336 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Templars are not "heretics", they still follow the Chant of Light, they are just of a different opinion on how to handle mages. There are no religious schism, but more of a idealogical one.

What do you think the definition of Heretic is?  A Heretic is one who claims to follow a given religion but no longer agrees with the orthodoxy of that religion.  Since Templars are rejecting the current orthodoxy on magic coming from the Divine, that makes them Heretics by definition.

No they aren't... The Chantry and the Templars are both adhering to the same canon. They are both following the same faith. The only difference between the two, is how they think the mage situation should be handled. That is not a theological dispute between the two factions, but rather an idealogical schism.
Furthermore, the Templars never "rebelled", all they did was declaring the contract binding them to the service of the Chantry as defunct, since the Chantry failed to live up to their end of the bargain.
And the orthodoxy of the Chantry is certainly NOT to let mages roam free, which is the current situation, which the Templars are working against. All the Templars are guilty of, is to no longer following the Chantry's orders, not heresy. Though I can see why you would try and pin such a loaded term to them.

IanPolaris wrote...

Furthermore, the Templars as a whole have NOT been antagonizing the Grey Wardens, some individual Templars might ahve, but not the Order as a whole. The Templars stand to gain nothing by going to war with the Wardens, and as such, wont do it.

The Templars have been chomping at the bit and very unhappy about Grey Warden mages the entire series.  Only the Chantry's agreement with the Wardens have kept the Templars in check....and sometimes not always then (see Ryloc).  A lot of Templars insist that their authority over magic supercedes that of the Wardens, and those hardliners are now in charge of the Templars.

-Polaris

And you base all of that off of what? A single quote from Greagoir and a single rogue Templar?
The far more logical and likely situation, is that the Templars have been just fine with the Wardens, since both orders have existed for several hundred years without any major incidents, which obviously show a functioning co-existance of the two orders.
So I state it again: the Templars stand to gain nothing from, and have no desire to, engage the Wardens in battle.

[The Hierophant]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

If the Wardens intervene it could send a wrong message to the rulers of the individual kingdoms and hurt their rep like what Sophia Dryden did two centuries ago with Ferelden.

That depends on how it happens.  If the Wardens overtly take sides without provocation, then yes.  However, if the Templars make a move against Grey Warden Mages, then no.  I can easily see the Templars freed from Templar oversight doing a "long overdue" housecleaning of Warden Mages.  If that happens, expect the Wardens to react....badly.

The Templars would deserve detruction as all they would be doing is attacking the military forces of a sovereign nation (Anderfels) while ignoring the said nation's probable allies, and an army of Circle mages who they have to fight.
 

Plus the Templars rebelling is subjective as their only contractual obligation in their partnership with the Chantry (Neverran Accord), was the containment and supervision of mages. Once the mages left the Templars were out of a job.

The mages leaving doesn't invalidate the Nevarran accord.  The Mages under that accord always had the technical right to leave chantry oversight.  It simply wasn't done.  The Templars, however, have chosen open revolt against the Chantry.  Big Difference.

-Polaris

The NA is a contract between the Chantry and the former Inquisition (Templars and Seeker Order). The Inquisition's job was the containment and supervision of mages. Once that was over they owed no loyalty to the Chantry as the conditions in the NA are not met. (No Circle of Magi). If Lambert didn't void the NA then i would consider it a revolt, but he used a legal process to end the alliance to the Chantry.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 27 mai 2013 - 10:38 .

[IanPolaris]

Filament wrote...

All we're really talking about is political alliances, aren't we? Are we saying that the Wardens are pious saints faithful to the true Chant and nothing else? Or do they act more in accord with the political organization that is the Chantry, just like the Templars did?

Actually the Wardens are anything but pious saints and indeed the Wardens predate the Chantry, and many Wardens (Dalish ones) aren't Andrastian at all.  The Wardens fight the blight first, last, and always, and always "do whatever it takes" and that requires a keen eye for politics.

