353 réponses à ce sujet

[The Hierophant]

Silfren wrote...


I could as easily say that biases from real-world experiences are influencing a lot of these discussions in favor of pro-Chantry/Templar and it irritates anyone who's trying to be pro-Mage.  It cuts both ways:  if those of us who see real world parallels in the Chantry find that sufficient to oppose the idea of the Chantry are bring our own biases to the game, so too are people who insist on seeing the Chantry as a totally benevolent organization above criticism, also bringing their own real-world biases to the game.

Nope, your hypothetical assumes that the noted Pro Templars posters support or has a positive view on institutionalized religion irl vs. the noted anti-Chantry posters who have stated that their irl views on religion affect their views on the Mage, Templar, Chantry issue.

[Xilizhra]

StreetMagic wrote...

I loathe the Qun the same way I loathe Sharia or medieval Christian laws. The Chantry is more like a modern western religious mindset, in some ways. A bit more relaxed and worldly, with some questionable authoritarian practices. This is probably the main reason I have a hard time seeing them in too oppressive a light. They're just not the big bad mean bossy religious authority people make them out to be --- that's the Qun.

They're nearly as bad as the qunari, just in a different way. Though they can possibly blame the worst direct practices on the templars, the Chantry empowers and authorizes them.

[MisterJB]

robertthebard wrote...
I can, however, keep it to the facts, and the facts don't support "peaceful".  You allow the Chantry to infiltrate Orzammar.  I don't, and if you set it up so the dwarf girl goes to study at the Circle, and the mages decide to build a Circle in Orzammar, the Chantry doesn't consider peaceful infiltration, they consider an Exalted March.  Nothing I've seen indicated they actually did, but instead of realizing that a sovereign Nation that doesn't worship the Maker is beyond the sphere of their control, they consider going to war.  Seems like a pretty peaceful religion to me, I guess you're right.

You claim to keep to the facts and yet go on to mention whispers. Here's an actual fact, this "infiltration" you speak of is nothing more than Brother Burkel opening a chantry, sheltering the homesless, feeding the starving and teaching the Casteless that they are equals in the eyes of the Maker.
How very hostile and prejudicial to Orzammar.

The wiki disagrees, as does the tale Leliana details in Party camp, although she does state nobody knows who struck first, until, anyway, we come to the forums, and find out "oh that, well, the elves started it because reasons".  Wait for it:  Orlais and the Dales were having border skirmishes.  Is this the same Orlais that had invaded the Free Marches and Ferelden?  Why, of course it is.  So, despite claims to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe that Orlais struck first, figuring to do what we've already known them to do, expand their empire.  Why would I believe otherwise, given what I know of Orlesian history?  Because it's just the elves?

Ignoring every factor at stake here and focusing only on orlesian expansionism will lead to erroneous results.
Orlais had just finished fighting the Second Blight all across the continent, helping to save the world, while the Dales remained blissfully absent from combat. Therefore, from the two, the Dales would have more reasons to start a war given the weakened state of their enemy.
Then, there is also the fact that while human writings acknowledge border skirmishes, which are wanton to happen between neighboring nations, especially if one refuses to receive foreign embassadors as the elves did; , the elven storytelling (which is a much less reliable form of historical documentation) would have us believe the whole thing was fought over religion.
So, who started it? I don't know, any side could have. But who started it is irrelevant, it is an historical fact that it was the elves who took the conflict into a whole different level by capturing important human cities. Likewise, it's also an historical fact that the March was only called as the dales were marching on Val-Royeaux. Search for "ages" in the wiki or read "The World of Thedas." The timing of the Exhalted March is not open for discussion.
So, I'm not going to begrudge humanity for defending itself when the elves seemed to be on an expansionist campaign and very likely genocidal given their belief humans are a disease.

It is of note that Orlais wound up in control of the Dales after the war, I wonder why that is?  Because that was their intention from the beginning, and this particular Chantry is based in Orlais?  Yep, peaceful organization.

Because the nobles would want the land. It has nothing to do with the Chantry. The elves should count themselves lucky the Chantry ordered human leaders to shelter the refugees and not to just slaugther them all.

