2008 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

Not once in MissOuJ's post does she use the word rape.... Not. Once.
She was talking about the oppressive Circle as it is in its entirety. You on the other hand seem very fond of bringing up the subject of rape.

I was merely pointing out that if the Templars had been a little more strict from the start, a lot of the bad stuff that happened could've been avoided. For instance it would've prevented Meredith from going over the top on the severity on her oppression of mages.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 19 février 2012 - 02:46 .

[Plaintiff]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Not once in MissOuJ's post does she use the word rape.... Not. Once.
She was talking about the oppressive Circle as it is in its entirety. You on the other hand seem very fond of bringing up the subject of rape.

I was merely pointing out that if the Templars had been a little more strict from the start, a lot of the bad stuff that happened could've been avoided. For instance it would've prevented Meredith from going over the top on the severity on her oppression of mages.

She said "abuse". She said "oppression". Both general terms for the various crimes committed by the templars, which includes rape. Because she doesn't use the exact word, you get to ignore the issue? Sorry, no, that's retarded. Also, her initial post was quoting me, and I was definitely talking about rape.

Again, I ask you, given what mages already endure, what "stricter measures" can templars possibly employ that would dissuade rebellion? I assume you aren't advocating the immediate slaughter of mage children upon identification, so let's hear it. Dazzle me.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 19 février 2012 - 02:54 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Funny.. If I wished to discuss rape, then maybe I would have quoted YOU, and not the person talking about the Circle oppresiveness in general, hmm?

And if the Templars hard been more strict about their own rules, and actually cracked down on the mage underground immediately, instead of many years after its discovery, the mages within the Circle wouldn't have grown so rebellious, and the issues would never have risen.
If the Templars had been more strict about blood mages within the Circle, scum like Grace and her gang would have been neutralized before she could exacerbate the situation.
And again if the Templars had been more strict about their own rules, they would have have thrown dirtbags like Alrik and Kerras out of the Order.

[Plaintiff]

Those are some pretty big assumptions you're making.

Mages have rebelled repeatedly for centuries. Putting down one minor organization might delay things very slightly, but that's about it. Eactly what do you imagine will happen? That the mages will realize how "good" they had it in comparison and clean up their act? Not likely. They have a dozen different reasons to be pissed ALREADY, but hey, let's throw more fuel on that fire.

None of the templars had any inkling that Grace was a blood mage, so being stricter about blood magic wouldn't do squat. You can't be strict on something that you can't see.

And you're assuming templars have a rule that even forbids the actions of Alrik and Kerras. I'm by no means certain that this is the case.

But I still don't understand what you mean by "stricter". What preventative measures would be employed? How could the circle possibly be any worse than it is already? Chain every mage to a templar buddy? Public executions to make an example of dissenters?

Modifié par Plaintiff, 19 février 2012 - 03:19 .

[Ivucci]

Jumping in because I, too, would like to know what is meant by "stricter". I don't understand how can anyone be of the opinion that being stricter with the mages would have solved anything or prevented anything. I don't understand how, in the light of what we know is happening in the Circles, can anyone be of the opinion that being "stricter" would have actually been a good idea and especially, that it would have led to anything other than what happened anyway - mages resorting to desperate actions. I'm kind of speechless.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Plaintiff wrote... 
Mages have rebelled repeatedly for centuries. Putting down one minor organization might delay things very slightly, but that's about it. Eactly what do you imagine will happen? That the mages will realize how "good" they had it in comparison and clean up their act? Not likely. They have a dozen different reasons to be pissed ALREADY, but hey, let's throw more fuel on that fire.

 
No the mages havn't. Sure, there have been some few individual mages who have attempted to flee. But nowhere is it as organized or widespread as it is in Kirkwall. All the result of the Mage Underground. Had the Mage Underground been destroyed during its formation period, the amges would never have gotten the inkling to try and escape. Which in turn would have led them to be less rebellious, since they wouldn't dare oppose the Templars, if they were going to be stuck with them.

Plaintiff wrote... 
None of the templars had any inkling that Grace was a blood mage, so being stricter about blood magic wouldn't do squat. You can't be strict on something that you can't see.

