288 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

DKJaigen wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Mages are an invaluable war resource, but so are templars or people who can counteract the mage's power. Royalty would still need a way to control the mages it employs. Some mages can use mind domination. Royalty will be very careful and would need a check to balance the mages Nobility will be very leery in employing a power it cannot control.

Only if the templars obey orders. And thats just it, they don't.Since templars obey the law of the maker it makes them unreliable soldiers. If you look at our own history religious military orders been wiped out by their allies for being thorn in the side.

Templars cannot be controlled. So you have to make your own templars. So you need lyrium. And their 2 factions that stand in the way. The chantry and the templars. Wipe the current templars out and strip the chantry of all poltical power and you have not only have warriors with anti-magic ability under control but also the mages. Simply put its more profitable for the nobles to wipe out the templars then the mages.

That requires that the nobility has a way to control the lyrium trade. The dwarves are the ones that control that trade. Nobility would have to give the dwarves a compelling reason to regulate that trade. The dwarves could just as easily set up shop and sell lyrium to whoever has the coin to buy it.

Also when it comes to control the same is true of the mages. Nobility would not be able to control the mages unless the mages choose to do the bidding of the noble. Why would I do the bidding of that noble when I can become a noble or control the noble especially if I employ blood magic?

How do you theroize that nobility could control either templars or mages?  If you wipe out the present templars it requires time to train warriors with templar capabilities.  And who will train the new warriors? Wiping out the present templars without a replacement leaves the mages unchecked.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Additionally, why should we presume that "the nobility" is a unified, monolithic actor in this situation? As I stated before, they're all going to have their own judgements, relationships, and motivations.

[Sir JK]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Additionally, why should we presume that "the nobility" is a unified, monolithic actor in this situation? As I stated before, they're all going to have their own judgements, relationships, and motivations.

Agreed. And in the same sense, neither is the templars, the Chantry, the circle mages or even the resolutionists. There's going to be templars fighting to abolish the circles in favour of a better system for mages. There's going to be Resolutionists that picked up the cause to get revenge and would happily let mage freedom and prosperity burn as long as they can satisfy their hatred. There's going to be members of the Circles who genuinely wants it to remain and members of the Chantry that wants them and the Templars destroyed.

They are all absolutely massive groups. With no single mind, motive or goal. In the end, it will all result in one big compromise.

[Realmzmaster]

Templars do patrol the pilgrim trails and other roadways. In Awakening the Commander of the Grey receives a message from Ms. Turnoble. She states in the message that a templar looks in on the estate while on patrol. The family is dead along with the templar when you get there. In fact you get the Stormchaser boots from the templar's body. So there is evidence of templars patrolling areas.

[DKJaigen]

Realmzmaster wrote...


That requires that the nobility has a way to control the lyrium trade. The dwarves are the ones that control that trade. Nobility would have to give the dwarves a compelling reason to regulate that trade. The dwarves could just as easily set up shop and sell lyrium to whoever has the coin to buy it.

Trade happens to be between 2 factions. I dont think the dwarves give damn about where the gold is coming as long as keeps flowing.

Also when it comes to control the same is true of the mages. Nobility would not be able to control the mages unless the mages choose to do the bidding of the noble. Why would I do the bidding of that noble when I can become a noble or control the noble especially if I employ blood magic?

The nobility only needs to offer a better deal then the chantry does and they will obey. And the whole other thing is a moral issue and not even worth discussing. Because that i can do somethign doesnt mean i will do it.

How do you theroize that nobility could control either templars or mages?  If you wipe out the present templars it requires time to train warriors with templar capabilities.  And who will train the new warriors? Wiping out the present templars without a replacement leaves the mages unchecked.

Once again this is a moral issue. Not worth discussing

Additionally, why should we presume that "the nobility" is a unified,
monolithic actor in this situation? As I stated before, they're all
going to have their own judgements, relationships, and motivations.

1 word: ambition. And this is just one big opportunity. I doubt Celene would not go for such a chance. And since she is not to fond of the chantry.

