656 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
You're telling me Morrigan, Sten, Alistair, and Leliana tried to kill The Warden in a matter of seconds because the demon offered them something they wanted?

No, I'm telling you that in DA:O the demons had enthralled and would have sucked the life out of (almost) all of the companions were it not for the Warden intervening. We can distinguish the two situations because in DA:O the demon isn't trying to have the Warden killed at all - it wants the Warden trapped in the illusion.

But we see that demons can sucker generally strong-willed people with not very much at all. And Wynne - ostensibly a quite capable mage who herself has a spirit inside her - is totally captivated. So the idea that Merill should somehow be immune is nothing more than your desire to write fan-fiction about how great she is.
 
And keep in mind that Anders (well, Justice) in DA2 doesn't betray Hawke. 

I don't disgaree with you that the scene is stupid, badly-executed and overall not something that should have made the cut at all. But while I think the execution is absolutely terrible, I don't think that this justifies concluding that the actual result - betrayal in the Fade - as being somehow OOC.

Feel free to provide a link to the scene and prove me wrong, because I'm not the only person who has pointed out the stupidity of that scene.

It starts at 0:38, where:

Decimus: "They're here! The templars have come to take us back to the Circle."
Grace: "Decimus, no! Stay your hand. These are no templars."
Decimus: "What do I care what shield they carry? If they challenge us, the dead themselves will meet the call!"

[Decimus USE BLOODMAGIC]


Decimus straight up says he doesn't give a damn, after Grace straight up tells him that Hawke is not a templar. The scene is totally contrived to get a battle going - and Decimus is absolutely a complete loon - but he doesn't assume that you're a templar. He doesn't care.

Modifié par In Exile, 19 avril 2013 - 09:27 .

[lil yonce]

Wissenschaft wrote...

Everybody just ignores my post....

I saw it.

I agree with most of it though I think the Templars have a thankless, ruthless job that is very necessary-- vigilance is essential. And isn't the phrase in the justice system frequently spun "gulity until proven innocent"? 

In the case of Kirkwall and the White Spire I think there was sufficient evidence to justify Templar scrutiny. Overall, there should be more balance, yes, but the mages haven't exactly done all they can to demonstrate their trustworthiness or prove that they can handle more freedom and responsibility or make any real decisions on their own. The gatherings at the College of Magi in Cumberland fail to show they even care seriously about compromise, progress through successive aproximations or anything other than feeling like the big wigs they aren't.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 19 avril 2013 - 09:33 .

[LobselVith8]

Wissenschaft wrote...

Everybody just ignores my post....

No one is going to agree in this thread, so you're not really missing out on anything. Pro-templars and pro-mages have seldom agreed on anything for years. We have completely distinct point of views, and we seldom concur on anything Dragon Age related.

I like to think we try not to take the disagreements too seriously, though. It's all in good fun; we debate with people we disagree with for interesting discussions, sometimes passionately because Dragon Age resonates with us in a really special way. I really enjoyed my Surana Warden, for instance, and I often thought from his POV when I made many of my initial posts on this board.

As for your earlier comment, I understand what you're trying to say, but I still don't think "Night Terrors" made much sense. I think Sir JK is saying it could have been written and presented better (in a way that made sense), because as it stands - it's simply a mess.

[The Hierophant]

Lobselvith8 wrote...

Feel free to provide a link to the scene and prove me wrong, because I'm not the only person who has pointed out the stupidity of that scene.

In Exile's right as Grace corrects Decimus but he tells at her that he didn't care as Hawke opposes him.

[-TC1989-]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Wissenschaft wrote...

Everybody just ignores my post....

No one is going to agree in this thread, so you're not really missing out on anything. Pro-templars and pro-mages have seldom agreed on anything for years. We have completely distinct point of views, and we seldom concur on anything Dragon Age related.

I like to think we try not to take the disagreements too seriously, though. It's all in good fun; we debate with people we disagree with for interesting discussions, sometimes passionately because Dragon Age resonates with us in a really special way. I really enjoyed my Surana Warden, for instance, and I often thought from his POV when I made many of my initial posts on this board.

