94 réponses à ce sujet

[Saphiron123]

It just make no sense except for the Chantry which is really similar to one religious organization from real word (which is know for "kill all mages attitude").

 

Playing all three DA games well I think Bioware really hates mages and is pro-Maker.

 

Let's look at it from the beginning. Battle of Ostagar well, where are the mage forces? Why do you need to light up some stupid fire in a tower? Wouldn't fireball above the tower do better? Why doesn't any mage cast Storm of Ages upon the darkspawn? would kill like half of them with one spell... Why there are no fireballs or even beginners spells like grease light up with flaming arrows. Cast earthquake under enemy rangers are they pretty much won't hit anything.

 

Cailan made a huge mistake meeting the darkspawn heads on when he had a castle (they could just use mages to distract enemies with spells like grease, eartquake or blizzard and shoot most of them down before they would even reach castle walls and after that slay survivng  - now pretty tired darspawn from climbing the walls- with ease), but hey he wanted glory blabla but when the battle went south, why didn't they throw him a rope from the walls and one of the mages could just cast force field around him and soldiers would pull him up safely, give him fresh horse and send him away.

 

And for the Circle? Why on earth would they need or even want teplars? What can templars do that mages can't? Templars can thin the veil and kill the mages soul thus making him/her tranquil or kill the mage in physical world. But mages can enter the fade and kill demon freeing the mage (as happened with Conor) so why wouldn't they save their own? It's not like every possessed mage made a pact with demon. While I agree it could be hard to slay friend who you know for 20 years, mages could have some kind of specialized demon hunters and send them across other Circles so neither would be forced to kill their friends. Mages are far better equipped for battling demons than some drug addicted morons (templars) which are far more easily corrupted by demons than mages (as we saw in DA2). And when you save mage from possessing demon, Circle can always borrow him/her amulet of will for some time, cast some protection spells blabla and the mage can just teach magic theory or be herbalist or something until s/he can return to spell casting again. Do you need to use magic actively to use mage staff? Not according to game mechanics, so they could even fight...

 

It's not like every mage turn into a demon at some point, there are plenty of mages who doesn't live in the circle and didn't turn into a demon and mages are the best healers in the land. That should make people like them, or even worship them (just bare in mind how people treated doctors not so long ago) if it wasn't for lie spawning Chantry.

 

And why doesn't demons bother PC? There is no sidequest when the PC would wake up in Fade and be bothered by some sort of demon/s which tells us how rare this possession is. Drunken templar is MUCH greater danger then mage not controlled by Chantry's stupid rules.

 

But if you are pro mage, game treats you like some Tevinter renegate and goddess forbid if you are against the Maker you're the heathen blasphemer... What happened to other deity? I doubt there wasn't  some kind of Old Gods or some local deities based on powerful spirits (not all demons are of the same power, some are more powerful, but there are also good spirit and some of them are powerful - like the Maker was before he was either killed or left so some other spirits might took his/her place). Since mages appearently entered Makers Golden City via spirit world it is a safe assumption that this Maker was some sort of powerful spirit. And only mages could come this close to Makers doorstep which should make them High priests/esses.

 

So why mages doesn't have bigger role and respect in the game? Why can't you push the story towards the point when mages wouldn't be feared but rightfully respected? You can't take the middle point and broker piece between those fractions or decide you don't need either and even if you're pro mage why on earth that means that you want to destroy the circles? They are useful, just replace templars with mage watchers and everyone would be happy cos mages wouldn't feel opressed and templars could be sent by Circle to hunt down blood mages.

Templars have anti-magic abilities, and they hunt abominations and maleficar. Every mage is at risk of becoming demon possessed, so they templars keep them in check.

And people are biased toward mages, the mages rules and normal people were like slaves until andraste. She established the chantry, the chantry established the rules mages had to adhere to, built the circles, and institiutes the templars.

So mages basically enslaved most of the world at one point, and in tavinter they still hold sway.

It's not a shock the population isn't warm and fuzzy towards them.