Modifié par DKJaigen, 22 novembre 2011 - 09:04 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

DKJaigen wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

That requires that the nobility has a way to control the lyrium trade. The dwarves are the ones that control that trade. Nobility would have to give the dwarves a compelling reason to regulate that trade. The dwarves could just as easily set up shop and sell lyrium to whoever has the coin to buy it.

Trade happens to be between 2 factions. I dont think the dwarves give damn about where the gold is coming as long as keeps flowing.

Which is exactly why, once the chaos starts, no one is going to be monopolizing the lyrium trade. 

[DKJaigen]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Which is exactly why, once the chaos starts, no one is going to be monopolizing the lyrium trade. 

Uhuh their only 2 groups that have the gold.

[Realmzmaster]

I am pro-citizen in the mage-templar debate. If the collateral damage from the war becomes unacceptable and threatens the general populace both groups may be deemed as unacceptable and in need of elimination.
The nobles are responsible for protecting their lands and those people on them. If the nobles do not protect the citizenry they will not remain nobles. If both templars and mages are deemed as to dangerous by the citizens both groups will be hunted. I do not believe that other groups will be pleased with the war spilling onto their doorsteps.

I do not believe that the elves or dwarfs will care for either side and see both groups as destructive forces that need to be quelled. The dwarfs and elves may attack both groups on sight to prevent any danger or damage to their people or land.

Nor to I believe you will see the destruction of the Chantry. It may change but it is totally intertwined within the society and the religion that the people believe. It will not simply go away.

[esper]

@Realmzmaster.
Prey tell how you would eliminate all mages when new one will always be born? Mage is not a choice and for me that is the tipping point. If people could choose to be mages, I could see the templars point. They can't and so nothing would ever convience me that the templars are right.

[Realmzmaster]

DKJaigen wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Which is exactly why, once the chaos starts, no one is going to be monopolizing the lyrium trade. 

Uhuh their only 2 groups that have the gold.

No they are not the only two groups. Any opportunist with enough gold (the Warden accumulates a lot of gold) and most nobles have gold. In the chaos the person or group that has the gold can go to the dwarfs and buy all the lyrium they want and sell it to whoever they want.

Also I doubt any noble or group of nobles has the amount of money that the Chantry can generate from the citizenry.

You try to dismiss the agrument by saying it is a moral issue not worth discussing. The whole mage situation is a moral issue, but here we are discussing it.

[Lynata]

[quote]heiveldboy wrote...
Lothering was a special circumstance, because it would have been overrun by the darkspawn and because the bann and his army abandoned Lothering. If the bann had remained, than the templars would have done their normal work. But I haven't read any of the books so I cannot judge about that..[/quote]Lothering was special, yes - but it is a sufficient example to show that the templars are ready and willing to help the common folk if their help is needed. Of course their focus remains watching over mages and hunting Apostates - it's just not all that they do. Other tasks are circumstancial, but serve as proof of their spirit and morale (may depend on the local Knight-Commander and/or Reverend Mother, mind you).

[quote]heiveldboy wrote...
They need proof before they're allowed to search said person or place and Meredith did not have any (otherwise she would have shown it). This is shown when you confront Irving about Jowan being made tranquil where he said that Gregoir has eye witnesses who saw Jowan practice.[/quote]It would be utterly contraproductive to have the "wardens" barred from searching their own "prison" if they suspect the "inmates" of doing something illegal. The templars exist to police the mages, and they would not have any way to enforce Chantry edicts if the Chantry, which is the organization that made these rules, would tell them to stay away from the mages' quarters.

I'd have to play DA:O again, but I am quite certain that just because Gregoir is a rather nice guy who doesn't stomp through the Tower all the time without any respect for the mages' privacy he would not have the option to pursue any suspicions he may have. He simply doesn't act as intrusive because he trusts the First Enchanter and isn't as paranoid as Meredith.

[quote]heiveldboy wrote...
Another thing I want to mention is that you said that Orsino was bothering Meredith's work all the time and that she wouldn't have been so hard on the mages if he didn't. Well, I don't believe this is true: Meredith was too far gone at the time and would always find an excuse to kill a mage, and another to kill another mage and ...[/quote]Oh, I agree with this. By the time of Hawke's arrival it was already too late. I am talking of the decades before. In essence, while Meredith was indeed "too far gone" at the time of the game (at least concerning her paranoia and dislike - I maintain that she was still held in check by her the Grand Cleric and her own sense of responsibility), I think she may not have went as far if Orsino would have been more forthcoming during her early years. The way I see it, they both aggravated each other (I think we actually agree on this, though I see a wasted chance of their rivalry having been avoidable).

