1238 réponses à ce sujet

[TK514]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

TK514 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

TK514 wrote...

I think the word you'd want to use for Ser Alrik is 'criminal'.

Well.. He was a depraved criminal. Forcing the Rite of Tranquility on someone, and then using them as a sexdoll, is not exactly something a paragon of morality would do.

I don't really know what secular law has to say on the subject of tranquility, but Chantry law is pretty clear, and he undeniably broke that.  Which makes him a heretic, at the least.  Certainly grounds for removal from his position, possibly grounds for excommunication.  We don't have any information about the legality of his other actions, but I would hope they are illegal from a secular viewpoint, which means imprisonment at the least, or possibly execution.

Regardless, he's dead now, and I think he got off lightly.

Chantry law is not the same as chantry doctrine. Alrik was not a heretic since he still adhered to the dogma of the Chantry. He was a criminal because he broke the laws the Chantry had put in place. But these laws are not of a divine nature.

So how does Chantry Law and Secular Law overlap, particularly in the realms of prosecution and sentencing?

[EmperorSahlertz]

TK514 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

TK514 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

TK514 wrote...

I think the word you'd want to use for Ser Alrik is 'criminal'.

Well.. He was a depraved criminal. Forcing the Rite of Tranquility on someone, and then using them as a sexdoll, is not exactly something a paragon of morality would do.

I don't really know what secular law has to say on the subject of tranquility, but Chantry law is pretty clear, and he undeniably broke that.  Which makes him a heretic, at the least.  Certainly grounds for removal from his position, possibly grounds for excommunication.  We don't have any information about the legality of his other actions, but I would hope they are illegal from a secular viewpoint, which means imprisonment at the least, or possibly execution.

Regardless, he's dead now, and I think he got off lightly.

Chantry law is not the same as chantry doctrine. Alrik was not a heretic since he still adhered to the dogma of the Chantry. He was a criminal because he broke the laws the Chantry had put in place. But these laws are not of a divine nature.

So how does Chantry Law and Secular Law overlap, particularly in the realms of prosecution and sentencing?

Heresy would probably be handled by the Chantry itself, while its secular laws are enforced by the Templars. (Templars would probably also join in on the action with enforcing divine law though)

For example: It is not stated anywhere in the Chant of Light, that the mages MUST be in Circles. However Chantry law dictates that they must. But Apostates are not heretics. They are just mages who are breaking this Chantry law.

[Bardox9]

I don't think the Chantry should have any say in how the Circle is run. It would be like the Catholic Church running the UN military. Few in the Chantry even have a passing interest, much less a working knowledge base, in magic or it's studies.

IMO, only the Templars and Mages should have a say in what happens in a circle. They only half listen to the chantry anyway. Seems they only obey the chantry laws when it suits them. So why have them engaged in any part of the Circle's decision making process?

[HiroVoid]

Except a big reason why the Chantry runs the circles is because it's the closest thing Thedas has to the UN in that it's the organization that's most widely known and respected across the continents whose granted authority.

[Lord Raijin]

The only way that I would support the Chantry running the Circles if they give the Circle mages autonomy. In return with an agreeable vote from the First Enchanters to Senior Enchanters the templars could stop by at any given time without a scheduled appointment to see how the Circles are doing, and to spot any form of corruption. If corruption is sighted the treaty is hereby revoked, and the old system is restored once again. The templars can R.o.A the circle if the corruption is far from being repaired.

I believe in giving each Circle chances to reform themselves so they can be autonomous again.

1. 5 years of templar strict vigilant supervision
2. 10 years of templar strict vigilant supervision
3. Permanent templar strict vigilant supervision

3 strikes and you're out kind of deal

This benefits both parties.This will give mages the opportunity to prove that they can become their own little government.

Modifié par Lord Raijin, 16 novembre 2013 - 02:12 .

[TeamLexana]

I won't commit to being pro circle or anti until the game comes out and I play it. During DAO and DAA, I was like aww, man, this is terrible for the mages! Someone needs to help these guys.... but by time I played through DA2 at least twice, I was COMPLETELY ANTIMAGE, lol.

