If they were run by people with brain's why wouldn't the Templar simply draw and nock a bow and shoot the mage in the back when he turned to flee like a craven? Just saying, Templars are more then just swordsmen after all, they have archers as well
Then the mage uses Arcane Shield or Rock Armor to deflect said arrow. I can go all day.
Also, sword and archer templars are different specializations, so your example here now has two templars to one mage.
@Warder
So we are going to forget about the annulments because they're mages and their suffering isn't of priority. Thank you for making that clear. Are we also going to pretend that the Chantry truly gives a damn about the mages outside of using them in war and keeping them around as attack dogs that they treat however they deem fit? And are you still going to cling to the fallacious belief that all mages should forever be held responsible for the actions of a select handful more than a thousand years ago? Yeah, the Chantry is full of it. 
Do I think that all mages everywhere should be free at all times? In a perfect World in a perfect Thedas I do, but currently the mages are permanently interred within the circle system. It doesn't matter how proficient and trustworthy they are, the overwhelming majority will die there. Sure a few might one day be free when they're old and frail. Mages of proven ill repute should be treated as you would a regular criminal. Mages that do not yet have a mastery of their magic should stay in the circle until it can be proven otherwise. But of course why go through that all effort when you can lock them all up and throw away the key? Rivain and the Dalish are proof positive that what the Chantry ultimately believes about free mages is blatantly false.
And now you actually want to contest that the average mundane is on the same level as a mage in ability? Ability meaning combat? Well if that's the case, yes, all mages should be free everywhere as they're being contained under false pretenses.
Lastly, I view the templars as people, I view the Chantry as composed of people. Which makes their crimes all the worse to be honest. An abomination is a mindless killing machine. The Templars are not, neither is the Chantry who would subject some mages to unspeakable horrors simply because they can. The Chantry is a duplicitious, malevolent organization that will do and justify anything to spread its power and influence. They are as a collective, entirely composed of sh*t.
Then the mage uses Arcane Shield or Rock Armor to deflect said arrow. I can go all day.
Also, sword and archer templars are different specializations, so your example here now has two templars to one mage.
But the whole principle of your argument was that they fled due to not having access to spells because of "silence" So if an arrow due through the cheap cloth of their robes, it wouldn't be stopped by a shield or rock armor.
Different specializations?
In DA 2 You see Archer Templars, Draw Swords, And in DAO possessed templars draw bows if the PC pulls back far enough, Seems to me both Archers and Swordsmen come with bows and swords if distance is closed or exceed.
So it would still be one to one.
But the whole principle of your argument was that they fled due to not having access to spells because of "silence"
Different specializations?
In DA 2 You see Archer Templars, Draw Swords, And in DAO possessed templars draw bows if the PC pulls back far enough, Seems to me both Archers and Swordsmen come with bows and swords if distance is closed or exceed.
So it would still be one to one.
They have the spell up beforehand. I've also never seen any of what you claim, but if you wish to go by this, then it wouldn't be all that different due to aforementioned armor.
@Warder
So we are going to forget about the annulments because they're mages and their suffering isn't of priority. Thank you for making that clear. Are we also going to pretend that the Chantry truly gives a damn about the mages outside of using them in war and keeping them around as attack dogs that they treat however they deem fit? And are you still going to cling to the fallacious belief that all mages should forever be held responsible for the actions of a select handful more than a thousand years ago? Yeah, the Chantry is full of it.
Do I think that all mages everywhere should be free at all times? In a perfect World in a perfect Thedas I do, but currently the mages are permanently interred within the circle system. It doesn't matter how proficient and trustworthy they are, the overwhelming majority will die there. Sure a few might one day be free when they're old and frail. Mages of proven ill repute should be treated as you would a regular criminal. Mages that do not yet have a mastery of their magic should stay in the circle until it can be proven otherwise. But of course why go through that all effort when you can lock them all up and throw away the key? Rivain and the Dalish are proof positive that what the Chantry ultimately believes about free mages is blatantly false.
And now you actually want to contest that the average mundane is on the same level as a mage in ability? Ability meaning combat? Well if that's the case, yes, all mages should be free everywhere as they're being contained under false pretenses.
Lastly, I view the templars as people, I view the Chantry as composed of people. Which makes their crimes all the worse to be honest. An abomination is a mindless killing machine. The Templars are not, neither is the Chantry who would subject some mages to unspeakable horrors simply because they can. The Chantry is a duplicitious, malevolent organization that will do and justify anything to spread its power and influence. They are as a collective, entirely composed of sh*t.
No we are going to by the line of logic that, Kirkwall like Bioware stated was an exception, not a rule and that the other Annulments, given we only have knowledge of three and possibly four out of the 21 that have been completed, and one of those examples were fairly brief and offered little in detail. Also the pro mage crowd tends to forget the point that mages prompted the rite into existence, the Chantry and Circle both originally were without it.
