2497 réponses à ce sujet

[Johnny_TYS38]

Why not just separate them into individual group of people?

The mage should establish their own organisation and set their own rules and restriction with regards to issues such as Tranquility and blood mages. They should not be treated like criminal just because of the way they were bron

The Templar will be enforcers as they have the knowledge of dealing with blood magic and demons. They should not be given any power or authority over the mages and will be an independent organisation that do not take order from anyone like the chantry

[billy the squid]

The mages will be placed in segregated communities where the weak and dissident of their kind can be weeded out through work, the rest can then be systematically moved to other locations and disposed of as necessary.

Best, easiest and most simple way to deal with a troublesome enemy.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...
First, the templars will remain separate from the Chantry and be a secular order.

Rejected.
Impractical and very problematic from an organizational and logistical perspective.

Yes, but the Chantry doctrine of magic being both a gift and a curse is frequently misinterpreted in ways that give mages self-esteem problems and give Templars ego trips. So notwithstanding that you have an argument, it really might be for the best to just bite the bullet and go through with this.

Really? Some mages can interpret is as beign special and better than the rest. A souble-edged blade.
And what would actually the separation accomplish? The belifs of the populace or Andrastian mages wouldn't go away.

Templars without anyone higher to answer to, without proper backing and political clout, without proper homogonozation - if you think the Chatry-led Circles are prone for abuse, then brother, you have seen nothing yet.

Secular, independent templars are just as (if no more) vulnerable to power-plays and political influences.
And are more vulnerable because they have less clout without the Chantry.

[Bleachrude]

 Silly question, but why do people think making the circles a SECULAR organization would be an improvement?

Currently, the use of tranquility  is determined by the knight-commander and the first enchanter...

Contrast this with say the "day in court" you have in awakening. Even without hard evidence, you can execute a noble because you THINK he might be guilty, execute both a soldier that was concerned about her family and a famer that was poaching on the crown's lands because his family was hungry.

There seems to be a mistaken belief that a secular organization is not going to be nder the control of the nobles of the land

[EmperorSahlertz]

People are just riding the anti-religion stick, to its fullest. It is apparently very "in" right now, to be anti-religion.

[Xilizhra]

There seems to be a mistaken belief that a secular organization is not going to be nder the control of the nobles of the land

Because that's the point. Don't think I trust the various nobles any more than I do the Chantry. My plan for the Circle is for it to be unbound.

People are just riding the anti-religion stick, to its fullest. It is apparently very "in" right now, to be anti-religion.

Hah. The slightest glance at worldwide or, at least in America, nationwide population demographics will show you how utterly false that is.
In any case, that's not my motivation. I find the Dalish religion, for instance, to be agreeable enough. I advocate separation from the Chantry due to its magophobic religious doctrine (the Imperial Chantry is admittedly better about this).

[leaguer of one]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

People are just riding the anti-religion stick, to its fullest. It is apparently very "in" right now, to be anti-religion.

.That's because religion has a history of encouraging people not to think for themselves.

[Bleachrude]

And Xiizhra your idea is complete nonsense then.

The idea that Antiva for example is not going to use its mages (blood mage crow assassins anyone?) is laughably naive.

How do the mages even eat or live? right now the chantry provides all material benefits and frankly, looking at the two examples of mage living conditions we've seen, it certainly is higher than the vast majority of thedas population...

Even if you dismiss the elven alienages, Kinloch hold and the gallows was certainly nicer than the hovels in either Darktown or Lowtown. Sure, nowhere as nice as the houses of the nobles but a step up from the general populace.

How exactly is your independent circle going to finance the same lifestyle they were accustomed to without a patron?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...

There seems to be a mistaken belief that a secular organization is not going to be nder the control of the nobles of the land

Because that's the point. Don't think I trust the various nobles any more than I do the Chantry. My plan for the Circle is for it to be unbound.

So you think this new Circle - with only a fraction or power and political clout of hte chatnry one - will be able to stay unbound and won't fracture?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Xilizhra]

Bleachrude wrote...

And Xiizhra your idea is complete nonsense then.

The idea that Antiva for example is not going to use its mages (blood mage crow assassins anyone?) is laughably naive.

How do the mages even eat or live? right now the chantry provides all material benefits and frankly, looking at the two examples of mage living conditions we've seen, it certainly is higher than the vast majority of thedas population...

Even if you dismiss the elven alienages, Kinloch hold and the gallows was certainly nicer than the hovels in either Darktown or Lowtown. Sure, nowhere as nice as the houses of the nobles but a step up from the general populace.