 
She was the lover of a known Maleficar and had attempted to run away with him. I'm pretty sure that most, if not all, Templars thought she was a Blood Mage. Thrask, in his eternal wisdom, made sure that they were shown mercy.

Plaintiff wrote... 
And you're assuming templars have a rule that even forbids the actions of Alrik and Kerras. I'm by no means certain that this is the case.

 
There are certainly rules that forbid the unlawful use of the Rite of Tranquility. And I can't imagine why there wouldn't be rules against mistreatment of mages. After all, the Templars are there to protect mages, as much as they are there to protect the world from mages.

Plaintiff wrote... 
But I still don't understand what you mean by "stricter". What preventative measures would be employed? How could the circle possibly be any worse than it is already? Chain every mage to a templar buddy? Public executions to make an example of dissenters?

Stricter does not mean more oppresive neccesarily. It could also just mean that the Templars should follow their own rules more strictly. Even the rules set in place to prevent their own mistreatment of mages.
Executing captured blood mages, for instance, is not more oppresive, but it is a more strict adherence to the Chantry's laws.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Ivucci wrote...

Jumping in because I, too, would like to know what is meant by "stricter". I don't understand how can anyone be of the opinion that being stricter with the mages would have solved anything or prevented anything. I don't understand how, in the light of what we know is happening in the Circles, can anyone be of the opinion that being "stricter" would have actually been a good idea and especially, that it would have led to anything other than what happened anyway - mages resorting to desperate actions. I'm kind of speechless.

I'm talking about being stricter before it all went to ****. And not just about the mages, but about the Templars themselves too.

Had captured blood mages in Kirkwall been executed instead of shown mercy, had apostates and citizens aiding mages escape the Circle been punished, had Templars known to mistreat mages been punished and had the Templars themselves held their Orders ideals as priorities instead of city management, the entire situation would never had risen.

[Cody]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Revolutions though tend to only lead to one of two extremes. In this case: Increased mage oppression, or mage supremacy. Neither of which are acceptable.
The slow change is the hardest one to endure, but it is the one with the best outcome by far.

Cause the African people currently have supreme power over everyone else amirite? And the Jewish currently rule everything on the planet with an Iron first amirite? Cause the people in Egypt and Libya currently have supremacy, AMIRITE? I mean it's not like the military currently have power over the people in Egypt thus resulting in more conflict, AMIRITE?

(Fyi, thats how you quote someone that you are replying to without making it look like you are replying to someone speaking about rape)

Modifié par CodyMelch, 19 février 2012 - 04:37 .

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
No the mages havn't. Sure, there have been some few individual mages who have attempted to flee. But nowhere is it as organized or widespread as it is in Kirkwall. All the result of the Mage Underground. Had the Mage Underground been destroyed during its formation period, the amges would never have gotten the inkling to try and escape. Which in turn would have led them to be less rebellious, since they wouldn't dare oppose the Templars, if they were going to be stuck with them.

So if only the bad little mages would accept their Templar overlords and give up on basic rights to freedom, love, family and not being constantly watched by religious zealots who think they are evil exploding kitties...

Blech.

This is the same sort of drivel that was spread about slave rebellions...  if only they'd quit rebelling, we wouldn't have to beat them so much.  It is absolutely outrageous.

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Ivucci wrote...

Jumping in because I, too, would like to know what is meant by "stricter". I don't understand how can anyone be of the opinion that being stricter with the mages would have solved anything or prevented anything. I don't understand how, in the light of what we know is happening in the Circles, can anyone be of the opinion that being "stricter" would have actually been a good idea and especially, that it would have led to anything other than what happened anyway - mages resorting to desperate actions. I'm kind of speechless.

I'm talking about being stricter before it all went to ****. And not just about the mages, but about the Templars themselves too.

Had captured blood mages in Kirkwall been executed instead of shown mercy, had apostates and citizens aiding mages escape the Circle been punished, had Templars known to mistreat mages been punished and had the Templars themselves held their Orders ideals as priorities instead of city management, the entire situation would never had risen.

