2008 réponses à ce sujet

[MichaelFinnegan]

GavrielKay wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
The issue seems to me that somebody else, other than the person himself, is deciding it, which is the perfect antithesis of freedom. It's another matter if the person is okay with it, but Anders clearly isn't okay with the Ferelden Circle.

Oh, yes, I agree completely that having someone else choose is the bigger problem.  My statement was trying to nullify the idea that, hey, some circles aren't so bad.  Because the mages don't seem to be able to decide to go live in the less horrible ones.

I'd summarize it thus: there may be a point to "prevent" the bad effects of what a mage can do, but there is never a case to actually control every or even many aspects of a mage's life. And it's made manifold worse because the system that is put in place never evolves, and even the suggestion of a change hits a roadblock. I personally think there is no hope for a system that stagnates this way.

Another point, is that apparently the Chantry isn't very good at ensuring that the Knights Commander etc all treat the mages bascially well.  If the Chantry were genuinely concerned for the safety of mages, there would be controls in place to prevent what happens in Kirkwall.  As far as I'm concerned, a truly good organization would make it quite plain that pain visited on the mages by Templars would be turned about four-fold onto the abusers.

The Chantry already has this. And I still don't consider this a very good system. The watchers have watchers over them already - Seekers over the templars. But what is one to do if the people at the top themselves fail to do their duties? We have the Lord Seeker himself with a neat little "backstory" of his own - that has already biased his opinions. There are no good answers to be had with such a system.

If we are to look at reform, we need to expand our thinking beyond this, I guess.

[MichaelFinnegan]

gaurdian9sunshine wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

You of course realize that the Divine was taking the first steps to increase mage freedoms, but the mages just had to go start their little war, and basically put a stick in their own wheel.

I may be misremembering, but didn't the Aequitarians, the largest of the fraternities, vote to punish the Libertarians and stay in the Circle, working with the templars. But it was the Lord High Seeker who was so frustrated that the Divine wasn't hardcore enough that he decided to punish every single mage for the actions of a few libertarians? Kickstarting the war that way.

After the events of Awakenings, the fraternities held a conclave at Cumberland College and Wynne voted mages stay in the tower because she feared the alternative: all the mages leave the circles and they would all possible be masacred.

That is not an unreasonable opinion on the part of Wynne, yes. No matter how much power each mage might have, they might  not stand much of a chance against the rest of Thedas. They are not a military force and they do not have access to unlimited supplies to stand on their own, much less face threats on multiple fronts.

She promised at that counsil that she was going to work to improve conditions of the circles. Several years later, they talked again at another conclave and some of the libertarians got mad at Wynne for not doing more for the mages before that time. She was working with the Divine to help the mages.

The causes for the final confrontation at White Spire? Well, Fiona forces the First Enchanters to divert the topic from the discussion of Tranquility to that of voting for seceding from the Chantry. I think the First Enchanters had a right to vote on it, as granted by the Divine, but the Lord Seeker decides, at that time, to override the authority of the Divine. There was no reason, however, to think that the mages would've decided unanimously to separate from the Chantry. Just like Meredith, the Lord Seeker's fears makes the situation much worse than it needed to have been.

[GavrielKay]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
The Chantry already has this. And I still don't consider this a very good system. The watchers have watchers over them already - Seekers over the templars. But what is one to do if the people at the top themselves fail to do their duties? We have the Lord Seeker himself with a neat little "backstory" of his own - that has already biased his opinions. There are no good answers to be had with such a system.

The Seekers are still likely chosen for their hard core support for the Chantry, not their protectiveness of the mages.  I got the impression they are more interested in looking for weakness in the Templars than in problems with the system itself.

[MichaelFinnegan]

GavrielKay wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
The Chantry already has this. And I still don't consider this a very good system. The watchers have watchers over them already - Seekers over the templars. But what is one to do if the people at the top themselves fail to do their duties? We have the Lord Seeker himself with a neat little "backstory" of his own - that has already biased his opinions. There are no good answers to be had with such a system.

The Seekers are still likely chosen for their hard core support for the Chantry, not their protectiveness of the mages.  I got the impression they are more interested in looking for weakness in the Templars than in problems with the system itself.

It's a bit of both, I think. If this is to be believed. Particularly:
"Seekers are extremely effective investigating abuses within the Circle and hunting particularly evasive apostates."