[Saphiron123]

well I am aware of that, but mages can kill abominations as well as templar, truth be told a lot easier and they don't need to waste lyrium on that like templar has to

Yeah except abominations can convert other mages. Look at the tower in origins. Uldrid did that himself, using other mages.

Had the warden not intervened the rite of annulment would have been used and an army of tempalrs would have slaughtered everyone and everything in the tower.

Mages are dangerous. And lyrium enhances templar abilities.

[Jeffry]

@o Ventus

 

 

 

 

And yet he's still a part of a gross minority. The templars and other mages are overrun because there has to be a story to tell.

 

- There have been 17 Rights of Annulment invoked for similar reasons and more were requested. And there have been many more single possessions than anyone in Thedas could count.

 

 

Reavers.

 

- Yeah, I don't really recall reavers being able to summon giant pride demons or tear down whole buildings just by their hands (I meant destroy as completely eradicate the village from existence, not just simply kill every old farmer and their wives, which every skilled assassin could do as well).

 

 

"I'm keeping them locked up for their own good!"

 

They are not locked up when Cassandra is made Divine, yet balance is kept at the same time. And yes, it is for their own good as well as others. If you lived in Ferelden in the time of mage-templar war with appostates murdering innocents or during the time Fereldan circle was almost annulled, would you still advocate for their freedom?

 

 

If you ignore Rivain and Nevarra, sure. The both of them have their own customs for mages and they're neither rife with corruption nor excessively cruel with their mages.

 

- Nobody in general was permanently excessively cruel with their mages. It went too far only in Kirkwall as far as we know. There were many Rights of Annulment invoked in Nevarra and there was one even in Rivain. In Nevarra mages have almost as much political power in Tevinter, because they are mages. In Rivain they have circles similar to the rest of Thedas. Though they have more mages running free (for better or worse, we don't know much about Rivain and its history).

 

 

You saying it doesn't work doesn't make it so. Congratulations, you pointed out the obvious differences between a real-life issue and a parallel to a medieval fantasy series.

You've stated the obvious contrast between real life and fantasy. Congratulations.
 

- Saying it twice doesn't make your argument more valid. Try it three times in the future, maybe it will help. Or, here is a brilliant idea, next time try a less obviously stupid analogy / parallel / comparison, which might actually be relevant. That could also work.

 

And as was stated above me, you should watch your tone. If you are running out of arguments, step away, I won't make fun of you (no promises though). By resulting to aggression you won't achieve anything here.

[Jeffry]

There is also the fact that we have been around a few possessed mages and they do perfectly fine. 

 

Flemeth, Wynne and Anders (mostly)

 

So, blowing up the cathedral and killing countless innocent people to start a war (that will kill even more innocent people in the future) or you know, train your own daugthers so you could later take their bodies (and also kill some occasional innocents) is perfectly fine?

 

Wynne was lucky, a good spirit "possessed" her. You can't count on luck when it comes to possession.

[Boost32]

Hey guys, why not just agree to disagree and stop this circular argument?
No side will convince the others, there is no reason to continue the debate.

[ComedicSociopathy]

Hey guys, why not just agree to disagree and stop this circular argument?
No side will convince the others, there is no reason to continue the debate.

 

[Jeffry]

Hey guys, why not just agree to disagree and stop this circular argument?
No side will convince the others, there is no reason to continue the debate.

 

Well there is always hope that some people will see reason, logic and facts at the of the discussion instead of acting aggressively, but in this thread this is a fool's hope, isn't it. At this point I kinda wish a BWmod would barge in here and drop his "We're done here" line.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Can everyone who is using people with mental illnesses as a comparison for mass murdering please stop. It is quite offensive to people who suffer mental illnesses and handicaps.

[o Ventus]

There is also the fact that we have been around a few possessed mages and they do perfectly fine. 

 

Flemeth, Wynne and Anders (mostly)

 

So the whole idea of abominations are evil and possession is bad is simplistic. 

