2177 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Neither does the Chantry nor the Order of Templars, which is why I think they should be overthrown. 

The irony.

The Templars must be overthrown because they are commiting a lesser evil (imprisoning mages) to prevent a greater evil (mages runnign amok, abominations, chaos).
Yet you condemn them.

You think the Chantry controlled Circles are effective, while I don't. I condemn them for their monstrous actions.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And at the same time you venerate a crazy, possesed mage who does the exact same thing (commits evil to prevent what he sees as a bigger evil).

Trying to end slavery isn't quite the same thing as engaging in slavery.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The only place for mages is in the Circles.
Any responsible and rational mage would see it as such.

Which is why my Surana Warden asked for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its autonomy from the Chantry and the Order of Templars. There's a difference between educating mages on their abilities, and brutally oppressing them under the rule of the Chantry.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Hence, every mage that resists is not concerned with the benefit of the populace and hunting him down is justified.

And killing templars to maintain the autonomy of the mages is justified in the eyes of the people who disagree with the Chantry controlled Circles, and fight on the side of the rebel mages. Even using blood magic is justified, since templars can nullify ordinary magic.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Grand Cleric Elthina is Meredith's superior in the Chantry, and being members of a politico-military means that the members of the Chantry aren't civilians (based on international humanitarian law).

Furthermore, we know that members of the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars perished in the Kirkwall Chantry; there's no evidence any civilians died in the building when it was closed off to the public at night.

Every believer is technicly a member of the Chantry.

And I don't care about your definitions b.t.w.

and your idea that no civilians perished is ill-founded. We saw nothing. The only short clip from inside the Chantry was narrow. I detest your idea that every priest there is guilty.
I alos laugh at the idea that the huge explosion didn't kill anyone in the vicinity... Because.. you know..huge structure collapsing, flying stone blocks and all.

Well, I'm sure the templars were trying to do goo by annuling the Circle, which leads to the safety of kirkwall and people of TheDas.

Actually, Meredith called the Right of Annulment to appease a hypothetical mob.

Given what has happened I can't blame her.
The mob would call for blood, it is hard to belive Anders did it by himself and the mages in Kirkwall were already going out of control.

And it WAS done for the safet of Kirkwall.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I wasn't asking you. And yes, in this situation it can be equated.

I was answering you, so my point stands. The Chantry of Andraste is a fictional religion subjugates mages in Chantry controlled Circles of Magi; it's not a real world religion.

I don't care and your point doesn't stand.
The comparison sticks.
Calling all followers of the religion guilty by proxy for everything the religious organizations does is simply wrong.

By definition, killing mages for being mages is genocide.

I'm not killing them for being mages.
I'm killing them for being too dangerous.
It just so happens that being rebellious mages is what makes them dangerous.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I still don't think genocide against mages for being mages is the right course of action.

But apparently think that destroying the Chantry/killing templars is?

Like mass murder by ANY arbitary descriptor/filter makes it somehow better?

Mages, templars? Who cares by what critera? Like subgroup, race, affilation make a difference.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 11 octobre 2012 - 07:45 .

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

Do you want spoilers?

I want your perspective.  If that includes spoilers, so be it.

[Medhia Nox]

@LobselVith8: And would you put anything in its place?

Or would you allow mages to simply study - "Curse of Mortality" and use it on whomever they chose?

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
You think the Chantry controlled Circles are effective, while I don't. I condemn them for their monstrous actions.

And I condem mages for being too dangerous and their monstrous actions.

Trying to end slavery isn't quite the same thing as engaging in slavery.

It's not really slavery.
And what mages want is anarchy, and rule of chaos that will effectively lead to a worse life for everyone but them.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The only place for mages is in the Circles.
Any responsible and rational mage would see it as such.

Which is why my Surana Warden asked for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its autonomy from the Chantry and the Order of Templars. There's a difference between educating mages on their abilities, and brutally oppressing them under the rule of the Chantry.

I said RESPONSIBLE and RATIONAL mage.
If it's your character than that automaticly disqualifies her.

And killing templars to maintain the autonomy of the mages is justified in the eyes of the people who disagree with the Chantry controlled Circles, and fight on the side of the rebel mages. Even using blood magic is justified, since templars can nullify ordinary magic.

Well, since everyone can justify everything, then everything is fine and there's really no point in complaning, is it?

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Grand Cleric Elthina is Meredith's superior in the Chantry, and being members of a politico-military means that the members of the Chantry aren't civilians (based on international humanitarian law).

