373 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
No I don't. I start from the assumption that ignoring the rules on Tranquility should have gotten her replaced and maybe imprisoned when and only when she started it up. My whole argument is that the Chantry is both pushing unreasonable rules (though I see the merit of the Circle system in general) and ignoring the rules meant to limit their own abuses. I don't believe Elthina did see the full extent of the trouble, but that's its own problem. It's also a problem that Meredith didn't take Ser Alrik out of commission, and this was either before the idol even entered the equation, or before it really took hold. (I'm not 100% on the timeline.) Or maybe not... maybe Meredith ignored his actions because she couldn't support them on record?

At this point the legality of the inner working of the circle are still...muddy.
So saying that rules on tranquility were ignored is not entirely correct.
For all we know, Alarik could have fabricated evidence and got Orsinos and Merediths approval.

And here's  the thing - no matter what system you have, there's always going to be someone on top. If that someone on top doesn't do as you want...tough luck.

It's a little bigger than merely being uncooperative. The Templars are literally trying to kill off the mages.

A few extremists.
But you also have cops that kill perps and abuse their power.
Let's say you put a king in charge, and leave the chantry and templars out of it. What do you do when the king hates mages? Same thing happens.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
No I don't. I start from the assumption that ignoring the rules on Tranquility should have gotten her replaced and maybe imprisoned when and only when she started it up. My whole argument is that the Chantry is both pushing unreasonable rules (though I see the merit of the Circle system in general) and ignoring the rules meant to limit their own abuses. I don't believe Elthina did see the full extent of the trouble, but that's its own problem. It's also a problem that Meredith didn't take Ser Alrik out of commission, and this was either before the idol even entered the equation, or before it really took hold. (I'm not 100% on the timeline.) Or maybe not... maybe Meredith ignored his actions because she couldn't support them on record?

At this point the legality of the inner working of the circle are still...muddy.
So saying that rules on tranquility were ignored is not entirely correct.

One, logically fallacious. Two, not entirely accurate as pertains to the current case.

I remember reading, I don't remember where, that Meredith was using Tranquility without Orsino's go-ahead. If this is correct, (I'm not sure how reliable it is, since I can't freaking find it) it's illegal, as per Word Of Gaider. Of course, whether or not Meredith is guilty of this, we have Word Of Gaider that it's abused elsewhere.

All hail Gaider.

For all we know, Alarik could have fabricated evidence and got Orsinos and Merediths approval.

No, we clearly watch Alrik about to perform a Rite Of Tranquility on his own. From the look of things, Orsino and Meredith didn't even know yet.

And here's  the thing - no matter what system you have, there's always going to be someone on top. If that someone on top doesn't do as you want...tough luck.

It's a little bigger than merely being uncooperative. The Templars are literally trying to kill off the mages.

A few extremists.

Is this before or after the war starts?

But you also have cops that kill perps and abuse their power.
Let's say you put a king in charge, and leave the chantry and templars out of it. What do you do when the king hates mages? Same thing happens.

The "put local Kings in charge" idea was Plaintiff's, not mine. And while I think it would be an interesting decision lore-wise, I don't think it would make things any better for Thedas.

What I'm trying to do is set up a system independent of both the Chantry, who have failed, and the local kings, who would almost certainly abuse the power this grants them. This would likely require the martial support of such of the Templars as could be trusted not to abuse their powers, (who would be neccesary anyway to ensure that the mages don't abuse theirs) and probably negotiation with the Chantry. My second choice would be simply dropping Lambert and putting the Chantry firmly under the control of the fairly reasonable reigning Divine, though that would just be business as usual after however many successors.

[ImperatorMortis]

TEMPLAR'S SUCK!

Whelp thats all I'm going to contribute to this circle jerk argument. *leaves* 

Modifié par ImperatorMortis, 24 novembre 2012 - 01:08 .

[MisterJB]

"Anders: We can build a world where no one ever dies for being how the Maker created them."

Right, instead it's the other people who will die for mages being how the Maker created them.

Modifié par MisterJB, 24 novembre 2012 - 04:36 .

[TEWR]

MisterJB wrote...

To bring things a little more on-topic, it bothers me when Sebastian has better arguments than my Hawke.

