305 réponses à ce sujet

[WarriorOfLight999]

If you genuinely believe that Alrik was a protector, then our differences are irreconcilable.

[Xilizhra]

Leaving the Circle is extreme - as evidenced by the fact that moderate and conservative mages have usually been unwilling to do it. Blowing up chantrys is extreme. Framing other mages for murder to push an issue is extreme. Trying to assassinate the Divine with blood magic to push an issue is extreme. Turning to blood magic to solve the problem is extreme. Forcing mages who have no interest in it to discuss independence and participate in a vote for it because you've already forced them into a treasonous situation is extreme. The Libertarians forced the Templar's hand as much as the most extreme Templars forced the mages' hands. It's very sad because extremists on both sides are a minority but created this whole conflict while moderate, sane people were pushed into it against their will and forced to deal with it and become more and more resistant to the other's side. This, of course, is exactly what the extremists who can allow no compromise want. 

 

Ignoring the place of extremist mages in this toxic situation is foolishness. Many of them were even more extreme than Seeker Lambert himself. 

No. The mere fact that something is opposed by moderates and conservatives not make it extremist--either that, or it reduces "extremist" to "ahead of its time," thus robbing it of any sort of negative impact you hoped to produce. Any sort of equality in civil rights, for instance, you would have to consider extremist by this logic.

 

Also, Anders was an apostate, the assassin seemed to have been one as well (if he wasn't let out by Lambert), no blood mages were involved in the vote to leave the Circle, and the Libertarians never forced a single ****** thing. The templars should never have been in this war; there should never have been a war at all. Leaving the Chantry's grip was always a sane option. But with there being one now, I believe that the only moral course of action is to destroy as much of the Templar Order as is inquisitorially possible.

[Esteed789]

Well, we all have an opinion.

The way I see it, you're wrong; we can't and won't ever be anything else. But it's just a game and there's no need for me to preach about humanity.

 

 

True. People like to think of themselves as the hero of some drama.

It would be more truthfull to say "We're pursuing our interests which collide with their interests and that is why we will place ourselves above them."

But that's a tough sell these days.

 

 

 

And don't you think you're being self-rigtheous here yourself?

It's not as if many mages don't also act in the very same manner. Fiona, the Grand Enchanter, described indendence as "the right thing".

And even if you agree with her, it is a self-rigtheous and moral stance.

 

Star Wars is a work of fiction meant to entertain based on the world's morality. It's not history or realistic behavior of human beings.

 

Your first and last points seem to conflict.  First "it's just a game so we don't need to preach about humanity" and then "Star Wars doesn't count because it's fiction and not real".  Which is it?

 

Of course it's a tough sell.  Honesty isn't always pretty, but it's a lot better than calling yourself a hero while you're steeped in blood.  Which I'll grant you is just as true for someone like Anders or Adrian, which is why the extremists on both sides need to be removed for there to ever really be peace.

 

Do I think I'm being self-righteous?  Not particularly, no.  The templars haven't really tried it, have they?  A few individual templars may have, but has the templar order as an organization actually tried working with them?  No.  And I think if they had, then Anders and Adrian's (and, yes, Fiona's) extremism wouldn't have found anywhere near so many receptive ears.

[The Hierophant]

If you genuinely believe that Alrik was a protector, then our differences are irreconcilable.

Who said this?

lol nevermind.

[Esteed789]

Not rly templars in first place had very little control over mages pretty much that orsino (plus many other mages in circle) was corrupted shows that system is horrible in terms of controling mages and mages can't get away with many things.Pretty much it is freedom and power that mages had in circle allowed orsino as well ulrded get away with blood magic.  

 

If you seriously believe that the problem in the Kirkwall Circle was too much freedom, then there's not really any point in us continuing to discuss this.

[TheKomandorShepard]

If you genuinely believe that Alrik was a protector, then our differences are irreconcilable.

He was even if he was pr*** Alrik was protecting peoples same as abusive warden protects civilians from criminals like it or not.

 

 

If you seriously believe that the problem in the Kirkwall Circle was too much freedom, then there's not really any point in us continuing to discuss this.

Of course it was if mages didn't had freedom how orsino would do what he did.In first place if mages were controled they wouldn't do anything and that is prove they have freedom if they such things. 