 

To quote Solas :- "It's more complicated than that." 

 

I'm not sure I would call any of them possessed. They all retain their personalities (except when Anders turns into the Hulk gets angry), and there are no noticeable physical changes (again, aside from when Anders gets mad).

 

It's still unknown whether Mythal was actually a person at one point or was always a spirit, but Wynne and Anders were joined by Spirits of Faith and Justice, respectively. Possession, at least in the common parlance, typically pertains to a demon forcefully taking over a mage's body to suit its own ends (and transforming the body in the process).

[Meave]

Sorry, I admit I have not read it all when I posted that, I just wanted to quickly chime in due to lack of time.

 

Your argumentation is seriously lacking in several points.

 

Some mages, like Irving would be better to watch over other mages, but some mages like Uldred "watching" over others would be catastrophic. You can't let the mages control and govern themselves without templars' supervision, you just can't trust them, since that would be just a disaster wating to happen. Everybody saw what happens when mages go nuts.

 

well your argumentation lack logic. First of all you take lore for granted, but that's like a sheep's point of view. Lore is only for orientation. If several nodes supports some theory then it is probably truth. But all you say is scrapes of one codex wrote by a freaking Chantry. Where is other evidence that what they say is true? I played all three games a lot and I saw much more corrupted and possessed templars than mages so hmm who is more dangerous? Mages do just fine on their own, but chantry as a political power in the game wants to keep everyone at bay, cos who other than mages have the meanings to prove that Chantry's wrong? So they gathered some soldiers, made addicts out of them and use them to terrorize mages to shut them up. They spread lies during their Sunday meetings with common folks about how all the mages are evil abominations.

 

I just don't believe most of Chantry's doctrine is based on truth. And it would be better if templars weren't present in the Circles. They still can gather young mages and bring them to Circles and hunt down possessed mages but in Circle mages can watch over themselves much more efficiantly. Mages wouldn't feel opressed or imprisoned and after their basic education in the Circle they could go wherever they want and live a normal life. Common people would gladly accept a mage to be a village healer or town's healer cos they had no medicine to speak of. Mortality rate (from illnesses and diseases and wounds) would drop by like 90% if they did have a mage. Vast majority of mages lives whole life without being possessed by demon...

[Jeffry]

well your argumentation lack logic. First of all you take lore for granted, but that's like a sheep's point of view. Lore is only for orientation. If several nodes supports some theory then it is probably truth. But all you say is scrapes of one codex wrote by a freaking Chantry. Where is other evidence that what they say is true? I played all three games a lot and I saw much more corrupted and possessed templars than mages so hmm who is more dangerous? Mages do just fine on their own, but chantry as a political power in the game wants to keep everyone at bay, cos who other than mages have the meanings to prove that Chantry's wrong? So they gathered some soldiers, made addicts out of them and use them to terrorize mages to shut them up. They spread lies during their Sunday meetings with common folks about how all the mages are evil abominations.

I just don't believe most of Chantry's doctrine is based on truth. And it would be better if templars weren't present in the Circles. They still can gather young mages and bring them to Circles and hunt down possessed mages but in Circle mages can watch over themselves much more efficiantly. Mages wouldn't feel opressed or imprisoned and after their basic education in the Circle they could go wherever they want and live a normal life. Common people would gladly accept a mage to be a village healer or town's healer cos they had no medicine to speak of. Mortality rate (from illnesses and diseases and wounds) would drop by like 90% if they did have a mage. Vast majority of mages lives whole life without being possessed by demon...

I was basing my claims on every piece of evidence we have and went from there, you are just creating your own lore. Who is more logical now?

Chantry's doctrine is at least partially based on the truth or have you not played Legacy and DAI?

Mages are dangerous, there is no discussion about this, they need the templars themselves. It is not they fault, there were born that way, but they need to kept in check just in case. Being watched on every step by templars is wrong, but the knight-commander has to have at least the same authority as the first enchanter, it can't go the other way around. Mages need to cooperate with templars, but they should not be allowed to govern themselves without supervision.

