288 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

Neither side in an absolute-pro-mage vs absolute-pro-templar exchange has a monopoly on ideals / values / morals / ethics.

[Realmzmaster]

esper wrote...

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.

No, they did not succeed but it was not for a lack of trying. If the Roman empire had not collapsed from its excesses and  the Germans had not attacked the Russians events may have been quite different.

[Plaintiff]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chantry in Kirkwall took care of the sick and the poor, which is revealed if you ever listen to what any of the priestesses talk about. What they DON'T do is wander into Darktown, simply becasue it is too damn dangerous for a priestess to travel around there, without an armed escort.

Saying you do something is not the same thing as actually doing it. When Bioware releases DLC that shows the secret room that the Kirkwall Chantry stashes all its less fortunates in, I'll change my tune.

I see. So all the bad things that the Chantry does are also just Anders saying they've been done. The Chantry never takes children from their parents. Templars never rape mages. I guess I won't believe it unless Bioware releases a DLC showing it

That's so utterly moronic, I think it literally made me dumber. That comparison just fails on so many levels.

Unlike the chantry priestesses in Kirkwall claiming to help the poor and sick, we have mountains of corroborative evidence to support Anders' view of the circle, from both games. Isolde & Connor, Jowan, Wynne, Aneirin, Karl, Thrask's daughter, Feynriel,  Ella, Huon and his wife and there's probably more examples I've forgotten. We see firsthand how their lives have been negatively affected by the Circle and its policies, even when they weren't actually in it. The widespread bigotry of the Chantry affects their personal lives greatly, forcing them to keep their powers secret, not just to avoid being taken away from their families, but also to avoid persecution by their friends and neighbours, who have been heavily indoctrinated by the Chantry's teachings. It is established that a Mage Origin warden was taken from their family at a young age. The templars and the Chantry admit that this is what they do and that it is not merely the unfounded grumblings of a few disgruntled mages.

We see Rylock set a trap for Anders even though he is legally protected by his status as a Gray Warden. We see Alrik and Keras threaten and bully the mages in their power, which is bad enough, even if no rape actually occurs We see templars threaten and bully the Dalish at Sundermount when they refuse to hand over Feynriel. They are accused of torturing elf children, which the Templars, far from denying it, claim was a "necessary measure". We are explicitly shown all of this and more. Sampson left the Templars because he couldn't tolerate the abuse perpetrated by his colleagues. Thrask admits that there are templars who abuse mages, Keran admits it, both of them rebel against Meredith as a result. Even steadfast Cullen is increasingly uncomfortable with the way the Gallows is run, even if he is unaware of (or worse, possibly indifferent to) the abuse going on under his nose.

By comparison, we see nothing whatsover of the Kirkwall Chantry's charitable works. We see hardly any in Orgins as it is. The Chantry priestesses work as healers at Ostagar; a job that would be better suited to mages in any case. The Redcliffe chantry shelters the village when undead attack, but that has nothing to do with charity and everything to do with it being the most defensible position. The chantry priestess are in as much danger as everyone else, taking these measures is just as much for their own protection. One priestess in Lothering heckles a merchant into selling his good for a lower price, rather than, say, distributing food to the refugees directly, or helping the village elder make desperately needed healing poultices. The Denerim Chantry is barred and forbids entry to all. Not exactly generous.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 23 novembre 2011 - 02:31 .

[Lynata]

 You are dismissing facts solely because they don't fit in your argument. Now even the perfect example for Chantry charity - the situation in Lothering - isn't enough anymore? Despite the only ones staying behind to protect the people were the clergy and the templars when Ferelden as a nation pulled out its troops?
The haggling you criticize has also not been done so that the Chantry could buy cheap goods, but rather so that the merchant wouldn't charge excessive prices from the refugees in need of supplies...

As far as Kirkwall is concerned, Meredith is actually the perfect example herself. She was an orphan taken in and cared for by the Chantry, you know. Actually, if you would read the Codex, you will notice that it flat-out states that there is an entire class within its hierarchy consisting of poor people taken in by the organization.

I can understand why people sympathize with the plight of the mages - even though I maintain that it is a necessary system, I acknowledge how bad it must look to some when taking only the mages' point of view into consideration. Still, vilifying the entire Chantry when we have seen so many examples of its members' good deeds, not to mention the basic dogma of this faith - "advocating that the strong are charged to protect the weak and succor the needy" - seems like an extremist opinion, very much like Anders who is only seeing black and white, judging people by the regalia they wear rather than the actions they commit.

[Plaintiff]

[quote]Lynata wrote...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]
A while, but that doesn't matter because I'm stil right. Since you played the game so recently, you'll remember that after Justice emerges, Ella says "Get away from me, demon!" to which Justice replies "I am no demon! Are you one of them [ie, a templar] that you would call me such?"

Justice does not kill Ella for surrendering, he kills her because he mistakes her for a member of the Templars, who he has sworn to destroy. Indeed, Ella has no intention of surrendering to the templars or to anyone. The idea does not even cross her mind unless she survives and takes Hawke's advice to return to the Circle.

Notice I said "Justice", not "Anders". Because Anders is not in control of his body. He regains control of his body just in time to save Ella, if Hawke has sufficient Friendship/Rivalry and encourages him to retake control. I repeat: Justice kills Ella. Anders does not


[quote]Even Anders disagrees with you.[/quote]
The way Anders describes his condition is extremely vague and open to interpretation . If we take your chosen interpretation, then you'll notice that all the actual evidence in the game runs contrary to that. Justice may always be present within Ander's mind, but he is still distinct from it. He does not share Anders feelings about cats or Hawke, he makes decisions differently from how Anders would make them. Frequently, Anders does not even remember what occurred while Jusitce was in charge. In essence, Anders goes into a coma when Justice takes hold.

It is also evident from the very first time you meet him that Anders struggles to keep Justice in check. In his lucid state (which is most of the time), Anders is openly opposed to Justice's harsh measures. They are very obviously two separate beings sharing a single body. Your interpretation of Anders' statements may be correct, but in that case Anders would be wrong.


[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]
You have already admitted she has obsessive paranoia, and had it before she got ahold of the idol. That's a mental illness. There is also the PTSD from watching her sister turn into an abomination and slaughter her whole village. Meredith may not be obviosuly insane in the way media typically interprets the term, but she is in a weakened mental state and has been since childhood. She should never have been made a templar in the first place, and wouldn't have been if psychiatry existed in Thedas. But it doesn't, and Meredith has the exact qualities the Chantry looks for when recruiting: blind zealotry and intense fear and hatred of magic.

[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]
1. It means that a blood mage will be a blood mage regardless of where they are located, and that living free of the Circle does not guarantee that an apostate will become maleficar. Anders was an apostate, and never became a maleficar, unless the Warden makes him one in Awakening.
2. All that means is that the characters serve the story, which is what I said. The game isn't going to send you on missions to have tea and cakes with nice mages because that would be boring, but it should be perfectly obvious that they exist. If every single mage in Thedas was a violent escaped blood mage, then why the hell are the Temlars lazing around the Gallows, picking at their navels?
3. We don't lock all gun owners in a tower as a preventitive measure.
4. There are books on blood magic in Kinloch Hold. Jowan claims to have learned his art from them. He might be lying, sure, but that seems unlikely. The books exist so obviously it is possible to acquire the knowledge without necessarily consorting with demons. In Awakenings, you can buy a tome on Blood Magic that will unlock the Blood Magic specialization for those who missed it in the main game, no demons required, just add water.

[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]
So you admit, then, that the attitude of the Chantry regarding mages (ie, one of exploitation) is a significant part of the problem?

Merrill was not possessed by a demon, and was perfectly in control of her own actions. Her clan was no more at risk from her merely practicing blood magic than they were from her picking flowers.


[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]
Here's a mind**** for you: People can believe in a  cause without being religious.

There is no evidence whatsoever that religious zeal protects from mind domination or bribery. In Origins we are required to go through Kinloch Hold and slaughter a number of possessed templars. There's also the Mages Collective mission to deliver lyrium to a corrupt templar. Alistair is not especially religious but he is still able to use the abilities he gained from training as a templar. If anything, all the evidence points to faith in the Maker being largely irrelevent to ones susceptibility to possession.


[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]
Bigger risk for bigger rewards. People do not shy away from nuclear power, despite the devestation it can (and has) caused. It's pretty obvious that the people of Thedas do need magic. Their non-magical knowledge of medecine is scant at best, they have none of the technology of the Qunari, which makes them extremely vulnerable in war. We do not need magic because we live in a sufficiently advanced society where there are plenty of alternatives. It will be centuries before Thedas reaches that same level of technological development, if it ever does. Until then, magic is the best and only resource it has.

[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]
"Irredeemable" is an extremely vague word and subject to personal interpretation. If you look up the codex entry on the First Annullment, you'll find that, actually, anullment is a typical response to rebellion, and that mass demonic possession is not required in order to call one. The situation at Kinloch Hold is extremely unique and, so far, no mention of a similar occurence has been made in game lore. The Kirkwall Annullmet is actually a very typical example of how the Rite of Annullment works.


