373 réponses à ce sujet

[TCBC_Freak]

Xilizhra wrote...

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.

So, you attribute human attributes to a non-living thing, an orginization which cannot by its very being be evil or good because theose are states of mind and it has no mind or free will; and you also imagine off screen thoughts and actions for characters in DA that we are to take as canon and fact while ignoring on screen actions? Alright, have fun in the land of factless assumptions. I wont be going there.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

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?

My impression from the DA wikia page is that they kind of aren't.

[TCBC_Freak]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...


My impression from the DA wikia page is that they kind of aren't.

Thanks, you can ignore the message I sent you right before you posted this, lol

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

TCBC_Freak wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...


My impression from the DA wikia page is that they kind of aren't.

Thanks, you can ignore the message I sent you right before you posted this, lol

Too late.

(Lol.)

[Xilizhra]

So, you attribute human attributes to a non-living thing, an orginization which cannot by its very being be evil or good because theose are states of mind and it has no mind or free will; and you also imagine off screen thoughts and actions for characters in DA that we are to take as canon and fact while ignoring on screen actions? Alright, have fun in the land of factless assumptions. I wont be going there.

I've only stated actions that have happened onscreen.

[TCBC_Freak]

I'll no longer be taking part in the highjacking of this tread, my apologies MisterJB and everyone else who I may have offended. I hope the writers of DA take your thoughts into consideration and improve the dialog of being pro-Templar in a way that makes it more substantial and less about "just being against blood magic," so to speak.

Xilizhra, it was not my desire to enter into an argument with you and as such, I am sorry. I would also like to apologize if I have in any way offended or upset you. I do not recall a scene in DA:O that would depict Gregoir in the light you describe but it has been some time since I played and I may be misremembering; though I am more inclined to put it up to our differing interpretation of events, which is perfectly fine. We have differing opinions is all and I wish you the best.

[Plaintiff]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

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

Maybe because he decided to let live half a dozen mages who could have been blood mages, including the First Enchanter?

You have to admit, that's pretty generous from a Templar point of view, when there are literally abominations roaming the place.

He also locked up children and an elderly woman and left them to await a horrible, horrible death while he sat on his hands and waited for a religious beaureaucracy to authorize him to go in and slaughter them anyway.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 01 décembre 2012 - 03:40 .

[LobselVith8]

Xilizhra wrote...

I really don't get why so many people consider Greagoir "good."

He's the Knight-Commander. He supports a system I find morally repugnant, but he feels a great deal of remorse over the prospect of calling the Right of Annulment, unlike the genocidal lunatic in Kirkwall who wants to murder an entire population of innocent people to appease a hypothetical mob. He's willing to give The Warden a chance to deal with the situation, and he's willing to listen to The Warden and Irving in sparing the mages in spite of Cullen's protests.

As for Irving being a "weak sellout", while I strongly disagreed with what he did to Jowan and the others, he makes it clear to the mage protagonist that it's an issue of survival: "And Chantry and templars are models of magnanimity? They would make us all Tranquil if they could, and call it a kindness. They fancy themselves our guardians, sitting smugly on their righteousness."

[SirGladiator]

There does indeed need to be a bit more of a pro-templar perspective given in DA3 as compared to DA2. The way they attempt to 'balance' the two sides in DA2 is basicly to make both sides seem insane. The Templars are senselessly persecuting and killing innocent mages, and tons and tons of mages are turning into demons. So the argument for each side is that the other is crazy/evil, and each sides are essentially correct about the other. Of course there are a few exceptions on either side, but that seems to be the way it is for most on both sides. Thats not my preference. I definitely liked the DAO model better, where most folks were sane, Irving, Gregoir, and their followers. They were mostly sane, with the crazy people being the exception, not the rule.

There clearly is the potential for good, logical arguments on either side, to a certain degree at least, but the vast majority of the sane arguments in DA2 are obviously of the pro-mage variety. I'm pro-mage myself, but that doesn't mean the Templars are bad, or certainly that they 'have' to be bad. They're needed, as is the circle, to prevent the mages from turning into demons and hunt down any who do anyway. There should be some way to support the Templars at least to some degree, without it being all about 'the mages have lost their minds and they're all turning into demons'. At least, that sure would be nice.

[Xilizhra]

There does indeed need to be a bit more of a pro-templar perspective given in DA3 as compared to DA2. The way they attempt to 'balance' the two sides in DA2 is basicly to make both sides seem insane. The Templars are senselessly persecuting and killing innocent mages, and tons and tons of mages are turning into demons. So the argument for each side is that the other is crazy/evil, and each sides are essentially correct about the other. Of course there are a few exceptions on either side, but that seems to be the way it is for most on both sides. Thats not my preference. I definitely liked the DAO model better, where most folks were sane, Irving, Gregoir, and their followers. They were mostly sane, with the crazy people being the exception, not the rule.

