656 réponses à ce sujet

[Heimdall]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Hawke is the son of an apostate, so I don't think he would be an example of the average Andrastian. However, we see that there is propoganda against mages, because we continually see and hear in Origins and Dragon Age II how the Chantry preaches that mages are "cursed", which is why we keep hearing Andrastians say that mages and magic are a curse: from Circle mage Keili to Bethany, and even Knight-Commander Meredith. We also hear from Wynne how this has caused Andrastians to react to mages, usually by attempting to murder them if anything goes wrong in their society (because they almost instinctively blame the mages).

 

I've seen people demonstrate prejudice against mages, but I've never heard the Chantry preaching that all mages are cursed.  Certainly that they are dangerous, but is that a lie?  Frankly I just think prejudice aginst mages would be rife in the population even without the Chantry.  The Tervinter Imperium ensured that.  Its a mistake to lay all ill feeling for mages on the Chantry. 

Except societies without the Chantry are usually tolerant of mages and magic, from the Dalish to the people of Rivain.

Rivain I'll give you, though I'll note that they have the Chantry as I recall, the Templars just tolerated it.  If Chantry propaganda is esponsible for mage prejudice, they clearly weren't very effective.  The Dalish I don't really want to get into, to them the Tervinters were humans first and mages second.  The Qun would seem to be a glaring exception to that idea though, and thats the one society we know lacks any chantry influence whatsoever.

[TJPags]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I'd like to help maintain mage autonomy from the Chantry and the templars. I don't advocate "compromises" with people who think the Maker gives them religious authority over mages.

So, in your mind, peace is out of the question in its entirety?  Because "peace" is the question that was asked, as you see here:

Garden of Heaven wrote...

Anyway, since we are going way off topic and turning the thread into a Fenris thread I will make an on topic post.

Do you guys think that there will be an option for peace[/b] between the Templars and Magi? just like the Geth-Quarian conflict in Mass Effect 3 had a peace option.

If peace is out of the question, the only alternative is endless war or a mage rulership (which I call a reign of terror).  

Or do you have some other alternative that I haven't thought of?

There can be peace when the templars are defeated, and the Chantry can't force the mages to capitulate to them.

Ah, I see.  So, mage reign of terror.  Got it.

[Plaintiff]

TJPags wrote...
Ah, I see.  So, mage reign of terror.  Got it.

Because not wanting the Chantry to meddle in every aspect of your life automatically makes you a tyrannical despot.

[dragonflight288]

Plaintiff wrote...

TJPags wrote...
Ah, I see.  So, mage reign of terror.  Got it.

Because not wanting the Chantry to meddle in every aspect of your life automatically makes you a tyrannical despot.

I would add that it was the Seekers and the 'upstanding members of the Chantry' who started the war. All the mages did, well the leaders, was call for a vote, at a meeting where it was perfectly legal and were authorized by the Divine to be at, to separate themselves from the Chantry and govern themselves. The mages weren't disusssing conquering others, nor were they talking war. Lambert and the templars interrupted the meeting before a vote could be cast, and pretty much illegally tried taking control of the meeting, and when the mages didn't give in, he simply started slaughtering them. When a First Enchanter tried to surrender and was killed anyway, that was when the mages knew beyond a doubt that Lambert, the templars, and therefore the arm wielding the sword of the chantry, would have them killed anyway, and the mages fought back with zeal. The survivors escaped and voted after the battle to separate.

It isn't magical tyranny that is in question here, as it's not the mages of the Circles with the death squads killing non-mages (Ser Mettin in Act 3 of DA2, appointed by Meredith and an absolute extremist) nor was it the mages who started the fighting.

[TJPags]

Plaintiff wrote...

TJPags wrote...
Ah, I see.  So, mage reign of terror.  Got it.

Because not wanting the Chantry to meddle in every aspect of your life automatically makes you a tyrannical despot.

