336 réponses à ce sujet

[The Hierophant]

IanPolaris wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

The fact that Lambert's letter basically reads "you're a failure, we served you when our goals aligned but now they don't, have fun! bye xoxox" doesn't really read of rebellion, they're not destroying the Chantry or the establishment, they're just doing their duties against the rebelling mages which the Divine has shown sympathy for.

This is by it's very nature and definition declaring oneself to be in rebellion.

-Polaris

It depends on the legality of Lambert's ability to void the Nevarran Accord. 

[Medhia Nox]

Why is any record taken at face value in these games? I've seen Chantry records questioned all the time - except when it helps to make an argument of course.

Much like the real Inquisition - the purpose and application of the Dragon Age Inquisition might be wildly misconstrued.

===

What I'd like to know from Asunder is - why, on Thedas, did the Aequatarians join the rebellion?

"Because it was right." is a totally useless - ill thought out answer.

What reason is given in the book?

Are the other factions present and how did they feel about this idiocy? Where they like - oh, we're mages - we should rebel now?  What did the Lucrosians, Loyalists and Isolationists say if anything? Or is all this "to be determined in DA:I?"

If I must deal with this silly war - I truly hope there's a compelling story for my mage. I expect a lot of "traitor!" screamed my way as I crush group after group of rebel mages. I also would love to see a handful that can be convinced to lay down their arms and come peacefully.

As for the Templars - I'll just cut off their lyrium supplies. The detox will be hell.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 30 mai 2013 - 04:03 .

[IanPolaris]

The Hierophant wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

The fact that Lambert's letter basically reads "you're a failure, we served you when our goals aligned but now they don't, have fun! bye xoxox" doesn't really read of rebellion, they're not destroying the Chantry or the establishment, they're just doing their duties against the rebelling mages which the Divine has shown sympathy for.

This is by it's very nature and definition declaring oneself to be in rebellion.

-Polaris

It depends on the legality of Lambert's ability to void the Nevarran Accord. 

No it really doesn't.  At most it might affect the legality of the rebellion but not the fact of it, and honestly I sorta think that the Divine and Empress Celene will declare the Templars to be in rebellion (and the Divine will call them heretics) regardless.

For example in 1860, the State of South Carolina has a suprisingly solid legal case for why their act to abolish the union was technically legal.  It was STILL an act of rebellion and treated as such.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Medhia Nox wrote...

What I'd like to know from Asunder is - why, on Thedas, did the Aequatarians join the rebellion?

That is an easy question to answer.  The Aequatarians joined the Libertarians for the same reason that they did NOT join them 6 years ago (staying with the Loyalists).  Six years prior, the Aequatarians told the Libertarians, "Yes, we have some sympathy for your PoV, but as bad as things are, do you really think the Chantry wouldn't try to kill us all in order to prevent us from leaving?"

After Asunder (and Kirkwall) the Aequatarians essentially gave the Chantry a vote of no-confidence saying in effect that the Chantry was going to let Lambert and his Templars kill/enslave us anyway without any effective oversight.  That being so, we have nothing to lose.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  Essentially Meredith's (and later Lambert's) actions proved to the Aequartarians that the Templars would never change and the Chantry would never make them change.  Again, if you treat people like animals.......

Modifié par IanPolaris, 30 mai 2013 - 04:08 .

[Medhia Nox]

But wait - then if the Chantry was fine with what Lambert was doing - why would he have to also rebel? Just for the lolz?

Also - if someone else on the Templar side (or at least neutral) could weigh in on this particular topic I'd appreciate it. Sorry Polaris, but you're viewpoint is clearly skewed.

Note: And yes, I should just read the bloody book myself.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 30 mai 2013 - 04:15 .

[IanPolaris]

Medhia Nox wrote...

But wait - then if the Chantry was fine with what Lambert was doing - why would he have to also rebel? Just for the lolz?

Also - if someone else on the Templar side could weigh in on this particular topic I'd appreciate it. Sorry Polaris, but you're viewpoint is clearly skewed.

Note: And yes, I should just read the bloody book myself.

Skewed or not, what I said is the answer you were looking for.  Whether you agree with them or not, the Aequartians decided (based on Meredith's actions in Kirkwall and Lambert's actions) that openly breaking with the Chantry and risking the Chantry trying to exterminate the lot of them was in fact no worse than what the Templars were already doing (which is a helluva vote of no confidence).

-Polaris

[Medhia Nox]

So why does Lambert rebel if the Chantry thought his idea was awesome?