Laws without morals are worthless thats why the templar order is worthless

[EmperorSahlertz]

CodyMelch wrote...
Cause the African people currently have supreme power over everyone else amirite?

Hmm.. Last I checked the African people ruled in Africa, and not some government in a foreign state.. I could be wrong of course. Not to mention that there never was an "African Revolution", but rather a lot of African nations individually revolted against their oppressors.

CodyMelch wrote...
And the Jewish currently rule everything on the planet with an Iron first amirite?

When did the jews ever rise up in revolution? Not to mention on a global level....

CodyMelch wrote...
Cause the people in Egypt and Libya currently have supremacy, AMIRITE? I mean it's not like the military currently have power over the people in Egypt thus resulting in more conflict, AMIRITE?

Last I checked the Egyptian and Syrian revolutions were still going and not done yet, so that MAY be why the people of Egypt and Syria aren't in control yet?

CodyMelch wrote...
(Fyi, thats how you quote someone that you are replying to without making it look like you are replying to someone speaking about rape)

Whenever I quote, I quote the person who brought up a point I want to discuss. If I wanted to discuss Plaintiff's subject, god knows I would have quoted him. Isn't that what is the usualy protocol on forums? Why are you acting like I was quoting Plaintiff when I wasn't?

[MissOuJ]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Not once in MissOuJ's post does she use the word rape.... Not. Once.
She was talking about the oppressive Circle as it is in its entirety. You on the other hand seem very fond of bringing up the subject of rape.

I was merely pointing out that if the Templars had been a little more strict from the start, a lot of the bad stuff that happened could've been avoided. For instance it would've prevented Meredith from going over the top on the severity on her oppression of mages.

...Yes. And that includes the rape of mages. It is made quite clear Templars are known to have raped mages in the Circle, so taking about rape is quite appropriate in this context. It is just one more way Tempars wield their power over mages - rape is about establishing power over another person in the most cruel and harmful way possible. It is known to happend in these sort of situations when one group maintains huge power over another in an isolated environment.

The Templars already control what the Mages can do, where they can go, and wether they live or not. How on earth can they be more strict? Weekly floggings for everyone who looks them weird? Or just everyone? Solidary confinement for all?

No, the solution would've been full human rights ages ago. But that didn't happen. And now, because of Anders, that might, in fact, happen. Meredith and Elthina sought to continue the oppression of mages and keep the status quo, which makes them the true bad guys in my book.

Modifié par MissOuJ, 19 février 2012 - 07:15 .

[Xilizhra]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Ivucci wrote...

Jumping in because I, too, would like to know what is meant by "stricter". I don't understand how can anyone be of the opinion that being stricter with the mages would have solved anything or prevented anything. I don't understand how, in the light of what we know is happening in the Circles, can anyone be of the opinion that being "stricter" would have actually been a good idea and especially, that it would have led to anything other than what happened anyway - mages resorting to desperate actions. I'm kind of speechless.

I'm talking about being stricter before it all went to ****. And not just about the mages, but about the Templars themselves too.

Had captured blood mages in Kirkwall been executed instead of shown mercy, had apostates and citizens aiding mages escape the Circle been punished, had Templars known to mistreat mages been punished and had the Templars themselves held their Orders ideals as priorities instead of city management, the entire situation would never had risen.

Before it... IT ALREADY WAS COMPLETE ****! FROM BEGINNING TO END! EVERY LAST ROTTEN, CORRUPT, EVIL COMPONENT OF IT! THE CHAOS IN KIRKWALL WAS A BLOODY IMPROVEMENT!

[Cody]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

CodyMelch wrote...
Cause the African people currently have supreme power over everyone else amirite?

Hmm.. Last I checked the African people ruled in Africa, and not some government in a foreign state.. I could be wrong of course. Not to mention that there never was an "African Revolution", but rather a lot of African nations individually revolted against their oppressors.

CodyMelch wrote...
And the Jewish currently rule everything on the planet with an Iron first amirite?

When did the jews ever rise up in revolution? Not to mention on a global level....

