175 réponses à ce sujet

[The Minority]

Relatively useless.

[ObserverStatus]

Both the Orlesian and Tevinter Chantries should be torn down, to make way for a new Chantry that has the integrity to teach its followers how much the Maker hates mages.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Erik Lehnsherr wrote...

Imperial Sentinel Arian wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

A religious group which receives more hatred than it deserves by the community because of their hatred of real-life religion.

Hated by anarchic maniacs who burn the world with their magical experiments.

Says the Naz-i,

I'm also aware of Godwin's law, it still doesn't make the fact that you embody one any different.

EDIT: I'm also not concerned with "Winning" this discussion.
However I have picked out this quote to keep people aware of what they are dealing with. 

Said by a fake Obi Wan in jester disguise ..

I am honored to keep the land safe from the the terror of chaos raised by anarchists and "magicians".

[Eternal Phoenix]

Erik Lehnsherr wrote...

Imperial Sentinel Arian wrote...

Erik Lehnsherr wrote...

Imperial Sentinel Arian wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

A religious group which receives more hatred than it deserves by the community because of their hatred of real-life religion.

Hated by anarchic maniacs who burn the world with their magical experiments.

Says the Naz-i,

I'm also aware of Godwin's law, it still doesn't make the fact that you embody one any different.

EDIT: I'm also not concerned with "Winning" this discussion.
However I have picked out this quote to keep people aware of what they are dealing with. 

Said by a fake Obi Wan in jester disguise ..

I am honored to keep the land safe from the the terror of chaos raised by anarchists and "magicians".

And? That makes a difference?

Oh Get over yourself, all you are doing is sitting on your ass and acting like a tough-guy on the internet. 

EDIT: And I'm finished with you. 

I'm not going to waste my time arguing Logic with an idiot.

But what is a man? Oh enough talk! Have at you!

[LolaLei]

LOL what have I walked in on?!

[DarkDragon777]

Erik Lehnsherr wrote...

I only believe in a Government-less life, So Tear em down I say.

Have fun living in anarchy. I'm sure it will be easy if you're prepared to defend and scavenge for resources.<_<

[TJX2045]

 I like the Chantry, however I think some of the templars (and specifically most of them in Kirkwall) twist their words around to their benefit to justify persecution and hate, much like real life religion.

hussey 92 wrote...

Windninja47 wrote...

Sebastian proved that not all Chantry people are bad guys. I quite like the Chantry.

but he does threaten all of Kirkwall if you don't kill Anders [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/uncertain.png[/smilie]

 
I think Sebastian is ok but he wants to act like he isn't human or holier than thou until he wants revenge on someone.  Then all his teachings and reasoning go out the window and he's back to the Sebastian he was before he went to the Chantry for guidance.  He can't let go of anything for the life of him.

I think Sebastian also has a deep rooted judgement of Mages since he keeps calling them "maleficarum" suggesting that he assumes all mages are evil from his upbringing.  Similar to Fenris but he was corrupted without religion involved and is pretty athiest IMO.

Modifié par TJX2045, 13 juin 2012 - 08:38 .

[AndrahilAdrian]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

A religious group which receives more hatred than it deserves by the community because of their hatred of real-life religion.

To some extent. But it's hard to hate Meredith more than she deserves.

Ser Bryant, on the other hand, was a cool guy, no matter how much real life religion sucks.

As for the self-righteous priest telling the man what prices he can sell his goods at... that guy was arguably less sympathetic than the priest. Monopoly-milking people like him are the reason people irl gave communism a try. (The bad news being that people like him ended up running it.)

He didn't have a monopoly. There was another merchant in the inn. The chantry woman wanted him to sell his wares at-below market prices, which would eventually drive him out of business, not to mention taking away the market's ability to allocate goods to those who want them most (if necissary items are artificially cheap, they will be bought up by people who don't need them). As he said, the people decide what his goods were worth to them. Ignorant priest obviously didn't pay attention in elementary micro.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

He didn't have a monopoly. There was another merchant in the inn. The chantry woman wanted him to sell his wares at-below market prices, which would eventually drive him out of business, not to mention taking away the market's ability to allocate goods to those who want them most (if necissary items are artificially cheap, they will be bought up by people who don't need them). As he said, the people decide what his goods were worth to them. Ignorant priest obviously didn't pay attention in elementary micro.

"If you're here about food, take it up with the bleeding runt by the Chantry! I've got other gear to sell."

