334 réponses à ce sujet

[Daerog]

An autonomous circle, while maybe popular on the forums, is not a popular view in Thedas, it would not be supported by the powers of that world. It would be vulnerable to individual nations and it is unlikely that the nations of Thedas will go along with it and may still try to implement a Circle system within their own country, thus possibly starting more war with the Independent Circle fighting certain nations here and there and possibly ending up like the Dalish or be forced to carve out territory and become a second Tevinter.

However, this is off topic....

Yay, my quizzy be pro Chantry n stuf...

[Hellion Rex]

Eveangaline wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

KingGunDragon wrote...

Personaly I would restore the circle. Maybe give a bit more freedom to the mages. Like being able to have a family. I saw how it effect the familes when playing none mage hawks. . But my main change would be to have the inquisition as a thrid party that watchs over both sides and keeps the peace.

I'd say make circles self contained. Keep templars and the church out of it.

... So... how would you deal with another Uldred incident? No Templars, no oversight, just an army of abominations getting loose in the wild?

The mages can make their own oversight. You don't physically need a templar. After all, a warden with only wynn and morrigan in their party can solve the tower problem in dao.

I am as anti-circle as they come, but we still have a problem controlling the fallout if something goes wrong. We won't always have a warden, Wynne, or Morrigan to save the day.

But what exactly is the difference of "have a group of mages trained to deal with problems like this when they come up" and "have a group of non mages trained to deal with problems like this when they come up"

There is no difference. I am merely saying that I think we need both.

[OLDIRTYBARON]

eluvianix wrote...

While you are careful to make the distinction that mages are people, I can't help but feel that adding the "walking time bombs" bit does the opposite for your argument. It just dehumanizes them even more.

They are, though. Play the Magi Origin again and listen to the Pride Demon. Read the lore. Mages are always under the constant pressure of resisting demonic possession. Once they smell you, sense your power, they want nothing more than a chance to get in for X reason (depends on the demon, really). That's why it's not so simple as saying "eh, they can watch themselves" when even their watchers are susceptible in that case. The Templars are necessary as a neutral third party. They can assess a situation without compromise and deal with an Uldred-level threat if necessary. 

I'd be great if we could just let all the mages go free and trust that the inherent nature of men is to use power responsibly, but that is not the inherent nature of men. While it may seem cruel to punish all for the sins of a few, the simple truth is that mages possess civilization-ending power, and they need to be trained and watched for the safety of all.

It's a ****ty situation, no doubt, but unless mages decide to forsake their magic and undergo the Rite of Tranquility, it is the only feasible option.

[Hellion Rex]

Agreed. We are here to talk about "pro chantry", not circle politics, although I would argue talking about the Chantry is important to Circle politics. Nonetheless, I do not have a problem with the Chantry as an institution. It is the zealotry and bigotry that have occurred as a result, that annoy me.

[Hellion Rex]

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

While you are careful to make the distinction that mages are people, I can't help but feel that adding the "walking time bombs" bit does the opposite for your argument. It just dehumanizes them even more.

They are, though. Play the Magi Origin again and listen to the Pride Demon. Read the lore. Mages are always under the constant pressure of resisting demonic possession. Once they smell you, sense your power, they want nothing more than a chance to get in for X reason (depends on the demon, really). That's why it's not so simple as saying "eh, they can watch themselves" when even their watchers are susceptible in that case. The Templars are necessary as a neutral third party. They can assess a situation without compromise and deal with an Uldred-level threat if necessary. 

I'd be great if we could just let all the mages go free and trust that the inherent nature of men is to use power responsibly, but that is not the inherent nature of men. While it may seem cruel to punish all for the sins of a few, the simple truth is that mages possess civilization-ending power, and they need to be trained and watched for the safety of all.

It's a ****ty situation, no doubt, but unless mages decide to forsake their magic and undergo the Rite of Tranquility, it is the only feasible option.

You know, I have always hated the few versus the many argument. Despite how true your point is, and I agree that is extremely valid, I cannot seem to separate myself from the plight of the few. 

[OLDIRTYBARON]

eluvianix wrote...