So - the Aequatarians, in their infinite wisdom, decided that a drug addled Knight Commander who decided to Annul a Circle sitting on top of a corrupted city - was a clear indication of willful negligence on the part of the Templars? Let's not forget that Orsino couldn't have learned blood magic the moment he used it - and he was totally fine with Dr. Franken-Hawke.

Not sure what this Lambert fella did in the course of the novel... but it must have encompassed all of Thedas to be so damning of the Templars.  Yes, I'm aware forumites project their own down trodden problems into the game to argue for mage freedom - I need something a little more substantial than: Boo hoo I'm so ostracized for my phenomal powers over the natural laws of the universe.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 30 mai 2013 - 04:31 .

[The Hierophant]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

The fact that Lambert's letter basically reads "you're a failure, we served you when our goals aligned but now they don't, have fun! bye xoxox" doesn't really read of rebellion, they're not destroying the Chantry or the establishment, they're just doing their duties against the rebelling mages which the Divine has shown sympathy for.

This is by it's very nature and definition declaring oneself to be in rebellion.

-Polaris

It depends on the legality of Lambert's ability to void the Nevarran Accord. 

No it really doesn't.  At most it might affect the legality of the rebellion but not the fact of it, and honestly I sorta think that the Divine and Empress Celene will declare the Templars to be in rebellion (and the Divine will call them heretics) regardless.

For example in 1860, the State of South Carolina has a suprisingly solid legal case for why their act to abolish the union was technically legal.  It was STILL an act of rebellion and treated as such.

-Polaris

Sorry but i'm not seeing the comparison, it makes no sense.

Plus wouldn't the rebellion be with Justinia V as she indirectly assaulted the Templars by having Leliana break into the WS and free the mages who went on to kill all the guards? Mind you Justinia V prevented the Templars from doing their job that the Nevarran Accord dictated. Does Justinia V even have the legal authority to subvert the NA the way she did?

Modifié par The Hierophant, 30 mai 2013 - 04:58 .

[IanPolaris]

The Hierophant wrote...

Sorry but i'm not seeing the comparison, it makes no sense.

It makes plenty of sense.  At the start of the US Civil War, a very strong legal case could be made that the constitution was a volunatary agreement by Sovereign states and that Federal policy (not just w/r/t Slavery but Tarriffs and other issues as well) had rendered the US Federal Govt in breech of the original agreement.  In fact the legal issue was not resolved until after it was settled on the battlefield.  At South Carolina taken this to the US Supreme Court in 1860, there is a very good chance they would have won.

However, Lincoln regarded this and treated this as an act of rebellion.  The parallels should be obvious.  In the case of Thedas, Lambert is arguing that the Nevarran Accord is a volunary accord that can be broken at any time, and the Templars would regain the sovereignty of the old Inquistors.  The Divine (and likely the Empress) disagree, and are treating the Templars as though they are in rebellion (and we are told this explicitly at the end of DA2).

Plus wouldn't the rebellion be with Justinia V as she indirectly assaulted the Templars by having Leliana break into the WS and free the mages who went on to kill all the guards? Mind you Justinia V prevented the Templars from doing their job that Nevarran Accord dictated. Does Justinia V even have the legal authority to subvert the NA the way she did?

No it would not.  The best you could argue is that Justina may have overstepped her bounds, but as Divine she can not (by definition) commit an act of rebellion against the Chantry.  She would have to be impeached by the other Grand Clerics (which isn't going to happen).  The point is that both rebellion against the Chantry and Heresy against the Chantry are ultimately what the Divine says they are.  No more and no less.

-Polaris

[Medhia Nox]

So wait - the Divine is helping the mages. And if what she says is law - then why did the mages not totally jump on board with her and crush the Templars where they stood and then say - see, we are totally awesome and the Chantry can trust us!

Not like - after the Templars were defeated - they couldn't just rebel if the Chantry tried anything overly oppressive (and evidently - telling mages they can't enslave other people is "overly oppressive" for some gamers).

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 30 mai 2013 - 05:12 .

[IanPolaris]

Medhia Nox wrote...

So wait - the Divine is helping the mages. And if what she says is law - then why did the mages not totally jump on board with her and crush the Templars where they stood and then say - see, we are totally awesome and the Chantry can trust us!

Divine Justina is only one Divine and "Too little, too late" comes forcibly to mind.  Also a lot of people (not just mages) don't believe that the Chantry can or will control or be able to control their own templars, and Lambert has just about made that case for them.

Not like - after the Templars were defeated - they couldn't just rebel if the Chantry tried anything overly oppressive (and evidently - telling mages they can't enslave other people is "overly oppressive" for some gamers).