"Anders: I don't think it's a coincidence that the people the Chantry blames, are the same ones they are trying to oppress.

Sebastian: I think you're getting it backwards."

Thank you, Sebastian.

Sometimes his arguments are good.

Other times... they're not. Sometimes even, he'll waffle between stances. He'll cite Meredith and her Templars as being despicable -- and the Mages, though he seems to be ignoring the whole cause-and-effect relationship going on -- but states that Meredith should be supported.

[ultimatekotorfan]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Having recently replayed Anders' starting quest in DA2 and having picked both options offered to me that allowed me to argue against Anders' viewpoint, I noticed that they both mentioned the risk of possession.
Now, while this is a very valid argument, I couldn't help but wish I could counter Anders' comparison of magic with a sword or a bow by pointing out that magic is capable of much greater destruction in the hands of a inexperienced child than a sword is in the hands of a trained adult.

Yeap. It happen to Connor at Recliff,thanks to Jowan.

 

MisterJB wrote.. 
I did not create this thread to fuel more Templar vs Mage flamewars; tough I fear that may be inevitable; but simply to humbly request for the writers of Bioware to create arguments for Pro-Templars players in DA3 that are not restricted to "Demons and Tevinter".

They already have. Play more DAs, DLCs and read codices, you'll see. You just need to find them. 

Want more  argument?
1. Magic had been used to swallow the entire Arlathan's city thousand of years ago. Read the history codex by the elf's first keeper. Can sword and bow do that? Nope.

2. Magic has cause the undead Arlatahn Elves and Tervinters to battle for eternity at Sundermount, killing any present living being who pass by. Can sword and bow do that? Nope.

3. Magic is used to open portal for demons to enter this world and slaughter innocent people at Red Cliff and Soldier Peak. Can sword and bow do that? Nope.

4. Magic was performed to sacrifice thousand of elven slaves and barbarians. 

5. Magic drive any rational person to lust for power in horrifying manner for example both Meredith ( The red Lyrium ) and Uldred ( blood magic and mind control ). Sword and bow could not do so. No ordinary sword and bow could turn any person into power hungry abomination fools. 

6. Magic corrupt the Tervinter Mages and they became the first darkspawn. 

7. Magic corrupted the 7 Old Gods and they became the archdemons responsible for the blights which forever destroy the Tervinter Empire.

8. Too many evidences of magic abuses and too many evidences that prove mages cannot be trusted with so much power like magic. They are not mature or understand enough the consequences and are so easily succumbed to power temptation and demon posession as shown in Kirkwall. Why wouldn't they? Except for PC mages ( who always be plot shielded and reated as the "chosen one" )  every other mages are always weakling fools physically and mentally, they have to resort to nasty trickery like abomination to gain the upper hand instead of using sword and bow.    

9. Do not assume I'm a pro templar. I have enough reasons to hate the templars and the chantry fools as well. Do what you will with my pointers but leave my character alone in peace.. or I'll be very very angry that even the incredible hulk would fear my rage. 

Oh, wow. Another person who thinks that repeating a phrase for emphasis validates their argument.

Your arguments start out with factual information yet devolve into sensless comparison's like "No ordinary sword and bow" (as opposed to magic) "could turn anyone into power hunger abomination fools" As if a bow is at all comparable to magic in the instance of corruption.

And finally, you take on an anti-mage position, which is quite a leap farther than a pro-templar position, to the point were it's impossible to take you seriously.

[Urzon]

Since the templars, now the Inquisition, want to kill all the mages indiscriminately, I doubt there are going to be pro-templars choices persay. I can see something like...

Pro-Mage: PC fights for total mage freedom!

Pro-Chantry: PC fights for a return of the status quo, with maybe a few changes,

Neutral: PC pushes for a total negoation between mages, ruling lords, and the Chantry.

Though you never know, they could put in a Pro-Inquisition choice for the bloodthirsty people. I'm really iffy on it. DAO style, it would be a sure thing. DA2 style, not so much...

We will have to see how the moral choices for DA3 are.

