1194 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadowvalker]

Now I would like to be a Dalish elf - travel to Orlais setting up camp and then start to preach elven religion - just jo see what would happen - and I just might bring som Dalish hunters for my protection.

[EmperorSahlertz]

You would be executed for preaching a heathen religion. And the difference is, Orlais can get away with it, because they don't have to take reprisal from an Elven nation into consideration.

[Shadowvalker]

I rest my case!

[EmperorSahlertz]

That would be wrong of you. Because then you have completely misudnerstood your own scenario.

[Shadowvalker]

My poijnt is that any form of etempt to force thier own religion upon others is at its very core worng! So I do not belive you are in the right.

I will alway defend my right to fight against any invasion of my country. I see the chantry as an aggressor regarding the elves and their beliefs.
Orlais coundn't match the elves and had to call upon a "holy" war? No nation can detemine my faith weapons in hand or not.

I keep on thinking about Hitlers "legal" reason for attacking Poland in 1939. I wonder why?!

A nation builded on religious mind control?? Keep in mind that Bioware offer us no evidence regarding a god and his/hers rules of conduct!

[dragonflight288]

We have the Chant of Light...and templars (not all of them) using certain lines to support their position irregardless of what the rest of the same stanza says.

[Shadowvalker]

That is hear say - not a statement from the gamemaster - Bioware - that there truely is a god.

Only once have I encountered a firm statement about what is good or evil in DA2 - Tarohne tomes! Listet as evil.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Shadowvalker wrote...

My poijnt is that any form of etempt to force thier own religion upon others is at its very core worng! So I do not belive you are in the right.

I will alway defend my right to fight against any invasion of my country. I see the chantry as an aggressor regarding the elves and their beliefs.
Orlais coundn't match the elves and had to call upon a "holy" war? No nation can detemine my faith weapons in hand or not.

I keep on thinking about Hitlers "legal" reason for attacking Poland in 1939. I wonder why?!

A nation builded on religious mind control?? Keep in mind that Bioware offer us no evidence regarding a god and his/hers rules of conduct!

The missionaries in the Dales were not there to "force" their religion on the Dalish. They were there to tell the Dalish of the Cahnt of Light, and try to bring as many of them to the Chant as possible. They weren't conducting some sort of forceful conversion of the population. The reason they weren't is becasue the Dales itself, was a powerful nation with their own religion, and if the Chantry had tried to force the conversions it would have caused an incidence. Once the Dales had fallen, Orlais and the Chantry could take their vengeance on the Dales by outlawing their religion. The Dales kicking the missionaries out of the Dales, is just as much forcing their people to remain believers of the pantheon.

[Shadowvalker]

Excuse me for making the rules of my home-country..

If I visit another country I do NOT question their beliefs - eating habbits or what not - I follow their laws and respectfully behave in an orderly mannor. The chantry condem those who does not believe in the maker - Ostagar. May the wardens forever...... I can't remember the full text... Sorry.

Faith is a personally issue and should remain as such. Advertise religion will always start trouble.

Unless the gamemaster - Bioware - frimly stats that there is a god then the Chantry or any other religion are in the wrong trying to convert people!

[EmperorSahlertz]

Since there is no difinitive proof for or against the existance of a Maker, you could arguable say that you are equally wrong at calling them wrong for trying to convert people. It is one of those catch 22s of religion.
Best is to accept other peoples' faith and customs, but not be swayed if they are against your own.

[dragonflight288]

And this is why we dwarves have no religion. lol.

[Shadowvalker]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Since there is no difinitive proof for or against the existance of a Maker, you could arguable say that you are equally wrong at calling them wrong for trying to convert people. It is one of those catch 22s of religion.
Best is to accept other peoples' faith and customs, but not be swayed if they are against your own.

That made no sense to me - sorry. Asking for money and support for an organization based on no facts is fraud. And at the very least a bad call of any gamemaster who is suppose to set the scene for the game! It would be like asking us to play a game without knowing what rules to play by.

[Urzon]

Shadowvalker wrote..

That made no sense to me - sorry. Asking for money and support for an organization based on no facts is fraud. And at the very least a bad call of any gamemaster who is suppose to set the scene for the game! It would be like asking us to play a game without knowing what rules to play by.

It's called faith, and it's what all the religions of the world on based on. They don't need proof to back up their claims. All they need is faith that their deity could/does exist.

[Shadowvalker]

Urzon wrote...

Shadowvalker wrote..

