It is fair in the case of checks and balances. The problem lies more in that Seekers are usually Templars. Somehow I doubt the Chantry actually knows about it, but you never know.
I find it hard to believe that the Chantry doesn't know when they are the direct superiors of the Seekers. They answer only to the Divine....supposedly.
I think people should wait to see how The Seekers get Templar abilities before passing judgement.
For all we know, it could be like the Joining Ritual of the Grey Wardens. They may have to drink pure Lyrium; if they're lucky, they live and are set for life without the worry of addiction. If not, then they die right on the spot.
So....for all we know, the Seekers go through a Harrowing. 
Again there is Zero indication in Cassandra's Templar spec that says Seekers don't need Lyrium, all it says is that they don't have the risk of the addiction
join me my friend we can dismantle the chantry and co-exist as exist as equals. Nobody should be forced into addiction.I mean, I knew the Chantry was pretty shady, but to do this to their own soldiers is really bogus. That's going too far.
Again there is Zero indication in Cassandra's Templar spec that says Seekers don't need Lyrium, all it says is that they don't have the risk of the addiction
And wouldn't that be a boon to have that lack of addiction given to the Templar's as well?
I find it hard to believe that the Chantry doesn't know when they are the direct superiors of the Seekers. They answer only to the Divine....supposedly.
I mean the Chantry proper. The Divine isn't the entire Chantry...most of them just think they are.
Again there is Zero indication in Cassandra's Templar spec that says Seekers don't need Lyrium, all it says is that they don't have the risk of the addiction
That doesn't really change the point. It still means the Seekers force Templars to suffer.
And wouldn't that be a boon to have that lack of addiction given to the Templar's as well?
Exactly... this is the biggest problem. The Chantry is giving out an addictive substance that either the Templars don't need, or that they do need but they aren't also giving out a cure for the addiction. It's messed up no matter how you look at it.
join me my friend we can dismantle the chantry and co-exist as exist as equals. Nobody should be forced into addiction.
I never thought I'd see the day when I could agree to something like this...
And now, we have a bunch of armed addicts running around for idealistic reasons on their views of magic, addicted to lyrium and many turning to the very dangerous Red Lyrium that drives people mad.
Glad that it was established that all of it could have been avoided if the lyrium addiction was no longer an issue.
That doesn't really change the point. It still means the Seekers force Templars to suffer.
I know it does, but that doesn't mean people should jump to the conclusion that Seekers don't need Lyrium to use Templar abilities
And wouldn't that be a boon to have that lack of addiction given to the Templar's as well?
Yea it would, but I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong for the Templars to suffer
I know it does, but that doesn't mean people should jump to the conclusion that Seekers don't need Lyrium to use Templar abilities
But they don't need it regularly, and they're not addicted, even if they do need it initially.
And since they're not addicted, they don't need to rely on the Chantry as the only reliable source to get their 'fix.'
Even if you're right, the Chantry and the Seekers STILL look really bad over this.
A toast to new alliances and a new order of templars and magi* offers shirly templar*I never thought I'd see the day when I could agree to something like this...
Here is a bright idea: Maybe we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on a single, out of context, paragraph of text?
Now the Chantry look even more shady, clever but pretty wrong.
Here is a bright idea: Maybe we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on a single, out of context, paragraph of text?
I'm not seeing a lot of room for interpretation...
Now the Chantry look even more shady, clever but pretty wrong.
What group in Thedas isn't, am I right lol
Here is a bright idea: Maybe we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on a single, out of context, paragraph of text?
Out of context? It says right there that as a seeker, they don't have lyrium addiction.
There is no room for interpretation here. Seekers are not addicted to lyrium, yet have full access to templar talents.
Well at least my warrior Warden won't be retconned into a druggie.
Yay.
I guess.
I never thought I'd see the day when I could agree to something like this...
"Dismantle the Chantry" or "Reform the Chantry because most of it already blew up" I like the second one.
Well at least my warrior Warden won't be retconned into a druggie.
Yay.
I guess.
Except Alistair is the one who teaches you....and he needs lyrium.
Except Alistair is the one who teaches you....and he needs lyrium.
In the comic, and not Origins.
Except Alistair is the one who teaches you....and he needs lyrium.
He didn't need it in DAO.
I never thought I'd see the day when I could agree to something like this...
I'm more on the side of reforming the Chantry, I would do the Circle
In the comic, and not Origins.
Eh, I've always been of mind that he slipped lyrium into your food when you weren't looking. He is the one who's cooking it.
Retour en haut