The question was whether there could be a peace.  Lobsel has quite clearly stated that the only way he would accept a peace is the utter defeat of the Templars, and Mage power over what the Chantry can and can't do.

That, to me, is a mage reign of terror.  Or, to use your words, the rule of a tyrannical despot.

What Lobsel stated and what you state are not the same thing.

[MisterJB]

dragonflight288 wrote...
I would add that it was the Seekers and the 'upstanding members of the Chantry' who started the war. All the mages did, well the leaders, was call for a vote, at a meeting where it was perfectly legal and were authorized by the Divine to be at, to separate themselves from the Chantry and govern themselves. The mages weren't disusssing conquering others, nor were they talking war. Lambert and the templars interrupted the meeting before a vote could be cast, and pretty much illegally tried taking control of the meeting, and when the mages didn't give in, he simply started slaughtering them. When a First Enchanter tried to surrender and was killed anyway, that was when the mages knew beyond a doubt that Lambert, the templars, and therefore the arm wielding the sword of the chantry, would have them killed anyway, and the mages fought back with zeal. The survivors escaped and voted after the battle to separate.

Yeah, that is not what happened.
First, while the meeting was legal, it was called to discuss Pharamond's research, not any separation. What Fiona did was take advantage of the Chantry's willingness to compromise which only proved what Lambert had been claiming all along. Give mages the hand and they'll ask for the whole arm.

Second, Fiona knew very well that any attempt at separation would lead to armed conflict therefore, her hands are as much stained with innocent blood as Lambert's.

Third, Lambert ordered the mages arrested which is what happened. They escaped at a later date. That First Enchanter was cut down in the heat of battle which is wanton to happen but Lambert did not have a single First Enchanter executed or Tranquilised.

[robertthebard]

MisterJB wrote...

Yeah, that is not what happened.
First, while the meeting was legal, it was called to discuss Pharamond's research, not any separation. What Fiona did was take advantage of the Chantry's willingness to compromise which only proved what Lambert had been claiming all along. Give mages the hand and they'll ask for the whole arm.

Second, Fiona knew very well that any attempt at separation would lead to armed conflict therefore, her hands are as much stained with innocent blood as Lambert's.

Third, Lambert ordered the mages arrested which is what happened. They escaped at a later date. That First Enchanter was cut down in the heat of battle which is wanton to happen but Lambert did not have a single First Enchanter executed or Tranquilised.

So I'm reading this post, and then notice your sig, and have to ask:  Since you're ProTemplar, everything that the Templars did in DA 2 was acceptable?

Unrelated, but is a mageblood child wicked and corrupt?  I mean, they are mages, or will be.  You see, when I'm reading posts like yours, that changes the context of another post, with rationalization and justification to explain actions taken, or to change the context of actions taken, and then see a sig like that, I'm not convinced.  I am, in fact, suspicious.  Because it seems to me that it would just be a way to attempt to further an anti-mage position.

Don't get me wrong, you are entitled to be as tyrannical in your anti-mage philosophy as you wish, I personally don't know any mages, so it's not offensive to me, I'm just wondering, how far do you take "Pro Templar and Proud".  Isn't a harem of tranquil mage girls a Templar's right?  I mean, there's just the one Templar that we know of, and I don't know that he had a harem, but he is a Templar, and you do support them.  So I'm just curious.

[MisterJB]

robertthebard wrote...
Since you're ProTemplar, everything that the Templars did in DA 2 was acceptable?

No.

Unrelated, but is a mageblood child wicked and corrupt?

No.

Isn't a harem of tranquil mage girls a Templar's right?

No.

I mean, there's just the one Templar that we know of, and I don't know that he had a harem, but he is a Templar, and you do support them.  So I'm just curious.

By that logic, since I'm a Christian, I must support the Westboro Baptist Church. I don't.
Likewise, supporting the Templars does not mean I support sick bastards like Alrik.

[robertthebard]

MisterJB wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
Since you're ProTemplar, everything that the Templars did in DA 2 was acceptable?