[quote]heiveldboy wrote...
First of all: Magic is just like a sword or being good with words. Magic can easily destroy a village, however someone who has skill with a sword is also capable of slaughtering an entire village. The reverse is also the same: Both a mage and a warrior can be killed with magic and/or swords.[/quote]I'm talking about potential and the likelihood, though. A single person with a sword can be killed by any villager with a pitchfork or a hunter with a bow. Single mages erect arcane barriers, set buildings on fire and send demons to slaughter their opponents. You see the difference? It is immensely more difficult to put down a mage than anyone else. They are powerful. This is why people fear them. A single warrior isn't a threat to a village. He needs to band together with likeminded individuals to be dangerous. A single mage does not have this limitation, his power frees him from the need to have allies or, if he chooses to gather companions, enables him to establish himself as their leader and be less susceptible to some backstabber wishing to take over.

This is why you need the city guard or a militia to keep people with swords in check, and the templars for mages.

[quote]heiveldboy wrote...
Both a mage, warrior or rogue can be possessed, and just because you have magic doesn't mean you'll end up becoming an abomination.[/quote]The chance for a mage to be possessed is much higher than for any normal person. This is an established fact, and a possessed mage is also more dangerous than a possessed normal guy.

[quote]heiveldboy wrote...
For example: mages have been immensly useful and necessary to end the blights (hence the reason why Duncan isn't glad with only 7 mages).[/quote]Absolutely. Only that - for all we know - the Blight would not exist without magic in the first place, and blood magic keeps being a problem throughout Thedas.

This is not to diminish the role of any helpful mage assisting the Grey Wardens or the Chantry. As much as they are dangerous, they can undoubtedly also be someone's greatest asset (in fact, I think the games are even "nerfing" mages in comparison to other characters for the sake of balance). But this doesn't address that there have to be safeguards in place to deal with the problems that come with the package.

[quote]heiveldboy wrote...
And if you were to see it from the Chantry's point of view: the Maker created the world and everything in it. If He didn't have use for magic, then why create it? To make fun of the humans?[/quote]Hah, this I can actually "excuse" by applying good old fashioned religious denial as well as background knowledge from research for my P&P character:

Magic in the form of lyrium is the stuff of creation, a tool which the Maker used to shape first the Fade and then the mortal world. The Maker gave magic to the spirits of the Fade to enable them to craft their own surroundings, but grew dissatisfied with his first children as all they made was fleeting and thus meaningless. The mortal world, where the humans live, is meant to be more consistent, and so his second creation became more creative, having what is called the "spark of the divine", which pleased the Him. However, the Maker's first children grew jealous because of the mortal people's imagination and so they seek to penetrate the Veil and travel into the mortal world, corrupting the second creation. Jealous spirits and the Old Gods then started to whisper into the ears of willing mortals, teaching them the secrets of magic.

For it is written:
Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him.
Foul and corrupt are they Who have taken His gift
And turned it against His children.
They shall be named Maleficar, accursed ones.
They shall find no rest in this world
Or beyond.
- The Chant of Light, Transfigurations stanza one, verse two.

[quote]heiveldboy wrote...

But I do have to say that you would make an excellent Templar[/quote]Heh, thanks, I guess. Though I have to say I am absolutely not religious in real life, I just enjoy playing zealous characters in RPGs. Even out-of-character I understand that mages are dangerous and thus require an element of control, though.
Ideally, the templars exist to not only guard the outside world from the mages, but also the other way around.


[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
Lol, no. That's not what happens at all. Have you even played the game?[/quote]Uh, yes. Just last week, actually - I have avoided it for quite some time, but snatched the opportunity as the price dropped to $20. How long has it been for you?



[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
That's pretty ridiculous. Even once merged, Justice and Anders are
clearly distinct personalities with separate thoughts and feelings.[/quote]Even Anders disagrees with you.

