336 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

azarhal wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If the Templars have fortresses
around Thedas, they most certainly have more resources than the
consensus seems to be. If they have fortresses they will most certainly
have serfs, which would supply them with both provisions and taxes. So
the Templars are probably more or less self-sustaine.

The Templars don't have fortresses. They live in Chantry's owned buildings all their lives or  in the Circles's building with the Mages.

You base your statement off of what? We know that the Templars lived in the Circles along with the mages. These are basically fortresses, and they would also have their own serfs, which would supply each individual Circle with supplies.
It stands to reason that the Templars have strongholds throughout Thedas, sicne they are a knightly order. Some Templars are stationed in Chantries sure, and they might recieve their trainning, or at least initial trainning, in Chantries. But we simply do not have enough available data, to flat out state that the Templars does not have any fortresses of their own, especially since it would stand to reason that they did.

The information we DO have tells us that the Templars are not independant of the Chantry.  The order they grew from was, that that order is long gone.  We know that the Templar recruits are pulled from Chantry training.  We know that the Chantry supplies all the logistics for the Templars including Lyrium, and we KNOW that it's the Priesthood and not the Templars that are ultimately supposed to call the shots (which is why the Right of Annulment is written the way it is).

Bottom line, the Templars are viewed as rebels, and as such Divine Justina would be within her rights to call the entire order both Rebellious and Heretical, and furthermore it would be smart politics (esp with her strained relationship with the Empress of Orlais) to do just that.

-Polaris

Where EXACTLY is it stated that the Chantry provided anything else than Lyrium to the Templars?

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Where EXACTLY is it stated that the Chantry provided anything else than Lyrium to the Templars?

I believe the Codex entries state that Brothers that show a martial bent are then trained in the Templars.  You are also shifting goalposts.  We are told from the beginning that the Templars were the Military Arm of the Chantry and thus part of it.  We are NOT told anything different than this.  That means that if the Templars rebel, they lose Chantry logistical support.

-Polaris

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

azarhal wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You base your statement off of what? We know that the Templars lived in the Circles along with the mages. These are basically fortresses, and they would also have their own serfs, which would supply each individual Circle with supplies.
It stands to reason that the Templars have strongholds throughout Thedas, sicne they are a knightly order. Some Templars are stationed in Chantries sure, and they might recieve their trainning, or at least initial trainning, in Chantries. But we simply do not have enough available data, to flat out state that the Templars does not have any fortresses of their own, especially since it would stand to reason that they did.

I'm basing it on World of Thedas, two games, a bunch of dlcs/expansion, comics and one anime worth of lore that only call the Templars the Chantry's militant arm and a military order and makes no mention of them owning anything be it building, lands, servants, serfs or titles beside their ranks. The lore also says that the Templars must follow the local Chantry leader...(be it a Grand Cleric or a Mother).

Particularly the part of being "the militant arm" would also imply that they have fortifications around Thedas. None of what you state as your indisputable proof, also does not say that the Templars DON'T have any fortifications. Basically you are using nothing as proof of your statement, since the sources you pull, makes no reference one way or another to the subject. So you are basically just stating your own belief as to how the Templars function.
And so far the only direct reference we have to where the Templars must follow the Grand Cleric, is when an annulment is called, or dismissed. Otheriwse it is the Knight-Commander who is calling the shots. I'm guessing that the Templar and Chantry ranks run parallel to eachother, with the Chantry's ranks being a bit displaced above the Templars. So a Knight-Captain is equivalent to the Revered Mother, which would mean that the Knight-Comamnder would not take orders from the Revered Mother, but only from a Grand Cleric, or the Divine Herself. Furthermore, taking orders from Chantry officials, does in no way shape or form, preclude the existance of a Templar Fortress, you don't have to live in the same building as the one you take your orders from....

Even if your BS was true forget about it. Varric and Cassandra believe the templars have gone rogue and what the people believe is important.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote..
Actually the Chantry does benefit.  You simply don't want to admit it.  Right now the Templars are in open rebellion, and likely foraging the land (and 'foraging' is a euphamistic term for pillaging and looting), and worse they are an army unto themselves.