The Templars are (or were) part of the Chantry.  Lambert unilaterally declares that they are not any longer.  That is a classic act of rebellion.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Medhia Nox wrote...

So why does Lambert rebel if the Chantry thought his idea was awesome?

Lambert is paranoid.  Asunder makes that very clear.

So - the Aequatarians, in their infinite wisdom, decided that a drug addled Knight Commander who decided to Annul a Circle sitting on top of a corrupted city - was a clear indication of willful negligence on the part of the Templars? Let's not forget that Orsino couldn't have learned blood magic the moment he used it - and he was totally fine with Dr. Franken-Hawke.

It's the straw(s) that broke the camel's back.  The Aequatarians were already on the verge of jumping to the Libertarian side even as early as DAO (go back to the conversation in the Mage Origin story...the convo between the Senior Enchanter [forget his name off hand] and Niall].  They only reason they didn't was because they thought an open break with the chantry would be worse than the current situation.  Meredith, Lambert, and a pattern of Templar high-handedness since (like the actions recently in Rivvain) have changed their minds about that.

[snip]

-Polaris

[Dave of Canada]

Woke up to take dogs out, checked to see if there were any posts. I'll come back to this thread after the job interview tomorrow.

Medhia Nox wrote...

But wait - then if the Chantry was fine with what Lambert was doing - why would he have to also rebel? Just for the lolz?

Also - if someone else on the Templar side (or at least neutral) could weigh in on this particular topic I'd appreciate it. Sorry Polaris, but you're viewpoint is clearly skewed.

Note: And yes, I should just read the bloody book myself.

Full-book spoilers from memory, sorry if I miss anything. Still TL;DR, unfortunately.

Mages have less rights due to Kirkwall, the College of Enchanters has been disbanded and mages are attempting to assassinate the Divine, Circles now have curfews and mages constantly speak of rebelling and try to recruit as many other mages as possible. Mages hate Wynne due to her pro-Chantry stance at the last meeting of the College of Enchanters when they discussed seperating.

Mysterious murders occur at the Spire in Orlais and High Seeker Lambert is called in to investigate, he interrogates all the mages and has his suspicions on Rhys (the protagonist and Wynne's son) who belongs to the same fraternity as the mage-assassin who tried to kill the Divine and was caught with his staff drawn in the cell blocks of ''bad'' mages (he was trying to question his invisible friend about whether or not he was the murderer, his invisible friend had a dagger.)

Wynne says she's been sent to investigate a tranquil friend of hers who supposedly turned into an abomination, she recruits Rhys and Adrian (his girlfriend) to come along to the other side of Orlais to investigate, she shows her papers from the Divine to Lambert and he allows it but says Knight-Captain Evangeline will travel with them.

On their travels, mage relations with the mundane have fallen through when people at an inn try to start a fight with the mages, blaming them for the attempted assassination of the Divine and the fire which killed an entire family (confirmed to be done by a young girl mage who did it on purpose) but Evangeline protects them.

They arrive to the location which Wynne wanted to find her friend, a lab which was working in secret for the Divine to discover a cure for tranquility and that Pharamond had allowed demons into the keep that slaughtered everyone but the possessed Pharamond himself. The demon reveals that Evangeline was sent by Lambert to make sure that any evidence of a cure would be destroyed, pissing off the mages.

The mages head into the fade, meet Cole (which everyone can see now), kill the demon and Pharamond--despite being tranquil--returns back to his normal self, leading Adrian to support keeping the evidence and Evangeline saying that the Rite is necessary and shouldn't be cured but they shrug it off and head to the Divine.

On the way there, Wynne mentions that while the Divine supports mages, she'll likely struggle to explain curing tranquility to the Templar and the Chantry and that the Circles shouldn't be destroyed but be improved instead. Lambert meets with them, leads them into the city which is in full disarray due to the civil war and Lambert scolds Evangeline for not doing her duty.

Divine ignores Lambert as she learns with great interest about curing tranquility, something that upsets Lambert greatly. In addition, we learn that Wynne sent letters to every Circle in Thedas about how to cure tranquility so that the research could never be covered up, something that seriously pisses off Lambert and upsets the Divine.

Divine remakes the College of Enchanters but Lambert imposes restrictions upon it, I forget the restrictions but one of them is making Pharamond tranquil again and the other is that only the leaders of each Circle can attend during the gathering.

Lambert is reported by Evangeline about everything that happened in the journey, he suspects Cole is using blood magic and that he should be made tranquil, something Evangeline agrees with because of how dangerous he is. Lambert offers Evangeline a deal, he'll drop his assumption that Rhys is the killer and he'll talk with Cole provided she dismisses the evidence of the tranquility cure.