No.

Unrelated, but is a mageblood child wicked and corrupt?

No.

Isn't a harem of tranquil mage girls a Templar's right?

No.

I mean, there's just the one Templar that we know of, and I don't know that he had a harem, but he is a Templar, and you do support them.  So I'm just curious.

By that logic, since I'm a Christian, I must support the Westboro Baptist Church. I don't.
Likewise, supporting the Templars does not mean I support sick bastards like Alrik.

Thanks for clearing that up, and I seriously meant no offense, I was genuinely curious.

[EmperorSahlertz]

robertthebard wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

azarhal wrote...

The anti-mage sentiment is driven by fear, which turn into hate. People who fear mages interpretated the Chant of Light with an anti-mage bias. The Chant of Light doesn't have an anti-mage bias,  Andraste's teaching (Transfiguration) is all about the Maker hating people who do evil things (steal, abuse, murder, force others to do things against their will).

I would like to point out that the Chantry and Andrastre did not form out of thin aitr...these discussions seem to almost always forget that the people of Thedas 

a) know how bad Tevinter was (and I'm amused that people think the Dalish would hate the Chantry _MORE_ for supposedly destroying the dales than the Tevinter who actually did destroy & enslave them)

can easily see what mages in charge would result in.

That's not fear. That's just prudence

Yes, because being forced to either live in Alienages, or forced to be wandering Nomads that have no real home is vastly superior to having their own corner of the world to reside in.  The Chantry decided, via promises of "If the Chant is sung in all corners of the world, I will return", very rough paraphrase, that all people should follow the Maker, and if not, then it's time for an Exalted March.  The last time I checked, Alienage life, while giving one a home, really isn't butterflies and rainbows.  What about the Gods the Elves worshipped?  Shouldn't they be allowed to follow their own beliefs?  The answer is, according to the Chantry; "No, because the Maker..."  I don't find it hard to believe at all, since the Andrastian Chantry was set up by people who supposedly followed the teachings of the woman that actually had a hand in freeing them in the first place, only to turn around and put them right back in the same position they were before.  Elves are considered less than animals in Thedas, but don't take my word for it, ask the Arl's son in the CE origin.  "You can dress up your pets if you want, but don't pretend this is a proper wedding".

It is not the Chantry who forces the Elves to live in alienages....

It is the Chantry that gave them the choice; live as Nomads, or live in Alienages, unless, of course, we want to rewrite the history because it's inconvenient?  The Chantry declared an Exalted March on the Elves because they refused to allow the Chantry into the Dales.  So, who forced them to live in alienages?

The Chantry wasn't even involved in the war until the Dalish decided to lay seige to Val Royaux itself... It appears you have been listening to LobselVith a bit too much, and that I have to explain to you as well, why the Dalish codex entry on the Dales, is so wrothless that I wouldn't even dain to wipe my ass with it, becasue that would give it purpose... From an objective historical view, the Dalish codex entry is so biased, unspecific and straight up decietful, that it can't be used in any kind of emperical research, as anyhting else than a show of Dalish bias. If you want what happened, you need to go with the sources of the real historians, and while they are usually Chantry brothers and sisters, the two most well known, have proven to be willing to admit the Chantry's guilt when applicable.

[Asdrubael Vect]

the Chantry were founded by Orlais Emperror Dracon himself and they support and controll Orlais with their Emperrors

and Chantry claimes that Orlais started war after Dalish isolate themself and "make blood sacrifises and kill some "innocent" Chantry misioners"(ahh maybe this is some of the ancestor of sister Petrice who claimed Dales for that:))

the same thing Chantry do against Tevinter after they decide to have their own Chantry without any Orlais influence

the same thing Chantry would do if you build Chantry temple in Orzammar and dwarf priest were killed bacause of his propoganda

Orlais Сhantry only need a reason to incite their crusades and conquer lands and to extend its influence and it does not matter who's to blame and for what