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
There is no evidence to suggest that Meredith was sane before she got her hands on the idol.[/quote]I interpretate her rejection of the Tranquil Solution as proof, for it runs contrary to her later appearance. But do you have evidence that she was insane?

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
You said it was pretty much an absolute certainty, which is not the case.[/quote]I did no such thing. My original post is on this very same page, and I said that mages are "threatened"...

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
1. Except not, because they were blood mages before they escaped the Circle.
2. Also, Hawke's personal experience does not dictate reality.
3. We know for a fact that not all apostates turn to blood magic. See Morrigan, Anders himself.
4. Blood Magic is not inherently evil nor necessarily linked to demons. See Merrill, Jowan.[/quote]1. This only means that some templar failed on his job.
2. No, but it does dictate people's potential. All characters in DA2 are written with a single personality in mind.
3. That doesn't make those who do any less dangerous. Not all people owning a gun turn into killers, yet I'm still in favour of laws limiting their possession.
4. Blood magic is so rare it can only be learned from a demon, which is a pretty bad thing to start with. It is also an even more powerful form of magic, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Thirdly, it needs the lifeforce of living beings to work, which is a huge invitation for human sacrifices. Blood magic is pretty much the nuclear power plants of Thedas - efficient, yet unnecessary, and when it goes boom you have a big problem.

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
How about the Dalish? Their mages mingle with the rest of the clan and
are even revered and given positions of vital responsibility. And so far
none that we've seen have turned into manialcal despots who slaughter
their entire tribes to fuel a demon-smmoning ritual.[/quote]I'd assume that the culture of the Dalish - being focused on coexistence rather than exploitation - has something to do with this, though it may also involve ancient rituals unknown to the humans (remember Feynriel?) as well as self-imposed limits regarding when and what to cast. The case of Merrill proves that a threat exists if the Dalish do not adhere to their own rules.
We can only guess, though. For the time being, we know too little about how the Dalish work their magic, and if/how often they had to deal with abominations. Either way, for the time being they seem unwilling to share their secrets. Maybe in the future?

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
A secular circle is a perfectly viable alternative.[/quote]I wouldn't see it as such. People who believe in a cause will generally be more efficient at what they do, and some guard being paid as if it was a normal job will (a) be easier to bribe by a curious mage and ( more susceptible to spells of mind domination. I also don't see Chantry religion as the course of abuse, it is merely a convenient justification. I will admit that this is a matter of opinion, though.

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
Mankind in Thedas is already doing exactly
that; stifling magic's potential because they fear it. If burns aren't a
good enough reason to fear fire, why are abominations a good enough
reason to fear magic, the potential of which is immeasurably greater?[/quote]Because the potential for harm is also immeasurably greater - and unlike fire you do not need magic. It's just a faster, easier way to do stuff. With a lot of potential for corruption and abuse.

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
The Circle system has failed repeatedly.
The mages have rebelled numerous times in history, only to have the
Chantry retaliate by declaring annullment. The Circle is a flawed conept
at base; it doesn't work the way it should and it hasn't for a long
time. Mages rebel because they resent being forced to live in what is
unmistakeably a prison. They rebel because they resent being torn from
their families. They rebel because they resent being constantly watched
by people who have been trained to hate them. They rebel because they
resent being under the thumb of a Chantry that preaches hatred of their
kind to the rest of the world.[/quote]Mages rebel because the grass is always greener on the other side.

Also, the Right of Annulment has been performed 17 times over 700 years, which is about once every 40 years or so. It is still a relatively high number, but considering how many Circles exist throughout Thedas, it becomes an occasional regrettable side-effect of a necessary system rather than something every single mage would live in constant fear of. We also should not forget that the Right of Annulment is only performed when the Knight-Commander in charge considers the entire Circle lost and unredeemable, which requires a pretty big problem at hand. A problem that, I am quite sure, the general populace of Thedas would rather see limited to the thick walls of a Circle rather than happening somewhere in the countryside where it will affect a thousand times the number of innocent people than the few non-corrupted mages that would die together with their tainted brethren.

