2008 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

Urzon wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Well, if all those people weren't actively trying to, y'know, change the Chantry and thereby the Circle system for the better, well then.  Part of the problem, and all that.

The whole "You are either with us, or against us" argument it what leads to horrible things. Anders used that thought process when he blew up the Chantry. Since the Grand Cleric wasn't supporting mages in their fight against Meredith, she (by default) must be supporting Meredith.  Meredith used it as well in her procecution of the mages. If you weren't supporting her in the fight against mages, you must be a mage sympathizer, and any action that she does towards you is your own fault.

And how would you know if some of the Chantry members didn't support the mages? With alot of the commoners, merchants, and nobles against Meredith in the end, it is only a given that some of the members of the Chantry were as well. Unless of course, you subscribe to the thought that, once you join an organinzation; you are thereby damned with all the past, present, and future crimes that organization might or might not have done. And since the Chantry supports the Circle, anyone that joins the Chantry must be supporting the Chantry's oppression of mages as well.

So, did Anders interview the Chantry members to get their thoughts on the plight of the mages in ActII? Just to make sure he could warn any ley sisters, priests, or mothers that might support the mages in their cause, that he was going to blow up the Chantry. No, of course not. Because he didn't care. He wanted them all to die in a horrible fiery explosion. He didn't want a single member of the Chantry to survive, because then they might have had the chance to get in Meredith's way to stop the RoA.

Anders didn't use that mindset.  Not in the least.  His actions, and body language, are pretty clear on this point: he knows what he did was terrible.  Not once does he ever deny that his actions are unforgivable, and he fully expects to be executed for what he did.

Anders did it because he ultimately believed that it was the ONLY way things would ever change. 

The Grand Cleric WAS supporting Meredith.  The Chantry, and by extension the templars and their commanders, hold all the power.  Mages were in a situation where they could only ASK for reform and hope that the Chantry would respond positively to this.  Instead, what happened is what always happened: the Chantry either ignored the mages or said no, or gave them nothing more than the illusion of self-government by allowing mages to convene.  Note that the mages couldn't convene on their own terms, but were forced to wait until they were ALLOWED to do so.

When one side holds all the power, neutrality effectively comes down on that side.  By refusing to take sides, Grand Cleric Elthina was de facto siding with Meredith, because her inaction enabled the status quo to continue unabated. 

Anders recognized this, and realized that the only way to break the stalemate so that mage would actually have a chance, a real chance, to effect change, was to do something drastic. 

I think this is part of what makes Anders a tragic character.  He knew from the beginning that what he did was horrific and wrong.  The difference is that he believed that, wrong or not, it was necessary.  And you know what?  He was right, because nothing was going to change otherwise.

As for me personally, regarding the concept of with us or against us?  I agree with your point about how dangerous that line of thinking is.  And yes, I agree that as individuals, it isn't fair to assume that someone claiming affiliation with the Chantry is automatically completely in favor of everything the Chantry supports and represents.  However, the fact remains, that by joining that organization, you ARE sending the message that you support it in general.  And that isn't something to just ignore.  I DO actually hold to a pretty black-and-white perspective on a certain real world organization with similar parallels, in that as far as I'm concerned, if I don't see or hear about you (general you) actively and loudly agitating for change, then I do take your membership to mean that you're fully in support of something I find abhorrent.

[DPSSOC]

Gwindor The Witchhunter wrote...
Anders beleives magic to be neither benign or malign. Meredith thinks magic is about power and hence inherently evil. They are both driven by different motives. They are different people in that way as well.

No Meredith believes magic is dangerous and open to abuse, she's right.  You can disagree with her methods but her motivation is simply to protect the people of Kirkwall from what she knows (from personal experience) the mages are capable of through no fault of their own.  Keep in mind the kind of mages and the kind of place we're dealing with here.  Kirkwall is a city where a mage can stub his toe, and in a fit of swearing be possessed by a Rage demon.  The Veil is that thin.  More to the point it's a city where a mage who stubs his toe is likely to call out to a demon to help him take vengeance on the wall.  The people are that crazy.

Meredith wants to protect the people from the mages - Anders, if you're being generous, wants to protect the mages from the Templars.  Same motivation, different sides.

[Always Alice]

Silfren wrote...

As for me personally, regarding the concept of with us or against us?  I agree with your point about how dangerous that line of thinking is.  And yes, I agree that as individuals, it isn't fair to assume that someone claiming affiliation with the Chantry is automatically completely in favor of everything the Chantry supports and represents.  However, the fact remains, that by joining that organization, you ARE sending the message that you support it in general.  And that isn't something to just ignore.  I DO actually hold to a pretty black-and-white perspective on a certain real world organization with similar parallels, in that as far as I'm concerned, if I don't see or hear about you (general you) actively and loudly agitating for change, then I do take your membership to mean that you're fully in support of something I find abhorrent.

Supporting it "in general"....what does that even mean? The mage issue is just one side of the Chantry; a person could be against the traditional Chantry teaching on mages but still support the organization in every aspect except that one. That would be counted as supporting it "in general," wouldn't it? Someone could argue that the good it does outweighs the bad, as I'm sure others argue the reverse.

I'm pretty sure I know which real life organization you're talking about, and I'm just going to say this: assigning a black-and-white perspective to issues concerning faith is like wearing a blindfold and trying to walk. It won't get you anywhere, and is just counterproductive. And so are sweeping generalizations (especially if the organization in question contains a large number of people like, say, over a billion). Religions are not monolithic entities. The decisions of the leaders are not necessarily indicative of the opinions of the majority (especially if I'm thinking of what you're thinking of, where there have been surveys done to illustrate this point). To apply this to DA, just look at Justinia V: she is the person in charge, but it would be extremely naive to say that all Andrasteans are "fully in support" of her views, which some certainly believe to be "abhorrent."

