1420 réponses à ce sujet

[ianvillan]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

The rest is pretty difficult to argue. This, though? The Rite of Annulment can make sense under certain circumstances. Those circumstances were illustrated pretty well in Broken Circle, only the Warden obviated the Rite by basically being a physical god.

Annulment is completely redundant in that situation; just call for reinforcements and kill the abominations. The only difference is that you're not murdering every surviving mage you see.

The idea behind Annulment, though, is that the situation is so bad that the Templars can't afford to go in with orders to spare people. A mage who surrendered might be a blood mage (or far worse, an abomination) trying to evade quarantine; the Templars can't read minds, in fact I'll bet even the Seekers rumored ability to is BS in the context of the rest of the setting. I'm not saying this is just, I'm saying its a matter of things getting so far out of hand that the people authorizing it can't see any right answer and go with the least wrong one.

But it's not the least wrong one, as can be easily proven in DAO. The least wrong one is to, well, be willing to spare people.

Yes, but Cullen wasn't wrong when he said that this could very easily backfire. There's an option to smuggle a blood mage into the Mage army. While I like having the option to do so, the fact remains that a less non-villainous blood mage or a particularly crafty abomination (not that there seem to have been any in this batch, mind you) could have done the same thing. Greagoir really did take a risk when he allowed Irving to vouch for the surviving mages.

What about all the mage children that had escaped should they be murdered.

Or what about Wynne who was the only one that was stopping the abominations from escaping outside while the Templars were hiding.
Why aren't the Templars like Cullen also murdered by other Templars in case they are possessed by demons.

The Templars position is meant to be the protection of mages yet they wont even try to save any mages in the tower and are content to hide while the surviving mages hold back the abominations while calling for an annulment to murder the surviving mages including the children.

All of this is supported and encouraged by the Chantry who view mages as sub-Human.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Why would it's existence be wrong?
Segregating dangerous poepel (not enslaving) is not "wrong". TheDas isn't the Real World, so black-and-white morality generalizations hold no validity whatsoever.

Having a private army is not wrong. Lyrium addiction is not something the Cahntry forces or something it can avoid. It's the inherent property of lyrium and lyrium is NEEDED to have templars. Try again.

Expansionist doctrine? It wants to spread the truth, like pretty much everyone in the world. It's not evil. That you disagree with their truth is irrelevant.


Try again.

1. It is slavery. Mages are forced into it, it's not a choice. They work for the Chantry with no meaningful recompense (and don't even try and use the "THEY GET A PLACE TO LIVE AND FOOD!" line, so does my ****ing dog). They don't get to leave. They're occasionally used in war. The organization that enslaves them has built their power on that slavery, take it away and their power crumbles. Try again.

The mages aren't forced to do anything except take classes. The ones that do actual work on the Chantry's behalf are the ones that choose to.

Also just as an aside where in the real world does black and white moral generalization hold any validity?

Where in Thedas does it?

2. The wiki says all templars are addicted to lyrium. The only one we've seen whose had templar training and wasn't addicted was Alistair, also the only one whose implied that taking lyrium is optional. I think it's kinda important to note he was never actually a templar.

That was retconned. He uses it to fuel his powers now too.

But you seem to missing the broader picture here. The Chantry enslaves mages. Mages need keepers. The fact that mages are imprisoned thus justifies the existence of templars, the "necessity" of templars thus justifies the use of lyrium and the Chantry's chokehold on the resource. The Chantry's economic and military power and by extension its political power rests on the back of mages. An awful lot of benefits for an organization that claims to strictly be a protecting force, no? Why sell enchanted weapons and armour? Why use mages in wars when they're so slobberingly dangerous? Why force them to go through the Harrowing when they're going to spend the rest of their lives in a prison anyway?

For the sake of the people imprisioning them, and the other prisoners.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Expansionist doctrine? It wants to spread the truth

3. So good to see we agree on something.

I actually am inclined to agree with you here.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

ianvillan wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...