[Esteed789]

He was even if he was pr*** Alrik was protecting peoples same as abusive warden protects civilians from criminals like it or not.

 

 

Of course it was if mages didn't had freedom how orsino would do what he did.In first place if mages were controled they wouldn't do anything and that is prove they have freedom if they such things. 

 

Right.  Sorry, TKS, but I think I'll bow out of discussing this with you.  Especially with your abusive warden analogy, it seems like the two of us are just so far apart ideologically that we'll never see anywhere even close to eye-to-eye.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Right.  Sorry, TKS, but I think I'll bow out of discussing this with you.  Especially with your abusive warden analogy, it seems like the two of us are just so far apart ideologically that we'll never see anywhere even close to eye-to-eye.

As i said like it or not but arlik proteced non-mages by fact being templar.

[Esteed789]

As i said like it or not but arlic proteced non-mages by fact being templar.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[TheKomandorShepard]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

There is nothing to agree or disagree here he was protecting non-mages even if he was abusive toward mages as well his solution that would provide great amount of safety for non-mages.

[MisterJB]

Your first and last points seem to conflict.  First "it's just a game so we don't need to preach about humanity" and then "Star Wars doesn't count because it's fiction and not real".  Which is it?

What is contradictory about it? We're talking in a forum about a videogame so I don't feel like getting on a soap box and giving a speech as to how humans have behaved for over dozens of thousands of years and why they continue to behave in that way in this very day and why most, if not all of our interactions and thougths, are selfish to the utmost, etc, etc.

 

And Star Wars is not meant to be a realistic portrayal of humanity. That single line didn't seem like preaching to me.

 

 

Do I think I'm being self-righteous?  Not particularly, no.  The templars haven't really tried it, have they?  A few individual templars may have, but has the templar order as an organization actually tried working with them?  No.  And I think if they had, then Anders and Adrian's (and, yes, Fiona's) extremism wouldn't have found anywhere near so many receptive ears.

What exactly constitutes "working with them" for you?

The Circle came to be because the mages wished to practice magic. Therefore, a compromise was reached. Mages would be allowed to practice magic but away from population centers.

Within the Circle, both the Knight Commander and the First Enchanter's permissions are needed for a mage to be made Tranquil; neither a mage nor a Templars can enter the phylactery room without the other; the FE can decide to send mages to fulfill a duty while the KC decided how many he is confortable with allowing to leave.

It seems to me most rules within the Circle are written in a way that will force Templars and mages to cooperate. If this is not the Templars Order as an organization trying to work with mages, what is?

 

It is more accurate to say that, within certain Circles, tensions between mages and Templars can reach  a crescendo where they will, activelly, work against one another. Kirkwall's is a good example

[Esteed789]

What is contradictory about it? We're talking in a forum about a videogame so I don't feel like getting on a soap box and giving a speech as to how humans have behaved for over dozens of thousands of years and why they continue to behave in that way in this very day and why most, if not all of our interactions and thougths, are selfish to the utmost, etc, etc.

 

And Star Wars is not meant to be a realistic portrayal of humanity. That single line didn't seem like preaching to me.

 

 

What exactly constitutes "working with them" for you?

The Circle came to be because the mages wished to practice magic. Therefore, a compromise was reached. Mages would be allowed to practice magic but away from population centers.

Within the Circle, both the Knight Commander and the First Enchanter's permissions are needed for a mage to be made Tranquil; neither a mage nor a Templars can enter the phylactery room without the other; the FE can decide to send mages to fulfill a duty while the KC decided how many he is confortable with allowing to leave.

It seems to me most rules within the Circle are written in a way that will force Templars and mages to cooperate. If this is not the Templars Order as an organization trying to work with mages, what is?

 

It is more accurate to say that, within certain Circles, tensions between mages and Templars can reach  a crescendo where they will, activelly, work against one another. Kirkwall's is a good example

 

Dragon Age isn't meant to be a realistic portrayal of humanity, either.  It's a game.  That's why I was confused why you were discounting an argument from another fictional thing whole cloth.  If that's not what you meant, I apologize for misreading it.

 

That's the system as it works on paper, and if that's how it worked in practice I'd be more okay with that, though I still question whether the templars should be directly involved in the schooling of mages given their religious bias.  The problem is that templar abuses are by and large ignored by their command structure, leading to a situation where the templars can do more or less whatever they want with the mages and the mages can't do much of anything to rectify it.  This might not be the case in Ferelden, Greagoir seems like someone who would absolutely respond if a mage came forward with evidence of, say, a templar raping a mage, but he seems to be an exception rather than the norm.