Evangeline hates it but Lambert says that mages are looking for an excuse to rebel and this isn't going to help, alternatives to tranquility can be researched when mages aren't looking to incite war on the Chantry and the Templar. He explains his past (which I'll detail seperately) but Evangeline declines.

All the First Enchanters and the Grand Enchanter arrive to reach a decision regarding the Chantry and the Templar, people try to convince Wynne since her influence is great among the mages but she declines, still believing in the Circle system and what it stands for.

Fiona and the mages argue that the Templar are abusive and the Chantry does nothing to stop it, Wynne says that the Divine is looking into it but it's dismissed, claiming that the Chantry has never bothered to help mages and they only want to rule over them.

Lambert shows up with an army of Templar, the gathering is over and says that Pharamond has been slain with the murder weapon having been in Rhys' room. He tries to arrest Rhys but all mages gathered refuse thinking he has it out for mages, prompting a fight to break out between Templar and Mages.

A lot of mages escape the Templar, Wynne assumes that Lambert had planned this from the start and they're just going to impose harsher restrictions upon the Circles because their leadership decided to protect Rhys. Evangeline and Wynne team up, Evangeline siding with the mages by saying the Templar are being too extreme. They're joined by Cole who wants to help Rhys.

Meanwhile, Rhys is beaten and abused in a prison cell and Lambert shows up, claims that Cole is a demon and makes him an offer: Confess to having killed Pharamond under the influence of the demon or be executed along with all the other First Enchanters. Obviously, he refuses.

Wynne and group meet up with Leliana who reveals that the Divine has called away Lambert and his Templar, allowing them to sneak in and rescue everyone. They destroy all the mage phylacteries, kill Templar, free the First Enchanters and escape.

Lambert shows up, stops everyone and uses an item--the Litany--which suddenly makes Cole visible to Lambert proving that Cole is a demon. Everyone fights against Lambert, he fights them all off and he kills Evangeline in the process. Alone and outmatched, Lambert runs away. Wynne sacrifices herself to save Evangeline, moving the spirit from herself into Evangeline.

Fast-forward and the mages are gathering on the fringes of Orlais, they constantly hear news about Circles everywhere rebelling forcing the Templar to crack down even harder. Rhys confronts Adrian about Pharamond which has her admit that she murdered Pharamond and intended to have Rhys take the blame so Wynne would side with the rebels.

Mages hold one more vote about whether or not they'd be going to war, loyalists vote for staying with the Chantry and libertarians vote for freedom. Wynne's group is now under the leadership of Rhys who can't make a decision, the mages discuss about how the Divine has helped the mages but it means nothing. Rhys votes for war.

Back to Lambert, he and all the Knight-Commanders unite to deal with the growing mage situation and are gathering an army to attack the mage rebels who are gathering on the fringe of Orlais. Lambert writes this letter to the Divine:

Most Holy,

The Seekers are well aware of the part you played in the rebellion. You call me to the Grand Cathedral in the middle of the night on “urgent” business only to speak of trivial matters? And then, when I return to the White Spire, I discover chaos . . . and one of your agents in the midst of the apostates.

Did you think I would not notice? Did you believe yourself above repercussions for such acts? It was a dark day when the Chantry placed such an incapable woman upon the Sunburst Throne. I will not stand idle and watch you destroy what ages of tradition and righteousness have built.

In the twentieth year of the Divine Age, the Nevarran Accord was signed. The Seekers of Truth lowered our banner and agreed to serve as the Chantry’s right hand, and together we created the Circle of magi. With the Circle no more, I hereby declare the Accord null and void. Neither the Seekers of Truth nor the Templar Order recognize Chantry authority, and instead we will perform the Maker’s work as it was meant to be done, as we see fit.

Signed this day on the fortieth year of the Dragon Age

Lord Seeker Lambert van Reeves

Cole shows up afterwards and it's implied he murders Lambert.


Lambert's backstory:
He's from Tevinter, he helped his best friend who was a mage and then he saw his friend slowly succumb to Tevinter's influence as he resorted to blood magic. His friend became the Black Divine, shattering Lambert's belief that mages can be trusted because look where that got him.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 30 mai 2013 - 05:39 .

[The Hierophant]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Sorry but i'm not seeing the comparison, it makes no sense.

It makes plenty of sense.  At the start of the US Civil War, a very strong legal case could be made that the constitution was a volunatary agreement by Sovereign states and that Federal policy (not just w/r/t Slavery but Tarriffs and other issues as well) had rendered the US Federal Govt in breech of the original agreement.  In fact the legal issue was not resolved until after it was settled on the battlefield.  At South Carolina taken this to the US Supreme Court in 1860, there is a very good chance they would have won.