He had a monopoly on at least one class of item, and a neccesary class of item at that. The deal that is eventually reached (if he doesn't end up leaving or being given a free hand) was the prices he would have charged before the crisis, which is fair, reasonable, and what people are willing to pay. Given a free hand, he'd have just charged whatever he could have gotten away with, which is basically anything. How is that fair?

Free market is not a cure-all, and arguably not even a good system, because it allows predatory behavior on the part of providers except when there is some competition (and sometimes even then.) There is no simple solution to economic problems, and if there was it wouldn't be Laissez-faire. That has been tried.

Edit: And yes, I realize that the priest suggests a simple solution. I never said it was perfect, but it's this, or he leaves, or he keeps gouging people. (Or we let Sten arbitrate. None of these are even as good as the compromise)


Off-Topic Edit: I like your signature.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 14 juin 2012 - 03:03 .

[AndrahilAdrian]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

He didn't have a monopoly. There was another merchant in the inn. The chantry woman wanted him to sell his wares at-below market prices, which would eventually drive him out of business, not to mention taking away the market's ability to allocate goods to those who want them most (if necissary items are artificially cheap, they will be bought up by people who don't need them). As he said, the people decide what his goods were worth to them. Ignorant priest obviously didn't pay attention in elementary micro.

"If you're here about food, take it up with the bleeding runt by the Chantry! I've got other gear to sell."

He had a monopoly on at least one class of item, and a neccesary class of item at that. The deal that is eventually reached (if he doesn't end up leaving or being given a free hand) was the prices he would have charged before the crisis, which is fair, reasonable, and what people are willing to pay. Given a free hand, he'd have just charged whatever he could have gotten away with, which is basically anything. How is that fair?

Free market is not a cure-all, and arguably not even a good system, because it allows predatory behavior on the part of providers except when there is some competition (and sometimes even then.) There is no simple solution to economic problems, and if there was it wouldn't be Laissez-faire. That has been tried.

Edit: And yes, I realize that the priest suggests a simple solution. I never said it was perfect, but it's this, or he leaves, or he keeps gouging people. (Or we let Sten arbitrate. None of these are even as good as the compromise)


Off-Topic Edit: I like your signature.

The prices before the crisis would not reflect the increased demand it caused. As a result, people who didn't really need the food would buy it, becuase the price is artificially low, possibly to just resell them at market price anyway. The merchant's high prices would ensure his goods only go to people who really need them, because only they would be willing to pay for them. Price controls screw up the price mechanism, and almost always make things worse, like how rent control leads to housing shortages. And none of this changes the fact that those were his wares, bought fairly, and he had the right to sell them at whatever price he wanted. This is the problem with the chantry; they think they know whats best for everyone better than the people themselves . 
Off-Topic Edit: Thanks. The word must be spread.

Modifié par AndrahilAdrian, 14 juin 2012 - 05:42 .

[Plaintiff]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

He didn't have a monopoly. There was another merchant in the inn. The chantry woman wanted him to sell his wares at-below market prices, which would eventually drive him out of business, not to mention taking away the market's ability to allocate goods to those who want them most (if necissary items are artificially cheap, they will be bought up by people who don't need them). As he said, the people decide what his goods were worth to them. Ignorant priest obviously didn't pay attention in elementary micro.

"If you're here about food, take it up with the bleeding runt by the Chantry! I've got other gear to sell."

He had a monopoly on at least one class of item, and a neccesary class of item at that. The deal that is eventually reached (if he doesn't end up leaving or being given a free hand) was the prices he would have charged before the crisis, which is fair, reasonable, and what people are willing to pay. Given a free hand, he'd have just charged whatever he could have gotten away with, which is basically anything. How is that fair?

Free market is not a cure-all, and arguably not even a good system, because it allows predatory behavior on the part of providers except when there is some competition (and sometimes even then.) There is no simple solution to economic problems, and if there was it wouldn't be Laissez-faire. That has been tried.

Edit: And yes, I realize that the priest suggests a simple solution. I never said it was perfect, but it's this, or he leaves, or he keeps gouging people. (Or we let Sten arbitrate. None of these are even as good as the compromise)


Off-Topic Edit: I like your signature.

