightscrawl wrote...

I suppose an argument against this method might be that you could not say with certainty that any mage who sits on the Circle Council, or leads it, is an Aequitarian (as Irving and Wynne), but that is the same of leadership anywhere. You cannot say with certainty that any person that you vote for will lead justly and fairly, you can only judge them by their previous actions and their current words. Also, I imagine that particular fraternity might be popular among mages themselves: not only does it tell people that mages are able to be free and responsible and govern themselves, but it's also a far less extreme view than any of the others (total isolation, mage dominance/freedom, or Chantry tools); therefore they are more likely to choose leaders that think that way as well. In addition, you can also have the Knight-Commander have a Council seat. She might not have a deciding vote, but the law enforcement presence should be noted as valuable.

Disregarding all of my previous statements, the important thing is to ensure that the Circle itself (run by mages) stay intact as an entity. It provides a place of education, study, and research for novices and experts alike. It allows mages to associate, learn from, and exchange ideas with their peers. It gives mages a safe place to be away from the rest of the mage-hating public -- yes, even with the current templar problem that even Kirkwall's circle has, a mage is safer there than free to be killed by paranoid, ignorant villagers.

But why would either side give in to such a compromise? If the templars want to restore the status quo of the Chantry controlled Circles or kill all of the mages, and the mages want to keep their autonomy from the Chantry and the templars, why would both sides agree to such a compromise? Both sides would want victory. Would they agree to a truce to deal with a common foe, such as the Qunari threat? If that was the case, the same would have been true for the myraid of societies in Ferelden during the Fifth Blight, but apparently even the involvement of the Dalish clans doesn't erase the schism between elves and humans since the settlement in the Hinterlands was implied to be wiped out, even with the Hero of Ferelden being Dalish. Even The Warden from the Circle of Ferelden is turned down by the Chantry of Andraste if he asks for his people to be given their independence, and the involvement of a mage in being the savior of an entire nation doesn't resolve all the problems in the Andrastian nation in terms of their view of mages. The Warden bringing together different factions of people from different societies was only short-lived, and the same would be true for any protagonist who tries to bring the two sides together to resolve a threat from a common enemy.

[Gervaise]

The "Divine Right" quotation is one that I've been pushing on other posts. What happens is that if you go to Cullen in Act 3 and say "Who do you think Elthina will support in this disupute?" his response is that she has to support the Templars because they hold their position by divine right. He also says that he thinks Elthina is wrong to give mages the hope of any change because of this fact. By contrast Elthina says she feels both sides have valid arguments in the current conflict (in Kirkwall) and she hopes that some sort of compromise can be reached between Meredith and Orsino. It is clear therefore that Elthina does not really have any control, no matter what she thinks, because the Templars feel they have the Maker's mandate in what they do and any possibility for a peaceful resolution is in the hands of the Templars. This presumably also accounts for why, when Meredith calls for a RoA the only person (apart from mages) who raises any objections is Sebastian, who is now effectively the only voice left from the Chantry, and he is totally ignored. Not one Templar says, it is our duty to protect the Circle mages, let's kill the apostate responsible and any other mages we find outside the Circle. If you support the Templars, Cullen raises a half hearted objection to killing those 3 mages you encounter in the Gallows but it is Hawke's call whether they live or not. Whether you support the Templars or the Mages, they are apparently quite happy to go along with the arrest of the Champion, it is only when Meredith orders the summary execution without trial, that Cullen finally gets some backbone and then when Meredith loses the plot for all to see, Cullen and Cullen only steps in on your side.

Templars who genuinely follow the Chant of Light and its mortality, are either dead at the end of DA2 or have left the order in disgust (Keran). The codexes state that Templars are selected for the religious zeal (in other words their belief in their divine right) in preference to their moral stance. What Anders bomb seems to have succeeded in doing is breaking the Templars away from whatever control the Chantry might have had over their actions - taking matters back to the time of the Inquisition, which appears to have been a religious order set up immediately after the time of Andraste and independent of any outside control - operating to their own interpretation of the Chant of Light. It may well be that some Templars do not want outright war against the mages but it is implied that the majority are headed that way.