However, Lincoln regarded this and treated this as an act of rebellion.  The parallels should be obvious.  In the case of Thedas, Lambert is arguing that the Nevarran Accord is a volunary accord that can be broken at any time, and the Templars would regain the sovereignty of the old Inquistors.  The Divine (and likely the Empress) disagree, and are treating the Templars as though they are in rebellion (and we are told this explicitly at the end of DA2).

Mind you despite being a failure Buchanan declared SC's secession illegal before Lincoln. Plus the problem with your comparison is that you're comparing a contractual partnership between the Templars(mercenary force), and Chantry(religious institution) to SC illegally (my bad i mixed it up with Texas' 1869 case) seceding from the Union, whereas we don't know the legality of Lambert's actions.

Your comparison seems forced as you don't take into account that there is no Constitutional or state law that binds the Inquisition and Chantry together while forgetting that it's only a vague (our limited knowledge) agreement between two organizations. 

Plus wouldn't the rebellion be with Justinia V as she indirectly assaulted the Templars by having Leliana break into the WS and free the mages who went on to kill all the guards? Mind you Justinia V prevented the Templars from doing their job that Nevarran Accord dictated. Does Justinia V even have the legal authority to subvert the NA the way she did?

No it would not. The best you could argue is that Justina may have overstepped her bounds, but as Divine she can not (by definition) commit an act of rebellion against the Chantry.  She would have to be impeached by the other Grand Clerics (which isn't going to happen).  The point is that both rebellion against the Chantry and Heresy against the Chantry are ultimately what the Divine says they are.  No more and no less.

-Polaris

Can you post some links to corroborate your points as nowhere in the media or lore from what i remember does it suggest that a Divine is that powerful? Plus you are misusing the term heretic as the conflict between the Chantry and Templars isn't about the interpretation of the CoL but the Templars regarding Justinia V actions as a detriment to their ability to perform their job that the Nevarran Accord dictated.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 30 mai 2013 - 05:49 .

[IanPolaris]

[quote]The Hierophant wrote...

Mind you despite being a failure Buchanan declared SC's secession illegal before Lincoln. Plus the problem with your comparison is that you're comparing a contractual partnership between the Templars(mercenary force), and Chantry(religious institution) to SC illegally (my bad i mixed it up with Texas' 1869 case) seceding from the Union, whereas we don't know the legality of Lambert's actions.
[/quote]

Actually the comparison is very apt.  Yes Buchanan declared the action illegal, but POTUS is not the last word on what is or isn't legal.  SCOTUS is.  This is why AFTER the CIvil War a dummy case for secession was forwarded by Jefferson Davis to the post-War SCOTUS so SCOTUS could rule from then out that legally secession was unconstitutional.  However as of 1860, there were strong legal reasons to think that secession WAS legal.  That didn't make South Carolina's actions any less rebellious though.

[quote]
Your comparison seems forced as you don't take into account that there is no Constitutional or state law that binds the Inquisition and Chantry together while forgetting that it's only a vague (our limited knowledge) agreement between two organizations.
[/quote]

Actually the comparison is again very apt.  You (and apparently Lambert) is trying to assert that a written condition of union was violated and therefore null and void.  This is an act of Rebellion.  

 [quote]
[quote]
[quote]
Plus wouldn't the rebellion be with Justinia V as she indirectly assaulted the Templars by having Leliana break into the WS and free the mages who went on to kill all the guards? Mind you Justinia V prevented the Templars from doing their job that Nevarran Accord dictated. Does Justinia V even have the legal authority to subvert the NA the way she did?
[/quote]

No it would not. The best you could argue is that Justina may have overstepped her bounds, but as Divine she can not (by definition) commit an act of rebellion against the Chantry.  She would have to be impeached by the other Grand Clerics (which isn't going to happen).  The point is that both rebellion against the Chantry and Heresy against the Chantry are ultimately what the Divine says they are.  No more and no less.

-Polaris[/quote]
Can you post some links to corroborate your points as nowhere in the media or lore from what i remember does it suggest that a Divine is that powerful? Plus you are misusing the term heretic as the conflict between the Chantry and Templars isn't about the interpretation of the CoL but the Templars regarding Justinia V actions as a detriment to their ability to perform their job that the Nevarran Accord dictated.[/quote]
[/quote]

I am not.  If you look IRL History, the Pope declared the (real life) Templar Order to be heretical for what really amounted to political reasons.  From the game information we have, the Divine has much the same powers, restrictions, and traditions as the RCC Pope.  What that means on a very practical level is Heresy is what the DIvine says it is (and the Divine can even rewrite or edit the CoL to back her up...and this has happened before).  Yes I know the technical definition of heresy.  The technical definition is also totally irrelevant.

