8640 réponses à ce sujet

[Hellion Rex]

Yes, that bad templar.

It is his fault Anders got possessed and decided to kill everyone!! 
 

After said Templar spy tried to capture him unlawfully, attempting to supercede the Right of Conscription.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Eluvianix has a point. The moment Anders was a Grey Warden, the Templars aren't allowed to touch him. A fact they ignored not once but twice, though the first time seemed like the Templar was going rogue to do so.

[The Elder King]

Eluvianix has a point. The moment Anders was a Grey Warden, the Templars aren't allowed to touch him. A fact they ignored not once but twice, though the first time seemed like the Templar was going rogue to do so.

Indeed, they didn't seem to be authorized. Though Anders was still breaking into Chantry's property.

[KaiserShep]

Eluvianix has a point. The moment Anders was a Grey Warden, the Templars aren't allowed to touch him. A fact they ignored not once but twice, though the first time seemed like the Templar was going rogue to do so.

 

I liked how Rylock claimed that the Chantry's authority superceded the crown, thus also superceding the right of conscription, in a closed secret space with a dragon slayer.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Indeed, they didn't seem to be authorized. Though Anders was still breaking into Chantry's property.

Wasn't the whole thing a set up?

 

 

I liked how Rylock claimed that the Chantry's authority superceded the crown, thus also superceding the right of conscription, in a closed secret space with a dragon slayer.

Apparently she didn't get the memo that the Warden has killed much tougher than her less than a year prior.

[Lotion Soronarr]

After said Templar spy tried to capture him unlawfully, attempting to supercede the Right of Conscription.

 

Different Templar.

Also, Anders tried to break in into Chantry property.

Grey Wardens are NOT above the law.

The Right of Conscription grants them the right to CONSCRIPT anyone (should they accept) and thus GW mages are outside of templar oversight.

BUT, that doesn't mean that if a GW commits a crime, he is untouchable by anyone. They must still answer to the law of the land they are in, and to their power structures.

 

Simply put, the moment Anders tried to break into the Chantry storage - GW or no - he was breaking the law and the templars or guard would be fully justified in going after him.

 

 

There was nothing unlawful about the Grey Wardens deciding an abomination in their ranks was too dangerous. Weather they execute him themselves or hand him over to the templars, it doesn't matter.

[Lulupab]

After said Templar spy tried to capture him unlawfully, attempting to supercede the Right of Conscription.

Of course we should remember that he killed them AFTER they decided to kill him. They were not going to arrest him, they were going to kill him
 

Different Templar.
Also, Anders tried to break in into Chantry property. Grey Wardens are NOT above the law.
 
 
There was nothing unlawful about the Grey Wardens deciding an abomination in their ranks was too dangerous. Weather they execute him themselves or hand him over to the templars, it doesn't matter.

 
SOME (or was it one person) grey wardens decided it was too dangerous. I bet many would appreciate an abomination that can think and strategize on their side. I mean he did obliterate a full squad of people who train for years to counter his kind with a single spell, what are some little darkspawn in comparison?

[Hellion Rex]

Different Templar.

Also, Anders tried to break in into Chantry property. Grey Wardens are NOT above the law.

 

 

There was nothing unlawful about the Grey Wardens deciding an abomination in their ranks was too dangerous. Weather they execute him themselves or hand him over to the templars, it doesn't matter.

The Grey Wardens didn't kick him out. It was a Templar spy who attempted supercede the Rite and attacked Anders. I'm not talking about Rylock.

[The Elder King]

Wasn't the whole thing a set up?
 
 

Apparently she didn't get the memo that the Warden has killed much tougher than her less than a year prior.

Yes, it was a set up, and the templars were in the wrong of trying to killAnders. But Anders still broke in (what he thought) was a Chantry property.
I'm not trying to justify the templars (they don't have any excuse) though. I'm just saying that Anders was breaking the law too.