[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? [/quote]
It tastes like bull****. Could that be because it is bull****? The fact that you refer to mages as "right-wing" tells me you have no udnerstanding of politics in Thedas or the real world. "Right-wing" is used to refer to extremely conservative, traditional and typically religious political parties. Most mages, and Anders in particular, being advocates of civil rights for a minority group, are extremely leftist.


[quote]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.[/quote]
What the Chant of Light says and what the Chantry actually teaches are pretty disparate. Anders is a devout Andrastian, and knows full-well what the Chant of Light says. He uses passages from it in his manifestos specifically to discredit the current stance of the Chantry regarding mages and magic, which takes some serious liberties with certain passages.  For instance, "serving mankind" does not equate to "being locked up in a tower".


[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.[/quote]
Some noble lords only care for themselves and the Chantry is no better. If it was above feuds and wars, there would be no Exalted Marches in the first place. The Chantry is frequently the aggresor in past conflicts, very rarely does it act in self-defense.


[quote]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]
But they are sane and healthy in every way that the terms are actually defined, naivete is not a mental illness, neither is Morrigan's callousness and lack of feeling, which a) are symptoms specific to being raised in a harsh environment by a harsh woman, regardless of her status as a mage and can be broken down over time through the corect dialogue options.

Morrigan's moral code favours power over weakness but that does not make her a bad person, and there are clear exceptions. If she didn't think the weak were worth preserving to at least some degree, she would've stood aside and allowed the Blight to trample over Ferelden. 


[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]
Yes, actually, that's exactly what I mean. The occasional blood mage and abomination are exactly that, occasional. Not the frequent occurences the games would have you believe. In both Origins and DA2, you are an adventurer who deliberately wanders into places no sane person would ever go. Of course you encounter more than your fair share of maleficar and demons. You also encounter quite a few dragons, but it's understood that, in spite of their recent resurgence, they're still very rare.

Yes, we know mages that want more power exist. We frequently kill them, without any magic at our disposal. Clearly, a second Tevinter is more easily preventable than you have been led to believe.


[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]
Except tranquiling a Harrowed mage is against Chantry law, and merely escaping does not warrant such a harsh and inhumane punishment. In fact, nothing does.

Anders is not a blood mage and prior to DA2, there was no proof that he ever killed anyone, except in self-defense. Aneirin's situation was not typical, it was handled extremely poorly by templars who should've known better and should've been severly punished for their gross dereliction of duty.


[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]
So you're an advocate of taking the easy route instead of doing the hard work required to actually make things better? Mages do not need constant watching any more than ordinary humans need a squad of policeman in their house twenty-four hours a day. We lock people up after they commit crimes, not before.

The "dangers" you outlined already exist. The Circle system did not prevetn Arl Howe from sending a mage to attack the Couslands, it did not prevent Loghain from using Jowan to poison Arl Eamon. The Circle does not actually prevent any of the things you claim. Yes, a system like the one I outlined has its holes. Guess what, no system is perfect, they all rely on people being willing to co-operate with it and with each other.

My system operates on the basis of forming a spirit of co-operation between mages and the common populace, as opposed to the current one, which only serves to alienate ad dehumanize mages. There is no nreason to suppose that my system would be unworkable. For every mage that desires power, there are dozens like Anders, Bethany, Aneirin and Alain, who just want to be free to live a normal life; to experience friendship and love and all the other things denied to them by an environment of constant persecution. If mages had something worth living for and protecting: a real home, a real family, real friends, more of them would stand up against mages like Uldred instead of alongside them. 


[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]
There's a pisspot in Hawke's bedroom at the manor, and beds exist. People never claim to sleep or urinate, but the equipment to do so is there and the implication is obvious. The Chantry gets no such consideration. If they had put the priestess begging for donations in Hightown instead of Lowtown, that would've gone a long way towards showing me that the Chantry actually did ****. As it stands, it just looks like the Chantry is entirely out of touch with the economic realities of living in Kirkwall.


[quote]Right, I guess it's only him who is allowed to do good deeds then.[/quote]
I never said that. Obviously the Chantry is allowed to do good deeds. Everyone is allowed to do good deeds. My point was that you say the Chantry does certain things, when we see no evidence that this is the case, and you claim that Anders is a selfish and unfeeling person who cares little for others, when this is blatantly not the case.


[quote]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.[/quote]
Anders specifcally singles out Thrask as being "alright, for a templar", and he blames blood mages like Tarohne just as much for giving in to the stereotypes.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 23 novembre 2011 - 05:16 .

[heiveldboy]

I'm gonna answer to these statements, because this is a clear mage vs templar thing going on. But I must say that you 2 are very very good. 
[quote]

[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]

Only when the circumstances allow it. Templars would always prefer to hunt a single rogue mage (no blood mage at all, let's say a healer) instead of helping people fight against darkspawn or helping wounded people. Besides I haven't really seen the templars do anything but standing guard and hanging out at the chantry. I'm NOT saying that they DON'T do more than hunting mages, but these other tasks are not done out charity or out of having good souls, but because their Revered Mother (she should always be in charge, above the K-C) says or maybe out of fear for not getting lyrium. Doing something good does not mean that you WANT to do it (Morrigan is the perfect example)
[Quote]

[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]

But the circle is not supposed to be a prison! Wynne herself (who loves the circle) states that it's a place of learning and of protection, not just a place to lock the mages up and throw away the key. Well I have said before that the first enchanter is in charge, not the chantry. HE has the last say and thus if the chantry follow its own rules (which it seldom does regarding mages) they should have to listen. If Irving or Orsino decide to deny passage to the K-C, then they should listen by their own rules

No gregoir is NO nice guy who doesn't... He is a man with experience and believes that the chantry has to contol and watch over the circle, not just command them like dogs. Whenever he gets wind of a blood mage or a mage doing something stupid and dangerous he will act on it (as shown with jowan). he can be just as hard as Meredith and will punish the mages as hard as is necessary, but he understands that not everything the mages do is dangerous (example male apprentices who burn holes through the walls to look at girls). He and Irving also know each other well and have years of experience of working together and thus form a decent pair. 

[quote]

[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]

It was always too late, the second she saw her sister turn into an abomination and saw it killing 70 people before it was slain she had mental trauma's from the experience and developed an enormous amount of hatred towards mages. To be honest I believe she should never have become a templar, because she would never have (and never has) treated mages with the respect (or even pity) they deserve. She sees them as evil, all of them and nothing more and they all have to die. Orsino should have been more forthcoming during her early years, but so does Meredith. This shows exactly how you see these things. You see Orsino as being a fool, Plaintiff sees Meredith as a fool and an evil woman and I see 2 fools arguing about things they shouldn't have to. Neither is looking at what is best for their 'people'. One wants to destroy all mages before they can commit crimes many would never even do in normal circumstances and the other just wants to get rid of the current K-C and thus foils her in every possible way (Orsino) 

[quote]

[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.[/quote]

A single mage can be killed by any villager with a pitchfork or a hunter with a bow as well (if it were lucky enough to find the body, same as for the warrior). Both are capable of doing the same things, both are easily capable of killing a village. A warrior with sufficient skill is just as capable as a mage and both have to train and study their arts before they're any good at it (otherwise 5 year-olds would able to destroy villages, but none can because they have no control over their powers whatsoever). And a warrior doesn't need to band together with 'likeminded' individuals to destroy a village, if he's good enough he can do it on his own (cough cough Warden and Hawke cough cough). Besides if mages really were that much better than warriors or rogues than non-mage Wardens and Hawkes should have been killed after they met their first mage (which should be the Howe mage or the Hurlock emissary in the Korcari Wilds). The only thing I do agree with you is that mages have it that much easier and only need to wave their hand to inflict damage whereas a warrior or rogue have to wave their whole arm and be able to hold a dagger, sword, axe,...


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

I do recall many people with swords killing guards or militia with redicilous easy and and many mages killing templars with ease (example Fereldan circle) This system is not perfect and never will be
 
[quote]
[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]

That is because you keep all the mages together in a tower and offer them on a silver plate during their harrowing. Many templars keep the mages together out of fear of one of them becoming an abomination, but if you hold too many mages together the demons are drawn to it like a beacon. And I repeat my previous statement: just because you have magic doesn't mean you'll end up becoming an abomination and just because you don't have magic doesn't mean you won't end up becoming an abomination.
The only thing I agree with is that a possessed mage is ON AVERAGE more powerful than a possessed 'normal' guy, the demon itself also determines how much power the abomination has and not just the host

[quote]


[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]

We don't have enough information to fully conclude this and I suspect that Bioware still has a lot to show regarding this. Just because one darkspawn emissary just happens to hold a tevinter amulet doesn't mean that the story the chantry tell is true. I think we need more information before we can discuss about this.

I agree, but that doesn't mean the safeguards have to be responsible for or have to play a part in the problems the package creates.