Just another note, the lore tells us that it is indeed the humans that caused the elves to lose their immortality, so being right means that they need to be exterminated/dominated.  Yep, peaceful organization.

Are you actually advocating for elves to extreminate the humans?
The lore doesn't tell us a thing. The elves have legends of how they used to be immortal but given the fact there is not a single evidence of this, I don't believe in it in the sligthest. Rather, I don't think it's a coincidence the race who supposedly has this nocive effect just so happen to be the one the elves have warred with since the beginning.

Modifié par MisterJB, 04 mai 2013 - 03:46 .

[Silfren]

The Hierophant wrote...

Silfren wrote...


I could as easily say that biases from real-world experiences are influencing a lot of these discussions in favor of pro-Chantry/Templar and it irritates anyone who's trying to be pro-Mage.  It cuts both ways:  if those of us who see real world parallels in the Chantry find that sufficient to oppose the idea of the Chantry are bring our own biases to the game, so too are people who insist on seeing the Chantry as a totally benevolent organization above criticism, also bringing their own real-world biases to the game.

Nope, your hypothetical assumes that the noted Pro Templars posters support or has a positive view on institutionalized religion irl vs. the noted anti-Chantry posters who have stated that their irl views on religion affect their views on the Mage, Templar, Chantry issue.

My hypothetical points out the fallacies in the other poster's argument. But guess what? Some pro-templars HAVE expressed a postive view or support of institutionalized religion despite your attempt to imply otherwise.

Moreover, a person saying that they are anti-Chantry because their IRL views of religion color their views hardly means that they're saying "I hate the Chantry because I hate religion."

Modifié par Silfren, 04 mai 2013 - 03:48 .

[billy the squid]

StreetMagic wrote...

I loathe the Qun the same way I loathe Sharia or medieval Christian laws. The Chantry is more like a modern western religious mindset, in some ways. A bit more relaxed and worldly, with some questionable authoritarian practices. This is probably the main reason I have a hard time seeing them in too oppressive a light. They're just not the big bad mean bossy religious authority people make them out to be --- that's the Qun.

Of course they are, they're also corrupt and hypocritical. The Qun isn't, the underlying premise is the betterment of all based on meritocracy. 

[Noctis Augustus]

StreetMagic wrote...

On a sidenote, Marvel comics has had similar storylines with Mutant and Superhero registerations and the Civil War. It's the same principle. It's not about religion, but about responsibility. Having a world with no laws on magic is irresponsible. And like I said earlier, too "optimistic" about human nature. Thinking nothing could ever go wrong with that kind of power. It generally takes older people to realize that's ****g stupid. People can't be trusted. Especially the powerful.

You're generalizing. Experience/old age will never beat intelligence and wisdom. Being old doesn't equate to being wise.

[robertthebard]

StreetMagic wrote...

lol.. I'm 35 (unfortunately). And no, I don't think I have all the answers. I state my point so crudely because.. honestly... I'm typing fast (as well as I have a crappy keyboard) and don't have time to get nuanced. So I slim it down to saying it's due to "kids". Screw it. I'll deal with the backlash.

Heh, but point made, and position accepted on my part.

It doesn't take a kid to think the Chantry is wrong.  I'm not all for unmonitored mages either, but, I do think the Ferelden Circle was actually an example of how it should have been done, thinking of the mage origin anyway.  The Templars monitor, but Irving has final say on what mages do.  Note that Gregor can disagree with sending mages to Ostagar, but cannot stop it.  He also can't perform the RoA w/out authorization, despite how bad it actually gets.  They had struck that balance there, but in Kirkwall, there is no balance.  Orsino has a title, but no power, that falls onto Meredith, who should really not be in a position of power over mages.

[Silfren]

ibbikiookami wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

On a sidenote, Marvel comics has had similar storylines with Mutant and Superhero registerations and the Civil War. It's the same principle. It's not about religion, but about responsibility. Having a world with no laws on magic is irresponsible. And like I said earlier, too "optimistic" about human nature. Thinking nothing could ever go wrong with that kind of power. It generally takes older people to realize that's ****g stupid. People can't be trusted. Especially the powerful.