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
It's an extremely valid argument. The Chantry deliberately
preaches that magic is the source of all evil and that mages should be
subjugated. It doesn't promote peace, it doesn't promote understanding,
it doesn't treat mages like humans with feelings. It treats them like
monsteers, it tells the rest of the world to fear them as such, and then
it whines when mages retaliate.[/quote]It is valid for you because it is convenient. Let me try a just as flawed and ridiculous comparison: The Tevinter Imperium was the Third Reich, and now the Chantry is imposing laws so that right wing people (mages) may still practice free speech (magic) but the really bad guys (blood mages) will never again be in a position to commit atrocities. How does that taste? 

Also, to correct another flaw - the Chantry does not teach that magic is the source of all evil. The exact teaching is that magic is both a gift and a curse, and that the templars are there to protect the mages from themselves (i.e. the proven risk of possession) just as much as they protect the common folk from the maleficar. Furthermore, the Chant of Light teaches that magic exists to serve mankind.

I can only recommend reading up on these things. I can understand that one may come to vastly different conclusions when following a warped perception of the setting. Actually, this is exactly what happened to Anders, too.

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
It's either above worldly politics or it's not, you can't have it both
ways. As you just stated, the Chantry dabbles in politics to further its
own agenda, so it's clearly not above them at all. The existence of Bethany, Morrigan, Merrill and Aneirin is absolute proof that the Chantry is not vital to the production of sane, healthy, capable mages.[/quote]I thought that the meaning behind my words was clear. Let me elaborate, then: Individual noble lords only care for themselves and engage in feuds that can become full-scale wars, sacrificing any kind of honour and morale on the way. The Chantry as an institution is above this and as such is the more reliable organization.

Also, I would not exactly call Morrigan or Merrill "sane and healthy", given the moral code of the one and the naivety of the other. Aneirin has lived at least part of his life in Chantry/Circle care; unfortunately we do not know how he would have fared without having been Wynne's apprentice.

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
At least in the scenario you just outlined, mages enjoy relative freedom
compared to what they have now. They might deem it an improvement, and
the citizenry's opinion of mages would also improve as a result, because
the mages would be seen to be working with and for them.[/quote]Except for the occasional blood mage and abomination burning down orphanages and sacrificing virgins, you mean? I don't see how this level of freedom is supposed to prevent a second Tevinter Magocracy. All it takes is a mage who wants more power, and we know those exist. Unfortunately, those forms of magic that do corrupt are also the ones that are more powerful, in turn making it harder even for "good" mages to dispose of a rogue colleague. I guess I'm just not as optimistic as you are concerning this.

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
I do consider the standard level of control a major failing. Anders ran from the tower many times and was brought back alive on every single occasion.[/quote]Templars need to stop slacking, obviously. If the Knight-Commander in charge of his Circle would have ordered him Tranquil, the compromise that is the Circles would still be in effect in DA3.

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
I don't think that makes any sense at all. Why not send a certified mage
to tutor the child at home? Or better yet, why not set up many smaller
establishments in heavily populated areas?[/quote]Because it is a lot easier (read, actually doable) to station a garrison of templars at a Circle instead of letting a squad of knights move into every single mage's home. And I have already outlined the dangers of nobility abusing magic power for their own agenda above.

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
Dialogue is just people talking.  Talking is not doing.[/quote]Got it. I guess this also means that the entire population of Kirkwall doesn't sleep, since we don't see them doing so. In fact, I also don't recall seeing a single pisspot in the game!

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
Yes, Anders cares so little for "ordianry people". He's so incredibly selfish and thoughtless
that he spent the better part of a decade running a free clinic while
risking his life to help mages escape the Gallows. God, what a
douchebag.
[/quote]Right, I guess it's only him who is allowed to do good deeds then.
The game is pretty clear in establishing that Anders is very much a black vs white guy. Every templar and every Chantry member is evil, and only those who agree with his opinion of how mages should live are the good guys.


Let me just add that I consider this thread a very interesting debate. Morale grey areas such as these (and how differently things can be perceived by people) are why I love this franchise.

Modifié par Lynata, 22 novembre 2011 - 09:22 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

DKJaigen wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Which is exactly why, once the chaos starts, no one is going to be monopolizing the lyrium trade. 