Will the Wardens pick a fight with either side?  I highly doubt it.  Will the newly hardline and independant Templars pick a fight with the Wardens?  This I can easily see.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
No they aren't... The Chantry and the Templars are both adhering to the same canon. They are both following the same faith. The only difference between the two, is how they think the mage situation should be handled. That is not a theological dispute between the two factions, but rather an idealogical schism.

The opposite sides of an idealogical schism in a religion can and DO call each other heretics.  They both claim to follow the same canon, but say the other's interpretation is in error.  That makes them (mutual) heretics.

Furthermore, the Templars never "rebelled", all they did was declaring the contract binding them to the service of the Chantry as defunct, since the Chantry failed to live up to their end of the bargain.
And the orthodoxy of the Chantry is certainly NOT to let mages roam free, which is the current situation, which the Templars are working against. All the Templars are guilty of, is to no longer following the Chantry's orders, not heresy. Though I can see why you would try and pin such a loaded term to them.

The vote wasn't to "let the mages roam free".  The vote was allowed under the terms of the Nevarran accord.  The mages played by the rules (barely I grant, but they did).  The Templars did not.

And you base all of that off of what? A single quote from Greagoir and a single rogue Templar?
The far more logical and likely situation, is that the Templars have been just fine with the Wardens, since both orders have existed for several hundred years without any major incidents, which obviously show a functioning co-existance of the two orders.
So I state it again: the Templars stand to gain nothing from, and have no desire to, engage the Wardens in battle.

There has been a clear pattern shown in the game of Templar unhappiness with the Wardens and their policy towards mages (and Dalish as well I might add). 

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

The Hierophant wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

If the Wardens intervene it could send a wrong message to the rulers of the individual kingdoms and hurt their rep like what Sophia Dryden did two centuries ago with Ferelden.

That depends on how it happens.  If the Wardens overtly take sides without provocation, then yes.  However, if the Templars make a move against Grey Warden Mages, then no.  I can easily see the Templars freed from Templar oversight doing a "long overdue" housecleaning of Warden Mages.  If that happens, expect the Wardens to react....badly.

The Templars would deserve detruction as all they would be doing is attacking the military forces of a sovereign nation (Anderfels) while ignoring the said nation's probable allies, and an army of Circle mages who they have to fight.

That doesn't mean they won't do it.  Lambert strikes he as a guy who is one can short of a six-pack when it comes to magic.
 

Plus the Templars rebelling is subjective as their only contractual obligation in their partnership with the Chantry (Neverran Accord), was the containment and supervision of mages. Once the mages left the Templars were out of a job.

The mages leaving doesn't invalidate the Nevarran accord.  The Mages under that accord always had the technical right to leave chantry oversight.  It simply wasn't done.  The Templars, however, have chosen open revolt against the Chantry.  Big Difference.

-Polaris

The NA is a contract between the Chantry and the former Inquisition (Templars and Seeker Order). The Inquisition's job was the containment and supervision of mages. Once that was over they owed no loyalty to the Chantry as the conditions in the NA are not met. (No Circle of Magi). If Lambert didn't void the NA then i would consider it a revolt, but he used a legal process to end the alliance to the Chantry.

The Circle of magi wasn't disbanded.  The Circle voted to reject Chantry oversight (and only after duress at that).  The Mages played by the rules.  The Templars decided to rebel and break the rules.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
No they aren't... The Chantry and the Templars are both adhering to the same canon. They are both following the same faith. The only difference between the two, is how they think the mage situation should be handled. That is not a theological dispute between the two factions, but rather an idealogical schism.

The opposite sides of an idealogical schism in a religion can and DO call each other heretics.  They both claim to follow the same canon, but say the other's interpretation is in error.  That makes them (mutual) heretics.

The source of the dispute between the Chantry and the Templars is NOT a religious one. It is political, it is idealogical, it is anything BUT religious. It has NOTHING to do with interpreting the words of the Chant of Light, ergo it cannot be heresy. I can't be any more clear, than as crystal clear I am being. If you still don't get it, then it is because you simply need to try and throw this loaded terms at the Templars.

IanPolaris wrote...

