166 réponses à ce sujet

[Adrian68b]

Are you saying that killing innocent people is justified?
So, in that case, killing a mage child is just perfect. But how about a crazed of psychotic heir of a king? How much devastation could such an heir do? He doesn't need to be a mage!

Modifié par Adrian68b, 17 septembre 2012 - 08:02 .

[Shadow Fox]

Adrian68b wrote...

So, in your opinion, the best thing Alistair and the PC could do in DAO is to kill themselves and leave Ferelden at the mercy of darkspawn, just because nobody believe them about the Blight and the Archdemon. And also every mage in Thedas must kill himself, because he/she is a monster.
Everyone could became a monster, in DA world or in ours. Just remember the ****s, for instance.
I remember that in the mage origin, at the end of Harrowing, the PC could easily recognize the temptation of the pride demon. So, as I said, moral mages are protected; the real problem is about imoral mages, as with imoral templars as well. As I recall from DAO lore, the chantry choses templars based of their obedience to the Chantry (blind obedience, if possible). They are chosen to not question orders. This is exactly what the obedient ****s did; this is the way to became a monster.

Way to be extreme there no but they could have went to Orlais for backup rather then fight a polictical battle against Loghain  and most likely the Wardens would have been perfectfully fine if Ferelden couldn't have been saved it would have just been unfortunate colatteral damage if anything it would have helped the Wardens by proving their necessity in dealing with Blights. No Mages need someone to watch them because they are interently dangerous unlike non mages who can't freeze,shock or set people on fire just because they want to or turn into monsters by being taken over by a demon.

That's the way every millatary organization recruits obedience and loyalty come first before a strong moral center.

[Shadow Fox]

Adrian68b wrote...

Are you saying that killing innocent people is justified?
So, in that case, killing a mage child is just perfect. But how about a crazed of psychotic heir of a king? How much devastation could such an heir do? He doesn't need to be a mage!

The rite of tranquilty was created as an alternative to killing high risk Mages it aint perfect but they don't just kill mages because they might get possesed once they do though they cease to be people.

Again you're thinking in strictly black and white terms when such a thing isn't appliable to a political situatain How do you determine if  a ruler is just or a tyrant he can be kind to his subjects yet butcher his enemies/detractors is he a fair and just ruler or a power mad tyrant? And yes most of the time if a king  was considered to compromise his nation plans would be made by the other nobles to get rid of him*usually via assassination*.

[Adrian68b]

So, in your opinion saving Ferelden was just stupid, and the good alternative would be a retreat to Orlais? What about the fereldans? I REALLY don't understand. Your point is that the entire DAO was pointless? If that is the case, why did you played it?
My viewpoint is that a radical, general solution is always sadistic and immoral. It is exactly what the mongols had done, or the chinese for instance, in case of opposition or rebellion: killing every living soul, animals included.
Killing every apostate mage on sight, the elven one included, is the Chantry solution. Do you also think that this is brilliant? What about retaliation? What about Flemeth?
Do you sincerely expect that a living person just accept such a fate, without fight, just because some Chantry dogma?

[cindercatz]

He's a tyrant. You have to accept some chaos, some destructive element, in any just society, because it can never be eradicated and any oppressive cure is worse than the disease.

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

That's the way every millatary organization recruits obedience and loyalty come first before a strong moral center.

Which is exactly why I chose not to join the military and never will.

[Shadow Fox]

Adrian68b wrote...

So, in your opinion saving Ferelden was just stupid, and the good alternative would be a retreat to Orlais? What about the fereldans? I REALLY don't understand. Your point is that the entire DAO was pointless? If that is the case, why did you played it?
My viewpoint is that a radical, general solution is always sadistic and immoral. It is exactly what the mongols had done, or the chinese for instance, in case of opposition or rebellion: killing every living soul, animals included.
Killing every apostate mage on sight, the elven one included, is the Chantry solution. Do you also think that this is brilliant? What about retaliation? What about Flemeth?
Do you sincerely expect that a living person just accept such a fate, without fight, just because some Chantry dogma?