[The Elder King]

There's no info that said that the Inquisition are the former templars. And if the PC will be the Inquisitor (which we don't know), I doubt that the Inquisition will be the former Templar Order, considering that the PC could be a mage and even if the templars might accept to work with mages and have mages in their ranks (which I think it's highly difficult), they'd never have a mage as one of their leaders. It'll be incredibly OOC.

[MisterJB]

Urzon wrote...

Since the templars, now the Inquisition, want to kill all the mages indiscriminately, I doubt there are going to be pro-templars choices persay.

You are assuming quite a bit. You assume that the Templars are the Inquisition rather than an entirely new organization the player will belong to and you assume that every templar wants to kill all mages indiscriminately. Even Lambert only wants to crush the rebellion and create an harsher Circle.
Besides, if some Seekers of Truth have remained loyal to the Chantry, I doubt it every single templar has abandoned it.

[Urzon]

MisterJB wrote...

You are assuming quite a bit. You assume that the Templars are the Inquisition rather than an entirely new organization the player will belong to and you assume that every templar wants to kill all mages indiscriminately. Even Lambert only wants to crush the rebellion and create an harsher Circle.
Besides, if some Seekers of Truth have remained loyal to the Chantry, I doubt it every single templar has abandoned it.

I admit I assumed on them retaking their old name, since they did break away from the Chantry. It would make sense. The "Templar Order" name was given to them, by the Chantry, after the signing of the Nevarran Accord. Now that Lambert, the leader of the Seekers, and the Knight-Commanders don't recognize the Chantry's authority, I doubt they would recognize the name given to them by said Chantry either.

If i can assume that, i guess people are allowed to assume that the "Inquisition" is the new organization the players belong to as well. The old name the templar's used back in their witch hunting days. Even though, all the evidence on the matter is from a leaked marketing opinion poll and the game title.

On the second matter, when i say "all of the templars", i mean the majority of them. Not the literal "all". With the Head Seeker pulling his forces, as well as all the Knight-Commanders, it can be said that a majority of the templars will follow their example.

Plus, the templars pulled away from the Chantry to go to war with the mages. I don't see how you get more indiscriminate then that. If they see anyone, and i mean anyone, with glowy eyes or fingers, they are either going to kill or capture them, and if they do capture someone; it will be only for information before they kill them. They could cause too much trouble if left alive. *cough*bloodmagic*cough*

I guess, the templar could tranquilize them, but now that Lambert knows that it can be reversed; what's the point? Even more so, during a war. Where they can be rescued, untranquilized, and give information back to the enemy.

It's much safer to just kill them all until they submit.

Modifié par Urzon, 25 novembre 2012 - 08:05 .

[KiwiQuiche]

There ARE arguments for Templars and their Circle duties. Pros and cons, just as there is pros and cons to setting the mages free. Templars protect the civilians from people who can kill with their minds. They also abduct children from their families. Mages have done no wrong yet are sealed away all their lives. However they can be possessed by demons.

It's down to the individual on which one they see as right or wrong; which one to side with, as both have compelling arguments for and against.

[MisterJB]

I certainly hope that Bioware does not paint every templar who broke from the Chantry as a genocidal maniac anymore than every mage who did the same as a Magister in the making.

KiwiQuiche wrote...

There ARE arguments for Templars and their Circle duties. Pros and cons, just as there is pros and cons to setting the mages free. Templars protect the civilians from people who can kill with their minds. They also abduct children from their families. Mages have done no wrong yet are sealed away all their lives. However they can be possessed by demons.

It's down to the individual on which one they see as right or wrong; which one to side with, as both have compelling arguments for and against.

Yes, the point of this thread is to request Bioware to allow Pro-Templar player to use these compelling argument ingame

[KiwiQuiche]

MisterJB wrote...

I certainly hope that Bioware does not paint every templar who broke from the Chantry as a genocidal maniac anymore than every mage who did the same as a Magister in the making.

KiwiQuiche wrote...

There ARE arguments for Templars and their Circle duties. Pros and cons, just as there is pros and cons to setting the mages free. Templars protect the civilians from people who can kill with their minds. They also abduct children from their families. Mages have done no wrong yet are sealed away all their lives. However they can be possessed by demons.

It's down to the individual on which one they see as right or wrong; which one to side with, as both have compelling arguments for and against.

