398 réponses à ce sujet

[InvaderErl]

It would be better if the Circle could monitor itself. I think given what we can see Mages can do they need some kind of policing but the Chantry and by extension the Templars hold way too much contempt for Mages to be expected to do it fairly. Maybe if they were under direct control of the Circle itself the situation would be more agreeable.

[Antigone2283]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
The mages have proved themselves to be potentially great threats (most of the mage fraternities agree on this). The Inquisition on the otherhand was designed to forcefully convert, deport or even kill any non Catholic, most of whom were harmless. So I wouldn't equate the two.

I don't think the mage fraternities "agreeing" really means much...the mages are taught from childhood to be afraid of their power, and ashamed.

The threat of a mage turning into an abomination is kind of a joke: something tells me more people have died by sword than died by abomination...and what, men with armies aren't dangerous and corruptible? Ostagar, anyone? And frankly, kicking abomination ass was pretty easy.  I don't think a couple of abominations running around is as big a deal as the Chantry makes it out to be.

It's oppression based on fear, and that's why I personally don't like the Templars.  No trial, no pleading your case - if they even think you're suspect, death or Tranquility.  I played a mage on my first run-through, and if I'd had the option, I would have fried Gregoir and every Templar on the "safe" side of that door. And maybe the ones on the other side, too.  Bunch of cowards.

:innocent:

[JTBehnke]

I personally respect the templars, given that they're the closest thing Thedas has to paladins, which are my favorite RPG archetype.



On the other hand, there's the problem that the templars and the Chantry that controls them are viewed as opressors, setting repressive rules on the mages basically because they believe mages made their god leave them.



While the official Chantry line is "Magic exists to serve man and never to rule over him," I think the reason the Chantry is so hard on mages is because they believe mages are responsible for ruining the world. The original practice of magic, taught to mankind by the Old Gods, caused the Maker to leave, thus causing the world to remain imperfect, and apparently when the Maker gave mankind a second chance through Andraste, they blew it by trying to invade the Golden City, causing him to leave creation forever and send them back as the first darkspawn to punish mankind for what they had done.



The reason people hate the templars is because when the Chantry says "Magic exists to serve man and never to rule over him," they're really saying "We're p*ssed off because you f*cked up the world by making the Maker leave, so we're going to punish you since there's no way to bring him back anymore!"

[Vicious]

Well to be fair, the codex says to non-mages, Templars are regarded as white knights and heroes of the highest order.



Certainly they seem to go around righting random wrongs, like that fellow you find in the alienage.

[DariusKalera]

Antigone2283 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
The mages have proved themselves to be potentially great threats (most of the mage fraternities agree on this). The Inquisition on the otherhand was designed to forcefully convert, deport or even kill any non Catholic, most of whom were harmless. So I wouldn't equate the two.

I don't think the mage fraternities "agreeing" really means much...the mages are taught from childhood to be afraid of their power, and ashamed.

The threat of a mage turning into an abomination is kind of a joke: something tells me more people have died by sword than died by abomination...and what, men with armies aren't dangerous and corruptible? Ostagar, anyone? And frankly, kicking abomination ass was pretty easy.  I don't think a couple of abominations running around is as big a deal as the Chantry makes it out to be.

It's oppression based on fear, and that's why I personally don't like the Templars.  No trial, no pleading your case - if they even think you're suspect, death or Tranquility.  I played a mage on my first run-through, and if I'd had the option, I would have fried Gregoir and every Templar on the "safe" side of that door. And maybe the ones on the other side, too.  Bunch of cowards.

:innocent:

Well, to be honest, the abominations that you fight are nowhere near as powerful as the lore says they should be.    Of course, this probably stems from the fact that you are supposed to kill them and that they are not supposed to win.  If some of those aboms had actually been "smart" and not ran in to fight like drunken monkeys then how they are seen would change. 

If they had been as powerful in the game as they are in the lore, then the PC's party would have been curb stomped by them the second Wynne dropped her protective shield.

So yes, the Templars are needed to deal with that kind of power. 

[InvaderErl]

Well that you are supposed to be a cut above the average soldier.

[Wompoo]

Oh I hate Templars because they remind me of self righteous religious zealots. Mindless little puppets used by the Chantry as a military arm to enforce compliance. The Mages are no more dangerous then any other group. War and enslavement seems to be a very strong human desire in this game world. Also the Dalish don't require a Templar army.