NO Nation or ruler is going to take kindly to this, and most nations (starting with the Empress of Orlais) will blame the Chantry.  The Chantry can either pretend that Lambert's split never happened, or they can throw the Templars under the bus.  We know as of Dragon 9:40 (see Varric) that the Chantry has chosen to throw the Templars under the bus.

As for mages, you assume that magic can't be regulated any other way, but a lot of us have given strong evidence that this simply isn't so.    What's more, the old way of doing this will not be coming back, and I'd be suprised if magic was ever (entirely) under Chantry control ever again.  That doesn't main mages will be able to  do whatever they want with magic.  Most reasonable mages understand that magic needs to be regulated.

I expect the various rulers will come up with ways (in conjuction with the circles) to control magic.

-Polaris

They will blame the Chantry? And why not mages? And even if they blame the Chantry, so what? The Chantry can take it. It is a monolithic entity that spans a continent. What will Orlais do a bout it? Nothing, that's what.
There's nothing they CAN do, since monst of thedas population are Andrastians.

The Chantry doesn't have to throw the Templars under the bus, it can throw the mages and loose far less.
Or are you forgetting - by our own admission, the Chatnry is only looking for a scape goat. Use mages. Problem solved.

Rulers coming up with ways to control magic? HA! Yeah right. Like that will work.

You are biased.

What? It's time for "pot, kettle, black" again?
Unless you are implying you aren't biased (which is something NO ONE will believe you anyway, so you might as well not waste anyones time by saying it), that statmement of yours is pointless.

It is very much in the best interests of the Chantry to throw the
Templars under the bus if they don't come back.  Otherwise the Chanty
will lose good will from just about everyone else.

Again, claming for a fact future events.
Who told you they will loose good will form everyone else? Who told oyu it's hte only thing to do? Your bias, that's who.

Which is immediately verified by Cassandra, a Chantry Loyalist.  She
doesn't dispute Varric's characterization of the Templars at all save
to say that not all desire war.

Not disputing is not the same as veryfing. I think Cassandra had a lot more importnat thing on her mind than correcting a silly dwarf every time he is incorrect.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

They will blame the Chantry? And why not mages? And even if they blame the Chantry, so what? The Chantry can take it. It is a monolithic entity that spans a continent. What will Orlais do a bout it? Nothing, that's what.
There's nothing they CAN do, since monst of thedas population are Andrastians.

The Chantry was supposed to be in charge of the Mages AND the Templars and now there is a war.  Who do you think would get blamed?! 

The Chantry doesn't have to throw the Templars under the bus, it can throw the mages and loose far less.
Or are you forgetting - by our own admission, the Chatnry is only looking for a scape goat. Use mages. Problem solved.

Doesn't work.  If the Chantry were willing to throw mages under the bus, the Templars would have never left.  You can't unring a bell.  The letter that Lambert writes to the Divine is pure treason from the Chantry PoV.  The Divine can not overlook it.  The Chantry has no choice but to declare Lambert and those that follow him to be in rebellion.  By contrast the mages DID follow at least the letter of the law (or at least tried).  This is made clear at th end of DA2.  The Circles broke away, but the Templars rebelled.

Rulers coming up with ways to control magic? HA! Yeah right. Like that will work.

Your bias is showing.  Magic was dealt with long before there was a Chantry or the Circles, and even today societies exist that handle magic relatively well.  You simply refuse to aknowledge this.

You are biased.

What? It's time for "pot, kettle, black" again?
Unless you are implying you aren't biased (which is something NO ONE will believe you anyway, so you might as well not waste anyones time by saying it), that statmement of yours is pointless.

This difference is I am not rejecting arguements simply because I don't agree with them.  You seem to make a habit of this.

It is very much in the best interests of the Chantry to throw the
Templars under the bus if they don't come back.  Otherwise the Chanty
will lose good will from just about everyone else.

Again, claming for a fact future events.
Who told you they will loose good will form everyone else? Who told oyu it's hte only thing to do? Your bias, that's who.

Sure it's speculation, but it's good solid speculation with a solid foundation in facts and what we already know.  We already know that the Templars have been stuck with the rebel label by the Chantry by 9:40 and World of Thedas confirms this.  We also know that the Templars broke away from the Chantry against the Divine's wishes.  That is an act of rebellion.  The Chantry has no choice but to act accordingly or the Chantry looses all future authority.  By contrast the circles were never part of the Chantry.  That may be a technicality in your eyes, but it's an important one.