Orlais Chantry raised a human kids by their Chantry propoganda with Lyrium makes them Templars and grand them influense to do all what they want...this is why we always have Ser Otto Alrick or Sister Petrice and others like them and Chantry not really care about them and allways want to hide their actions
 
the only normal Templars is mostly only some Templars who not raised by Chantry and who have mages in their familys like Ser Thrask

so we need to
1)ban/destroy Orlais Chantry and influense on Orlais and all Thedas
2)ban/destroy army's of Templar Order with their influense  and stop their Lyrium supply
3)weaken the Orlais Empire

Modifié par Dark Korsar, 27 avril 2013 - 11:59 .

[The Elder King]

n

TJPags wrote...



The question was whether there could be a peace.  Lobsel has quite clearly stated that the only way he would accept a peace is the utter defeat of the Templars, and Mage power over what the Chantry can and can't do.

That, to me, is a mage reign of terror.  Or, to use your words, the rule of a tyrannical despot.

What Lobsel stated and what you state are not the same thing.

I think Lobsel expressed himself badly. I don't think he meant that the mages should rule over the Chantry. I think he meant that the Chantry shouldn't have the power they had over the mages in the Circles, and that the mages should be completely indipendant from the Chantry.

[Noctis Augustus]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

azarhal wrote...

The anti-mage sentiment is driven by fear, which turn into hate. People who fear mages interpretated the Chant of Light with an anti-mage bias. The Chant of Light doesn't have an anti-mage bias,  Andraste's teaching (Transfiguration) is all about the Maker hating people who do evil things (steal, abuse, murder, force others to do things against their will).

I would like to point out that the Chantry and Andrastre did not form out of thin aitr...these discussions seem to almost always forget that the people of Thedas 

a) know how bad Tevinter was (and I'm amused that people think the Dalish would hate the Chantry _MORE_ for supposedly destroying the dales than the Tevinter who actually did destroy & enslave them)

can easily see what mages in charge would result in.

That's not fear. That's just prudence

Yes, because being forced to either live in Alienages, or forced to be wandering Nomads that have no real home is vastly superior to having their own corner of the world to reside in.  The Chantry decided, via promises of "If the Chant is sung in all corners of the world, I will return", very rough paraphrase, that all people should follow the Maker, and if not, then it's time for an Exalted March.  The last time I checked, Alienage life, while giving one a home, really isn't butterflies and rainbows.  What about the Gods the Elves worshipped?  Shouldn't they be allowed to follow their own beliefs?  The answer is, according to the Chantry; "No, because the Maker..."  I don't find it hard to believe at all, since the Andrastian Chantry was set up by people who supposedly followed the teachings of the woman that actually had a hand in freeing them in the first place, only to turn around and put them right back in the same position they were before.  Elves are considered less than animals in Thedas, but don't take my word for it, ask the Arl's son in the CE origin.  "You can dress up your pets if you want, but don't pretend this is a proper wedding".

It is not the Chantry who forces the Elves to live in alienages....

It is the Chantry that gave them the choice; live as Nomads, or live in Alienages, unless, of course, we want to rewrite the history because it's inconvenient?  The Chantry declared an Exalted March on the Elves because they refused to allow the Chantry into the Dales.  So, who forced them to live in alienages?

The Chantry wasn't even involved in the war until the Dalish decided to lay seige to Val Royaux itself... It appears you have been listening to LobselVith a bit too much, and that I have to explain to you as well, why the Dalish codex entry on the Dales, is so wrothless that I wouldn't even dain to wipe my ass with it, becasue that would give it purpose... From an objective historical view, the Dalish codex entry is so biased, unspecific and straight up decietful, that it can't be used in any kind of emperical research, as anyhting else than a show of Dalish bias. If you want what happened, you need to go with the sources of the real historians, and while they are usually Chantry brothers and sisters, the two most well known, have proven to be willing to admit the Chantry's guilt when applicable.