As for your earlier comment, I understand what you're trying to say, but I still don't think "Night Terrors" made much sense. I think Sir JK is saying it could have been written and presented better (in a way that made sense), because as it stands - it's simply a mess.

Agreed. Pro-Mages are going to believe that mages are always the victim. And Pro-Templars are going to believe that mages are a threat in any given situation. Problem is it seems, is that either side seems to be too critical, and too severe with their siding. I don't doubt at all that some people see points to both sides, and take favor with either side depending on the situation. I've read a lot of posts about this topic (sadly) and it's amazing how many people are so naïve, and ignorant. The only time it annoys me and gets under my skin, is when people try to compare things that happen in these games, to real life events. I'm all for a debate, and heated argument, but I cross the line at someone comparing this to the Holocaust, or 9/11. That to me is just sick, and incredibly childish. 

Modifié par -TC1989-, 19 avril 2013 - 09:38 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...



It starts at 0:38, where:

Decimus: "They're here! The templars have come to take us back to the Circle."
Grace: "Decimus, no! Stay your hand. These are no templars."
Decimus: "What do I care what shield they carry? If they challenge us, the dead themselves will meet the call!"

[Decimus USE BLOODMAGIC]


Decimus straight up says he doesn't give a damn, after Grace straight up tells him that Hawke is not a templar. The scene is totally contrived to get a battle going - and Decimus is absolutely a complete loon - but he doesn't assume that you're a templar. He doesn't care.

Strictly speaking, that doesn't mean necessarily that Decimus doesn't care whether they are Templars.  He may be convinced that they are Templars, and doesn't care whether they present themselves as such.

We can't read his mind.  We don't know why he does what he does.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Strictly speaking, that doesn't mean necessarily that Decimus doesn't care whether they are Templars.  He may be convinced that they are Templars, and doesn't care whether they present themselves as such.

We can't read his mind.  We don't know why he does what he does.

We can draw reasonble inferences. This is how (for example) statutory interpretation in the law works. Generally works are unclear or ambiguous, and you have to interpret the language as is reasonable in the context and situation.

Grace said "these are no templars" - she establishes the context for the conversation. The response, "what do I care what shield they carry" - doesn't support the inference "they could be hiding that they are templars" because (i) we have no indication that this is something that the templar order has ever done, for the belief to be reasonably held; (ii) it would be a awkward way of expressing the idea. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

We can draw reasonble inferences. This is how (for example) statutory interpretation in the law works. Generally works are unclear or ambiguous, and you have to interpret the language as is reasonable in the context and situation.

Grace said "these are no templars" - she establishes the context for the conversation. The response, "what do I care what shield they carry" - doesn't support the inference "they could be hiding that they are templars" because (i) we have no indication that this is something that the templar order has ever done, for the belief to be reasonably held; (ii) it would be a awkward way of expressing the idea.

We don't know why Decimus believes them to be Templars in the first place.  If he holds a strong opinion that they are Templars, simply Grace saying they are not shouldn't be sufficient to dissuade him.  Furthermore, if Decimus believes Grace is telling him this purely on the basis of their livery, he could well then address the livery question directly (as he does).

We don't even know if Decimus is using the word "Templars" literally.  He could instead be referring more broadly to agents of the Templars, which might (depending how paranoid he is) include any non-mage with a sword.

We can draw inferences, yes, but I deny that yours are reasonable.

[Vit246]

Wissenschaft wrote...

The codex tell us the the Templars were not founded by the Chantry, they came from an older institutuion that willing choose to submit to the chantry. Meaning, at any time, the templars could choose reject the athority of chantry, which the templar/mage war seem to suggest has happened. The chantry supposed control of the Lyrim trade hasn't stopped the templar split from the church which means that their control wasn't so absolute as some forum posters seem to think.