And the whole "if you aren't actively campaigning against something you must fully support it" line of reasoning...well, you could see why some might find it to be absurd. Should they protest? Probably. But to assume someone backs something fully unless they loudly protest is...odd, and not particularly realistic. This isn't a perfect analogy, but do you believe every citizen supports the actions of their government unless they are "actively and loudly agitating for change"? Also, people have, y'know, lives. Not everyone has the time to be a social justice crusader, especially if you're working most of the day and then have to take care of your family. That doesn't mean you can't have a contrary opinion.

[LobselVith8]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Anders murdered several people out his prejudice against the chantry, and to make a statement that mages should be free, while under the influence of a spirit.

I respectfully disagree. Anders destroyed a building that housed members of the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars, as we saw from the cutscene with Grand Cleric Elthina, members of her clergy, and even templars. The templars are the military arm of the Chantry, and Meredith was the subordinate to Elthina. The Chantry even controls the lyrium which the templars are addicted to.

Anders saw the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery - a view shared by the historical Aldenon the Great, who helped Teyrn Calenhad create Ferelden from warring teyrnirs, and even by a pro-mage Hawke who uses the same language - and (in his eyes) Anders' efforts were to emancipate his people from nearly a thousand years of slavery under the rule of the templars and the Chantry.

Whether Anders' was right or wrong is a matter of opinion that varies, but his act was intended to result in the end of a cycle of oppression and abuse that he rallied against for years - a system which has lasted nearly a millennia.

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Meredith murdered several people out of her prejudice against the mages, and to make a statement that mages should fear the templars, while under the influence of an evil idol.

Meredith ordered the murder of hundreds of men, women, and children who were innocent of Anders' actions, simply because they were mages. Meredith's actual argument in trying to persuade Hawke to her cause is that she needs to kill the mages to appease the mob.

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Same actions, same motivations, just different sides.

They. are. the. same. Except for the fact that Meredith has girl parts.

I have to disagree with you about your assessment. Anders attacks the highest ranking member of the Chantry in Kirkwall in an attempt to start a war that he thinks can lead to the freedom of mages across Thedas, while Meredith orders the deaths of hundreds of people because she wants to appease a hypothetical mob.

[Blessed Silence]

Hm.  I know so many pages but was thinking.  They both are "evil" in their own way but I would think Meredith was worse.

How long was she taking innocent Mages, locking them up and making them Tranquil?  Losing oneself is worse than death.

Anders blew up the Chantry (though no one actually knows how many people were in there.  It seemed to be late at night, and though the cutscene showed a few people in there - OMG drawing name blanks - it could havejust been 5 people).  I feel that Anders wanted to destroy the 'symbol' of the CHantry (being the building) to have more signifigance than killing the people inside.

I also don't think what Anders did before that was bad.  I mean what, he helped Mages escape and wrote manifestos.

Heck, my Hawke is worse from all the people and things she slaughtered willy nilly /grin

[Lynata]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Meredith ordered the murder of hundreds of men, women, and children who were innocent of Anders' actions, simply because they were mages.

Now, now - don't invent things just for the sake of dramatic articulation.

There are no children in a Circle tower, this being one of the many reasons for why this is so.

Orsino helping a crazed mass-murderer escape, covering up his continued killing spree and secretly archiving his blood magic research notes also lets me consider that not all of those men and women may have been so innocent as you claim. It very much seems as if the templars were not the only ones who had a number of dirty secrets to hide in the Kirkwall tower.

Basically, this.

[LobselVith8]

Lynata wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Meredith ordered the murder of hundreds of men, women, and children who were innocent of Anders' actions, simply because they were mages.

Now, now - don't invent things just for the sake of dramatic articulation.

There are no children in a Circle tower, this being one of the many reasons for why this is so.

You're incorrect. Again. There are children in the Ferelden Tower in the Magi Origin. There are children seen in the Ferelden Tower in "A Broken Circle." Bethany explicitly refers to children in the Gallows in her letter:

"I've started mentoring apprentices. I enjoy time with the children, teaching them basic spells. One of them, Ella, has taken a shine to me. Adorable!"

Before you accuse me of "inventing things," try to get your facts straight.

Lynata wrote...

Orsino helping a crazed mass-murderer escape, covering up his continued killing spree and secretly archiving his blood magic research notes also lets me consider that not all of those men and women may have been so innocent as you claim.

What does Orsino's actions have to do with the fact that Meredith is going to kill hundreds of men, women, and children for the actions of Anders? All of them are innocent of Anders' actions, which is what I specifically addressed.

[Sir Pounce-a-lot]

Anders is a terrorist. I don't know if I'd put him in the same category as Meredith. She's more of a tyrant.

[Lynata]

LobselVith8 wrote...
You're incorrect. Again. There are children in the Ferelden Tower in the Magi Origin. There are children seen in the Ferelden Tower in "A Broken Circle." Bethany explicitly refers to children in the Gallows in her letter:
"I've started mentoring apprentices. I enjoy time with the children, teaching them basic spells. One of them, Ella, has taken a shine to me. Adorable!"

Apprentices are not children, regardless of what Bethany thinks of anyone younger than herself.

We're not talking Hogwarts students here but ages 14 and up. And whilst this may admittedly seem pretty young for modern standards, in Thedas this means you can now get married or conscripted into the army.

LobselVith8 wrote...
What does Orsino's actions have to do with the fact that Meredith is going to kill hundreds of men, women, and children for the actions of Anders? All of them are innocent of Anders' actions, which is what I specifically addressed.

It has to do with the fact that Meredith never had a good opinion of these very mages even before being influenced by the idol and before Anders. This is rooted in her childhood - but also in betrayal from the Circle mages hiding their dirty laundry. In short: her suspicions were not entirely unjustified.

Doesn't make her call any less bad or inexcusable - I'm just saying that not all of these mages were innocent, as you are so fond of claiming. Anders blowing up Elthina simply removed the latter as a calming influence and drove Meredith over the edge, just as the former predicted and intended.

[LobselVith8]

Are we having a real discussion, or are you seriously arguing against the fact that Bethany's letter explicitly addresses the fact that she is working with children, even when a sample of her letter is provided to you? Not to mention that we see young children in the Circle Tower in Ferelden, who are referred to as children by Wynne.