Ha! The dalish version is biased but the chantry's not... Pro-templars/chantry are a strange group indeed.

[dragonflight288]

MisterJB wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
I would add that it was the Seekers and the 'upstanding members of the Chantry' who started the war. All the mages did, well the leaders, was call for a vote, at a meeting where it was perfectly legal and were authorized by the Divine to be at, to separate themselves from the Chantry and govern themselves. The mages weren't disusssing conquering others, nor were they talking war. Lambert and the templars interrupted the meeting before a vote could be cast, and pretty much illegally tried taking control of the meeting, and when the mages didn't give in, he simply started slaughtering them. When a First Enchanter tried to surrender and was killed anyway, that was when the mages knew beyond a doubt that Lambert, the templars, and therefore the arm wielding the sword of the chantry, would have them killed anyway, and the mages fought back with zeal. The survivors escaped and voted after the battle to separate.

Yeah, that is not what happened.
First, while the meeting was legal, it was called to discuss Pharamond's research, not any separation. What Fiona did was take advantage of the Chantry's willingness to compromise which only proved what Lambert had been claiming all along. Give mages the hand and they'll ask for the whole arm.

And the mages were ALSO given the right to investigate Rhys, and Lambert came in and pretty much told them to hand him Rhys and he would take over, and then told them to leave the meeting entirely and go back to the circles. Then he said that he was pretty much ignoring the Divine.

Second, Fiona knew very well that any attempt at separation would lead to armed conflict therefore, her hands are as much stained with innocent blood as Lambert's.

I don't deny Fiona was provoking the templars, but that is NOT Lambert's job. His job is to investigate templars who AREN'T doing their jobs. It would've been better if a Knight-Commander came in and asked her to pipe it down, and then go through the Divine to say that the meeting wasn't going as had been planned and cancel it. Not for the Lord High Seeker to come in and say "Shut up now or die! Oh, and the Divine has no authority here because I'm usurping it."

Third, Lambert ordered the mages arrested which is what happened. They escaped at a later date. That First Enchanter was cut down in the heat of battle which is wanton to happen but Lambert did not have a single First Enchanter executed or Tranquilised.

Now I must quote you. That's not what happened.

Lambert came in, demanded they surrender Rhys to him and return to their Circles. Fiona stood up to him and said they had legal authority from the Divine to be there, and they had the power to investigate Rhys. Lambert said the Divine's word at that point meant nothing, called in the templars. When the mages stood their ground and simply said 'no, the law's on our side,' that's when Lambert attacked.

He struck the first blow. Not the mages. Fiona was provoking them, sure enough, but it wasn't Lambert's job to do that, and it never was.

[robertthebard]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chantry wasn't even involved in the war until the Dalish decided to lay seige to Val Royaux itself... It appears you have been listening to LobselVith a bit too much, and that I have to explain to you as well, why the Dalish codex entry on the Dales, is so wrothless that I wouldn't even dain to wipe my ass with it, becasue that would give it purpose... From an objective historical view, the Dalish codex entry is so biased, unspecific and straight up decietful, that it can't be used in any kind of emperical research, as anyhting else than a show of Dalish bias. If you want what happened, you need to go with the sources of the real historians, and while they are usually Chantry brothers and sisters, the two most well known, have proven to be willing to admit the Chantry's guilt when applicable.

So enlighten me, why did the Dalish lay siege to Val Royeaux?  They were indeed planning world conquest with their new found freedom?  Leliana's tale begs to differ.  I didn't even read the Dalish entry on it.  However, one has only to look at what you typed here to understand the problem.  History is written by the Victors.  The lie to that history you cling so desperately to lies in every city on Thedas with an Alienage, and with every clan of Dalish elves roaming the lands.  If the Chantry was only interested in retaking Val Royeaux, why raze the Dales?  So the Chantry lore doesn't teach us that when the Chant is sung from all corners of Thedas the Maker will return?  The Chantry never tried to impose itself upon the Dales?  That sure doesn't fit what we're shown in Origins, with them trying to expand into Orzammar, where no one worships the Maker.  You are correct, there is a lot of evidence I wouldn't deign to wipe my ass with, but most of it comes from the Chantry itself.