-Polaris

[The Hierophant]

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually the comparison is again very apt.  You (and apparently Lambert) is trying to assert that a written condition of union was violated and therefore null and void.  This is an act of Rebellion.

Only because you say so. You've yet to post  links from DA lore that support any of your points while mostly using incidents that are incomparable to the DA verse. Using 19th century U.S. law to discuss Thedosian law makes no sense no matter how you try to force it.

At this point in time we lack the necessary amount of knowledge needed to determine if the NA is bound by any contract laws. Seeing as how the writers like to throw curveballs i'll refrain from stating absolutes as there is little info surrounding the NA. 

I am not.  If you look IRL History, the Pope declared the (real life) Templar Order to be heretical for what really amounted to political reasons.  From the game information we have, the Divine has much the same powers, restrictions, and traditions as the RCC Pope.  What that means on a very practical level is Heresy is what the DIvine says it is (and the Divine can even rewrite or edit the CoL to back her up...and this has happened before).  Yes I know the technical definition of heresy.  The technical definition is also totally irrelevant.

-Polaris

iirc The Pope only declared the Templar Order heretical because he was pressured too by the French king who owed the order money. Thedas vaguely follows European history, just because some events are comparable it doesn't mean it'll playout the same way. 

Plus i don't remember Justinia V calling the Templars heretics can point to which page in Asunder or cutscene in DA2 that it's mentioned?

Modifié par The Hierophant, 30 mai 2013 - 06:30 .

[DKJaigen]

The Hierophant wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually the comparison is again very apt.  You (and apparently Lambert) is trying to assert that a written condition of union was violated and therefore null and void.  This is an act of Rebellion.

Only because you say so. You've yet to post  links from DA lore that support any of your points while mostly using incidents that are incomparable to the DA verse. Using 19th century U.S. law to discuss Thedosian law makes no sense no matter how you try to force it.

At this point in time we lack the necessary amount of knowledge needed to determine if the NA is bound by any contract laws. Seeing as how the writers like to throw curveballs i'll refrain from stating absolutes as there is little info surrounding the NA. 

I am not.  If you look IRL History, the Pope declared the (real life) Templar Order to be heretical for what really amounted to political reasons.  From the game information we have, the Divine has much the same powers, restrictions, and traditions as the RCC Pope.  What that means on a very practical level is Heresy is what the DIvine says it is (and the Divine can even rewrite or edit the CoL to back her up...and this has happened before).  Yes I know the technical definition of heresy.  The technical definition is also totally irrelevant.

-Polaris

iirc The Pope only declared the Templar Order heretical because he was pressured too by the French king who owed the order money. Thedas vaguely follows European history, just because some events are comparable it doesn't mean it'll playout the same way. 

Plus i don't remember Justinia V calling the Templars heretics can point to which page in Asunder or cutscene in DA2 that it's mentioned?

The chantry at least beleives them to be rebels and that alone is a very severe accusation. treason is rewarded with hanging the last time i looked. The  RL templars are simply used as an example how quick a well respected military order can be destroyed when they receive bad PR. a better comparison for the templar order would be the teutonic knights.

Modifié par DKJaigen, 30 mai 2013 - 07:52 .

[DKJaigen]

The Hierophant wrote...

Rassler wrote...

No but really it makes total sense! They were created to protect humanity but became a dagger on its back. Exactly like Cerberus.

That comparison would only make sense if the Templars' goal is to indirectly exterminate non mages because  they were brainwashed by demons.

its interresting how the templar fanboys never contemplate that their precious templars may be manipulated by outside factions.

[Ausstig]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Filament wrote...

I can't wait to find out Lambert is snuffing red lyrium and all his footsoldiers start glowing red. The inquisitor will have no choice but to voice righteous indignation at the templars steeping so low.

lol  that reminds me of ME3's Cerberus?

I would not be suprised at all if the Templars get the Cerberus treatment.  That does seem to be the way things are starting to look post-Asunder IMO.

-Polaris

I have to admite that would ruin the game for me.

Honestly to have either side as completly good or evil would annoy me as BOTH have good points and their re good people in BOTH orders.

It's like the Holy Land, there are bad people on both sides and good people on both sides, I don't think this issue should be white (or Black) Washed.


note: people who suppourt mage freedom, are you American? I am just wondering if different nations bread different views. thanks

[Lulupab]

Ausstig wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Filament wrote...

