615 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

Sebastian is a fanatic and also an extremely compassionate man. I guess that having an "unshakable faith in the Maker" does not, automatically, make someone a bad person. Even in Kirkwall, we have accounts of two mages who believed most templars were good men doing their duty.

But hey, don't let something like facts get in the way of your frothy rants about the inherent malice of the templars. Please, do continue repeteadly quoting one phrase uttered by a man who saw his friends being tortured to death by mages and apply it to every single templar.

Modifié par MisterJB, 28 avril 2013 - 07:09 .

[lil yonce]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars wield the power in the Chantry controlled Circles. Even Irving concedes that he has to make decisions based on a matter of survival as First Enchanter. This moderate leader admits: "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."

That's Irving's opinion. Not proven fact. And it isn't true. Even Lambert and Meredith want no such thing.

The mage leaders don't have any real authority. Even Greagoir only permitted seven mages to participate at Ostagar (to stop the Fifth Blight) when Irving and King Cailan openly disagreed with the decision.

Maybe they would have power if they actually did their job at the College of Magi. Just sayin'. Just keeping it 100.

What's repulsive is how you whitewash what the Chantry does to the mages while you vilify the men, women, and children who live in subjugation to the Chantry and the Templar Order.

We don't think mistreatment by the Templars is acceptable. We want that to change that under Justina V. The strict reinforcement of mage rights is necessary and non-negotiable. But we don't thnk an avoidable war that will kill thousands is acceptable either. We want to save lives, not send more to their deaths.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 28 avril 2013 - 07:16 .

[MisterJB]

LobselVith8 wrote...
The mage leaders don't have any real authority. Even Greagoir only permitted seven mages to participate at Ostagar (to stop the Fifth Blight) when Irving and King Cailan openly disagreed with the decision.

You mean that the First Enchanter actually has to share power with the Knight Commander so mages aren't allowed to do whatever they please as in Tevinter?
Opression! O-Pres-Sion!

[Silfren]

Youth4Ever wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars wield the power in the Chantry controlled Circles. Even Irving concedes that he has to make decisions based on a matter of survival as First Enchanter. This moderate leader admits: "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."

That's Irving's opinion. Not proven fact. And it isn't true. Even Lambert and Meredith want no such thing.

The mage leaders don't have any real authority. Even Greagoir only permitted seven mages to participate at Ostagar (to stop the Fifth Blight) when Irving and King Cailan openly disagreed with the decision.

Maybe they would have power if they actually did their job at the College of Magi. Just sayin'. Just keeping it 100.

What's repulsive is how you whitewash what the Chantry does to the mages while you vilify the men, women, and children who live in subjugation to the Chantry and the Templar Order.

We don't think mistreatment by the Templars is acceptable. We want that to change that under Justina V. The strict reinforcement of mage rights is necessary and non-negotiable. But we don't thnk an avoidable war that will kill thousands is acceptable either. We want to save lives, not send more to their deaths.

But the war is NOT avoidable.  Justinia's ascension to the Divine was marked by a great deal of contention.  We know that she has more than a few enemies, including people who simply had gotten so used to having a Divine that is so old and senile and therefore easily manipulated or else just disregarded that they resent having a young Divine with her mental faculties intact, and we also know that many people opposed Justinia's ascension specifically because of her worldly background...and her demonstrated forgiveness of sinners.  We also know from Asunder that, while she does have her supporters, she has a lot of opposition from within the ranks of the Chantry and Templars itself.  There's no indication at all that simply having Justinia's support means that mages would be well on their way to a peaceful solution.

Unless you seriously thought that centuries' worth of anti-mage sentiment...which was fomented by the Chantry for all those centuries...is going to evaporate simply because the latest Divine is more reasonable.  Unless you thought that all the templars of a like mind with Cullen or Meredith or Lambert were going to suddenly become more moderate on Justinia's say so alone.

The war is already started, and it is more than justified.  What's the purpose in talking about ways to avoid something that is already underway?

[MisterJB]

Because unless every non-mage accepts mages with open arms, war is the only acceptable solution? Because, Maker knows, magical world war is clearly the best way for them to endear themselves to the general population.
Of course the war was avoidable. The mages don't rebel. There, the war has been avoided.
Meanwhile, actually reasonable people such as Wynne and Justinia work on compromises while the extremists shut the hell up and the whole continent is not set on fire.