Which is immediately verified by Cassandra, a Chantry Loyalist.  She
doesn't dispute Varric's characterization of the Templars at all save
to say that not all desire war.

Not disputing is not the same as veryfing. I think Cassandra had a lot more importnat thing on her mind than correcting a silly dwarf every time he is incorrect.

Her answer DOES confirm it.  She says "not all of us want war".  She implicitly confirms that Lamberts Templars DO want war in contradiction of the Divine who does not, and by extension confirms Varric's claim that such Templars are in a state of rebellion.

-Polaris

[Medhia Nox]

@IanPolaris: And who do you think culturally will be accused for all the devastation?

The holy warriors and defenders against demons?

Or the demon summoning blood mages?

The war is almost incidental - as both factions are ultimately screwed.

But rulers are going to have to deal with integrating mages into their societies - and the illusion that kings simply told their nations what to do and everyone just obeyed is grossly incorrect (though maybe that's how it works in fantasy worlds - dunno).

As for their resources - I think we're glossing over the reality that these Templars needed military compounds "somewhere". And those military compounds have a far greater chance of being castles/keeps/fortresses. Circle "towers" are not autonomous structures at all. A castle would have stores to outlast a siege - those towers would have only the most limited of resources (most likely).

========

Both factions are doomed to failure - but the Templars have been in society since forever. The mages would be a new minority forced onto the populace.

If you want to know how that has turned out in our real history? Not well.

Now - turn that minority into a genuine fireball throwing, demon summoning, mind controlling threat.

I truly believe the idea that mages would ever be accepted by the populace is delusional and people equating them to real world minorities are simply projecting their own chips on their shoulders. They are not harmless people with a different color of skin or sexual orientation.  They're walking weaponry.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 28 mai 2013 - 04:51 .

[IanPolaris]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@IanPolaris: And who do you think culturally will be accused for all the devastation?

The holy warriors and defenders against demons?

You mean the bloodthirsty heretics who are defying the Chantry and the Divine, and burning villiages to the ground with their incessant witch hunts?  The old Inquisition had a very deservedly dark reputation before the modern chantry and it had that reputation for a reason.

I think the Templars will be blamed plenty.

Or the demon summoning blood mages?

The war is almost incidental - as both factions are ultimately screwed.

Rulers have a strong incentive to 'make nice' with the circles and now the Chantry does too, and the Chantry can do a lot to mitigate the negative traditional press against mages....and so can the local nobility.

But rulers are going to have to deal with integrating mages into their societies - and the illusion that kings simply told their nations what to do and everyone just obeyed is grossly incorrect (though maybe that's how it works in fantasy worlds - dunno).

Rulers (esp strong ones) CAN drag populations into new ways of thinking, sometimes at spearpoint granted, but it can be done.  See Peter the Great of Russia and Frederick the Great of Prussia.

As for their resources - I think we're glossing over the reality that these Templars needed military compounds "somewhere". And those military compounds have a far greater chance of being castles/keeps/fortresses. Circle "towers" are not autonomous structures at all. A castle would have stores to outlast a siege - those towers would have only the most limited of resources (most likely).

Those resources belonged to the Chantry, and I am quite sure the Chantry would rather have the secular princes have them (esp for political alliances and gain) rather than rebellous Templars.  This in turn gives the secular nobility even more reason to fight the Templars.

Both factions are doomed to failure - but the Templars have been in society since forever. The mages would be a new minority forced onto the populace.

Actually neither is really part of society.  The Templars tend to be more visible true, but they had always been isolated.  I also note that an army of drug-addicted fanatics that goes rampaging through lands on literal witch hunts is not going to get much secular noble support.

If you want to know how that has turned out in our real history? Not well.

Now - turn that minority into a genuine fireball throwing, demon summoning, mind controlling threat.

I truly believe the idea that mages would ever be accepted by the populace is delusional and people equating them to real world minorities are simply projecting their own chips on their shoulders. They are not harmless people with a different color of skin or sexual orientation.  They're walking weaponry.