There are children in the Circle Towers - we see this in two games. Next time, try getting your facts straight, Lynata.

Also, considering that you quoted me saying that the mages in the Circle of Kirkwall are innocent of Anders' actions specifically, I don't see why you are pretending that I had something else.

[Lynata]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Are we having a real discussion, or are you seriously arguing against the fact that Bethany's letter explicitly addresses the fact that she is working with children, even when a sample of her letter is provided to you?

I am argueing regarding this letter conflicting with an unbiased source that specifically states that children who show magical potential are raised in chantries until they are actually old enough to become apprentices, and that a Circle tower is "no place for children" due to the inherent risks they'd be subjected to there (ranging from magical hazards to demons breaking free all the way to a Right of Annulment).

LobselVith8 wrote...
Not to mention that we see young children in the Circle Tower in Ferelden, who are referred to as children by Wynne.

Can you refresh my memory regarding this? Where exactly?

LobselVith8 wrote...
Next time, try getting your facts straight, Lynata.

I am "getting my facts straight" based on what the sources are telling me. I'm sorry that I don't just take your word over something printed in a book.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Also, considering that you quoted me saying that the mages in the Circle of Kirkwall are innocent of Anders' actions specifically, I don't see why you are pretending that I had something else.

In this case that seems to have been a miscommunication between us - I thought you were talking about the mages supposedly having nothing to do with the reasons for why Meredith invoked the Right of Annulment (which didn't happen because of Anders alone - he was merely the catalyst for her misguided zeal).

[TEWR]

Can you refresh my memory regarding this? Where exactly?

In the Mage Origin story where you see them being taught as well as when Wynne is protecting them later on.

Children do live in the Circle Towers.

[Lynata]

Hey, you're right - managed to find the relevant scene on youtube. Thanks for the hint!

Curious, I always thought the children would be taken away from their mage parents until they are old enough - and it made sense. Seems to be a contradiction, or the age requirement of becoming an apprentice is *way* lower than I had thought.

[Silfren]

Always Alice wrote...

Silfren wrote...

As for me personally, regarding the concept of with us or against us?  I agree with your point about how dangerous that line of thinking is.  And yes, I agree that as individuals, it isn't fair to assume that someone claiming affiliation with the Chantry is automatically completely in favor of everything the Chantry supports and represents.  However, the fact remains, that by joining that organization, you ARE sending the message that you support it in general.  And that isn't something to just ignore.  I DO actually hold to a pretty black-and-white perspective on a certain real world organization with similar parallels, in that as far as I'm concerned, if I don't see or hear about you (general you) actively and loudly agitating for change, then I do take your membership to mean that you're fully in support of something I find abhorrent.

Supporting it "in general"....what does that even mean? The mage issue is just one side of the Chantry; a person could be against the traditional Chantry teaching on mages but still support the organization in every aspect except that one. That would be counted as supporting it "in general," wouldn't it? Someone could argue that the good it does outweighs the bad, as I'm sure others argue the reverse.

I'm pretty sure I know which real life organization you're talking about, and I'm just going to say this: assigning a black-and-white perspective to issues concerning faith is like wearing a blindfold and trying to walk. It won't get you anywhere, and is just counterproductive. And so are sweeping generalizations (especially if the organization in question contains a large number of people like, say, over a billion). Religions are not monolithic entities. The decisions of the leaders are not necessarily indicative of the opinions of the majority (especially if I'm thinking of what you're thinking of, where there have been surveys done to illustrate this point). To apply this to DA, just look at Justinia V: she is the person in charge, but it would be extremely naive to say that all Andrasteans are "fully in support" of her views, which some certainly believe to be "abhorrent."

And the whole "if you aren't actively campaigning against something you must fully support it" line of reasoning...well, you could see why some might find it to be absurd. Should they protest? Probably. But to assume someone backs something fully unless they loudly protest is...odd, and not particularly realistic. This isn't a perfect analogy, but do you believe every citizen supports the actions of their government unless they are "actively and loudly agitating for change"? Also, people have, y'know, lives. Not everyone has the time to be a social justice crusader, especially if you're working most of the day and then have to take care of your family. That doesn't mean you can't have a contrary opinion.

Firstly, the mage issue may be just one part of the Chantry, but it is hardly an inconsequential part.  Part of the Chantry's very foundation is the belief that mages are dangerous and must be contained.  This may not be the REASON why the Chantry came into being, but it cannot be ignored that its position against mages--that it must contain them, control them, protect the world from them, and the fact that it incessantly preaches not only that mages are inherently cursed, ultimately to blame for humanity's first and greatest sin and the resultant darkspawn plague--is integral to its existence.  After all, Andraste waged her war against an empire built around magic and the concept of a magocracy, and afterward, the Chantry built much of its doctrine around the belief "that magic is meant to serve man and never to rule over him."  Without mages and magic, a great deal of the Chantry becomes irrelevant.  Which is not to say that the Chantry could not evolve into an organization that preaches Andrastianism without the whole "Mages are inherently cursed and must be contained for the good of the world" maxim.  But as it stands right NOW, in its current incarnation, the Chantry's stance against mages and magic is built into its central core.

I should have been clearer, regarding the bolded portion of my quote you focused on.  Yes, it is possible for someone to support parts of an organization and oppose others.  However, if I were to learn that you (again, general you) are a member of a given organization widely known for various abusive practices, because you openly claim membership, but you do not qualify WHY you are affiliated with it, it is not in the least bit unreasonable for me to assume, until you clarify otherwise, that you fully support all of its practices.  After all, you are openly claiming affiliation without any disclaimers that you reject the abusive bits.

As for the other, well.  My reasons for condemning the organization are well thought-out, as are my reasons for refusing to associate with those members who do not openly condemn its abuses, and it is not counterproductive or anything else, etc. etc. etc., and I refuse to carry this particular discussion any further as down that road lies madness, as well as extreme anger and off-topicness.  