I can't wait to find out Lambert is snuffing red lyrium and all his footsoldiers start glowing red. The inquisitor will have no choice but to voice righteous indignation at the templars steeping so low.

lol  that reminds me of ME3's Cerberus?

I would not be suprised at all if the Templars get the Cerberus treatment.  That does seem to be the way things are starting to look post-Asunder IMO.

-Polaris

I have to admite that would ruin the game for me.

Honestly to have either side as completly good or evil would annoy me as BOTH have good points and their re good people in BOTH orders.

It's like the Holy Land, there are bad people on both sides and good people on both sides, I don't think this issue should be white (or Black) Washed.


note: people who suppourt mage freedom, are you American? I am just wondering if different nations bread different views. thanks

Except the seekers are an army as well and both the Templars and Mages left kirkwall in fear of them when they arrived. So Templars can easily go evil while the chantry and seekers remian the good guys.

Modifié par Rassler, 30 mai 2013 - 08:26 .

[Asdrubael Vect]

IanPolaris wrote...

Dark Korsar wrote...

 IanPolaris
"Still, we know that Kirkwall's Circle is fairly large.  Best guess, a few thousand mages.  Fereldan's seems to be smaller."
Gallows was not home prison only for mages but it is a fort for Templars. 

no more than a few hundred mages, Chantry Circles would never keep a 1000 or more  mages in one place because this will require at least 2000-4000 templars(who would need Lyrium every 2 weaks to just having their powers and not go mad) and this is very unwise and expensive

technically i think that Ferelden Circle Tower(by concept art and game) can not contain more than 400-500-600 peoples(mages with Templars)

I believe you are wrong there actually.  If you actually saw the cut scenes of the Gallows, you'd see that the place was designed to hold many thousand slaves.  When you consider the likely populations, then estimating about 1000 mages per circle is assuming that about 1:100 people have magical talent and that may be a low estimate. 

-Polaris

Edit PS:  It's a matter of simple logistics (and don't forget about game to story segretation, the game maps are a lot smaller than the actual buildings).  If we assume that 1:100 people is a mage (and that may be a low estimate), then the fact there is only one circle in Fereldan gives us a national population estimate of about 100,000 or so (within a factor of within 10).  So given this, I think 1000 mages per circle is likely to be a LOW estimate.

before 5 blight Ferelden lands have ~1.000.000 population(all elves, humans, dwarves)

Gwaren have ~10.000, Highever ~20.000, Denerim ~70.000, Redclife village ~200, Lothering village ~500

and Orlais Val Roayx Alianage as we know have more than 10000 elves 

so you can imagine about how many mages(and we know that most of Thedas mages never be or run from circle) and how many  Templars(who are very expensive and have ~15 armys with KC in Thedas) Chantry Circles would posibly have

Orlais White Spire MAYBE can have more than 1000-1500-2000 mages but others will never have more than 1000  because this is very dangerous to keep so many mages in one place and many countries would never accept so many Chantry Templars(and i am not think that Orlais Chantry is so rich to have so many Lyrium and others supply for hundreds/thousands Templars who was protect 14 known circles in Thedas for ~800 years)

only Tevinter Circles would have 1000 or more mages without problem because they not have Chantry-Templars Prisoners system

we know about 14 Chantry Circles...2 circles in Orlais, 2 in Ferelden, 5 in Free Marches, 1 in Antiva, 1 in Anderfels, 1 in Rivain, 1 in Nevarra

and we have know about main Tevinter Circle in Minrathous(according to the known information as we can understand they have ~7 towers(Tevinter Circles located in the ex-Temples of the Old Gods))

i think that in Mage VS Templars war we would have

~10.000-14.000(i am not think that they have more than 20.000)  of ex-circle mages(without apostages of any kind)

and Templars have ~15  KC with 20.000-30.000-40.000 of Templars separeted throughout all Thedas(most of them in Free Marches and Orlais)

Modifié par Dark Korsar, 30 mai 2013 - 07:26 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Rassler wrote...

Except the seekers are an army as well and both the Templars and Mages left kirkwall in fear of them when they arrived. So Templars can easily go evil while the chantry and seekers remian the good guys.

Well, the mages can also easily go full evil while the templars remain the good guys.

[Ausstig]

Rassler wrote...

Ausstig wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Filament wrote...

I can't wait to find out Lambert is snuffing red lyrium and all his footsoldiers start glowing red. The inquisitor will have no choice but to voice righteous indignation at the templars steeping so low.

lol  that reminds me of ME3's Cerberus?