From a purely pragmatic/practical standpoint yes it was you don't seem to understand that the Wardens are not heroes that save people from monsters Sophia Dryden fought against a tyrant and tried to be a hero and the Wardens condemmed her for getting involed in a political struggle and look how that turned out. The Blight is supposed to be thier only concern as Duncan flat out tells you sacrifices must be made to defeat the Darkspawn. I played Origins because I like fantasy rpgs and all  my characters are heroes who save peple from monsters that go against the tenets of the Wardens in the process.

The Rite of Annulment if that's what you're refering to is only supposed to be invoked when a Circle is compromised/unable to be saved to prevent abominations from getting out the needs of the many vs the needs of the few.

And yet the Mage/Templar war isn't a  one sided slaughter of the Templars who have the majority support of Thedas so I don't know why they should fear retaliation when it's the mages that should and Flemeth doesn't care about other mages so why would she do anything? The only reason she helps Hawke and the Warden are because they have a use to her.

Modifié par Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke, 17 septembre 2012 - 08:57 .

[Shadow Fox]

cindercatz wrote...

He's a tyrant. You have to accept some chaos, some destructive element, in any just society, because it can never be eradicated and any oppressive cure is worse than the disease.

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

That's the way every millatary organization recruits obedience and loyalty come first before a strong moral center.

Which is exactly why I chose not to join the military and never will.

Not if it risks harming his nation.

Agreed

[Adrian68b]

I am not "black and white" and not a radical. And I also finished my military training, so I know a bit about military obedience. In real world, a soldier's obedience work only with trust in the commander's leadership. Every great commander in history (Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Napoleon...) was highly trusted.
About the Chantry and DA world: in every part where the chantry is the dominant religious power, the society is sickened by their "mage solution". Every family with mage relative is affected. Remember Isolde in DAO. She is a devout believer, still she accept a dangerous solution only because she could not bear to lose her son. More, the chantry viewpoint is that magic is sinful, so a lot of mages go crazy, and also every family is horrified if a child has magical talent. The entire family is disgraced. For what, exactly?
A possessed mage is very dangerous; but how many mages became possessed? If the threat is really high, the countries without templars would have been devastated long ago. I suppose the ratio of possessed mages is no higher than crazed ordinary people.

[Adrian68b]

"From a purely pragmatic/practical standpoint yes it was you don't seem to understand that the Wardens are not heroes that save people from monsters the Blight is supposed to be thier only concern as Duncan flat out tells you sacrifices must be made to defeat the Darkspawn."

Exactly. DAO is about two wardens DURING a Blight. It's not about a political game, it's about fighting the Blight. Every action in the main plot is about creating an army and fighting the archdemon. So, the involvement in dwarven politics, or neutralizing Loghain was't about political gain. In my every play, my PC has nothing personal to gain. No throne, chancellorship. He is content with his mission done.

[cindercatz]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

He's a tyrant. You have to accept some chaos, some destructive element, in any just society, because it can never be eradicated and any oppressive cure is worse than the disease.

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

That's the way every millatary organization recruits obedience and loyalty come first before a strong moral center.

Which is exactly why I chose not to join the military and never will.

Not if it risks harming his nation.

Agreed

You have to accept some harm, though, because it's unavoidable, and any permanent solution is more harmful than the chaotic element could ever be. It's the first rule of medicine, "Do no harm."

The real threat with mages is not abominations run amok, randomly destroying or secrectly killing for their own aims (always to feed whatever aspect of psyche they represent), that can then be destroyed with some cost if necessary and obvious. The real threat is blood magic and it's ability to mind control a king or queen or emperor or empress, with their vast armies and mostly unchecked personal power. You can't solve that problem with the Chantry's circle or the templars or any institutionalized oppression of any given segment of the population. You can solve it by ending the system of fading empires and the feudalism that's taken hold as they recede. The problem is that the rulers of Thedas are not willing to give up their power to the masses. Egalitarianism would solve the bulk of their bloodmagic problem.

[Adrian68b]

Also, part of the problem is about morality. A moral mage is no threat. As well as a moral king, ruler or commander. A better educational system could greatly improve mage's behavior, and also their usefulness. The chantry viewpoint about mages is that they are no less than natural born monsters. Such an "education" is devastating for a young mage mental health.