That made no sense to me - sorry. Asking for money and support for an organization based on no facts is fraud. And at the very least a bad call of any gamemaster who is suppose to set the scene for the game! It would be like asking us to play a game without knowing what rules to play by.

It's called faith, and it's what all the religions of the world on based on. They don't need proof to back up their claims. All they need is faith that their deity could/does exist.

Well I do feel more and more out of touch with the game!

It's like being ask to play tennis and not being told where the court is, with no tennis racket and no tennis ball!

[dragonflight288]

Well I do feel more and more out of touch with the game!

It's like being ask to play tennis and not being told where the court is, with no tennis racket and no tennis ball!

You don't need to have proof on any religion in any video game if the deity is real or not. Just like in real life, the existence of God, or Allah, or Ganesh, or any other deity, cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it convinces everyone. And all scientific evidence discovered in real life has not diminished the world's religious faith either. It can go either way. You don't need proof for a people to have faith.

Granted, I see where you're coming from on respecting other cultures, keeping their laws. But the whole tennis court and tennis ball analogy made absolutely no sense. I looked at that statement, puzzled over it, trying to make any kind of connection at all. None came.

[Porenferser]

I support the Templars because the mages in DA2 are garbage, most of the time.
The templars have some black sheeps, but are honorable all in all.

Modifié par Porenferser, 01 avril 2012 - 06:15 .

[GavrielKay]

Porenferser wrote...

I support the Templars because the mages in DA2 are garbage, most of the time.
Tha templars have some black sheeps, but are honorable all in all.

In my opinion, there is no honor in keeping people prisoner for life because they are born different.

And they do this in the name of a woman who made it her mission to free slaves.

[sangy]

To be honest in DA2 it's hard to really support either. I feel guilty supporting either side. Some Templars are horrible, yet a huge amount of mages turn into abominations, especially at the end. I agree the Templars are what provoked this. I think the Dragon Age team leaves it pretty much on equal ground for you to decide which way to go, even if either way seems good or bad.

Sadly though, supporting the mages is pretty much the morally correct decision. They're shown to be more of the victim.

[Porenferser]

Sadly though, supporting the mages is pretty much the morally correct decision. They're shown to be more of the victim.

That depends on the moral of the player.
Its right that most of the players prefer the mages, but it is wrong to assume that there is a real right or wrong in those 2 choices.

Modifié par Porenferser, 01 avril 2012 - 07:20 .

[GavrielKay]

Porenferser wrote...

Sadly though, supporting the mages is pretty much the morally correct decision. They're shown to be more of the victim.

That depends on the moral of the player.
Its right that most of the players prefer the mages, but it is wrong to assume that there is a real right or wrong in those 2 choices.

I'm not convinced that is true.  I think the developers wanted to make it true, but I don't think it is.

There is clearly an oppressed minority in the game (well, more than one, but we're talking about mages here).  Whether or not that minority has special abilities that freak out the majority or not, oppression is oppression.  Stealing children (or capturing adults) and locking them up for life because you're afraid of them is objectively wrong.

I think you can make a case for the "rightness" of required training and maybe (maybe, but I'm not sure...) registration of mages so they can be tracked.  There is a certain amount of justification for the "saving them from themselves" mentality. 

Lifetime imprisonment at the hands of religious zealots is not morally right by any stretch that I can make.

Given that:
a) the system is actually abused by a certain number of Templars
the system often fails to prevent the very incidents it was created to prevent - sometimes even creating such incidents due to families wishing to protect their mage children from lifelong incarceration
c) other cultures still exist with free mages - thus definitively NOT having been wiped out by a rash of abominations

So, the circle system is abused, only partially effective and unnecessary to boot.  That makes the system rather indefensible in my eyes.

[Lynata]

GavrielKay wrote...
I'm not convinced that is true.

Of course not. It seems pretty clear you're pro-mage, and thus would like your position in the games to be confirmed, not put into question. Makes it easier on the conscience, even in cases where an easy solution simply still doesn't exist.

You're argueing for an oppressed minority that has been put into a gilded cage. I'm argueing for the safety of the majority. It all boils down to "individual freedom" versus a community's "greater good". The reason for why we have laws and pay taxes. There's nothing more to it and any solution you can come up with will incorporate negative downsides, so logically we'd have to settle for one we deem "the lesser evil". Which one that is depends very much on how much emphasis we as people put on the individual over the community or vice versa as well as the focus of our personal ideals.