Only one templar was insane in DA2; all the other objectionable ones were just evil. Systematically.

[batlin]

The templar argument isn't entirely justified, but nor is the mage's side.

The templar side involves imprisoning people for no crime, and the mage's side involves putting many people's lives in danger from a clear and present threat.

This isn't like the gun control argument where people say armed people are inherently more violent than unarmed people. In this case, untrained mages ARE inherently more violent than trained mages. This is because, according to all the lore presented to us, mages bind the gap between here and the Fade and therefore are easy entrances to the mortal world for all kinds of demons. Their free will is more easily stripped from them, and they can cause an awful lot of havoc.

The choice here is as follows: Do you incarcerate people against their will, or do you allow heavy loss of life? In the information we have been given in any Dragon Age media to my knowledge, there is no compromise between the two. The most pragmatic answer is the templar side, unless you believe a crime against one's right to freedom is more grievous than a crime against one's right to life.

Also, Anders' plan is horrible. Let me get this straight, he wanted mages to police mages instead of templars policing mages. Well, what good does that do? You still have to jail young mages, and the only difference is the guards at the prison are different. Anders was just a singularity of good plans in DA2, wasn't he?

Getting back on topic, the only reason the mage side held any water in DA2 was because they ignored this fact. They conveniently ignored how you're basically dooming a lot of people to a horrible death if you do nothing to train mages to defend against abomination transformation. Abomformation.

Even Anders agreed with the templars in Awakenings. There's a couple lines in there where he admits the templar solution isn't ideal, but that the alternative was way worse. And don't give me BS about how Anders being possessed by Justice would change his outlook, because I'm fairly certain that a spirit that exists to create fairness wouldn't be happy with damning people to slaughter by abominations, no matter what slight to freedom was being committed. Anders, by all accounts, should NOT have sided with the mages in DA2, and only because it was convenient to the plot did he not agree with the templars.

Modifié par batlin, 01 décembre 2012 - 05:50 .

[Ausstig]

Xilizhra wrote...

There does indeed need to be a bit more of a pro-templar perspective given in DA3 as compared to DA2. The way they attempt to 'balance' the two sides in DA2 is basicly to make both sides seem insane. The Templars are senselessly persecuting and killing innocent mages, and tons and tons of mages are turning into demons. So the argument for each side is that the other is crazy/evil, and each sides are essentially correct about the other. Of course there are a few exceptions on either side, but that seems to be the way it is for most on both sides. Thats not my preference. I definitely liked the DAO model better, where most folks were sane, Irving, Gregoir, and their followers. They were mostly sane, with the crazy people being the exception, not the rule.

Only one templar was insane in DA2; all the other objectionable ones were just evil. Systematically.

Why are you here? 

This thread is not for you, there are other threads where you can preach your views. This is about diccussing pro- templar arguments. 

You are not a templar suppourter. You come off as  bit of fanatic really, so please contune your arguments in another thread, maybe the 'Forced to be Pro-Templar' thread. 


Also op, I agree, there should be about three reasons to suppourt mages or templars or neutral.  

[Xilizhra]

EntropicAngel wrote...

You're definitely right, it shows a pro-mage bias.

What's funny is that Bioware said that they were too biased against the mages in DA2, but nothing about the templars. Expect to see more moderate mages and the templars being the same as they always have been.

[Xilizhra]

I honestly can't understand that sentiment, when it seems like every made in the game who ever does something wrong, turns to blood magic or such, does so because they are being actively, in that very moment, threatened bya Templar.

Sad to say, plenty of people failed to grasp this. What was a bigger problem is that they failed to show the majority of mages who weren't doing anything of this nature, or actively doing good; this is another flaw that they acknowledged. No similar flaws were mentioned regarding the templars, which makes me suspect that they're being presented exactly as intended.

[Xilizhra]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Sad to say, plenty of people failed to grasp this. What was a bigger problem is that they failed to show the majority of mages who weren't doing anything of this nature, or actively doing good; this is another flaw that they acknowledged. No similar flaws were mentioned regarding the templars, which makes me suspect that they're being presented exactly as intended.

Did they ever say anything about DA:O's portrayal of Templars? That it was too soft? Because DA:O does show them less harshly than DA ][.

They showed both in an accurate light. DA2 wasn't that different from DAO in Act 1, and things escalated with the Order's growing overall aggression throughout DA2, shown as well in Asunder.

[NasreddinHodja]

What seems to be a good idea (if it weren't too time-consuming) is to purposely open a thread for a Templar v Mage argument, which is heavily moderated. Sure 90% of it will be pure crud, but I'm sure some people will come up with good arguments for both sides, which I won't mind being used in-game.