[Shadow Fox]

Adrian68b wrote...

I am not "black and white" and not a radical. And I also finished my military training, so I know a bit about military obedience. In real world, a soldier's obedience work only with trust in the commander's leadership. Every great commander in history (Alexander, Hannibal, Caesar, Napoleon...) was highly trusted.
About the Chantry and DA world: in every part where the chantry is the dominant religious power, the society is sickened by their "mage solution". Every family with mage relative is affected. Remember Isolde in DAO. She is a devout believer, still she accept a dangerous solution only because she could not bear to lose her son. More, the chantry viewpoint is that magic is sinful, so a lot of mages go crazy, and also every family is horrified if a child has magical talent. The entire family is disgraced. For what, exactly?
A possessed mage is very dangerous; but how many mages became possessed? If the threat is really high, the countries without templars would have been devastated long ago. I suppose the ratio of possessed mages is no higher than crazed ordinary people.

Those men you listed were also known to kill soldiers who disobeyed them.

Not really most see Templars as holy knights that protect them.

Isolde's motives were two fold yes she wanted to protect her child but she also didn't want him to lose his noble status and the shame of having a mage child and her actions almost destory Redchliffe that's a point in the Circle's favor.

You have Tevinter and demoic posession to thank for most of  that.

We don't know how Rivani deal with their mages so I can't answer that but the Qunari are worse then the Chantry with their methods something even Anders agrees with.

[cindercatz]

But then you have the Wilders and the Andars and the Dalish, and whoever else is out there and who came before the Chantry and before Tevinter.

Adrian68b wrote...

Also, part of the problem is about morality. A moral mage is no threat. As well as a moral king, ruler or commander. A better educational system could greatly improve mage's behavior, and also their usefulness. The chantry viewpoint about mages is that they are no less than natural born monsters. Such an "education" is devastating for a young mage mental health.

Yep, that too. Religious reform would go along with it.

Modifié par cindercatz, 17 septembre 2012 - 09:19 .

[Shadow Fox]

cindercatz wrote...

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

He's a tyrant. You have to accept some chaos, some destructive element, in any just society, because it can never be eradicated and any oppressive cure is worse than the disease.

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

That's the way every millatary organization recruits obedience and loyalty come first before a strong moral center.

Which is exactly why I chose not to join the military and never will.

Not if it risks harming his nation.

Agreed

You have to accept some harm, though, because it's unavoidable, and any permanent solution is more harmful than the chaotic element could ever be. It's the first rule of medicine, "Do no harm."

The real threat with mages is not abominations run amok, randomly destroying or secrectly killing for their own aims (always to feed whatever aspect of psyche they represent), that can then be destroyed with some cost if necessary and obvious. The real threat is blood magic and it's ability to mind control a king or queen or emperor or empress, with their vast armies and mostly unchecked personal power. You can't solve that problem with the Chantry's circle or the templars or any institutionalized oppression of any given segment of the population. You can solve it by ending the system of fading empires and the feudalism that's taken hold as they recede. The problem is that the rulers of Thedas are not willing to give up their power to the masses. Egalitarianism would solve the bulk of their bloodmagic problem.

Change like that has to happen gradually which is what some people are trying to say Abrupt change never ends well.

[MisterJB]

Adrian68b wrote...

Also, part of the problem is about morality. A moral mage is no threat. As well as a moral king, ruler or commander. A better educational system could greatly improve mage's behavior, and also their usefulness. The chantry viewpoint about mages is that they are no less than natural born monsters. Such an "education" is devastating for a young mage mental health.

On the other hand, had more mages such an healthy fear of their powers like Malcolm and Bethany Hawke, Thedas would be a safer place.
Granted, this might be accomplishable without labels as "monsters". I would retain "blessing and curse", however.

Modifié par MisterJB, 17 septembre 2012 - 09:29 .

[Shadow Fox]

cindercatz wrote...

But then you have the Wilders and the Andars and the Dalish, and whoever else is out there and who came before the Chantry and before Tevinter.

Adrian68b wrote...