Agreed. We are here to talk about "pro chantry", not circle politics, although I would argue talking about the Chantry is important to Circle politics. Nonetheless, I do not have a problem with the Chantry as an institution. It is the zealotry and bigotry that have occurred as a result, that annoy me.

I understand. Getting back on topic is important. 

I personally like the Chantry. All of the Revered Mothers and Sisters and Brothers I've met have been decent, pious people. From a ground-level view, I can't see any reason to dislike the Chantry as an organization. They take care of the poor, they educate children, they feed their communities and when the land's ruling lord decides to march north and leave the land to fend for itself, it is the Chantry that organizes a mass exodus, doing their best to leave no one behind.

I'm not sure how the Chantry works at higher, political levels, however. I don't think we've even seen any of them in play. I imagine we'll rub elbows with some of the religious power in Orlais, though. If not, it'd be a wasted opportunity.

[Hellion Rex]

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Agreed. We are here to talk about "pro chantry", not circle politics, although I would argue talking about the Chantry is important to Circle politics. Nonetheless, I do not have a problem with the Chantry as an institution. It is the zealotry and bigotry that have occurred as a result, that annoy me.

I understand. Getting back on topic is important. 

I personally like the Chantry. All of the Revered Mothers and Sisters and Brothers I've met have been decent, pious people. From a ground-level view, I can't see any reason to dislike the Chantry as an organization. They take care of the poor, they educate children, they feed their communities and when the land's ruling lord decides to march north and leave the land to fend for itself, it is the Chantry that organizes a mass exodus, doing their best to leave no one behind.

I'm not sure how the Chantry works at higher, political levels, however. I don't think we've even seen any of them in play. I imagine we'll rub elbows with some of the religious power in Orlais, though. If not, it'd be a wasted opportunity.

Agreed. I dislike the thought of the Chantry having such sway in some areas of politics, as that kind of smacks of some corruption, particularly in Orlais. I seriously hope we get to address this topic in DA:I.

Modifié par eluvianix, 11 septembre 2013 - 06:41 .

[Hellion Rex]

MasterScribe wrote...

The Chantry is no better than any other organized religion, none of which I support.

But I'm not militant enough to want to destroy the Chantry. I'm hoping it will collapse on its own.

I am curious as to the reasoning behind your dislike of organized religion. Not many people that make that argument have concrete examples as to why they dislike organized religion.

[Eveangaline]

eluvianix wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

KingGunDragon wrote...

Personaly I would restore the circle. Maybe give a bit more freedom to the mages. Like being able to have a family. I saw how it effect the familes when playing none mage hawks. . But my main change would be to have the inquisition as a thrid party that watchs over both sides and keeps the peace.

I'd say make circles self contained. Keep templars and the church out of it.

... So... how would you deal with another Uldred incident? No Templars, no oversight, just an army of abominations getting loose in the wild?

The mages can make their own oversight. You don't physically need a templar. After all, a warden with only wynn and morrigan in their party can solve the tower problem in dao.

I am as anti-circle as they come, but we still have a problem controlling the fallout if something goes wrong. We won't always have a warden, Wynne, or Morrigan to save the day.

But what exactly is the difference of "have a group of mages trained to deal with problems like this when they come up" and "have a group of non mages trained to deal with problems like this when they come up"

There is no difference. I am merely saying that I think we need both.

Why? If you need two groups of people, why not just have two different mage groups?

[Hellion Rex]

Eveangaline wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

KingGunDragon wrote...

Personaly I would restore the circle. Maybe give a bit more freedom to the mages. Like being able to have a family. I saw how it effect the familes when playing none mage hawks. . But my main change would be to have the inquisition as a thrid party that watchs over both sides and keeps the peace.

I'd say make circles self contained. Keep templars and the church out of it.

... So... how would you deal with another Uldred incident? No Templars, no oversight, just an army of abominations getting loose in the wild?

The mages can make their own oversight. You don't physically need a templar. After all, a warden with only wynn and morrigan in their party can solve the tower problem in dao.