The idea behind Annulment, though, is that the situation is so bad that the Templars can't afford to go in with orders to spare people. A mage who surrendered might be a blood mage (or far worse, an abomination) trying to evade quarantine; the Templars can't read minds, in fact I'll bet even the Seekers rumored ability to is BS in the context of the rest of the setting. I'm not saying this is just, I'm saying its a matter of things getting so far out of hand that the people authorizing it can't see any right answer and go with the least wrong one.

But it's not the least wrong one, as can be easily proven in DAO. The least wrong one is to, well, be willing to spare people.

Yes, but Cullen wasn't wrong when he said that this could very easily backfire. There's an option to smuggle a blood mage into the Mage army. While I like having the option to do so, the fact remains that a less non-villainous blood mage or a particularly crafty abomination (not that there seem to have been any in this batch, mind you) could have done the same thing. Greagoir really did take a risk when he allowed Irving to vouch for the surviving mages.

What about all the mage children that had escaped should they be murdered.

Greagoir took a risk by not doing so. An abomination could absolutely have slipped in among those kids. The risk works out if you have him take it, but had it not?

Or what about Wynne who was the only one that was stopping the abominations from escaping outside while the Templars were hiding.

Potentially an abomination, for all the Templars know.

Why aren't the Templars like Cullen also murdered by other Templars in case they are possessed by demons.

Because a possessed Templar is just a guy with a sword and very limited magic. An abomination is far and away more dangerous. (Of course, the Templars who attack the Templars performing the Annulment are presumably chopped down.)

The Templars position is meant to be the protection of mages yet they wont even try to save any mages in the tower and are content to hide while the surviving mages hold back the abominations while calling for an annulment to murder the surviving mages including the children.

All of this is supported and encouraged by the Chantry who view mages as sub-Human.

Don't forget that this is supposed to only be the worst case scenario. If there's any known alternative to Annulment, it's supposed to be tried.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 22 octobre 2013 - 02:19 .

[dragonflight288]

Don't forget that this is supposed to only be the worst case scenario. If there's any known alternative to Annulment, it's supposed to be tried.

Give Meredith a medal then, for trying to search the gallows before ordering the Annulment....wait, she didn't. Oh, how about that Seeker in Rivain who found out mages were in contact with their families, it isn't like he went...straight to the Chantry and requested an Annulment take place. Wait, he did.

Hmmm....how many other annulments happened because of such slipshod reasoning as those two examples had, I wonder....the lore doesn't make that clear.

[Joy Divison]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

1. It is slavery. Mages are forced into it, it's not a choice. They work for the Chantry with no meaningful recompense (and don't even try and use the "THEY GET A PLACE TO LIVE AND FOOD!" line, so does my ****ing dog). They don't get to leave. They're occasionally used in war. The organization that enslaves them has built their power on that slavery, take it away and their power crumbles. Try again.

No it's not.  Just because you think the practice is reprehensible does not make it slavery.

But you seem to missing the broader picture here. The Chantry enslaves mages.

No.

Mages need keepers. The fact that mages are imprisoned thus justifies the existence of templars, the "necessity" of templars thus justifies the use of lyrium and the Chantry's chokehold on the resource.

Actually I think the dwarves control the lyrium trade, not the Chantry.

The Chantry's economic and military power and by extension its political power rests on the back of mages. An awful lot of benefits for an organization that claims to strictly be a protecting force, no?

Or one might say burden.  It doesn't get lyrium for free, training and maintaining elite soldiers is expensive, and what political power it maintains is beholden to catering to the whims of Orlesian nobles.

Why sell enchanted weapons and armour?

Because the Chantry coffers are not as overflowing as you think they are.

Why use mages in wars when they're so slobberingly dangerous?

They don't *want* to, even when the literal end of the world is potentially at hand.  This is clearly laid out in DA:O by Gregoir and the old hag at the war council meeting with Loghain. 

Why force them to go through the Harrowing when they're going to spend the rest of their lives in a prison anyway?

Because an adomination in said "prison" is exceedingly dangerous.  See Broken Circle quest in DA:O.