Getting back to the Chantry, bear in mind that its condemnation of mages are not the only reason I find it abhorrent.  I also dislike it for its Exalted March against the elves, for one thing.  And I do not think that the good the Chantry does mitigates the bad.  No, it most certainly is not okay to oppress mages because you also feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and shelter the orphans.  No, doing those good things does not mean the bad should be overlooked.  Yes, I'm fully in favor of tearing the Chantry apart and leaving those poor hungry, naked, and orphaned souls out in the cold, if it means that mages will be free.  After all, helping those people does not require a Chantry, whereas the Chantry is directly responsible for the plight of mages.  

[Silfren]

Lynata wrote...

Hey, you're right - managed to find the relevant scene on youtube. Thanks for the hint!

Curious, I always thought the children would be taken away from their mage parents until they are old enough - and it made sense. Seems to be a contradiction, or the age requirement of becoming an apprentice is *way* lower than I had thought.

I don't understand why you would be confused by this, and there is no contradiction at all.  DA lore is pretty explicit on this point.  The law is that mages are to reside in Circles, and the result of this is that children are taken from their families AS SOON as they are discovered to be mages, which generally means that most children are grafted into the Circle as apprentices around the age of five or so--there's no apparent age requirement for being an apprentice; merely being at the Circle makes you one.  Anders (at least according to his short story) was taken at the age of twelve, but this is the exception, not the rule.  Children who go to into Circles at older ages tend to be those whose identity as mages is suppressed by their parents (as in Isolde and Connor) or who simply don't manifest magical ability until they are older.  But just demonstrating that you are a mage is enough for you to be taken to the Circle and made an apprentice, even if you are four years old.

[dragonflight288]

Hey, you're right - managed to find the relevant scene on youtube. Thanks for the hint!

Curious, I always thought the children would be taken away from their mage parents until they are old enough - and it made sense. Seems to be a contradiction, or the age requirement of becoming an apprentice is *way* lower than I had thought.

Mage parents aren't allowed to have kids. The kids are taken and raised by the chantry, if it's revealed they are mages, they are dropped off at a Circle their parents are not a part of. As Chantry property.

And there's that one idiot noble mage in DA2 who was a member of the circle since he was six.

[Always Alice]

Silfren wrote...

Firstly, the mage issue may be just one part of the Chantry, but it is hardly an inconsequential part.  Part of the Chantry's very foundation is the belief that mages are dangerous and must be contained.  This may not be the REASON why the Chantry came into being, but it cannot be ignored that its position against mages--that it must contain them, control them, protect the world from them, and the fact that it incessantly preaches not only that mages are inherently cursed, ultimately to blame for humanity's first and greatest sin and the resultant darkspawn plague--is integral to its existence.  After all, Andraste waged her war against an empire built around magic and the concept of a magocracy, and afterward, the Chantry built much of its doctrine around the belief "that magic is meant to serve man and never to rule over him."  Without mages and magic, a great deal of the Chantry becomes irrelevant.  Which is not to say that the Chantry could not evolve into an organization that preaches Andrastianism without the whole "Mages are inherently cursed and must be contained for the good of the world" maxim.  But as it stands right NOW, in its current incarnation, the Chantry's stance against mages and magic is built into its central core.

I should have been clearer, regarding the bolded portion of my quote you focused on.  Yes, it is possible for someone to support parts of an organization and oppose others.  However, if I were to learn that you (again, general you) are a member of a given organization widely known for various abusive practices, because you openly claim membership, but you do not qualify WHY you are affiliated with it, it is not in the least bit unreasonable for me to assume, until you clarify otherwise, that you fully support all of its practices.  After all, you are openly claiming affiliation without any disclaimers that you reject the abusive bits.

So I suppose everyone who belongs to an organization should wear signs strapped to their neck explaining what parts they disagree with? Would that qualify as a "disclaimer"? A person doesn't (and shouldn't feel the need to) explain all the intricasies of their faith in casual conversation, as it is a personal matter.

The mage issue is far from inconsequential, I agree. And the idea of preaching that any one group is inherently sinful bothers me a lot. But for the average farmer in Thedas, how much do you think it matters to him? The only people who have any real idea of what goes on in Circles are mages, templars, and Chantry members who are stationed there. This is a horrible thing to say, but people don't really care unless it affects them personally (which is why so many non-mages are gung-ho with the idea of sending mages to Circles: because they're worried about what might happen to them if mages get out of control).  The things they care about? Food, community, shelter,security, all of which the Chantry provides. Why would someone feel the need to actively and loudly protest against something that doesn't concern them, especially when the Chantry helps them in other aspects of life?

The Chantry is is by far the largest organization in Thedas, with the vast majority or humans and elves considering themselves to be followers of it. You can't paint all these people with the same brush.

As for the other, well.  My reasons for condemning the organization are well thought-out, as are my reasons for refusing to associate with those members who do not openly condemn its abuses, and it is not counterproductive or anything else, etc. etc. etc., and I refuse to carry this particular discussion any further as down that road lies madness, as well as extreme anger and off-topicness.  

Yes, it would lead to extreme anger on both sides I would imagine. You were the one who brought it up so I responded, but if you are so adament then I have no problems dropping it (unless you want to take it to PM?).

Getting back to the Chantry, bear in mind that its condemnation of mages are not the only reason I find it abhorrent.  I also dislike it for its Exalted March against the elves, for one thing. 

I don't like that either, but, to use your words, I try to focus on the Chantry "as it stands right NOW, in its current incarnation." Focusing on events that happened hundreds of years ago seems counterproductive.

 And I do not think that the good the Chantry does mitigates the bad.  No, it most certainly is not okay to oppress mages because you also feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and shelter the orphans.  No, doing those good things does not mean the bad should be overlooked. 

The bad should always be examined, never overlooked. And it's hard to tell without concrete numbers but I tentatively say that yes, I do think the "good" outweighs the "bad" in this case. We don't have exact numbers, but mages are a minority in Thedas (which is only recently growing in numbers). The poor are a much, much larger group. I assume there have been more people cared for  by the Chantry throughout history than there are mages.