I am as anti-circle as they come, but we still have a problem controlling the fallout if something goes wrong. We won't always have a warden, Wynne, or Morrigan to save the day.

But what exactly is the difference of "have a group of mages trained to deal with problems like this when they come up" and "have a group of non mages trained to deal with problems like this when they come up"

There is no difference. I am merely saying that I think we need both.

Why? If you need two groups of people, why not just have two different mage groups?

We need anti-magic users. More than just mages.

[Daerog]

eluvianix wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...

The Chantry is no better than any other organized religion, none of which I support.

But I'm not militant enough to want to destroy the Chantry. I'm hoping it will collapse on its own.

I am curious as to the reasoning behind your dislike of organized religion. Not many people that make that argument have concrete examples as to why they dislike organized religion.

Ya, turning this thread to be about real world religions doesn't sound healthy for the thread.

[Hellion Rex]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...

The Chantry is no better than any other organized religion, none of which I support.

But I'm not militant enough to want to destroy the Chantry. I'm hoping it will collapse on its own.

I am curious as to the reasoning behind your dislike of organized religion. Not many people that make that argument have concrete examples as to why they dislike organized religion.

Ya, turning this thread to be about real world religions doesn't sound healthy for the thread.

Well, it is analogous as to why he has issues with the Chantry, so it is relevant to the topic. Let he or she speak about it, if they so desire.

[Hellion Rex]

MasterScribe wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...

The Chantry is no better than any other organized religion, none of which I support.

But I'm not militant enough to want to destroy the Chantry. I'm hoping it will collapse on its own.

I am curious as to the reasoning behind your dislike of organized religion. Not many people that make that argument have concrete examples as to why they dislike organized religion.

Ya, turning this thread to be about real world religions doesn't sound healthy for the thread.

Let's just say I was referring to the Qun, the Imperial Chantry, and the Dragon Cult. 

And not get worked up over a rather vague statement.

Fair enough, thank you for the response.:innocent:

[Newschmoo]

Before reading Asunder, I would have said 'no', I wouldn't play a pro-Chantry Inquisitor. I have generally tended to be pro-mage. I think the oppression of mages aspect clouded things for me, although I could see there were good people working within the Chantry (Redcliffe and Lothering were good examples).

However, after reading Asunder, I have to admit I gained a little respect for Justinia and what she was trying to achieve. So I may try playing as pro-Chantry for one of my play-throughs.

[Eveangaline]

eluvianix wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

OLDIRTYBARON wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

KingGunDragon wrote...

Personaly I would restore the circle. Maybe give a bit more freedom to the mages. Like being able to have a family. I saw how it effect the familes when playing none mage hawks. . But my main change would be to have the inquisition as a thrid party that watchs over both sides and keeps the peace.

I'd say make circles self contained. Keep templars and the church out of it.

... So... how would you deal with another Uldred incident? No Templars, no oversight, just an army of abominations getting loose in the wild?

The mages can make their own oversight. You don't physically need a templar. After all, a warden with only wynn and morrigan in their party can solve the tower problem in dao.

I am as anti-circle as they come, but we still have a problem controlling the fallout if something goes wrong. We won't always have a warden, Wynne, or Morrigan to save the day.

But what exactly is the difference of "have a group of mages trained to deal with problems like this when they come up" and "have a group of non mages trained to deal with problems like this when they come up"

There is no difference. I am merely saying that I think we need both.

Why? If you need two groups of people, why not just have two different mage groups?

We need anti-magic users. More than just mages.

Why? As I said, an all mage party could save the tower with absolutely no templars in DAO.

[wolfhowwl]

Eveangaline wrote...
Why? As I said, an all mage party could save the tower with absolutely no templars in DAO.

And a properly built Warden can singlehandely fight the Battle of Denerim killing hundreds of Darkspawn.

A Revenant can kill an entire platoon yet you can solo it by kiting it around a writing desk.

Abominations kill dozens yet they go down like chumps when facing Hawke and crew.

So what?

There will always be seperation between the lore and story and the gameplay.

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 11 septembre 2013 - 07:16 .