[Lord Raijin]

You've became an anti mage because of what you seen in DA2? Hack I became anti Anti Chantry anti templar by the end of my fifth play through.

The Chantry started this war against the mages and what you saw in DA2 was part of that war. How can you hate them for defending themselves? For wanting to win this war so they can finally be free from the shackles of the Chantry?

Why do you think the Chantry wants to imprison every mage in Thedas? To keep the "Innocent" mundanes safe? Highly unlikely. Why do you think the Chantry provides free magic studies in the Circle, and provide free room and board, not to mention food. That luxury comes at a cost; to become the Chantries personal army by force. Even in Thedas nothing is free, well... not without providing a service that is.

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If you are going by the literal translation, then why use the foreign word at all? Just say that you will hunt all kinds of depravity, which of course I'd hope you want to do anyway.

I would indeed. And maleficar rolls off the tongue better then "I'll hunt down the ones who are depraved!" 

[Nalia_dArnise]

Circle was a great idea spoiled by the Chantry. A school, where young mages can study magic without fear to be killed by non-mages or became an abomintaions? Sounds Great. But a school, students of which every moment can be beaten, rapped, lobotomied of even killed? Terrible. And Circle had come to this because of Chantry politics, because no one controls the templars, and no one is concern to mage's complains.
So the Circle must be reformed greatly and become much more independent of the Chanry and templars. The former Circle must be destroyed.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Lord Raijin wrote...
Why do you think the Chantry wants to imprison every mage in Thedas? To keep the "Innocent" mundanes safe? Highly unlikely.

Because mages clearly aren't dangerous, right?
Because ther HASto be some dark conspiracy behind it, right?

Well, let me asnwer your ideas of a "workable reform" with your own lines - Highly unlikely.

[Lord Raijin]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Lord Raijin wrote...
Why do you think the Chantry wants to imprison every mage in Thedas? To keep the "Innocent" mundanes safe? Highly unlikely.

Because mages clearly aren't dangerous, right?
Because ther HASto be some dark conspiracy behind it, right?

Well, let me asnwer your ideas of a "workable reform" with your own lines - Highly unlikely.

Mages are no less dangerous than the mundanes with giant swords (or dual daggers) strapped on their backs with their heavy set of armor.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Lord Raijin wrote...
Mages are no less dangerous than the mundanes with giant swords (or dual daggers) strapped on their backs with their heavy set of armor.

No, they are MORE dangerous.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If you are going by the literal translation, then why use the foreign word at all? Just say that you will hunt all kinds of depravity, which of course I'd hope you want to do anyway.

I would indeed. And maleficar rolls off the tongue better then "I'll hunt down the ones who are depraved!" 

I can certainly see the appeal of using the gravitas behind the word Maleficar, but you must also realize that in doing so, that you are willingly dilluting the meaning the word has come to hold, in the attempt to make it more universal, and less mage focused?

[Hellion Rex]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Lord Raijin wrote...
Mages are no less dangerous than the mundanes with giant swords (or dual daggers) strapped on their backs with their heavy set of armor.

No, they are MORE dangerous.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If you are going by the literal translation, then why use the foreign word at all? Just say that you will hunt all kinds of depravity, which of course I'd hope you want to do anyway.

I would indeed. And maleficar rolls off the tongue better then "I'll hunt down the ones who are depraved!" 

I can certainly see the appeal of using the gravitas behind the word Maleficar, but you must also realize that in doing so, that you are willingly dilluting the meaning the word has come to hold, in the attempt to make it more universal, and less mage focused?

Perhaps by doing so, the meaning becomes less mage-oriented, but again it is just one's personall interpretation of the word.

[EmperorSahlertz]

eluvianix wrote...
Perhaps by doing so, the meaning becomes less mage-oriented, but again it is just one's personall interpretation of the word.

Personal interpretations of words should not take precedence over cultural interpretations.