CodyMelch wrote...
Cause the people in Egypt and Libya currently have supremacy, AMIRITE? I mean it's not like the military currently have power over the people in Egypt thus resulting in more conflict, AMIRITE?

Last I checked the Egyptian and Syrian revolutions were still going and not done yet, so that MAY be why the people of Egypt and Syria aren't in control yet?

CodyMelch wrote...
(Fyi, thats how you quote someone that you are replying to without making it look like you are replying to someone speaking about rape)

Whenever I quote, I quote the person who brought up a point I want to discuss. If I wanted to discuss Plaintiff's subject, god knows I would have quoted him. Isn't that what is the usualy protocol on forums? Why are you acting like I was quoting Plaintiff when I wasn't?

Either your purposely acting daft, or are daft. I was speaking of the slavery of black people in NA. Not hard to understand. Same goes for the Jewish during WWII and back in the day of Mosos. The Jews may not have fought back the ****s(atleast most that were not in the army didn't) but it was due to what was happening to them(among other things) that caused WWII.

I was speaking of specifically of Libya. You know, the area that Gandaffi ruled over before he gone and got himself blown up? Eygypt is the same thing. The people caused enough damage that the dictator decided to up and leave. That is when the army moved in and immediatly took control, thus starting yet another fight.

You weren't quote Pntiff, but his quote was directly in the person you were trying to reply to quote. Having his quotein the same reply is going to make it look like you were replying to the subject itself. Take his reply out and only quote the person you are replying too. It isn't rocket science. Hell it isn't even 2+2. Again you are either purposely trying to act like an air head and are one masterful troll or...well....

[EmperorSahlertz]

CodyMelch wrote...

Either your purposely acting daft, or are daft. I was speaking of the slavery of black people in NA. Not hard to understand. Same goes for the Jewish during WWII and back in the day of Mosos. The Jews may not have fought back the ****s(atleast most that were not in the army didn't) but it was due to what was happening to them(among other things) that caused WWII. 

 
Hmm, last I checked the abolition didn't end the oppression of the afro-american (there is a difference between african and afro-american... Look it up). But it was a long and slow process which is still going on today. And again, the afro-americans never revolted. If you are trying to pin the american civil-war as a revolutionary war, then you are an idiot....

About the Jew slaves of Egypt: I'm not about to use the bible as any sort of historical. Suffice it to say that the Jewish exodus resulted in a nation where, oddly enough, jews ruled supreme. Luckily the Jews at least had enough sense to leave Egypt, because I can tell you, had they remained in Egypt, it would have ended only with the destruction of either their own people, or the Egyptians.

About the Jews in WW2: WW2 was NOT started because of what was happening to the Jews within **** Germany, despite what popular belief may say. The mass killings of Jews didn't start until 1941 where the War had already been going for a while. No nation gave two pots of ****** about what germany was doing to the Jews within their own borders. WW2 was started because of the threat Germany and its highly aggressive expansionism psoed to other nations.
Hence again: If you are trying to pin WW2 as a revolutionary war for the Jews, then you are an idiot....

CodyMelch wrote... 

I was speaking of specifically of Libya. You know, the area that Gandaffi ruled over before he gone and got himself blown up? Eygypt is the same thing. The people caused enough damage that the dictator decided to up and leave. That is when the army moved in and immediatly took control, thus starting yet another fight. 

 
If you are speaking of Libya then you would know that their revolutionary war ended with Gadaffi's death. And that they are now trying to establish a new form of government, which may take a while. Or it will just a be a new military dictator, which will result in the same (or morek) oppression of the people. Again, proving my statement correct.
Same goes for Egypt, and possibly Syria in time.

CodyMelch wrote... 

You weren't quote Pntiff, but his quote was directly in the person you were trying to reply to quote. Having his quotein the same reply is going to make it look like you were replying to the subject itself. Take his reply out and only quote the person you are replying too. It isn't rocket science. Hell it isn't even 2+2. Again you are either purposely trying to act like an air head and are one masterful troll or...well....