Furthermore, the Templars never "rebelled", all they did was declaring the contract binding them to the service of the Chantry as defunct, since the Chantry failed to live up to their end of the bargain.
And the orthodoxy of the Chantry is certainly NOT to let mages roam free, which is the current situation, which the Templars are working against. All the Templars are guilty of, is to no longer following the Chantry's orders, not heresy. Though I can see why you would try and pin such a loaded term to them.

The vote wasn't to "let the mages roam free".  The vote was allowed under the terms of the Nevarran accord.  The mages played by the rules (barely I grant, but they did).  The Templars did not.

The Templars was acting FULLY within the law. Nothing in the Nevarran Accord made it unbreakable. The Circle was most certainly NOT acting within the law. Sure the vote might have been fully legal, but the resulting rebellion of the amges, was not. A mage not in a Circle is an apostate, and illegal. Declaring apostates legal, are not within the power of the Circles.

IanPolaris wrote...

And you base all of that off of what? A single quote from Greagoir and a single rogue Templar?
The far more logical and likely situation, is that the Templars have been just fine with the Wardens, since both orders have existed for several hundred years without any major incidents, which obviously show a functioning co-existance of the two orders.
So I state it again: the Templars stand to gain nothing from, and have no desire to, engage the Wardens in battle.

There has been a clear pattern shown in the game of Templar unhappiness with the Wardens and their policy towards mages (and Dalish as well I might add). 

-Polaris

This "clear" pattern is a grand total of two, TWO, Templars....... Yeah, excuse me for not accepting that shabby theory of yours.

[The Hierophant]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Circle of magi wasn't disbanded.  The Circle voted to reject Chantry oversight (and only after duress at that).  The Mages played by the rules.  The Templars decided to rebel and break the rules.

-Polaris

The conditions of the Nevarran Accord stated that the Inquisition (Templars, Seeker Order) are to capture mages, and supervise them. Since the Circle of Magi isn't under Templar control or surpervision doesn't that render the Nevarran Accord moot?

Mind you the Accord is a contractually obligated alliance and since the terms are not met they don't owe Justinia V or the Chantry by extension loyalty as the conditions are not met. 

Modifié par The Hierophant, 27 mai 2013 - 10:55 .

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
No they aren't... The Chantry and the Templars are both adhering to the same canon. They are both following the same faith. The only difference between the two, is how they think the mage situation should be handled. That is not a theological dispute between the two factions, but rather an idealogical schism.

The opposite sides of an idealogical schism in a religion can and DO call each other heretics.  They both claim to follow the same canon, but say the other's interpretation is in error.  That makes them (mutual) heretics.

The source of the dispute between the Chantry and the Templars is NOT a religious one. It is political, it is idealogical, it is anything BUT religious. It has NOTHING to do with interpreting the words of the Chant of Light, ergo it cannot be heresy. I can't be any more clear, than as crystal clear I am being. If you still don't get it, then it is because you simply need to try and throw this loaded terms at the Templars.

Sorry but idealogical schisms in a religion DO call each other heretics.  It's what the word means...and yes it does have everything to do with some different interpretations of "magic is meant to serve man and not rule him".  I point out that Christains have called each other heretics for less.  Look up the thirty years war.  I also note that when monastic orders within the RCC differ on idealogical grounds, the first thing the Holy See will do is declare them Heretics via the Holy Office of the Inquisition.  The offending order then has the opportunity to 'address' this error (which means fall back in line with the idealogical bent of the Pope).

IanPolaris wrote...

Furthermore, the Templars never "rebelled", all they did was declaring the contract binding them to the service of the Chantry as defunct, since the Chantry failed to live up to their end of the bargain.
And the orthodoxy of the Chantry is certainly NOT to let mages roam free, which is the current situation, which the Templars are working against. All the Templars are guilty of, is to no longer following the Chantry's orders, not heresy. Though I can see why you would try and pin such a loaded term to them.

The vote wasn't to "let the mages roam free".  The vote was allowed under the terms of the Nevarran accord.  The mages played by the rules (barely I grant, but they did).  The Templars did not.

The Templars was acting FULLY within the law. Nothing in the Nevarran Accord made it unbreakable. The Circle was most certainly NOT acting within the law. Sure the vote might have been fully legal, but the resulting rebellion of the amges, was not. A mage not in a Circle is an apostate, and illegal. Declaring apostates legal, are not within the power of the Circles.