And my belief is no more fallacious then others belief that Mages won't fall pray to the same subjection as their forebears, And preventing that to me is not only a matter of maintaining national, international and even continental stability but also a service to society.
You cite the example of two societies that suffer from abominations as examples of how mages can manage themselves? I'd argue for a more...successful model personally.
Templars, are normal people, Martially instructed of course but warriors aren't a rarity within Thedas. But my point being, you're argument is dependent upon the crux of Mages not falling pray to base temptation, and thus putting societial order and balance at risk if they do.
Lastly You're opinions of the Chantry are noted, they are not my own.
They have the spell up beforehand. I've also never seen any of what you claim, but if you wish to go by this, then it wouldn't be all that different due to aforementioned armor.
Because magically they have armor on before the fight even starts now
I call Deus ex.
Because magically they have armor on before the fight even starts now
I call Deus ex.
What, your mages don't? I barely take the spell off in-game.
I did read your OP, hence why I asked the questions you still have yet to answer. Your goal is significant social changes at institutional levels: that only comes from an ability to enforce your views (the position of leader of the Inquisition), to convince people to change them (ideological change), or a mixture of both.
But you have laid out no ideology or reason why people should embrace those changes. You have described what you want people to do, but not why they should agree why they should adopt your view. Which, if achieving them is your goal, leaves enforcing them and preventing them from defying you.
Of course, if not achieving them is acceptable, not changing people's views and not forcing them to change their actions will simply mean you are impotent and will fail.
Where is the virtue about a freer society if it's worse? Somalia is very free: a libertarian paradise free from government coercion, really. It also is one of the worst places in the world to live.
There's still the point about an ideology of individual freedom chaffing at the idea of having restrictions imposed on that individual freedom: who are you to say what I can or can not do even if it affects others? That's imposing limits on my freedoms.
If a goal is a voluntary side-quest, it's not a goal: it's a preference.
What you're describing here is simply partaking a preference if the opportunity arises- though maybe not, if the opportunity itself relies on some other compromise of values.
There's a label for people like that, and it's fair-weather reformer.
I did lay out my ideology, it is the first thing I do in my second post. If you failed to understand it, to bad I can't see a way to make it anymore simple for you.
You're right they're not goals they're prefrences, my personal prefrences based on my own ideology which formed my greater good. I won't force my prefrences on anyone, but if a conflict arises where one side has what I veiw as legitimate grievances based on my personal ideology I will aid them and do my best to guide them to a conlusion that favors my personal preference.
I'm not even a fair-weather reformer, I'm not a reformer period.
What, your mages don't? I barely take the spell off in-game.
No, and i'd assume most mages don't considering its a constant drain on mana.
I did lay out my ideology, it is the first thing I do in my second post. If you failed to understand it, to bad I can't see a way to make it anymore simple for you.
You're right they're not goals they're prefrences, my personal prefrences based on my own ideology which formed my greater good. I won't force my prefrences on anyone, but if a conflict arises where one side has what I veiw as legitimate grievances based on my personal ideology I will aid them and do my best to guide them to a conlusion that favors my personal preference.
I'm not even a fair-weather reformer, I'm not a reformer period.
An ideology isn't an end result, it's a foundation as well. You can say 'I want people to have individual liberty', and then vaguely define what individual liberty is to you, but that isn't an ideology. An ideology would be the intellectual and moral foundation about why that end point is desirable in the first place. It is, in essence, about why people should give two shits about it. The Qun offers certainty and purpose and validation in the present. Andrastianism offers redemption and earning a place with divinity. Dalish culture offers a means to preserve and establish identity. These are ideologies, not just end-points and prescriptions.
But, as you've made clear, you aren't out to make Thedas better. Which begs the question of why be the Inquisitor at all.
No, and i'd assume most mages don't considering its a constant drain on mana.
No it's not. It's a cap on the total amount of mana that you can use, but it doesn't drain your mana.
Also, blood mages lose nothing at all by piling sustains on.
No we are going to by the line of logic that, Kirkwall like Bioware stated was an exception, not a rule and that the other Annulments, given we only have knowledge of three and possibly four out of the 21 that have been completed, and one of those examples were fairly brief and offered little in detail. Also the pro mage crowd tends to forget the point that mages prompted the rite into existence, the Chantry and Circle both originally were without it.
And my belief is no more fallacious then others belief that Mages won't fall pray to the same subjection as their forebears, And preventing that to me is not only a matter of maintaining national, international and even continental stability but also a service to society.
You cite the example of two societies that suffer from abominations as examples of how mages can manage themselves? I'd argue for a more...successful model personally.
Templars, are normal people, Martially instructed of course but warriors aren't a rarity within Thedas. But my point being, you're argument is dependent upon the crux of Mages not falling pray to base temptation, and thus putting societial order and balance at risk if they do.