Needed my ass. The Chantry's only need is enriching itself and maintaing its power.

References to your anatomy do not make your narrow persepctive the Turth.

Modifié par Joy Divison, 22 octobre 2013 - 03:51 .

[dragonflight288]

[quote]Joy Divison wrote...

[quote]Foopydoopydoo wrote...

1. It is slavery. Mages are forced into it, it's not a choice. They work for the Chantry with no meaningful recompense (and don't even try and use the "THEY GET A PLACE TO LIVE AND FOOD!" line, so does my ****ing dog). They don't get to leave. They're occasionally used in war. The organization that enslaves them has built their power on that slavery, take it away and their power crumbles. Try again. [/quote]

No it's not.  Just because you think the practice is reprehensible does not make it slavery.[/quote]

Definition from World English Dictionary: Slavery



— n
1. the state or condition a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune
2. the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work
3. the condition of being subject to some influence or habit
4. work done in harsh conditions for low pay

Pay close attention to number 1. That is the very characteristic of the Circle. Mages are denied the right to live where they choose, they need special permission to get married, and they arent allowed to keep any of their children. Their rights are dictated by another faction. This falls into the definition of slavery according to the dictionary.


[quote]
[quote]But you seem to missing the broader picture here. The Chantry enslaves mages. [/quote]

No.[/quote]

Check above.

[quote][quote]
Mages need keepers. The fact that mages are imprisoned thus justifies the existence of templars, the "necessity" of templars thus justifies the use of lyrium and the Chantry's chokehold on the resource.[/quote]

Actually I think the dwarves control the lyrium trade, not the Chantry.[/quote]

The dwarves control the supply, the Chantry trades with them exclusively, and chooses to whom should have how much of it, according to the demand.

[quote]
[quote]The Chantry's economic and military power and by extension its political power rests on the back of mages. An awful lot of benefits for an organization that claims to strictly be a protecting force, no? [/quote]

Or one might say burden.  It doesn't get lyrium for free, training and maintaining elite soldiers is expensive, and what political power it maintains is beholden to catering to the whims of Orlesian nobles.[/quote]

Not completely true. The tranquil at Ostagar says that the Circle's don't get by on charity, and the tranquil codex says that it's the tranquil who handle the enchantment and shopkeeping services outside of a Circle, and that is how the Circle gets its income...from which the Chantry partakes, in addition to the tithes.

I don't know how expensive lyrium is, but it fetches a pretty penny for smugglers, but the dwarves do keep the vast majority of it for themselves, so there is plenty of it. The laws of supply and demand in economics is what controls prices. With only one source, the dwarves can charge whatever they want for lyrium since they are the only source. But the Chantry also are the only ones really buying outside of smugglers, so they in turn can control who gets it and how much, or how much it's worth to the various circles.

But the only reason I contend with this is because there is nothing in the game that even suggests that the Chantry has any problems getting lyrium, or even close to having a shortage of it.

[quote]
[quote]Why sell enchanted weapons and armour? [/quote]
Because the Chantry coffers are not as overflowing as you think they are.[/quote]

At least to the point that at least one Revered Mother refuses to give any blessings unless a tithe is offered. 

[quote]
[quote]Why use mages in wars when they're so slobberingly dangerous?[/quote]
They don't *want* to, even when the literal end of the world is potentially at hand.  This is clearly laid out in DA:O by Gregoir and the old hag at the war council meeting with Loghain.  [/quote]

The Grand Cleric? "We will NOT trust any lives to your spells, mage! Save them for the darkspawn." All Uldred was trying to do was offer an alternative to the tower and the beacon, she shut him up before he could even finish his sentence.

That had nothing to do with danger of magic. It was all about him being a mage and she didn't want to hear it, well, that's how I interpreted based on how much emphasis she put on the word 'mage.'

And Gregoire's complaints weren't on how mages are dangerous, but were, word for word "We have already commited enough of our own!" He thought they sent plenty, if you can call only seven mages, plenty.


