Guest_Faerunner_*
I think the entire presentation of the conflict from both sides has been shoddy since DA2.
It's like both sides are in a contest to see who can be the most corrupt, dangerous, backstabbing, unlikeable, unsympathetic, etc. and they're both out to win.
I think the entire presentation of the conflict from both sides has been shoddy since DA2.
It's like both sides are in a contest to see who can be the most corrupt, dangerous, backstabbing, unlikeable, unsympathetic, etc. and they're both out to win.
It´s like somebody is trying to get rid of both parties.
1.
The system, because the system controls who is in charge. If the system wouldn´t be like enslave mages and in case of doubt kill the mage and let the templar go, someone would have realized the fact, that the templars in charge are insane.
2.
Everytime there is an abomination, the templars cry murder and hope nobody realizes the fact, they should have stopped the abomination from happening in the first place. Which happens quite often in DAO and DA 2. They just kill, but fail to protect.
Except there is no better alternative.
How do you "stop abominations from happening"? You don't. There is no sure way to prevent abominations. Neither is there a way to detect them.
I think the entire presentation of the conflict from both sides has been shoddy since DA2.
It's like both sides are in a contest to see who can be the most corrupt, dangerous, backstabbing, unlikeable, unsympathetic, etc. and they're both out to win.
Hey, welcome to history. Running joke among the TAs in the department here is to refer to class names with 'Scumbags' in the title. "What're you doing tonight?" "Grading papers for Scumbags 373 :/"
Although, to take one example, I think that Asunder was actually an incredibly optimistic portrayal of the conflict's outbreak in that it depicted plenty of people on multiple sides of the debate willing to compromise and being pushed toward war by the combination of a few extremists and the climate of fear that they helped to create, combined with a significant amount of exogenous shock. It's honestly a very charitable account. I've been reading a lot of stuff on the outbreak of wars lately, especially the American Civil War and the First World War, and frankly the general lack of sympathetic or relatively-sympathetic characters like Rhys, Evangeline, and Wynne is pretty stark.
But how can a system build to protect work, if it failes to protect time and again. And if people with such obvious flaws can get into positions of power. It is not like these problems started to happen 2 years ago. From the beginning of the circles till today the means to oppress mages have increased slowly but surely. For example the right of annulment was added several hundered years after the founding of the circles. Mages weren´t made tranquill from the start, that is something the chantry added over time. Tensions were rising over hundreds of years. In the beginning mages and templars cooperated, now templars observe and punish. Some mages are even made tranquill for disagreeing with ( or protesting against) templars.
The circles were build to protect mages from being harrassed and murdered( because of tevinter) and to protect the population from apostates. The idea of the circles is something completely different from what is happening today. The system failed. Killing the four culprits might have averted the war for some time, but the inability of the circle system to act as it is supposed to act(protect mages and the population) would have led to the same outcome. Slavery never works, no matter how you call it(containment, etc.).
And there is no reason to not replace the circle system by suffiently trained police officers to hunt down apostates and let the rest of the mages live in peace like normal citizens. Especially if these police officer have to answer to their own countries instead of one powerhungry organization like the chantry.
Don´t forget, they enslaved the elves as well. They just used a different excuse, religion. I cán´t fathom how terrified the people are by missionaries roaming the country, trying to convert everyone to believe in Fen Harell and the rest of the elven gods(sarcasm).
I'm not entirely sure how neutral an observer you are in that you refer to the Circles as "slavery" - certainly a legitimate point of view, but not one that lends itself to discussion about how the Circles have not necessarily failed as institutions. You see the collapse of two or three Circles as indictments of the entire concept; it is equally valid to see their failure as a failure of leadership and implementation.
You treat templars and police-officers as though they are entirely separate things, when in fact they originate from the same basic need and are intended to fulfill the same basic function. Templars are law enforcement, who have to get periodically amped up on drugs to have a chance at dealing with the population that they are supposed to handle. They're your sufficiently trained police officers.
It's a bit hypocritical for you to rail against the templars for failing to prevent abominations (I assume that you're not actually complaining about apostasy, even though it's what you said) while concurrently suggesting that everything would be fine and dandy if mages were allowed to live outside the Circles. Wouldn't it be even harder to prevent abominations from happening in that case? Your solution to the problem of abominations happening is to remove the safeguards that are in place at least theoretically to keep everybody safe from abominations. You don't see how somebody might object to that?