Let me turn your list around:

a) Mage freedom is actually abused by a large number of mages
 The Circle system succeeded in catching the majority of mages before they turned into a problem (either by personal ambitions or demonic possession)
c) neither Dalish Keepers nor tribal shamans follow the lure of civilization that led Tevinter magisters to turn to blood magic - and even then an undisclosed number of these free mages do turn into dangers; demons lurking in the Fade is no myth to scare young children

From a discussion between two seasoned mages in the novel Asunder:

"Hmm. Arcanist derangement, perhaps?"
Rhys exchanged a confused look with Cole. "What . . . kind of derangement?"
"A term coined by the Magister Allineas at the height of the Towers Age. He posited that magical talent is like a flowing river. Properly channeled, it finds its way to the ocean - mages such as yourself, possessing the ability to cast spells." He gestured at Cole. "Left to its own devices, however, it might flow in a different and unexpected direction. But that talent will express itself somehow."
Rhys frowned. "You're saying he's a hedge mage."
"A derogatory term, one created by the Chantry. Prior to the Circle, magical talent expressed itself in many ways, often guided by ancient tradition. Some of these 'hedge mages', as you call them, possessed powers no Circle spell could replicate. Their unpredictability was considered a threat."
"You make it sound like a good thing."
The elf spread his hands in surrender. "I only go by the old texts. I will say the term 'derangement' was no accident, however. These wild talents were more than unpredictable; they were chaotic. Allineas mentions these people communing with spirits, being lured into darker paths . . . many of them went insane. Few lived long lives."


So the Circle system is absolutely necessary, even when you have isolated cases of human error - which will, let's be honest here, always be a factor may lead to abuse or safety leaks. In my personal assessment, I'd rather condone a templar's human error resulting in the death of a dozen mages than a mage's human error resulting in the death of an entire city.
It may sound cold, but in the end it comes down to simple mathematics and picking the solution that saves more lives than the alternative.

The Tevinter Imperium was a salutory lesson of what happens when mages are left to their own devices. That makes mage freedom rather indefensible in my eyes.

Modifié par Lynata, 02 avril 2012 - 01:18 .

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The missionaries in the Dales were not there to "force" their religion on the Dalish. They were there to tell the Dalish of the Cahnt of Light, and try to bring as many of them to the Chant as possible.

So the missionaries were kicked out of the Dales, and the Chantry sent in armed and armored soldiers to an independent nation, but you're claiming that you don't think it was to force conversion?

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

They weren't conducting some sort of forceful conversion of the population. The reason they weren't is becasue the Dales itself, was a powerful nation with their own religion, and if the Chantry had tried to force the conversions it would have caused an incidence. 

Actually, according to the Dalish, it did cause an incident - it's what the Dalish elves believe caused the war between the Dales and Orlais (and the Chantry).

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Once the Dales had fallen, Orlais and the Chantry could take their vengeance on the Dales by outlawing their religion. The Dales kicking the missionaries out of the Dales, is just as much forcing their people to remain believers of the pantheon.

The entire point of the Dales was that the elves were trying to restore their culture. You seem to pointlessly villify them.

[LobselVith8]

Lynata wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Orlesian version is certainly that the elven attack on Red Crossing was unprovoked, but the contention from the Dalish is that the war started when the Chantry sent in templars after the elves kicked out their missionaries.

Well, with Keeper Ralaferin there is at least one Dalish historian that backs up the Orlesian version. Just because some elves have conveniently forgotten about Red Crossing doesn't mean the event never occurred - it would explain a drastically different perception of history, though.

You seem to have misunderstood me. I addressed that the Dalish claim that the war started because the Chantry sent in templars after the elves kicked the Chantry missionaries out of the Dales. Simply because Orlais and the Chantry claim that the war started because of the attack on Red Crossing doesn't mean that is the case - the elves could have attacked the town in response to a prior attack made against them. Considering how Orlais (and the Chantry) have a history of conquest (from their inception conquering neighboring city-states centuries ago to the recent occupation of Ferelden), I don't think it's as black and white as the Chantry historians claim.

Lynata wrote...

Either way, I think Ralaferin's account is the most accurate, simply because it incorporates "bad things" from both sides. Where Orlesian history omits the pressure of its missionaries and where some elves don't talk about Red Crossing, Ralaferin weaves it all into a coherent tale where both sides have made mistakes, which often is the most realistic explanation for bloody conflict between nations that otherwise preach peaceful cooperation.

The Dalish never claim that Red Crossing never happened, they simply claim that the war started as a response to the fact that they refused to be converted to the Chant of Light.