 
Even if I were referring to the subject of rape, instead of the general oppression in the Circle. How does anyone twist the words: "Indeed. The Templars should've been far more strict before the amges established their underground" to mean: "Yeah!!!1oneeleven.... The Templars should've, like, totally raped some more biatch mages becauise that would like totally rock!!"?

All I said was: That if the Tempalrs had been more strict, regarding the rules to govern mages, AND to govern themselves, then none of the issues in Kirkwall would have ever happened.

So perhaps you should get of your intellectual (or lack thereof) high horse, and work abit more on trying to add 2+2 yourself, cause apparently you are having a hard time with it...

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...
Before it... IT ALREADY WAS COMPLETE ****! FROM BEGINNING TO END! EVERY LAST ROTTEN, CORRUPT, EVIL COMPONENT OF IT! THE CHAOS IN KIRKWALL WAS A BLOODY IMPROVEMENT!

Caps overload...

It MAY just be me. Hell I don't know, perhaps I'm just wierd. But I find an Annulment, pretty much the ****itest situation a mage can possibly find himself in. But as I said, that may just be me...

And forgive me if I am wrong. But havn't I by now repeatedly stated that I wished for the Templars to be more strict to their own rules, aswell as the ones regarding Mages. Which would've led to a remarkable drop in corruption... Again, may just be me...

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 19 février 2012 - 10:02 .

[Xilizhra]

It MAY just be me. Hell I don't know, perhaps I'm just wierd. But I find an Annulment, pretty much the ****itest situation a mage can possibly find himself in. But as I said, that may just be me...

100% the fault of the templars and their overly repressive policies to push Anders into that act to begin with, and then Meredith didn't even attack the right target.

And forgive me if I am wrong. But havn't I by now repeatedly stated that I wished for the Templars to be more strict to their own rules, aswell as the ones regarding Mages. Which would've led to a remarkable drop in corruption... Again, may just be me...

Irrelevant. The templars are a fundamentally evil and corrupt organization, and no amount of internal reforms can fix them. The order must be wiped out of existence, voluntarily or otherwise, for true peace to be achieved.

Hmm, last I checked the abolition didn't end the oppression of the afro-american (there is a difference between african and afro-american... Look it up). But it was a long and slow process which is still going on today. And again, the afro-americans never revolted. If you are trying to pin the american civil-war as a revolutionary war, then you are an idiot....

They did revolt, as a matter of fact, they just were never organized enough to launch a national war about it. But there were plenty of smaller conflicts and slave revolts.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

It MAY just be me. Hell I don't know, perhaps I'm just wierd. But I find an Annulment, pretty much the ****itest situation a mage can possibly find himself in. But as I said, that may just be me...

100% the fault of the templars and their overly repressive policies to push Anders into that act to begin with, and then Meredith didn't even attack the right target.

 
What does who's fault it is, have to do with what I was saying? I was giving a possible scenario where the entire situation could've been avoided. I don't care for who pushed who first. I care for how it could've been avoided.

Xilizhra wrote... 

And forgive me if I am wrong. But havn't I by now repeatedly stated that I wished for the Templars to be more strict to their own rules, aswell as the ones regarding Mages. Which would've led to a remarkable drop in corruption... Again, may just be me...

Irrelevant. The templars are a fundamentally evil and corrupt organization, and no amount of internal reforms can fix them. The order must be wiped out of existence, voluntarily or otherwise, for true peace to be achieved.

 
I disagree. The idea of the Templar Order is one I find very much needed. However the modern Templar have strayed far from what I would call "the ideal Templar". That does not mean I think that the Templar Order should ever be eradicated. Merely that it need to reattach to its root ideals. Protect humanity from mages, and mages from humanity.

Xilizhra wrote... 

Hmm, last I checked the abolition didn't end the oppression of the afro-american (there is a difference between african and afro-american... Look it up). But it was a long and slow process which is still going on today. And again, the afro-americans never revolted. If you are trying to pin the american civil-war as a revolutionary war, then you are an idiot....

They did revolt, as a matter of fact, they just were never organized enough to launch a national war about it. But there were plenty of smaller conflicts and slave revolts.