Yeah, common people would be thrilled to accept every free mage they possibly can, because that totally weren't mages running free allied with slavers who terrorized the country just a moment ago

[Meave]

I was basing my claims on every piece of evidence we have and went from there, you are just creating your own lore. Who is more logical now?

Chantry's doctrine is at least partially based on the truth or have you not played Legacy and DAI?

Mages are dangerous, there is no discussion about this, they need the templars themselves. It is not they fault, there were born that way, but they need to kept in check just in case. Being watched on every step by templars is wrong, but the knight-commander has to have at least the same authority as the first enchanter, it can't go the other way around. Mages need to cooperate with templars, but they should not be allowed to govern themselves without supervision.

Yeah, common people would be thrilled to accept every free mage they possibly can, because that totally weren't mages running free allied with slavers who terrorized the country just a moment ago

 

yet once again one need a magnifying glass to see the logic

 

I base my logic on evidence that I get thru playing the game (if you believe everything that is written well lucky you, no need for pink glasses your world must be joyful). Tevinter mages don't go rampart and Tevinter isn't some demon lair so what's your point? It only proves that even mages using blood magic in huge scales doesn't massively turn into demons.

 

Uldred was blood mage, by the time he went to Circle tower he was already a demon and templars let him into the tower cos they are not as resistant to magic as they think (one of Chantry's many lies).

 

And you take a knight commander as example? Which one? The one who turned into blood sucking demon or the one who wanted to sacrifice innocent children cos they happen to be mages? Or the one who turned pretty mage females into tranquils so they served him as sex toys? Jeez I don't know it's hard to pick your favorite...

[Grieving Natashina]

How about Knight-Commander Greagoir, from the Ferelden Circle?  He states that he will not invoke the Right of Annulment if the Warden can bring back Irving (the First Enchanter) back alive.  How about that, despite some snipping between him and Irving, that there is a real respect for each other?  That the Ferelden circle was one of the more permissive ones, as demonstrated by Anders' multiple attempts to flee and by Finn (from the Witch Hunt DLC) accompanying the Warden to look for Morrigan?

 

Finn is interesting, since Witch Hunt takes place after Origins.  In other words, after Uldred pulls his crap.  If all KCs were so bad, so abusive, Greagoir could have superseded Irving's authority and told Finn no.   I'm not pretending anyone is a saint, but there aren't as many villainous templars as first appears.

 

Both examples of the corrupted KCs take place in DA2.  And let's be honest, if we're going to talk about abusive templars, we have to talk about the number of blood mages.  Read the codex regarding the secrets of Kirkwall.  There is a few magic reasons for the level of crazy that seems to easily take over the city.  Thin Veil, the city streets forming into a giant blood rune, the Bone Pit being so close w/ it's sacrifices to the Old Gods/blood magic.  The place is cursed in a manner of speaking.

 

I love to play dwarven rogues and as a result, I find myself neutral in mage v templar debates.  Both groups have their pluses and minuses.  How I play depends upon how I'm roleplaying my character at the time.  My dwarf figured to "fight fire with fire" and knew little about the whole mage/templar business, so she went with the mages.  My current character, on the other hand, figures that getting the Templars back in order is the ticket to a peaceful world.

 

For those that think this is a circular debate, count your blessings that you didn't see the 1100 page Mage v Templar thread from last year, or the other several hundred page threads that pop up from time to time.  

[Meave]

How about Knight-Commander Greagoir, from the Ferelden Circle?  He states that he will not invoke the Right of Annulment if the Warden can bring back Irving (the First Enchanter) back alive.  How about that, despite some snipping between him and Irving, that there is a real respect for each other?  That the Ferelden circle was one of the more permissive ones, as demonstrated by Anders' multiple attempts to flee and by Finn (from the Witch Hunt DLC) accompanying the Warden to look for Morrigan?