[Hellion Rex]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
Perhaps by doing so, the meaning becomes less mage-oriented, but again it is just one's personall interpretation of the word.

Personal interpretations of words should not take precedence over cultural interpretations.

In some cases, yes. I am not saying I necessarily agree with his personal interpretation, but that hardly makes his less valid.

[EmperorSahlertz]

eluvianix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
Perhaps by doing so, the meaning becomes less mage-oriented, but again it is just one's personall interpretation of the word.

Personal interpretations of words should not take precedence over cultural interpretations.

In some cases, yes. I am not saying I necessarily agree with his personal interpretation, but that hardly makes his less valid.

Negatory. Cultural interpretation will always take precedence over personal interpretations in matters of communication. If he goes around calling depraved mundanes Maleficar, he will cause confusion. On a personal matter, personal interpretaion can take precedence. For instance the word love, can mean many different things to different people. But if you use the word love as a synonym for hate, then you will cause confusions in your attempt to convey your ideas on the subject. Maleficar means a mage who practices illegal magic, no matter what the original meaning of the word was, and no matter what a person's personal interpretation of the word is.

[Hellion Rex]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

eluvianix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

eluvianix wrote...
Perhaps by doing so, the meaning becomes less mage-oriented, but again it is just one's personall interpretation of the word.

Personal interpretations of words should not take precedence over cultural interpretations.

In some cases, yes. I am not saying I necessarily agree with his personal interpretation, but that hardly makes his less valid.

Negatory. Cultural interpretation will always take precedence over personal interpretations in matters of communication. If he goes around calling depraved mundanes Maleficar, he will cause confusion. On a personal matter, personal interpretaion can take precedence. For instance the word love, can mean many different things to different people. But if you use the word love as a synonym for hate, then you will cause confusions in your attempt to convey your ideas on the subject. Maleficar means a mage who practices illegal magic, no matter what the original meaning of the word was, and no matter what a person's personal interpretation of the word is.

I was actually straying into real world territory with the application of personal versus cultural interpretation. But I see what you are saying in regards to the subject within the confines of Thedas.

[MisterJB]

Lord Raijin wrote...
Mages are no less dangerous than the mundanes with giant swords (or dual daggers) strapped on their backs with their heavy set of armor.

Of course. I mean, do you remember that time a normal child destroyed a thriving community all by his lonely self?
Wait, that never actually happened. A mage child, on the other hand, did kill more than half of a city and then raised their corpses as his army of undead soldiers and had them kill their families.

[The Elder King]

@Lord Raijin: regardless of one person's stance on the mage dilemma (if they should be free, leave in Circles, being treated like the saarebaas, etc.) to say that mages aren't more dangerous than armed men is objectively wrong. They are far more powerful, and in a normal situation still at risk of being possessed, while non-mages don't.
The Circle system the Chantry endorsed was meant to protect non-mages to magical threats, and mages from non-mages as well.
That doesn't mean that the Chantry doesn't have interests in keeping mages under their control, though I'd say they're more economical than militaristic. The only time the Chantry might've used mages to their own interests (don't recall if it used them) would be against Tevinter in the EM, since against the qunari it was a necessità to save southern Thedas (and I'd say mages would've been happy to help, since the alternative was living as animals).

[Hazegurl]

TeamLexana wrote...

I won't commit to being pro circle or anti until the game comes out and I play it. During DAO and DAA, I was like aww, man, this is terrible for the mages! Someone needs to help these guys.... but by time I played through DA2 at least twice, I was COMPLETELY ANTIMAGE, lol.

During my first DAO play through I was a mage and although I was anti Circle, dealing with Jowan gave me a sort of respect for it. I understood why it was needed but still wanted out of there. DAA made me see that the Circles were a bit too lenient where it mattered and restrict in ways it shouldn't be. 

Ex: Anders getting woken up with abuse- too restrict and unnecessary .
      Anders escaping nine times- far too lenient

However, I did think of my Origins play through and thought Anders account did not match up to what I saw of the Templars and Gregoir.