After having reading Dragon Age Asunder, I side with Wynne/Rhys Aequitarian views. Dispite the problems of the ciricle, the mages still have more rights than the common serf. The possession at Redcliffe is the perfect example of why childern needed to be forced from their parents into the circle. What I object to is the way the childern are taken. A mage should be with the mage child as they are brought to the circle in order to help their tranisiton.

After 900 years of acting as the Chantry's military arm, I seriously question how the Templars can apparently maintain such a strong sense of idenity as a separate organization that kinda died 900 years ago and how today's average average Templar really knows or really cares about Templar history. If any of this is true, then DA2 failed to represent such things. I call that poor writing.

And for the record, the Chantry DOES control the lyrium trade. Its in the freaking Codex.

The possession at Redclfife actually demonstrates that the Chantry version of Circles does not work. Afterall, the Chantry vilifies mages and presents the Circles as prisons. Isolde as a highly religious Andrastian was in total conflict because of the shame of having a mage child and because of the Circles she feared never seeing him again. And because of those, Connor never got proper training and so when Eamon suddenly went into a coma, Connor's uncontrolled emotions got the best of him and he knew nothing about dealing with demons. The Circle was actually a deterrent to what should've been ideally a smooth transition of mage children into highly desirable and pretigious and healthy environments where they receive proper training.

Modifié par Vit246, 19 avril 2013 - 10:39 .

[Wissenschaft]

Even as a mage, I don't have a problem with how Decimus acted. Hes raising undead and clearly deranged. If he really thinks that a Mage is a Templar that is just more proof of how crazy and paranoid he has become.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
We don't know why Decimus believes them to be Templars in the first place.

We can draw reasonable inferences. 

If he holds a strong opinion that they are Templars, simply Grace saying they are not shouldn't be sufficient to dissuade him.  Furthermore, if Decimus believes Grace is telling him this purely on the basis of their livery, he could well then address the livery question directly (as he does).

But he doesn't give any indication that he disbelieves Grace. "What do I care what shield they carry," is the phrase.

The second sentence is crucial "If they challenge us, the dead themselves will meet the call". I will address that shortly, two. First I'll talk about the two possible interpretations of the sentence. 

Your argument is that "shield they carry" is somehow indicative of them hiding their templar affilitation, and the interpretation being that what their outward apperance indicates is not strictly speaking proof of their not being templars, so your interpretation is actually that: "Their outward apperance isn't indicative of their affiliation, which is to the templars". 

But that's not a reasonable construction of the sentence. especially in the context of his tone of voice and the context in which Grace uttered the comment. Instead the emphasis is on care modifying shiled they carry, which is to say that the visual cues and tone disambiguate the written line to "Their outward apperance is irrelevant; I treat them as a threat regardless". 

The reason why the second construction is favoured is the second sentence "If they challenge us ..." 

The emphasis is on "If" and "challenge", which is to say that the second sentence acts to put the other one in context, emphasing that the relevant factor for Decimus is whether or not another party is in opposition to him, rather than whether the party has any kind of templar specific affiliation. Given the context of his previous actions - including that he torched the Starkhaven tower - the implication that he would be carving out an exception for templars who don't oppose him is absurd.

To clarify, if we take the meaning of the sentence to be the first, then the second sentence has to carve out two classes of templars - those who oppose and those who don't - but that wouldn't make sense in the full factual context. 

We don't even know if Decimus is using the word "Templars" literally.  He could instead be referring more broadly to agents of the Templars, which might (depending how paranoid he is) include any non-mage with a sword.

That would be entirely unreasonable, since there's no evidence to suggest that this is possible. 

We can draw inferences, yes, but I deny that yours are reasonable.

That's because what you take to mean "reasonable" is really "necessarily implied by logic based on the definitional meaning of words" which isn't how reasonable is, well, used. It's entirely based on inference to the best explanation, which is a style of inference you don't recognize. 

Modifié par In Exile, 19 avril 2013 - 10:35 .

[Wissenschaft]

Vit246 wrote...