How exactly is your independent circle going to finance the same lifestyle they were accustomed to without a patron?

Mages live in nicer buildings. In terms of total living conditions including psychological effects, I'll have to not really agree with you. And the Circle seemed to be more or less self-financing anyway, hence the point of the Lucrosians.

I might consider your side if the Chantry was able to change its doctrine and somehow make that stick. And have a balance of power with the templars less lopsided in the templars' favor.

[Br3admax]

leaguer of one wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

People are just riding the anti-religion stick, to its fullest. It is apparently very "in" right now, to be anti-religion.

.That's because religion has a history of encouraging people not to think for themselves.

No, people who usually jump onto the anit-religion band wagon, not atheist but actual anti-religionist, are doing it for one of three reasons; one, to seem intelligent, two, because they feel victimized by it, or three, both. However, these same people fail to realize that this is counterproductive and has the exact opposite effect when they try to force said beliefs or lack there of onto others. Thus when an extremely anit-religionist person posts outrageous comments about the evils of religion that boil down to, "Religion is bad because me," no one wants to take them seriously. If you think religion is for the stupid, then let us wallow in our ignorance; ignorance is bliss, and if you trully feel victimized by religion, stop living in the fifthteen century. 

Modifié par Br3ad, 11 octobre 2013 - 11:50 .

[Xilizhra]

Br3ad wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

People are just riding the anti-religion stick, to its fullest. It is apparently very "in" right now, to be anti-religion.

.That's because religion has a history of encouraging people not to think for themselves.

No, people who usually jump onto the anit-religion band wagon, not atheist but actual anti-religionist, are doing it for one of three reasons; one, to seem intelligent, two, because they feel victimized by it, or three, both. However, these same people fail to realize that this is counterproductive and has the exact opposite effect when they try to force said beliefs or lack there of onto others. Thus when an extremely anit-religionist person posts outrageous comments about the evils of religion that boil down to, "Religion is bad because me," no one wants to take them seriously. If you think religion is for the stupid, then let us wallow in our ignorance; ignorance is bliss, and if you trully feel victimized by religion, stop living in the fifthteen century. 

Keep in mind that there's a difference between saying that all religion is bad out of hand, and that many religions have similar patterns of bad behavior.

There are also definitely places where people are still legitimately victimized by a religion.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 11 octobre 2013 - 11:51 .

[leaguer of one]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

There seems to be a mistaken belief that a secular organization is not going to be nder the control of the nobles of the land

Because that's the point. Don't think I trust the various nobles any more than I do the Chantry. My plan for the Circle is for it to be unbound.

So you think this new Circle - with only a fraction or power and political clout of hte chatnry one - will be able to stay unbound and won't fracture?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If it's able to sell good it can. Think about it for a moment of how valueble magical titems are. How good it is in a fight, how it protects others and makes things easier. Runecrafting alone can make the mages enough money to support themselves. Add allowed the mages can make the best hospitals in the world with there healing abilities.

The mages can easily fund themselves if allowed to. They ever have a faternity in the circle of magi which is 100% about profit.

[Br3admax]

Xilizhra wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

People are just riding the anti-religion stick, to its fullest. It is apparently very "in" right now, to be anti-religion.

.That's because religion has a history of encouraging people not to think for themselves.

No, people who usually jump onto the anit-religion band wagon, not atheist but actual anti-religionist, are doing it for one of three reasons; one, to seem intelligent, two, because they feel victimized by it, or three, both. However, these same people fail to realize that this is counterproductive and has the exact opposite effect when they try to force said beliefs or lack there of onto others. Thus when an extremely anit-religionist person posts outrageous comments about the evils of religion that boil down to, "Religion is bad because me," no one wants to take them seriously. If you think religion is for the stupid, then let us wallow in our ignorance; ignorance is bliss, and if you trully feel victimized by religion, stop living in the fifthteen century. 

Keep in mind that there's a difference between saying that all religion is bad out of hand, and that many religions have similar patterns of bad behavior.

There are also definitely places where people are still legitimately victimized by a religion.

Keep in mind that the above is very much not a part of mainstream religion and has not been for a long time, and that there are places were everyone does bad things. Most people posting here don't have to live in those places, which are minimal at best.

Modifié par Br3ad, 11 octobre 2013 - 11:56 .

[LobselVith8]

Bleachrude wrote...

Silly question, but why do people think making the circles a SECULAR organization would be an improvement?

I think some people think it's a good idea to keep the Chantry of Andraste from having any degree of power or authority over the mages.

Bleachrude wrote...

Currently, the use of tranquility  is determined by the knight-commander and the first enchanter...