[quote]


[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]

religious denial? smooth...
But I'll answer your religious answer with more religious denial :
You forget that the Maker didn't write the chant. The Maker hasn't done anything to show that He/It even exists. Andraste wrote that book, Andraste established the chantry, Andraste fought against the Imperium (who was ruled by mages). If Andraste had been on the other side or had been neutral or anything else than the enemies of the mages the chant would have been totally different and people might not even have heard of the Maker. The chant says that the Maker created the world, then why would the priests and the templars hate magic so much and consider it a curse when 'their almighty maker' created it? Because of Andraste and because she wrote that damned book.

[quote]


[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]

no you would really make a good Templar, you are everything they stand for, hence the reason why it's so fun to have this discussion.

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...



[quote]Lynata wrote...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]
A while, but that doesn't matter because I'm stil right. Since you played the game so recently, you'll remember that after Justice emerges, Ella says "Get away from me, demon!" to which Justice replies "I am no demon! Are you one of them [ie, a templar] that you would call me such?"

Justice does not kill Ella for surrendering, he kills her because he mistakes her for a member of the Templars, who he has sworn to destroy. Indeed, Ella has no intention of surrendering to the templars or to anyone. The idea does not even cross her mind unless she survives and takes Hawke's advice to return to the Circle.

Notice I said "Justice", not "Anders". Because Anders is not in control of his body. He regains control of his body just in time to save Ella, if Hawke has sufficient Friendship/Rivalry and encourages him to retake control. I repeat: Justice kills Ella. Anders does not[/quote]

Justice and Anders are one and the same being, namely an abomination. What Justice wants is what Anders want. Anders only goes into 'Justice Mode' when he's angry and it's a frenzy, but that doesn't mean he doesn't want what Justice does. True he never wanted to kill Ella and in his Justice mode he saw Ella as a templar, but that doesn't excuse the fact that Anders (in Justice Mode) was going to or actually does kill her.
[quote]


[quote]Even Anders disagrees with you.[/quote]
The way Anders describes his condition is extremely vague and open to interpretation . If we take your chosen interpretation, then you'll notice that all the actual evidence in the game runs contrary to that. Justice may always be present within Ander's mind, but he is still distinct from it. He does not share Anders feelings about cats or Hawke, he makes decisions differently from how Anders would make them. Frequently, Anders does not even remember what occurred while Jusitce was in charge. In essence, Anders goes into a coma when Justice takes hold.

It is also evident from the very first time you meet him that Anders struggles to keep Justice in check. In his lucid state (which is most of the time), Anders is openly opposed to Justice's harsh measures. They are very obviously two separate beings sharing a single body. Your interpretation of Anders' statements may be correct, but in that case Anders would be wrong.[/quote]

No as I said before when Anders goes into Justice mode he just goes into a frenzy and normally you don't remember what you do in a frenzy (or not completely). When Anders is angry he doesn't care about cats or Hawke or whatever, he thinks about only one thing: freeing all mages. besides Anders cares more about the mages than about cats or Hawke, something he clearly states several times in the game.

He is struggling to keep Justice in check and is against Justice harsh measures, but that doesn't mean that they are
2 separate beings. It's the same as normal people in RL who are angry. they go into a heated argument, they lose control over their emotions and hurt or even kill the other person/group of people. That doesn't mean however that they can't regret it after it happened however.
Besides Anders himself clearly states in the beginning and end of the game that they are one and the same being. "When we merged, he  ceased to be. We are one now"
 [quote]


[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]
You have already admitted she has obsessive paranoia, and had it before she got ahold of the idol. That's a mental illness. There is also the PTSD from watching her sister turn into an abomination and slaughter her whole village. Meredith may not be obviosuly insane in the way media typically interprets the term, but she is in a weakened mental state and has been since childhood. She should never have been made a templar in the first place, and wouldn't have been if psychiatry existed in Thedas. But it doesn't, and Meredith has the exact qualities the Chantry looks for when recruiting: blind zealotry and intense fear and hatred of magic.[/quote]

Meredith WAS insane and as Plaintiff said before she is in a weakened mental state after her sister did what she did. She should never have become a templar, as she never was really capable of working TOGETHER with mages.
Besides if psychiatry existed in Thedas everybody in Thedas would have to get their brains checked, since no one is really 'normal' in the franchise.

[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]
1. It means that a blood mage will be a blood mage regardless of where they are located, and that living free of the Circle does not guarantee that an apostate will become maleficar. Anders was an apostate, and never became a maleficar, unless the Warden makes him one in Awakening.
2. All that means is that the characters serve the story, which is what I said. The game isn't going to send you on missions to have tea and cakes with nice mages because that would be boring, but it should be perfectly obvious that they exist. If every single mage in Thedas was a violent escaped blood mage, then why the hell are the Temlars lazing around the Gallows, picking at their navels?
3. We don't lock all gun owners in a tower as a preventitive measure.
4. There are books on blood magic in Kinloch Hold. Jowan claims to have learned his art from them. He might be lying, sure, but that seems unlikely. The books exist so obviously it is possible to acquire the knowledge without necessarily consorting with demons. In Awakenings, you can buy a tome on Blood Magic that will unlock the Blood Magic specialization for those who missed it in the main game, no demons required, just add water.[/quote]

1. True, every mage who wishes to become a blood mage will find a way to become one. However there are less blood mages in the circle than there are in Tevinter (where mages are free) and the circle does have a lot of ways to kill the blood mages (because no blood mage I have met so far has had noble intentions)
2. Because otherwise you would get no xp and wouldn't be able to defeat the qunari and such. Besides the point of the game is to kill your opponents. Kirkwall was already known in Origins to be a place with lots of apostates and maleficars, so why not make them the main enemy in DA2?
3. True, there are mages with good intentions and they shouldn't have to be locked up. It would be handier if the harrowed mages were allowed to live in a village or so close to a circle or a chantry where templars still can check on them.
4. This does raise some questions though: how do most of the blood mages get their blood magic? Most of them aren't abominations when you meet them (and some only turn into one during the fight or when they are about to die), yet demons always want a soul. Another thing is that books will never be as effective as being taught something. Those who would learn blood magic from books would have to be weaker than those who were taught by a demon or master. 

[quote][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]
So you admit, then, that the attitude of the Chantry regarding mages (ie, one of exploitation) is a significant part of the problem?

Merrill was not possessed by a demon, and was perfectly in control of her own actions. Her clan was no more at risk from her merely practicing blood magic than they were from her picking flowers.[/quote]

The clan was't afraid of Merrill practicing blood magic, the clan was afraid of Merrill doing something to the mirror and releasing the taint or the demon from the mirror. The clan doesn't give a thing about blood magic and doesn't have the same views as the chantry. They only fear and hate that which could do harm upon them, which in their case were humans (Hawke) and Merrill who could release the taint or the demon.

[quote]


[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]
Here's a mind**** for you: People can believe in a  cause without being religious.

There is no evidence whatsoever that religious zeal protects from mind domination or bribery. In Origins we are required to go through Kinloch Hold and slaughter a number of possessed templars. There's also the Mages Collective mission to deliver lyrium to a corrupt templar. Alistair is not especially religious but he is still able to use the abilities he gained from training as a templar. If anything, all the evidence points to faith in the Maker being largely irrelevent to ones susceptibility to possession. [/quote]

True, believing in a god has not nothing to do with an increase chance to ward of magic or resist becoming possessed. The main reason why Templars are better at destroying magic is because they are trained to do it, they have to have a disciplined mind and they know more about how mind control works. They know how to counter it, but that doesn't mean that they can't be possessed with the right attributes or creative ways.  (I thought that the fact that you get +20 mental resistance in DAO for the 3rd talent of the templar would tell as much)

[quote]


[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]
Bigger risk for bigger rewards. People do not shy away from nuclear power, despite the devestation it can (and has) caused. It's pretty obvious that the people of Thedas do need magic. Their non-magical knowledge of medecine is scant at best, they have none of the technology of the Qunari, which makes them extremely vulnerable in war. We do not need magic because we live in a sufficiently advanced society where there are plenty of alternatives. It will be centuries before Thedas reaches that same level of technological development, if it ever does. Until then, magic is the best and only resource it has[/quote].

True, people will never shy away from the easy path when it is available. Besides we have no or little information about what would be the case if magic didn't exist. It could be better (no abominations, peace and all that) or it could be worse (lots  of diseases, the Qunari controlling them and all that).
The fact is that magic does exist and that there are better ways to use it than to lock every mage up for something they COULD do.
The circle itself is an excellent idea and it's almost perfect, however the chantry and it templars don't follow all the rules themselves, which results into abuses and results into mages rebelling.