[esper]

The Trask and Keran like templars who wants more moderate actions are by all likelyhood not considerated Templars anymore post-da2. Which is why comprimse isn't realistic. Wuthout the Chantry templars are soley mages hunters who extis to hunt mages by divine right and mages cannot stop being mages, even those amongst them who might want peace properly don't want to be dead or tranquil and without the circles I think that is the only thing the templars can do, so the mages have no choice but to fight back. I don't see a realistic compromise between those two.

Modifié par esper, 29 octobre 2011 - 12:34 .

[TJPags]

LobselVith8 wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

... but when the issues deal with the Chantry and the templars overseeing mages, and mages being free of the templars and the Chantry, I don't see a middle ground.

I really should write some of these arguments down in Notepad and just paste them in these types of threads.

You write as if every single person in every single mage v templar thread is either for mages being dominated by the Chantry, or being free to do whatever (let's not dwell on exactly what that whatever will be at this time.)

No, I'm not. You are making claims about my writing that simply aren't there. I'm not stating that it's as black and white as that. For the most part, people agree with templars overseeing mages, and other people disagree with templars overseeing mages. There are many nuances with both positions, but I'm not addressing every single facet of those positions within the OP. People at this board have argued for solutions outside of the status quo (when the Chantry controlled Circles existed, before all the rebellions took place), but those solutions still come from a position of thinking that the mages need to be overseen by the templars or that another solution is warranted that eliminates Chantry and templar control from the Circles.

I addressed that people agreed with the templars position or the mages position to varying degrees. People have argued in support of the templars, and others have argued in support of the mages. I don't see why you have an issue with this. I don't even see why TJPags went as far as to (apparently) claim that there are no templar supporters on this board when there are people who have supported the templars for over a year.

The entire point of my OP is that I'm addressing that I think it's highly unlikely (if not outright impossible) for a realistic compromise to take place because the templars have rebelled from the Chantry (who should have been able to control them through their monopoly on all lyrium) to hunt down the mages, and the mages emancipated themselves from nearly a millennia of being under the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars. If templars take Cullen's position - that templars have "divine right" over mages - then they are following a course of action motivated by their religious beliefs. If a sufificent amount of mages all across the continent were capable of breaking free from the Chantry and the templars to the point that the Chantry has lost control of all the Circles of Magi, why would they go back? The two factions are already on the brink of war.

nightscrawl wrote...

That's just not true, and I know this because I have posted in those threads and I do believe there is a middle ground. That middle ground however, involves a complete restructuring of the current system.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

nightscrawl wrote...

Overall, I think that in relation to magic, the mages who use it, and what it is used for, that templars do serve a purpose: that being to use their abilities to reign in mages who are out of control. The problem with the current system is that the templars are the military arm of the Chantry. The Chantry, and indeed no church, should have a military arm. It did not work well for our own world, and it has not worked out well for Thedas. If the templars were a separate entity from the Chantry, they could act somewhat like a police force. Use actual investigative techniques to determine if a mage is guilty of a crime, and then use their abilities to subdue said mage and bring her to Circle authorities. If the Circle were run by mages who understood the necessity of using power responsibly, like Irving and Wynne, they would act accordingly, even if it means punishing by Tranquility. This would be Tranquility administered by mages, according to mage laws, to protect mages in addition to non-mages.

Punishing by tranquility? Would turning people into an emotionless husk who would be little more than a slave ever be warranted? I think death would be more humane.

nightscrawl wrote...

I suppose an argument against this method might be that you could not say with certainty that any mage who sits on the Circle Council, or leads it, is an Aequitarian (as Irving and Wynne), but that is the same of leadership anywhere. You cannot say with certainty that any person that you vote for will lead justly and fairly, you can only judge them by their previous actions and their current words. Also, I imagine that particular fraternity might be popular among mages themselves: not only does it tell people that mages are able to be free and responsible and govern themselves, but it's also a far less extreme view than any of the others (total isolation, mage dominance/freedom, or Chantry tools); therefore they are more likely to choose leaders that think that way as well. In addition, you can also have the Knight-Commander have a Council seat. She might not have a deciding vote, but the law enforcement presence should be noted as valuable.