The use of the Rite of Tranquility is monstrous, to some of us. I certainly would never advocate it's use on anyone.

Bleachrude wrote...

Contrast this with say the "day in court" you have in awakening. Even without hard evidence, you can execute a noble because you THINK he might be guilty, execute both a soldier that was concerned about her family and a famer that was poaching on the crown's lands because his family was hungry.

Like when the templars tried to kill a young Aneirin when he ran away from the Circle of Ferelden? Or when the templars killed Magnificent D'Sims because they thought he was a mage (even though he wasn't, since he was only pretending to heal people)?

Bleachrude wrote...

There seems to be a mistaken belief that a secular organization is not going to be nder the control of the nobles of the land 

I don't think that's the automatic alternative to the Chantry controlled Circles.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 11 octobre 2013 - 11:55 .

[wright1978]

Bleachrude wrote...

 Silly question, but why do people think making the circles a SECULAR organization would be an improvement?

Currently, the use of tranquility  is determined by the knight-commander and the first enchanter...

Contrast this with say the "day in court" you have in awakening. Even without hard evidence, you can execute a noble because you THINK he might be guilty, execute both a soldier that was concerned about her family and a famer that was poaching on the crown's lands because his family was hungry.

There seems to be a mistaken belief that a secular organization is not going to be nder the control of the nobles of the land

Because having a religious organisation which believes that mages are to blame for the blackening of the golden city of their God is not a good idea.

[Xilizhra]

Br3ad wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

People are just riding the anti-religion stick, to its fullest. It is apparently very "in" right now, to be anti-religion.

.That's because religion has a history of encouraging people not to think for themselves.

No, people who usually jump onto the anit-religion band wagon, not atheist but actual anti-religionist, are doing it for one of three reasons; one, to seem intelligent, two, because they feel victimized by it, or three, both. However, these same people fail to realize that this is counterproductive and has the exact opposite effect when they try to force said beliefs or lack there of onto others. Thus when an extremely anit-religionist person posts outrageous comments about the evils of religion that boil down to, "Religion is bad because me," no one wants to take them seriously. If you think religion is for the stupid, then let us wallow in our ignorance; ignorance is bliss, and if you trully feel victimized by religion, stop living in the fifthteen century. 

Keep in mind that there's a difference between saying that all religion is bad out of hand, and that many religions have similar patterns of bad behavior.

There are also definitely places where people are still legitimately victimized by a religion.

Keep in mind that the above is very much not a part of mainstream religion and has not been for a long time, and that there are places were every does bad things. Most people posting here don't have to live in those places, which are minimal at best.

Well, anyone gay living in Russia, for instance, is sort of screwed. Or in many parts of Africa, or I suspect much else of Asia. You can't just assume that everyone posting here comes from nice, understanding US/Western Europe/Australia, or doesn't live in one of those places in one of those enclaves that still religiously persecutes the hell out of them.

[leaguer of one]

Br3ad wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

People are just riding the anti-religion stick, to its fullest. It is apparently very "in" right now, to be anti-religion.

.That's because religion has a history of encouraging people not to think for themselves.

No, people who usually jump onto the anit-religion band wagon, not atheist but actual anti-religionist, are doing it for one of three reasons; one, to seem intelligent, two, because they feel victimized by it, or three, both. However, these same people fail to realize that this is counterproductive and has the exact opposite effect when they try to force said beliefs or lack there of onto others. Thus when an extremely anit-religionist person posts outrageous comments about the evils of religion that boil down to, "Religion is bad because me," no one wants to take them seriously. If you think religion is for the stupid, then let us wallow in our ignorance; ignorance is bliss, and if you trully feel victimized by religion, stop living in the fifthteen century. 

That's not 100% true. Religion does have it's faults. You are only looking at an extremist view of anti religion concepts. The best explination for an anti-religion arguement can be seen in movies like Dogma. It's the fact that the belief and the practice of religion is two different thing. Thie issue is that people have a tendency to look more at how they beleive in the religion not what they believe in and that causes the conflicts an issue. Any organized belief can do that not just religion. It just that in cases ofreligion people have a history to for go logic in the name of belief to the extreme. That is a problem in any dialogue for change.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 11 octobre 2013 - 11:59 .

[Br3admax]

leaguer of one wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

People are just riding the anti-religion stick, to its fullest. It is apparently very "in" right now, to be anti-religion.

.That's because religion has a history of encouraging people not to think for themselves.