Once the Circle LEGALLY voted to divorce themselves from the Chantry, the Mages were not in rebellion by definition.  You seen unable or unwilling to accept this.  It was Lambert that acted outside Chantry law.  The vote did not make Apostates legal.  It merely said that the circle was no longer under the supervision of the Chantry.  You are conflating different things.

IanPolaris wrote...

And you base all of that off of what? A single quote from Greagoir and a single rogue Templar?
The far more logical and likely situation, is that the Templars have been just fine with the Wardens, since both orders have existed for several hundred years without any major incidents, which obviously show a functioning co-existance of the two orders.
So I state it again: the Templars stand to gain nothing from, and have no desire to, engage the Wardens in battle.

There has been a clear pattern shown in the game of Templar unhappiness with the Wardens and their policy towards mages (and Dalish as well I might add). 

-Polaris

This "clear" pattern is a grand total of two, TWO, Templars....... Yeah, excuse me for not accepting that shabby theory of yours.

Believe what you like.  You always do.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

The Hierophant wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The Circle of magi wasn't disbanded.  The Circle voted to reject Chantry oversight (and only after duress at that).  The Mages played by the rules.  The Templars decided to rebel and break the rules.

-Polaris

The conditions of the Nevarran Accord stated that the Inquisition (Templars, Seeker Order) are to capture mages, and supervise them. Since the Circle of Magi isn't under Templar control or surpervision doesn't that render the Nevarran Accord moot?

Mind you the Accord is a contractually obligated alliance and since the terms are not met they don't owe Justinia V or the Chantry by extension loyalty as the conditions are not met. 

That means that Texas should have the right to declare itself an independant nation since the Treaty Terms of the Texas treaty of Annexation are no longer being honored?

I don't think so.  The Templars pledged loyalty and became a part of the Chantry.  By voiding the agreement the Templars are in rebellion and thus heretics.  If that wasn't so, then no church or nation would be able to hold itself together.

-Polaris

[The Hierophant]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The Circle of magi wasn't disbanded.  The Circle voted to reject Chantry oversight (and only after duress at that).  The Mages played by the rules.  The Templars decided to rebel and break the rules.

-Polaris

The conditions of the Nevarran Accord stated that the Inquisition (Templars, Seeker Order) are to capture mages, and supervise them. Since the Circle of Magi isn't under Templar control or surpervision doesn't that render the Nevarran Accord moot?

Mind you the Accord is a contractually obligated alliance and since the terms are not met they don't owe Justinia V or the Chantry by extension loyalty as the conditions are not met. 

That means that Texas should have the right to declare itself an independant nation since the Treaty Terms of the Texas treaty of Annexation are no longer being honored?

I don't think so.  The Templars pledged loyalty and became a part of the Chantry.  By voiding the agreement the Templars are in rebellion and thus heretics.  If that wasn't so, then no church or nation would be able to hold itself together.

-Polaris

Your analogy doesn't match up as the Neverran Accord is a contractual partnership that requires the Templars and Seekers  to capture and supervise mages. Justinia V is going against the Nevarran Accord by hindering Lambert, and the Templars in Asunder. Isn't that a betrayal, and a breech in the contract?

Your point would hold weight if it's stated that it's illegal for the Lord Seeker who's the highest ranking officer of both orders to terminate the contract after a vote amongst the Knight Commanders after Justinia's actions conflicted with the Accord. So far we don't fully know the legality of  Lambert voiding the contract after Justinia V's betrayal.