The situation is decidedly more complex than "this is a failure of the system because something went wrong". Your viewpoint is certainly a valid one, but it's not blatantly valid to the exclusion of all else, which is how you appear to be portraying it.
One of the best posts I've seen on the subject in a long time. Your fresher perspective on the subject is welcome and I hope you stick around for awhile. I bounce in and out of this thread myself, but I always read it. 
I've been thinking about this: does having happier mages mean suffering less abominations?
Abominations are one of the two main dangers about magic (the other one being abuse of power), and probably the most important since it can't be controlled. However, we don't know much about how it happens. We know that demons take possession of mages, and that they get a foothold taking advantage of the mage's weaknesses. Those mages not strong enough are directed to the Rite of Tranquility. But do anger, fear, frustration, etc. have an effect on that or is it another matter entirely?
Sadly, to make a good analysis we would need to know the rate of possession in each system. There are always some. We've seen the dangers in White Chantry Circles, we know that the Dalish hunt their own Seekers if they turn into abominations, Tevinter may be a magocracy but they still use templars, Flemeth was rumored to be an abomination, in Rivain posession is actually encouraged and Qunari are so scared of them that they didn't realize the military potential of mages until the war in Thedas. Every group has its share of problems.
But who has less abominations? Talking about percentages here, of course. We do know that Kirkwall's numbers of failed harrowings and use of blood magic were too high for White Chantry Circles, probably because of the sick experiments the old magisters did underground. That means there are numbers, and they can be compared.
Orsino admits he knew what Quentin was doing in the Templar ending.
Hmm I never chose that side. So does this mean it never happens in mage-side or does Hawke's actions when choosing Templar side adds to desperateness? Making him get desperate sooner than mage-side.
Hmm I never chose that side. So does this mean it never happens in mage-side or does Hawke's actions when choosing Templar side adds to desperateness?
It works like Anders and Karl when he romances a female Hawke.
It happened, but they never told you about it.
I've been thinking about this: does having happier mages mean suffering less abominations?
Abominations are one of the two main dangers about magic (the other one being abuse of power), and probably the most important since it can't be controlled. However, we don't know much about how it happens. We know that demons take possession of mages, and that they get a foothold taking advantage of the mage's weaknesses. Those mages not strong enough are directed to the Rite of Tranquility. But do anger, fear, frustration, etc. have an effect on that or is it another matter entirely?
Sadly, to make a good analysis we would need to know the rate of possession in each system. There are always some. We've seen the dangers in White Chantry Circles, we know that the Dalish hunt their own Seekers if they turn into abominations, Tevinter may be a magocracy but they still use templars, Flemeth was rumored to be an abomination, in Rivain posession is actually encouraged and Qunari are so scared of them that they didn't realize the military potential of mages until the war in Thedas. Every group has its share of problems.
But who has less abominations? Talking about percentages here, of course. We do know that Kirkwall's numbers of failed harrowings and use of blood magic were too high for White Chantry Circles, probably because of the sick experiments the old magisters did underground. That means there are numbers, and they can be compared.
No it won't decrease numbers of abomnations it is like sayign that making humans happy mean that there won't be less crimes... it is about freedom and control more freedom peoples have more crimes they commit more you have control over peoples (and i don't say just abut laws but also about consequences breaking it) less crimes we have. There is good reason behind law and even with it peoples commit crimes... and now we have mage who don't intend commit crime may end abomination who don't care about society rules/laws neither society can enforce it on abomnation as he have a lot personal power and is driven by desire for destruction and it is his goal.So in order to control mages you need strip away totally from their freedom and you still won't be able control abomnation so there is no way to control mage...
I can bet that qunari have smallest numbers of abomnations and if they have one they deal with them very quickly but as we can see they still don't have complete over them and one of their mages escaped and wanted to summon army of demon to destroy world and he almot succeed...
Hmm I never chose that side. So does this mean it never happens in mage-side or does Hawke's actions when choosing Templar side adds to desperateness? Making him get desperate sooner than mage-side.
It happens regardless, you're just not being told about it in the Mage ending. The letter is there no matter of your sympathies, and even if you've been freeing every mage in Kirkwall and only in the Last Straw chose Templars, Orsino still admits his dabbling with Quentin's experiments.
A bit strange, that you are discussing Mage-Templar conflict without even hearing the other side out. A bit too one-sided and biased to judge an event like that, isn't it?