[quote][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]
"Irredeemable" is an extremely vague word and subject to personal interpretation. If you look up the codex entry on the First Annullment, you'll find that, actually, anullment is a typical response to rebellion, and that mass demonic possession is not required in order to call one. The situation at Kinloch Hold is extremely unique and, so far, no mention of a similar occurence has been made in game lore. The Kirkwall Annullmet is actually a very typical example of how the Rite of Annullment works.[/quote]

Do we really know that? I think we have only seen 2 rites of annullments in the game (Ferelden and Kirkwall) and we can read about the origin of the rite, but we see no further examples. But I do agree that "irredeemable' is an extremely vague word, but then again so is everything the chantry says and so is everything Anders does. The whole Mage-Templar war began because of different perspectives (Meredith and most of her templars VS the mages and some templars)

[quote]

[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? [/quote]
It tastes like bull****. Could that be because it is bull****? The fact that you refer to mages as "right-wing" tells me you have no udnerstanding of politics in Thedas or the real world. "Right-wing" is used to refer to extremely conservative, traditional and typically religious political parties. Most mages, and Anders in particular, being advocates of civil rights for a minority group, are extremely leftist.[/quote]

The Third Reich and the Templar/Mages issue have NOTHING to do with each other. Leave the RL things in real life and leave the game things in the game.

[quote]


[quote]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.[/quote]
What the Chant of Light says and what the Chantry actually teaches are pretty disparate. Anders is a devout Andrastian, and knows full-well what the Chant of Light says. He uses passages from it in his manifestos specifically to discredit the current stance of the Chantry regarding mages and magic, which takes some serious liberties with certain passages.  For instance, "serving mankind" does not equate to "being locked up in a tower".[/quote]

True, Andraste said that Magic 'must serve men, and not rule over him' and the templars interprete in the way THEY see fit. And Anders does the same, he sees that sentence the way HE sees fit
[quote]


[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.[/quote]
Some noble lords only care for themselves and the Chantry is no better. If it was above feuds and wars, there would be no Exalted Marches in the first place. The Chantry is frequently the aggresor in past conflicts, very rarely does it act in self-defense.[/quote]

Just because the Chantry is a religious institution doesn't mean it isn't corrupt. How many priests and Templars have turned a blind eye when a mage was raped or abused or unjustly treated (Elthina comes to mind) and how many priests would choose a mages' word over that of their own templars?
And last I checked the Chantry isn't too kind against those that threaten its power? The Elves in the Dales come to mind.
[quote]


[quote]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]
But they are sane and healthy in every way that the terms are actually defined, naivete is not a mental illness, neither is Morrigan's callousness and lack of feeling, which a) are symptoms specific to being raised in a harsh environment by a harsh woman, regardless of her status as a mage and can be broken down over time through the corect dialogue options.

Morrigan's moral code favours power over weakness but that does not make her a bad person, and there are clear exceptions. If she didn't think the weak were worth preserving to at least some degree, she would've stood aside and allowed the Blight to trample over Ferelden. [/quote]

Nobody in the game is sane, nobody is. Every character you meet has his/her wtf moments and everyone has things you disagree with.
Elthina is crazy in the fact that she does nothing to help the mages or the templars and keeps rambling about that Blood Maker
Meredith is crazy in the fact... well you know why
Merrill is crazy in the fact that she doesn't want to listen to whatever Hawke or the Keeper says and stubbornly wants to recover 'lost glory'
The keeper is crazy in the fact that she NEVER mentions to Hawke or to Merrill that the demon wanted Merrill to fix the mirror. If she had said that in the first place, the clan would still be alive.
Morrigan is crazy in the fact that she only craves power and never wants to help 'without anything to gain' (technically you always gain something), but I suspects that deep down inside she's just scared and lonely (shown during a romance)

[quote]


[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]
Yes, actually, that's exactly what I mean. The occasional blood mage and abomination are exactly that, occasional. Not the frequent occurences the games would have you believe. In both Origins and DA2, you are an adventurer who deliberately wanders into places no sane person would ever go. Of course you encounter more than your fair share of maleficar and demons. You also encounter quite a few dragons, but it's understood that, in spite of their recent resurgence, they're still very rare.

Yes, we know mages that want more power exist. We frequently kill them, without any magic at our disposal. Clearly, a second Tevinter is more easily preventable than you have been led to believe.[/quote]

True, except for the circle in DAO, how many blood mages do we meet besides them? We can kill a house of blood mages in Denerim and the slavers from Tevinter in the Alienage (and everybody knows those slavers are blood mages) and a few blood mages we don't really see that many blood mages.

And in Kirkwall many turn to blood magic becuase they would rather be considered Maleficar and live for a short while than to return to the gallows to be locked up again. This does say something about how the templars treat their mages.

[quote]


[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]
Except tranquiling a Harrowed mage is against Chantry law, and merely escaping does not warrant such a harsh and inhumane punishment. In fact, nothing does.

Anders is not a blood mage and prior to DA2, there was no proof that he ever killed anyone, except in self-defense. Aneirin's situation was not typical, it was handled extremely poorly by templars who should've known better and should've been severly punished for their gross dereliction of duty. [/quote]

True, using the rite of Tranquility on a Harrowed mage is against their own laws. Karl should never have been made tranquil, he had passed his Harrowing (according to Anders) and was no blood mage. The templars in Kirkwall used the rite too far and too many times, just to shut mages up when they 'spoke out of turn'. and when Elthina is confronted with this she merely states that the rite is a necesity...
This does show that the Chantry is just as corrupted as every other institution.

[quote]


[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]
So you're an advocate of taking the easy route instead of doing the hard work required to actually make things better? Mages do not need constant watching any more than ordinary humans need a squad of policeman in their house twenty-four hours a day. We lock people up after they commit crimes, not before.

The "dangers" you outlined already exist. The Circle system did not prevetn Arl Howe from sending a mage to attack the Couslands, it did not prevent Loghain from using Jowan to poison Arl Eamon. The Circle does not actually prevent any of the things you claim. Yes, a system like the one I outlined has its holes. Guess what, no system is perfect, they all rely on people being willing to co-operate with it and with each other.

My system operates on the basis of forming a spirit of co-operation between mages and the common populace, as opposed to the current one, which only serves to alienate ad dehumanize mages. There is no nreason to suppose that my system would be unworkable. For every mage that desires power, there are dozens like Anders, Bethany, Aneirin and Alain, who just want to be free to live a normal life; to experience friendship and love and all the other things denied to them by an environment of constant persecution. If mages had something worth living for and protecting: a real home, a real family, real friends, more of them would stand up against mages like Uldred instead of alongside them. [/quote]

It is DOABLE to have the templars check upon the mages once in a while and see if they aren't hiding anything. But the fact is that no sane templar would take the difficult path when an easier path is available. And this would diminish the power of the Chantry, which they would NEVER (read: they would rather have the Darkspawn destroy all of Thedas) allow.

@ Plaintiff: we have no real reason to believe your system is workable as well. You yourself say that a system only works when the people working in it are willing to work together, but how do you know these mages will work together? How do you know that they will work together and oppose someone as Uldred? They could just as easily support him.
The circle is a very good thing on paper, everything has been thought of and the Templars and Mages should be working together just fine. It's the reality that is the problem... 
[quote]


[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]
There's a pisspot in Hawke's bedroom at the manor, and beds exist. People never claim to sleep or urinate, but the equipment to do so is there and the implication is obvious. The Chantry gets no such consideration. If they had put the priestess begging for donations in Hightown instead of Lowtown, that would've gone a long way towards showing me that the Chantry actually did ****. As it stands, it just looks like the Chantry is entirely out of touch with the economic realities of living in Kirkwall.[/quote]

Well we do know that Hawke pisses because he says ' I'll let Sandal EMPTY that'. We also see beds and we see them being used during romance scenes. I do however see not a single priest in Lowtown. and I hear the people in Lowtown say that nobody cares about that... is more than enough to me. We also see during the 'On the Loose' that Evelina went to the Templars to give herself in and ask for money for the refugees. what did they do? They locked her up and didn't do anything for the refugees. This, again, is enough evidence for me.
@ Plaintiff: Don't you mean the priestess begging for donations in LOWTOWN instead of HIGHTOWN? Because I see enough priests in Hightown sassing the guards.

[quote]

[quote]Right, I guess it's only him who is allowed to do good deeds then.[/quote]
I never said that. Obviously the Chantry is allowed to do good deeds. Everyone is allowed to do good deeds. My point was that you say the Chantry does certain things, when we see no evidence that this is the case, and you claim that Anders is a selfish and unfeeling person who cares little for others, when this is blatantly not the case.[/quote]

true, I've never really seen evidence of the Chantry helping the poor, where Anders is curing a child when you enter his clinic for the first time.

[quote]


[quote]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.[/quote]
Anders specifcally singles out Thrask as being "alright, for a templar", and he blames blood mages like Tarohne just as much for giving in to the stereotypes.
[/quote]

Both Anders and the Templars (Meredith) are black vs white people
Anders sees the chantry as evil (he didn't trust Thrask either, as he doesn't object to Grace asking you to kill him)
Meredith and the Templars see the mages as evil. They can easily kill, they do kill, and more and more...