Furthermore, we know that members of the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars perished in the Kirkwall Chantry; there's no evidence any civilians died in the building when it was closed off to the public at night.[/quote]

Every believer is technicly a member of the Chantry. [/quote]

Actually, the people who believe in the religious teachings of the Chantry of Andraste are Andrastians.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And I don't care about your definitions b.t.w.

and your idea that no civilians perished is ill-founded. We saw nothing. The only short clip from inside the Chantry was narrow. I detest your idea that every priest there is guilty.
I alos laugh at the idea that the huge explosion didn't kill anyone in the vicinity... Because.. you know..huge structure collapsing, flying stone blocks and all. [/quote]

The Kirkwall Chantry flew up into the sky, and exploded outward. It wasn't exactly a typical explosion. And my point was that we didn't see any civilians in the Kirkwall Chantry, and it's closed off to the public at night (as we see during all three Acts of Dragon Age II).

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Actually, Meredith called the Right of Annulment to appease a hypothetical mob.[/quote]

Given what has happened I can't blame her.
The mob would call for blood, it is hard to belive Anders did it by himself and the mages in Kirkwall were already going out of control.

And it WAS done for the safet of Kirkwall. [/quote]

Anders didn't do it by himself, since Hawke could have helped him.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I was answering you, so my point stands. The Chantry of Andraste is a fictional religion subjugates mages in Chantry controlled Circles of Magi; it's not a real world religion.[/quote]

I don't care and your point doesn't stand.
The comparison sticks.
Calling all followers of the religion guilty by proxy for everything the religious organizations does is simply wrong. [/quote]

Members of the Chantry =/= members of the Andrastian faith.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

By definition, killing mages for being mages is genocide.[/quote]

I'm not killing them for being mages.
I'm killing them for being too dangerous.
It just so happens that being rebellious mages is what makes them dangerous. [/quote]

You're killing them for having magical ability - in effect, for being mages.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I still don't think genocide against mages for being mages is the right course of action. [/quote]

But apparently think that destroying the Chantry/killing templars is? [/quote]

Self-defense against systematic genocide, as even Wynne addresses that the Chantry would rather kill all the mages rather than see them free (in the City of Amaranthine).

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Like mass murder by ANY arbitary descriptor/filter makes it somehow better?

Mages, templars? Who cares by what critera? Like subgroup, race, affilation make a difference.[/quote]

Mages defending their autonomy against the templars would be self-defense.

[KainD]

Lotion SoronnarCalling...
Calling all followers of the religion guilty by proxy for everything the religious organizations does is simply wrong.2

No it's right if there is a fundamental flaw in the religion itself.

Imagine if the bible said: "Kill your neighbor!"
And then a group of people says: "We are Christians! We believe everything the bible says is true and we will follow the word of God!"

These guys are going to kill you, you know? They just said that they believe it.

Chantry is the same thing. Priests there believe in mage regulations, that's what chantry did, they believe in the chantry regulations. I don't care if they are civilians or not. You don't have to be a military person to cause harm to other people.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You think the Chantry controlled Circles are effective, while I don't. I condemn them for their monstrous actions.

And I condem mages for being too dangerous and their monstrous actions.

Like the Circles of Magi participating in the Blights, or the Circle mages helping the Andrastian nations remain free from the Qunari and their advanced technology?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Trying to end slavery isn't quite the same thing as engaging in slavery.

It's not really slavery.
And what mages want is anarchy, and rule of chaos that will effectively lead to a worse life for everyone but them.

Plenty of characters (and even authors of codex entries) don't seem to share your point of view about the Chantry controlled Circles being slavery, and forcing mages into servitude.

And we know there are mages who seek something other than anarchy: Aldenon the Wise wanted to create a kingdom where all people were equal; the mage rebellion at Ferelden sought to free the Circle from the Order of Templars and the Chantry of Andraste; the mage protagonist can seek autonomy for the Circle of Magi, rather than it's dissolution; apostate Hawke can seek to overthrow the templars.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Which is why my Surana Warden asked for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its autonomy from the Chantry and the Order of Templars. There's a difference between educating mages on their abilities, and brutally oppressing them under the rule of the Chantry.

I said RESPONSIBLE and RATIONAL mage.
If it's your character than that automaticly disqualifies her.

You missed my point about the argument being against Chantry controlled Circles, rather than Circles of Magi in general. To address your point, First Enchanter Irving supports the emancipation of the Circle of Ferelden from the Chantry, saying that the Hero of Ferelden has freed the mages from "their shackles." He was a responsible and rational mage.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

And killing templars to maintain the autonomy of the mages is justified in the eyes of the people who disagree with the Chantry controlled Circles, and fight on the side of the rebel mages. Even using blood magic is justified, since templars can nullify ordinary magic.

Well, since everyone can justify everything, then everything is fine and there's really no point in complaning, is it?

There's always a point in fighting for what you believe in; the mage rebels simply happen to share an opposing point of view than you.

[Vandicus]

KainD wrote...

Lotion SoronnarCalling...
Calling all followers of the religion guilty by proxy for everything the religious organizations does is simply wrong.2

No it's right if there is a fundamental flaw in the religion itself.