[quote]
[quote]Why force them to go through the Harrowing when they're going to spend the rest of their lives in a prison anyway?[/quote]

Because an adomination in said "prison" is exceedingly dangerous.  See Broken Circle quest in DA:O.[/quote]

While that's true, they are deliberately setting up mages to fail and become abominations, since the details of the Harrowing are kept secret.

[quote][quote]
Needed my ass. The Chantry's only need is enriching itself and maintaing its power.[/quote]

References to your anatomy do not make your narrow persepctive the Turth.

[/quote][/quote]

This line, while dismissive, does nothing to add or take away from the discussion, and is completely unneeded.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 22 octobre 2013 - 04:52 .

[ianvillan]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...


Greagoir took a risk by not doing so. An abomination could absolutely have slipped in among those kids. The risk works out if you have him take it, but had it not?

Or what about Wynne who was the only one that was stopping the abominations from escaping outside while the Templars were hiding.

Potentially an abomination, for all the Templars know.

Why aren't the Templars like Cullen also murdered by other Templars in case they are possessed by demons.

Because a possessed Templar is just a guy with a sword and very limited magic. An abomination is far and away more dangerous. (Of course, the Templars who attack the Templars performing the Annulment are presumably chopped down.)

The Templars position is meant to be the protection of mages yet they wont even try to save any mages in the tower and are content to hide while the surviving mages hold back the abominations while calling for an annulment to murder the surviving mages including the children.

All of this is supported and encouraged by the Chantry who view mages as sub-Human.

Don't forget that this is supposed to only be the worst case scenario. If there's any known alternative to Annulment, it's supposed to be tried.

So Wynne the only person preventing the escape of abominations is to be murdered because the Templars think a demon could of possibly of gotten into her, and this demon then decided to prevent the escape of other abominations from the tower and wait around to be killed by Templars.

Instead of the Templars investigating in the tower or looking at the children they should also be murdered because the Templars cant be bothered to do their job.

Templars that are possessed turn into abominations and can also pass for human until confronted but they are free from being murdered because they are human unlike mages who are less than human. If that is not Chantry corruption than I don't know what is.

[wcholcombe]

Ok, so from my 10 page topic I get the following:

Chantry is corrupt because they are keeping a tight leash on mages.
Chantry is corrupt because they have a few members who are aholes
Chantry is corrupt because of what they did to the Dalish after the Dalish sacked their city
Chantry is corrupt because of how the Templars act in DA2. Which was a game mechanic to create opportunities for conflict.
Chantry is corrupt because they are an organized religion.

Got it thanks for playing.

Modifié par wcholcombe, 22 octobre 2013 - 05:13 .

[dragonflight288]

wcholcombe wrote...

Ok, so from my 10 page topic I get the following:

Chantry is corrupt because they are keeping a tight leash on mages.
Chantry is corrupt because they have a few members who are aholes
Chantry is corrupt because of what they did to the Dalish after the Dalish sacked their city
Chantry is corrupt because of how the Templars act in DA2. Which was a game mechanic to create opportunities for conflict.
Chantry is corrupt because they are an organized religion.

Got it thanks for playing.

Not completely, at any rate. Some people point to their relationship with Orlais. They rose with Drakon the 1st, since he supported them out of all the other Andrastian Cults a century after her death, and have been politically involved from their inception.

And nothing is more corrupting than politics.

[leaguer of one]

wcholcombe wrote...

Ok, so from my 10 page topic I get the following:

Chantry is corrupt because they are keeping a tight leash on mages.
Chantry is corrupt because they have a few members who are aholes
Chantry is corrupt because of what they did to the Dalish after the Dalish sacked their city
Chantry is corrupt because of how the Templars act in DA2. Which was a game mechanic to create opportunities for conflict.
Chantry is corrupt because they are an organized religion.

Got it thanks for playing.

"Chantry is corrupt because they have a few members who are aholes"
...It's not just a few and they do nothing about it.


"Chantry is corrupt because of what they did to the Dalish after the Dalish sacked their city"
That was not the chantry's city.

"Chantry is corrupt because of how the Templars act in DA2. Which was a game mechanic to create opportunities for conflict."
...And they did nothing to stop them.