Yes, I'm fully in favor of tearing the Chantry apart and leaving those poor hungry, naked, and orphaned souls out in the cold, if it means that mages will be free. 

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume here that you've never been homeless, hungry, and worrying about the life of your child due to said circumstances.

But hey, free mages!
 

After all, helping those people does not require a Chantry, whereas the Chantry is directly responsible for the plight of mages.  

Please point me to these secular organizations in Thedas that are making it their perogative to shelter orphans, clothe the poor, feed the hungry, etc.

And the Chantry provides one thing those organizations can't: spiritual guidance.

Modifié par Always Alice, 10 avril 2012 - 05:00 .

[Urzon]

Always Alice wrote...

Please point me to these secular organizations in Thedas that are making it their perogative to shelter orphans, clothe the poor, feed the hungry, etc.

And the Chantry provides one thing those organizations can't: spiritual guidance.

The only organization(ish) thats does as much (if not more) good (including spiritual guidance) for the community is the Qun. Like the Chantry it has both major strengths and some major flaws. But, i'm sure everyone is in agreement that the Qun treats their mages worse than the Chantry treats theirs.

But ya, other than the organizations ran by the Chantry, i don't think any country has anything to help the wellbeing of the poor or orphaned. Unless a wealthy noble or the King/Queen personally sponsors one, the government and ruling parties simply didn't care for them. Well, they did sometimes, but that is only when they were becoming a nuisance. How they solved that problem was usually sending the guards out to drive them away or just kill them. Since no noble or King really cared if a poor begger or some little orphan boy or girl died back then.

Modifié par Urzon, 10 avril 2012 - 07:59 .

[LobselVith8]

Lynata wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Are we having a real discussion, or are you seriously arguing against the fact that Bethany's letter explicitly addresses the fact that she is working with children, even when a sample of her letter is provided to you?

I am argueing regarding this letter conflicting with an unbiased source that specifically states that children who show magical potential are raised in chantries until they are actually old enough to become apprentices, and that a Circle tower is "no place for children" due to the inherent risks they'd be subjected to there (ranging from magical hazards to demons breaking free all the way to a Right of Annulment).

I think I know where this came from. David Gaider said that the children of Circle mages are taken away by the Chantry. Circle mages aren't permitted to raise their own children, with the only legal exception being the children of Grey Wardens, as the Warden mages don't operate under the auspicies of the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars like their Circle counterparts. Here is his exact quote:

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Yes, married or not the child of a mage is taken away by the Chantry.

Would the same happen if the mage was also a Grey Warden, such as the Warden-Commander of DA:O and Awakenings?

A mage who is not part of the Circle is not subject to the will of the Chantry. So, no.

Lynata wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Also, considering that you quoted me saying that the mages in the Circle of Kirkwall are innocent of Anders' actions specifically, I don't see why you are pretending that I had said something else.

In this case that seems to have been a miscommunication between us - I thought you were talking about the mages supposedly having nothing to do with the reasons for why Meredith invoked the Right of Annulment (which didn't happen because of Anders alone - he was merely the catalyst for her misguided zeal).

That's because Meredith explicitly says that she is going to kill every single mage in the Circle of Kirkwall because of what Anders did. Her argument in trying to convince Hawke to side with her is Anders' destruction of the Circle of Kirkwall, no other reason. Knight-Commander Meredith declares:

"The grand cleric has been slain by magic, the chantry destroyed. As knight-commander of Kirkwall, I hereby invoke the Right of Annulment. Every mage in the Circle is to be executed - immediately."

She never contests Anders' confession, nor Orsino pointing out that the Circle had nothing to do with this. Meredith explicitly declares, "And I demand that you stand with us! Even you must see that this outrage cannot be tolerated." By Meredith's own admission, killing hundreds of men, women, and children is all about the actions of one, single apostate who had no official ties to the Circle of Kirkwall.

Even Merrill points out, "No! This wasn't their fault. You can't possibly want to slaughter innocent people, can you?"

When Anders' confesses, Meredith doesn't contest it. She declares, "It doesn't matter. Even if I wished to, I could not stay my hand. The people will demand blood." She is going to kill hundreds of people - who are innocent of Anders' actions, to appease a hypothetical mob.

[dragonflight288]

That's because Meredith explicitly says that she is going to kill every single mage in the Circle of Kirkwall because of what Anders did. Her argument in trying to convince Hawke to side with her is Anders' destruction of the Circle of Kirkwall, no other reason. Knight-Commander Meredith declares:

"The grand cleric has been slain by magic, the chantry destroyed. As knight-commander of Kirkwall, I hereby invoke the Right of Annulment. Every mage in the Circle is to be executed - immediately."

She never contests Anders' confession, nor Orsino pointing out that the Circle had nothing to do with this. Meredith explicitly declares, "And I demand that you stand with us! Even you must see that this outrage cannot be tolerated." By Meredith's own admission, killing hundreds of men, women, and children is all about the actions of one, single apostate who had no official ties to the Circle of Kirkwall.

Even Merrill points out, "No! This wasn't their fault. You can't possibly want to slaughter innocent people, can you?"

When Anders' confesses, Meredith doesn't contest it. She declares, "It doesn't matter. Even if I wished to, I could not stay my hand. The people will demand blood." She is going to kill hundreds of people - who are innocent of Anders' actions, to appease a hypothetical mob.

And this is why I have never been able to honestly side with the Templar's in good faith at the end. I only did it once for the achievement of becoming Viscount, but never since.