Imagine if the bible said: "Kill your neighbor!"
And then a group of people says: "We are Christians! We believe everything the bible says is true and we will follow the word of God!"

These guys are going to kill you, you know? They just said that they believe it.

Chantry is the same thing. Priests there believe in mage regulations, that's what chantry did, they believe in the chantry regulations. I don't care if they are civilians or not. You don't have to be a military person to cause harm to other people.

The Chant does not say "Oppress the mages". The existence of the Chantry as a religious organization is distinct from its existence as the monitor of mages(a task assigned by Emperor Drakon).

You hold the membership culpable for all actions taken by the organization. I could probably come up with a reason to kill virtually every human on the planet with this basis.

[Xilizhra]

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Do you want spoilers?

I want your perspective.  If that includes spoilers, so be it.

What Adrian wants is freedom. To do so, she killed one cured Tranquil mage who was going to be re-Tranquilized for political reasons. In so doing, she provoked an overreaction from Lambert, who attacked the White Spire and imprisoned Rhys, hence leading in turn to Wynne, Leliana, and soon-to-be-ex-templar Evangeline, along with Cole, leading a raid on the Spire to free him, which ultimately succeeded and ended with all of the mages fleeing to some location whose name I forget, to ultimately vote on independence.
It was a messy technique, but not inherently immoral; the former Tranquil was begging for death. The effects were harsh, but they were the templars' responsibility to carry out, and it made a sound example of Lambert's brutality to all, including the Chantry itself. It was what was necessary to spur action and secession, and I find this less objectionable than Anders' actions, so have no serious objections to Adrian as a person. Her passion is useful.

The Chant does not say "Oppress the mages". The existence of the Chantry
as a religious organization is distinct from its existence as the
monitor of mages(a task assigned by Emperor Drakon).

No it's not. The Chantry as a whole was created by Drakon as a power play and a means of expanding his own empire.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 11 octobre 2012 - 08:02 .

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Do you want spoilers?

I want your perspective.  If that includes spoilers, so be it.

What Adrian wants is freedom. To do so, she killed one cured Tranquil mage who was going to be re-Tranquilized for political reasons. In so doing, she provoked an overreaction from Lambert, who attacked the White Spire and imprisoned Rhys, hence leading in turn to Wynne, Leliana, and soon-to-be-ex-templar Evangeline, along with Cole, leading a raid on the Spire to free him, which ultimately succeeded and ended with all of the mages fleeing to some location whose name I forget, to ultimately vote on independence.

It was a messy technique, but not inherently immoral; the former Tranquil was begging for death. The effects were harsh, but they were the templars' responsibility to carry out, and it made a sound example of Lambert's brutality to all, including the Chantry itself. It was what was necessary to spur action and secession, and I find this less objectionable than Anders' actions, so have no serious objections to Adrian as a person. Her passion is useful.

And Rhys was the tranquil mage?

[KainD]

@Vandicus wrote...

You don't have to come up with anything in Dragon age, you don't have to search for reasons or the oppressor.. It's crystal clear - people don't want mages to be free. They don't allow mages to free. Denying fundumental human rights. That's basically it. This alone justifies mages to pursue violance. 

- "I simply want to be free"
- "Nope"
- "Fireball in your face!"

And the mage is right  and justified ^. 

Think there were a lot of people in the chantry that were pro mage freedom supporters? 

Modifié par KainD, 11 octobre 2012 - 08:08 .

[LobselVith8]

General User wrote...

And Rhys was the tranquil mage? 

Rhys was Wynne's son; Pharamond was the tranquil mage.

[General User]

LobselVith8 wrote...

General User wrote...

And Rhys was the tranquil mage? 

Rhys was Wynne's son; Pharamond was the tranquil mage.

So why did this Lambert fellow imprison this Rhys chap?

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
The Kirkwall Chantry flew up into the sky, and exploded outward. It wasn't exactly a typical explosion. And my point was that we didn't see any civilians in the Kirkwall Chantry, and it's closed off to the public at night (as we see during all three Acts of Dragon Age II).

It was a big explosion in the cutscene. Cloud of debris going everywhere.

Members of the Chantry =/= members of the Andrastian faith.

He called all followers guilty by proxy.

You're killing them for having magical ability - in effect, for being mages.

Semantics...
I don't care if it is genocide. It's just a word.
If you kill a thousand people of one race or if you kill a million of mixed races - people are dead either way.

Self-defense against systematic genocide, as even Wynne addresses that the Chantry would rather kill all the mages rather than see them free (in the City of Amaranthine).

Defense of others agasint the danger of the mages is what the Templars are doing.
Law-abiding mages have little to fear.

[Lotion Soronarr]

KainD wrote...

Chantry is the same thing. Priests there believe in mage regulations, that's what chantry did, they believe in the chantry regulations. I don't care if they are civilians or not. You don't have to be a military person to cause harm to other people.