Also, part of the problem is about morality. A moral mage is no threat. As well as a moral king, ruler or commander. A better educational system could greatly improve mage's behavior, and also their usefulness. The chantry viewpoint about mages is that they are no less than natural born monsters. Such an "education" is devastating for a young mage mental health.

Yep, that too. Religious reform would go along with it.

Like Rivani we don't know enough about the Wilders and the Andars to say something concrete but doesn't Merril tell you that if a Dalish mage becomes an abomination they're killed? And the Dalish Keeper's solution to Feynriel's possesion was to make him traquil the same thing the Circle would do.

[Shadow Fox]

Adrian68b wrote...

"From a purely pragmatic/practical standpoint yes it was you don't seem to understand that the Wardens are not heroes that save people from monsters the Blight is supposed to be thier only concern as Duncan flat out tells you sacrifices must be made to defeat the Darkspawn."

Exactly. DAO is about two wardens DURING a Blight. It's not about a political game, it's about fighting the Blight. Every action in the main plot is about creating an army and fighting the archdemon. So, the involvement in dwarven politics, or neutralizing Loghain was't about political gain. In my every play, my PC has nothing personal to gain. No throne, chancellorship. He is content with his mission done.

Which makes it even stupider two people can't fight a war  no but a HN or Eamon does*Alistair unhardened is little more than a puppet king/figurehead it's Eamon,The Warden or Anora who does the work/pulls the strings*the reason the Wardens don't openly fight Loghain is because it would leave them too thin to fight the Blight and Orlais would've got involed which would have led to  open war they don't want to fight two wars at once*ferelden and the Blight* that and the last time Wardens got involed in politics*Sophia Dryden* it ended badly.

[Adrian68b]

To better understand the Chantry viewpoint, translate "magic is sinful" to "being intelligent is sinful" (mages main attribute being intelligence). I just remembered Frank Herbert's novel, "The white plague". A biologist is crazed by the loss of his wife an two daughters (killed during an Irish terror explosion) and as a retaliation he creates a virus destined to kill all the women in Ireland. Of course, the plan backfires and he "successfully" kills about 99% of the entire world women population. Therefore, according to the chantry dogma, every intelligent human must be secluded or killed on sight, just because maybe someone is capable of such a feat.
Anyway, such a debate like this one is only possible in the case of a good story. The DA world is not a perfect one, but is quite exciting and realistic.

[cindercatz]

We know that Dalish mages are free and educated and promoted to leadership within their society based solely on merit. If one becomes an abomination, then they are dealt with. But there is no defacto permanent solution. There's no attempt to oppress any member of the Dalish simply because they're born a mage, except by templars and the Chantry. The Dalish accept a certain level of internal chaos. They don't willingly provoke their worst case scenario.

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Change like that has to happen gradually which is what some people are trying to say Abrupt change never ends well.

All change requires abrupt action and the decision to undertake it. It may take multiple attempts, multiple reforms, multiple uprisings if necessary, and so it may take a long time in the end, but every step of that change is a series of abrupt actions. No change takes place in a vacuum, without great pressure to achieve the new paradigm.

[General User]

Karlone123 wrote...

I'm usually torn between each side. If I were a mage I would want freedom to not live under Templar vigilance and to not be be executed whenever the right of annulment is called, and to freely explore the edges of magic.

If I were a Templar, I would have been raised to think Magic is a curse, and think we are protecting Mages from the public and themselves, to be always vigilante against rogue Mages and abominations. To stand as a protector of faith and serve the Chantry against the most dangerous forms of magic and those who wield it.

How about you?

That's really the thing, isn't it?  The moderates on both sides have a point, and the extremists on both ends are equal parts ridiculous and monsterous.  If ever a conflict called for an option C, this is it.  Lucky for Thedas, several important people, including no less than the Divine of the Chantry herself, seem to be dedicated to finding that option C.

[Shadow Fox]

Adrian68b wrote...

To better understand the Chantry viewpoint, translate "magic is sinful" to "being intelligent is sinful" (mages main attribute being intelligence). I just remembered Frank Herbert's novel, "The white plague". A biologist is crazed by the loss of his wife an two daughters (killed during an Irish terror explosion) and as a retaliation he creates a virus destined to kill all the women in Ireland. Of course, the plan backfires and he "successfully" kills about 99% of the entire world women population. Therefore, according to the chantry dogma, every intelligent human must be secluded or killed on sight, just because maybe someone is capable of such a feat.
Anyway, such a debate like this one is only possible in the case of a good story. The DA world is not a perfect one, but is quite exciting and realistic.