Okay, to clarify: the afro-americans never revolted on a national scale large enough for it to qualify as a revolution. On the contrary they went down the longer path of peaceful change (i use the words peaceful loosely here, becasue there have certainly been some bouts of violence in this process, but nothing near the scale of revolutionary war).

[Xilizhra]

What does who's fault it is, have to do with what I was saying? I was giving a possible scenario where the entire situation could've been avoided. I don't care for who pushed who first. I care for how it could've been avoided.

It could have been avoided right then. But it probably would have happened later anyway, and with more time to build up, happened harder. Kirkwall was a boil that I feel needed lancing.

I disagree. The idea of the Templar Order is one I find very much needed. However the modern Templar have strayed far from what I would call "the ideal Templar". That does not mean I think that the Templar Order should ever be eradicated. Merely that it need to reattach to its root ideals. Protect humanity from mages, and mages from humanity.

The Order's "roots" are the Inquisition, and that was even worse. There's no point in the history of the Order that it wasn't a fanatically evil and murderous/repressive organization. An order can exist to do what you said, but it must have no religious links and no affiliation to anything other than itself/the Circle.

Okay, to clarify: the afro-americans never revolted on a national scale large enough for it to qualify as a revolution. On the contrary they went down the longer path of peaceful change (i use the words peaceful loosely here, becasue there have certainly been some bouts of violence in this process, but nothing near the scale of revolutionary war).

"They" only went down the path of peaceful change because they lacked the resource base and organization to launch a large-scale war, so the war had to be run by the white people more or less on their side who had the money and guns. Which I suspect will happen in some regard here as well, as I believe Orlais and Ferelden will start fighting again. Apart from them... Tevinter is a tentative possible ally for the mages, Antiva would likely be an enemy but a rather far-away one (and it's militarily weak anyway), Rivain I suspect would be neutral... Nevarra is a wild card, and may be torn between repressing its own mages vs. attacking Orlais. I hope it does the latter.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

What does who's fault it is, have to do with what I was saying? I was giving a possible scenario where the entire situation could've been avoided. I don't care for who pushed who first. I care for how it could've been avoided.

It could have been avoided right then. But it probably would have happened later anyway, and with more time to build up, happened harder. Kirkwall was a boil that I feel needed lancing.

 
Postponed, not avoided. The annulment of the Gallows, was an event bound to happen. I was proposing a scenario where it would've been entirely avoided.

Xilizhra wrote... 

I disagree. The idea of the Templar Order is one I find very much needed. However the modern Templar have strayed far from what I would call "the ideal Templar". That does not mean I think that the Templar Order should ever be eradicated. Merely that it need to reattach to its root ideals. Protect humanity from mages, and mages from humanity.

The Order's "roots" are the Inquisition, and that was even worse. There's no point in the history of the Order that it wasn't a fanatically evil and murderous/repressive organization. An order can exist to do what you said, but it must have no religious links and no affiliation to anything other than itself/the Circle.

 
The inquisition is their historical roots. I'm talkign about the ideals the Templar Order was found upon. An ideal based on protecting innocents, both the mages and the people of Thedas.
Besides, what are you basing the "evil" of the inquisition on? All we got is that they were an order dedicated to hunt maleficars, abominations and cultists. Doesn't sound all that bad to me. Especially since no one else was doing it back then.

Xilizhra wrote... 

Okay, to clarify: the afro-americans never revolted on a national scale large enough for it to qualify as a revolution. On the contrary they went down the longer path of peaceful change (i use the words peaceful loosely here, becasue there have certainly been some bouts of violence in this process, but nothing near the scale of revolutionary war).

"They" only went down the path of peaceful change because they lacked the resource base and organization to launch a large-scale war, so the war had to be run by the white people more or less on their side who had the money and guns. Which I suspect will happen in some regard here as well, as I believe Orlais and Ferelden will start fighting again. Apart from them... Tevinter is a tentative possible ally for the mages, Antiva would likely be an enemy but a rather far-away one (and it's militarily weak anyway), Rivain I suspect would be neutral... Nevarra is a wild card, and may be torn between repressing its own mages vs. attacking Orlais. I hope it does the latter.