After 900 years of acting as the Chantry's military arm, I seriously question how the Templars can apparently maintain such a strong sense of idenity as a separate organization that kinda died 900 years ago and how today's average average Templar really knows or really cares about Templar history. If any of this is true, then DA2 failed to represent such things. I call that poor writing.

And for the record, the Chantry DOES control the lyrium trade. Its in the freaking Codex.

The possession at Redclfife actually demonstrates that the Chantry version of Circles does not work. Afterall, the Chantry vilifies mages and presents the Circles as prisons. Isolde as a highly religious Andrastian was in total conflict because of the shame of having a mage child and because of the Circles she feared never seeing him again. And because of those, Connor never got proper training and so when Eamon suddenly went into a coma, Connor's uncontrolled emotions got the best of him and he knew nothing about dealing with demons. The Circle was actually a deterrent to what should've been ideally a smooth transition of mage children into desirable and healthy environment where they receive proper training.

This is why DA Asunder was a really helpful book to read. Evegline strugled with wether to carry out her Templar orders or to seek out the order of the Chantry. It is heavily implied that other templars would have followed their templar orders over whatever the chantry said. You can even see it in DA 2 with the Templars thinking the Chantry has become too soft on mages (when its the Templars who have become more extreme). 

Speaking of which, Evangeline is a prime example of how a templar should act. The templar's charge is not just to protect the world from mages, but also to protect mages from the world (and the ignorant masses). The book shows how the ignorant masses treat mages. Another reason why the circle needs to exist.

" And for the record, the Chantry DOES control the lyrium trade. Its in the freaking Codex."

Indeed, it does but my point was that its not absoulute. The game also shows that with the bribes of Lyrium that the Templars get. The fact that the templars even can rebel proves that they can find other ways of getting Lyrium. 

As for Connor, he could never get the proper training he needed except in the circle. Don't blame the Chantry for Isolde's selfish stupidty. The chantry teaches mages MUST be sent to the circle, there are no exceptions. Isolde went against her own religious teachings becasue she couldn't bare losing her own son. I doubt she loses any sleep over the countless other families who lose their childern to the circle. Isolde was just selfish.

Modifié par Wissenschaft, 19 avril 2013 - 10:53 .

[Vit246]

Wissenschaft wrote...

Vit246 wrote...


After 900 years of acting as the Chantry's military arm, I seriously question how the Templars can apparently maintain such a strong sense of idenity as a separate organization that kinda died 900 years ago and how today's average average Templar really knows or really cares about Templar history. If any of this is true, then DA2 failed to represent such things. I call that poor writing.

And for the record, the Chantry DOES control the lyrium trade. Its in the freaking Codex.

The possession at Redclfife actually demonstrates that the Chantry version of Circles does not work. Afterall, the Chantry vilifies mages and presents the Circles as prisons. Isolde as a highly religious Andrastian was in total conflict because of the shame of having a mage child and because of the Circles she feared never seeing him again. And because of those, Connor never got proper training and so when Eamon suddenly went into a coma, Connor's uncontrolled emotions got the best of him and he knew nothing about dealing with demons. The Circle was actually a deterrent to what should've been ideally a smooth transition of mage children into desirable and healthy environment where they receive proper training.

This is why DA Asunder was a really helpful book to read. Evegline strugled with wether to carry out her Templar orders or to seek out the order of the Chantry. It is heavily implied that other templars would have followed their templar orders over whatever the chantry said. You can even seen it in DA 2 with the Templars thinking the Chantry has become too soft on mages (when its the Templars who have become more extreme). 

speaking of which, Evangeline is a prime example of how a templar should act. The templars charge is not just to protect the world from mages, but also to protect mages from the world. The book shows how the ignorant masses treat mages. 

" And for the record, the Chantry DOES control the lyrium trade. Its in the freaking Codex."

Indeed, it does but its not absoulute. The game also shows that with the bribes of Lyrium that the Templars get. The fact that the templars even can rebel proves that they can find other ways of getting Lyrium. 