Yes, the point of this thread is to request Bioware to allow Pro-Templar player to use these compelling argument ingame

Oh right, guess I got sidetracked by all the other posts in this thread...

True, you were either pro-mage or sounded like a loony violent nut in DA2. Now I'm pro-mage, but you should have the option of PEACEFULLY talking about pro-Templar stuff. In DA2 it was mainly the agressive dialogue that have pro-Templar stuff in it. Though in a  few convos with Anders you can point some out, but on the whole you come off as a violent bastard lmao

So yes, supporting more indepth arguments for both sides in DA3

[MisterJB]

Bumping this topic because I really want the devs to notice it.

[TCBC_Freak]

ultimatekotorfan wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Having recently replayed Anders' starting quest in DA2 and having picked both options offered to me that allowed me to argue against Anders' viewpoint, I noticed that they both mentioned the risk of possession.
Now, while this is a very valid argument, I couldn't help but wish I could counter Anders' comparison of magic with a sword or a bow by pointing out that magic is capable of much greater destruction in the hands of a inexperienced child than a sword is in the hands of a trained adult.

Yeap. It happen to Connor at Recliff,thanks to Jowan.

MisterJB wrote..
I did not create this thread to fuel more Templar vs Mage flamewars; tough I fear that may be inevitable; but simply to humbly request for the writers of Bioware to create arguments for Pro-Templars players in DA3 that are not restricted to "Demons and Tevinter".

They already have. Play more DAs, DLCs and read codices, you'll see. You just need to find them.

Want more argument?
1. Magic had been used to swallow the entire Arlathan's city thousand of years ago. Read the history codex by the elf's first keeper. Can sword and bow do that? Nope.
............. (cut to make short)...........
9. Do not assume I'm a pro templar. I have enough reasons to hate the templars and the chantry fools as well. Do what you will with my pointers but leave my character alone in peace.. or I'll be very very angry that even the incredible hulk would fear my rage.

Oh, wow. Another person who thinks that repeating a phrase for emphasis validates their argument.

Your arguments start out with factual information yet devolve into sensless comparison's like "No ordinary sword and bow" (as opposed to magic) "could turn anyone into power hunger abomination fools" As if a bow is at all comparable to magic in the instance of corruption.

And finally, you take on an anti-mage position, which is quite a leap farther than a pro-templar position, to the point were it's impossible to take you seriously.

Hypocrisy is a funny thing. I've read a lot of threads on this issue (and honestly the forum arguments are getting very old) and both sides do what you are chastising this poster for doing, saying the same thing louder in the hopes it makes it more true...

And he is using the argument about swords and bows in hyperbole because pro-mage people use it for real. They honestly try and compare the two, Anders does it even if no one here does, but people on the forums always point to Anders as a "hero" for mage rights. And I ask, point me to one pro-mage poster who hasn't said at least once that the Templar are evil and all "kidnap and rape" mages when they bring them to the Circle. They point out things like, "We've heard about X number of mages that were beaten and mistreated, excreta, and thus the Circle is wrong and all Templar are evil." But when a pro-Templar says, "We've heard about X number of mages getting possessed and we see in history and the Imperium so all mages are evil and blah,blah," it is a straw-man and not valid? Both of those are, in fact, valid points but they are being used to point to a wrong conclusion. Some Templar are evil, some mages are evil, because they are both people and some people are evil. Both sides need to just stop.

I am not taking the pro-Templar side, nor the pro-mage side. They are both too extreme. Zealots very rarely hold the right position. Templar are needed to fight rouge mages, fight demons and face down other magical treats. And mages are needed (and can't be "abolished" anyway as it is a born condition) as well for many reasons, from healing to he;ing fight the Qunari, darkspawn, demons, and other treats.

But this is off topic, so I do apologize for that. I simply had to voice some thoughts, take them as you will.