"Chantry is corrupt because they are keeping a tight leash on mages."
Correction, it's because they keep them on an unessiary tight leash.

[dragonflight288]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

 It is currently popular to hate religions.  That's about the long and short of it. 

I happen to be a very religious person in real life, but I am critical of the chantry based on how I've seen people act within it, or not act as the case may be, based on what people have said (like Alistair and Chantry practices when it comes to templars,) how little oversight the Chantry gives its templars in their treatment of mages, the templar codex saying they recruit largely from the more religiously devoted rather than those of moral character to keep them from questioning their orders, in addition to their constant meddling in politics.

Has nothing to do with religion in general, just Chantry practices.

[LobselVith8]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

It is currently popular to hate religions.  That's about the long and short of it. 

That completely ignores the articulated reasons why some people oppose, and even despise, the Chantry of Andraste. I'm not certain why some people make the claim that it's simply because it's a religious organization, while ignoring the actual reasons stipulated as to why the organization is condemned.

[wcholcombe]

leaguer of one wrote...

wcholcombe wrote...

Ok, so from my 10 page topic I get the following:

Chantry is corrupt because they are keeping a tight leash on mages.
Chantry is corrupt because they have a few members who are aholes
Chantry is corrupt because of what they did to the Dalish after the Dalish sacked their city
Chantry is corrupt because of how the Templars act in DA2. Which was a game mechanic to create opportunities for conflict.
Chantry is corrupt because they are an organized religion.

Got it thanks for playing.

"Chantry is corrupt because they have a few members who are aholes"
...It's not just a few and they do nothing about it.--Actually it is just a few.  And primarily in Kirwall.  There are some instances in Asunder, but that is when everything else is already hitting the fan and the Seekers are trying to crack down.


"Chantry is corrupt because of what they did to the Dalish after the Dalish sacked their city"
That was not the chantry's city. Actually considering the chantry is based in Val Royeaux and their chapel was sacked in the sacking of the city, they were sacked.

"Chantry is corrupt because of how the Templars act in DA2. Which was a game mechanic to create opportunities for conflict."
...And they did nothing to stop them. Of course not, if the Chantry stopped them, Hawke would have little or nothing to do. Just like the Chantry wasn't able to take care of all the blood mages under the city.  It is a game mechanic to give Hawke stuff to do.

"Chantry is corrupt because they are keeping a tight leash on mages."
Correction, it's because they keep them on an unessiary tight leash. Yeah, and when people have the powers that mages have, you have to keep a tight leash on them. It has gotten worse lately, but that doesn't make it corrupt.

[leaguer of one]

wcholcombe wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

wcholcombe wrote...

Ok, so from my 10 page topic I get the following:

Chantry is corrupt because they are keeping a tight leash on mages.
Chantry is corrupt because they have a few members who are aholes
Chantry is corrupt because of what they did to the Dalish after the Dalish sacked their city
Chantry is corrupt because of how the Templars act in DA2. Which was a game mechanic to create opportunities for conflict.
Chantry is corrupt because they are an organized religion.

Got it thanks for playing.

"Chantry is corrupt because they have a few members who are aholes"
...It's not just a few and they do nothing about it.--Actually it is just a few.  And primarily in Kirwall.  There are some instances in Asunder, but that is when everything else is already hitting the fan and the Seekers are trying to crack down.


"Chantry is corrupt because of what they did to the Dalish after the Dalish sacked their city"
That was not the chantry's city. Actually considering the chantry is based in Val Royeaux and their chapel was sacked in the sacking of the city, they were sacked.

"Chantry is corrupt because of how the Templars act in DA2. Which was a game mechanic to create opportunities for conflict."
...And they did nothing to stop them. Of course not, if the Chantry stopped them, Hawke would have little or nothing to do. Just like the Chantry wasn't able to take care of all the blood mages under the city.  It is a game mechanic to give Hawke stuff to do.