[EmperorSahlertz]

robertthebard wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chantry wasn't even involved in the war until the Dalish decided to lay seige to Val Royaux itself... It appears you have been listening to LobselVith a bit too much, and that I have to explain to you as well, why the Dalish codex entry on the Dales, is so wrothless that I wouldn't even dain to wipe my ass with it, becasue that would give it purpose... From an objective historical view, the Dalish codex entry is so biased, unspecific and straight up decietful, that it can't be used in any kind of emperical research, as anyhting else than a show of Dalish bias. If you want what happened, you need to go with the sources of the real historians, and while they are usually Chantry brothers and sisters, the two most well known, have proven to be willing to admit the Chantry's guilt when applicable.

So enlighten me, why did the Dalish lay siege to Val Royeaux?  They were indeed planning world conquest with their new found freedom?  Leliana's tale begs to differ.  I didn't even read the Dalish entry on it.  However, one has only to look at what you typed here to understand the problem.  History is written by the Victors.  The lie to that history you cling so desperately to lies in every city on Thedas with an Alienage, and with every clan of Dalish elves roaming the lands.  If the Chantry was only interested in retaking Val Royeaux, why raze the Dales?  So the Chantry lore doesn't teach us that when the Chant is sung from all corners of Thedas the Maker will return?  The Chantry never tried to impose itself upon the Dales?  That sure doesn't fit what we're shown in Origins, with them trying to expand into Orzammar, where no one worships the Maker.  You are correct, there is a lot of evidence I wouldn't deign to wipe my ass with, but most of it comes from the Chantry itself.

The Chantry was not just interrested in liberating Val Royaux. After the Dalish sacked Val Royaux, the Chantry was interrested in ending the Elven threat once and for all, and the humans of Thedas, probably spurred on by the Chantry, was out for vengeance against what the Elves had done. All reliable sources points to Red Crossing as being what ignited the war between Orlais and the Dales, but tension was already high between the nations, ever since the Dalish army watched as the Orlesian city of Montsimmard was sacked by the Darkspawn, and refused to aid the humans. So the war between Orlais and the Dales, were not originally a religous war, but rather one of two powerful nations, just straight up hating eachother.
And considering the alternative would be utter destruction, the Chantry was merciful to the Elves, when they ordered the nations of Thedas, to harbor the Elven refugees. The Chantry never ordered these refugees to be placed into alienages, that is the doing of the individual nations of Thedas, who probably hated the Elves.

[Sir JK]

You're partly right, Robert. The Chantry and Orlais account of what happened cannot be fully trusted. But neither can the elven one.

Consider:
Girashel, the author of many of the Dalish codices, pretty much all but states that all human kingdoms will be wiped out and this will bring about the new elven utopia.
Similarily, all humans are given collective guilt by pretty much every elf you meet. Not just Orlesians and Tevinter.

When the Orlesian-Dales skirmishes started, the missionaries had been going out into the world from Orlais for 115 years. So they were not exactly a recent development. Neither were templars mind, who had been around for 85 years by that point. If the missionaries were the problem, like the elves suggest, then it sure took them long to notice (or they deliberately avoided the Dales under Kordilius Drakon I's entire reign + another 40 years).

The elves have take their status as the keepers of lost lore and the poor, innocent victims to the point of pride. They want to be the oppressed and having had their due stolen. That makes their duties all the more important to them. Even suggest that the elves are not completely innocent when meeting the dalish in DAO and their voiced immediately begin dripping with acid.

Weigh those things together (there's more too) and it calls the Dalish account into question. There's no doubt that the Chantry/Orlais glorify their succeses, justify their crimes and tone down their atrocities. But make no mistake, the Dalish likely do too.