[The Elder King]

Of course we should remember that he killed them AFTER they decided to kill him. They were not going to arrest him, they were going to kill him



SOME (or was it one person) grey wardens decided it was too dangerous. I bet many would appreciate an abomination that can think and strategize on their side. I mean he did obliterate a full squad of people who train for years to counter his kind with a single spell, what are some little darkspawn in comparison?

My Warden wouldn't have killed him, but he'd have surely smacked him in the head for his stupidity. Merging with a spirit, when you have no clue of what would've happened, is incredibly stupid.
And he'd definitely keep Anders under his surveillance.

[Lotion Soronarr]

SOME (or was it one person) grey wardens decided it was too dangerous. I bet many would appreciate an abomination that can think and strategize on their side. I mean he did obliterate a full squad of people who train for years to counter his kind with a single spell, what are some little darkspawn in comparison?

 

Grey Wardens don't look kindly on possession.

 

And they will look even less kindly on someone who killed a bunch of Grey Wardens and dessecrated their corpses.

 

Only a monumental idiot (like Hawke) would keep Anders around.

 

 

Also, set up or not, broken law is a broken law. The whole point of a set-up is to draw out those that would break the law willingly. And given the medieval setting, death might even be a lawfull punishment for the crime.

[The Elder King]

Grey Wardens don't look kindly on possession.
And they will look even less kindly on someone who killed a bunch of Grey Wardens and dessecrated their corpses.

I think Lulupab was talking in general, not after the events of the short story.

[Dean_the_Young]

As were her own Templars, given the multiple cases of insubordination, and even occasionally coming to blows over their differing views. But I guess we shouldn't be alarmed by this. Leadership couldn't possibly have anything to do with this.

 

 

Since when has good leadership meant a lack of internal friction? It's a nice myth, but organizations are hardly so convenient (or cohesive).

 

Nor does internal corruption (which Meredith likewise was restricting- hence the end of the Circle smugglers and the increasing difficulty of corruption to be ignored by the Templars) mean that external difficulties can't be faced.

 

 

So at what point should we be complacent with excuses like "bad situation" before demanding inquiry? Should it be before or after the Grand Cleric is blown up by a known apostate who was allowed to operate?

 

 

Oh, you can certainly demand an inquiry- but an inquiry is fact-finding to see if incompetence was to blame for the situation. The answer to that question may simply be 'no': outside actors and local context may explain a situation. The mages resisting in the streets at night can easily be ruled a consequence of Meredith adressing a pre-established permisive corruption: the fighting might go away if she didn't press the issue, but the underlying problem (mages outside the circle able to terrorize the streets) would not be solved.

 

 

 

"Sooo... what's up with all these dead Templars in the Chantry?"

 

 

 

Do you have any evidence that there wasn't an inquiry or investigation in the aftermath?
 

 

We also know that the person in question was using the rite in situations where said conditions were not met.

 

 

We don't know, however, that the person in question never used the rite in situations where said conditions were met. We don't even know if the person in question is the one that a post-massacre investigation would have led to being blamed- that might have fallen to the Templar squad leader killed on the scene.

 

Anders, uh, also kind of killed the witness who could have testified.

 

 

And here you've been accusing me of making assumptions.

 

 

Indeed. But which assumptions have I made here, as opposed to raised possible alternatives?

 

I'm challenging you to support your claim. If you're having trouble because you can look at outcomes but have have fewer facts as to causes, that's rather the point.

[Dean_the_Young]

1. In order to keep free mages from making a tevinter magocracy? For one thing I'd keep the templars around and kill corrupt mages who use blood magic without templar supervision and kill every demon I came across who are not in the Fade. And even then I might just kill all the demons I can while in the Fade if I'm playing as a mage. 

 

There's a place for templars. Add in that the templars in Tevinter don't take lyrium and don't have the ability to negate magic kind of takes away the dampener on mages that everywhere else has. 

 

I'd also say mages can't inherit a title. I have no problems with them being involved in court. My mage warden is the Chancellor after all. But I'm not the king. My biggest issues with the circle is the lack of rights mages have like having families, not being allowed to get married unless they get very special permission and even then they aren't allowed to keep their children. 

