Calling any mage who understands the Templars have a point and wish to work within the system a "boot licker". Novel.
Of course, that includes party members like Vivienne, Wynne and Bethany.
The system is broken. Anyone that wishes to work within it despite of that are tools or cowards. And just so you know, Bethany states by the endgame that what the templars do is wrong.
The templars are an order born out of fear and religious superstition. They have no point.
The system is broken. Anyone that wishes to work within it despite of that are tools or cowards. And just so you know, Bethany states by the endgame that what the templars do is wrong.
The templars are an order born out of fear and religious superstition. They have no point.
No
The system was tested by the Mage rebellion, but by the end of Inquisition its resolved one way or the other. The Templars are an order born of necessity, there needs to be soldiers capable of fighting and suppressing magic, Inquisition makes that clear as day. Whether you believe that they should serve as the guardians of the mages is another matter, but they certainly fill a necessary role.
The Circles ensure that such disasters happen by locking mages up in areas where the Veil is thin, fueling an atmosphere of despair, fear, greed, lust and ambition in both mages and templars,
If that "ensures" disasters, then any school set up by the mages is doomed to fail, too.
The Veil is thin around any mage, and the effect is multiplied by every additional one, obviously.
By the way, not EVERYTHING beyond the Veil is negative. There are positive and neutral aspects there as well.
and- not to be forgotten- deliberately luring demons there to feed young mages to them.
Woah there, shooter. Lighten up on the JAnders koolaid.
The Harrowing is not like throwing babies into the river. The mages that go to it are thoroughly trained for the test, are aware it is expected of them, and are sent to it once it is believed they are ready for it. And as a practice, it is plenty sound: the best way to learn to combat any given enemy is through live-action training. It is a serious challenge, but what does not kill you makes you stronger.
The reality of a mage's life is that demons are always looking to prey on them in their sleep. The Circle and Templars, or a lack thereof, do not change that.
No
The system was tested by the Mage rebellion, but by the end of Inquisition its resolved one way or the other. The Templars are an order born of necessity, there needs to be soldiers capable of fighting and suppressing magic, Inquisition makes that clear as day. Whether you believe that they should serve as the guardians of the mages is another matter, but they certainly fill a necessary role.
The ending with Divine Leliana, be it with the mages as allies or conscripts, show that they can exist without templars around. It won't be perfect, and maybe it won't last forever, but the very fact that Thedas can live in stability without Chantry intervention, show the templars were wrong.
Personally I'd be conflicted.
One one hand I'd despise to be under some leash and have restricted freedoms, but on the other one bad mage going bad or possessed can slaughter an entire village with little effort.
And seeing how terrible mages went in Kirkwall as well as Templars and Mages war, it would be foolish for me to not think having some restrictions on mages freedoms.
So I'd be, grudgingly, want to have Circle of Mages and Templars/Inquisition to restrict my own freedom for benefit of all. But not old Templars and Circle of Mages, but with Cassandra's reforms.
The ending with Divine Leliana, be it with the mages as allies or conscripts, show that they can exist without templars around. It won't be perfect, and maybe it won't last forever, but the very fact that Thedas can live in stability without Chantry intervention, show the templars were wrong.
no, it shows Templar and Chantry oversight is wrong (according to Leliana), but unless you have a way to negate magic to combat the abominations and malificar that will always be a danger, then you need Templars.
Seekers fill a similar role, but aren't as numerous as Templars and are a much larger investment of time and training.
The system is broken. Anyone that wishes to work within it despite of that are tools or cowards. And just so you know, Bethany states by the endgame that what the templars do is wrong.
The templars are an order born out of fear and religious superstition. They have no point.
You home is born out of fear of the cold, medicine is born out of fear of disease or injury, swords are born out of fear of others, do they have no point?
Also, Bethany only says that in some endgames.
I imagine because you have always lived in a First World nation. Even today, there are literally millions of people who would kill their own mothers to leave in something like the Circle.