It happens regardless, you're just not being told about it in the Mage ending. The letter is there no matter of your sympathies, and even if you've been freeing every mage in Kirkwall and only in the Last Straw chose Templars, Orsino still admits his dabbling with Quentin's experiments.
A bit strange, that you are discussing Mage-Templar conflict without even hearing the other side out. A bit too one-sided and biased to judge an event like that, isn't it?
You'll understand why we have a list of posters to never listen to about certain issues.
It happens regardless, you're just not being told about it in the Mage ending. The letter is there no matter of your sympathies, and even if you've been freeing every mage in Kirkwall and only in the Last Straw chose Templars, Orsino still admits his dabbling with Quentin's experiments.
A bit strange, that you are discussing Mage-Templar conflict without even hearing the other side out. A bit too one-sided and biased to judge an event like that, isn't it?
I read/youtubed all about it. I guess I missed Orsino's conversation. I know what happens exactly if you choose the Templars.
You'll understand why we have a list of posters to never listen to about certain issues.
In the old times it was only you and some other "elite members" who made such lists. With new site such things are dead. Don't flatter yourself by using "we".
I read all about it. I guess I missed Orsino's conversation. I know what happens exactly if you choose the Templars.
Reading about it makes you miss the smaller details that could put a whole new perspective on it.
Reading about it makes you miss the smaller details that could put a whole new perspective on it.
I also watched youtube but yeah I guess I missed something. Its the first thing.
I read/youtubed all about it. I guess I missed Orsino's conversation. I know what happens exactly if you choose the Templars.
In the old times it was only you and some other "elite members" who made such lists. With new site such things are dead. Don't flatter yourself by using "we".
Nah, don't worry. People will start ignoring each other again once they get used to the new avatars as opposed to character portraits. 
I'm not entirely sure how neutral an observer you are in that you refer to the Circles as "slavery" - certainly a legitimate point of view, but not one that lends itself to discussion about how the Circles have not necessarily failed as institutions. You see the collapse of two or three Circles as indictments of the entire concept; it is equally valid to see their failure as a failure of leadership and implementation.
You treat templars and police-officers as though they are entirely separate things, when in fact they originate from the same basic need and are intended to fulfill the same basic function. Templars are law enforcement, who have to get periodically amped up on drugs to have a chance at dealing with the population that they are supposed to handle. They're your sufficiently trained police officers.
It's a bit hypocritical for you to rail against the templars for failing to prevent abominations (I assume that you're not actually complaining about apostasy, even though it's what you said) while concurrently suggesting that everything would be fine and dandy if mages were allowed to live outside the Circles. Wouldn't it be even harder to prevent abominations from happening in that case? Your solution to the problem of abominations happening is to remove the safeguards that are in place at least theoretically to keep everybody safe from abominations. You don't see how somebody might object to that?
The situation is decidedly more complex than "this is a failure of the system because something went wrong". Your viewpoint is certainly a valid one, but it's not blatantly valid to the exclusion of all else, which is how you appear to be portraying it.
1.
I never said I am neutral, I said I am pro mage. I happen to dislike both empires, because both engage in active slavery. What do you call the enslavement of the elves or the subjugation of ferelden? The chantry acts in accordance with the orlaisian empire not the demands of the maker. They are the hypocrits. Pretending to spread the chant of light, while enforcing the will of the empire. Or did you hear of any country able to get rid of the circle system. They are not allowed to do so, even if they want to. Why should the chantry get to decide the fate of everyone else? The rivaini and elves are quite happy with their mages, and the chasind don´t mind them. Each society has to deal a lot less with abominations compared to the chantry.
2.
You managed to ignore the second half of my post.
3.
I was talking about the system, not about 2 or 3 circles. There wouldn´t be a war if only 2 or 3 circles would have failed, because both sides seem hellbend on destroying each other. So why would the templars split from the chantry if they believe the system to operate according to plans. If the system works, why did nobody object to the apparently insufficient leadership?
4.
Apostates are called Apostates because they are mages living outside the circle system. Not every Apostate happens to be a bloodmage or turns into an abominination. Hawke or his sister are Apostates as well, so are Flemeth and Morrigan( who happens to be an advisor of the empress).
5.