 

To be clear, I'm not anti-templar.  I absolutely do believe the templar order has a place in Thedas, even whatever new Thedas comes of this war.  Some mages absolutely do abuse their gifts, and Thedas absolutely does need a group of people that are ready, willing, and able to respond to that.  What I take issue with is the system as it currently works in execution, not so much on paper.

[MisterJB]

That's the system as it works on paper, and if that's how it worked in practice I'd be more okay with that, though I still question whether the templars should be directly involved in the schooling of mages given their religious bias.  The problem is that templar abuses are by and large ignored by their command structure, leading to a situation where the templars can do more or less whatever they want with the mages and the mages can't do much of anything to rectify it.  This might not be the case in Ferelden, Greagoir seems like someone who would absolutely respond if a mage came forward with evidence of, say, a templar raping a mage, but he seems to be an exception rather than the norm.

Why does he seem like the exception? We've seen three Circles and even in Kirkwall's, Ser Alrik and Karras had to conceal their crimes from Meredith which suggests they feared punishment.

This, of course, it's not crimes being ignored.

 

[Esteed789]

Why does he seem like the exception? We've seen three Circles and even in Kirkwall's, Ser Alrik and Karras had to conceal their crimes from Meredith which suggests they feared punishment.

This, of course, it's not crimes being ignored.

 

To me, neither one of them seems to be afraid of Meredith.  It seemed to me they were more afraid of the First Enchanter finding out.  Orsino himself didn't exactly help the situation, what with his tacit approval given to Quentin and the secret blood magery.  The White Spire, on the other hand, seems to be so poorly policed that a bunch of templars can let a child slowly starve to death and then sloppily cover it up with no one the wiser.

 

Ser Alrik himself is a case I think bears more examination.  I wish we knew more about how Meredith reacted to that, as it absolutely would effect my opinion on the matter.  As it stands, I see absolutely no reason why he should still be on active Circle duty after proposing his tranquil solution.  I feel like that should have been a pretty clear warning sign that he wasn't the sort of personality that should have daily interaction with mages that are just trying to live out their normal lives within the confines of the Circle.  If she didn't want to outright retrain him, the least that should have been done is assign him to a Chantry, so that he doesn't have easy access to people he considers to be at best monsters beyond all hope and at worst subhuman.  To me the fact that she didn't do that is telling, though again, knowing more about how she reacted to the tranquil solution beyond just a politely worded rejection might change my opinion somewhat.

[Lulupab]

Your first and last points seem to conflict.  First "it's just a game so we don't need to preach about humanity" and then "Star Wars doesn't count because it's fiction and not real".  Which is it?
 
Of course it's a tough sell.  Honesty isn't always pretty, but it's a lot better than calling yourself a hero while you're steeped in blood.  Which I'll grant you is just as true for someone like Anders or Adrian, which is why the extremists on both sides need to be removed for there to ever really be peace.
 
Do I think I'm being self-righteous?  Not particularly, no.  The templars haven't really tried it, have they?  A few individual templars may have, but has the templar order as an organization actually tried working with them?  No.  And I think if they had, then Anders and Adrian's (and, yes, Fiona's) extremism wouldn't have found anywhere near so many receptive ears.

I wouldn't call Fiona an extremist, not up until this point anyway since we don't really know what happens in DA:I. Wanting an autonomy in the circles where the chantry and Templars don't stick their nose in everything but in the same time the none-mages are protected is not extremism, that's a reform I'd like to see happen.

[Esteed789]

I wouldn't call Fiona an extremist, not up until this point anyway since we don't really know what happens in DA:I. Wanting an autonomy in the circles where the chantry and Templars don't stick their nose in everything but in the same time the none-mages are protected is not extremism, that's a reform I'd like to see happen.

 

I think we can absolutely call Fiona an extremist.  She believed there was no way to change what needed to be changed without war and was one of the many people, on both sides, who were manipulating the situation to make sure that's what happened.  I feel comfortable calling that extremism, especially when I don't believe open war was necessary to get the changes that needed to be made.