Uhuh their only 2 groups that have the gold.

Lolwhat?

(as the kids say)

[Realmzmaster]

esper wrote...

@Realmzmaster.
Prey tell how you would eliminate all mages when new one will always be born? Mage is not a choice and for me that is the tipping point. If people could choose to be mages, I could see the templars point. They can't and so nothing would ever convience me that the templars are right.

@esper,

New mages are born because somewhere in the family's lineage there was a mage. If you eliminated all present mages (not that I am advocating that) you lessen the possibility of a mage child being born. Also the Tevinter magisters use to keep records of families that had mages born in them within their country. That system could be expanded. You simply keep track of those families and eliminate any child that shows magical ability. Now that is truly shades of  WW2 Germany's.

And if you eliminate the mages you do not need the templars nor lyrium. Note this is not my position but since you asked the question. Here is a possible "final" solution.

[Lynata]

Wow, that's cold.

That said, I'm not sure it would even work this way (apart from the population having become way too mixed over the centuries). There had to be a "first mage" at some point in time who did not have mage parents. It could be some weird evolutionary trait, like psychic powers in various sci-fi settings. Unless you're assuming that it was outside influence (Dalish, Fade spirits, you name it) - which could in theory happen again.

[Realmzmaster]

@Lynata,

Point taken! You are correct the solution may not eradicate all magic and there is the possibility of recurrence. It will put a severe dent in the mage population.

[Realmzmaster]

If a Dalish Keeper or magic user gets possessed it is the duty of the clan to hunt him/her down and destroy him/her.
Normal humans cannot be possessed (willingly or unwillingly) without aid from magic users knowing blood magic.

Dead bodies can be possessed because the dead body no longer has a spirit. An analogy to this is the Grey Warden who kills the ArchDemon his/her spirit is destroyed along with the ArchDemon's spirit, but a darkspwan has no problem assuming the ArchDemon's (if the ArchDemon is slain by anyone else) because it is a soulless vessel.

It is impossible to separate Anders/Justice they are no longer two distinct personalities. Anders tells Hawke he no longer knows where Anders ends and Justice begins. If Hawke does not have enough influence with Anders/Justice Ella is killed. Justice and Anders are one there is no separating them.

[esper]

Realmzmaster wrote...

esper wrote...

@Realmzmaster.
Prey tell how you would eliminate all mages when new one will always be born? Mage is not a choice and for me that is the tipping point. If people could choose to be mages, I could see the templars point. They can't and so nothing would ever convience me that the templars are right.

@esper,

New mages are born because somewhere in the family's lineage there was a mage. If you eliminated all present mages (not that I am advocating that) you lessen the possibility of a mage child being born. Also the Tevinter magisters use to keep records of families that had mages born in them within their country. That system could be expanded. You simply keep track of those families and eliminate any child that shows magical ability. Now that is truly shades of  WW2 Germany's.

And if you eliminate the mages you do not need the templars nor lyrium. Note this is not my position but since you asked the question. Here is a possible "final" solution.

Well I am glad you can see yourself what it is you are proposing.
It is never and option. Never. No matter how brutal this war becomes. Also magic first shows around five-six year old, there would be a lot of mother and fathers would hide their child. Thus secret mages would stilll exits and the whole point would be missed since they still faces the abormination risk, also a there is a higher chance that such mages would grew bitter towards 'ordinary' humans and more willingly to be even more violent or using mind control magic.


Also there is chance that magic is actually also a randomly appearing gene as in non-mages can have mage children and the mages are increasing in numbers. Personally I think that it might just be latent, meaning that there can be a lot of carriers who do even know they have magic in their line.

What you suppose would be equal to me proposing that we find every sister, brother and acolyte of the Andrastian faith and slaugther them because I think that Andrastiamnism is actually a malevoulent and further corrupt to the core and will cause a lot of meaningless death in the years to come. I, however, would stop at the system. The moment the Chantry is demiliteriased and more seperated from Orlais as a Country my crusade against them stops. The option to kill brothers and sisters simply because they are brothers and sisters no matter how much I dislike the faith and how damaging it is, would never be an option for me. There is no 'final' choice because the 'final' choice you describe would never work. It would just prolong the war.