With power comes respect.  Given that the circles can negotiate with the nobles with genuine power of their own gives them an advantage that most minorities don't have. 

-Polaris

[Medhia Nox]

@IanPolaris: Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against your very valid point that breaking from the Chantry was stupid.

I just think the mages have made equally stupid steps - and are genuinely less equipped.

One thing I will disagree with is the power of a monarch to control a population. If you think these peasants - and local lords - are going to be happy having mages integrated, I think you're mistaken. (Of course - it's a game, and the writers can simply say "Happiness for all.")

Actually - I don't think much of the world "respects" America's military might at all. They fear and loathe it actually. So I don't agree with that statement.

Also - this "power" isn't a possession - it's a being. A dangerous being with thoughts of their own. Appeasing a dangerous person only lasts so long before you decide that the cost has outweighed the benefit.

I'm not saying nobody - anywhere - will take advantage of rogue mages. I think many small nobles would try carving out their own nations with them actually. Rebelling against their monarchs with newfound "power".

Ancient and Medieval Europe was already an unstable place full of assassinations and conquest... I feel that magic would create utter bedlam throughout Thedas.

And I truly hope that's what occurs if mages are integrated.

Dragon Age has always pointed to the "evil" nature of magic - that it's a corrupting tool and that most mages succumb to that corruption and abuse others to feed their own selfish natures.

To turn Thedas into a magic utopia would do the series a disservice.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 28 mai 2013 - 05:13 .

[IanPolaris]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@IanPolaris: Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against your very valid point that breaking from the Chantry was stupid.

I just think the mages have made equally stupid steps - and are genuinely less equipped.

One thing I will disagree with is the power of a monarch to control a population. If you think these peasants - and local lords - are going to be happy having mages integrated, I think you're mistaken. (Of course - it's a game, and the writers can simply say "Happiness for all.")

I think that in large part depends on the local conditions.  If the mages are clearly under royal control and actively help, I think there will be a lot less antagonism than you think.  Now I am not saying that the circles won't have problems or that all nobles will be equally receptive, but we already know that Fereldan and Nevarra are.

Actually - I don't think much of the world "respects" America's military might at all. They fear and loathe it actually. So I don't agree with that statement.

What does this have to do with anything.  I wasn't talking about modern politics.  That said, I remind you of what Machievelli once said, "If you have to choose between having your people fear you or love you, you should always pick fear."  Fear IS power.

Also - this "power" isn't a possession - it's a being. A dangerous being with thoughts of their own. Appeasing a dangerous person only lasts so long before you decide that the cost has outweighed the benefit.

There will be some that abuse their power (there always is of any stripe), but if both sides have power, and both sides have need, then genuine negotiations can happen.  There is an old saying, "You have to give in order to get" and the mages and nobility are well suited to give and get on both sides.

I'm not saying nobody - anywhere - will take advantage of rogue mages. I think many small nobles would try carving out their own nations with them actually. Rebelling against their monarchs with newfound "power".

We aren't talking about rogue mages (and various nobles have always had semi-secret rogue mages working for them).  We are talking about organized circles complete with training and education.  We already know that Fereldan for example is a mage-haven even before the events of Asunder and Orazmmar under Bhelen likely is as well.  If you think the other princes won't follow suit then you are badly misinformed about the nature of politics and power.

Ancient and Medieval Europe was already an unstable place full of assassinations and conquest... I feel that magic would create utter bedlam throughout Thedas.

[Citation Needed]  You have no proof that magic will do anything of the sort.  In fact Tevinter is remarkably stable.  I admit that it's an evil place but that's because it's run by evil people (and magic has nothing to do with that).

And I truly hope that's what occurs if mages are integrated.

Your bias is showing.

Dragon Age has always pointed to the "evil" nature of magic - that it's a corrupting tool and that most mages succumb to that corruption and abuse others to feed their own selfish natures.

To turn Thedas into a magic utopia would do the series a disservice.

This is why the overwhelming majority in BOTH DAO and DA2 (even after the rash of evil blood mages) of players side with the mages?  I'd say that Dragon Age presents magic as a misunderstood force of nature and those with magic to be an oppressed minority, and I think the numbers that side with the mages reflect this.

-Polaris

[Medhia Nox]

How is my bias showing? Is there some discussion to win? Was there some bias I was supposed to keep hidden?