Luxurious accomodations, education unavailable elsewhere, healing magic on beck and call, free food, always a fire in the hearts, strong walls between you and bandits or darkspawn, etc.
I'm sure you know everything about my life.
I can assure you that I know what it is to starve and have nowhere to go.
Oh, yes, healing. I gues I will need that, if some templar.. accidentaly hurt me.
Also, Bethany only says that in some endgames.
It is also not clear if she is referring to the Templar Order and mages in general or just the ones involved in the situation at hand.
If you've played the mage origin, you would know the first statements are false. You have no idea what it entails and Greagoir reproves Irving for giving you too much of a clue. As a bonus, it's barbaric.The Harrowing is not like throwing babies into the river. The mages that go to it are thoroughly trained for the test, are aware it is expected of them, and are sent to it once it is believed they are ready for it. And as a practice, it is plenty sound: the best way to learn to combat any given enemy is through live-action training. It is a serious challenge, but what does not kill you makes you stronger.
You home is born out of fear of the cold, medicine is born out of fear of disease or injury, swords are born out of fear of others, do they have no point?
Also, Bethany only says that in some endgames.
You understand that according to your ideals (which I have read and openly laughed at), any person who possesses a weapon, say a knife (do you have one in your kitchen perhaps?) deserves to be alienated from all they cherish. Perhaps in your life, you might kill your mother if times were tough, but many humans with their humanities in tact would choose freedom and love over material wealth and discrimination. Perhaps the mages lifestyles are not too shabby, but constantly being reminded that the four walls you see today are the four walls you will see everyday because of the way you were born, can not be remedied by ANY material goods.
If the circle was just a school, than maybe Connors mother would not be afraid to sent her son to be educated and learn to defend himself against demons.
At no point does she or anyone else cite fear of the dangers of the Circle as part of her rationale, and since that argument is stronger and less selfish than anything she or the other players give as reasons for her actions you'd think it would come up if she was thinking along those lines at all.
The templars are an order born out of fear and religious superstition. They have no point.
The Templar Order was born because mages were hurting mundanes and mundanes were hurting mages, and nobody who was doing anything about this before the Templar Order (or the Inquisition as it was then called) was founded would come in on the mages side even when the mages deserved it. They have a point, even if a lot of them wound up forgetting half of that point.
At no point does she or anyone else cite fear of the dangers of the Circle as part of her rationale, and since that argument is stronger and less selfish than anything she or the other players give as reasons for her actions you'd think it would come up if she was thinking along those lines at all.
Maybe it's because Isolde was an selfish *****. But I would say it's an fair argument for other sircunstances, like Bethany or Meredith sister. Their families were terrified something bad would happen with them if they went there. It worked out for Bethany. Not so much for Amelia. Now we are left to wonder if what happened to Amelia would still have happened if the circle was an place of better reputation.
Maybe it's because Isolde was an selfish *****. But I would say it's an fair argument for other sircunstances, like Bethany or Meredith sister. Their families were terrified something bad would happen with them if they went there. It worked out for Bethany. Not so much for Amelia. Now we are left to wonder if what happened to Amelia would still have happened if the circle was an place of better reputation.
I can't think what a Circle that didn't isolate mages could do to prevent this either, though. Maybe if she were trained better she'd have been less likely to turn, but better training doesn't always solve the problem. Besides, as far as I know we don't know that she wasn't trained and frankly if the Stannards didn't at least try to find an apostate in need of an apprentice to do his/her scut work then they win the Darwin.
Because why would imprisoning people, keeping them under constant threat of the sword, depriving them of basic freedoms of movement, association and property inheritance, and filling their heads with Chantry superstition about how dangerous mages contribute to them becoming abominations?
Again with the JAnders koolaid. What you call: imprisonment, threat of the sword, Chantry superstition, and a lack of freedoms... other Circle mages have called: sanctuary, personal guards, religious education (of their own religion, for most of them), and amenities.