[LobselVith8]

Always Alice wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Firstly, the mage issue may be just one part of the Chantry, but it is hardly an inconsequential part.  Part of the Chantry's very foundation is the belief that mages are dangerous and must be contained.  This may not be the REASON why the Chantry came into being, but it cannot be ignored that its position against mages--that it must contain them, control them, protect the world from them, and the fact that it incessantly preaches not only that mages are inherently cursed, ultimately to blame for humanity's first and greatest sin and the resultant darkspawn plague--is integral to its existence.  After all, Andraste waged her war against an empire built around magic and the concept of a magocracy, and afterward, the Chantry built much of its doctrine around the belief "that magic is meant to serve man and never to rule over him."  Without mages and magic, a great deal of the Chantry becomes irrelevant.  Which is not to say that the Chantry could not evolve into an organization that preaches Andrastianism without the whole "Mages are inherently cursed and must be contained for the good of the world" maxim.  But as it stands right NOW, in its current incarnation, the Chantry's stance against mages and magic is built into its central core.

I should have been clearer, regarding the bolded portion of my quote you focused on.  Yes, it is possible for someone to support parts of an organization and oppose others.  However, if I were to learn that you (again, general you) are a member of a given organization widely known for various abusive practices, because you openly claim membership, but you do not qualify WHY you are affiliated with it, it is not in the least bit unreasonable for me to assume, until you clarify otherwise, that you fully support all of its practices.  After all, you are openly claiming affiliation without any disclaimers that you reject the abusive bits.

So I suppose everyone who belongs to an organization should wear signs strapped to their neck explaining what parts they disagree with? Would that qualify as a "disclaimer"? A person doesn't (and shouldn't feel the need to) explain all the intricasies of their faith in casual conversation, as it is a personal matter.

The mage issue is far from inconsequential, I agree. And the idea of preaching that any one group is inherently sinful bothers me a lot. But for the average farmer in Thedas, how much do you think it matters to him? The only people who have any real idea of what goes on in Circles are mages, templars, and Chantry members who are stationed there. This is a horrible thing to say, but people don't really care unless it affects them personally (which is why so many non-mages are gung-ho with the idea of sending mages to Circles: because they're worried about what might happen to them if mages get out of control).  The things they care about? Food, community, shelter,security, all of which the Chantry provides. Why would someone feel the need to actively and loudly protest against something that doesn't concern them, especially when the Chantry helps them in other aspects of life?

The Chantry is is by far the largest organization in Thedas, with the vast majority or humans and elves considering themselves to be followers of it. You can't paint all these people with the same brush.

I recall the denizens of Darktown commenting on the fact that the Chantry never comes around there. In fact, the person helping the sick and ailing in that area is the apostate Anders, to the point where Ferelden refugees are willing to kill Hawke and his companions in order to protect Anders.

In fact, when Hawke brings up Alrik - who has been making mages tranquil illegally and sexually assaulting them - to Grand Cleric Elthina, she cuts the conversation short. Despite being Meredith's superior and the head of the local Chantry, she does nothing to prevent this situation from occuring again. I can see why people have a negative opinion about the Chantry, and the people affiliated with it.

Always Alice wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Getting back to the Chantry, bear in mind that its condemnation of mages are not the only reason I find it abhorrent.  I also dislike it for its Exalted March against the elves, for one thing. 

I don't like that either, but, to use your words, I try to focus on the Chantry "as it stands right NOW, in its current incarnation." Focusing on events that happened hundreds of years ago seems counterproductive.

The Chantry supported the Orlesian occupation of Ferelden that transpired mere decades prior to Origins. It doesn't seem like the Chantry has changed its stance on supporting Orlais invading other nations, and invoking the Maker's name to promote the Orlesian conquests.

Always Alice wrote...

Silfren wrote...

And I do not think that the good the Chantry does mitigates the bad.  No, it most certainly is not okay to oppress mages because you also feed the hungry, clothe the poor, and shelter the orphans.  No, doing those good things does not mean the bad should be overlooked. 

The bad should always be examined, never overlooked. And it's hard to tell without concrete numbers but I tentatively say that yes, I do think the "good" outweighs the "bad" in this case. We don't have exact numbers, but mages are a minority in Thedas (which is only recently growing in numbers). The poor are a much, much larger group. I assume there have been more people cared for  by the Chantry throughout history than there are mages.

We have poor and downtrodden people in Kirkwall saying that the Chantry never bothers to visit them.

Always Alice wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Yes, I'm fully in favor of tearing the Chantry apart and leaving those poor hungry, naked, and orphaned souls out in the cold, if it means that mages will be free. 

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume here that you've never been homeless, hungry, and worrying about the life of your child due to said circumstances.

But hey, free mages!

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that you don't know anyone who has chosen freedom and poverty over a life of oppression. I have family that left everything behind to leave the Batista regime (under General Fulgencio Batista Zaldívar) in Cuba. He was a dictator and military leader, and he ruled the island through puppet presidents. There are, indeed, people who would chose to leave their homes and their life savings for the chance at freedom.

Always Alice wrote...

Silfren wrote...

After all, helping those people does not require a Chantry, whereas the Chantry is directly responsible for the plight of mages. 

Please point me to these secular organizations in Thedas that are making it their perogative to shelter orphans, clothe the poor, feed the hungry, etc.

And the Chantry provides one thing those organizations can't: spiritual guidance.

Silfren is addressing that you don't need the Chantry of Andraste to help people; Hawke, for instance, could have used his wealth to help the downtrodden of Kirkwall. We also see that the Chantry makes it their focus to spread the Chant to the four corners of the world, which can result in problems with people who don't want to worship the Maker, as we see with members of the Chantry threatening the Dalish at Sundermount, and the Divine contemplating an Exalted March against Orzammar if Brother Burkel is supported in creating an Orzammar Chantry.

As for "spiritual guidance," we see where that guidance leads to, with Keili and Bethany thinking that their magic is a curse, and Andrastians in multiple games referring to mages as "cursed" because of their magical abilities. Keili even thinks that all mages deserve to die during "A Broken Circle." Cullen says that templars have "divine right" over mages in Act III. Wynne also talks about how Andrastians kill mages because they blame them for things they aren't responsible for - like droughts, or a baby not surviving. Mother Hannah in Redcliffe even needs to assure an Amell mage that a mob won't try to kill The Warden for being a mage.

The millennia of "spiritual guidance" of the Chantry preaching hatred and intolerance towards mages and magic has lead to a society that is intolerant towards mages, and sees people who don't worship the Maker as "heathens."