"Chantry is corrupt because they are keeping a tight leash on mages."
Correction, it's because they keep them on an unessiary tight leash. Yeah, and when people have the powers that mages have, you have to keep a tight leash on them. It has gotten worse lately, but that doesn't make it corrupt.

"Actually it is just a few.  And primarily in Kirwall.  There are some instances in Asunder, but that is when everything else is already hitting the fan and the Seekers are trying to crack down."

Wrong, read stone throne. The chantry of having a history of not letting mages fight in the war of nations. In stone throne they made sure that the Fereldin did not have the use of the circle...Byt the invading Orlishians were allowed to use as many mages as they want.

"Actually considering the chantry is based in Val Royeaux and their chapel was sacked in the sacking of the city, they were sacked." 

Sorry but that is no proof they would attack the chantry. The issue the dalish had were with the Orlishians. Added, they had no right to desolve the Elves country.

"Of course not, if the Chantry stopped them, Hawke would have little or nothing to do. Just like the Chantry wasn't able to take care of all the blood mages under the city.  It is a game mechanic to give Hawke stuff to do."

No it's not just a game mechanic. Ut's due to the fact that orlais wants control over the port of Kirkwall. Kirkwall use to be a part of the orlishian empire after it was taken back from the Qun but an uprising from it people freed it from the empire. Years later a tyrannt took over the city and imposed a heavy port tax that pissed the orlishians off so much they tried to get the chantry to do a march on the city. The chantry then tried to get the templars of kirkwall to take down that tyrannt but the templar commander refuse stating templars must stay out of the state. The tyrannt found out the chantry was trying to get their templars to take him down and out of paranoia attacked them first, killing the templar commander. His Captein at the time, Meredith, took over and took down that  Tyrannt and place the city in templar control. The chantry then used her devotion to her faith to keep her as a watch dog over kirkwall to make sure their benefactors, the orlishians, would have indirect control over the city through the chantry.
The chantry let Meredith , even when she became questional , keep control over the templars and the city because it was a way to have the orlishians control kirkwall and keep there beneifactors happy.

[wcholcombe]

leaguer of one wrote...

wcholcombe wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

wcholcombe wrote...

Ok, so from my 10 page topic I get the following:

Chantry is corrupt because they are keeping a tight leash on mages.
Chantry is corrupt because they have a few members who are aholes
Chantry is corrupt because of what they did to the Dalish after the Dalish sacked their city
Chantry is corrupt because of how the Templars act in DA2. Which was a game mechanic to create opportunities for conflict.
Chantry is corrupt because they are an organized religion.

Got it thanks for playing.

"Chantry is corrupt because they have a few members who are aholes"
...It's not just a few and they do nothing about it.--Actually it is just a few.  And primarily in Kirwall.  There are some instances in Asunder, but that is when everything else is already hitting the fan and the Seekers are trying to crack down.


"Chantry is corrupt because of what they did to the Dalish after the Dalish sacked their city"
That was not the chantry's city. Actually considering the chantry is based in Val Royeaux and their chapel was sacked in the sacking of the city, they were sacked.

"Chantry is corrupt because of how the Templars act in DA2. Which was a game mechanic to create opportunities for conflict."
...And they did nothing to stop them. Of course not, if the Chantry stopped them, Hawke would have little or nothing to do. Just like the Chantry wasn't able to take care of all the blood mages under the city.  It is a game mechanic to give Hawke stuff to do.

"Chantry is corrupt because they are keeping a tight leash on mages."
Correction, it's because they keep them on an unessiary tight leash. Yeah, and when people have the powers that mages have, you have to keep a tight leash on them. It has gotten worse lately, but that doesn't make it corrupt.

"Actually it is just a few.  And primarily in Kirwall.  There are some instances in Asunder, but that is when everything else is already hitting the fan and the Seekers are trying to crack down."

Wrong, read stone throne. The chantry of having a history of not letting mages fight in the war of nations. In stone throne they made sure that the Fereldin did not have the use of the circle...Byt the invading Orlishians were allowed to use as many mages as they want.