You're generalizing. Experience/old age will never beat intelligence and wisdom. Being old doesn't equate to being wise.

Old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill.

[MisterJB]

StreetMagic wrote...
Ok, fair enough. Personally, I don't care who makes those laws. I've said elsewhere it'd be ideal if mages (wise mages) kicked the crap out of the worst kind of apostates and policed themselves. And even ruled Tevinter.. but responsibly.

For a pro-mage, I definitively agree with most of what you are saying but not with this.
History has shown us that people from a determined group are more likely to ignore crimes commited by their group against members of other group. Therefore, having mages policing mages would be unwise. Non-mages must police mages altough I wouldn't be opposed to a greater involvement of mages in Templar duties.

[DarkDragon777]

ibbikiookami wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

On a sidenote, Marvel comics has had similar storylines with Mutant and Superhero registerations and the Civil War. It's the same principle. It's not about religion, but about responsibility. Having a world with no laws on magic is irresponsible. And like I said earlier, too "optimistic" about human nature. Thinking nothing could ever go wrong with that kind of power. It generally takes older people to realize that's ****g stupid. People can't be trusted. Especially the powerful.

You're generalizing. Experience/old age will never beat intelligence and wisdom. Being old doesn't equate to being wise.

[robertthebard]

StreetMagic wrote...

I am generalizing. I have no problem admitting it.

At least I got some people talking. Optimism and Pessimism (whether these are associated with age or not) have always been underlying factors when it comes to rulemaking and freedoms. It boils down on one's outlook of human nature..Whether one thinks we're all essentially good or essentially bad. I fall in the second category. I don't think anyone can be trusted, so the Chantry's laws make sense to me. Magic must be controlled.

I'd buy this with the addendum that somebody needs to be able to hold the chantry accountable, because magic isn't the only kind of power that can be open to abuse, as we see in Kirkwall.

[Noctis Augustus]

Silfren wrote...

ibbikiookami wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

On a sidenote, Marvel comics has had similar storylines with Mutant and Superhero registerations and the Civil War. It's the same principle. It's not about religion, but about responsibility. Having a world with no laws on magic is irresponsible. And like I said earlier, too "optimistic" about human nature. Thinking nothing could ever go wrong with that kind of power. It generally takes older people to realize that's ****g stupid. People can't be trusted. Especially the powerful.

You're generalizing. Experience/old age will never beat intelligence and wisdom. Being old doesn't equate to being wise.

Old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill.

Sure, but I said intelligence and wisdom not skill. Old age and treachery will never overcome intelligence and wisdom. Someone young, wise and intelligent can see the treachery.

[robertthebard]

MisterJB wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
I can, however, keep it to the facts, and the facts don't support "peaceful".  You allow the Chantry to infiltrate Orzammar.  I don't, and if you set it up so the dwarf girl goes to study at the Circle, and the mages decide to build a Circle in Orzammar, the Chantry doesn't consider peaceful infiltration, they consider an Exalted March.  Nothing I've seen indicated they actually did, but instead of realizing that a sovereign Nation that doesn't worship the Maker is beyond the sphere of their control, they consider going to war.  Seems like a pretty peaceful religion to me, I guess you're right.

You claim to keep to the facts and yet go on to mention whispers. Here's an actual fact, this "infiltration" you speak of is nothing more than Brother Burkel opening a chantry, sheltering the homesless, feeding the starving and teaching the Casteless that they are equals in the eyes of the Maker.
How very hostile and prejudicial to Orzammar.

The wiki disagrees, as does the tale Leliana details in Party camp, although she does state nobody knows who struck first, until, anyway, we come to the forums, and find out "oh that, well, the elves started it because reasons".  Wait for it:  Orlais and the Dales were having border skirmishes.  Is this the same Orlais that had invaded the Free Marches and Ferelden?  Why, of course it is.  So, despite claims to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe that Orlais struck first, figuring to do what we've already known them to do, expand their empire.  Why would I believe otherwise, given what I know of Orlesian history?  Because it's just the elves?