If my "bias" was hidden before - then I haven't blathered on about hating blood magic (on principle and as a storytelling concept) and rebel mages quite enough.

That I agree that the Templars are going to be crushed - and should be - might suggest I have no bias. Since I don't agree with either faction.  (and do not willfully ignore advantages of one side to support my bias for another)

But I am more inclined against the mages, because they're being openly duplicitous (we're harmless and want to be just like everyone else - only, with fireballs - which you all won't possess, but ignore that terrible hypocrisy because we told you to and we have the fireballs). This goes far beyond economic disparity - and can only end in a new breed of Tevinter (why would a mage want a non-mage child?)

===

Machievalli also said that to be both loved and feared trumped either of them singly.

And he only chooses fear over love - because fear can be enforced while love is in the hands of the possessor. You know - like magic. Love is fickle and can be lost. Machievalli would likely never promote acquiring elements of power that could turn against you. (Since he doesn't when it comes to love and we have no example in The Prince of him suggesting to acquire dangerous factions around you that might overpower you.)

I believe embracing the mages will be abandoning the love of the peasantry purposefully (though, it's true any given monarch may not have had it to begin with). Giving up any chance to have the greatest form of ruling is short sighted at the very least.  (also not saying Thedas' rulers aren't shortsighted - Alistair is a complete imbecile after all - but I'm ashamed of Anora)

Machiavelli did not support fascist dictatorships.  Power was to be used reluctantly - though also without hesitation when no other option was available.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 28 mai 2013 - 05:50 .

[The Hierophant]

IanPolaris wrote...

This is why the overwhelming majority in BOTH DAO and DA2 (even after the rash of evil blood mages) of players side with the mages?  I'd say that Dragon Age presents magic as a misunderstood force of nature and those with magic to be an oppressed minority, and I think the numbers that side with the mages reflect this.

-Polaris

Is there statistics that show this or it's based off the opinions held by posters on the BSN?

Modifié par The Hierophant, 28 mai 2013 - 05:50 .

[IanPolaris]

The Hierophant wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

This is why the overwhelming majority in BOTH DAO and DA2 (even after the rash of evil blood mages) of players side with the mages?  I'd say that Dragon Age presents magic as a misunderstood force of nature and those with magic to be an oppressed minority, and I think the numbers that side with the mages reflect this.

-Polaris

Is there statistics that show this or it's based off the opions held by posters on the BSN?

That is my best recollection of the online stats released by EA and their tracking info.  I do know (and Bioware has stated this) that the overwhelming majority in DAO sided with the mages and it's one reason they went too far to paint all the mages Hawke runs into as bloodmagic using maniacs.

-Polaris

[The Hierophant]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

This is why the overwhelming majority in BOTH DAO and DA2 (even after the rash of evil blood mages) of players side with the mages?  I'd say that Dragon Age presents magic as a misunderstood force of nature and those with magic to be an oppressed minority, and I think the numbers that side with the mages reflect this.

-Polaris

Is there statistics that show this or it's based off the opions held by posters on the BSN?

That is my best recollection of the online stats released by EA and their tracking info.  I do know (and Bioware has stated this) that the overwhelming majority in DAO sided with the mages and it's one reason they went too far to paint all the mages Hawke runs into as bloodmagic using maniacs.

-Polaris

Does this info include all the players who purchased DAO/DA2 or is it only for those who bothered to log in and play while online?

Modifié par The Hierophant, 28 mai 2013 - 06:00 .

[IanPolaris]

The Hierophant wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

This is why the overwhelming majority in BOTH DAO and DA2 (even after the rash of evil blood mages) of players side with the mages?  I'd say that Dragon Age presents magic as a misunderstood force of nature and those with magic to be an oppressed minority, and I think the numbers that side with the mages reflect this.

-Polaris

Is there statistics that show this or it's based off the opions held by posters on the BSN?

That is my best recollection of the online stats released by EA and their tracking info.  I do know (and Bioware has stated this) that the overwhelming majority in DAO sided with the mages and it's one reason they went too far to paint all the mages Hawke runs into as bloodmagic using maniacs.

-Polaris

Does this info include all the players who purchased DAO/DA2 or is it only for those who bothered to log in and play while online?