[Antigone2283]

DariusKalera wrote...

Antigone2283 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
The mages have proved themselves to be potentially great threats (most of the mage fraternities agree on this). The Inquisition on the otherhand was designed to forcefully convert, deport or even kill any non Catholic, most of whom were harmless. So I wouldn't equate the two.

I don't think the mage fraternities "agreeing" really means much...the mages are taught from childhood to be afraid of their power, and ashamed.

The threat of a mage turning into an abomination is kind of a joke: something tells me more people have died by sword than died by abomination...and what, men with armies aren't dangerous and corruptible? Ostagar, anyone? And frankly, kicking abomination ass was pretty easy.  I don't think a couple of abominations running around is as big a deal as the Chantry makes it out to be.

It's oppression based on fear, and that's why I personally don't like the Templars.  No trial, no pleading your case - if they even think you're suspect, death or Tranquility.  I played a mage on my first run-through, and if I'd had the option, I would have fried Gregoir and every Templar on the "safe" side of that door. And maybe the ones on the other side, too.  Bunch of cowards.

:innocent:

Well, to be honest, the abominations that you fight are nowhere near as powerful as the lore says they should be.    Of course, this probably stems from the fact that you are supposed to kill them and that they are not supposed to win.  If some of those aboms had actually been "smart" and not ran in to fight like drunken monkeys then how they are seen would change. 

If they had been as powerful in the game as they are in the lore, then the PC's party would have been curb stomped by them the second Wynne dropped her protective shield.

So yes, the Templars are needed to deal with that kind of power. 

That's speculation, really.  Much of the lore is often portrayed as being written by the Chantry, or from mages, and neither are particularly unbiased sources.  And, only a handful of Templars are present at the Harrowing to execute abominations. Besides, after kicking some dragon ass, AND killing an archdemon, I'm fairly confidant the PC's party is probably up to a fight with an abomination....

The Templars and the Chantry have UNCHECKED power.  They take children from their homes and families and refuse them any further contact. They have the right to kill any mage, and make up any reason for it.  They have the ability to wipe out every Circle mage with a single rite.  They execute without trial, including frightened CHILDREN and force people into magical lobotomies. The Harrowing invovles them intentionally "infecting" mages with a demon (and not telling them in advance that this is what they'll face), in a ridiculous kind of "sink or swim" trial that could only make sense to religious zealouts.  Yep, big damn heroes for sure...

I think it's telling that in my epilogue, it says Connor is sent to Tevinter to study the Fade and demons:  Ferelden's mages are woefully uneducated, which makes them woefully susceptible. And THAT is the fault of the Chantry.  (Which also brings up the interesting issue that becoming an abomination does not appear to be an irreversable state...which makes killing one even MORE questionable!)

[Althernai]

I have to admit the game changed my mind about the Templars. From the pre-game marketing, I thought they were Ferelden's version of the Inquisition or, if you prefer, paladins minus the requirement to be Good. After finishing the game, I still think the system is terrible, but the Templars are victims of it just as much as the mages. The Chantry not only indoctrinates them into believing magic is a sin, but forces them to consume lyrium which is well known to cause psychological disorders all the way up to complete insanity. It's not surprising that a fair number of them turn out to be mage-hating psychos.

On the other hand, quite a few others are decent people. For example, look at the ones who keep order in Lothering; without them, that town would fall apart. And the one in the Alienage prior to the Landsmeet is practically a paladin.

[InvaderErl]

Yeah its clear that its not the Templars that are the weak link in the chain, its the Chantry.

[Behindyounow]

Templars are bad people because they stop Mages being the rightful rulers of everyone.

[Bratinov]

Anyone seen this?
http://dragonage.bio...com/pennyarcade

Mage's dont choose what they are, plus most templars enjoy what they do.
Doesnt every one like selfricheous religious zealots?
The Chantry should know its place, whats a priest doing at a war strategy meeting anyway?

Modifié par Bratinov, 16 janvier 2010 - 09:45 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

SusanStoHelit wrote...
Furthermore, it is the Chantry's teaching regarding magic and mages that cause mages to be seen negatively by many people. It's the Chantry and the Templars who, ultimately, caused (or were at least instrumental in causing) such things as the Broken Circle and the Conor/Isolde problem. Having the Chantry and the Templars not only did not prevent these things happening, it was part of what caused them.