Then I played witch hunt and the mage guy loved the Circle. With all honesty I don't trust much of anything that comes from Ander's mouth. If he was woken up with abuse, it makes me wonder if he deserved it.

DA2 was an extreme account of the Circle. First you have Anders who is extremely anti circle so you will only hear the most extreme accounts from him because he's trying to get you on his side. Next you have like four extreme Templars that could make you anti Circle. Then you got blood mages littering the streets which could mke you Pro Circle. DA2 was so bipolar.

But anyway, I hear you on remaining neutral until the game comes out. who knows what could happen.

Modifié par Hazegurl, 16 novembre 2013 - 08:02 .

[dragonflight288]

Hazegurl wrote...

TeamLexana wrote...

I won't commit to being pro circle or anti until the game comes out and I play it. During DAO and DAA, I was like aww, man, this is terrible for the mages! Someone needs to help these guys.... but by time I played through DA2 at least twice, I was COMPLETELY ANTIMAGE, lol.

During my first DAO play through I was a mage and although I was anti Circle, dealing with Jowan gave me a sort of respect for it. I understood why it was needed but still wanted out of there. DAA made me see that the Circles were a bit too lenient where it mattered and restrict in ways it shouldn't be. 

Ex: Anders getting woken up with abuse- too restrict and unnecessary .
      Anders escaping nine times- far too lenient

However, I did think of my Origins play through and thought Anders account did not match up to what I saw of the Templars and Gregoir.

Then I played witch hunt and the mage guy loved the Circle. With all honesty I don't trust much of anything that comes from Ander's mouth. If he was woken up with abuse, it makes me wonder if he deserved it.

DA2 was an extreme account of the Circle. First you have Anders who is extremely anti circle so you will only hear the most extreme accounts from him because he's trying to get you on his side. Next you have like four extreme Templars that could make you anti Circle. Then you got blood mages littering the streets which could mke you Pro Circle. DA2 was so bipolar.

But anyway, I hear you on remaining neutral until the game comes out. who knows what could happen.

Pretty much why I base most of of my opinions on the Circle on Ferelden, and use Kirkwall's to point out the extremeties that can be done by either side, even if I recognize that I mostly point out the templar extremities because I feel like those are often overlooked even though I know on an intellectual level that they aren't. *shrug*

[TEWR]

Lord Raijin wrote...
Mages are no less dangerous than the mundanes with giant swords (or dual daggers) strapped on their backs with their heavy set of armor.

*channels Dwight Schrute*

False. While Mundanes can be as dangerous as a Mage, Mages are by default more dangerous then any mundane. Mages have an edge that makes them more dangerous from the day their abilities manifest.

If a mundane is going to be as dangerous as a mage, it's either going to take effort on his part or he's going to have other things going for him that makes it likely (like say authority in a broken system).

[Medhia Nox]

@Lord Raijin: So, if I presented you with the real world problem of fighting a man with a sword or a man with a flamethrower... which would you rather fight?

Do people "really" believe this argument, or is this one of those things a side cannot accept because it feels like conceding a point?

[Hellion Rex]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Lord Raijin: So, if I presented you with the real world problem of fighting a man with a sword or a man with a flamethrower... which would you rather fight?

Do people "really" believe this argument, or is this one of those things a side cannot accept because it feels like conceding a point?

I am unsure why he has to debate this still...it is perfectly acceptable to say that mages are inherently more dangerous, but they need not live up to that dangerous potential. I am pro-mage all the way, and I still accept that to be the honest truth.

[Medhia Nox]

@eluvianix: And, for myself, I wouldn't use it as a reason to lock mages up (which I think is why people get defensive) - but I would use it as a reason to pass many laws against the use of dangerous magics and zero tolerance penalties against abuses of said magics.

Why the Chantry lets just any mage in the Circle learn violent spells is absolutely idiotic. Loyalists only should have access to those spells - and those mages should have been given a specific Circle and been inducted into the order of Templars.