Disregarding all of my previous statements, the important thing is to ensure that the Circle itself (run by mages) stay intact as an entity. It provides a place of education, study, and research for novices and experts alike. It allows mages to associate, learn from, and exchange ideas with their peers. It gives mages a safe place to be away from the rest of the mage-hating public -- yes, even with the current templar problem that even Kirkwall's circle has, a mage is safer there than free to be killed by paranoid, ignorant villagers.

But why would either side give in to such a compromise? If the templars want to restore the status quo of the Chantry controlled Circles or kill all of the mages, and the mages want to keep their autonomy from the Chantry and the templars, why would both sides agree to such a compromise? Both sides would want victory. Would they agree to a truce to deal with a common foe, such as the Qunari threat? If that was the case, the same would have been true for the myraid of societies in Ferelden during the Fifth Blight, but apparently even the involvement of the Dalish clans doesn't erase the schism between elves and humans since the settlement in the Hinterlands was implied to be wiped out, even with the Hero of Ferelden being Dalish. Even The Warden from the Circle of Ferelden is turned down by the Chantry of Andraste if he asks for his people to be given their independence, and the involvement of a mage in being the savior of an entire nation doesn't resolve all the problems in the Andrastian nation in terms of their view of mages. The Warden bringing together different factions of people from different societies was only short-lived, and the same would be true for any protagonist who tries to bring the two sides together to resolve a threat from a common enemy.

For crying out loud, I'll say this simply and bluntly, since you seem to have a problem - intentional (as I believe) or otherwise - understanding it any other way:

Believing that someone needs to oversee mages to ensure they are properly trained and act in a reaonable manner - both in their interactions with humans/elves/dwarves AND in their interactions with demons - is NOT the same as supporting the Chantry or the Templars.

Do you get it now, or do you want to continue playing the "everyone who disagrees with me wants to see mages enslaved by the Chantry" card some more?

[Big I]

AlexXIV wrote...

In a religion as the Chantry I doubt 'mere mortals' are allowed to question the word of their god, the Maker. So the Chantry can't make a compromise without losing face (faith?).

The Chantry changes the Chant all the time. For example declaring the Canticles of Shartan to be Dissonant Verses after the conquest of the Dales, or translating it into foreign languages.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

IanPolaris wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

He's obviously extrapolating from the "Magic must serve man" line. That's the justification from for whole existence of the Circle.

I get that, but it's weak sauce.  If the Sisters of the Chantry don't even interpret it that way, then it's pretty clear the Templars are the ones being unreasonable here, and that means until that changes peace is not a realistic option.

For peace to happen, both sides must recognize that:

1.  The other is a worthy (or at least valid) negotiating partner.  Saying that the other side isn't even human does not bode well here.

2.  The other has or is capable of having different but valid perspectives.  If you feel that you and only you have a direct line to the Maker that really isn't possible either.

I can see local truces, but no true peace until and unless the Templars radically change (and lose the religion).  That may happen (at sword point) in Fereldan.  I don't see that happening anywhere else.

-Polaris

If a war becomes unsustainable or undesirable, then the belligerents will find a way to negotiate peace, religion or no. Religion is never the only factor in a conflict, even in a religious war. They end all the time. Not every conflict in the Middle East in the last thousand years has been part of the same exact war.

Secondly, if you yourself admit that not everyone in the Chantry shares Cullen’s opinion on templars having dominion over mages by “Divine Right,” why would all the templars not only hold it but refuse to give it up?  I don’t even think Cullen himself holds that opinion strongly anymore. His hardline on mages is a direct result of the disaster in the Ferelden Circle. Now that he’s seen Meredith slowly turn into a monster much like the way Uldred did, I hardly expect him to look at the situation quit the same way anymore.  Why would the templars need to abandon their religion in order to find peace with the mages? If other people who share their religion don’t share their interpretation of it, why are the templars supposedly all the same and  immovably rigid? Most of the mages probably are Andrastian themselves. The templars know they don't have a direct line to the Maker. Andraste herself did (or at least her followers believed she did) and she still was betrayed.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 29 octobre 2011 - 04:57 .

[tmp7704]

IanPolaris wrote...