Funny, I though people hated mages because of:
a) the Tevinter Imperium
They are dangerous

[Maria Caliban]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

However, the Dalish actually have mages in their society, without Chantry supervision, and they seem to get along fine. The Dalish, in fact, put their mages in positions of power. And they don't have abominations running around all over the place.

That's pure speculation on your part.

We know that the Keepers rule the Dalish clans with their Firsts, but we have no idea if they have a harrowing or if Dalish keepers/first become abominations.

Outside of the Dalish origin, we met only a single Keeper and First, and that Keeper has caused a great amount of suffering with his magic.

[Xandurpein]

The whole system of chantry controlling templars who control mages is simply institutionalized paranoia. As in any system based on a culture of fear and paranoia it is not easy to separate victims from perpetrator. In one sense everyone is a victim of the system.

The chantry obviously believe that this system is necessary to control mages. Their fear coverns their actions and make them uphold a system of opression that makes the threat from the mages a self-fullfilling prophecy.

The environment that Templars are trained in, with drug addiction and duties to kill mages at first sign of becoming an abomination, I think they are excused for being the wrecks they often seem to be.

That said I can see how it would be almost inevitable that any society, expecially a Quasi-Medieval one, would be greatly strained by the precense of mages. It would be natural for such a society to either have system like Tevinter, where mages becomes the ruling aristocracy, or it would develop some form of system to "control" mages.

Even in a more benevolent society it would be natural to, for example bar mages from political power, for a number of reasons. A King would for example be excused if he wanted to have some form of check on anyone technically capable of mind-controlling him.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 16 janvier 2010 - 10:06 .

[SusanStoHelit]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Outside of the Dalish origin, we met only a single Keeper and First, and that Keeper has caused a great amount of suffering with his magic.

Yes, he did. But that suffering had nothing to do with with him being a mage, except that it enabled him to carry out the curse. What I mean by that is that the curse was a direct result of that keeper being severely psychologically damaged by a specific incident (avoiding spoilers here) rather than because he was a mage. It was not an inherent 'weakness' brought about by him being a mage. A non-mage could just as easily have felt the same way, and carried out their rage and hurt by doing those things in their power to punish the perpetrators.

[SusanStoHelit]

Xandurpein wrote...

The chantry obviously believe that this system is necessary to control mages.

I'm not sure this is true. I think the lower ranks of the Chantry could well believe so, but it's at least possible that some are aware that it isn't necessary to do so - but they teach that it is in order to maintain their own control and power. There's nothing like have a nice, handy scapegoat to vilify and keep people in a state of fear or unease (reds under the bed, witches, gypsies, homosexuals) to maintain the status quo.

Their fear coverns their actions and make them uphold a system of opression that makes the threat from the mages a self-fullfilling prophecy.

This I wholeheartedly agree with.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

It's not the templars I find offensive, it is the Chantry control they represent. If anything, I feel sorry for the templars. They, in their own way, are as much victims as the mages. Most are trained from childhood, brainwashed, and worst of all, have an addictive substance pushed on them that gives very little benefit in return for the cost to their sanity and well-being.



I am not against a safety net that protects both mages and society from the dangers of magic. But I am against such a thing when it involves an ethically questionable religous organization that barely hides its contempt for its wards. There are other ways, other systems. But such things would erode the power and control of the Chantry, hence, why it encourages the fear and contempt: it keeps them in business, so to speak.



Susan basically summed it up the best. In their oppressive grip on the mages, the Chantry ultimately ends up pushing the mages into a corner, and cornered, desperate people will look towards any means necessary, however dangerous or questionable, to get out of that fearful corner. Looking at the codexes, it seems the Right of Annulment gets invoked alot more than you realize, and judging by what happened at the Circle, my guess is that the reasons usually end up pretty similar.

[Maria Caliban]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Outside of the Dalish origin, we met only a single Keeper and First, and that Keeper has caused a great amount of suffering with his magic.

Yes, he did. But that suffering had nothing to do with with him being a mage, except that it enabled him to carry out the curse. What I mean by that is that the curse was a direct result of that keeper being severely psychologically damaged by a specific incident (avoiding spoilers here) rather than because he was a mage. It was not an inherent 'weakness' brought about by him being a mage. A non-mage could just as easily have felt the same way, and carried out their rage and hurt by doing those things in their power to punish the perpetrators.