[Lynata]

Silfren wrote...
[...] which generally means that most children are grafted into the Circle as apprentices around the age of five or so [...]

"Late childhood to early adolescence", actually, as per the books. Now, what exactly this means in years is somewhat open to interpretation - as per wikipedia, the current consensus would seem to be around 12-14.

That being said, I suppose there is room for exceptions that are much younger, just like there can be mages whose ability only shows long after having become an adult - so I'll retract my earlier statement. I suppose it is more logical that a child displaying unschooled magical ability is sent to a circle for schooling asap, anyways, given that some Chantry orphanage doesn't have the means to prevent accidental casting.

LobselVith8 wrote...
I think I know where this came from. David Gaider said that the children of Circle mages are taken away by the Chantry. [...]

Mhm, no, it wasn't a quote from around here (the forums), it was from a description of the Circle towers. I'll try to dig through my books later, maybe I can find the exact wording again...
Given the above, however, I guess I may have simply mis-interpreted it and that it ties in with what has been said before rather than contradicting it.

LobselVith8 wrote...
That's because Meredith explicitly says that she is going to kill every single mage in the Circle of Kirkwall because of what Anders did. Her argument in trying to convince Hawke to side with her is Anders' destruction of the Circle of Kirkwall, no other reason.

That is her argument, but we both know that it is not her motivation. I do find it likely that Meredith would have reacted differently had she not been "tainted" by her personal experiences with magic and mages. This includes her childhood just as much as Orsino's attitude, as much as the latter is a mutual issue.

LobselVith8 wrote...
I recall the denizens of Darktown commenting on the fact that the Chantry never comes around there.

The city guard doesn't either. Darktown does not officially belong to Kirkwall and is overrun by criminals, toxic fume, apostate mages and illegal immigrants. That the Kirkwall in this time may lack Chantry sisters who don't like the
idea of risking their life carrying supplies down there to get robbed by the Carta does not diminish the fact that the Chantry as an organization still fulfills this role throughout Thedas.

LobselVith8 wrote...
The Chantry supported the Orlesian occupation of Ferelden that transpired mere decades prior to Origins. It doesn't seem like the Chantry has changed its stance on supporting Orlais invading other nations, and invoking the Maker's name to promote the Orlesian conquests.

Where exactly have you read that the Chantry actively promotes and supports war against nations of its own faith? Given that this situation would be akin to a civil war within the ranks of the Chantry, I find this hard to believe. If I missed something, I'd be grateful for a source.

The Orlesian invasion of Ferelden was not an Exalted March - were it otherwise, you can rest assured that the proud people of Ferelden would hold a grudge not only against Orlais but also their own religion. Not to mention that a "divinely justified" occupation would have been much more difficult to overcome than just a political one, considering that the Ferelden people are devout followers of this faith.

LobselVith8 wrote...
There are, indeed, people who would chose to leave their homes and their life savings for the chance at freedom.

There are also people who would gladly sacrifice their freedom if they could actually have a home and life savings. It boils down to the amount of freedom/luxury perceived by the individual compared to how they think it is elsewhere. A pretty common phenomenon amongst mankind, actually, which also applies to many other aspects of life. We have found an adage for this; it goes "the grass is always greener on the other side".

LobselVith8 wrote...
Silfren is addressing that you don't need the Chantry of Andraste to help people; Hawke, for instance, could have used his wealth to help the downtrodden of Kirkwall.

And Always Alice is addressing that there is no other organization than the Chantry providing this service throughout the Andrastean realms. Pointing out that some rich nobles may voluntarily help out does not change this - but it does ignore that (a) said nobles are likely influenced by the virtues propagated by the Chantry and ( the extreme rarity of these individuals.

LobselVith8 wrote...
The millennia of "spiritual guidance" of the Chantry preaching hatred and intolerance towards mages and magic has lead to a society that is intolerant towards mages, and sees people who don't worship the Maker as "heathens."

Individual zealots misinterpreting the Chant of Light does not change the contents of said Chant, nor does it make the Chantry as a whole "preach hatred". Intolerance and magic being a curse as well as a gift - yes. Out of necessity and both magic as well as mages posing a great threat to the populace if left uncontrolled, though I know you won't agree with it.

In the end, this sentiment is way older than the Chantry itself, which makes me entertain the notion that distrust of mages would still be around even if the religion never existed. Though one might certainly argue that the Chantry keeps "fanning the flames" and that hatred of mages might have died down in the centuries following Tevinter's fall, I regard it as likely that without the Chantry's control there would have simply been a higher amount of actual incidents keeping people's distrust awake. Chantry or no Chantry, people still get born as mages and accidentally set fire to their farms or turn into abominations on a killing spree - not to mention the lure of abuse as it exists in the Andrastean societies, evidenced in the recent developments in Tevinter. History does like to repeat itself, and the "modern man" is a greedy creature.

Of course, it is much easier to blame a singular organization such as the Chantry rather than individuals within it. This is also why the coming years within the setting will be so interesting - given that the mages are now their own singular (and free) organization as well, they will become just as liable to criticism concerning the flaws or actual evils committed by their individual members - like the recently promoted Adrian's betrayal - as the Chantry is now. I'm sure we will have some interesting debates in the future, too. 

Modifié par Lynata, 10 avril 2012 - 06:28 .

[Silfren]

Always Alice wrote...

The mage issue is far from inconsequential, I agree. And the idea of preaching that any one group is inherently sinful bothers me a lot. But for the average farmer in Thedas, how much do you think it matters to him? The only people who have any real idea of what goes on in Circles are mages, templars, and Chantry members who are stationed there. This is a horrible thing to say, but people don't really care unless it affects them personally (which is why so many non-mages are gung-ho with the idea of sending mages to Circles: because they're worried about what might happen to them if mages get out of control).  The things they care about? Food, community, shelter,security, all of which the Chantry provides. Why would someone feel the need to actively and loudly protest against something that doesn't concern them, especially when the Chantry helps them in other aspects of life?