Like I said, it's based on EA's online data.  However, you can't play DA2 without getting an online certification, and I do know that Bioware itself was troubled that the overwhelming majority sided with mages in DAO.  It is what it is.

-Polaris

[The Hierophant]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

This is why the overwhelming majority in BOTH DAO and DA2 (even after the rash of evil blood mages) of players side with the mages?  I'd say that Dragon Age presents magic as a misunderstood force of nature and those with magic to be an oppressed minority, and I think the numbers that side with the mages reflect this.

-Polaris

Is there statistics that show this or it's based off the opions held by posters on the BSN?

That is my best recollection of the online stats released by EA and their tracking info.  I do know (and Bioware has stated this) that the overwhelming majority in DAO sided with the mages and it's one reason they went too far to paint all the mages Hawke runs into as bloodmagic using maniacs.

-Polaris

Does this info include all the players who purchased DAO/DA2 or is it only for those who bothered to log in and play while online?

Like I said, it's based on EA's online data.  However, you can't play DA2 without getting an online certification, and I do know that Bioware itself was troubled that the overwhelming majority sided with mages in DAO.  It is what it is.

-Polaris

So that means the writers did a poor job of expressing the fallibility of mages in DAO and tried to curb it by making them all crazy in DA2?

[azarhal]

Medhia Nox wrote...

As for their resources - I think we're glossing over the reality that these Templars needed military compounds "somewhere". And those military compounds have a far greater chance of being castles/keeps/fortresses. Circle "towers" are not autonomous structures at all. A castle would have stores to outlast a siege - those towers would have only the most limited of resources (most likely).

Kinloch Hold (Lake Calenhad Circle Tower) is a former Avvar fortress built with the help of the Dwarves, it has storerooms (a large caves system) and a large basement. You get to visit both in DA:O Mage Origin. It stand in the middle of a lake and can only be reached by boat­.

White Spire was the ruling fortress of Emperor Drakon 1st (White Spire codex entry)

The Gallows is an ex-slave prison, it is an island (Gallows codex entry) and the place looks like a fortress in DA2.

These are the only 3 Towers we have the description of so far and they are all fortified structures.

But why would Templars need stores to outlast a siege, why do they need military compounds? Their job is to watch over mages (live in a circle and act like jailers) and/or guard over the Chantry's possession and personel (live in a chantry). They don't exist to invade anyone or defend against invaders.

[IanPolaris]

The Hierophant wrote...

So that means the writers did a poor job of expressing the fallibility of mages in DAO and tried to curb it by making them all crazy in DA2?

It is my understanding that the writers wanted a genuine "security vs freedom" ethical conflict (which as all the vogue when DAO was being written post 9/11) and were extremely dissapointed that most of the players didn't seem to 'get' the conflict...and then badly overreacted in DA2.

-Polaris

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...

This is why the overwhelming majority in BOTH DAO and DA2 (even after the rash of evil blood mages) of players side with the mages?

How the hell is this relevant?

[The Hierophant]

azarhal wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

As for their resources - I think we're glossing over the reality that these Templars needed military compounds "somewhere". And those military compounds have a far greater chance of being castles/keeps/fortresses. Circle "towers" are not autonomous structures at all. A castle would have stores to outlast a siege - those towers would have only the most limited of resources (most likely).

Kinloch Hold (Lake Calenhad Circle Tower) is a former Avvar fortress built with the help of the Dwarves, it has storerooms (a large caves system) and a large basement. You get to visit both in DA:O Mage Origin. It stand in the middle of a lake and can only be reached by boat­.

White Spire was the ruling fortress of Emperor Drakon 1st (White Spire codex entry)

The Gallows is an ex-slave prison, it is an island (Gallows codex entry) and the place looks like a fortress in DA2.

These are the only 3 Towers we have the description of so far and they are all fortified structures.

But why would Templars need stores to outlast a siege, why do they need military compounds? Their job is to watch over mages (live in a circle and act like jailers) and/or guard over the Chantry's possession and personel (live in a chantry). They don't exist to invade anyone or defend against invaders.

You'd figure that they would have some resources in stock, armories or forts to coordinate assaults from in case of a future Exalted March against the Qunari.