Win, win, win.

Modifié par MisterJB, 28 avril 2013 - 07:55 .

[lil yonce]

^^Again, money talks. The clergy plays politics and keeping mages subjugated appears to be the most beneficial solution for their power base. They can be shown another way, however.

And whatever your negative opinion of Cullen, Meredith, or Lambert, they aren't monsters-- the First Enchanters they watch over fight them at every step, crying oppression and find tighter precautions and lower expectations placed on them as a result and then stupidly wonder why-- and most Templars do not even feel as strongly as they do about their duty. It's a job with clout and benefits.

No, there is no guarantee that reform will succeed, but it is certainly possible-- the foundation is there, and you should exhaust all options before defaulting to war. That's reasonable and preferable to a trigger-happy sentiment.

It didn't need to start in the first place. And it is sad so many mages will die because a few of their leaders believed there was no other option.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 29 avril 2013 - 12:40 .

[lil yonce]

MisterJB wrote...

Because unless every non-mage accepts mages with open arms, war is the only acceptable solution? Because, Maker knows, magical world war is clearly the best way for them to endear themselves to the general population.
Of course the war was avoidable. The mages don't rebel. There, the war has been avoided.
Meanwhile, actually reasonable people such as Wynne and Justinia work on compromises while the extremists shut the hell up and the whole continent is not set on fire.

Win, win, win.

I know, right?

[Silfren]

Thing is, extremists DON'T shut up just because you want them to. Wynne and Justinia working on compromises doesn't automatically lead to compromise. Justinia can't simply declare something and all the rest of the Chantry, Templars, and Seekers will merely fall into line. This is naive. You seem to be saying that because those things were hypothetically possible, it means that war could easily have been avoided. I'd prefer to deal with likelihoods. It is NOT even remotely likely that Justinia could have gotten the entire Chantry to agree to reform. It is NOT likely that extremists, mages AND templars alike, would have shut up. Therefore it is stupidly pointless to talk about how these things would have made war avoidable.

Also, the mages COULD have just declared themselves independent, with no backlash. That alone doesn't mean that the mages are declaring magical war, it means they're declaring themselves independent. From there it was the Chantry's and templars responsibility to choose a different response than war. However, if the templars responded to that declaration of indepedence with violent suppression...well, I'd say the templars are to blame for that, because NOTHING stopped them from attempting a better response.   That's what COULD have happened, and war could have been avoided.  It didn't, it wasn't likely to have happened, and war was not avoidable, because we all know that templars wouldn't respond to such a declaration without hostility.

All the responsibility is being heaped onto the mages for what has happened, with no acknowledgement given to the fact that they have very little real power. The point is made several times that the bones thrown them regarding self-governance are illusory. The Chantry has only to say 'no' to whatever they say, and bring its military strength to bear should the mages take issue with it. The templars have held ALL the power in this dynamic, for the past nine hundred years.

Modifié par Silfren, 28 avril 2013 - 08:20 .

[Hazegurl]

Youth4Ever & Mister JB You both are knocking it out of the park.

War is certainly avoidable, the mages just don't want to avoid it. They give no thought to how life would be for them and their families post war and zero means to even support themselves as free mages cause I don't see anyone trusting a mage enough to have them around after this. I hope they have fun getting crushed in their zero resource having war and starving afterwards if the Chantry doesn't bother to show them enough mercy to let them back into the circle.

[dragonflight288]

Hazegurl wrote...

Youth4Ever & Mister JB You both are knocking it out of the park.

War is certainly avoidable, the mages just don't want to avoid it. They give no thought to how life would be for them and their families post war and zero means to even support themselves as free mages cause I don't see anyone trusting a mage enough to have them around after this. I hope they have fun getting crushed in their zero resource having war and starving afterwards if the Chantry doesn't bother to show them enough mercy to let them back into the circle.

It was the templars who started the war. It was the templars who struck the first blow, and it was the templars who declared war and use violence to try and keep the mages in line.

The mages declared themselves independent. That's all the College did. Individual mages are criminals and deserve punishment, but the templar order and the Chantry as a whole are the ones using violence to maintain power, and it was the templars who declared the Nevaaran Accord to be void and left the chantry so they can kill mages freely.