[Xilizhra]

And he is using the argument about swords and bows in hyperbole because pro-mage people use it for real. They honestly try and compare the two, Anders does it even if no one here does, but people on the forums always point to Anders as a "hero" for mage rights. And I ask, point me to one pro-mage poster who hasn't said at least once that the Templar are evil and all "kidnap and rape" mages when they bring them to the Circle. They point out things like, "We've heard about X number of mages that were beaten and mistreated, excreta, and thus the Circle is wrong and all Templar are evil." But when a pro-Templar says, "We've heard about X number of mages getting possessed and we see in history and the Imperium so all mages are evil and blah,blah," it is a straw-man and not valid? Both of those are, in fact, valid points but they are being used to point to a wrong conclusion. Some Templar are evil, some mages are evil, because they are both people and some people are evil. Both sides need to just stop.

Templars are evil on an institutional level. They look for evil and corruptible recruits. Mages outside of the Imperium are evil or possessed on an individual level. Therein lies the difference.

[TCBC_Freak]

Xilizhra wrote...

And he is using the argument about swords and bows in hyperbole because pro-mage people use it for real. They honestly try and compare the two, Anders does it even if no one here does, but people on the forums always point to Anders as a "hero" for mage rights. And I ask, point me to one pro-mage poster who hasn't said at least once that the Templar are evil and all "kidnap and rape" mages when they bring them to the Circle. They point out things like, "We've heard about X number of mages that were beaten and mistreated, excreta, and thus the Circle is wrong and all Templar are evil." But when a pro-Templar says, "We've heard about X number of mages getting possessed and we see in history and the Imperium so all mages are evil and blah,blah," it is a straw-man and not valid? Both of those are, in fact, valid points but they are being used to point to a wrong conclusion. Some Templar are evil, some mages are evil, because they are both people and some people are evil. Both sides need to just stop.

Templars are evil on an institutional level. They look for evil and corruptible recruits. Mages outside of the Imperium are evil or possessed on an individual level. Therein lies the difference.

So Alistair is evil? Cullen, Evangeline, and Kinght-commnander Gregor are evil because they are Templar? Templar can't be individuals? Templar are not evil on an istituional level. Instituions can't be good or evil any more than "the hotel," can be sorry my room was robbed, it's a building, it has no feelings, neither does an instituion.

Edit: That's also an intristing precurser, "Mages 'outside the Imperium'," as if mages inside the Imperium are intrinsicly different to those outside?

Modifié par TCBC_Freak, 01 décembre 2012 - 02:39 .

[Xilizhra]

So Alistair is evil? Cullen, Evangeline, and Kinght-commnander Gregor are evil because they are Templar? Templar can't be individuals? Templar are not evil on an istituional level. Instituions can't be good or evil any more than "the hotel," can be sorry my room was robbed, it's a building, it has no feelings, neither does an instituion.

Cullen and Greagoir are most certainly evil, the last we've seen them; Greagoir's a petty tyrant and Cullen a willing accomplice to genocide. Alistair was never a real templar and Evangeline found redemption. The Templar Order is suffused with evil, and even those who don't personally indulge as often are tainted by it, and remain tainted until they leave.

Edit: That's also an intristing precurser, "Mages 'outside the Imperium'," as if mages inside the Imperium are intrinsicly different to those outside?

The Tevinter Senate is also institutionally evil, at least according to Andrastians.

[LobselVith8]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

So Alistair is evil?

Alistair seemed very uncomfortable with the templar lifestyle after the Harrowing. Cullen thinks that mages shouldn't be treated as people, views them as weapons, and seems to support the Tranquil Solution. Greagoir, Ser Bryant, the Lothering templars, and Ser Otto are good people, but I can see why people would condemn the templars for supporting a system that some view to be immoral and monstrous.

[Xilizhra]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TCBC_Freak wrote...

So Alistair is evil?

Alistair seemed very uncomfortable with the templar lifestyle after the Harrowing. Cullen thinks that mages shouldn't be treated as people, views them as weapons, and seems to support the Tranquil Solution. Greagoir, Ser Bryant, the Lothering templars, and Ser Otto are good people, but I can see why people would condemn the templars for supporting a system that some view to be immoral and monstrous.

I really don't get why so many people consider Greagoir "good." Bryant and Otto at least aren't seen doing anything bad...

[TCBC_Freak]

Xilizhra wrote...

So Alistair is evil? Cullen, Evangeline, and Kinght-commnander Gregor are evil because they are Templar? Templar can't be individuals? Templar are not evil on an istituional level. Instituions can't be good or evil any more than "the hotel," can be sorry my room was robbed, it's a building, it has no feelings, neither does an instituion.