[robertthebard]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Chantry wasn't even involved in the war until the Dalish decided to lay seige to Val Royaux itself... It appears you have been listening to LobselVith a bit too much, and that I have to explain to you as well, why the Dalish codex entry on the Dales, is so wrothless that I wouldn't even dain to wipe my ass with it, becasue that would give it purpose... From an objective historical view, the Dalish codex entry is so biased, unspecific and straight up decietful, that it can't be used in any kind of emperical research, as anyhting else than a show of Dalish bias. If you want what happened, you need to go with the sources of the real historians, and while they are usually Chantry brothers and sisters, the two most well known, have proven to be willing to admit the Chantry's guilt when applicable.

So enlighten me, why did the Dalish lay siege to Val Royeaux?  They were indeed planning world conquest with their new found freedom?  Leliana's tale begs to differ.  I didn't even read the Dalish entry on it.  However, one has only to look at what you typed here to understand the problem.  History is written by the Victors.  The lie to that history you cling so desperately to lies in every city on Thedas with an Alienage, and with every clan of Dalish elves roaming the lands.  If the Chantry was only interested in retaking Val Royeaux, why raze the Dales?  So the Chantry lore doesn't teach us that when the Chant is sung from all corners of Thedas the Maker will return?  The Chantry never tried to impose itself upon the Dales?  That sure doesn't fit what we're shown in Origins, with them trying to expand into Orzammar, where no one worships the Maker.  You are correct, there is a lot of evidence I wouldn't deign to wipe my ass with, but most of it comes from the Chantry itself.

The Chantry was not just interrested in liberating Val Royaux. After the Dalish sacked Val Royaux, the Chantry was interrested in ending the Elven threat once and for all, and the humans of Thedas, probably spurred on by the Chantry, was out for vengeance against what the Elves had done. All reliable sources points to Red Crossing as being what ignited the war between Orlais and the Dales, but tension was already high between the nations, ever since the Dalish army watched as the Orlesian city of Montsimmard was sacked by the Darkspawn, and refused to aid the humans. So the war between Orlais and the Dales, were not originally a religous war, but rather one of two powerful nations, just straight up hating eachother.
And considering the alternative would be utter destruction, the Chantry was merciful to the Elves, when they ordered the nations of Thedas, to harbor the Elven refugees. The Chantry never ordered these refugees to be placed into alienages, that is the doing of the individual nations of Thedas, who probably hated the Elves.

So you don't think that maybe, you know, just leaving them alone would have sufficed?  You don't suppose that maybe not trying to force them to accept the Maker instead of their own Gods might have been a better solution?  Since the Chantry, with the Templars, is a religious Army, and calling it an Exalted March means that they are indeed on a religious crusade, don't you think that the real Elvish Threat was that they were denying the Maker access to what the Chantry views as rightfully HIs?  Because that's what I see.

You see, what you're saying to me is; Yes, the Elves were bent on world domination, and the Chantry, for completely non-religious reasons, had to step in to stop them.  Yeah, the wiki doesn't really bear that out: http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Dales

Of note:

At this point, the Chantry called for a holy war against the elves that became known as the Exalted March of the Dales. While the elves eventually sacked Val Royeaux and pushed well into human lands, Halamshiral was conquered and the elves were completely crushed by 2:20 Glory. The Dales were appropriated by the Orlesians, who uprooted elven settlements and forbade worship of the elven gods.[4] Elves who accepted the Chantry's offered truce were required to accept the Maker and live in slums, known as alienages, within human settlements, becoming the city elves. Some elves, however, refused to give up their worship or their dream of their own homeland. These became the Dalish, retaining the name of their second lost homeland and vowing to keep elven language, lore and religion alive.

What part of required to accept the Maker and live in slums known as Alienages means that the Chantry didn't force them to live in Alienages, or attempt suppress their religion?  Even before reading this, I was going to ask if Ferelden had refused to aid in the Blight as well, considering Orlais had been kicked out of Ferelden by Maric and Loghain.  You know, because countries intent on world domination always need an excuse reason.