Wether or not you have the means to win a potential war, diplomacy and peaceful negotiation should always be your top priority.

Same goes for the Mage-Templar war. I hope that both sides have potential candidates for leadership that will recognizes eachothers viewpoints and be able to negotiate a compromise.

[TEWR]

Besides, what are you basing the "evil" of the inquisition on? All we got is that they were an order dedicated to hunt maleficars, abominations and cultists. Doesn't sound all that bad to me. Especially since no one else was doing it back then.

I remember that the codex or whatever talking about the Inquisition said it was a horrible and terrifying time.

Which, while that could apply to the blood mages and abominations, could just as easily apply to the Inquisition.

And, unless the cultists were dragon cultists then hunting them down was unnecessary, as the Andrastian religion was one of a handful of Andrastian cults.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Besides, what are you basing the "evil" of the inquisition on? All we got is that they were an order dedicated to hunt maleficars, abominations and cultists. Doesn't sound all that bad to me. Especially since no one else was doing it back then.

I remember that the codex or whatever talking about the Inquisition said it was a horrible and terrifying time.

Which, while that could apply to the blood mages and abominations, could just as easily apply to the Inquisition.

And, unless the cultists were dragon cultists then hunting them down was unnecessary, as the Andrastian religion was one of a handful of Andrastian cults.

I'm guessing it was a dark and terrible time in general. And the cultists could've been both dragon, demon and Andrastian cultists. I'm guessing it is the two first.

[Xilizhra]

Postponed, not avoided. The annulment of the Gallows, was an event bound to happen. I was proposing a scenario where it would've been entirely avoided.

I don't believe it could ever possibly be entirely avoided.

The inquisition is their historical roots. I'm talkign about the ideals the Templar Order was found upon. An ideal based on protecting innocents, both the mages and the people of Thedas.

There are good ideals behind nearly every official organization. It doesn't make it worth saving.

Wether or not you have the means to win a potential war, diplomacy and peaceful negotiation should always be your top priority.

I disagree. I believe long-term peace should be my top priority. And if a lasting peace can only be achieved by killing every last templar who stands against us, so be it.

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I'm guessing it was a dark and terrible time in general.

Probably. The Inquisition probably used some very horrific methods to gain results. It's even possible that they killed mages that weren't blood mages or abominations, but called them such.

Do we happen to know how successful they were? We know they were hunting those groups, but did they actually make a dent in the evil plaguing the land? Or did they only manage to kill one blood mage a year?
 

And the cultists could've been both dragon, demon and Andrastian cultists. I'm guessing it is the two first.

Maybe even Darkspawn cults. I recall reading that those types of cults did exist.

...makes you wonder how stupid a person has to be to revere Darkspawn.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 20 février 2012 - 01:36 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Xilizhra wrote...

Postponed, not avoided. The annulment of the Gallows, was an event bound to happen. I was proposing a scenario where it would've been entirely avoided.

I don't believe it could ever possibly be entirely avoided.

 
Maybe not in the entirety of time, no. But it could've been avoided in recent years, and given Justinia enough time to go through with her reforms of the Circle system, and improved the lot of mages, and decreased the powers of the Templars.

Xilizhra wrote... 

The inquisition is their historical roots. I'm talkign about the ideals the Templar Order was found upon. An ideal based on protecting innocents, both the mages and the people of Thedas.

There are good ideals behind nearly every official organization. It doesn't make it worth saving.

 
I disagree. If their goal is noble, it is only their way of achieving it that has been corrupted. Cure the corruption and you cure the organization.

Xilizhra wrote... 

Wether or not you have the means to win a potential war, diplomacy and peaceful negotiation should always be your top priority.

I disagree. I believe long-term peace should be my top priority. And if a lasting peace can only be achieved by killing every last templar who stands against us, so be it.

Sadly, the Templars probably think the same way about mages.... Long-term peace is best achieved with diplomacy. If you have to fight for peace, it means you've already started a war for it, and you have failed your intend. If you try with diplomacy first, but the other party is unreasonable, war is the final option that sadly is available (well, surrender is technically also one, but I doubt that apepals to many).