Cullen and Greagoir are most certainly evil, the last we've seen them; Greagoir's a petty tyrant and Cullen a willing accomplice to genocide. Alistair was never a real templar and Evangeline found redemption. The Templar Order is suffused with evil, and even those who don't personally indulge as often are tainted by it, and remain tainted until they leave.

Edit: That's also an intristing precurser, "Mages 'outside the Imperium'," as if mages inside the Imperium are intrinsicly different to those outside?

The Tevinter Senate is also institutionally evil, at least according to Andrastians.

The Templar Order isn't evil, it may be being run by Evil people, which I'm not saying it isn't. In fact it seems to be. But were it being run by good people then the Templar Order would be "good." It's the people leading it that are evil or good, not the order itself... as seem with the Senate, that proves my point. It is down to the people.

And you forget the Circle part of DA:O it seems, the Kinght-commander and the First Enchanter respect each other. The First Enchanters words alone were enough for the Knight-commander to stop the RoA against the wishes of his underlings (of which Cullen was one thanks to the truma he suffered) because he didn't want to kill everyone, but his orders were clear, he jumped at the chance to spare the mages he could.

Edit: It's the same as in Asunder, the Seeker takes over because the leadership is, he feels, weak which makes the order weak. Leadership (the people) define the order for the time they lead it. Not the other way around.

Modifié par TCBC_Freak, 01 décembre 2012 - 02:54 .

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

TCBC_Freak wrote...

So Alistair is evil?

Alistair seemed very uncomfortable with the templar lifestyle after the Harrowing. Cullen thinks that mages shouldn't be treated as people, views them as weapons, and seems to support the Tranquil Solution. Greagoir, Ser Bryant, the Lothering templars, and Ser Otto are good people, but I can see why people would condemn the templars for supporting a system that some view to be immoral and monstrous.

I really don't get why so many people consider Greagoir "good." Bryant and Otto at least aren't seen doing anything bad...

In the comics, he is portrayed as a massive dick. In-game, on the other hand, he is a relatively calm man, who would willingly kill or die to protect innocents, but wants very badly not to annull the Circle. I'm not sure if this is because he mellowed out with age, or if it's just different writers. Either way, he's actually not all that bad in Origins.

[Xilizhra]

The Templar Order isn't evil, it may be being run by Evil people, which I'm not saying it isn't. In fact it seems to be. But were it being run by good people then the Templar Order would be "good." It's the people leading it that are evil or good, not the order itself... as seem with the Senate, that proves my point. It is down to the people.

It's being run by and mostly employs evil people. And that evil is intrinsically tied to its own religious beliefs.

And you forget the Circle part of DA:O it seems, the Kinght-commander and the First Enchanter respect each other. The First Enchanters words alone were enough for the Knight-commander to stop the RoA against the wishes of his underlings (of which Cullen was one thanks to the truma he suffered) because he didn't want to kill everyone, but his orders were clear, he jumped at the chance to spare the mages he could.

Irving is a weak sellout whose fraternization with Greagoir made Greagoir sure enough that Irving couldn't be a threat to him. It proved useful in this scenario, but it was only necessary because of the templars' tyranny in the first place.

[TCBC_Freak]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

TCBC_Freak wrote...

So Alistair is evil?

Alistair seemed very uncomfortable with the templar lifestyle after the Harrowing. Cullen thinks that mages shouldn't be treated as people, views them as weapons, and seems to support the Tranquil Solution. Greagoir, Ser Bryant, the Lothering templars, and Ser Otto are good people, but I can see why people would condemn the templars for supporting a system that some view to be immoral and monstrous.

I really don't get why so many people consider Greagoir "good." Bryant and Otto at least aren't seen doing anything bad...

In the comics, he is portrayed as a massive dick. In-game, on the other hand, he is a relatively calm man, who would willingly kill or die to protect innocents, but wants very badly not to annull the Circle. I'm not sure if this is because he mellowed out with age, or if it's just different writers. Either way, he's actually not all that bad in Origins.

Haven't read the comics, this is off topic but, are they worth picking up?