"Actually considering the chantry is based in Val Royeaux and their chapel was sacked in the sacking of the city, they were sacked." 

Sorry but that is no proof they would attack the chantry. The issue the dalish had were with the Orlishians. Added, they had no right to desolve the Elves country. They sacked the Cathedral in Val Royeuax.  That is attacking the Chantry.  Thedas tends to opperate by a might makes right kind of approach and if you start a war and sack the capital city of a country and sack the cathedral for the dominant human religion and than lose said war, you are pretty much at the mercy of the victors.  Hence they have the right to do whatever they want to with your country.  You lost the war.

"Of course not, if the Chantry stopped them, Hawke would have little or nothing to do. Just like the Chantry wasn't able to take care of all the blood mages under the city.  It is a game mechanic to give Hawke stuff to do."

No it's not just a game mechanic. Ut's due to the fact that orlais wants control over the port of Kirkwall. Kirkwall use to be a part of the orlishian empire after it was taken back from the Qun but an uprising from it people freed it from the empire. Years later a tyrannt took over the city and imposed a heavy port tax that pissed the orlishians off so much they tried to get the chantry to do a march on the city. The chantry then tried to get the templars of kirkwall to take down that tyrannt but the templar commander refuse stating templars must stay out of the state. The tyrannt found out the chantry was trying to get their templars to take him down and out of paranoia attacked them first, killing the templar commander. His Captein at the time, Meredith, took over and took down that  Tyrannt and place the city in templar control. The chantry then used her devotion to her faith to keep her as a watch dog over kirkwall to make sure their benefactors, the orlishians, would have indirect control over the city through the chantry.
The chantry let Meredith , even when she became questional , keep control over the templars and the city because it was a way to have the orlishians control kirkwall and keep there beneifactors happy. Link, info, something please.  This is the first I have heard of Meredith being a plot to control Kirkwall.  I do know about the tyrant and how Meredith came to power, but I haven't seen anything about Orlais controlling kirkwall.  Plus, there was a ruler of Kirkwall in DA2 once the blight ended.  After the blight Meredith was pretty much just concentrating on the mages.  She wasn't running the city.

[wcholcombe]

And it is still a game mechanic to make all these blood mages and horrible templars pop out of the wood work just so Hawke has people to fight. I don't think blood mages are nearly that common, nor do I think despicable excuse for human beings are quite that common among the templars.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Don't forget that this is supposed to only be the worst case scenario. If there's any known alternative to Annulment, it's supposed to be tried.

Give Meredith a medal then, for trying to search the gallows before ordering the Annulment....wait, she didn't. Oh, how about that Seeker in Rivain who found out mages were in contact with their families, it isn't like he went...straight to the Chantry and requested an Annulment take place. Wait, he did.

Hmmm....how many other annulments happened because of such slipshod reasoning as those two examples had, I wonder....the lore doesn't make that clear.

I didn't say it's always used properly. I said the very basic idea of it can be justified.

[ianvillan]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Don't forget that this is supposed to only be the worst case scenario. If there's any known alternative to Annulment, it's supposed to be tried.

Give Meredith a medal then, for trying to search the gallows before ordering the Annulment....wait, she didn't. Oh, how about that Seeker in Rivain who found out mages were in contact with their families, it isn't like he went...straight to the Chantry and requested an Annulment take place. Wait, he did.

Hmmm....how many other annulments happened because of such slipshod reasoning as those two examples had, I wonder....the lore doesn't make that clear.

I didn't say it's always used properly. I said the very basic idea of it can be justified.

It cant be justified to murder an entire circle because the Templars cannot do their jobs and wish to punish all for the actions of a few mages.

It is if a few people in a city today got plague and the response was to nuke the whole city because you don't know if anyone else has it.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

ianvillan wrote...

So Wynne the only person preventing the escape of abominations is to be murdered because the Templars think a demon could of possibly of gotten into her, and this demon then decided to prevent the escape of other abominations from the tower and wait around to be killed by Templars.

Don't forget that the demon in Sophia agrees to turn on its brethren, and perform an act it absolutely does not enjoy, because doing so benefits it in the long run.