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...

Thing is, extremists DON'T shut up just because you want them to. Wynne and Justinia working on compromises doesn't automatically lead to compromise. Justinia can't simply declare something and all the rest of the Chantry, Templars, and Seekers will merely fall into line. This is naive. You seem to be saying that because those things were hypothetically possible, it means that war could easily have been avoided. I'd prefer to deal with likelihoods. It is NOT even remotely likely that Justinia could have gotten the entire Chantry to agree to reform. It is NOT likely that extremists, mages AND templars alike, would have shut up. Therefore it is stupidly pointless to talk about how these things would have made war avoidable.

Just because extremists don't tend to shut up, that doesn't mean those more reasonable should just throw their lot in with them because "war is unavoidable."
Two very influential people on both sides of the argument were agreeing to talk and reach compromises which possibilitates peaceful reformation. It would be a long and harduous path but neither were bereft of allies and it would be preferable to war.

Also, the mages COULD have just declared themselves independent, with no backlash. That alone doesn't mean that the mages are declaring magical war, it means they're declaring themselves independent. From there it was the Chantry's and templars responsibility to choose a different response than war. However, if the templars responded to that declaration of indepedence with violent suppression...well, I'd say the templars are to blame for that, because NOTHING stopped them from attempting a better response.   That's what COULD have happened, and war could have been avoided.  It didn't, it wasn't likely to have happened, and war was not avoidable, because we all know that templars wouldn't respond to such a declaration without hostility.

All the responsibility is being heaped onto the mages for what has happened, with no acknowledgement given to the fact that they have very little real power. The point is made several times that the bones thrown them regarding self-governance are illusory. The Chantry has only to say 'no' to whatever they say, and bring its military strength to bear should the mages take issue with it. The templars have held ALL the power in this dynamic, for the past nine hundred years.

The situation of the mages regarding their freedoms and rights is really not all that different from everyone else.
I have freedoms and rights that, in theory, must be respected but that, ultimately, falls upon the criteria of the people who uphold them.
But, of course, there are a specific set of rules that are non-negotiable. I can kill in self defense but I can't, for instance, suddenly declare my home a sovereign state. I don't see why the mages should, expecially given the fact how dangerous they are.
The mages could have just not mirrored Tevinter by not declared independence. Why is it not within their responsability not to provoke the Templars?

[Silfren]

Hazegurl wrote...
Youth4Ever & Mister JB You both are knocking it out of the park.

All this "you're great...no you're great," is getting kind of silly.  Could we have a discussion without the circle jerk?

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Thing is, extremists DON'T shut up just because you want them to. Wynne and Justinia working on compromises doesn't automatically lead to compromise. Justinia can't simply declare something and all the rest of the Chantry, Templars, and Seekers will merely fall into line. This is naive. You seem to be saying that because those things were hypothetically possible, it means that war could easily have been avoided. I'd prefer to deal with likelihoods. It is NOT even remotely likely that Justinia could have gotten the entire Chantry to agree to reform. It is NOT likely that extremists, mages AND templars alike, would have shut up. Therefore it is stupidly pointless to talk about how these things would have made war avoidable.

Just because extremists don't tend to shut up, that doesn't mean those more reasonable should just throw their lot in with them because "war is unavoidable."
Two very influential people on both sides of the argument were agreeing to talk and reach compromises which possibilitates peaceful reformation. It would be a long and harduous path but neither were bereft of allies and it would be preferable to war.

Also, the mages COULD have just declared themselves independent, with no backlash. That alone doesn't mean that the mages are declaring magical war, it means they're declaring themselves independent. From there it was the Chantry's and templars responsibility to choose a different response than war. However, if the templars responded to that declaration of indepedence with violent suppression...well, I'd say the templars are to blame for that, because NOTHING stopped them from attempting a better response.   That's what COULD have happened, and war could have been avoided.  It didn't, it wasn't likely to have happened, and war was not avoidable, because we all know that templars wouldn't respond to such a declaration without hostility.

All the responsibility is being heaped onto the mages for what has happened, with no acknowledgement given to the fact that they have very little real power. The point is made several times that the bones thrown them regarding self-governance are illusory. The Chantry has only to say 'no' to whatever they say, and bring its military strength to bear should the mages take issue with it. The templars have held ALL the power in this dynamic, for the past nine hundred years.

