954 réponses à ce sujet

[Steelcan]

It wouldn't be world-shaking at all if the next game took place in Tevinter. It'd cause comment, but not huge changes to the Imperial status quo.

. I have doubts that the next game will feature exclusively in Tevinter

[Steelcan]

I don't see it as rebellion since they democratically voted on their future, and they are hunted by Lambert and the rest of the Seekers and templars who defected from the Chantry of Andraste.
 

 
Or they could simply venture to regions outside of Orlais and Ferelden, which would avoid stepping on everyone's toes.

Democratically formed or not they are still nothing more than rebels right now.

It would also affect the Free Marches, Nevarra, etc...

[Xilizhra]

Do not avoid the question. Your perceived subservience of the elves is irrelevant to this.

Humans policing other humans has lead to crimes commited against elves by humans being ignored. What guarantees do you offer that the mages would actually be interested in fairly and effectivelly prosecute their peers?
 

Again, to follow your logic, you'd be required to have humans policed by elves alone. The two places this analogy would lead is for either social integration, in which case humans and elves live together and are policed by a mixture of humans and elves, or total social segregation, in which each race has its own communities and polices its own. The situation with the Circles now is akin to humans alone policing both themselves and the Alienages, which, surprise surprise, leads to total crap; I somehow doubt that you'd approve of elves exclusively policing human societies any more.

[General TSAR]

That's not much of a Chantry position either. According to them, mages are still the Maker's children. And a blessing. Not a curse. edit: Well, not just a curse at least.

They are a blessing....to normal humans who could used them to devastate the unrighteous, once their concept of self is erased. 

[Xilizhra]

. I have doubts that the next game will feature exclusively in Tevinter

Tevinter and the qunari conquests, perhaps. Either way, it's far from impossible to have free mages not affect future games too much.

[MisterJB]

I don't see it as rebellion since they democratically voted on their future, and they are hunted by Lambert and the rest of the Seekers and templars who defected from the Chantry of Andraste.

Aren't all rebellions democratically voted on?

A bunch of people come together and they decide they're done doing what the government wants and are going to do something else instead.

[LobselVith8]

Do not avoid the question. Your perceived subservience of the elves is irrelevant to this.

 

Are you claiming that the elves aren't subservient to humans in Andrastian society?

 

Humans policing other humans has lead to crimes commited against elves by humans being ignored. What guarantees do you offer that the mages would actually be interested in fairly and effectivelly police and prosecute their peers?

 

Elves lacking the same rights as humans played a role in that. Ferelden law even criminalized killing a human in defense of an elf, as one example. This is a similar problem that I see with the Chantry controlled Circles, and why I prefer an alternative.

[General TSAR]

This sounds more like a Qunari view, I think. What use is there to relate it to Circles and Templars. You know your course. All of this irrelevant.

Yeah....I think a change in leadership and attitudes in the chantry is needed, It needs to be more stricter and utilitarian toward the mages. 

[displayname]

Well... yes? It's not their job, it's the job of lawmakers. The cops are there to enforce that which those who do have a say, said.

Yes, they enforce the law within the purview they are given. Or to relate it to DA, it is the same as a Templar being given purview over what a mage can or can not do. 

Templars, prior to the T-M War, followed the purview of the Chantry only abstaining when it involved Blood Magic. And just about everyone agrees on Blood Magic being bad.

 

Do mages get a say in what templars can and can't do in this case? Do they get a consistent, significant say in the Templar Order's operation?

Does the person with a gun get a say in what the Cop can and can not do? No they don't. The cop follows the purview they have to operate under.

 

Yes, its the job of lawmakers. We will call them - The Chantry - .

The Chantry - or lawmakers - , provide to the cops - templars -, what they can and can not do in the case of a mage - a person with a gun - .

People with a gun - mages -,  get to petition the lawmakers - chantry -, through first enchanters, so that templars - cops -, don't do things that mages - people with guns - don't like.

 

That is how it existed before Anders blew up the chantry. And Anders made that decision without a corrupting influence like a demon magic idol, he made that decision because the Grand Cleric wouldn't do as Anders wanted.