[The dead fish]

esper wrote...
The option to kill brothers and sisters simply because they are brothers and sisters no matter how much I dislike the faith and how damaging it is, would never be an option for me.

I am glad you changed your mind, because it wasn't the case before. 

Modifié par Sylvianus, 22 novembre 2011 - 11:45 .

[Realmzmaster]

In your mind it is not an option. But that option has been used. First with the Romans against Christians. The Germans against Jews.

Even in the civil war Sherman practiced total war with a scorched earth policy leaving nothing behind that the enemy could use.
War is not played by nice little rules. Sherman said it best: War is all hell. There is no way to refine it.
Rules of engagement and rules of war only work when both sides play by them. Example the confederates used land mines to stop Sherman's march to the sea. Sherman answered by using confederate POWs to clear the mines. The confederates never used land mines again. Sherman answered brutality with brutality.
Do not wage a war if you are not in it to win. Winning can exact an awful toll. I remember Malcolm X in a speech quoting Jean Paul Sartre's play Dirty Hands said By any means necessary.

The whole quote that contains that line is:

We declare our right on this earth to be a man, to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.

[esper]

Sylvianus wrote...

esper wrote...
The option to kill brothers and sisters simply because they are brothers and sisters no matter how much I dislike the faith and how damaging it is, would never be an option for me.

I am glad you changed your mind, because it wasn't the case before. 

No, I have never said that. I still don't think that Elthina was a soft target and I still think the Kirkwall Chantry was a necessity, but my war is with the system not the people in it.
Some members of the chantry needs to die for the system to falls
Some mages needs to die for the templars to win
Some templars needs to die for the mages to win.

Killing everyone  and their mother on one side is too far. Where the line between necessetity and just plain murder for the sake of murder is, I can't say, but it will always be at some point before 'all'. I think it is important to know when to stop. If the Orlais Chantry falls would it really be necessary ransack every other chantry and kill every remaining sister? I would say no.
Killing mage children because there are no circles left to put them in is too far, even for the most pro-templar. Killing a former templar who has put down the shield because he would not follow his fellows into being rouge is too far. 

Modifié par esper, 23 novembre 2011 - 12:05 .

[esper]

Realmzmaster wrote...

In your mind it is not an option. But that option has been used. First with the Romans against Christians. The Germans against Jews.

Even in the civil war Sherman practiced total war with a scorched earth policy leaving nothing behind that the enemy could use.
War is not played by nice little rules. Sherman said it best: War is all hell. There is no way to refine it.
Rules of engagement and rules of war only work when both sides play by them. Example the confederates used land mines to stop Sherman's march to the sea. Sherman answered by using confederate POWs to clear the mines. The confederates never used land mines again. Sherman answered brutality with brutality.
Do not wage a war if you are not in it to win. Winning can exact an awful toll. I remember Malcolm X in a speech quoting Jean Paul Sartre's play Dirty Hands said By any means necessary.

The whole quote that contains that line is:

We declare our right on this earth to be a man, to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.

Yeah, and I would say that both the Roman and the Germans did not suceed. Quite the contrary actually considering how big Christanity is and how terrified people are for coming across as anti-Semetic, even today.

[The dead fish]

esper wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

esper wrote...
The option to kill brothers and sisters simply because they are brothers and sisters no matter how much I dislike the faith and how damaging it is, would never be an option for me.

I am glad you changed your mind, because it wasn't the case before. 

No, I have never said that. I still don't think that Elthina was a soft target and I still think the Kirkwall Chantry was a necessity, but my war is with the system not the people in it.
Some members of the chantry needs to die for the system to falls
Some mages needs to die for the templars to win
Some templars needs to die for the mages to win.

Killing everyone  and their mother on one side is too far. Where the line between necessetity and just plain murder for the sake of murder is, I can't say, but it will always be at some point before 'all'. I think it is important to know when to stop. If the Orlais Chantry falls would it really be necessary ransack every other chantry and kill every remaining sister? I would say no.
Killing mage children because there are no circles left to put them in is too far, even for the most pro-templar. Killing a former templar who has put down the shield because he would not follow his fellows into being rouge is too far. 