[In Exile]

Sir JK wrote...
Girashel, the author of many of the Dalish codices, pretty much all but states that all human kingdoms will be wiped out and this will bring about the new elven utopia.  

Wait, what? The elven historian is a racist supremacist? Which codex was that? 

Modifié par In Exile, 27 avril 2013 - 03:40 .

[TJPags]

hhh89 wrote...

n

TJPags wrote...



The question was whether there could be a peace.  Lobsel has quite clearly stated that the only way he would accept a peace is the utter defeat of the Templars, and Mage power over what the Chantry can and can't do.

That, to me, is a mage reign of terror.  Or, to use your words, the rule of a tyrannical despot.

What Lobsel stated and what you state are not the same thing.

I think Lobsel expressed himself badly. I don't think he meant that the mages should rule over the Chantry. I think he meant that the Chantry shouldn't have the power they had over the mages in the Circles, and that the mages should be completely indipendant from the Chantry.

Perhaps he did.  However, he's advocating that the mages be in a position where they can't be forced to "capitulate" to the Chantry.

The Chantry is the predominant religion in Thedas, and as such has a huge impact in the lives of most people.  As with any religion, it has it's dogma - and here, I mean dogma separate than that pertaining to mages in Circles.  Mages are indeed people, and I would expect them to abide by the dictates of the religion, or at least to respect them.

The way I read Lobsel's posts, is that he feels the mages need not do so, and in fact, should NOT do so.  I find that a bit troubling.

[Plaintiff]

TJPags wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

TJPags wrote...
Ah, I see.  So, mage reign of terror.  Got it.

Because not wanting the Chantry to meddle in every aspect of your life automatically makes you a tyrannical despot.

The question was whether there could be a peace.  Lobsel has quite clearly stated that the only way he would accept a peace is the utter defeat of the Templars, and Mage power over what the Chantry can and can't do.

That, to me, is a mage reign of terror.  Or, to use your words, the rule of a tyrannical despot.

What Lobsel stated and what you state are not the same thing.

He said the mages should not be forced to capitulate to the Chantry. That is not the same as saying that the Chantry should be forced to capitulate to the mages.

Since the Templars are, as far as can be known, hellbent on killing every mage, I think it's fair to say that their defeat is necessary, unless you think they're going to willingly agree to a massive restructuring?

[Fast Jimmy]

The Dalish sealed their own date when they stood by during the Second Blight and did nothing to help the other races fight the Darkspawn, plain and simple. That their reasons for doing so (avoiding human contact to restore their fabled lost immortality) were entirely selfish didnt help.

Does anyone honestly think the world would have stood by and watched the Orlesian Empire use the Divine as their puppet to launch an Exalted March to steal the Elven lands if everyone didnt utterly hate them for being vain and conceited? If the Elves had pulled their weight against the Blight, like every other race and nation, then it would not have been silently condoned by the entire world to conquer their lands.

They had their shot at freedom under Andrastian society. And they squandered it in pursuit of a selfish myth. THAT'S why they live in abject poverty under the thumb of humans.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 27 avril 2013 - 03:47 .

[Plaintiff]

TJPags wrote...
Mages are indeed people, and I would expect them to abide by the dictates of the religion, or at least to respect them.

The way I read Lobsel's posts, is that he feels the mages need not do so, and in fact, should NOT do so.  I find that a bit troubling.

Nobody, mage or otherwise, should be expected to abide by or respect the dictates of any religion unless they specifically choose to be a member of that religion.

[In Exile]

Plaintiff wrote...
Nobody, mage or otherwise, should be expected to abide by or respect the dictates of any religion unless they specifically choose to be a member of that religion.

There's a difference between expected and forced. Wynne is an Andstratian. Do you think that this somehow gives the templars moral authority to imprison her in a Circle? 

[Althix]

no but the fact that she is the mage does.