The prices before the crisis would not reflect the increased demand it caused. As a result, people who didn't really need the food would buy it, becuase the price is artificially low, possibly to just resell them at market price anyway. The merchant's high prices would ensure his goods only go to people who really need them, because only they would be willing to pay for them. Price controls screw up the price mechanism, and almost always make things worse, like how rent control leads to housing shortages. And none of this changes the fact that those were his wares, bought fairly, and he had the right to sell them at whatever price he wanted. This is the problem with the chantry; they think they know whats best for everyone better than the people themselves . 
Off-Topic Edit: Thanks. The word must be spread.

Willingness to pay doesn't come into the equation at all. Most, if not all of his customers are refugees. It is unlikely that any of them are capable of paying. What little they had was a) left behind in the panic and destroyed by the darkspawn hordes or taken by the bandits patrolling Lothering.

If a naked man crawling through the Sahara won't give you $10,000 for a glass of water, it's not because he doesn't need the water, it's because it is physically impossible for him to deliver the sum you're asking.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 14 juin 2012 - 06:38 .

[AndrahilAdrian]

Plaintiff wrote...

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

He didn't have a monopoly. There was another merchant in the inn. The chantry woman wanted him to sell his wares at-below market prices, which would eventually drive him out of business, not to mention taking away the market's ability to allocate goods to those who want them most (if necissary items are artificially cheap, they will be bought up by people who don't need them). As he said, the people decide what his goods were worth to them. Ignorant priest obviously didn't pay attention in elementary micro.

"If you're here about food, take it up with the bleeding runt by the Chantry! I've got other gear to sell."

He had a monopoly on at least one class of item, and a neccesary class of item at that. The deal that is eventually reached (if he doesn't end up leaving or being given a free hand) was the prices he would have charged before the crisis, which is fair, reasonable, and what people are willing to pay. Given a free hand, he'd have just charged whatever he could have gotten away with, which is basically anything. How is that fair?

Free market is not a cure-all, and arguably not even a good system, because it allows predatory behavior on the part of providers except when there is some competition (and sometimes even then.) There is no simple solution to economic problems, and if there was it wouldn't be Laissez-faire. That has been tried.

Edit: And yes, I realize that the priest suggests a simple solution. I never said it was perfect, but it's this, or he leaves, or he keeps gouging people. (Or we let Sten arbitrate. None of these are even as good as the compromise)


Off-Topic Edit: I like your signature.

The prices before the crisis would not reflect the increased demand it caused. As a result, people who didn't really need the food would buy it, becuase the price is artificially low, possibly to just resell them at market price anyway. The merchant's high prices would ensure his goods only go to people who really need them, because only they would be willing to pay for them. Price controls screw up the price mechanism, and almost always make things worse, like how rent control leads to housing shortages. And none of this changes the fact that those were his wares, bought fairly, and he had the right to sell them at whatever price he wanted. This is the problem with the chantry; they think they know whats best for everyone better than the people themselves . 
Off-Topic Edit: Thanks. The word must be spread.

Willingness to pay doesn't come into the equation at all. Most, if not all of his customers are refugees. It is unlikely that any of them are capable of paying. What little they had was a) left behind in the panic and destroyed by the darkspawn hordes or taken by the bandits patrolling Lothering.

If a naked man crawling through the Sahara won't give you $10,000 for a glass of water, it's not because he doesn't need the water, it's because it is physically impossible for him to deliver the sum you're asking.

Its not in his interests to put the prices above what the refugees are capable of paying, because then he wouldn't sell anything. Obviously.
Edit: The guy offering me water isn't going to get any money by demanding more than I can (or am willing to) pay, is he? We will haggle over the water, and I will give him as much as the water is worth to me. This will be more than what the guy who already has a bunch of water is willing to pay, so the water will go to the guy who most needs it (me). If, on the other hand, a self-righeous priest comes along and forces him to lower the price, the other guy has a good chance of buying it up, leaving me to die.

Modifié par AndrahilAdrian, 14 juin 2012 - 07:08 .

[Goneaviking]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

A religious group which receives more hatred than it deserves by the community because of their hatred of real-life religion.

To some extent. But it's hard to hate Meredith more than she deserves.

Ser Bryant, on the other hand, was a cool guy, no matter how much real life religion sucks.

As for the self-righteous priest telling the man what prices he can sell his goods at... that guy was arguably less sympathetic than the priest. Monopoly-milking people like him are the reason people irl gave communism a try. (The bad news being that people like him ended up running it.)