As for Connor, he could never get the proper training he needed except in the circle. Don't blame the Chantry for  Isolde
 selfish stupidty. The chantry teaches mages MUST be sent to the circle, there are no exceptions. Isolde went against her own religious teachings becasue she couldn't bare losing her own son. I doubt she loses any sleep over the countless other families who lose their childern to the circle. Isolde was just selfish.

If I have to rely on outside sources of information in order to know things that should really ought to be in the game, that is poor writing. And a couple of common Templars here and there in random conversations thinking the Chantry was getting too soft on mages, well......I just don't think DA2 represented such things effectively enough.

And yes, I know Templars can acquire lyrium on the black market outside of Chantry sources, but I doubt the vast majority of Templars who apparently rebelled could really rely on that kind of source for so long before suffering from withdrawal and hindered Templar abilities.

Again, when the Chantry vilifies mages in society and presents the Circles as prisons when they can be easily killed "for the common good", I can at least partly blame the Chantry for Isolde acting the way she did in response to the society and system that the Chantry established for generations. If things were different, Isolde might have been proud to have a mage child.

Modifié par Vit246, 19 avril 2013 - 11:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
We don't know why Decimus believes them to be Templars in the first place.

We can draw reasonable inferences.

No we can't.  We have no information about how Decimus came to hold that opinion.  Under these circumstances, your "reasonable inferences" are indistinguishable from guessing blindly.

But he doesn't give any indication that he disbelieves Grace. "What do I care what shield they carry," is the phrase.

Nor does he give any indication that he believes Grace.  He doesn't address Grace's point directly.  She says they aren't Templars, and he talks about shields and challenges.

Only if you start with the assumption that he accepts any assertion he doesn't explicitly refute does your interpretation make any sense.

The second sentence is crucial "If they challenge us, the dead themselves will meet the call". I will address that shortly, two. First I'll talk about the two possible interpretations of the sentence. 

Your argument is that "shield they carry" is somehow indicative of them hiding their templar affilitation, and the interpretation being that what their outward apperance indicates is not strictly speaking proof of their not being templars, so your interpretation is actually that: "Their outward apperance isn't indicative of their affiliation, which is to the templars".

In fact, I am not arguing that Decimus is making any claim in particular.  I'm simply highlighting possible explanations for his words.  As I said, the actual explanation isn't knowable.

But that's not a reasonable construction of the sentence. especially in the context of his tone of voice and the context in which Grace uttered the comment. Instead the emphasis is on care modifying shiled they carry, which is to say that the visual cues and tone disambiguate the written line to "Their outward apperance is irrelevant; I treat them as a threat regardless".

I would deem this interpretation and wholly compatible with the one you just rejected.  If Decimus is going to believe them Templars no matter their livery, then their outward appearance is irrelevant.  Furthermore, if he's going to treat anyone as a threat regardless of affiliation, why does he bother digressing into the indicators of that affiliation?

I assert that it is more reasonable (using your horrible legal definition of the word) to conclude that he does deem their Templar-ness relevant, else he wouldn't have refuted it so carefully.

The reason why the second construction is favoured is the second sentence "If they challenge us ..." 

The emphasis is on "If" and "challenge", which is to say that the second sentence acts to put the other one in context, emphasing that the relevant factor for Decimus is whether or not another party is in opposition to him, rather than whether the party has any kind of templar specific affiliation. Given the context of his previous actions - including that he torched the Starkhaven tower - the implication that he would be carving out an exception for templars who don't oppose him is absurd.

To clarify, if we take the meaning of the sentence to be the first, then the second sentence has to carve out two classes of templars - those who oppose and those who don't - but that wouldn't make sense in the full factual context.

Ahh, you're assuming it's an indicative conditional rather than a
material conditional.  We've had this part of the discussion before.

We don't even know if Decimus is using the word "Templars" literally.  He could instead be referring more broadly to agents of the Templars, which might (depending how paranoid he is) include any non-mage with a sword.

That would be entirely unreasonable, since there's no evidence to suggest that this is possible.

