935 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Then she's amoral?

Then it doesn't really matter what her motives are.

Well, I meant in matters of government jurisdiction. Short of invoking another Circle or some kind of Isolationist scenario (where mage children would still be taken from their parents) it doesn't seem possible to avoid severely overlapping jurisdictions, which will always produce conflict.

It's a work in progress.

[In Exile]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...
It's not hard to have society answer to two groups, but I think it *is* impossible for mages to only have jurisdiction over mages and mundanes to only have jurisdiction over mundanes unless those two groups are completely separated.

No, that's incredibly easy to do as a justice system issue. It can also be easy to do to have two parallel levels of government that each regulate one particular group of people. We do it IRL all the time when we split the level of goverment that has jurisdiction over certain kinds of corporate conduct, see e.g. municipal zoning laws vs. provincial civil rights vs. federal competition laws. 

And in any case where one sometimes has to answer to the other and their is a perceive inbalance in power and/or discrimination, problems will arise.  

That's the real issue. You can design a system that splits jurisdiction, but it doesn't answer how you can apportion power equally and keep it apportioned equally. 

Xilizhra wrote...

Then she's amoral?

Then it doesn't really matter what her motives are.

My point is just that she's not necessarily pro-templar or pro-templar-ish aims. The divine did want to cure tranquility, for example.

Modifié par In Exile, 20 septembre 2013 - 05:38 .

[Xilizhra]

My point is just that she's not necessarily pro-templar or pro-templar-ish aims. The divine did want to cure tranquility, for example.

But ordered a politically inconvenient mage to be Tranquilized again, among other things.

[The Elder King]

LobselVith8 wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

@Lobsel: if a dalish Inquisitor could have problems with Cassandra and the hypothetical templar, it could have the same type of problem with the magister that might join the Inquisition. Are you fine with that?

I think a Dalish Inquisitor would have problems with a Magister, too. It's the possibilities with playing as one of the People that interests me with an elven protagonist. I certainly hope the friction isn't glossed over between the Dalish and members of the Chantry's (former) military arm. I'd imagine a templar companion would certainly have issues with the idea of having a Dalish mage in authority.

It depends on the templar, I'd guess. The same could be said for a qunari Inquisitor.

[In Exile]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

So what about the examples I mentioned before where non-mage and mage legal rights are mixed up together in cases of children and marriage and so on? 

I don't see how they would be mixed up. If the system of laws applies based on group membership, then the child would just be subject to whatever laws govern the membership her or she belongs to.

And as for mixed marriages, you could simply have a distinct set of rules that govern them. So family law for mundanes, mages and non-mages. Though frankly I can't see how being a mage or not could actually be relevant for family law purposes, unless there's a worry about the bias of the adjudicator, which is as simple as having a mixed panel of mages and non-mages presiding. 

Xilizhra wrote...

My point is just that she's not necessarily pro-templar or pro-templar-ish aims. The divine did want to cure tranquility, for example.

But ordered a politically inconvenient mage to be Tranquilized again, among other things.

I can't see how that's different than having someone poisoned, with the exception of tranquility being more legally acceptable way of removing a thorn. 

Modifié par In Exile, 20 septembre 2013 - 06:03 .

[Xilizhra]

I can't see how that's different than having someone poisoned, with the exception of tranquility being more legally acceptable way of removing a thorn.

Which allegedly sympathetic character did that?

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Keep in mind that Evangeline's realization of this made her stop being a templar.

By that logic all the templars who broke away from Chantry authority stopped being templars too.

[Xilizhra]

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Keep in mind that Evangeline's realization of this made her stop being a templar.

By that logic all the templars who broke away from Chantry authority stopped being templars too.

Lambert moved the Order as a whole away from it with unanimous consent from the Knight-Commanders, so it doesn't seem so.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
Which allegedly sympathetic character did that?

I'm not saying she was sympathetic. I'm just saying that doesn't necessarily make her anti-mage per se, just a political opportunist. Which, frankly, you have to be to reach that high up. 

[Xilizhra]

In Exile wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Which allegedly sympathetic character did that?

I'm not saying she was sympathetic. I'm just saying that doesn't necessarily make her anti-mage per se, just a political opportunist. Which, frankly, you have to be to reach that high up. 

Insufficiently pro-mage to change the anti-mage system.

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
Insufficiently pro-mage to change the anti-mage system.

She was changing the system, just not enough to make a difference. It certainly makes her more pro-mage than anyone else we've ever seen affiliated with the Chantry, with the possible exception of Leliana in DA:O who doesn't really comment on the issue.

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...
Lambert moved the Order as a whole away from it with unanimous consent from the Knight-Commanders, so it doesn't seem so.

Cassandra stayed with the Chantry.  As did others.  Are they still Templars/Seekers even though they didn't follow Lambert?

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Insufficiently pro-mage to change the anti-mage system.

Except she was.  Or was at least receptive to the idea.

And the anti-mage faction didn't think she was sufficiently anti-mage

[AresKeith]

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Lambert moved the Order as a whole away from it with unanimous consent from the Knight-Commanders, so it doesn't seem so.

Cassandra stayed with the Chantry.  As did others.  Are they still Templars/Seekers even though they didn't follow Lambert?

I believe it was said that not all Templars left the Chantry

[azarhal]

In Exile wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Then she's amoral?

Then it doesn't really matter what her motives are.

My point is just that she's not necessarily pro-templar or pro-templar-ish aims. The divine did want to cure tranquility, for example.

Are you still talking about Cassandra?

She hates blood mages (vengeance fulled, not fear fulled...used to be directed to all mages before DotS), but isn't against circle mages having more powers. Beside that everything else is "up in the air", because  she have shown the capacity to change her point-of-views/allegiance after she realize that she was wrong or was unjustly prejudiced. She has done it in both DotS and DA2 so far...and I except more of it in DAI.