I'd argue that Meredith shouldn't be taken as representative of the Chantry. Are templars even part of the Chantry's official organisation?

I've tended to assume they were like the knightly orders historically: motivated by religion, sanctioned by the church but not part of it. But I haven't gone to the trouble of reading novels or other supplemental knowledge.

The priest's confrontation with the profiteer in Lothering was one of the better scenes in defining what the Chantry is supposed to be. That individual was exploiting the trouble to make a quick profit at the expense of the community; there was no need for him to gouge his customers and increase their suffering.

It's certainly a better view of the Chantry than it's relationship with the Circle.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Another one of these threads? Oh boy...

Well, the Chantry is OK.
Does good work, is necessary, and for it's comparative time period, it is very progressive.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Dave of Canada wrote...

A religious group which receives more hatred than it deserves by the community because of their hatred of real-life religion.

QFT.

Frankly the intensity of dislike and hatered towards religion in real life (and fictional) I've seen in some people scares me.
They are comparable to the worst funadamentalist, religious nutcases in their zeal and narrowmindedness.

[AndrahilAdrian]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

A religious group which receives more hatred than it deserves by the community because of their hatred of real-life religion.

QFT.

Frankly the intensity of dislike and hatered towards religion in real life (and fictional) I've seen in some people scares me.
They are comparable to the worst funadamentalist, religious nutcases in their zeal and narrowmindedness.

Absense of belief in something is never narrowminded unless there is overwhelming evidence for it, or it logically follows from accepted truths. But that's beside the point - intense dislike of the fictional chantry in no way implies dislike of real religion, and to imply that it does is insulting to bothe believers and non - believers. It is possible to hate the chantry for their self-righteousness and mistreatment of mages and still believe in God.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

A religious group which receives more hatred than it deserves by the community because of their hatred of real-life religion.

QFT.

Frankly the intensity of dislike and hatered towards religion in real life (and fictional) I've seen in some people scares me.
They are comparable to the worst funadamentalist, religious nutcases in their zeal and narrowmindedness.

Absense of belief in something is never narrowminded unless there is overwhelming evidence for it, or it logically follows from accepted truths. But that's beside the point - intense dislike of the fictional chantry in no way implies dislike of real religion, and to imply that it does is insulting to bothe believers and non - believers. It is possible to hate the chantry for their self-righteousness and mistreatment of mages and still believe in God.

Tunnel vision and irrational hatered are narrowminded. Period.
I've met plenty of religious zealots and religion-hateing militant atheists and I really can't see any difference in how they behave.

And let's not talk about self-righotousness, unelss we want every human being on the planet purged.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 14 juin 2012 - 08:07 .

[Goneaviking]

AndrahilAdrian wrote...

Absense of belief in something is never narrowminded unless there is overwhelming evidence for it, or it logically follows from accepted truths. But that's beside the point - intense dislike of the fictional chantry in no way implies dislike of real religion, and to imply that it does is insulting to bothe believers and non - believers. It is possible to hate the chantry for their self-righteousness and mistreatment of mages and still believe in God.

Absence of belief is often narrowminded. Particularly where an individual's lack of belief leads them to the conclusion that it's acceptable to abuse others' for their beliefs and to insult and denigrate those beliefs with caricatures and gross distortions.

Which happens frequently in virtually any online discussion dealing with religion, real or fictitious.

[Plaintiff]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

A religious group which receives more hatred than it deserves by the community because of their hatred of real-life religion.

QFT.

Frankly the intensity of dislike and hatered towards religion in real life (and fictional) I've seen in some people scares me.
They are comparable to the worst funadamentalist, religious nutcases in their zeal and narrowmindedness.

Everyone who dislikes the Chantry obviously just hates religion! That makes perfect sense because the Chantry is totally faultless! It's not as if they invade other countries and oppress minorities, or ignore obvious injustices like gangrape and beatings in their own institutions.

Those silly, ignorant church-haters, basing their judgement of an organization on the things it actually does rather than blindly accepting genocide and bigotry just because the people perpetrating it align with their personal religious beliefs.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 14 juin 2012 - 09:34 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Strawman.

I never said EVERYONE.

Also, half-truths and plenty of assumptions do not a solid agument make. You are free to belive the Chantry ingores all problems, doesn't care and is opressive and evil, as wrong as that is.
But the perspective is deeply flawed for numerous reasons, least of all being the modern viewpoint, insted of a one more rooted in the setting and time period.