That's the whole problem! They have to work together, yet they only hate one another and don't take the time to try and understand the other group. They let their hatred for the other consume and act accordingly to it.
THIS is the reason the circle isn't working. THIS is the reason why Templars and Mages kill each other all the time. They have to work TOGETHER, yet they don't want to, they only want what they themselves desire, and don't give a **** about what the other desires.

Modifié par heiveldboy, 23 novembre 2011 - 09:32 .

[heiveldboy]

This was a double post, sorry I'm new and don't really how to work with this system yet

Modifié par heiveldboy, 23 novembre 2011 - 09:43 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

heiveldboy wrote...

I'm gonna answer to these statements, because this is a clear mage vs templar thing going on. But I must say that you 2 are very very good. 

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..

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).

Only when the circumstances allow it. Templars would always prefer to hunt a single rogue mage (no blood mage at all, let's say a healer) instead of helping people fight against darkspawn or helping wounded people. Besides I haven't really seen the templars do anything but standing guard and hanging out at the chantry. I'm NOT saying that they DON'T do more than hunting mages, but these other tasks are not done out charity or out of having good souls, but because their Revered Mother (she should always be in charge, above the K-C) says or maybe out of fear for not getting lyrium. Doing something good does not mean that you WANT to do it (Morrigan is the perfect example)

I guess the Templars perpetual desire to hunt mages is the reason for them to not hunt Morrigan in Lothering? And the Templars in Lothering have chased off numerous bandits who have tried to take advantage of the refugees comming to Lothering. Ser Bryant is obviously a man of goodheart, and he defends Lothering because he WANTS to, not because he was told to.

[heiveldboy]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

heiveldboy wrote...

I'm gonna answer to these statements, because this is a clear mage vs templar thing going on. But I must say that you 2 are very very good. 

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..

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).

Only when the circumstances allow it. Templars would always prefer to hunt a single rogue mage (no blood mage at all, let's say a healer) instead of helping people fight against darkspawn or helping wounded people. Besides I haven't really seen the templars do anything but standing guard and hanging out at the chantry. I'm NOT saying that they DON'T do more than hunting mages, but these other tasks are not done out charity or out of having good souls, but because their Revered Mother (she should always be in charge, above the K-C) says or maybe out of fear for not getting lyrium. Doing something good does not mean that you WANT to do it (Morrigan is the perfect example)

I guess the Templars perpetual desire to hunt mages is the reason for them to not hunt Morrigan in Lothering? And the Templars in Lothering have chased off numerous bandits who have tried to take advantage of the refugees comming to Lothering. Ser Bryant is obviously a man of goodheart, and he defends Lothering because he WANTS to, not because he was told to.

That is something I've wondered myself... Why wouldn't they want to hunt Morrigan... My guess is that because she's helping the wardens end the blight. The bandits were not only bothering the refugees, but also the templars as well.
Ser Bryant himself may be a good man (though we don't really get to see much of him), but I'm willing to believe that more were willing to go to Denerim than stay. Besides DA2 states that many templars left before the Darkspawn attacked Lothering and before everyone was evacuated (including Hawke + family)

[Herr Uhl]

heiveldboy wrote...

That is something I've wondered myself... Why wouldn't they want to hunt Morrigan... My guess is that because she's helping the wardens end the blight. The bandits were not only bothering the refugees, but also the templars as well.

Because they have enough trouble without needing to hunt apostates. Other things take precedence.

Ser Bryant himself may be a good man (though we don't really get to see much of him), but I'm willing to believe that more were willing to go to Denerim than stay. Besides DA2 states that many templars left before the Darkspawn attacked Lothering and before everyone was evacuated (including Hawke + family)

That was the horde of darkspawn. Once that arrived, 20 guys wouldn't make much difference.

Edit: Or should we also demand that the warden and Hawke should stay there and face the horde by themselves?

Modifié par Herr Uhl, 23 novembre 2011 - 01:08 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Plaintiff wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chantry in Kirkwall took care of the sick and the poor, which is revealed if you ever listen to what any of the priestesses talk about. What they DON'T do is wander into Darktown, simply becasue it is too damn dangerous for a priestess to travel around there, without an armed escort.

Saying you do something is not the same thing as actually doing it. When Bioware releases DLC that shows the secret room that the Kirkwall Chantry stashes all its less fortunates in, I'll change my tune.

I see. So all the bad things that the Chantry does are also just Anders saying they've been done. The Chantry never takes children from their parents. Templars never rape mages. I guess I won't believe it unless Bioware releases a DLC showing it

That's so utterly moronic, I think it literally made me dumber. That comparison just fails on so many levels.

Unlike the chantry priestesses in Kirkwall claiming to help the poor and sick, we have mountains of corroborative evidence to support Anders' view of the circle, from both games. Isolde & Connor, Jowan, Wynne, Aneirin, Karl, Thrask's daughter, Feynriel,  Ella, Huon and his wife and there's probably more examples I've forgotten. We see firsthand how their lives have been negatively affected by the Circle and its policies, even when they weren't actually in it. The widespread bigotry of the Chantry affects their personal lives greatly, forcing them to keep their powers secret, not just to avoid being taken away from their families, but also to avoid persecution by their friends and neighbours, who have been heavily indoctrinated by the Chantry's teachings. It is established that a Mage Origin warden was taken from their family at a young age. The templars and the Chantry admit that this is what they do and that it is not merely the unfounded grumblings of a few disgruntled mages.

We see Rylock set a trap for Anders even though he is legally protected by his status as a Gray Warden. We see Alrik and Keras threaten and bully the mages in their power, which is bad enough, even if no rape actually occurs We see templars threaten and bully the Dalish at Sundermount when they refuse to hand over Feynriel. They are accused of torturing elf children, which the Templars, far from denying it, claim was a "necessary measure". We are explicitly shown all of this and more. Sampson left the Templars because he couldn't tolerate the abuse perpetrated by his colleagues. Thrask admits that there are templars who abuse mages, Keran admits it, both of them rebel against Meredith as a result. Even steadfast Cullen is increasingly uncomfortable with the way the Gallows is run, even if he is unaware of (or worse, possibly indifferent to) the abuse going on under his nose.

By comparison, we see nothing whatsover of the Kirkwall Chantry's charitable works. We see hardly any in Orgins as it is. The Chantry priestesses work as healers at Ostagar; a job that would be better suited to mages in any case. The Redcliffe chantry shelters the village when undead attack, but that has nothing to do with charity and everything to do with it being the most defensible position. The chantry priestess are in as much danger as everyone else, taking these measures is just as much for their own protection. One priestess in Lothering heckles a merchant into selling his good for a lower price, rather than, say, distributing food to the refugees directly, or helping the village elder make desperately needed healing poultices. The Denerim Chantry is barred and forbids entry to all. Not exactly generous.

Interesting how, even when we do see the Chantry or a member doing something good, you attempt to dismiss it as something else instead. 

[heiveldboy]

Herr Uhl wrote...

heiveldboy wrote...

That is something I've wondered myself... Why wouldn't they want to hunt Morrigan... My guess is that because she's helping the wardens end the blight. The bandits were not only bothering the refugees, but also the templars as well.

Because they have enough trouble without needing to hunt apostates. Other things take precedence.

Ser Bryant himself may be a good man (though we don't really get to see much of him), but I'm willing to believe that more were willing to go to Denerim than stay. Besides DA2 states that many templars left before the Darkspawn attacked Lothering and before everyone was evacuated (including Hawke + family)

That was the horde of darkspawn. Once that arrived, 20 guys wouldn't make much difference.

Edit: Or should we also demand that the warden and Hawke should stay there and face the horde by themselves?

Well 4 humans, 1 elf, 1 dwarf, 1 qunari, 1 dog, 1 golem and 1 PC were able to kill the Archdemon

[Killjoy Cutter]

heiveldboy wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

heiveldboy wrote...

That is something I've wondered myself... Why wouldn't they want to hunt Morrigan... My guess is that because she's helping the wardens end the blight. The bandits were not only bothering the refugees, but also the templars as well.

Because they have enough trouble without needing to hunt apostates. Other things take precedence.

Ser Bryant himself may be a good man (though we don't really get to see much of him), but I'm willing to believe that more were willing to go to Denerim than stay. Besides DA2 states that many templars left before the Darkspawn attacked Lothering and before everyone was evacuated (including Hawke + family)

That was the horde of darkspawn. Once that arrived, 20 guys wouldn't make much difference.

Edit: Or should we also demand that the warden and Hawke should stay there and face the horde by themselves?

Well 4 humans, 1 elf, 1 dwarf, 1 qunari, 1 dog, 1 golem and 1 PC were able to kill the Archdemon

You're forgetting the armies they brought along to fight off the horde while they did it...