Plus the disagreement on the Templar's control of the Circle of Magi is not heretical as it's about them meeting the conditions of the Nevarran Accord, and it doesn't conflict with the Chant of Light which is a religous doctrine.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 28 mai 2013 - 12:52 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...
No they aren't... The Chantry and the Templars are both adhering to the same canon. They are both following the same faith. The only difference between the two, is how they think the mage situation should be handled. That is not a theological dispute between the two factions, but rather an idealogical schism.
[/quote]

The opposite sides of an idealogical schism in a religion can and DO call each other heretics.  They both claim to follow the same canon, but say the other's interpretation is in error.  That makes them (mutual) heretics.[/quote]
The source of the dispute between the Chantry and the Templars is NOT a religious one. It is political, it is idealogical, it is anything BUT religious. It has NOTHING to do with interpreting the words of the Chant of Light, ergo it cannot be heresy. I can't be any more clear, than as crystal clear I am being. If you still don't get it, then it is because you simply need to try and throw this loaded terms at the Templars.
[/quote]

Sorry but idealogical schisms in a religion DO call each other heretics.  It's what the word means...and yes it does have everything to do with some different interpretations of "magic is meant to serve man and not rule him".  I point out that Christains have called each other heretics for less.  Look up the thirty years war.  I also note that when monastic orders within the RCC differ on idealogical grounds, the first thing the Holy See will do is declare them Heretics via the Holy Office of the Inquisition.  The offending order then has the opportunity to 'address' this error (which means fall back in line with the idealogical bent of the Pope).[/quote]
Okay, you are officially as dense as a brick wall.... Again, being as crystal clear as is humanly possible, there is NOTHING religious about the dispute between the Chantry and the Templars. The Templars felt that the deal they made with the Chantry was not being honored, so they declared the Accord defunct, which is fully within their rights. Again, nothing here makes for a religious dispute, merely one of political character. All the Templars have done, is refuse to follow the orders of the Chantry anymore. That is not heretical, since the Chantry doesn't hold any authority over them, anymore anyway. And no, it is not about interpreting the words of the CHant of Light differently. Both factions agree that there is a mage issue. They however disagree about the severity with which it should be dealt with. Again, not a heretical notion.
Please stop trying to make it happen... The Templars are NOT heretics. It is a loaded term that you would love to try and hamfist onto the Templars, but that does not make it so.

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[quote]
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[quote]
Furthermore, the Templars never "rebelled", all they did was declaring the contract binding them to the service of the Chantry as defunct, since the Chantry failed to live up to their end of the bargain.
And the orthodoxy of the Chantry is certainly NOT to let mages roam free, which is the current situation, which the Templars are working against. All the Templars are guilty of, is to no longer following the Chantry's orders, not heresy. Though I can see why you would try and pin such a loaded term to them.[/quote]
The vote wasn't to "let the mages roam free".  The vote was allowed under the terms of the Nevarran accord.  The mages played by the rules (barely I grant, but they did).  The Templars did not.[/quote]
The Templars was acting FULLY within the law. Nothing in the Nevarran Accord made it unbreakable. The Circle was most certainly NOT acting within the law. Sure the vote might have been fully legal, but the resulting rebellion of the amges, was not. A mage not in a Circle is an apostate, and illegal. Declaring apostates legal, are not within the power of the Circles.
[/quote]
Once the Circle LEGALLY voted to divorce themselves from the Chantry, the Mages were not in rebellion by definition.  You seen unable or unwilling to accept this.  It was Lambert that acted outside Chantry law.  The vote did not make Apostates legal.  It merely said that the circle was no longer under the supervision of the Chantry.  You are conflating different things.[/quote]
It was not their choice to make. The Circle does not hold the legal power to release themselves of Chantry oversight. The vote was legal, the result was not, and the mages knew fully well, that the outcome of their vote would be war. Lambert on the other hand, as the head of his Order, was fully within his rights to declare the Accord defunct, since the Chantry was no longer fulfilling its end of the bargain.

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[quote]
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[quote]And you base all of that off of what? A single quote from Greagoir and a single rogue Templar?
The far more logical and likely situation, is that the Templars have been just fine with the Wardens, since both orders have existed for several hundred years without any major incidents, which obviously show a functioning co-existance of the two orders.
So I state it again: the Templars stand to gain nothing from, and have no desire to, engage the Wardens in battle.[/quote]

There has been a clear pattern shown in the game of Templar unhappiness with the Wardens and their policy towards mages (and Dalish as well I might add). 

-Polaris[/quote]
This "clear" pattern is a grand total of two, TWO, Templars....... Yeah, excuse me for not accepting that shabby theory of yours.
[/quote]

Believe what you like.  You always do.