 

that's the very same I was mentioning - he was about to murder children, "possessed or not, slay them all" (he said something in that sense)

[Grieving Natashina]

that's the very same I was mentioning - he was about to murder children, "possessed or not, slay them all" (he said something in that sense)

The thing is, he was going to do it as a last resort.  He could have easily told the Warden, "No, the mages are too dangerous and they all must die now," but he didn't.  Unless there is some very fine print in those treaties, there is nothing a Warden can do to stop a Right of Annulment from occurring.  Not a thing.  The KC was ready to slaughter all the mages, true.  If those children had been abominations, then sadly, that would have been the best course of action.   This is coming from a player that is more pro-Mage than pro-Templar in many cases.

 

Greigor was ready to do his job, but also ready to look for another solution.  In fact, he seems pretty enthusiastic about having the Warden rescue Irving.  It was Cullen (after you find him) that was the most vocal about the Right of Annulment needing to happen.  Far more so than Greigor.  Of course, I'm beginning to suspect that you feel the mage v templar situation is black and white, when truthfully it seems to be one of the more complex areas of the DA story. 

[Koneko Koji]

I'm not sure I would call any of them possessed. They all retain their personalities (except when Anders turns into the Hulk gets angry), and there are no noticeable physical changes (again, aside from when Anders gets mad).

 

It's still unknown whether Mythal was actually a person at one point or was always a spirit, but Wynne and Anders were joined by Spirits of Faith and Justice, respectively. Possession, at least in the common parlance, typically pertains to a demon forcefully taking over a mage's body to suit its own ends (and transforming the body in the process).

 

Considering that the Chantry don't make a difference between demons and spirits - the possessed would still be considered an abomination.

[X Equestris]

Considering that the Chantry don't make a difference between demons and spirits - the possessed would still be considered an abomination.

That's blatantly false. The Chantry distinguishes between spirits and demons, though their view is relativley simplistic, believing that spirits are good and demons are bad. The Dalish don't distinguish, however.

[DanteYoda]

There are a lot of things in Dragon Age franchise that make no sense, honestly there are..

[DanteYoda]

That's blatantly false. The Chantry distinguishes between spirits and demons, though their view is relativley simplistic, believing that spirits are good and demons are bad. The Dalish don't distinguish, however.

Most Templars don't have a clue what the difference between a Spirit and a Demon is, they see only Demons then usually scream "kill it", hell most Templars can't tell between a mage and a demon..

[Sunbrow]

Well like real life, might makes right.  The guy left standing makes the rules.  The weak only get a voice if the strong let them. This rule applies to drug addict templars and powerful mages. I was hoping for a cool Templar/Mage war that was nicely narrated by Varric and built up in DA2. Instead we get some convoluted story and a green hand. I noticed as an apostate I could run around Kirkwall and do pretty much anything I wanted..even tell off Meredith in public.  Why???  Power...Its why Meredith could tell off the King of Ferelden/Alister and not lose her head on the spot.  The classic line "Don't ask for something you can't take" applies here big time.

 

Oh and in my opinion the high clerics unwillingness to stand up to Meredith and appoint a ruler of Kirkwall caused that whole mess to explode.  She got what she deserved. Peaceful resolution only comes about when someone stands vigil with a sword at you side.

 

So let the Templars and Mages throw down...which is what I wanted in Inquisition.  Instead we get a Rift's  MMO want to be and a character with barely a background and a green hand....sad

[X Equestris]

Most Templars don't have a clue what the difference between a Spirit and a Demon is, they see only Demons then usually scream "kill it", hell most Templars can't tell between a mage and a demon..

That is a gross oversimplification.

[Meave]

The thing is, he was going to do it as a last resort. 

 

no he didn't... by the time you arrive he was already decided to kill everyone and was just waiting for reinforcements. And if you want to help him you have to kill every mage in your way including (more like starting with) Wynne

[Meave]

Considering that the Chantry don't make a difference between demons and spirits - the possessed would still be considered an abomination.