I made a suggestion to replace the circle system with something, that happens to work pretty fine in every society(it is called the police). If crimes occur, the police deals with the culprits, they don´t arrest everybody, just because most people are capable of committing crimes. And the existing safeguards don´t keep anyone safe, they happen to provide orlais wtih a second army, and they only help to kill abominations. They don´t stop abominations from happening. Like I said there are a several societies which have to deal a lot less with abominations, and don´t use the circle system unless they have to. The templars are not policeofficers, they are an army, willing to subjugate anyone not abiding by chantry doctrine.
Edit:
You fail to realize, there is no justification to subjugate an entire society, just because you want to feel safe.
You fail to realize, there is no justification to subjugate an entire society, just because you want to feel safe.
There have been plenty presented thus far.
And there will be plenty more.
Considering the circle returning is the most likely outcome of the war after all.
I read/youtubed all about it. I guess I missed Orsino's conversation. I know what happens exactly if you choose the Templars.
Yeah, it's like - "i've read/heard that mages become abominations, they must be contained" © commoner. Rings something familiar, eh?
Yeah, it's like - "i've read/heard that mages become abominations, they must be contained" © commoner. Rings something familiar, eh?
Is it so odd that i study both sides stances?
Its good to have information after all.
Even if i do have my flag already.
Is it so odd that i study both sides stances?
Its good to have information after all.
Even if i do have my flag already.
So do i, i have several PTs for both endings, but i was answering a person, who didn't bother other than reading and catching some videos, yet judging with all confidence.
I've been thinking about this: does having happier mages mean suffering less abominations?
Abominations are one of the two main dangers about magic (the other one being abuse of power), and probably the most important since it can't be controlled. However, we don't know much about how it happens. We know that demons take possession of mages, and that they get a foothold taking advantage of the mage's weaknesses. Those mages not strong enough are directed to the Rite of Tranquility. But do anger, fear, frustration, etc. have an effect on that or is it another matter entirely?
Sadly, to make a good analysis we would need to know the rate of possession in each system. There are always some. We've seen the dangers in White Chantry Circles, we know that the Dalish hunt their own Seekers if they turn into abominations, Tevinter may be a magocracy but they still use templars, Flemeth was rumored to be an abomination, in Rivain posession is actually encouraged and Qunari are so scared of them that they didn't realize the military potential of mages until the war in Thedas. Every group has its share of problems.
But who has less abominations? Talking about percentages here, of course. We do know that Kirkwall's numbers of failed harrowings and use of blood magic were too high for White Chantry Circles, probably because of the sick experiments the old magisters did underground. That means there are numbers, and they can be compared.
This is basically a large portion of the crux of the argument between the 2 sides. The promages largely tend to portray it as abominations only occur when a mage is threatened or subjugated by others-particularly templars or if a mage is just blatantly summoning demons which they believe would only occur if said mage was threatened.
The protempars again largely seem to think a mage stubs his toe and becomes an abomination. And that all mages will succumb to blood magic and summoning demons if not watched.
I and others of my ilk tend to fall somewhere in the middle. Your typical trained mage shouldn't be a huge risk of abomination but due to the shear danger presented if a mage becomes an obomination some oversite is required.
The biggest problem here is that the lore is inconsistent on the presentation of the danger of abominations and is outright ignored/thrown out the window at times due to gameplay. So what you have are the two sides able to pick and choose what lore they think is accurate and apply what supports their argument while ignoring that which does not.
So do i, i have several PTs for both endings, but i was answering a person, who didn't bother other than reading and catching some videos, yet judging with all confidence.
I have played both games Multiple times, Read every novel that is out, Studied the Codex's and WOT multiple times.
And i still admit i occasionally make mistakes or misquote lore.
But i do consider myself well informed and knowledgeable.
Its basically how i shifted from being neutral to being pro templar, the more you study the issue the more you realize it isn't a subject of rights and freedoms but safety and security for the majority.
That's whom those people exist to protect, average folks who would die or be enslaved by mage or abomination.
I have played both games Multiple times, Read every novel that is out, Studied the Codex's and WOT multiple times.
And i still admit i occasionally make mistakes or misquote lore.
But i do consider myself well informed and knowledgeable.
Its basically how i shifted from being neutral to being pro templar, the more you study the issue the more you realize it isn't a subject of rights and freedoms but safety and security for the majority.