What I see here is this very short-sighted argument that freeing the mages will make them happy, and happy mages do not become abominations. That falsely assumes all mages would be happy with being out of the Circle, to begin with. We know there are a significant number who would not. Second, there are all sorts of potential stresses in the outside world that could do a mage in. The Circle rids mages' lives of much bigger stress than those it may create: impoverishment, hunger, illness, natural disasters, just off the top of my head.
That also brings us back to the original point: if a magical disaster is going to happen anywhere, better that the damage is contained rather than free to spread like a wildfire (possibly in a quite literal sense). Connor's example has been cited several times, and as noblity, his life was more comfortable than most!
If you've played the mage origin, you would know the first statements are false. You have no idea what it entails and Greagoir reproves Irving for giving you too much of a clue. As a bonus, it's barbaric.
I did play the mage origin, and am not surprised to see this nit-pick.
It may not be clear to them exactly what it will test, but they know it is something where they will have to call upon their previous training. And think about it: if the point is to test the mage's integrity against the temptations of a demon, isn't giving away too much pretty counter-productive to the task at hand? And what you seem to be implying, that the Templars want to stack the deck against the mage, is suspect: it is not in their interest to fight another abomination. Also, sometimes mages and Templars get along (*gasp*). If you've played the mage origin ( 
), you have seen an example of this in Cullen (sorry, it was more than merely getting along).
Nothing false about the rest.
(which I have read and openly laughed at)
Please, say it is not so. I don't know how I shall live another day knowing you scorn me...whoever you are.
but many humans with their humanities in tact would choose freedom and love over material wealth and discrimination.
Ignorance truly is bliss.
Or be a responsible, trustworthy mage *points at Wynne, Irving, Ines, Finn*
A meaningless designation. I killed Anders on half my games.Again with the JAnders koolaid. What you call: imprisonment, threat of the sword, Chantry superstition, and a lack of freedoms... other Circle mages have called: sanctuary, personal guards, religious education (of their own religion, for most of them), and amenities.
Freeing mages will make them free. Free people can pursue their own happiness. It's been well established now that strong emotions draw spirits, and actually turn spirits into demons. Want to cause rage, envy and despair? Drive people to that point by imprisoning them and taking away any hope of a normal life.What I see here is this very short-sighted argument that freeing the mages will make them happy, and happy mages do not become abominations.
Isn't luring a demon and forcing a young mage to confront it or else die or be turned into a soulless husk not only supremely hypocritical but also immoral? If you say no, then we've really got nothing further to discuss.It may not be clear to them exactly what it will test, but they know it is something where they will have to call upon their previous training. And think about it: if the point is to test the mage's integrity against the temptations of a demon, isn't giving away too much pretty counter-productive to the task at hand?
Again with the JAnders koolaid. What you call: imprisonment, threat of the sword, Chantry superstition, and a lack of freedoms... other Circle mages have called: sanctuary, personal guards, religious education (of their own religion, for most of them), and amenities.
This isn't really a meaningful distinction, since it being compulsory makes the imprisonment, threat of the sword, Chantry superstition and lack of freedoms a matter of fact, since noncompliance is punishable by death or tranquility with virtually no exceptions. That some mages gladly accept it, or that some Circles are governed better than others, doesn't really change this.
I suppose Thedas being perpetually trapped in a medieval craphole where slack-jawed yokels can lynch people does provide a fair argument for preferring life in the Circle.
Wynne hid the fact she was an abomination for years.
I don't think Wynne would really classify as an abomination. The spirit within her wasn't altered from its purpose.
I'm curious though as to what the Templars would make of this, and whether or not they'd even care to make the distinction. No matter what, Wynne is pretty much an anomaly, one that could very well be dealt with as a potential threat just the same.
I don't think Wynne would really classify as an abomination. The spirit within her wasn't altered from its purpose.
As for Anders, he is much more akin to the usual demon possessing mage abomination. This is due to Justices nature being changed to Vengeance because of Anders hatred.
I don't think Wynne would really classify as an abomination. The spirit within her wasn't altered from its purpose.
Doesn't matter. She can still be a benevolent abomination. An abomination is any mage possessed by a spirit or demon.
Retour en haut