Ignoring every factor at stake here and focusing only on orlesian expansionism will lead to erroneous results.
Orlais had just finished fighting the Second Blight all across the continent, helping to save the world, while the Dales remained blissfully absent from combat. Therefore, from the two, the Dales would have more reasons to start a war given the weakened state of their enemy.
Then, there is also the fact that while human writings acknowledge border skirmishes, which are wanton to happen between neighboring nations, especially if one refuses to receive foreign embassadors as the elves did; , the elven storytelling (which is a much less reliable form of historical documentation) would have us believe the whole thing was fought over religion.
So, who started it? I don't know, any side could have. But who started it is irrelevant, it is an historical fact that it was the elves who took the conflict into a whole different level by capturing important human cities. Likewise, it's also an historical fact that the March was only called as the dales were marching on Val-Royeaux. Search for "ages" in the wiki or read "The World of Thedas." The timing of the Exhalted March is not open for discussion.
So, I'm not going to begrudge humanity for defending itself when the elves seemed to be on an expansionist campaign and very likely genocidal given their belief humans are a disease.

It is of note that Orlais wound up in control of the Dales after the war, I wonder why that is?  Because that was their intention from the beginning, and this particular Chantry is based in Orlais?  Yep, peaceful organization.

Because the nobles would want the land. It has nothing to do with the Chantry. The elves should count themselves lucky the Chantry ordered human leaders to shelter the refugees and not to just slaugther them all.

Just another note, the lore tells us that it is indeed the humans that caused the elves to lose their immortality, so being right means that they need to be exterminated/dominated.  Yep, peaceful organization.

Are you actually advocating for elves to extreminate the humans?
The lore doesn't tell us a thing. The elves have legends of how they used to be immortal but given the fact there is not a single evidence of this, I don't believe in it in the sligthest. Rather, I don't think it's a coincidence the race who supposedly has this nocive effect just so happen to be the one the elves have warred with since the beginning.

It is infiltration.  What is he trying to accomplish?  Win the hearts and minds of the people he helps?  Does Orzammar secretly want to worship the Maker?  That flies in the face of what we're presented, doesn't it?  Except that, to support your position of it not being infiltration, we have to ignore that.

The middle section is simply translated to:  The elves don't deserve any consideration in the matter, since even Leliana's version of event includes turning away the Chantry a part of the reason the for the Exalted March.  Since this supports the elves, I suppose that has to be disregarded too?  So long as we understand each other; you believe the elves had it coming for being elves.

The last is, "Nope, that lore is Elfcentric and so has to be a fabrication".  Sorry, when you want to discuss the actual game, instead of your "vision", let me know.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

DarkDragon777 wrote...

ibbikiookami wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

On a sidenote, Marvel comics has had similar storylines with Mutant and Superhero registerations and the Civil War. It's the same principle. It's not about religion, but about responsibility. Having a world with no laws on magic is irresponsible. And like I said earlier, too "optimistic" about human nature. Thinking nothing could ever go wrong with that kind of power. It generally takes older people to realize that's ****g stupid. People can't be trusted. Especially the powerful.

You're generalizing. Experience/old age will never beat intelligence and wisdom. Being old doesn't equate to being wise.

Unless the one is Plato! I know you hate him! lol

[MisterJB]

robertthebard wrote...
It is infiltration.  What is he trying to accomplish?  Win the hearts and minds of the people he helps?  Does Orzammar secretly want to worship the Maker?  That flies in the face of what we're presented, doesn't it?  Except that, to support your position of it not being infiltration, we have to ignore that.

He is helping people which attracts converts. That is all. The dwarves who convert do so out of their own free will.

The middle section is simply translated to:  The elves don't deserve any consideration in the matter, since even Leliana's version of event includes turning away the Chantry a part of the reason the for the Exalted March.  Since this supports the elves, I suppose that has to be disregarded too?  So long as we understand each other; you believe the elves had it coming for being elves.