Just like mages.

[Vandicus]

KainD wrote...

@Vandicus wrote...

You don't have to come up with anything in Dragon age, you don't have to search for reasons or the oppressor.. It's crystal clear - people don't want mages to be free. They don't allow mages to free. Denying fundumental human rights. That's basically it. This alone justifies mages to pursue violance. 

- "I simply want to be free"
- "Nope"
- "Fireball in your face!"

And the mage is right  and justified ^. 

Think there were a lot of people in the chantry that were pro mage freedom supporters? 

What country are you from? Do they not have taxes there? Do they not have laws there? Is there no mandatory public education there?

The pretense that people's freedom is not abbrogated in many ways on a daily basis is false. The extent is merely what varies. Some mages, like Wynne, are allowed to travel freely and have only mild inconveniences imposed upon them. Free residence and funding for research helps to compensate for this somewhat. Mages, having earned sufficient trust, can travel and generally live their lives with far more freedom than the average serf.

[Xilizhra]

General User wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

General User wrote...

And Rhys was the tranquil mage? 

Rhys was Wynne's son; Pharamond was the tranquil mage.

So why did this Lambert fellow imprison this Rhys chap?

He thought Rhys had killed Pharamond.

[KainD]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

KainD wrote...

Chantry is the same thing. Priests there believe in mage regulations, that's what chantry did, they believe in the chantry regulations. I don't care if they are civilians or not. You don't have to be a military person to cause harm to other people.

Just like mages.

Well sure. But that doesn't make any point. Mages can be "bad" and should be punished for it. Being free is not being bad though. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Like the Circles of Magi participating in the Blights, or the Circle mages helping the Andrastian nations remain free from the Qunari and their advanced technology?

Like countless mages falling and abominations causing death and destruction.
Like the Blight caused by the mages.

And we know there are mages who seek something other than anarchy: Aldenon the Wise wanted to create a kingdom where all people were equal; the mage rebellion at Ferelden sought to free the Circle from the Order of Templars and the Chantry of Andraste; the mage protagonist can seek autonomy for the Circle of Magi, rather than it's dissolution; apostate Hawke can seek to overthrow the templars.

Aldenon was a fool. His kingdom can only exist in the My Little Pony land of fairy-tales.

You missed my point about the argument being against Chantry controlled Circles, rather than Circles of Magi in general. To address your point, First Enchanter Irving supports the emancipation of the Circle of Ferelden from the Chantry, saying that the Hero of Ferelden has freed the mages from "their shackles." He was a responsible and rational mage.

Again, why should I care what Irwing thinks?

And of course, everyone wants more. It's human nature to want more. No matter how much you get.

There's always a point in fighting for what you believe in; the mage rebels simply happen to share an opposing point of view than you.

Which means that there is a point in Templars fighting for what they believe in.

[KainD]

@Vandicus

I talked about it before. I don't like a LOT about today's countries / politics / laws. The only difference is I have no huge power/say in the real world. But in fantasy RPG's I often do, and as such may pursue my true beliefs on things.

As for freedom it should be a given.

[KainD]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Which means that there is a point in Templars fighting for what they believe in.

Can you be selfish, cowardly and act on it? Sure, it is your choice. Templars DO have a point, it's just a sad one. to me personally. But it's all an opinion. 

[Dave of Canada]

KainD wrote...

@Vandicus

I talked about it before. I don't like a LOT about today's countries / politics / laws. The only difference is I have no huge power/say in the real world. But in fantasy RPG's I often do, and as such may pursue my true beliefs on things.

As for freedom it should be a given.

Then fight your little crusade against all of society rather than mages if that's how you feel, mages are well off compared to peasants / elves and surface dwarves.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 11 octobre 2012 - 08:25 .

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

General User wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

General User wrote...

And Rhys was the tranquil mage? 

Rhys was Wynne's son; Pharamond was the tranquil mage.

So why did this Lambert fellow imprison this Rhys chap?

He thought Rhys had killed Pharamond.

Ok... so this Lambert fellow arrested a murder suspect.  I'm not seeing the problem so far.  And this connects back to Adrian... how?

[KainD]

Dave of Canada wrote...

KainD wrote...

@Vandicus

I talked about it before. I don't like a LOT about today's countries / politics / laws. The only difference is I have no huge power/say in the real world. But in fantasy RPG's I often do, and as such may pursue my true beliefs on things.

As for freedom it should be a given.

Then fight your little crusade against all of society rather than mages if that's how you feel, mages are well off compared to peasants / elves and surface dwarves.

I do all of it. Mages are a part of it, and also seem to be the main theme in DA3 so that is why we are discussing the particulary. 

If DA3 would be about elves for example, I would share my views on that as well, and I acted on it in DA:O, where there were more quests and choices assosiated with that.