I would not be suprised at all if the Templars get the Cerberus treatment.  That does seem to be the way things are starting to look post-Asunder IMO.

-Polaris

I have to admite that would ruin the game for me.

Honestly to have either side as completly good or evil would annoy me as BOTH have good points and their re good people in BOTH orders.

It's like the Holy Land, there are bad people on both sides and good people on both sides, I don't think this issue should be white (or Black) Washed.


note: people who suppourt mage freedom, are you American? I am just wondering if different nations bread different views. thanks

Except the seekers are an army as well and both the Templars and Mages left kirkwall in fear of them when they arrived. So Templars can easily go evil while the chantry and seekers remian the good guys.

No.




No the Seekers are not an army.




No the Templars did not flee from them.



No, no one needs to go 'evil'. Deamons are evil. Darkspawn are evil. Mages and Templars are people wtih legiterment points and deserved to be treated as such.



You can have a gray and gray fight without making EVERYONE INSANE.

[Lulupab]

Ausstig wrote...

Rassler wrote...

Ausstig wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Filament wrote...

I can't wait to find out Lambert is snuffing red lyrium and all his footsoldiers start glowing red. The inquisitor will have no choice but to voice righteous indignation at the templars steeping so low.

lol  that reminds me of ME3's Cerberus?

I would not be suprised at all if the Templars get the Cerberus treatment.  That does seem to be the way things are starting to look post-Asunder IMO.

-Polaris

I have to admite that would ruin the game for me.

Honestly to have either side as completly good or evil would annoy me as BOTH have good points and their re good people in BOTH orders.

It's like the Holy Land, there are bad people on both sides and good people on both sides, I don't think this issue should be white (or Black) Washed.


note: people who suppourt mage freedom, are you American? I am just wondering if different nations bread different views. thanks

Except the seekers are an army as well and both the Templars and Mages left kirkwall in fear of them when they arrived. So Templars can easily go evil while the chantry and seekers remian the good guys.

No.




No the Seekers are not an army.




No the Templars did not flee from them.



No, no one needs to go 'evil'. Deamons are evil. Darkspawn are evil. Mages and Templars are people wtih legiterment points and deserved to be treated as such.



You can have a gray and gray fight without making EVERYONE INSANE.

People complain that its the Templars job to "police" the mages OK then. If you watched the leged of the seeker its made clear that its the seekers job to watch over the Templars and make sure they behave and follow the chantry. Now that Templars don't follow the chantry the seekers have every right to call Templars heretics and criminals. The seekers are indeed an army, not as big as templars, sure but still large enough. What color do you think Seekers are? white? or gray.

[Ausstig]

Rassler wrote...

Ausstig wrote...

Rassler wrote...

Ausstig wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

Filament wrote...

I can't wait to find out Lambert is snuffing red lyrium and all his footsoldiers start glowing red. The inquisitor will have no choice but to voice righteous indignation at the templars steeping so low.

lol  that reminds me of ME3's Cerberus?

I would not be suprised at all if the Templars get the Cerberus treatment.  That does seem to be the way things are starting to look post-Asunder IMO.

-Polaris

I have to admite that would ruin the game for me.

Honestly to have either side as completly good or evil would annoy me as BOTH have good points and their re good people in BOTH orders.

It's like the Holy Land, there are bad people on both sides and good people on both sides, I don't think this issue should be white (or Black) Washed.


note: people who suppourt mage freedom, are you American? I am just wondering if different nations bread different views. thanks

Except the seekers are an army as well and both the Templars and Mages left kirkwall in fear of them when they arrived. So Templars can easily go evil while the chantry and seekers remian the good guys.

No.




No the Seekers are not an army.




No the Templars did not flee from them.



No, no one needs to go 'evil'. Deamons are evil. Darkspawn are evil. Mages and Templars are people wtih legiterment points and deserved to be treated as such.



You can have a gray and gray fight without making EVERYONE INSANE.

People complain that its the Templars job to "police" the mages OK then. If you watched the leged of the seeker its made clear that its the seekers job to watch over the Templars and make sure they behave and follow the chantry. Now that Templars don't follow the chantry the seekers have every right to call Templars heretics and criminals. The seekers are indeed an army, not as big as templars, sure but still large enough. What color do you think Seekers are? white? or gray.

I did watch legand of the Seeker. The Seekers, of whom I will note Lambert is in charge of, are internal affairs to the Templar police.

This type of organisation would be MUCH smaller then the group they police, 1-30ish maybe.

Also the Seekers where Black. Did you not watch the cutscenes?

I would say I do not know enough about them to make a judgment. Cass looks white, but she may be working for the Divine who let this whole mess happen to begin with so...