 

While I agree with you that the Chantry maybe needs to back off the mages (seriously, when you teach mages from a young age that even having magic makes them monsters, why are you surprised when some of them turn out that way?) the templars are absolutely an integral piece of the mage equation even after reforms.  I don't agree that the dangers mages pose justify the actions that were taken under the way things were, but we can't let ourselves be blind to the fact that these dangers exist, either.

 

A better system, imo, would be a system where the Circle polices itself, with assistance from the templars as needed.  The Circle itself would operate similarly to how it does now, with the added benefit of the families of young mages being allowed to visit, which I feel would do a lot to stabilize the experience for them.  The templars would still have a base on premises, or right next to the premises, so that if they are needed (say, in an Uldred situation, or upon request of the First Enchanter) they can mobilize swiftly.  New mages, if old enough, would be given a choice:  Attend the Circle, become tranquil, or die.  There would be a fourth option, if and only if a mage of the Circle was willing to become a live-in tutor for the new mage, with at least one templar tagging along.  If not old enough to make this decision for themselves, the parents would be given a choice, and if there are no parents involved, the new mage would just be taken to the Circle.  The templars primary focus would be on hunting down mages who use their gifts to abuse others, those new mages that still run even given their more reasonable choices, and supporting the Circle on request of the First Enchanter.  Only in an Uldred situation would the templars gain real authority over the Circle, because in a situation like that, I can agree with the thought that the mages are at too high a risk for having been compromised.

 

Is this system perfect?  No, but neither is the current one, and no system every will be.  I do think that would lead to a more peaceful relationship between mages and templars, which I do think will lead to a more peaceful relationship between mages and everybody else.

[Xilizhra]

I think we can absolutely call Fiona an extremist.  She believed there was no way to change what needed to be changed without war and was one of the many people, on both sides, who were manipulating the situation to make sure that's what happened.  I feel comfortable calling that extremism, especially when I don't believe open war was necessary to get the changes that needed to be made.

 

While I agree with you that the Chantry maybe needs to back off the mages (seriously, when you teach mages from a young age that even having magic makes them monsters, why are you surprised when some of them turn out that way?) the templars are absolutely an integral piece of the mage equation even after reforms.  I don't agree that the dangers mages pose justify the actions that were taken under the way things were, but we can't let ourselves be blind to the fact that these dangers exist, either.

 

A better system, imo, would be a system where the Circle polices itself, with assistance from the templars as needed.  The Circle itself would operate similarly to how it does now, with the added benefit of the families of young mages being allowed to visit, which I feel would do a lot to stabilize the experience for them.  The templars would still have a base on premises, or right next to the premises, so that if they are needed (say, in an Uldred situation, or upon request of the First Enchanter) they can mobilize swiftly.  New mages, if old enough, would be given a choice:  Attend the Circle, become tranquil, or die.  There would be a fourth option, if and only if a mage of the Circle was willing to become a live-in tutor for the new mage, with at least one templar tagging along.  If not old enough to make this decision for themselves, the parents would be given a choice, and if there are no parents involved, the new mage would just be taken to the Circle.  The templars primary focus would be on hunting down mages who use their gifts to abuse others, those new mages that still run even given their more reasonable choices, and supporting the Circle on request of the First Enchanter.  Only in an Uldred situation would the templars gain real authority over the Circle, because in a situation like that, I can agree with the thought that the mages are at too high a risk for having been compromised.

 

Is this system perfect?  No, but neither is the current one, and no system every will be.  I do think that would lead to a more peaceful relationship between mages and templars, which I do think will lead to a more peaceful relationship between mages and everybody else.

This is a workable premise, so long as we accept that the Templar Order has proven itself utterly untrustworthy and needs to be eradicated. Any necessary templars would have to be of completely new, and secular, stock, and work for the Circles, not the Chantry.

[Esteed789]

This is a workable premise, so long as we accept that the Templar Order has proven itself utterly untrustworthy and needs to be eradicated. Any necessary templars would have to be of completely new, and secular, stock, and work for the Circles, not the Chantry.

 

Nah, this is where I disagree.  Greagoir, Evangeline, and others like them are exactly the sort of people you want involved.  While I don't think their attitudes are the norm, I do feel there are probably a few more like them, and eradicating the good people to make sure the bad ones are destroyed is pretty much exactly what everyone's accusing the current templars of.