The situation of the mages regarding their freedoms and rights is really not all that different from everyone else.
I have freedoms and rights that, in theory, must be respected but that, ultimately, falls upon the criteria of the people who uphold them.
But, of course, there are a specific set of rules that are non-negotiable. I can kill in self defense but I can't, for instance, suddenly declare my home a sovereign state. I don't see why the mages should, expecially given the fact how dangerous they are.
The mages could have just not mirrored Tevinter by not declared independence. Why is it not within their responsability not to provoke the Templars?

Who says that by declaring independence, the mages are mirroring Tevinter? I'm sorry, but I don't recall their declaration mentioning anything about enacting a slave state, embracing of blood magic, or even declaring mages to have divine right to political rule.

You put EVERY bit of responsibility for what happened on the mages.  From what I'm standing, the templars were the ones who had a choice to respond with some other means than violence and separation from the Chantry.  Why do you insist on focusing on the mages as if they carry the bulk of the responsibility?  You talk about all the ways that the mages could have agitated for reform more peacefully, but you've not one word to say about the responsibility of Templars to change their restrictive, brutal methods.

Modifié par Silfren, 28 avril 2013 - 09:25 .

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
Who says that by declaring independence, the mages are mirroring Tevinter? I'm sorry, but I don't recall their declaration mentioning anything about enacting a slave state, embracing of blood magic, or even declaring mages to have divine right to political rule.

And how would any non-mage know when they are forbidden from participating in the conclaves? How would any of them know what the mages plan to do? How can they present their point of view?
As far as any non-mage knows, first order of business is mages no longer answer to anyone but themselves. Second order is, the murder of non-mages is not a crime recognized by mages.

They've already taken the first step in mirroring Tevinter. Mages answer to no one but themselves. How distant are they from the remaining ones?

Modifié par MisterJB, 28 avril 2013 - 09:27 .

[lil yonce]

Silfren wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...
Youth4Ever & Mister JB You both are knocking it out of the park.

All this "you're great...no you're great," is getting kind of silly.  Could we have a discussion without the circle jerk?

Ew. What a gross reference. Could we have a discussion without the put downs? Or is this the alternative?

[lil yonce]

Hazegurl wrote...

Youth4Ever & Mister JB You both are knocking it out of the park.

War is certainly avoidable, the mages just don't want to avoid it. They give no thought to how life would be for them and their families post war and zero means to even support themselves as free mages cause I don't see anyone trusting a mage enough to have them around after this. I hope they have fun getting crushed in their zero resource having war and starving afterwards if the Chantry doesn't bother to show them enough mercy to let them back into the circle.

LOL.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 28 avril 2013 - 09:36 .

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
You put EVERY bit of responsibility for what happened on the mages.  From what I'm standing, the templars were the ones who had a choice to respond with some other means than violence and separation from the Chantry.  Why do you insist on focusing on the mages as if they carry the bulk of the responsibility?  You talk about all the ways that the mages could have agitated for reform more peacefully, but you've not one word to say about the responsibility of Templars to change their restrictive, brutal methods.

I believe Lambert made a mistake in charging the conclave because it probrably helped Fiona gain supporters. But, while I could see certain modifications being made to the Circle, I maintain that mages spending the entirety of their lives within the Circle and being policed by non-mages must be non-negotiable.

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...
You put EVERY bit of responsibility for what happened on the mages.  From what I'm standing, the templars were the ones who had a choice to respond with some other means than violence and separation from the Chantry.  Why do you insist on focusing on the mages as if they carry the bulk of the responsibility?  You talk about all the ways that the mages could have agitated for reform more peacefully, but you've not one word to say about the responsibility of Templars to change their restrictive, brutal methods.

I believe Lambert made a mistake in charging the conclave because it probrably helped Fiona gain supporters. But, while I could see certain modifications being made to the Circle, I maintain that mages spending the entirety of their lives within the Circle and being policed by non-mages must be non-negotiable.

And I maintain that we have no reason to believe this whatsoever.  Before deciding that mages couldn't possibly be permitted to live outside the Circles--with safeguards against magical abuses in place, of course, I have never advocated that it be otherwise--how about we actually TRY it first?