[Sir JK]

Xilizhra wrote...
Insufficiently pro-mage to change the anti-mage system.

"Fun" fact about pre-modern (and to a certain extent modern ones too) political systems...

Being radical does not actually get results. It gets you killed, or if you're lucky just plain isolated. In some rare exceptions you may become a martyr. But most often your reforms die with you.
Being at the top does not make you untouchable or the most powerful, just the most visble. The powers that be tend to be very conservative and do tend have the resources to kill you and get away with it.

Sadly... the most efficient reformers tend to be the ones that take it the slowest. Justinia seems to be one of those lot. The ones that never get any credit because they're going at it too slowly and carefully, but sure achieving a great deal more than the ones that end up being assassinated.

Granted... what she aimed to do is of little importance now... but back to the elves...

I do wonder if we'll see any infighting between the elves (assuming there is a rebellion) as to where to take it. Even assassinations?

Modifié par Sir JK, 20 septembre 2013 - 06:45 .

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I guess we'll have to wait and see in the game itself but World of Thedas does go as far as to mention that both the mages and templars are divided when it comes to loyalty to the Chantry vs rebelling.

[Xilizhra]

Sir JK wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
Insufficiently pro-mage to change the anti-mage system.

"Fun" fact about pre-modern (and to a certain extent modern ones too) political systems...

Being radical does not actually get results. It gets you killed, or if you're lucky just plain isolated. In some rare exceptions you may become a martyr. But most often your reforms die with you.
Being at the top does not make you untouchable or the most powerful, just the most visble. The powers that be tend to be very conservative and do tend have the resources to kill you and get away with it.

Sadly... the most efficient reformers tend to be the ones that take it the slowest. Justinia seems to be one of those lot. The ones that never get any credit because they're going at it too slowly and carefully, but sure achieving a great deal more than the ones that end up being assassinated.

Granted... what she aimed to do is of little importance now... but back to the elves...

I do wonder if we'll see any infighting between the elves (assuming there is a rebellion) as to where to take it. Even assassinations?

And Lambert either couldn't or wouldn't assassinate her, instead deserting with the rest of the Templar Order. Had she come on more strongly, the worst that could happen would be the templars leaving earlier without the mages being blamed for any war, so really, I don't see how much could happen that's worse than what we have now.

[Sir JK]

Xilizhra wrote...

And Lambert either couldn't or wouldn't assassinate her, instead deserting with the rest of the Templar Order. Had she come on more strongly, the worst that could happen would be the templars leaving earlier without the mages being blamed for any war, so really, I don't see how much could happen that's worse than what we have now.

Uh... He did try to assassinate her. He admits that he was behind the apostate in the prologue. She did very little, and that alone was enough for him to try to kill her.

[Trolldrool]

I wouldn't mind seeing a templar like Ser Bryant from Lothering who even when learning that you and/or Morrigan are mages outside the Circle without templar supervision, chooses to focus on protecting refugees from the encroaching darkspawn. Basically a templar that is aware of his duties, but has his priorities straight. Stop end of the world now. Hunt mages later.

[Silfren]

Vilegrim wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

In most cases I'd postulate if the number of companions that fit this element is more often than not, zero.

Yeah, the idea that a leader (for argument's sake, the Inquisitor) would - for no real reason - actively kill someone who was trying to help them strikes me as bizarre and implausible. 

If circumstances are dire and the state of the world desperate, why would the Inquisitor turn away a reasonable ofer of help - or worse, kill the person who made the offer? If we came across a random templar killing demons, what on earth is there to be gained from randomly slaughtering them instead of - if the player didn't like them - rejecting their offer of help and leaving them to do whatever they can?

People wanting to instantly kill potential companions on sight make me pretty uncomfortable, and in my opinion a psychopathic Inquisitor who runs around murdering people who offer to help them - based purely on their occupation or belief system - is way more jarring than, god forbid, having a party member who might actually disagree with the player.

The constant calls for the ability to slaughter companions at will (or the Mass Effect equivalent. "push them out of their airlock") is a pretty strange and mystifying aspect of Bioware's fanbase, to be honest.

Because playing a fanatic has it's own appeal.  Anyone who takes the self given title inquisitor has to be at least mildly unbalanced, and taking that aspect to the extreme appeals the same way the total opposite does. So in the templars example you gave not seeing the difference between demons and templars is justifiable, especially for an apostate or someone who has spent his life protecting a loved one who is, the trauma of the veil tear and a brutal civil war dehumanising those involved. Juast look at what happens in real wars especially ones in medieval societies.  

False.  This is only true if you presume that DA Inquisitors are fanatical torturing zealots by default. 

There is no reason why Inquisitors in DA have to be directly analagous to our real world version.  I'll grant that the name had to have been chosen deliberately, and it does evoke very specific images in mind.  Nevertheless, the Inquisition of DA is NOT the real world inquisition; there's no need to assume that it automatically means The Inquisitor would have to be unbalanced in any way.

[MisterJB]

Sir JK wrote...
Uh... He did try to assassinate her. He admits that he was behind the apostate in the prologue. She did very little, and that alone was enough for him to try to kill her.

Where does he make this confession?

[Silfren]

iakus wrote...

Personally I would love to see templars like Cullen or Evangeline, who can demonstrate the necessity of protecting the mundane world from misused magic while still seeing mages as human beings (or elven beings, as the case may be)

Yeah, well that might work if it weren't for the fact that Cullen flat out declares that mages CANNOT be seen as people.  Just sayin'.  People keep holding him up as this paragon of moderation and reason, and he just isn't.  That he's not as bad as Meredith or Alrik does not erase the fact that he made his position on mages VERY clear, and it wasn't all sunshine and roses.