I'm sure though that it is open to interpretation, but I mostly think the priest meant abuses by the templars. And Cassandra seemed to be on a "fact-finding" mission, and she does acknowledge (for what it's worth) that Meredith was to be blamed for the events at Kirkwall.

And the author of this piece voices similar concerns to mine:
"So we return to my original dilemma. Who watches powers greater than that of the templars? One assumes it's the Divine, but how much could She know about their activities when their very existence is a mystery to most?"

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 03 février 2012 - 07:30 .

[dragonflight288]

In the end, the only possible hope of compromise the Divine could get is if the Chantry as a whole stopped recruiting zealots. Period. Recruit templars who will question their orders about what's right for the mages. Recruit men and women who are more sympathetic to the mages. Bring them to the Circle by all means, but don't remove all contact with the family.

When we have people like the Lord High Seeker and Meredith who would rather go over their superior's heads because of their own paranoia regarding mages, we also have people who cannot be reasoned with.

[Rifneno]

dragonflight288 wrote...

In the end, the only possible hope of compromise the Divine could get is if the Chantry as a whole stopped recruiting zealots. Period. Recruit templars who will question their orders about what's right for the mages. Recruit men and women who are more sympathetic to the mages. Bring them to the Circle by all means, but don't remove all contact with the family.

When we have people like the Lord High Seeker and Meredith who would rather go over their superior's heads because of their own paranoia regarding mages, we also have people who cannot be reasoned with.

Exactly.  The problem is, they can't just stop recruiting zealots.  All of the people who recruit templars would have to agree to it.  And their bosses.  And theirs.  Pretty much the entire Chantry would have to be zealot free.  Which, for a religious organization, isn't bloody likely.  Then after that they'd have to be vigilant about keeping zealots out.  And watching to make sure those that they do have don't BECOME zealots.  It's an overall impossible task.

So, I'm in favor of just giving the templars back the same ruthlessness that they've handed out time and again and go on my own right of annulment.  Corpses are never zealous.

[General User]

Rifneno wrote...
So, I'm in favor of just giving the templars back the same ruthlessness that they've handed out time and again and go on my own right of annulment.  Corpses are never zealous.

That's a wheel that don't stop turning.  Believe me when I say that the only way to stop it from crushing your side is to get off it while you can.

Or as Larry the Mage might say:  "I don't want any part of any 'ruthless corpse making.'  And if that's what the Rebellion's about, then it's got nothing to do with me."

Modifié par General User, 03 février 2012 - 10:48 .

[Dave of Canada]

Because killing everybody who's ever thrown a dismissive glance toward the mages is totally going to solve the problem.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 03 février 2012 - 10:49 .

[Ivucci]

I also have a hard time believing that the reformation could come from within the Chantry+Templars as one unit. I just facepalm every time I hear a discussion or argument end with "This is the will of the Maker". Yet at the same time I haven't quite decided if I find it even remotely possible to build a new system where the Chantry isn't involved... the society in question doesn't seem to be heading in that direction.

I would like to know more about the Seekers. Cassandra strikes me as extremely creepy and kickass, but a fair kickass.

Completely un-edited musings: I'm thinking more along the lines of letting some new "more" secular organization/group/representative have some say in the matter for the sake of balance. (EDIT - such as, I dunno, "Parents for healthy and happy mage kids"). Transforming the Circles into some sort of a university thing or some such.

I still don't think any such change can be achieved peacefully now, though. But I won't mind being proved wrong in da3!

Modifié par Ivucci, 03 février 2012 - 11:45 .

[Ivucci]

deleted

Modifié par Ivucci, 03 février 2012 - 11:35 .

[GavrielKay]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Because killing everybody who's ever thrown a dismissive glance toward the mages is totally going to solve the problem.

Because "killing everybody who's ever thrown a dismissive glance" is exactly what he said?

The Chantry recruits zealots.  I'm sure they occassionally screw up and manage to get some folks who can think a bit for themselves and maybe even develop a bit of respect for mages during their careers, but it is clear from the codex that zealots are preferred.

You cannot reason with a zealot.  You can hope that some life experience eventually mellows them out, or you can provide that whack over the head yourself.