No, I believe that there is plenty of reason to suspect either side and that humanity should not simply allow the elves to whatever they want without defending itself.

The last is, "Nope, that lore is Elfcentric and so has to be a fabrication".  Sorry, when you want to discuss the actual game, instead of your "vision", let me know.

Because only Humancentric lore is susceptible to skepticism? If an elf tells me his ancestors, of whom there are little to no traces of their culture left, were immortal and stopped being so simply because of humans being near, I'm going to ask for evidence of this before believing him.
And before you say anything, despite being Pro-Chantry, I do not believe in the Maker exactly because I see no evidence of His existence.

Modifié par MisterJB, 04 mai 2013 - 04:10 .

[The Hierophant]

Silfren wrote...

My hypothetical points out the fallacies in the other poster's argument. But guess what? Some pro-templars HAVE expressed a postive view or support of institutionalized religion despite your attempt to imply otherwise.

Moreover, a person saying that they are anti-Chantry because their IRL views of religion color their views hardly means that they're saying "I hate the Chantry because I hate religion."

Nope. I have yet to see Dave of Canada, Mister JB or EmperorSahlertz brag that they are religious and state that it positively affects their views on the Templar, Mage, Chantry issues in contrast to the bulk of the noted anti-Chantry posters who have stated multiple times their irl views on religion affects their stance. Plus over the years i have seen the noted pro Templars admit that the Templars/Chantry are flawed and not sunshine or rainbows, yet believe that the organization's existence is a needed evil when dealing with the Qunari, Tevinter Imperium, and mage oversight.

[robertthebard]

MisterJB wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
It is infiltration.  What is he trying to accomplish?  Win the hearts and minds of the people he helps?  Does Orzammar secretly want to worship the Maker?  That flies in the face of what we're presented, doesn't it?  Except that, to support your position of it not being infiltration, we have to ignore that.

He is helping people which attracts converts. That is all. The dwarves who convert do so out of their own free will.

The middle section is simply translated to:  The elves don't deserve any consideration in the matter, since even Leliana's version of event includes turning away the Chantry a part of the reason the for the Exalted March.  Since this supports the elves, I suppose that has to be disregarded too?  So long as we understand each other; you believe the elves had it coming for being elves.

No, I believe that there is plenty of reason to suspect either side and that humanity should not simply allow the elves to whatever they want without defending itself.

The last is, "Nope, that lore is Elfcentric and so has to be a fabrication".  Sorry, when you want to discuss the actual game, instead of your "vision", let me know.

Because only Humancentric lore is susceptible to skepticism? If an elf tells me his ancestors, of whom there are little to no traces of their culture left, were immortal and stopped being so simply because of humans being near, I'm going to ask for evidence of this before believing him.
And before you say anything, despite being Pro-Chantry, I do not believe in the Maker exactly because I see no evidence of His existence.

Again, let's ignore the lore to set up your "the Chantry is an altruistic organization that only cares about feeding the homeless" rhetoric?

[Noctis Augustus]

The Hierophant wrote...

Silfren wrote...

My hypothetical points out the fallacies in the other poster's argument. But guess what? Some pro-templars HAVE expressed a postive view or support of institutionalized religion despite your attempt to imply otherwise.

Moreover, a person saying that they are anti-Chantry because their IRL views of religion color their views hardly means that they're saying "I hate the Chantry because I hate religion."

Nope. I have yet to see Dave of Canada, Mister JB or EmperorSahlertz brag that they are religious and state that it positively affects their views on the Templar, Mage, Chantry issues in contrast to the bulk of the noted anti-Chantry posters who have stated multiple times their irl views on religion affects their stance. Plus over the years i have seen the noted pro Templars admit that the Templars/Chantry are flawed and not sunshine or rainbows, yet believe that the organization's existence is a needed evil when dealing with the Qunari, Tevinter Imperium, and mage oversight.

Really? I've never seen anyone state that their irl views on religion affects their stance on the DA universe.

Modifié par ibbikiookami, 04 mai 2013 - 04:18 .