 

I'd also require all mages to attend the Circle at least until they passed their Harrowing or some version thereof. And despite the fact that I find the Right of Tranquility absolutely abominable, the tranquil can handle lyrium far more safely than regular mages so they naturally are better suited for enchanting services, so I wouldn't get rid of it, but I would limit it to be used as punishment on blood mages and mages who abuse their power. I'm sort of like the Qunari in that I don't believe in wasting resources and people are resources, even if it isn't politically correct to think of them as such. 

 

Templars have a place in watching mages and looking for signs of corruption. They are trained for this and this is something that must be handled. I'd just reform their order so that they are held accountable and to higher standards. Templars won't become Seekers. Ever. You run the risk of Seekers trying to become more like templars and observe mages rather than be the templars internal affairs office and observe templars. The Seekers would be recruited largely from highly skilled city guards like Aveline, officers in the military, or talented individuals, and they won't be held accountable to the Chantry but to some politically neutral organization, say the Inquisition. Or at least maybe just a branch of the Inquisition that focuses on templars only, while other parts of the Inquisition focuses on other issues.  gain

 

How does any of this prevent a cabal from rising in power to change the rules? More to the point, how does your institution keep itself from being changed to progressively remove the restrictions and ignore the mage abuses? You are already allowing mages extensive freedoms to gain political power (which would include being able to grant titles as well- no bloodline inheritence necessary), freely move and escape Templar oversight after the Harrowing, and otherwise escape the restrictions in place.

 

Nor is there much in here about preventing abuses from landing on the mundanes in the first place. You're reacting to when abuses are known after the fact- that does little for the commoners around, and even less in areas where the perpetrator can be long gone by the time a response force arrives.

 

This is a purely reactive security state, and hardly one in a position to sustain itself. Why should the masses have faith in it preventing a Tevinter?

 

 

 

 

 

2. How would I handle Anders? 

 

Well, first if he's running a free clinic in my city, I'd set him up in better accommodations and make sure he has everything he needs, supplies, personnel and so on to treat as many refugees as he can. If he's blowing up religious buildings, then I'd have him arrested, put in a very public trial, and have him either made tranquil or executed and make it very clear that he's the guilty party. Given his possession, it would likely be execution. The Circle would be on high alert and I'd probably have the Inquisition come in and run a search of it while the templars locked down facilities to keep civilians out of the circle until the whole mess was handled. Make sure there are no supporters, potential copy-cats or blood mages, etc. 

 

After the incident passes, the circle would go back to business as usual. 

 

 

And you're being reactive again, rather than preventative. And even elevating a mage over everyone else by giving him resources and importance.

 

 

Mind you, I suppose my point was missed by many: a person like Anders means a person who does not accept the validity of your system in the first place. Arguing that Anders wouldn't mind your system and would be happy rather ignores that he had a fixation of justice driving him: any position in the mage-mundane conflict can be seen as an injustice, to the mundanes if not the mages.

[Blackguard82]

I was ok with Anders during DA Awakening but in DA2 he really dropped the ball with what he did at the end. Now I can only justify helping the mages by playing with my selfish/evil characters(who happen to be also mages) even if the mages are opressed in the circles...

[Lulupab]

I was ok with Anders during DA Awakening but in DA2 he really dropped the ball with what he did at the end. Now I can only justify helping the mages by playing with my selfish/evil characters(who happen to be also mages) even if the mages are opressed in the circles...

 
Well not evil exactly, if you widen your perspective its not so different than say renegade shepard. Mages need help and you help them and damn the consequences. If some Templars need to die in process of helping it doesn't matter.
 
Its very much like a fight between two countries (Mages vs Templars) really. None of them are evil and both of them have a point while having flaws too. When fighting to save your kind and country, murder, genocide and sacrifice is justified. It IS evil but its sort of a necessary evil and is acts of heroism to the other side. This sort of evil has not only saved countless lives but has affected humanity greatly. Killing and terrorizing slavers for example was a necessary evil.
 