See I agree the "magic is sinful" thing is stupid since Andraste herself was a mage but not all Templars see magic as evil Greagioer even calls it a gift but also a curse because it's dangerous in the Magi Origin  that's the view all the Chantry should have.

[Adrian68b]

"Which makes it even stupider two people can't fight a war no but a HN or Eamon does*Alistair unhardened is little more than a puppet king/figurehead it's Eamon,The Warden or Anora who does the work/pulls the strings*the reason the Wardens don't openly fight Loghain is because it would leave them too thin to fight the Blight and Orlais would've got involed which would have led to open war they don't want to fight two wars at once*ferelden and the Blight* that and the last time Wardens got involed in politics*Sophia Dryden* it ended badly."

It is stupid only if it fails. Thinking pragmatically, the alternative would have been the loss of the entire Ferelden population AND land (corrupted) AND more importantly, ORZAMAR. I think Orzamar closeness was also an important reason for targetting Ferelden by the archdemon (according to legends, very intelligent beings). You can imagine the consequence of losing Orzamar to the darkspawn (making the dwarven election war the stupidest possible - this is why i choose Bhelen, by the way).
Having nothing else to lose (except their lives) and a lot to gain, the PC's decision to fight the Blight with Ferelden resources is highly justified.

[Shadow Fox]

cindercatz wrote...

We know that Dalish mages are free and educated and promoted to leadership within their society based solely on merit. If one becomes an abomination, then they are dealt with. But there is no defacto permanent solution. There's no attempt to oppress any member of the Dalish simply because they're born a mage, except by templars and the Chantry. The Dalish accept a certain level of internal chaos. They don't willingly provoke their worst case scenario.

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

Change like that has to happen gradually which is what some people are trying to say Abrupt change never ends well.

All change requires abrupt action and the decision to undertake it. It may take multiple attempts, multiple reforms, multiple uprisings if necessary, and so it may take a long time in the end, but every step of that change is a series of abrupt actions. No change takes place in a vacuum, without great pressure to achieve the new paradigm.

Reforms like lessening the rescritions on Mages and teaching the Templars to be more tolerant of their charges is graudal change destroying the Circle and replacing with a new untried system is abrupt change.

[LobselVith8]

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Considering Hawke kills templars in Act II without getting caught, I don't agree. Hawke can kill two templars, then leave Kirkwall with Bethany.

Even if we assume Hawke can kill Cullen and his templars*I refuse to believe he would go to that house without any backup* on thier own*which I doubt try fighting a boss on your own without help and tell me how that works out for you*

You're welcome to fan fic the idea that there are more than two templars, but all we see is one single templar in Cullen's company. The fact that Hawke does absolutely nothing while Bethany is taken to a Circle Tower where Hawke knows Circle mages are being made tranquil illegally is what bothers me; he doesn't even try to rescue his sister. He basically mimicked furniture while Cullen and the single templar accompanying him took her away to the Gallows.

Arcane Warrior Mage Hawke wrote...

what makes you think Meredith would let that go who would be stupid enough to take them out of the city with a pissed off Knight  Commander after their heads?And then that's not even accounting for the fact that that your unarmed mother and uncle are in the house would you risk their safety by going against your sister's wishes?

Hawke and Bethany could leave, immediately. There's no reason for Hawke to sit idly by and do nothing if he can try to do something to save his sister from a place where she can end up tranquil.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 17 septembre 2012 - 09:58 .

[cindercatz]

They are all abrupt change, because the status quo is highly entrenched. For a millenium, the circle has only become more restrictive and the templar system more oppressive, and the Chantry doctrine more inflamatory. So the peaceful parts of the reform are the goals, but the uprising may be a necessary catalyst. And if unsuccessful, more may be necessary in the future. Of course, things could get worse if it fails, but like Spartacus rebellion against the Romans, that doesn't mean it's not justified.