[IanPolaris]

The Hierophant wrote...

You'd figure that they would have some resources in stock, armories or forts to coordinate assaults from in case of a future Exalted March against the Qunari.

They probably do, but the Templars will find it very hard to replenish those stocks without the Chantry (esp Lyrium).  Worse I am guessing a lot of those stocks were within Buildings that housed the circles and we know that the Templars lost every last one of those (and probably most of their stocks stored in such places......if I were a First Enchanter of a circle, I'd certainly take those stocks first thing...and destroy what I couldn't take).

-Polaris

[The Hierophant]

IanPolaris wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

So that means the writers did a poor job of expressing the fallibility of mages in DAO and tried to curb it by making them all crazy in DA2?

It is my understanding that the writers wanted a genuine "security vs freedom" ethical conflict (which as all the vogue when DAO was being written post 9/11) and were extremely dissapointed that most of the players didn't seem to 'get' the conflict...and then badly overreacted in DA2.

-Polaris

That's just sad. I hope the conflict is resolved in DAI as it's been sloppy so far.

[Dave of Canada]

The Hierophant wrote...

That's just sad. I hope the conflict is resolved in DAI as it's been sloppy so far.

Agreed. Dragon Age 2 had some reasonable conflicts which they presented with both factions but overdid it near the third act for both sides, I'd like to see the best and worse of both factions. I'm just fearing they'll turn Templar into ME3's Cerberus where they're antagonists the entire game and they're completely unsupportable.

Lord knows I've seen enough arguments trying to support that theory.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 28 mai 2013 - 06:33 .

[The Hierophant]

Dave of Canada wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

That's just sad. I hope the conflict is resolved in DAI as it's been sloppy so far.

Agreed. Dragon Age 2 had some reasonable conflicts which they presented with both factions but overdid it near the third act, I'd like to see the best and worse of both factions. I'm just fearing they'll turn Templar into ME3's Cerberus where they're antagonists the entire game and they're completely unsupportable.

ME3 took a dump on Cerberus by stripping away the depth that ME2 added to the organization, and in effect degrading Cerberus past ME's "experimentation for the evuls" presentation. 

So far i'm expecting this of DAI's Templars as an enemy military force is the staple of Bioware games.

[azarhal]

The Hierophant wrote...

You'd figure that they would have some resources in stock, armories or forts to coordinate assaults from in case of a future Exalted March against the Qunari.

Exalted March are similar to the real world Crusades. The Chantry send a call for help to the nobles, which in turn recruits their holding. Resources will come from those nobles and holding.

[Bleachrude]

IanPolaris wrote...


With power comes respect.  Given that the circles can negotiate with the nobles with genuine power of their own gives them an advantage that most minorities don't have. 

-Polaris

And this is where I disagree about nobles.

Nobles are going to be expecting the mages to be equivalent to any other person in their demense. The Arl of Armanthine is the judge and jury of the nobles underneath him and if a mage commits a crime in their area, they will fully expect that they themselves would be judge and jury.

If they go to war, they will expect the mages to ask "how high" when they say "jump".

Furthermore, most mages don't actually have much to offer nobles. Remember, healing is a rare ability (yeah, in-game, we are awash with healers but the lore explicitly mentions that this school is the rarest of them all). Now the Crows and Bards I can see salivating at the use of mages but in general?

Especially since without the tranquil, you lose out on the ability to create magical items (and that doesn't even count the fact that mages need to eat, sleep etc. Compare the dorms of Kinloch hold to the regular houses in Denerim, much less the alienages or the dusters.) and their also is no lyrium for the mages to use (that's a trade agreement between the chantry and the dwarves)

re: Chantry and templars are the middle force
The reason why people tend to side with mages I've noticed is that presumably, since THEIR character is in control, the average mage is not in danger to the populace. Even though Connor showed exactly WHY mages need the circle, most of the audience comes from a western viewpoint of "FREEDOM" and "all men are created equal".

There's also the fact that people tend to ignore that the Chantry/circle IS the middle position. There's the Tevinters on one side and the Qun on the other of the mage debate but since we don't play from those perspectives, fans don't see the chantry position as the middle one.

Modifié par Bleachrude, 28 mai 2013 - 06:52 .