 

Every Mage, Not Even Once

The Order Dictates

[MisterJB]

Are you claiming that the elves aren't subservient to humans in Andrastian society?

Where is the relevance in that to this debate?

 

 

Elves lacking the same rights as humans played a role in that. Ferelden law even criminalized killing a human in defense of an elf, as one example. This is a similar problem that I see with the Chantry controlled Circles, and why I prefer an alternative.

 

So, basically, you propose an alternative that creates the same problems you dislike when they happen to another.

Just answer this: what guarantees do you have that mages would be interested in fairly policing and prosecuting their peers if these commits crimes against non-mages?

 

Just answer that. Do not talk about how you dislike "Chantry-controlled Circles" and how bad they are. Just answer the question.
 

[Grieving Natashina]

 

 

 

Yes, its the job of lawmakers. We will call them - The Chantry - .

The Chantry - or lawmakers - , provide to the cops - templars -, what they can and can not do in the case of a mage - a person with a gun - .

People with a gun - mages -,  get to petition the lawmakers - chantry -, through first enchanters, so that templars - cops -, don't do things that mages - people with guns - don't like.

 

 

Why did you forget the part where they are supposed to protect the mages as well?  From the wiki:

 

Templars are sworn to protect the world from the dangers of magic, but they also protect mages from the outside world, a world that fears these magic users for very good reasons.

 

 

Most of the pro-Templar posters know this and frame their arguments around such.  They know mages are dangerous, but they also know that they need to be protected as well.  This is also the source for some of the counter argument by the pro-Mage posters; that Templars have been abusing their power and forgetting the whole protection part.

 

So please, if you're going to be pro-Templar, at least get the facts about the Order straight.  So far, all I see is someone that hates mages, claims to be pro-Templar and yet has almost no understanding of what being a Templar means.  

[displayname]

Why use the Chantry? Why not just embrace the Qun? Become "Basvaraad".

 

Honest question.

Edit: Where does one find the ignore button?

 

Mages Under The Qun, Every Last One of Them

The Order Dictates, Sereebas

[Xilizhra]

Where is the relevance in that to this debate?

 

 

 

So, basically, you propose an alternative that creates the same problems you dislike when they happen to another.

Just answer this: what guarantees do you have that mages would be interested in fairly policing and prosecuting their peers if these commits crimes against non-mages?

 

Just answer that. Do not talk about how you dislike "Chantry-controlled Circles" and how bad they are. Just answer the question.
 

I would reply further, but I think you've blocked me, so I don't see much point.

[MisterJB]

Do mages get a say in what templars can and can't do in this case? Do they get a consistent, significant say in the Templar Order's operation?

I have suggested the daily operations of the Circle to be discussed and voted upon by an equally numbered council of Templars and mages. This would, of course, include Templar behavior.

[General TSAR]

Why use the Chantry? Why not just embrace the Qun? Become "Basvaraad".

 

Honest question.

Because I'm not a Bolshevik heathen.

 

The Qunari have good ideas about Mages and that's all we should embrace from my opinion.

[Xilizhra]

I have suggested the daily operations of the Circle to be discussed and voted upon by an equally numbered council of Templars and mages. This would, of course, include Templar behavior.

It's unnecessary to include Chantry representatives in discussions on local matters. If it affects multiple Circles, bring in both mages and clerics; templars still have no place in governance.

[MisterJB]

I would reply further, but I think you've blocked me, so I don't see much point.

I haven't. I just reserve the right to answer to ignore posts, even if they are directed at me.

[Grieving Natashina]

So you do embrace the Qun then?

 

What's with the "Order dictates" line mixed with Qun beliefs?

That does seems a little contradictory.  Still, not the weirdest thing I've read all night.

[MisterJB]

But you're also saying mages need not merely be contained, but lose their sense of self.

 

That's what I think is very Qunari about what you said. The idea that people have an essential nature to be called out (in your case, it' "WMDs"), and then denying them any other form of personhood beyond that nature.

You have to admit, you don't hear about Qunari mages becoming Abominations.

[Xilizhra]

You have to admit, you don't hear about Qunari mages becoming Abominations.

You do, however, have implications of qunari blood mages, if the Talisman of Saarebas is any indication.