I can kind of agree with this. After my first playthrough of DA2, I was a pro-mage that would have made Anders weep for joy. But, once I picked up DA2 about 3 years after my first playthrough, I realized that the conflict is much more nuanced and complex than I understood when I played DA back in high school. Like MWZ, it is a constant struggle between the collective security for the majority versus the individual liberties of the minority. The age old "few vs. many" debate. As a result, I have become a pro-mage that leans more to requiring a Circle system.
1.
I never said I am neutral, I said I am pro mage. I happen to dislike both empires, because both engage in active slavery. What do you call the enslavement of the elves or the subjugation of ferelden? The chantry acts in accordance with the orlaisian empire not the demands of the maker. They are the hypocrits. Pretending to spread the chant of light, while enforcing the will of the empire. Or did you hear of any country able to get rid of the circle system. They are not allowed to do so, even if they want to. Why should the chantry get to decide the fate of everyone else? The rivaini and elves are quite happy with their mages, and the chasind don´t mind them. Each society has to deal a lot less with abominations compared to the chantry.
3.
I was talking about the system, not about 2 or 3 circles. There wouldn´t be a war if only 2 or 3 circles would have failed, because both sides seem hellbend on destroying each other. So why would the templars split from the chantry if they believe the system to operate according to plans. If the system works, why did nobody object to the apparently insufficient leadership?
4.
Apostates are called Apostates because they are mages living outside the circle system. Not every Apostate happens to be a bloodmage or turns into an abominination. Hawke or his sister are Apostates as well, so are Flemeth and Morrigan( who happens to be an advisor of the empress).
5.
I made a suggestion to replace the circle system with something, that happens to work pretty fine in every society(it is called the police). If crimes occur, the police deals with the culprits, they don´t arrest everybody, just because most people are capable of committing crimes. And the existing safeguards don´t keep anyone safe, they happen to provide orlais wtih a second army, and they only help to kill abominations. They don´t stop abominations from happening. Like I said there are a several societies which have to deal a lot less with abominations, and don´t use the circle system unless they have to. The templars are not policeofficers, they are an army, willing to subjugate anyone not abiding by chantry doctrine.
Edit:
You fail to realize, there is no justification to subjugate an entire society, just because you want to feel safe.
1. The subjugation of ferelden is called war and invasion. It isn't enslavement. It is common practice in a midevil society when you conquer another one to remove the nobles of the previous society who don't swear allegiance to you with those who are loyal from your country as a reward for service. See William the Conqueror after the norman conquest in England in 1066. It isn't enslavement. Did you read stolen throne, none of them were enslaved. They were driven off their land for failing to pay taxes. Hey the orlisian ruler of ferelden was a horrible person, but what Orlais did in Ferelden isn't out of character for the time.
Please, the Chantry is not a tool of Orlais. They established the circle system, they pay its cost, they administer it, and the circles are considered soverign territory of the Chantry, the other kingdoms agreed to this.
The Rivani are largely Andrastian. Small rural communities use the seers, the nobility and Aristocracy are Chantry and support the circle system. The Dalish are tribal nomads who don't have a circle or country anyway, and the Chasind are a bunch of barbarians that the Ferelden's historically hate more than the Orlesians..
BTW, using gameplay we have seen two dalish camps, with at least one seer becoming an abomination and the other could arguably be called one, at the very least a blood mage. The chasind btw practice the harrowing and the mortality rate for possession among chasind apprentices is very high.
3. The response to this would be that the circles have functioned well until recently for a millenium.
4. Well, considering Flemeth is an abomination....
5. Yes, by all means lets worry about the abomination after he has already destroyed a village or 2. News doesn't travel fast in this time period. By the time news reached the templars or your police, an abomination would have been on the loose for possibly a month if it is in really remote areas. Connor is able to wipe out an entire castle and major village of 200 people, imagine if the abomination is in a group of villages without soldiers and knights and such to contend with.
I am a middle ground person and the protemplars annoy me, but the abject refusal to see the risk posed by abominations by some promages continually amazes me.
By ya'lls logic we should all be allowed to own full auto machine guns and rocket launchers and we will deal with it when something bad happens. I am pro gun and own about 15, but I don't think a civilian has any business owning either of those.
I am pro gun and own about 15, but I don't think a civilian has any business owning either of those.
HEY!
We have the right to possess 60 caliber machine guns with massively over sized magazines and domestically owned land mines!
Its what the founding fathers wanted!
Retour en haut