-Polaris[/quote]
Pot meet kettle.... However I would still like for you to show us more of this "clear pattern". Since I for the love of all that is holy, can't think of any more of this marvellously clear pattern than those two specific, isolated, cases.

[IanPolaris]

I would be shocked if the Chantry doesn't declare the Templars heretical. If you think that IRL the Catholic church didn't for what amounted to political reasons, think again. I also would venture that once the Templars incorporated themselves into the Chantry and accepted Chantry oversight over the terms of how mages are to be looked after (see Right of Annulment) that the Chantry would regard what the Templars are doing as a naked act of rebellion, treason, and yes heresy.

Basically heresy is what the Divine says it is. This is why openly breaking with the Chantry was a really stupid move on the part of the Templars regardless of how (they think) they were provoked.

-Polaris

[The Hierophant]

IanPolaris wrote...

I would be shocked if the Chantry doesn't declare the Templars heretical. If you think that IRL the Catholic church didn't for what amounted to political reasons, think again. I also would venture that once the Templars incorporated themselves into the Chantry and accepted Chantry oversight over the terms of how mages are to be looked after (see Right of Annulment) that the Chantry would regard what the Templars are doing as a naked act of rebellion, treason, and yes heresy.

Basically heresy is what the Divine says it is. This is why openly breaking with the Chantry was a really stupid move on the part of the Templars regardless of how (they think) they were provoked.

-Polaris

True Justinia V could declare them heretics as the general public lacks knowledge of the Nevarran Accord which makes it a probable good pr move for her, but it'll open up a can of worms as her sending Leliana to free the mages led to the deaths of all the Templar guards. She already has enemies among the Chantry's clergy and now she has a pissed off rogue military force who's butthurt at her actions. 

Personally i view the Templar's separation from the Chantry as a good thing (a chance for a religious free police force), but the problem is it's made up of uncompromising zealots.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 28 mai 2013 - 01:50 .

[Medhia Nox]

The question is - are the Templars anything like a real knightly order?

If so - they've got boatloads of resources. It was still stupid to tell the Chantry to ****** off - but not suicide (well, it was - but not immediate, easily induced, suicide)

Not unstoppable to be sure - but certainly far exceeding that of a few socially retarded mages who've been locked in towers since they were eight. ((That the mages are not represented in the same vain as socially maladjusted academics is a pity and not at all playing to their proposed imprisonment.))

[azarhal]

Medhia Nox wrote...

The question is - are the Templars anything like a real knightly order?
 

The Templars were the army of the Chantry, any money, training, buildings, lyrium they got legally was through the Chantry's coffer. They don't own lands and if they had taken vows, they can't have wifes, titles or possessions.

Also, I don't understand why people are arguing here. Varric himself said that the Templars rebelled in DA2, that's how none-Chantry people see the conflict: Chantry lost of the Circles and the Templars rebelled. On top of that, we don't know what is said in the Nevarran Accord and all the parties that signed it. We only know that the Seeker of Truth (the Inquisition) joined the Chantry through it and that it resulted in the birth of the Templars and Circles are we know them now. It doesn't mean that the Circles didn't exist before the accord or that the templars have any autonomy outside of the Chantry oversight if the accord is annuled (something that haven't happened yet, Lambert's letter is still on his desk...).

[BlueMagitek]

Medhia Nox wrote...

The question is - are the Templars anything like a real knightly order?

If so - they've got boatloads of resources. It was still stupid to tell the Chantry to ****** off - but not suicide (well, it was - but not immediate, easily induced, suicide)

Not unstoppable to be sure - but certainly far exceeding that of a few socially retarded mages who've been locked in towers since they were eight. ((That the mages are not represented in the same vain as socially maladjusted academics is a pity and not at all playing to their proposed imprisonment.))

Well the mages have created their own sexually liberated society, if Anders is anything to go by (from Awakening).  He could have just been ****ing with us though.

[IanPolaris]

Medhia Nox wrote...

The question is - are the Templars anything like a real knightly order?