Instead of the Templars investigating in the tower or looking at the children they should also be murdered because the Templars cant be bothered to do their job.

It's their job to ensure there are no more abominations. The only ways we know of that would do this for sure would be to either kill them or perfom the Rite of Tranquility. If you value the lives and minds of these potential innocents more than the safety of the Templars and that of any future mages who might otherwise be forced into contact with them (who are also innocents), then fine. Just don't get angry when the Templars disagree with you on both counts.

Templars that are possessed turn into abominations and can also pass for human until confronted but they are free from being murdered because they are human unlike mages who are less than human. If that is not Chantry corruption than I don't know what is.

Templars cannot become abominations. They can become Possessed Templars, who are orders of magnitude less scary. (If DA2 portrayed it differently, then it is flatly wrong according to the lore.)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 22 octobre 2013 - 07:17 .

[wcholcombe]

Oh yes, I read stolen throne. I am sorry, but there isn't any reason for the chantry to allow mages to fight to support a rebellion against a country that conquered them.

Were the Orlesians horrible? Sure, but they were also the recognized government of Ferelden. Why on earth would the Chantry allow mages to support a rebellion?

BTW there was also a Chantry Reverend Mother with the camp of outlaws that Logain's father ran. She was there helping them as a member of the chantry.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

ianvillan wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Don't forget that this is supposed to only be the worst case scenario. If there's any known alternative to Annulment, it's supposed to be tried.

Give Meredith a medal then, for trying to search the gallows before ordering the Annulment....wait, she didn't. Oh, how about that Seeker in Rivain who found out mages were in contact with their families, it isn't like he went...straight to the Chantry and requested an Annulment take place. Wait, he did.

Hmmm....how many other annulments happened because of such slipshod reasoning as those two examples had, I wonder....the lore doesn't make that clear.

I didn't say it's always used properly. I said the very basic idea of it can be justified.

It cant be justified to murder an entire circle because the Templars cannot do their jobs and wish to punish all for the actions of a few mages.

It is if a few people in a city today got plague and the response was to nuke the whole city because you don't know if anyone else has it.

No. It is as if half the city had the plague, there was no reliable medical test for said plague, and the city was trying to resist quarantine. (At least this is the case when it's used appropriately.) If it's just a few mages, the Templars aren't supposed to use the Annulment.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 22 octobre 2013 - 06:49 .

[The Hierophant]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Don't forget that this is supposed to only be the worst case scenario. If there's any known alternative to Annulment, it's supposed to be tried.

Give Meredith a medal then, for trying to search the gallows before ordering the Annulment....wait, she didn't. Oh, how about that Seeker in Rivain who found out mages were in contact with their families, it isn't like he went...straight to the Chantry and requested an Annulment take place. Wait, he did.

Hmmm....how many other annulments happened because of such slipshod reasoning as those two examples had, I wonder....the lore doesn't make that clear.

C'mon dragonflight we know that seeing their families isn't the only reason the FE gave for why the Seekers annulled the circle. Plus i doubt the Rivaini Chantry would've been reliable.

[dragonflight288]

The Hierophant wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Don't forget that this is supposed to only be the worst case scenario. If there's any known alternative to Annulment, it's supposed to be tried.

Give Meredith a medal then, for trying to search the gallows before ordering the Annulment....wait, she didn't. Oh, how about that Seeker in Rivain who found out mages were in contact with their families, it isn't like he went...straight to the Chantry and requested an Annulment take place. Wait, he did.

Hmmm....how many other annulments happened because of such slipshod reasoning as those two examples had, I wonder....the lore doesn't make that clear.

C'mon dragonflight we know that seeing their families isn't the only reason the FE gave for why the Seekers annulled the circle. Plus i doubt the Rivaini Chantry would've been reliable.

It isn't the only reason, but it is the main one stated in World of Thedas, since it's highly unlikely the local chantry and templars didn't know about the traditions still being practiced among the Seers, a practice strongly supported by the non-mages as well as the mages of that country.