The Chantry is is by far the largest organization in Thedas, with the vast majority or humans and elves considering themselves to be followers of it. You can't paint all these people with the same brush.

I think it matters a great deal to the average farmer, and it is ludicrous to attempt to imply otherwise, because it is specifically from the Chantry that the average farmer acquires his or her belief in Andrastianism, and by extension, the popular view of mages.  The general populace doesn't simply fear and hate mages on sight in spite of the Chantry, but because of it. 

I won't deny that people would likely be apt to fear mages without the Chantry.  Even if the Chantry did not exist, there would always be the occasion where a mage got blamed for someone's illness, or a particularly bad drought, etc.  However, the fact is, the Chantry does exist, and it is the primary source of anti-mage sentiment.  So it cannot be claimed that the Chantry is not where most people get their base opinion of mages. 

The Chantry is not the sole source of food, community, shelter, and security.  people could and would still have acess to those things without it.  However, the Chantry is the primary, if not sole, provider of anti-mage propaganda.

I don't like that either, but, to use your words, I try to focus on the Chantry "as it stands right NOW, in its current incarnation." Focusing on events that happened hundreds of years ago seems counterproductive.

And yet the Chantry's entire justification for its stance on mages is for something that happened over nine centuries ago.  Funny, that.

The bad should always be examined, never overlooked. And it's hard to tell without concrete numbers but I tentatively say that yes, I do think the "good" outweighs the "bad" in this case. We don't have exact numbers, but mages are a minority in Thedas (which is only recently growing in numbers). The poor are a much, much larger group. I assume there have been more people cared for  by the Chantry throughout history than there are mages.

What about the mages' families?  More hypothetically, what about all the people who could have been helped by magic if mages were free to live their lives among the communities that spawned them?  What about the fact that the Chantry's hardline stance has brought progress in certain fields to a standstill?  Someone else would have to provide the direct quotes, but I'm fairly sure I've read about the Chantry completely outlawing research that could lead to medical advancement, all on the grounds of the supposed inherent evil of blood magic.

For every mage, there are children and parents to consider, not even considering grandparents, siblings, etc.  For every mage child taken from its family, you have grieving mothers and fathers (of course speaking to those who actually love their children and aren't repulsed by a Chantry-ingrained hatred of magic, as Jowan's mother was).  But what about them, too?  What about families who kill their children who are discovered to be mages before the templars can even get to them?  What about families who refuse to bear children lest their continue a magical bloodline?  There are far more people affected by this than just the individual mages themselves.

Yes, I'm fully in favor of tearing the Chantry apart and leaving those poor hungry, naked, and orphaned souls out in the cold, if it means that mages will be free. 

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume here that you've never been homeless, hungry, and worrying about the life of your child due to said circumstances.

You would be wrong.  I have been both homeless and hungry and worried about any number of things.  I don't know whether you will believe this, but that is not my concern.  You are overlooking the fact that the Chantry need not be the sole provider of those basic things.  Surely you are aware that in the real world, there are PLENTY of organizations besides religious bodies that work to fill these needs?

But hey, free mages!
 

After all, helping those people does not require a Chantry, whereas the Chantry is directly responsible for the plight of mages.  

Please point me to these secular organizations in Thedas that are making it their perogative to shelter orphans, clothe the poor, feed the hungry, etc.

Irrelevant.  Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, first off, and even so, that there are no organizations now does not mean that if the Chantry did not exist, these also would not.  It is not unreasonable to point out that t there are none of these organizations because the Chantry fills that role.  There is no reason to believe that without the Chantry, an organization would not be formed to fill the void.Secondly, small communities do tend to help one another, out of basic decency, whether or not there are physical organizations dedicated to the cause. 

Finally, I give you Lirena's Imports, in Kirkwall.  Clearly there are people who do try to step in and help the needy, even though there is a Chantry supposedly there to do it already.  

And the Chantry provides one thing those organizations can't: spiritual guidance.

Irrelevant to the question of physical needs of shelter, security, and such.  It didn't bear mention in that context. 

[Silfren]

Lynata wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
The Chantry supported the Orlesian occupation of Ferelden that transpired mere decades prior to Origins. It doesn't seem like the Chantry has changed its stance on supporting Orlais invading other nations, and invoking the Maker's name to promote the Orlesian conquests.

Where exactly have you read that the Chantry actively promotes and supports war against nations of its own faith? Given that this situation would be akin to a civil war within the ranks of the Chantry, I find this hard to believe. If I missed something, I'd be grateful for a source.

The Orlesian invasion of Ferelden was not an Exalted March - were it otherwise, you can rest assured that the proud people of Ferelden would hold a grudge not only against Orlais but also their own religion. Not to mention that a "divinely justified" occupation would have been much more difficult to overcome than just a political one, considering that the Ferelden people are devout followers of this faith.

Um.  This is part of the lore of Origins.  You can also find it in the book, The Stolen Throne, and (I think) The Calling as well.  

The Chantry DID support Orlais's occupation of Ferelden, and Ferelden was a Chantry nation at the time.  It doesn't matter that it was not an Exalted March, because the fact remains that the occupation WAS supported by the Chantry.  And I think there is evidence actually that some Fereldens are bitter about this, though I'm not certain.

[Lynata]

Silfren wrote...
Um.  This is part of the lore of Origins.  You can also find it in the book, The Stolen Throne, and (I think) The Calling as well.  
The Chantry DID support Orlais's occupation of Ferelden, and Ferelden was a Chantry nation at the time.  It doesn't matter that it was not an Exalted March, because the fact remains that the occupation WAS supported by the Chantry.  And I think there is evidence actually that some Fereldens are bitter about this, though I'm not certain.

What form did this support take, precisely?

I'm fairly sure I've never noticed anything about this in Origins and the internet doesn't yield information about this subject either. I have the two novels you mentioned, but have yet to read them (started with Asunder as it's a more pressing topic; I've been trying to absorb background details for our ongoing P&P campaign).