If so - they've got boatloads of resources. It was still stupid to tell the Chantry to ****** off - but not suicide (well, it was - but not immediate, easily induced, suicide)

Not unstoppable to be sure - but certainly far exceeding that of a few socially retarded mages who've been locked in towers since they were eight. ((That the mages are not represented in the same vain as socially maladjusted academics is a pity and not at all playing to their proposed imprisonment.))

IRL there was a religious order of knighthood that ran afoul the Catholic Church, and they did control almost all the banking in Europe and had loads of resources.  They were the Knights Templar.

That didn't save them when the Pope declared them to be Heretical (for what really amounted to trumped up Heresy charges) and it didn't stop the Church and other nations from seizing their property or putting their members to the torch.

I am very sure that the Templars in Thedas had far less indepedance and resources than the real Knight Templar of the 13th century.

-Polaris

[kinderschlager]

 i am confused, where are y'all getting all this info? i am finding nothing on the web about anything y'all are talking about....

[IanPolaris]

kinderschlager wrote...

 i am confused, where are y'all getting all this info? i am finding nothing on the web about anything y'all are talking about....

If you are talking about the real knights Templar, google it.  The order did exist, was declared heretical (and destroyed) and did have a huge amount of resources and poltical influence before they did.

As for the rest, there are various canonical sources including the Dragon Age Wiki.

-Polaris

[kinderschlager]

IanPolaris wrote...

kinderschlager wrote...

 i am confused, where are y'all getting all this info? i am finding nothing on the web about anything y'all are talking about....

If you are talking about the real knights Templar, google it.  The order did exist, was declared heretical (and destroyed) and did have a huge amount of resources and poltical influence before they did.

As for the rest, there are various canonical sources including the Dragon Age Wiki.

-Polaris

in regards to the actual game....

[DKJaigen]

How childlike naive the templar supporters are is once again apparent. I doesnt matter if they are heretics its how the chantry will portray them. And the chantry will portray them as heretics.

IRL our own templar order was wiped out because the pope said: they be heretics. While their was no proof what so ever. The templars betrayal of the chantry will give them a very bad rep.

And saying that the grey wardens are neutral is laughable. The grey wardens have powerplays going on and i find it more then suspicious that Fiona  who dispises the circle system return to something she hates. Its also suspicious she destroys the circle when there is an obviously pro mage divine in charge that was actively trying to make reforms within the circle. She is either stupid or the the grey wardens planted Fiona their to gain control of the circle of mages.

[LobselVith8]

DKJaigen wrote...

And saying that the grey wardens are neutral is laughable. The grey wardens have powerplays going on and i find it more then suspicious that Fiona  who dispises the circle system return to something she hates.

Fiona explains her reason for returning to the Circle and trying to help her people: "I came to the Circle from the Grey Wardens because I saw something had to be done. In the Wardens, we learn to watch for our moment and seize it - and that moment is now."

DKJaigen wrote...

Its also suspicious she destroys the circle when there is an obviously pro mage divine in charge that was actively trying to make reforms within the circle. She is either stupid or the the grey wardens planted Fiona their to gain control of the circle of mages. 

Saying that Divine Justina V is pro-mage is a stretch when she was willing to sack Kirkwall if the mages gained autonomy. Being willing to give the mages some concessions so they remain under the auspicies of the Chantry doesn't make Justina pro-mage.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
IRL there was a religious order of knighthood that ran afoul the Catholic Church, and they did control almost all the banking in Europe and had loads of resources.  They were the Knights Templar.

That didn't save them when the Pope declared them to be Heretical (for what really amounted to trumped up Heresy charges) and it didn't stop the Church and other nations from seizing their property or putting their members to the torch.

I am very sure that the Templars in Thedas had far less indepedance and resources than the real Knight Templar of the 13th century.

-Polaris

13th century Europe also didn't have mages to deal with. Also, the reason for the charges was their vast wealth.

The Chantry gains nothing from warring with the Templars.
They loose their military might, they loose resources, they loose their weapon against mages.

Mind you, the templars aren't hostile to the Chantry - they just parted ways because of what Justinia did, and they are full in the right for doing so. Justina was actively sabotaging them.