How well do we know Decimus at this point?  We'd have to know him awfully well before you could reasonably claim knowledge of his mental state.

That's because what you take to mean "reasonable" is really "necessarily implied by logic based on the definitional meaning of words" which isn't how reasonable is, well, used.

Able to be reached using reason.  What the word says.

It's entirely based on inference to the best explanation, which is a style of inference you don't recognize.

Because relying on the best explanation requires that we exclude the middle, and never simply accept that we don't know things.  Except that we usually don't.  Rather than recklessly abandon the rational default position of uncertainty as soon as we find the barest hint of evidence, I suggest that we should draw conclusions only when we have some confidence that they are correct.

[Bleachrude]

Isolde has a fear of magic, NOT a fear of the circle per se.

The reason why isolde fears magic is that if you talk to her, she'll reveal that her grandfather, who apparently was a mage that was allowed to live with his family, was a massive dick/**** to the rest of the family...

She kind of implied that he used his magic to hurt the other members of the family...

[Wissenschaft]

@Sylvius the Mad "How well do we know Decimus at this point? We'd have to know him awfully well before you could reasonably claim knowledge of his mental state."

Not at all. Hes summoning demons to create undead and sounds deraged, thats enough for me to call him crazy. It does seem to be the intention of his little conversion before the battle.

Modifié par Wissenschaft, 19 avril 2013 - 11:52 .

[LobselVith8]

Wissenschaft wrote...

@Sylvius the Mad "How well do we know Decimus at this point? We'd have to know him awfully well before you could reasonably claim knowledge of his mental state."

Not at all. Hes summoning demons to create undead and sounds deraged, thats enough for me to call him crazy. It does seem to be the intention of his little conversion before the battle.

The plethora of insane and stupid mage antagonists in Dragon Age II were another problem. 

[Silfren]

Bleachrude wrote...

Silfren wrote...



I am sick of people trying to make comparisons between the peasantry/nobility and mages/Templars.  How many peasants did you see in Ferelden who had hateful, miserable lives?  How many nobles do you see acting with total disregard to the peasantry versus those who give something of a damn?  How many peasants do you see regarding the lives of mages with drooling envy, since mages have it so awesome, what with free food, education, and shelter?

I'd have a lot more respect for this argument if we had seen example after example after example of miserable peasants with unhappy, thankless existences--and not in the context of a Blight--and zero examples of peasants living any other kind of life.  We saw it in Kirkwall, with the caveat of the kind of history Kirkwall has had.  But we DIDN'T see it in Ferelden, so clearly it is not a Thedas-wide condition.

Ferelden  is an outlier AS MENTIONED by the game itself with regard to serfdom. It's mentioned that the other monarchies, the power of the state derives from the crown go down whereas Ferelden it is reversed.

Even in Ferelden,  the banns have the right to demand that people living in their lands fight for them. As well, the Ferelden alienage elves have a life easily worse than the circle mages and none of the homes we explore in Denerim are even as nice as the circle tower.

People keep bringing up the right of the banns to have the peasantry fight for them as if this is somehow a bad thing.  I'm not seeing it.  It's part of the give-and-take relationship.  I certainly don't see how it's somehow a violation of personal freedom on par with the dominant religious institution having the right to take children away from their families such that they will never see those families again except under very particular circumstances, and having those children grow up unable to have families of their own or even to exit the Circle's walls without permission that depends on the Knight Commander's mood.

The whole thing about Elves having it worse is barely an argument worth acknowledging.  It certainly isn't one I'm going to respect.  I've never once suggested that the alienage elves' lives are great. 

I do, however, reject the idea that the elves having it bad somehow makes the mages' lives not so bad, or that we should ignore the plight of the mages because there are other groups that face their own troubles.  Honestly, this argument doesn't make a damned bit of sense.  The Elves' lives suck, so the mages have no right to complain? 

The elves do have hard lives.  No argument there at all. But one group's collective suck has zero bearing on another group's collective suck. 