[Lynata]

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
Justice does not kill Ella for surrendering, he kills her because he mistakes her for a member of the Templars, who he has sworn to destroy.[/quote]What? Ella is wearing a mage's robe, not a suit of plate armour with templar insignia. How could he possibly mistake her? Apart from the group arriving as the templars with swords drawn have obviously surrounded her, with Ella on her knees, surrendering and begging. Please, let's stay realistic here. Anders lost it and killed her in cold blood. Not because of a mistake but simply because he is a dangerous lunatic whose perception of right and wrong has been twisted.

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
The way Anders describes his condition is extremely vague and open to interpretation.[/quote]Only for apologists.

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
You have already admitted she has obsessive paranoia, and had it before she got ahold of the idol.[/quote]You don't have the facts to make that judgment. It appears I should have chosen a more careful wording to make sure the meaning comes across - what I was referring to is that she was paranoid against mages in the same sense as, say, the US were paranoid against communism in the McCarthy era. That should work.

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
All that means is that the characters serve the story, which is what I said. The game isn't going to send you on missions to have tea and cakes with nice mages because that would be boring, but it should be perfectly obvious that they exist.[/quote]Oh, I see! So all the bad mages we see are only there for story and should not be taken into consideration, but the few corrupted templars we have are suddenly the standard for the entire organization, despite ample evidence to the contrary in DA:O!

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
We don't lock all gun owners in a tower as a preventitive measure.[/quote]We might if we were unable to take their guns away...

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
So you admit, then, that the attitude of the Chantry regarding mages (ie, one of exploitation) is a significant part of the problem?[/quote]How did you get from the Dalish to that conclusion? Ideally, the Chantry could be more open (or rather less fearful) - though I see the current situation as more realistic for a dark fantasy setting of people with a medieval mindset. But the "significant part of the problem" is obviously that mankind hasn't yet learned how to control magic as the elves once did, or still do.

As far as Merrill is concerned, you do know what would have happened to her (and others) if the Keeper didn't sacrifice herself, yes? Obviously, the risk was very real.

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
Here's a mind**** for you: People can believe in a  cause without being religious.[/quote]And here's a newsflash right back at you: As a cause, religious or semi-religious zeal is more reliable, as people will generally draw more conviction out of it (for good and for bad). It is not impossible to achieve a similar degree of zeal from a secular cause, but it is much harder, as religion usually incorporates the concepts of something much greater than oneself (including any wordly cause) combined with the promise of a reward in the afterlife. This is just how people's minds still tick. The belief of being the Maker's holy servant will thus undoubtedly create a more dedicated soldier than "just" the belief of keeping Thedas safe from the harm of magic. The latter is a police officer's cause, and though you have people in the force firmly believing in what they do, the majority simply considers it to be a job.
And as far as Thedas is concerned, even the Grey Wardens have, as an organization, converted to the Maker's faith.

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
Bigger risk for bigger rewards. People do not shy away from nuclear power, despite the devestation it can (and has) caused.[/quote]Doesn't mean that this kind of thinking is entirely wrong. "Bigger risk for bigger rewards" is how the Tevinter Imperium was born.

And no, the people of Thedas do not need magic. We in the real world didn't either. You act like mages are a common sight acting as healers throughout the communities. Well, truth is they don't, because magic is still a rare thing. The only ones profiting from it are the rich and, ironically, the Chantry - though the Chantry uses the wealth generated from selling enchantments by funneling resources back into the communities.

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
The situation at Kinloch Hold is extremely unique and, so far, no mention of a similar occurence has been made in game lore. The Kirkwall Annullmet is actually a very typical example of how the Rite of Annullment works.[/quote]Because you say so, right?

[quote]Plaintiff wrote...
It tastes like bull****. Could that be because it is bull****? The fact that you refer to mages as "right-wing" tells me you have no udnerstanding of politics in Thedas or the real world. "Right-wing" is used to refer to extremely conservative, traditional and typically religious political parties. Most mages, and Anders in particular, being advocates of civil rights for a minority group, are extremely leftist.[/quote]Obviously you did not understand at all what I was aiming at - which was creating the same "bull****" as you did with your earlier comparison of Chantry = Naz*s. Did you even notice me terming my comparison "just as flawed and ridiculous" myself?

But let's just stop here as it doesn't really make sense to continue any further. Our ... interpretations of the setting are simply too far away to provide the basis for civil exchange, and your condescending undertone takes the fun out of the discussion for me.

---

[quote]heiveldboy wrote...
Only when the circumstances allow it. Templars would always prefer to
hunt a single rogue mage (no blood mage at all, let's say a healer)
instead of helping people fight against darkspawn or helping wounded
people.[/quote]Mhmm, I wouldn't say so - in favour of helping wounded people, yes (presumably with the justification that the rogue mage may wound more in the future if he isn't stopped), but when there is a bunch of Darkspawn on the left side and a single mage on the right, then I do think the templars would go against the Darkspawn as they are a clear enemy to all. Generally I agree that it's a circumstancial thing, though. Their main purpose is clear, but as servants of the Chantry many will also see themselves as servants of the people - even above shielding the populace from the dangers of magic.

[quote]heiveldboy wrote...
But the circle is not supposed to be a prison![/quote]Ideally it isn't perceived as such, but it shares some of a prison's characteristics. Where did you read that the First Enchanter has the right to overrule the Knight-Commander when the latter has suspicions and wants to check up on them?
Genuine interest, by the way. If I have missed something, I'd be very interested in filling that gap. It might be important to roleplaying my P&P character!

[quote]heiveldboy wrote...
You see Orsino as being a fool, Plaintiff sees Meredith as a fool and an
evil woman and I see 2 fools arguing about things they shouldn't have
to.[/quote]Actually, I'm firmly with you here. I just see lots of people only blaming Meredith whereas I think both of them were responsible. It was a mutual descent into open rivalry that has, presumably, once started out as mere distrust vs arrogance (imho).

[quote]heiveldboy wrote...
A single mage can be killed by any villager with a pitchfork or a hunter
with a bow as well (if it were lucky enough to find the body, same as
for the warrior). Both are capable of doing the same things, both are
easily capable of killing a village. A warrior with sufficient skill is
just as capable as a mage and both have to train and study their arts
before they're any good at it (otherwise 5 year-olds would able to
destroy villages, but none can because they have no control over their
powers whatsoever). And a warrior doesn't need to band together with
'likeminded' individuals to destroy a village, if he's good enough he
can do it on his own (cough cough Warden and Hawke cough cough).[/quote]This is something I still cannot agree with. Arcane shield and fireball inferno pretty much negate pitchfork and bow, aside from a wild mage having a much more terrible effect on some villagers' morale and willingness to fight (rather than, say, run and hide or beg for their lives). And indeed, a 5 year old mage can destroy an entire village - if he is possessed by a demon. Remember Connor in Redcliffe? How many people had to die because of him being hidden away? How many more would have died if the Warden did not intervene?

As far as the Warden and Hawke are concerned ... well, that's videogames for you. Realistically, anyone being stabbed with a blade a single time should be out of action (which, in DA:O and DA2, happens often enough in the story cutscenes, just not in its RPG combat mechanics). This can happen to mages, too, but their unique abilities allow them to erect impenetrable defenses as well as summoning firepower, at times quite literally, big enough to eradicate a small army all by themselves.

[quote]heiveldboy wrote...
Many templars keep the mages together out of fear of one of them
becoming an abomination, but if you hold too many mages together the
demons are drawn to it like a beacon. And I repeat my previous
statement: just because you have magic doesn't mean you'll end up
becoming an abomination and just because you don't have magic doesn't
mean you won't end up becoming an abomination.[/quote]Mhm, I don't think the demons are drawn to a Circle as a physical location - the Fade is immaterial and removed from the mortal world. It doesn't matter where the mages are, the demons come to them in their dreams. A Circle merely is the most convenient option to keep an eye on them.

And no, just because you have magic doesn't mean you end up an abomination or being possessed - but it is a clear and present threat that happens often enough so that it needs to be taken into consideration. Redcliffe was almost wiped out because of a single child.


[quote]heiveldboy wrote...
But I'll answer your religious answer with more religious denial ../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png:
You forget that the Maker didn't write the chant. [...][/quote]Aye, but Andraste is regarded as the Maker's wife and thus generally granted acceptance as His voice to the mortal world. This is what the Chantry and the many faithful believe, and this is all that matters for this aspect of our debate.

[quote]heiveldboy wrote...
And in Kirkwall many turn to blood magic becuase they would rather be
considered Maleficar and live for a short while than to return to the
gallows to be locked up again. This does say something about how the
templars treat their mages.[/quote]Hmm, I was under the impression that it was the other way around - that the templars in Kirkwall are more strict because this location has always been tainted by a larger occurrence of blood mages, perhaps because the Veil is weaker here. It could have to do with the usage of this city in the times of the Tevinter Imperium.

There has to be a reason for why the templars act different in Kirkwall than elsewhere, after all. It isn't just something you could attribute to the entire Order on principle. Well, unless you are Anders or one of those who want to demonize the entire Chantry. Of course there is also the option that some individual high-ranking templar in Kirkwall's history has established a local "tradition" of fear and abuse for no reason whatsoever other than his own personality, but whilst possible, I deem this as the less likely explanation as Kirkwall remains the exception in this.