Lastly You're opinions of the Chantry are noted, they are not my own.
No it's not. It's a cap on the total amount of mana that you can use, but it doesn't drain your mana.
Also, blood mages lose nothing at all by piling sustains on.
Not really my point, considering it restricts the amount of spells you can do before an engagement even begins.
And alright?
Twenty One, you claim. And of those twenty-one you mean to tell me that an unjust or uncalled for annulment did not take place? If so, I have a bridge to sell you. Darismund counts as unjustifed as well, though that's up to your opinion and you'll disagree. Talk about your mages mixing with the muggles or the abominations all that you want. "The people would not be parted from their seers", doesn't seem to be validating Chantry/Templar beliefs. And sure the mages prompted it way back when, I don't believe that Darismund and Kirkwall and who knows how many other situations 'prompted' it though.
As long as it's the mage and not the thedasian 'going away for a long time'? Some mages will obviously want to emulate Tevinter, and some will become wild Abominations, judging from the Rivaini and the Dalish and individual mages, I think they should be given a shot. And if not given a shot, they will have to take it. Which is exactly where we are now.
Sure if you want to operate under the assumption that these societies are in ruins or out of control when we have direct evidence that supports the contrary. Oh and btw how do you feel about Wynne? I can link the Rivain entry and you know the Dalish. I also never got the impression from either society that they 'suffer' from abominations. Suffer meaning that they constantly attacked and fighting off abominations as a regular occurence. They both seem pretty happy to me, when they're not running from Templars or being slaughtered for daring to prove the Chantry wrong.
Some will fall prey sure. Not sure why that's an automatic death sentence for everyone anymore than a bandit raid can be. This also seems to assume that other mages won't be around to stop such an occurence or put the abomination down permanent. Your opinions of mages and what should be done with I do not share, on that we can agree.
Attempting to rebel isn't justification for annulment to you? Right emulating the idiocy of Kirkwall should be commended, not punished 
So you assume, "taking" and "taken" are to completely different concepts though, and thankfully Bioware isn't going to be labeling one factor the predominate winner right out of the gate.
Wynne? I think she was under the control of a creature of the fade, same as Anders, it would explain many bipolar instances of behavior and rash action on her part i do believe. And both societies listed have abominations noted within them, Both of them aren't conclusive proof of anything other then how the Templars and Chantry are right to safeguard mages from themselves and the world. Them magically being outside of a circle doesn't prevent possession.
Permanently kept away from society beats alternatives, It keeps both the mages and those they would harm safe from each other for the most part. Its a quarantine, a lockdown done not out of spite but need, and even Mages occasionally comprehend that concept.
The Greater Good
*Hot Fuzz meme*
I like this one:
Attempting to rebel isn't justification for annulment to you? Right emulating the idiocy of Kirkwall should be commended, not punished
So you assume, "taking" and "taken" are to completely different concepts though, and thankfully Bioware isn't going to be labeling one factor the predominate winner right out of the gate.
Wynne? I think she was under the control of a creature of the fade, same as Anders, it would explain many bipolar instances of behavior and rash action on her part i do believe. And both societies listed have abominations noted within them, Both of them aren't conclusive proof of anything other then how the Templars and Chantry are right to safeguard mages from themselves and the world. Them magically being outside of a circle doesn't prevent possession.
Permanently kept away from society beats alternatives, It keeps both the mages and those they would harm safe from each other for the most part. Its a quarantine, a lockdown done not out of spite but need, and even Mages occasionally comprehend that concept.
An ideology isn't an end result, it's a foundation as well. You can say 'I want people to have individual liberty', and then vaguely define what individual liberty is to you, but that isn't an ideology. An ideology would be the intellectual and moral foundation about why that end point is desirable in the first place. It is, in essence, about why people should give two shits about it. The Qun offers certainty and purpose and validation in the present. Andrastianism offers redemption and earning a place with divinity. Dalish culture offers a means to preserve and establish identity. These are ideologies, not just end-points and prescriptions.
But, as you've made clear, you aren't out to make Thedas better. Which begs the question of why be the Inquisitor at all.
Then Ideology is the wrong word, it is more of a principle of governance. I'm not seeking to supplant any ideology, one could still be an Andrastian, Dalish or even embrace the Qun willingly even though I personally find it repugnant even stripped of deny and die. The idea is that each person determines their own ideology free of the state telling what they must believe.
I'm not out to make Thedosian society better, making Thedas better is something else entirely. If I came across a merchant being robbed by bandits I would go to his aid, but I would oppose any law requiring me to do so. If I met a family displaced by war and I had the means to provide them with charity I would, but I wouldn't take from those capable but unwilling to give charity to do so. It may be a minor difference to some, even most but it makes all the difference in the world to me.
Retour en haut