That's easy.  You should read your history.  Eventually the Roman Catholic Church lost political influence.  At no time (at least during the middle ages) was the Crusades ever called off, and as I say there are people in the Middle East that are still fighiting them...so wrong again.

You might want to take your own advice. The catholic church was very far from losing influence in the 12-13th century, which is when the crusades ended. As for people in the middle east 'still fighting them'... that's plain bonkers thing to say given the crusades were fought under banner of taking the Holy Land (Jerusalem and such) from the muslims. None of the fanatics who may talk of jihad nowadays is fighting these wars.

Incidentally, in your claim that religion makes compromise impossible you ignore that the religions themselves can change, allowing for another way for the conflict to end -- the crusades happen to be a good example of it, as modern christianity by no means considers it 'will of god' to take possession of the holy land, nevermind doing it by force and at expense of lives.

I am not.  You are.  What I am saying is very clear.  Whever people view another group as less than human or when a group feels that they are given a divine mandate over another group than peace isn't possible until that changes. This goes way beyond "Gott mit uns" and into sheer religious fanatcism.

You have originally said

"If a group believes they act in the name of [insert Diety here] then a negotiated peaceful resolution is essentially impossible."

i'm sorry, but this does not say very clearly that you are talking specifically of some extreme sort of fanaticism with superiority complex, because the exact same phrasing can be used when describing actions and beliefs of regular, faithful followers of a religion. So you may think you're being very clear, but you're not, and clarifying your stance to explain you'd meant far more narrow viewpoint than the original wording suggested does create impression of adjusting your claims.

Cullen says it directly.  He says that the Templars control and rule over the mages by divine right.  That is virtually a direct quote from the game.

Is that belief expressed by anyone else than Cullen?

Cullen is consistantly protrayed as the moderate Templar voice in DA2.  Play the game.

This doesn't answer my question. You simply repeat your claim, without any argument to back it up. Telling me to play the game isn't one -- i have played it, and clearly we have different views on what Cullen is portrayed like, as the result.

It gets mentioned in the game that the Kirkwall circle is extremely harsh in dealing with its mages, after all. Why do you think anyone would make such distinction if these attitudes were the norm?

In that case why doesn't the Chantry or the game indicate that.

I have just pointed out the game does indicate that.

Varic is one of the most level headed and neutrally inclined characters in the entire game.  If Varic thinks the Templars want war, then it's pretty sure that this is the general impression with most in Thedas.

Varric, being level headed and neutrally inclined, is absolutely not a someone who could be considered a representant of the majority of (human) population. Furthermore, Varric has potentially skewed view on the templars and mages, having spent most of his life in Kirkwall which is, as mentioned, far from giving good indication on what the average templars and mages think and operate like.

Modifié par tmp7704, 29 octobre 2011 - 05:02 .

[AlexXIV]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

In a religion as the Chantry I doubt 'mere mortals' are allowed to question the word of their god, the Maker. So the Chantry can't make a compromise without losing face (faith?).

The Chantry changes the Chant all the time. For example declaring the Canticles of Shartan to be Dissonant Verses after the conquest of the Dales, or translating it into foreign languages.

But wouldn't you agree that changing divine laws makes any faith appear a bit weak? Some people may appreciate the change but I am sure some would just start doubting everything. I am not very religious, but I seriously doubt I could take a faith seriously if they handwave their own holy book over and over. Even though I am pretty sure, should the Maker return the first thing he will crush is the Chantry. Because I can't seriously believe that they really do the will of the Maker for various reasons.

[Wulfram]

http://dragonage.wik...rding_Apostates

If I knew a better way to deal with magic, I would seize upon it immediately
Grand Cleric Francesca of Starkhaven

Of course the rest of that codex entry is about how dangerous abominations are and the evils of Tevintre, which shows the difficulty of convincing people that there is a better solution - but it indicates that fundamentally the Chantry's policy on mages is based on pragmatic considerations, not doctrinal ones. It's fear not faith which motivates the oppression of mages.

The restrictions on Blood Magic and the rule of mages are doctrinal and almost certainly non-negotiable. The rest is likely up for grabs, at least now that the old system has collapsed.