[Lazy Jer]

Rifneno wrote...
Exactly.  The problem is, they can't just stop recruiting zealots.  All of the people who recruit templars would have to agree to it.  And their bosses.  And theirs.  Pretty much the entire Chantry would have to be zealot free.  Which, for a religious organization, isn't bloody likely.  Then after that they'd have to be vigilant about keeping zealots out.  And watching to make sure those that they do have don't BECOME zealots.  It's an overall impossible task.

So, I'm in favor of just giving the templars back the same ruthlessness that they've handed out time and again and go on my own right of annulment.  Corpses are never zealous.

You should write greeting cards.

...or perhaps recruitment signs for the templars, because it's attitudes that like that create zealots for the exact opposite side that hears it.

[Lazy Jer]

GavrielKay wrote...
...but it is clear from the codex that zealots are preferred...

I'll confess I have a bad habbit of skipping over most of the Codex entries I see.  Perhaps you can help me and my short attention span out by telling me where in the codex it says that (or implies as the case may be)?

EDIT: On an unrelated note, does anyone know what the record of number of pages on a non-character fan thread is?  Because I think this thread is a contender.

Modifié par Lazy Jer, 03 février 2012 - 11:44 .

[DPSSOC]

Rifneno wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
On Anders you will keep in mind that he was a constant run away. I went to a nice school with good teachers but many students constantly went on about how harsh and terrible the school was. You know the difference between those kids and me? I didn't cause trouble. I'm not going to say Anders was lying, or even that he's exaggerating, I will however say that people who constantly cause trouble within a community inevitably view that community as harsh and terrible. Again not saying he's lying just pointing out that his view of the Fereldan Circle is heavily biased because of his poor behaviour.

Xilizhra beat me to it. Suicide isn't common unless life sucks.  Period.

 
Yeah, sure.

Rifneno wrote...
And your reply to her that it's useless without reference because of a comparison to to your school? Did your school house people for life in the middle ages where the best "medicine" was liquor, or were you going to school in a modern era with high standards of living and sanitation and most importantly, where it's only full of the very young? Young people don't drop dead of natural causes much. People like Wynne drop dead constantly. Especially when words like "antibiotic" are just gibberish.

Yes without reference, most common, means nothing.  There's too many things not covered in that statement to even say suicide was common, that was my point.  Without knowing how many people died in say a year at the Circle we don't know that suicide was that big of a problem.  If five people die in a year and most are suicides that's one thing, if 50 die and most are suicides that's another.

And I wouldn't be so sure about the elderly turnover rate.  The mages live in pretty cushy surroundings (at least in Fereldan) and mages apparently live long enough that their eyes and mind start to go.  Think of it like the Pope, the Popes have always lived ridiculously long for their time because they have everything provided for them and don't have to exert themselves physically.

Oh one last thing; the best medicine isn't liquor it's flipping magic, guess what a tower full of mages are in no short supply of.

Rifneno wrote...

On Uldred, in any community you will find those who desire more. You could build a utopia where everyone has everything they could ever desire and there would still be people who wanted more. Uldred gathered his followers from fellow Libertarians and power hungry children, if he'd managed to sway Aequitarians, Lecrosians, or Isolationists you'd have a case but I don't recall anything to indicate that.

Oh for the love of God. You get to speak with ONE surviving member of the rebellion as I recall, and she clearly stated she just wanted to be free of the templars. There is NOTHING to indicate he only had libertarians in on it. Google "proof by lack of evidence" to see why your argument falls apart. The fact that google will autocomplete the phrase with "fallacy" is hint number one.

Yes the little blood mage, who clearly states that she believes the Templars deny them blood magic solely to keep them from power, just wants to be free.  You know call me crazy but I don't trust her.

There's also nothing to indicate he had support from outside the Libertarians, and as I pointed out earlier in this thread with no proof for either side, and insufficient evidence, I assume the negative.  Maybe it is a fallacy but you know what I'm very rarely wrong.

[Wulfram]

Considering they recruited Alistair, and didn't want to let him go, they can't have been all that demanding of zealoty

It's a Templar/Anders thread. They always go crazy long.

[General User]

I always thought that Uldred promised power to those that wanted power, freedom to those that wanted freedom, revenge to those that wanted revenge, etc. etc., etc.... and lied to them all.

[Rifneno]

General User wrote...