[Lulupab]

To me, neither one of them seems to be afraid of Meredith. It seemed to me they were more afraid of the First Enchanter finding out. Orsino himself didn't exactly help the situation, what with his tacit approval given to Quentin and the secret blood magery. The White Spire, on the other hand, seems to be so poorly policed that a bunch of templars can let a child slowly starve to death and then sloppily cover it up with no one the wiser.

Ser Alrik himself is a case I think bears more examination. I wish we knew more about how Meredith reacted to that, as it absolutely would effect my opinion on the matter. As it stands, I see absolutely no reason why he should still be on active Circle duty after proposing his tranquil solution. I feel like that should have been a pretty clear warning sign that he wasn't the sort of personality that should have daily interaction with mages that are just trying to live out their normal lives within the confines of the Circle. If she didn't want to outright retrain him, the least that should have been done is assign him to a Chantry, so that he doesn't have easy access to people he considers to be at best monsters beyond all hope and at worst subhuman. To me the fact that she didn't do that is telling, though again, knowing more about how she reacted to the tranquil solution beyond just a politely worded rejection might change my opinion somewhat.

This was EXACTLY what she proposed without war in her mind then Lambert disbanded college of enchanters, which meant that the peaceful solution was now impossible.

Separation from chantry and autonomy in circles which practically meant mages decided everything for themselves unless it interfered with safety of none mages outside of circles. The Templars would still be around for matters of security.

[Esteed789]

This was EXACTLY what she proposed without war in her mind then Lambert disbanded college of enchanters, which meant that the peaceful solution was now impossible.

Separation from chantry and autonomy in circles which practically meant mages decided everything for themselves unless it interfered with safety of none mages outside of circles. The Templars would still be around for matters of security.

 

It really seemed, in my readings at least, that what Fiona really wanted was war, and only presented more moderate views so that nobody could call her on trying to get just that.

[Lulupab]

It really seemed, in my readings at least, that what Fiona really wanted was war, and only presented more moderate views so that nobody could call her on trying to get just that.

That is certainly a view but what Lambert was doing was tyranny and in all history of mankind no tyrant was stopped without violence. First she strove for separation then her authority was taken away and she was locked up in a bloody dungeon waiting to be killed or tranquiled. I think this is a clear and understandable sign that she is dealing with zealots who have no ears for peaceful solutions.

It is confirmed that Lyrium causes paranoia, obsession and dementia. I wish there was a way where Templars were not junkies.

[Xilizhra]

Nah, this is where I disagree.  Greagoir, Evangeline, and others like them are exactly the sort of people you want involved.  While I don't think their attitudes are the norm, I do feel there are probably a few more like them, and eradicating the good people to make sure the bad ones are destroyed is pretty much exactly what everyone's accusing the current templars of.

Evangeline is no longer a templar and Greagoir commits every institutionalized atrocity the templars are allowed to. Also, it's the Order that I intend to destroy; individual templars will always have the option to surrender or defect.

[Esteed789]

That is certainly a view but what Lambert was doing was tyranny and in all history of mankind no tyrant was stopped without violence. First she strove for separation then her authority was taken away and she was locked up in a bloody dungeon waiting to be killed or tranquiled. I think this is a clear and understandable sign that she is dealing with zealots who have no ears for peaceful solutions.

It is confirmed that Lyrium causes paranoia, obsession and dementia. I wish there was a way where Templars were not junkies.

 

Oh, i don't disagree with you about Lambert.  But him being an extremist doesn't mean that Fiona wasn't.  The entire reason Thedas is in this situation to begin with is because the people with power/influence on both sides are unwilling to meet in the middle.  Fiona and Adrian are just as guilty of that as Lambert and Meredith.

 

EDIT:  Can you elaborate on your position re: Greagoir?  I can't recall any real cases of him committing a bunch of atrocities.

[Xilizhra]

Oh, i don't disagree with you about Lambert.  But him being an extremist doesn't mean that Fiona wasn't.  The entire reason Thedas is in this situation to begin with is because the people with power/influence on both sides are unwilling to meet in the middle.  Fiona and Adrian are just as guilty of that as Lambert and Meredith.

And yet, the former have never attempted genocide.

[Esteed789]

And yet, the former have never attempted genocide.

 

Nor did I say she did.  Lack of attempted genocide does not mean her hands are clean in this.