 

on contrary, they do. Except that only spirit they acknowledge is the Maker. But this one was "good". If they just told that everything living in the fade is demon well that kinda would make their Maker one of them

[Jeffry]

yet once again one need a magnifying glass to see the logic

 

I base my logic on evidence that I get thru playing the game (if you believe everything that is written well lucky you, no need for pink glasses your world must be joyful). Tevinter mages don't go rampart and Tevinter isn't some demon lair so what's your point? It only proves that even mages using blood magic in huge scales doesn't massively turn into demons.

 

Uldred was blood mage, by the time he went to Circle tower he was already a demon and templars let him into the tower cos they are not as resistant to magic as they think (one of Chantry's many lies).

 

And you take a knight commander as example? Which one? The one who turned into blood sucking demon or the one who wanted to sacrifice innocent children cos they happen to be mages? Or the one who turned pretty mage females into tranquils so they served him as sex toys? Jeez I don't know it's hard to pick your favorite...

 

Ok, I didn't think it was necessary to say, but you know, I played the game as well. And I read codexes, World of Thedas, etc on top of that. Game + additional lore sources > game, deal with it I very well know not all codexes should be taken literally, because they are written from the perspective of their authors, but it is far more logical to base any claims on them than on something you entirely create in your head.

 

Tevinter mages don't go crazy anymore, because they don't rule the world anymore. They were beaten and Orlais is now even stronger than them. So they can't really do anything crazy. But look at what they are doing when they think they have a chance of winning - exactly everything they are rightfully feared for.

 

Lol, where did you get that Uldred has been possessed ever since he's arrived in the Circle? Let me gues, in your head. Uldred became possessed and turned into an abomination by the pride demon he summoned when Irving forbode him to leave the meeting that was deciding whether or not the mages should support Loghain. Seriously, if you just want to make stuff up, stop arguing, such debates are pointless.

 

Ofc Greagoir, like Natashina pointed out. He respected Irving and Irving respected him, even if they disagreed on many things. But the key word here is balance. The Ferelden Circle worked well because of those 2 men untill Uldred screwed everything up, because he was a mage with different opinion and he could.

 

 

no he didn't... by the time you arrive he was already decided to kill everyone and was just waiting for reinforcements. And if you want to help him you have to kill every mage in your way including (more like starting with) Wynne

 

He has only sent word for reinforcements and was requesting the Right of Annulment. It was not decided yet, but it probably would be, because there was no reason not to. There were hundreds of demons, abominations and blood mages in the tower, it was more logical to assume that every good mage is already dead or turned to an abomination as well. Yes, it is a cold logic, but try for a second to see the situation through the eyes of the Knight Commander, imagine the horrors he had seen over all those years, all the possessed mages, the blood magic, the failed harrowings... What would you have done? Wander there with the reinforcements and try to talk to every mage you encounter? Wait weeks for mages from other circles, buy out all of Orzammar's lyrium or hundreds of slaves and try to rescue every abomination you meet? No. There was no other way for the Knight Commander to resolve this than to chug down some lyrium and murder everything in sight. The risks were just too high and you have to consider the lives of the people living outside the Circle.

 

He only allows you to go in there because if you live, everybody wins, if not, the request for Right of Annulment would most likely be approved and reinforcements dispatched.

 

Ok, again, since it didn't go through the last time. If you wanna play the logic card here, present some actually logical arguments based on something from the game or additional lore materials, not based on your own imagination.

 

 

Btw I get it, you super like mages and if you said something like "I just want to see another magister empire rise and I want to see every templar burn in fiery inferno, since they are filthy lyrium junkies", I would understand. Just embrace your head cannon and stop presenting it as logic or evidences.

[Chadwin]

 

And you take a knight commander as example? Which one? The one who turned into blood sucking demon or the one who wanted to sacrifice innocent children cos they happen to be mages? Or the one who turned pretty mage females into tranquils so they served him as sex toys? Jeez I don't know it's hard to pick your favorite...

 

Remind me who that was