[quote]heiveldboy wrote...
True, using the rite of Tranquility on a Harrowed mage is against their own laws.[/quote]I thought Anders was still an apprentice when he started his series of escapes. Making him Tranquil back then would have been in line with Chantry law.
Truth be told, Anders seems to have received a lot of leeway where he came from. Always getting out, always being brought back in? I can see nothing happening the first time, but I'd expect more consequences if it becomes something regular.

[quote]heiveldboy wrote...
It is DOABLE to have the templars check upon the mages once in a while and see if they aren't hiding anything.[/quote]But it becomes way too easy for a mage to hide things he doesn't want anyone to see. So what if a templar comes around once every month to check on some mage's house? Even if they search the entire building, a mage dabbling in blood magic could just have a second home somewhere or hide his books at a friend's place. Entire circles of blood mages could pop up over night, meeting in a tavern!

It would be nice for the mages, but I just think this level of freedom give way too much potential for abuse and would backlash by the known consequences.

What is interesting is the situation of mages elsewhere, though. The P&P mentions things like hedge witches and soothsayers in Rivain, for example, uncontrolled by the Chantry and its templars. I wonder if it is the pursuit of knowledge that might make Circle mages more susceptible to possession? Meaning: Maybe the risk of attracting a demon - though it would always exist on some level - increases the more powerful magic you study? Is it that the Dalish are lesser but also safer mages because of this, or is it that these other humans know secrets similar to the elves?

[quote]heiveldboy wrote...
I've never really seen evidence of the Chantry helping the poor[/quote]The Codex entry on Chantry hierarchy (linked in one of my earlier posts) includes a section dealing with this. Also, chantries throughout Thedas serve as safeguarding the defenseless in times of trouble by taking in refugees (seen in Amaranthine, Redcliffe, ...) who are then granted protection by the templars where available. It is also important to note that the Chantry as an organization believes in the practice of the teachings of the Chant of Light, which is why I cannot accept the notion that there would be a difference between what the Chant contains and what the Chantry teaches.
As far as Elthina is concerned - you may call her negligent in her dealings with Meredith*, but she is described as "kind and compassionate" in official sources, and it stands to reason that her standing orders for the clergy under her command would reflect this.

(*: Writing this, I wonder if this is because Elthina may regard Meredith as some sort of replacement daughter - given the age difference, it could be that she was the one who took care of her after the latter was orphaned. Might explain why she is unwilling to remove her from command, as well as Meredith's almost uncharacteristic acceptance of Elthina's calming influence.)

Modifié par Lynata, 23 novembre 2011 - 03:57 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Justice is driven to kill Ella because she "is theirs". This doesn't mean he sees her as a Templar -- it means that he sees her as having submitted fully to the Templars (whether he's right about that is another question and not the point).

[Plaintiff]

[quote]What? Ella is wearing a mage's robe, not a suit of plate armour with templar insignia. How could he possibly mistake her? Apart from the group arriving as the templars with swords drawn have obviously surrounded her, with Ella on her knees, surrendering and begging. Please, let's stay realistic here. Anders lost it and killed her in cold blood. Not because of a mistake but simply because he is a dangerous lunatic whose perception of right and wrong has been twisted.[/quote]
Justice is not human, he's a fade spirit with only the most tenuous grasp on our reality. What is obvious to us is not obvious to him at all. The way he experiences the world is entirely different from the way a human does.

Anders doesn't kill Ella if you succeed in bring him back to the surface.


[quote]Only for apologists.[/quote]
Jesus ****ing Christ. Saying "We are one" or "I can't tell where he ends and I begin" doesn't ****ing mean anything at all. They're the exact same cliches we use to describe relationships all the time between people who have their own separate bodies. Let's not forget that Anders, to his own knowledge, is the only example of spirit possession to ever exist. It's unlike anything he, or any other mage except Wynne, has ever experienced. There are no records of it happening in books. Merely being the sole sufferer of his condition doesn't actually make him any more qualified.

Justic is clearly a distinct personality from Anders, if everything about the way he interacts with you doesn't already make that obvious, there's nothing I can say that will clear that up.


[quote]You don't have the facts to make that judgment. It appears I should have chosen a more careful wording to make sure the meaning comes across - what I was referring to is that she was paranoid against mages in the same sense as, say, the US were paranoid against communism in the McCarthy era. That should work.[/quote]
Okay, so she's insane in the same way that an entire country was insane. Right, yeah. No arguments here.


[quote]Oh, I see! So all the bad mages we see are only there for story and should not be taken into consideration,[/quote]
I never said that.


[quote]but the few corrupted templars we have are suddenly the standard for the entire organization, despite ample evidence to the contrary in DA:O![/quote]
I never said that either.


[quote]We might if we were unable to take their guns away...[/quote]
Except we wouldn't, because guns are only a problem when you break the laws governing their use.


[quote]How did you get from the Dalish to that conclusion? Ideally, the Chantry could be more open (or rather less fearful) - though I see the current situation as more realistic for a dark fantasy setting of people with a medieval mindset. But the "significant part of the problem" is obviously that mankind hasn't yet learned how to control magic as the elves once did, or still do.[/quote]
Medieval technology doesn't excuse medieval thinking. Logic works in any era.


[quote]As far as Merrill is concerned, you do know what would have happened to her (and others) if the Keeper didn't sacrifice herself, yes? Obviously, the risk was very real.[/quote]
No I don't. Do you? If you have the alternate cutscenes from that section of the game, please tell me, what happens? Does Merrill become possessed, forcing Hawke to kill her like she asked him to when she brought him along? Does she fix the mirror and have nothing happen because Eluvians aren't actually connected to the Fade? Does the demon somehow break out of the statue that neither he nor Merrill had the power to lift the curse from? Or maybe rocks fall, and everyone dies.


[quote]And here's a newsflash right back at you: As a cause, religious or semi-religious zeal is more reliable, as people will generally draw more conviction out of it (for good and for bad). It is not impossible to achieve a similar degree of zeal from a secular cause, but it is much harder,[/quote]
I hope you can back this up.


[quote]as religion usually incorporates the concepts of something much greater than oneself (including any wordly cause) combined with the promise of a reward in the afterlife.[/quote]
Faith in mankind could easily have the same effect.

[quote]This is just how people's minds still tick. The belief of being the Maker's holy servant will thus undoubtedly create a more dedicated soldier than "just" the belief of keeping Thedas safe from the harm of magic. The latter is a police officer's cause, and though you have people in the force firmly believing in what they do, the majority simply considers it to be a job.
And as far as Thedas is concerned, even the Grey Wardens have, as an organization, converted to the Maker's faith.[/quote]
So? This all hinges on the idea that a religious person is somehow more moral and reliable than an atheist, for which there is no evidence.


[quote]Doesn't mean that this kind of thinking is entirely wrong. "Bigger risk for bigger rewards" is how the Tevinter Imperium was born.[/quote]
Obviously if this one thing happened, it is the only thing that can ever happen ever. Nevermind that many, many mages dislike Tevinter jsut as much as the Chantry does.


[quote]And no, the people of Thedas do not need magic. We in the real world didn't either. You act like mages are a common sight acting as healers throughout the communities. Well, truth is they don't, because magic is still a rare thing. The only ones profiting from it are the rich and, ironically, the Chantry - though the Chantry uses the wealth generated from selling enchantments by funneling resources back into the communities.[/quote]
I never claimed that mages did any such thing, although they damn well should be, because Thedas is still stuck in the leeches-and-four-humours stage of medical science.


[quote]Because you say so, right?[/quote]
Because the codex says so. I'm forced to ask; are you actually reading the words I am typing?


[quote]Obviously you did not understand at all what I was aiming at - which was creating the same "bull****" as you did with your earlier comparison of Chantry = Naz*s. Did you even notice me terming my comparison "just as flawed and ridiculous" myself?[/quote]
Believe me, I saw it. But the difference is, my comparison was apt and yours is not. The Chantry is bigoted towards mages, so using another bigoted organization as an analogy is perfectly valid.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 23 novembre 2011 - 07:07 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Going for the National Socialist comparison is almost always going to bring more heat than light -- raw impact over enlightenment.

The Chantry has plenty of its own failings and hypocrisies to discuss.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Plaintiff wrote...
That's so utterly moronic, I think it literally made me dumber. That comparison just fails on so many levels.

Unlike the chantry priestesses in Kirkwall claiming to help the poor and sick, we have mountains of corroborative evidence to support Anders' view of the circle, from both games. Isolde & Connor, Jowan, Wynne, Aneirin, Karl, Thrask's daughter, Feynriel,  Ella, Huon and his wife and there's probably more examples I've forgotten. We see firsthand how their lives have been negatively affected by the Circle and its policies, even when they weren't actually in it. The widespread bigotry of the Chantry affects their personal lives greatly, forcing them to keep their powers secret, not just to avoid being taken away from their families, but also to avoid persecution by their friends and neighbours, who have been heavily indoctrinated by the Chantry's teachings. It is established that a Mage Origin warden was taken from their family at a young age. The templars and the Chantry admit that this is what they do and that it is not merely the unfounded grumblings of a few disgruntled mages.