[MisterJB]

The Circle has only existed for a few centuries. mages have existed for thousands of years. Even the Chantry is older than the Circle.
It has been tried, there are places in Thedas where mages are free. Not only does it not work, it's not something that can be easily rectified once we realize our mistake.

"Oh, the mages have taken over society and dismantled everything in place to prevent magical abuses. Oh well, worth a shot. Time to return to the Circles."

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

The Circle has only existed for a few centuries. mages have existed for thousands of years. Even the Chantry is older than the Circle.
It has been tried, there are places in Thedas where mages are free. Not only does it not work, it's not something that can be easily rectified once we realize our mistake.

"Oh, the mages have taken over society and dismantled everything in place to prevent magical abuses. Oh well, worth a shot. Time to return to the Circles."

No, it's never been tried, at least not on a large scale--though as you point out, there are free mages in the world AND NO RESULTING CHAOS AND DEATH AND ENSLAVEMENT. 

Don't bring up Tevinter, because that's not an example of what I'm talking about.  It has NOT been tried.

[BlueMagitek]

Well, Flemeth does steal and eat children.

The Baroness did enslave people.

Free Blood Mages in Denerim go about murdering and mind warping people.

Free Mages do put out bounties for the knowledge of the most heinous and wretched of blood magics available.

[MisterJB]

Yes, it has been tried. Several times, in fact. Mages were not contained before the Chantry existed and they created the Tevinter Imperium.
Even after the Chantry was created, mages were not confined to the Circles, they were just forbidden from using magic. It did not work because the mages refused to abide by these rules. They demand equality but refuse to abstain from what makes equality impossible.
And then there are societies like the Dalish where the mages are free and they are the ruling class.

I'm not sure how much of a larger scale you want. Tevinter encompassed all of the continent and it's not going to be a few rules that are going to make the difference. The Chantry had rules before the Circle and Templars to enforce them and it didn't work.
Equality between mages and non-mages is simply impossible.

[Hazegurl]

Youth4Ever wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...
Youth4Ever & Mister JB You both are knocking it out of the park.

All this "you're great...no you're great," is getting kind of silly.  Could we have a discussion without the circle jerk?

Ew. What a gross reference. Could we have a discussion without the put downs? Or is this the alternative?

LOL! Seems like putting people down for not agreeing is all that is left.

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

Yes, it has been tried. Several times, in fact. Mages were not contained before the Chantry existed and they created the Tevinter Imperium.
Even after the Chantry was created, mages were not confined to the Circles, they were just forbidden from using magic. It did not work because the mages refused to abide by these rules. They demand equality but refuse to abstain from what makes equality impossible.
And then there are societies like the Dalish where the mages are free and they are the ruling class.

I'm not sure how much of a larger scale you want. Tevinter encompassed all of the continent and it's not going to be a few rules that are going to make the difference. The Chantry had rules before the Circle and Templars to enforce them and it didn't work.
Equality between mages and non-mages is simply impossible.

No, it hasn't actually been tried.  Tevinter, as I already pointed out, is not an example of what I'm talking about.  I don't know of any example where society has tried to accomodate mage freedom WHILE having safeguards in place to protect against magic abuses.

Forbidding mages to use magic at all--except when the Chantry wants you to, is not reasonable. You CAN enact restrictions on mages using magic to hurt and dominate others WITHOUT saying "you can only ever use magic when I want you to, ever."  Why you think that demanding that no mage, ever, use magic for any reason, unless and until authorized to do so, is an acceptable thing that all mages should agree to is beyond me.  Even the codex you refer to, written by a Chantry sister, makes that point, that demanding that mages ONLY ever use magic as servants of the Chantry, and thinking the mages wouldn't chafe at being treated this way, was stupid.

You always bring up the Dalish having mage rulers as if this is an inherently bad thing.  Since I don't see the much-fear inequality or brutality among Dalish peoples, I'm not sure what the hell your point is supposed to be.  Simply BEING a mage with leadership power is not automatically a sign of impending descent into madness and evil.

Modifié par Silfren, 28 avril 2013 - 11:18 .

[BlueMagitek]

Well, aside from the fact that all the Keepers we meet descend into madness and evil, you might have a point.