No, people who usually jump onto the anit-religion band wagon, not atheist but actual anti-religionist, are doing it for one of three reasons; one, to seem intelligent, two, because they feel victimized by it, or three, both. However, these same people fail to realize that this is counterproductive and has the exact opposite effect when they try to force said beliefs or lack there of onto others. Thus when an extremely anit-religionist person posts outrageous comments about the evils of religion that boil down to, "Religion is bad because me," no one wants to take them seriously. If you think religion is for the stupid, then let us wallow in our ignorance; ignorance is bliss, and if you trully feel victimized by religion, stop living in the fifthteen century. 

That's not 100% true. Religion does have it's faults. You are only looking at an extremist view of it. The best explination for an anti-religion arguement can be seen in movies like Dogma. It's the fact that the belief and the practice of religion is two different thing. Thie issue is that people have a tendency to look more at how they beleive in the religion not what they believe in and that causes the conflicts an issue. Any organized belief can do that not just religion. It just that in cases ofreligion people have a history to for go logic in the name of belief to the extreme. That is a problem in any dialogue for change.

I never said that religion doesn't have it's faults. But looking to the faults of what a religion did 500 years ago, not being a set time just when at it's most extreme, is the same as me looking to the faults that certain people had fourty years ago, there's no point to it. I'm also not going to look to movies for my understanding of history.

@Xil: Hence the comment, most people posting here. There's also the fact of broad generalization when comparing the small fraction to the larger group.

[Xilizhra]

@Xil: Hence the comment, most people posting here. There's also the fact of broad generalization when comparing the small fraction to the larger group.

Given worldwide population figures, is it such a small fraction?

But I suppose that this is off-topic anyway.

[leaguer of one]

Br3ad wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

People are just riding the anti-religion stick, to its fullest. It is apparently very "in" right now, to be anti-religion.

.That's because religion has a history of encouraging people not to think for themselves.

No, people who usually jump onto the anit-religion band wagon, not atheist but actual anti-religionist, are doing it for one of three reasons; one, to seem intelligent, two, because they feel victimized by it, or three, both. However, these same people fail to realize that this is counterproductive and has the exact opposite effect when they try to force said beliefs or lack there of onto others. Thus when an extremely anit-religionist person posts outrageous comments about the evils of religion that boil down to, "Religion is bad because me," no one wants to take them seriously. If you think religion is for the stupid, then let us wallow in our ignorance; ignorance is bliss, and if you trully feel victimized by religion, stop living in the fifthteen century. 

That's not 100% true. Religion does have it's faults. You are only looking at an extremist view of it. The best explination for an anti-religion arguement can be seen in movies like Dogma. It's the fact that the belief and the practice of religion is two different thing. Thie issue is that people have a tendency to look more at how they beleive in the religion not what they believe in and that causes the conflicts an issue. Any organized belief can do that not just religion. It just that in cases ofreligion people have a history to for go logic in the name of belief to the extreme. That is a problem in any dialogue for change.

I never said that religion doesn't have it's faults. But looking to the faults of what a religion did 500 years ago, not being a set time just when at it's most extreme, is the same as me looking to the faults that certain people had fourty years ago, there's no point to it. I'm also not going to look to movies for my understanding of history.

@Xil: Hence the comment, most people posting here. There's also the fact of broad generalization when comparing the small fraction to the larger group.

We are not looking at the faults from 400 years ago. We are looking at the faults now and recent as well. Added, look at history makes sure that we don't repeat the same mistake in the past. You may argue that we are just list past events as a consept of anti religion but if you lokk at the chantry now you'll see the it still has it's fallowers in the same mindless state. They just now start to try to get people to think again and the reaction stated a civil war with in the chantry.

[Lotion Soronarr]

leaguer of one wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
So you think this new Circle - with only a fraction or power and political clout of hte chatnry one - will be able to stay unbound and won't fracture?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

If it's able to sell good it can. Think about it for a moment of how valueble magical titems are. How good it is in a fight, how it protects others and makes things easier. Runecrafting alone can make the mages enough money to support themselves. Add allowed the mages can make the best hospitals in the world with there healing abilities.

The mages can easily fund themselves if allowed to. They ever have a faternity in the circle of magi which is 100% about profit.

Mages can fund themselves.. But I'm talking about the unbound templars.
They were being paid by the Chantry, not the Circles.
Who is gonna provide the $$$?

The mages?
Say goodbye to any practical policing if mages hold the paychecks.
A nation?
Say hello to mages becoming a tool of individual states.

[Br3admax]

leaguer of one wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

People are just riding the anti-religion stick, to its fullest. It is apparently very "in" right now, to be anti-religion.

.That's because religion has a history of encouraging people not to think for themselves.