Well, I remember many harsh words from you in the past. Maybe the passion.

You have dehumanized the sisters and the brothers, and the people who went to church and you said they were military targets who chose death and desserve to die because they went to church. And other things , like all must die, because all are bad.

But whatever the past, your position is closer  to mine than I thought, and I am glad.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 23 novembre 2011 - 12:31 .

[esper]

Sylvianus wrote...

esper wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

esper wrote...
The option to kill brothers and sisters simply because they are brothers and sisters no matter how much I dislike the faith and how damaging it is, would never be an option for me.

I am glad you changed your mind, because it wasn't the case before. 

No, I have never said that. I still don't think that Elthina was a soft target and I still think the Kirkwall Chantry was a necessity, but my war is with the system not the people in it.
Some members of the chantry needs to die for the system to falls
Some mages needs to die for the templars to win
Some templars needs to die for the mages to win.

Killing everyone  and their mother on one side is too far. Where the line between necessetity and just plain murder for the sake of murder is, I can't say, but it will always be at some point before 'all'. I think it is important to know when to stop. If the Orlais Chantry falls would it really be necessary ransack every other chantry and kill every remaining sister? I would say no.
Killing mage children because there are no circles left to put them in is too far, even for the most pro-templar. Killing a former templar who has put down the shield because he would not follow his fellows into being rouge is too far. 

Well, I remember many harsh words from you in the past. Maybe the passion.

You have dehumanized the sisters and the brothers, and the people who went to church and you said they were military targets who chose death and desserve to die because they went to church. And other things , like all must die, because all are bad.

But whatever the past, your position is closer  to mine than I thought, and I am glad.

Nope that  I have never said, I think you are confusing me with someone else or misinterprenting my words. In which case it might be because we have entered a debate at different point.
 I have said that Elthina was a miltary target. Never extended it to anyone who might enter the chantry to pray.
I have said that the Chantry was a miltary target, never spoken about the persons in it too.
In that regard I have agreed to Anders blowing up Kirkwall Chantry as a necessity. (The whole right vs. necessary is another debate which I participated in a long time ago, I suppose I could take it up again, but I am a little to tired to dó it now).
I have never dehumanized brothers or sisters. In fact I do for the record rather like Sebastian and have spoken positively about him.
I have said that the Chantry is an evil organisation with is properly the harshes and most generlising words I have said.
Really I think you are confusing me with another anti-chantry person. But eh... I think to lob pro-templar people and pro-chantry people together and rember who exactly said precisly what, so I guess it is understandable.

Edit. I am pretty radical when it comes to pro-mage freedom. Perhaps it is there you remember harsh word from?

Modifié par esper, 23 novembre 2011 - 12:57 .

[The dead fish]

You may be right. Maybe I confuse with someone else. But I know I've seen you ( your avatar is the same ) once really passionate. Now, I can't remember which one ( maybe freedom indeed ), there were so much debates about Mage/ templars xD.

The most important is that now, at least, I am more informed about your position in this story.

Reasonable, though I do not understand why the gesture of Anders was a necessity, since it did not affect the decision of the Mages to rebel. ( It was the madness of Meredith )

Otherwise, it's not just pro-templar and pro-mage, there are also those who are neutral.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 23 novembre 2011 - 01:10 .

[esper]

The templar-mage thing does often develop into a rather 'if you are not with us you are against us' situation. It is because it is basically about ideals (at least it is for me) and some off us cannot compromise there. There are certain areas whole conflict by which I admit that I don't think I can compromise. And I am passionate about it, probler because moral dilemmas interest me and I like to discuss them. For me it boils down to 'that you cannot sacrifce the rights of a minority to make the majority feels safe'. And it is an ideal that I cannot compromise with.

As another thing, I think I remember where you got the impression from now. It was in the discussion about elves and the Chantry and somehow I formulated my argument rather poorly and I made it seem that I blamed the current chantry for the crimes against the elves and the current ghettoizathing of elves. I did retreat when I realised what it sounded like I was saying and said that the current chantry can't be blamed for the fall of Dales nor the current states of the city elves, but I don't know if you was still a part of the debate at that point.