That's a wheel that don't stop turning. Believe me when I say that the only way to stop it from crushing your side is to get off it while you can.

Or as Larry the Mage might say: "I don't want any part of any 'ruthless corpse making.' And if that's what the Rebellion's about, then it's got nothing to do with me."

The Chantry is the one who started turning that wheel. I'm just shoving it back. Larry can go back to his templar masters then. Probably better that way. If he doesn't have the stomach for war, he's just a liability anyway. Might as well be the Chantry's liability.

DPSSOC wrote...

Maybe it is a fallacy but you know what I'm very rarely wrong.

God, I wish this forum had an ignore user function...

[General User]

Rifneno wrote...

General User wrote...

That's a wheel that don't stop turning. Believe me when I say that the only way to stop it from crushing your side is to get off it while you can.

Or as Larry the Mage might say: "I don't want any part of any 'ruthless corpse making.' And if that's what the Rebellion's about, then it's got nothing to do with me."

The Chantry is the one who started turning that wheel. I'm just shoving it back. Larry can go back to his templar masters then. Probably better that way. If he doesn't have the stomach for war, he's just a liability anyway. Might as well be the Chantry's liability.

I daresay that's where you're going wrong.  It doesn't matter who started what at this point.  It just needs to stop.

[Rifneno]

General User wrote...

I daresay that's where you're going wrong.  It doesn't matter who started what at this point.  It just needs to stop.

Should we work on peace in the middle east after this?

[OldMan91]

Peace is wonderful when it is among equals, as progress is best made when in the presence of justice. When it's among oppressors and oppressed, it is reactionary and conservative. It is not peace at all.

"It needs to stop" is a statement that doesn't imply change. Not taking sides is taking a side, that of the status quo, the natural enemy of progress. If you must balance out the suffering of the mages against the suffering of the templars, then you'll find that the former will weigh far more than the latter, hence why I find my sympathies with the mages.

There is no relativity or discussion here. Rights are an absolute value. Either everyone has equal rights or no one has them. You cannot have some people having more rights than others by virtue of birth.

Modifié par OldMan91, 04 février 2012 - 12:58 .

[GavrielKay]

Lazy Jer wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...
...but it is clear from the codex that zealots are preferred...

I'll confess I have a bad habbit of skipping over most of the Codex entries I see.  Perhaps you can help me and my short attention span out by telling me where in the codex it says that (or implies as the case may be)?

EDIT: On an unrelated note, does anyone know what the record of number of pages on a non-character fan thread is?  Because I think this thread is a contender.

http://dragonage.wik...entry:_Templars is the codex.  The relevant excerpt is

In reality, the Chantry's militant arm looks first for skilled warriors
with unshakable faith in the Maker, with a flawless moral center as a
secondary concern. Templars must carry out their duty with an emotional
distance, and the Order of Templars prefers soldiers with religious
fervor and absolute loyalty over paragons of virtue who might question
orders when it comes time to make difficult choices.

As to Alistair...  he was dropped at the Chantry's doorstep by a prominent Arl.  They likely figured there was some use to be made of him.

[GavrielKay]

OldMan91 wrote...
Peace is wonderful when it is among equals, as progress is best made when in the presence of justice. When it's among oppressors and oppressed, it is reactionary and conservative. It is not peace at all.

Hear Hear.

It is too easy to say that nothing is worth violence and death...  but..  it just isn't true.  Violence may be horrible, but there are things that need to be fought for.

[Rifneno]

I always get a kick out of how templar supporters think we should assume a strange templar is like Alistair. Oddly, no one sees a strange mage as a Bethany. In fact most of them see a strange mage as Huon. And that's A-Ok with them.

[Wulfram]

GavrielKay wrote...


http://dragonage.wik...entry:_Templars is the codex.

It is worth noting that the author of that codex is a First Enchanter, so it reflects a mage's perspective rather than necessarily official Chantry policy.

[Lazy Jer]

Rifneno wrote...

I always get a kick out of how templar supporters think we should assume a strange templar is like Alistair. Oddly, no one sees a strange mage as a Bethany. In fact most of them see a strange mage as Huon. And that's A-Ok with them.

That's only the moderate ones.  The extremists see templars ask Knight-Commander Meredeth and think that's A-Okay.  But then everyone paints the opposing side in the worst possible light.  Pro-Mage people do it as well.