[Hellion Rex]

wolfhowwl wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...
Why? As I said, an all mage party could save the tower with absolutely no templars in DAO.

And a properly built Warden can singlehandely fight the Battle of Denerim killing hundreds of Darkspawn.

A Revenant can kill an entire platoon yet you can solo it by kiting it around a writing desk.

Abominations kill dozens yet they go down like chumps when facing Hawke and crew.

So what?

There will always be seperation between the lore and story and the gameplay.

I agree. And plus, there will not always be a mage Warden, mage Hawke, or mage Inquisitor handy to save the day. Also, I do not believe that the average mage is as strong as our player character can become. For all intents and purposes, our characters can be considered some of the strongest mages in Thedas.

[Lotion Soronarr]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Don't take that suggestion seriously, but you won't find a single mage supporter, and most mages in-game, will never go back to the Circle system unless there is a completely radical reform. I've debated Lotion, and he outright refuses anything that isn't the current system, and has a tendency to ignore evidence that proves him wrong, writing it off as something that doesn't matter.

Why are you talking about yourself?

[Lotion Soronarr]

eluvianix wrote...
While you are careful to make the distinction that mages are people, I can't help but feel that adding the "walking time bombs" bit does the opposite for your argument. It just dehumanizes them even more.

Unfortunately, as dehumanizing as it may sound to you, it is the truth.

The truth so many pro-mages desperately want to ignore..or pretend it isn't there.

[Lotion Soronarr]

DKJaigen wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

The problem is however that any nation that uses mages that way is going to win from every other nations that doesnt. you need to keep up the arms race. the problem your describing however has little basis. every single military force in this world is capable of overthrowing its goverment. the same rules would apply to mages as well

Blood mages can be a bit more persuasive to their superiors than regular people.

Counter it with another bloodmage. Their are plenty of people who are willing to serve their country including bloodmages. you put those in charge.

I'm afraid that mind-controling blood mage may try to take over my mind!
You there!
Yes, you are another blood mage, yes? You look trustworthy. So very trustworthy and loyal. You will protect me from that other blood mage. I can trust you...
You say I should put you in charge of state affairs? Yes...I am tired of it really. Could use a break.
Too tired. Maybe I should end it all and leave the country in your care.

[Lotion Soronarr]

eluvianix wrote...
You know, I have always hated the few versus the many argument. Despite how true your point is, and I agree that is extremely valid, I cannot seem to separate myself from the plight of the few.

But of course. It just proves you sympathize with the mages (or anyone who suffers really).
Anyone with compassion wouldn't like such a solution.

Few vs. Many is NEVER a popular choice. It's rarely a choice anyone wants to make. It's practicly never a choice one is comfortable living with. But...it's often a necessary choice.

But, in the end, liking or not liking a solution is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Existence is full of suffering. You cannot end all of it. You can only minimize it.

[Hellion Rex]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
You know, I have always hated the few versus the many argument. Despite how true your point is, and I agree that is extremely valid, I cannot seem to separate myself from the plight of the few.

But of course. It just proves you sympathize with the mages (or anyone who suffers really).
Anyone with compassion wouldn't like such a solution.

Few vs. Many is NEVER a popular choice. It's rarely a choice anyone wants to make. It's practicly never a choice one is comfortable living with. But...it's often a necessary choice.

But, in the end, liking or not liking a solution is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Existence is full of suffering. You cannot end all of it. You can only minimize it.

Maybe while we cannot realistically stop all this world's pain, should it not be prudent that we strive towards that goal nonetheless?

[DPSSOC]

Eveangaline wrote...

But what exactly is the difference of "have a group of mages trained to deal with problems like this when they come up" and "have a group of non mages trained to deal with problems like this when they come up"

Conflict of interests.  A mage oversight committee is going to decide what actually constitutes a problem from the point of view of a mage.  So while abominations would certainly qualify, mage criminals targeting non-mages might, and I emphasize MIGHT, not.  Similarly a blood mage influencing minds to get an even better deal for mages might not be seen as a problem but an opportunity.

Non-mage oversight reduces the chances of them having the same goals as the problems that come up, because very few things that are good for mages would be good for them.