We see Rylock set a trap for Anders even though he is legally protected by his status as a Gray Warden. We see Alrik and Keras threaten and bully the mages in their power, which is bad enough, even if no rape actually occurs We see templars threaten and bully the Dalish at Sundermount when they refuse to hand over Feynriel. They are accused of torturing elf children, which the Templars, far from denying it, claim was a "necessary measure". We are explicitly shown all of this and more. Sampson left the Templars because he couldn't tolerate the abuse perpetrated by his colleagues. Thrask admits that there are templars who abuse mages, Keran admits it, both of them rebel against Meredith as a result. Even steadfast Cullen is increasingly uncomfortable with the way the Gallows is run, even if he is unaware of (or worse, possibly indifferent to) the abuse going on under his nose.

By comparison, we see nothing whatsover of the Kirkwall Chantry's charitable works. We see hardly any in Orgins as it is. The Chantry priestesses work as healers at Ostagar; a job that would be better suited to mages in any case. The Redcliffe chantry shelters the village when undead attack, but that has nothing to do with charity and everything to do with it being the most defensible position. The chantry priestess are in as much danger as everyone else, taking these measures is just as much for their own protection. One priestess in Lothering heckles a merchant into selling his good for a lower price, rather than, say, distributing food to the refugees directly, or helping the village elder make desperately needed healing poultices. The Denerim Chantry is barred and forbids entry to all. Not exactly generous.

There is sitll a great deal of things about the Circle & Chantry's practices that we have Anders' word for. That whole thing about the most common mage death being suicide for example. That's one of the main reasons for his demanding all the Circles disband because they are too terrible for all mages to live in. It doesn't make sense to take his word for something like that when he's trying to convince you to help him, but demand first hand evidence for the Chantry's charitable acts when you overhear Chantry sisters talk about it amonst themselves. Why would they lie about doing that anyway? Were they talking about false charitable acts in hopes you'd walk by and overhear them and think the Chantry is nicer than it is?

Justice and Anders don't have just one personality between them but they don't have seperate ones either. Even when Justice and Anders are in control they still share the same goals and emotions.

Anders says that there are very few areas where they disagree if you romance him.

Also the Codex doesn't talk about what circumstances the Right of Annulment is commonly enacted in, it talks about the incident that prompted the creation of the Right. Considering Cullen isn't comfortable with Meredith acting as she does, I think that it's implied that this is not a common example, especially since Meredith's explanation for finally starting it aren't what the Right of Annulment was initially conceived for at all.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 23 novembre 2011 - 08:34 .

[DKJaigen]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

There is sitll a great deal of things about the Circle & Chantry's practices that we have Anders' word for. That whole thing about the most common mage death being suicide for example. That's one of the main reasons for his demanding all the Circles disband because they are too terrible for all mages to live in. It doesn't make sense to take his word for something like that when he's trying to convince you to help him, but demand first hand evidence for the Chantry's charitable acts when you overhear Chantry sisters talk about it amonst themselves. Why would they lie about doing that anyway? Were they talking about false charitable acts in hopes you'd walk by and overhear them and think the Chantry is nicer than it is?

Social isolation is a hell for most people. And this is excatly what the circle is combine this with the crap that the templars do in both circles is not so hard to imagine that suicide rate is high. Now i do not doubt  that the chantry does some form of charity work but the how much is a very good question. And i do not doubt that much of the charity work has some ulterior motive. But living in decadent building like the kirkwall chantry makes the claims of charity hollow And second,  the ones that should be receiving charity complain that the chantry doesnt lift a finger.

Their is plenty of evidence that the Anders is correct and their is plenty of evidence that the chantry is talking out of its ass. Why would they lie about this is a silly question but the answer is this: PR.

Modifié par DKJaigen, 24 novembre 2011 - 09:21 .

[Plaintiff]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

There is sitll a great deal of things about the Circle & Chantry's practices that we have Anders' word for. That whole thing about the most common mage death being suicide for example. That's one of the main reasons for his demanding all the Circles disband because they are too terrible for all mages to live in.

This point, I will concede. Anders couldn't possibly know the most common cause of death for Circle Mages, unless he somehow took the time to go around to all the circles and take a poll, which is unlikely at best.

It doesn't make sense to take his word for something like that when he's trying to convince you to help him, but demand first hand evidence for the Chantry's charitable acts when you overhear Chantry sisters talk about it amonst themselves. Why would they lie about doing that anyway? Were they talking about false charitable acts in hopes you'd walk by and overhear them and think the Chantry is nicer than it is?

I think it's more likely that the priestesses are just circlejerking, if anything. I don't recall this dialogue, maybe I haven't seen it. But I imagine it goes something along the lines of:

"Ohmigosh, you're so charitable!"

"Like, no way! You're totes more charitable than I am!"

"Not even! Isn't Sebastian so totally cute?"

"Sebastian is so totally cute."

I'm willing to admit that, at least in Origins, the Chantry can be seen to be aiding sufferers of the Blight, but I see no indication that this is everyday behaviour for the Chantry (although it very well could be, we get no evidence either way). Alistair was taken in by the Chantry and Meredith too, that we know. But I would argue that in those specific instances, they seem to be doing more harm than good.

In any case, the blatant opulence of the Kirkwall Chantry renders all claims of charitable works rather hollow. Isn't shunning base earthly pleasures (including the accumulation of material weatlh) sort of the whole point of joining the Chantry in the first place? Elthina says that "The Maker wouldn't thank her" for getting out of dodge to protect some moldy fingerbones, but the possibility of melting down a five-storey golden statue with no spiritiual value at all and using it to buy food and blankets for the hobos of Darktown never occurrred to her?

Justice and Anders don't have just one personality between them but they don't have seperate ones either. Even when Justice and Anders are in control they still share the same goals and emotions.

Anders says that there are very few areas where they disagree if you romance him.

Agreed, I'm simply pointing out that, despite what Anders says about his own condition, the game clearly presents the two entities as distinct. He can't necessarily be held responsible for what Justice does when he takes the reigns. Their respective methods of solving problems are very different. It took seven years for Anders to work his way up to building a bomb, during which time he was perfectly content to dispense flyers arguing his case. Justice on the other hand, prefers to kill first, ask questions never.

Also the Codex doesn't talk about what circumstances the Right of Annulment is commonly enacted in, it talks about the incident that prompted the creation of the Right. Considering Cullen isn't comfortable with Meredith acting as she does, I think that it's implied that this is not a common example, especially since Meredith's explanation for finally starting it aren't what the Right of Annulment was initially conceived for at all.

Also conceded. Everyone present except Meredith recognizes that the destruction of the Chantry has nothing to do with the mages living in the Gallows. Despite her claims that the people would demand blood, I'm more than confident that most normies in Kirkwall would recognize the difference between organized rebellion and the actions of one individual. To my knowledge, nobody ever actually takes the time to explain to the citizens what the **** just happened. If someone had, I imagine they'd be a lot more reasonable than Meredith is. They'd most likely call for Anders' execution, rather than the annullment of the Circle. Not that I'd let them do that anyway, personally. Anders is my canon romance. Kirkwall can go **** itself.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 24 novembre 2011 - 01:00 .

[KJandrew]

Can pro-mage and pro-templar not just admit that both sides have flaws and you're not going to change each others minds and just stop arguing about it?

[Lynata]

Heh, I don't think that is the problem - from the looks of it, the pro-templar side generally agrees with the potential for unwarranted cruelty, whereas the pro-mage side side generally agrees with the potential for magic endangering innocents. The point of contention is, it seems, whether one side's flaws are strong enough to warrant allowing the other to do its thing.

Although I agree on the chance of changing each others minds being zero. With the right people it can still be fun to debate it, though.

[heiveldboy]

KJandrew wrote...

Can pro-mage and pro-templar not just admit that both sides have flaws and you're not going to change each others minds and just stop arguing about it?

Is this something that happens every time you put a pro-mage and pro-templar together? Now I know how Hawke feels

[Plaintiff]

KJandrew wrote...

Can pro-mage and pro-templar not just admit that both sides have flaws and you're not going to change each others minds and just stop arguing about it?

If we did that, there'd be pretty much nothing left to discuss. None of the other issues in DA2 are nearly this interesting.

[KJandrew]

Plaintiff wrote...

KJandrew wrote...

Can pro-mage and pro-templar not just admit that both sides have flaws and you're not going to change each others minds and just stop arguing about it?

If we did that, there'd be pretty much nothing left to discuss. None of the other issues in DA2 are nearly this interesting.

But by now it's not a discussion it's just a stating and re-hashing the same old points over and over again.