I think Lulupab was talking in general, not after the events of the short story.

Indeed.

[Dean_the_Young]

That's a bit of a misuse of 'necessary,' unless you speak in a purely moral integrity fashion.

 

Of course, 'necessity' is one of the most abused figures of speach in emotional and moral arguments. It seeks to remove the consideration of the alternatives, and limits perspective.

 

What's wrong with just simply saying 'I find slavery morally abhorrent and will accept great human and practical costs to eradicate it'?

[Xilizhra]

I'd also require all mages to attend the Circle at least until they passed their Harrowing or some version thereof. And despite the fact that I find the Right of Tranquility absolutely abominable, the tranquil can handle lyrium far more safely than regular mages so they naturally are better suited for enchanting services, so I wouldn't get rid of it, but I would limit it to be used as punishment on blood mages and mages who abuse their power. I'm sort of like the Qunari in that I don't believe in wasting resources and people are resources, even if it isn't politically correct to think of them as such.

This goes too far. Tranquility is vastly too much of a cruel and unusual punishment, and there are ways to handle the enchantment business without actually needing Tranquil (as I've mentioned prior).

 

The rest of your ideas... are okay, but I believe they still rely too much on the Chantry and the current iteration of templars, neither of whom are at all trustworthy.

 

Nor is there much in here about preventing abuses from landing on the mundanes in the first place. You're reacting to when abuses are known after the fact- that does little for the commoners around, and even less in areas where the perpetrator can be long gone by the time a response force arrives.

Personally, I believe that since the Circle has no governmental jurisdiction over these nonmages, it's actually the job of the rulers of whatever nation that happens to be to guard them. This is why I believe in expanding the lyrium trade to governmental forces as well so they can train their own pseudo-templars as they see fit and place them where they will.

[Dean_the_Young]

So make a new iteration of Templars. Creating a new organization with a different name and uniform won't change what they are. (One of the sillier aspects of your sentinel idea.)

 

The Tranquil themselves might disagree... but clearly they are subhuman abominations whose views on the matter need not be considered except as proof of the opposition.

[Lulupab]

That's a bit of a misuse of 'necessary,' unless you speak in a purely moral integrity fashion.

 

Of course, 'necessity' is one of the most abused figures of speach in emotional and moral arguments. It seeks to remove the consideration of the alternatives, and limits perspective.

 

What's wrong with just simply saying 'I find slavery morally abhorrent and will accept great human and practical costs to eradicate it'?

Yes I was just sort of labeling the acts as "necessary evil" to show moral integrity. Meaning we employed evil to correct an evil. Indeed the word "necessary" can be abused but I did not mean it that way. 

[Xilizhra]

So make a new iteration of Templars. Creating a new organization with a different name and uniform won't change what they are. (One of the sillier aspects of your sentinel idea.)

 

The Tranquil themselves might disagree... but clearly they are subhuman abominations whose views on the matter need not be considered except as proof of the opposition.

I edited my post shortly before you posted as a response to something you said earlier.

 

I believe that creating a new organization with different recruitment requirements and no religious affiliation, when the only thing it has in common with the older templars is a few antimagic powers, will lead to significant enough differences. As for the Tranquil, if Karl and Pharamond are any judge, I have my doubts.

[EmperorSahlertz]

So basically you think religion is the root of all evil, since that is the ONLY thing you change in your "reimagined" Templars.

[Hellion Rex]

So basically you think religion is the root of all evil, since that is the ONLY thing you change in your "reimagined" Templars.

You can't deny though that the Chantry has had some questionable PR in regards to the Mage-Templar dilemma.

[EmissaryofLies]

Indeed. Religion is not the root of all evil. Andraste's religion/Chantry's perversion of Andraste in regards to mages? I'd sooner trust Isabela to keep her hands off of an elf.

[Xilizhra]

So basically you think religion is the root of all evil, since that is the ONLY thing you change in your "reimagined" Templars.

The Chantry's magophobic doctrine is the root of many kinds of evil, yes.