Except that the Chantry doesn't teach that mages are inherently 'weaker' than the average person, but that they're inherently more dangerous. If the Elder had been a regular elf, he might have managed to kill a few dozen people in revenge. Because he was a mage, he bound a spirit to the forest and created a curse that lasted for centuries.People who had nothing to do with the death of his daughter were stripped of their humanity and turned into dangerous monsters. 

Your argument was that the Dalish had found a 'third' option other than the strict control of the Chantry/qunari or the bloody, magical tyranny of the Imperium. However, of the two Keepers we meet, one acts with all the control and compassion of the Imperium's magisters.
 

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 16 janvier 2010 - 11:06 .

[SusanStoHelit]

Ah, I see. Well, I don't see how what the Dalish elf did was as bad as what Loghain did - it certainly caused a lot fewer deaths and far less destruction. And Loghain isn't a mage.



Yes, people with any kind of power (magical, political, temporal, military) can cause lots of damage if they run amok. Yes, there should be checks and balances in place to prevent or at least minimise the damage of such occurrences - regardless of which group/person in power we're discussing.



Should those checks & balances be in the control of a bunch of religous zealots on a power trip? I think not.

[Xandurpein]

SusanStoHelit wrote...

Ah, I see. Well, I don't see how what the Dalish elf did was as bad as what Loghain did - it certainly caused a lot fewer deaths and far less destruction. And Loghain isn't a mage.

It usually not very productive to try and rank degrees of evil, but I have to admit that I think forcing a large group of people to be tormented and live as beasts for generations, just because of what their ancestors did is a pretty bad thing, to put it mildly.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 16 janvier 2010 - 11:26 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Word Of God has it that the templars are indeed needed.

The system isn't perfect - no system is. But if you can think of a better one, I'm all ears.



I know a lot of people hate religion (regular or organized) and therefore hate the Chantry, and in extension, also the templars.

[robertthebard]

Maria Caliban wrote...

SusanStoHelit wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

Outside of the Dalish origin, we met only a single Keeper and First, and that Keeper has caused a great amount of suffering with his magic.

Yes, he did. But that suffering had nothing to do with with him being a mage, except that it enabled him to carry out the curse. What I mean by that is that the curse was a direct result of that keeper being severely psychologically damaged by a specific incident (avoiding spoilers here) rather than because he was a mage. It was not an inherent 'weakness' brought about by him being a mage. A non-mage could just as easily have felt the same way, and carried out their rage and hurt by doing those things in their power to punish the perpetrators.

Except that the Chantry doesn't teach that mages are inherently 'weaker' than the average person, but that they're inherently more dangerous. If the Elder had been a regular elf, he might have managed to kill a few dozen people in revenge. Because he was a mage, he bound a spirit to the forest and created a curse that lasted for centuries.People who had nothing to do with the death of his daughter were stripped of their humanity and turned into dangerous monsters. 

Your argument was that the Dalish had found a 'third' option other than the strict control of the Chantry/qunari or the bloody, magical tyranny of the Imperium. However, of the two Keepers we meet, one acts with all the control and compassion of the Imperium's magisters.
 

...and yet, having all that control did nothing to stop Uldred.  Zathrian abused his power, but there are far reaching examples of non-mages abusing their power as well.  If we assume that unregulated mages are as dangerous as the Chantry teaches us, the Dalish should be nothing but abominations by the time the game picks up.  They have been independant of the Chantry for centuries by this point.  The fact that in centuries of seperation from the Chantry we have one mage that abused his power, and yet wasn't an abomination, although his actions could be seen as such, speaks volumes about what the Chantry teaches.

[Xandurpein]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I know a lot of people hate religion (regular or organized) and therefore hate the Chantry, and in extension, also the templars.

I think that the majority of those who think the Templar's are wrong, is not against it because of their attitude to religion, but because of the claustrophobic feel you can easily get from playing the Mage orgin, at least that is how I interpret a lot of posts here.

[Costin_Razvan]

The Chantry is exactly like the Catholic Church and the Inquisition and the Crusades. I hate the Church not because of the Religion it represents but because of the crimes it has done, while also trying to come out as innocent.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 16 janvier 2010 - 11:32 .