Lynata wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

We see Merrill's intelligence time and again.

Of course, she isn't dumb. There's a difference between intelligence and wisdom, though. You can be clever, yet utterly naive (what I claim Merril is) because you lack the experience in that area. Just like you can be experienced but still stupid (what you claim Maratheri is).

You seem to claim that Merrill is naive because she did research on a two thousand year old elven relic that her Keeper didn't seem to bother putting any effort into researching herself. I suppose I have difficulty with your claim that Merrill is naive simply because she does something you, personally, disagree with. Merrill knows the risks, she knows the dangers, but she sees that the potential benefits outweight the possibility of her death in this endeavor. Therefore, I don't see how you could claim she is naive. It's like me claiming that people who agree with templars are naive simply because they have a different point of view than I do.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 02 avril 2012 - 03:02 .

[GavrielKay]

Lynata wrote...
You're argueing for an oppressed minority that has been put into a gilded cage. I'm argueing for the safety of the majority. It all boils down to "individual freedom" versus a community's "greater good". The reason for why we have laws and pay taxes. There's nothing more to it and any solution you can come up with will incorporate negative downsides, so logically we'd have to settle for one we deem "the lesser evil". Which one that is depends very much on how much emphasis we as people put on the individual over the community or vice versa as well as the focus of our personal ideals.
...
The Tevinter Imperium was a salutory lesson of what happens when mages are left to their own devices. That makes mage freedom rather indefensible in my eyes.

Individuals make up communities.  If individual rights aren't preserved, then there aren't really any rights.  It is too easy to point to the mages and say they are clearly different, thus somehow exempt from the rights anyone else would have.  Plus, the circles hardly qualify as "gilded cages."  I'd gladly scrounge for my own food rather than wonder which Templar was going to rape me or one of my friends on any given night.

Even the Qunari were allowed to roam freely around Kirkwall.  Clearly they are dangerous, and should one decide to, he could cut down plenty or ordinary folks before being stopped.  They have a history of conquest and physical strength that makes them far more formidable than your average merchant.  Yet, they weren't rounded up and imprisoned.

When faced with a group of people who can cause you harm, there are many options.  Lifelong incarcertion can't possibly be the best one.

Thousands of years of human progress and thinking has led us to a time when it is generally accepted that the majority doesn't have the right to protect itself by pre-emptively imprisoning anyone who might be dangerous.  Taking reasonable precautions against preventable dangers is a good thing, locking up people you're afraid of before they have a chance to do anything wrong isn't.

Tevinter is one example, trotted out repeatedly, of what can happen when people abuse power.  The Chantry is another good example of what can  happen when people abuse power.  Turning the tables and subjugating mages isn't morally any better than the reverse.

[Cantina]

I have not read everyone’s replies, so many pages, sorry!

I will say this, in Origins; I hated the Templars and the
Chantry. When Dragon Age 2 came out my rage for both came back and intensified.


The Chantry uses Andrastes words as a collar for mages and
uses it to inflict fear on the populace. They sit there and say, “Oh magic is
bad.” Yet, their army of Templars uses “blood magic” and regular magic-mostly
against other mages, sure, but it is still magic.

Then the Templars go to extremes and rape, abuse, torture
mages. Hell when a mage is found out they are chained and dragged from their
home, usually in front of other people, mainly their family. This no doubt
causes them to take drastic measures, as you see in the quest “On the loose.”

The Chantry is a hypocritical system and they spread it outward.
People assume that this is the best way to deal with the mages, but it is not,
it just causes more problems.

People blame magic for everything, magic is not the problem.
The problem is the person. If some nutcase ran around murdering people with a
knife, are you going to blame the knife for being the problem?

I do not think all Circles are like Kirkwall, Ferelden did
not seem to be. However, Kirkwall shows just how bad things can get when the
Templars are allowed to get away with anything, much less the Knight Commander.


I am not a fan of blood magic or demons, but I will say,
most of the times these things happen because mages are pushed to desperation,
which most of the time the Templars cause it to happen. Hell, I am starting to
think the Templars do it on purpose, so they continue their sorry little system
and it gives them something to beat more fear into the populace.

Oh, I could carry on more and probably make this into a
novel, but I will not do that.

I know peeps are not going to agree with my small summary of
my view, but hey everyone has opinions.

And before I get mail or a reply asking, yes I agree with
Anders, yes, I did agree with him blowing up the Chantry, saving him and running
away.

<whew>