I don't address the question of the lives of alienage elves for the very simple reason that I am NOT going to discuss situation A in a topic about situation B.  You wanna talk about the elves' troubles, I'll gladly join in.  But not in this discussion, unless it is to make comparisons.  I will NOT talk about the elves when the sole point of doing so is to derail the mage discussion. 

[Nightdragon8]

ok than answer me this if the templars are sposed to be part of the chantry how come they where able to "Break off" of them... in order to start the process of "breaking off" there needs to be a chain of command in the templars Seperate from the chantry.

I also love the fact you twisted my words... I said "Seem" not 'is'

I would ask you to please look up the words 'seem' and 'is' in the dictionary. because one is stating "for a fact" the other is 'conjecture'

Also your making it soudn like things haven't change over time. Sorry to say thats not how things work. New people go in thinking they know how to run things better than the last person, so politics change, and soon you start to get rifts. I mean just look at the history of the US congress. heck look at the Parliament of the UK, look how many parties they have. Are you saying they have ALWAYS been around??

Granted I dont know much about the history of UK's Parliament but I know at least the Congress of US, Republician and Democrats wheren't always around. They where a bunch of different parties its just after awhile it got whittled down to just the 2, (sorry still don't consider the 'Tea Party', a full Party yet)

[dragonflight288]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

ok than answer me this if the templars are sposed to be part of the chantry how come they where able to "Break off" of them... in order to start the process of "breaking off" there needs to be a chain of command in the templars Seperate from the chantry.

This breaking off makes perfect sense if you know anything about Chantry and templar history. Before the rise of the Circles and after the founding of the Chantry (aka the expansion of King Drakon of Orlais) there were a group of warriors known as the Inquisition, who were not part of the Chantry at all. This group of warriors independently developed a way to combat magic and were essentially militarized witch hunters. They weren't regarded as defenders of the innocent like the templars portray themselves in Origins or DA2, and were just as feared by mundanes as they were by mages.

Their ability to to combat magic was noticed by the Chantry and they were incorporated into it to act as guards over mages, and thus the templar order was born. The Circles didn't even exist at this point in time because they were just glorified janitors, only allowed to use magic to clean cathedrals and keep the candles lit. It was when they mages staged a peaceful protest and the Divine wanted to call an exalted march upon her own cathedraw, and the Knight-Commander talked down the Divine, that a compromise was established by shouting back and forth from the balcony, and the mages willingly went into the circles so they could freely study magic.

Because the templars weren't created by the Chantry, they already were an independent group, who willingly worked with the Chantry to police mages, and that was their purpose the entire time. Over time, the Chantry gained control of the lyrium trade with Orzammar and soon they had the monopoloy and the templars addicted to it.

So yes, there is a command structure separate from the Chantry already. Over time, the templars have come to answer to the Divine and to the Grand Clerics, and the Grand Clerics were put in charge of the templar order over various areas. But the templars as a whole are an independent group and always have been.

Also your making it soudn like things haven't change over time. Sorry to say thats not how things work. New people go in thinking they know how to run things better than the last person, so politics change, and soon you start to get rifts. I mean just look at the history of the US congress. heck look at the Parliament of the UK, look how many parties they have. Are you saying they have ALWAYS been around??

Not relevant to the discussion at hand. I'm usually up for real world political discourse, but not on a forum meant for a game, except in the case of comparison, and even then, in limited portions. I'd rather focus instead on historical events, regardless of who was responsible, and then compare similarities of those historical events to the events of the game, and not the political partie themselves.

I know it wasn't aimed at me, but I feel it's appropriate to keep in mind that we are discussing a fictional world where all the problems cease to exist with a push of the power button on the gaming console.

[Sir JK]

Bleachrude wrote...

Isolde has a fear of magic, NOT a fear of the circle per se.

The reason why isolde fears magic is that if you talk to her, she'll reveal that her grandfather, who apparently was a mage that was allowed to live with his family, was a massive dick/**** to the rest of the family...

She kind of implied that he used his magic to hurt the other members of the family...

Really? When does she say this?