No, people who usually jump onto the anit-religion band wagon, not atheist but actual anti-religionist, are doing it for one of three reasons; one, to seem intelligent, two, because they feel victimized by it, or three, both. However, these same people fail to realize that this is counterproductive and has the exact opposite effect when they try to force said beliefs or lack there of onto others. Thus when an extremely anit-religionist person posts outrageous comments about the evils of religion that boil down to, "Religion is bad because me," no one wants to take them seriously. If you think religion is for the stupid, then let us wallow in our ignorance; ignorance is bliss, and if you trully feel victimized by religion, stop living in the fifthteen century. 

That's not 100% true. Religion does have it's faults. You are only looking at an extremist view of it. The best explination for an anti-religion arguement can be seen in movies like Dogma. It's the fact that the belief and the practice of religion is two different thing. Thie issue is that people have a tendency to look more at how they beleive in the religion not what they believe in and that causes the conflicts an issue. Any organized belief can do that not just religion. It just that in cases ofreligion people have a history to for go logic in the name of belief to the extreme. That is a problem in any dialogue for change.

I never said that religion doesn't have it's faults. But looking to the faults of what a religion did 500 years ago, not being a set time just when at it's most extreme, is the same as me looking to the faults that certain people had fourty years ago, there's no point to it. I'm also not going to look to movies for my understanding of history.

@Xil: Hence the comment, most people posting here. There's also the fact of broad generalization when comparing the small fraction to the larger group.

We are not looking at the faults from 400 years ago. We are looking at the faults now and recent as well. Added, look at history makes sure that we don't repeat the same mistake in the past. You may argue that we are just list past events as a consept of anti religion but if you lokk at the chantry now you'll see the it still has it's fallowers in the same mindless state. They just now start to try to get people to think again and the reaction stated a civil war with in the chantry.

I was unaware that religion itslef did that. I was under the impression that most people no longer mindlessly fallow everything that a few men say. But I guess not. I guess that a few poeple doing things equals a lot of people thinking that it is just. I was also unaware that I was mindless becaused I believe in something. Thank you for educating me and I will know take your word as law. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

leaguer of one wrote...
That's not 100% true. Religion does have it's faults. You are only looking at an extremist view of anti religion concepts. The best explination for an anti-religion arguement can be seen in movies like Dogma. It's the fact that the belief and the practice of religion is two different thing. Thie issue is that people have a tendency to look more at how they beleive in the religion not what they believe in and that causes the conflicts an issue. Any organized belief can do that not just religion. It just that in cases ofreligion people have a history to for go logic in the name of belief to the extreme. That is a problem in any dialogue for change.

Good luck stoping organized belief.

I'd like to see you try, since every single person in the world is part of SOME organized belief or another.

[DPSSOC]

Johnny_TYS38 wrote...
Why not just separate them into individual group of people?

The mage should establish their own organisation and set their own rules and restriction with regards to issues such as Tranquility and blood mages. They should not be treated like criminal just because of the way they were bron.

 
#1 - They aren't treated like criminals.  The Circles are likened to a prison, certainly not inaccurate, but the difference is the Circles are not, nor have they ever been, a punishment.  People like to talk about the Circles and the Chantry in terms of punishing mages for the actions of the ancient Magisters and that's simply not the case.  The Circles are an enclave where mages can learn and practice their magic in a safe environment far from the general populace for the safety of everyone.  The idea is that if something goes wrong the fallout won't go beyond the walls of the Circle.

Now certainly modern Circles are not ideal institutions but they're still not places of punishment.

#2 - Mages can't establish their own rules in a vacuum because you run into issues of priority.  Hypothetically let's say the mages decide that Blood Magic is fine so long as you use your own blood, but the land the mages have set up a Circle in (let's say Kinloch Hold in Fereldan) has outlawed Blood Magic entirely.  Which laws apply the laws the mages have set up themselves, or the laws of the land they inhabit?

Not to mention letting people come up with what rules apply to them on their own is a remarkably bad idea.  You can't have the rules applying to a group be at the whim of said group, that's when you get people like Vaughn.

I think the best system would be to have the Mages decide the rules the Templars have to abide by, and the Templars decide which rules the Mages have to.  This will foster negotiation and compromise between the two groups.

Johnny_TYS38 wrote...
The Templar will be enforcers as they have the knowledge of dealing with blood magic and demons. They should not be given any power or authority over the mages and will be an independent organisation that do not take order from anyone like the chantry

Ok how can the Templars enforce rule of law upon the mages if they have no power or authourity over them?  Second if the Templars aren't attached to an organization like the Chantry who'll fund them?