[Nightdragon8]

dragonflight288 wrote...


I know it wasn't aimed at me, but I feel it's appropriate to keep in mind that we are discussing a fictional world where all the problems cease to exist with a push of the power button on the gaming console.

I understand that but I am giving real world examples of how things change over time. So they are relivent  And any political sides factions what have you have no baring on the fictional world that is DA. I was only trying to convey that the politics is a very organic and changing process. And if BW was aiming for an organic feel to the world of DA, that change would be gradual with spurts of sudden/and sometimes radical change Which is what is happening here with the Mage Templar war.

The political entities are Templars, Monarchy, Mages, Chantry. As for the Dalish/Qunari(or Qun not too sure what the 'proper' name would be for them) would be considered "Alien influences"

So while the Templars started off as an orginsation of the Chantry, They have as of late been far enough apart that the Templars are able to act independently of the Chantry, to the point where drawing the connections between them has boild down to its only a recruiting ground for Templars.

So plz don't insult me for trying to bring in "Real world politcs(pissing matchs)" which I thought it was clear as I was giving them as examples without having to use the world "Examples"

Modifié par Nightdragon8, 20 avril 2013 - 05:49 .

[Bleachrude]

Sir JK wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

Isolde has a fear of magic, NOT a fear of the circle per se.

The reason why isolde fears magic is that if you talk to her, she'll reveal that her grandfather, who apparently was a mage that was allowed to live with his family, was a massive dick/**** to the rest of the family...

She kind of implied that he used his magic to hurt the other members of the family...

Really? When does she say this?

Talk to her and actually not skip over her dialogue...She doesn't fear the circle but magic...she wanted Jowan to teach Connor enough skill so he could not use his magic.

re: Mages vs peasants
Most of the peasantry in  Ferelden when we see inside their houses is a small room with with a bedroom to the side. Bevin and Kaitlin actually have a large house but other than that, every non-Noble isn't exactly living in the lap of luxury.

Given that mages don't have to fight (even against the Qun, there's no indication that the mages were forced to fight for the Chantry), while the peasant class do, not sure why the former is considered slavery.

As well, we are given more than 1 example where it was possible for mages to live with and start families so it's more like quarantine.....

[Nightdragon8]

Bleachrude wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

Isolde has a fear of magic, NOT a fear of the circle per se.

The reason why isolde fears magic is that if you talk to her, she'll reveal that her grandfather, who apparently was a mage that was allowed to live with his family, was a massive dick/**** to the rest of the family...

She kind of implied that he used his magic to hurt the other members of the family...

Really? When does she say this?

Talk to her and actually not skip over her dialogue...She doesn't fear the circle but magic...she wanted Jowan to teach Connor enough skill so he could not use his magic.

re: Mages vs peasants
Most of the peasantry in  Ferelden when we see inside their houses is a small room with with a bedroom to the side. Bevin and Kaitlin actually have a large house but other than that, every non-Noble isn't exactly living in the lap of luxury.

Given that mages don't have to fight (even against the Qun, there's no indication that the mages were forced to fight for the Chantry), while the peasant class do, not sure why the former is considered slavery.

As well, we are given more than 1 example where it was possible for mages to live with and start families so it's more like quarantine.....

you do know that "just don't skip over all the dialogue" doesn't always help, considering we aren't useing the "Investage" wheel in DA:O Knowing what to say when to say can give you different info.

Considering the Convo that Alistar and that one mage where having at Astigar where it was pretty clear that he did not want to be there at all is pretty clear.

[MisterJB]

Nightdragon8 wrote...
Considering the Convo that Alistar and that one mage where having at Astigar where it was pretty clear that he did not want to be there at all is pretty clear.

The mages at Ostagar were all volunteers given the fact that Irving actually wanted to send more while Gregoir was opposed to the idea. Had anyone forced that mage to be there, it would have been the First Enchanter and not the Chantry.
But he wasn't angry over being there. He was angry over the Grand Cleric using a former templar to request his presence which was meant as a provocation.