275 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

The Templars don't appear to be accepting surrender, beyond tranquility. Or at least they're bad enough at it that mages who disagree with the rebellion see no choice but to go along with it.

 

Since the Circles are outright re-established in two of the three Divines, and we have multiple mentions that prove the existence of non-rebel mage factions, and frequent references to mages who did not go along with it and got away from the rebel mages as soon as they were able...

 

I'm going to leave a *citation needed* for the claim of 'surrenders never accepted.' Especially since you're comitting the sin of chronological inversion: the mages are roped along with the rebellion before the war begins, and so their views have no relevance to how the war is actually conducted or resolved years later. The mages can't claim they had to rebel because they never had a chance to surrender in a war after they rebelled.

 

Treating the mages as conquered rebels is hardly moderate, particularly considering the Templars are equally rebels.

 

 

The mages effectively are conquered rebels in most of the end states. The rebelled. They got beaten. Their fate falls into the hands of others, and is ultimately determined by the whim of the political master they rebelled against. That the Templars are also defiant of the Chantry doesn't change that- especially since, one way or the others, the Templar survivors are almost always brought to heel and control re-asserted.

 

It's also a bit odd to claim the Templars equally rebelious since the Templars are, in the context of the mage rebellion, the radical enforcers of the established system, not an uprising against it. The Navarran Accord was an agreement between the Templars and the Chantry to keep the Circles and such- that's the organizational premise for the Templars. The Templars are a rogue agency, not a rebel one.

 

Calling the Templars fanatics is not just rhetoric, it's very much relevant. The Templars are not just some professional military force. They rebelled against the head of their faith for the purpose of exterminating the mages. Their actions and character are directly relevant to their continuing role

 

 

Repeating a claim of genocide doesn't make it true- and you're contradicting yourself to boots. Religious fanatics that aren't following the religious authority (or any religious dogma or leadeer) aren't exactly showing themselves to be religious fanatics.

 

If anything, the Templars are the secular security extremists with not enough religious deference. Their arguments for not allowing Mage independence are generally non-religious.

 

A military occupation isn't the same as a police force. Cracking down harder on the mages might work, but that's not what Cassandra is proposing and it's not moderate.

 

You're changing arguments now. Martial law is, has been, and routinely been done in the aftermath of failed rebellions. It's not an unusual or extreme prospect.

 

 

And of course the Templars aren't a regular military. They're fanatics.

 

 

You make it sound like the two are mutually exclusive- even if you're still just repeating yourself.

 

Also, military occupations aren't imposed on people who've effectively all got invisible AK47s. That changes things quite considerably. It doesn't just give them more reason to resist, but it also gives the occupiers more reasons to be twitchy and paranoid.

 

 

This is a bit weird, since magic really isn't 'invisible AK47s', and it's not clear why you think that would actually pose an obstacle to an occupation either.

 

If your analogy is military occupations aren't imposed on people who've got the power of AK47s and more, you're blatantly wrong. That's what most modern occupations over the past half-century have been. If your analogy is that military occupations aren't imposed on people who have 'invisible' threat potential- which I'll assume you mean that the occupier doesn't know if the person has the threat capability or not until the person attacks- then, again, you're also wrong, because the vast majority of occupations are imposed on populations where the actual rebellious sub-group isn't obvious.

 

Either way, you definitely haven't been paying attention to the middle east over the last decade... or to the previous Bioware games, in which Templars were already occupying your people who've effectively all got invisible AK47s.

 

 

Changing names and banners and personnel would be a gesture, but not an empty one if it's accompanied by genuine and significant policy changes.

 

You know what would also not be an empty gesture? Genuine and significant policy changes. The non-empty comes with the policy changes.

 

 

Symbols matter. A lot, when a genuine moderate solution requires that the practices of the old Templar order is not continued. To keep the Templar name and banners is to excuse their acts and forget or devalue their victims, and once you start on that basis what hope is there that Cassandra's "reforms" will have any staying power?

 

By assuming people have common sense enough to not make silly assertions, for one thing.

 

You claim that keeping a name and banner excuses the acts and forgets or devalues the victims. Why on Thedas (or anywhere else) should anyone believe that claim?

 

You'd be more convincing if you said that changing the name would encourages the excusing of past crimes and forgetting of victims: after all, your name changed neo-Templar organization is now 'no longer those bad Templars', and so doesn't have to bear the history of someone else's past, can resist charges of being too close to attitudes or crimes 'they' didn't commit, and so this 'fresh start' doesn't have to carry the history or memory of those who died. If the neo-Templars were supposed to dwell on the past of someone else, why would you insist it's a fresh start and call them something else?

 

If you intend to argue that change of policies requires a change of name, you're going to have to propose an argument in which a change of policies requires a change of name. Otherwise you'll do what you just did: claim that policies need to change, but then not link them.

 

Also, there are other people who can run and pay for "templars" than the Chantry. The nations of Thedas, for one - there are negatives to that, but not necessarily worse than those demonstrated by the Chantry. Or better, the Circles themselves. Leliana setting the mages free without obligation is rather reckless, but setting them free on terms that place on them the burden of preventing magical chaos is what an actual moderate solution would look like to me.

 

Well, yeah, but you're silly like that. Your idea of moderation appeals strictly to one side- yay mage freedom- without addressing stated, demonstrated, or enduring concerns of the other side. (Like, you know, whether rebel mages can be trusted to police themselves when they, well, didn't.)

 

To top it off, you're not showing much introspection on the nature of the system you're proposing. Turning to the nations of Thedas to maintain an international system that renounces the legitimacy of the only major international moral authority is not going to support a major, politically powerful, socially antagonized population group on the merits of benevolent selflessness. If you expect the nations to support the mages monetarily, the mages are going to be required to support the nations in their interests- which itself would lead to mages being a prize to be divided, allocated, and secured between rival powers.

 

Useful if you'd like to mages reduced to tools and strategic assets. Not so much if you'd like them depoliticized and free. Why you think someone like Celene or Gaspard would let the mages be free and independent and left to their own device while trusted to look after themselves, rather than imposing national oversight and taking advantage, isn't clear. In fact, it's not something you've even raised, but really should before you disavow the Chantry- which, for all its flaws, has kept mages from being national bickering points.

 

That seems to be rather my point? Cassandra's system ultimately boils down to being much the same as the old one. Just with the addition of there being a lot more reason for hatred between the Templars and their prisoners. That's not moderate.

 

Sure it is- in fact, 'much the same as the old one' was the majority preference for both the mages and the Templars before the rebellion, until agitators and radicals on both sides tipped it over, and broadly accepted afterwards. A pre-established, generally desired, broadly acceptable position is 'moderate' by any reasonable usage of the word.

 

It's just not you, and you'd like to consider yourself and your preferences the moderate position.

[thesuperdarkone2]

Consider that lots of moderate Templars left the Templars to either join other groups like the inquisition, wardens, or stayed with the chantry. Also consider how most moderate Templars that still remained with the order were killed at the conclave. Thus, the remaining Templars are the extremists. This is supported by Templars in COTJ complaining about sitting around instead of killing mages, the Templar arguing that the inquisition isn't punishing mages if you recruit them, and the divine Vivienne ending where the Templars straight up refuse to serve Vivienne because she's a Mage shows how Mage hate is prevalent in the Templars and the good ones have been severely reduced.

[Drasanil]

This is supported by Templars in COTJ complaining about sitting around instead of killing mages, 

 

You're talking about the one who was complaining to Cassandra right? The guy that points out the Inquisition has known dangerous criminals in its mage ranks and is doing nothing about it? That's actually a fairly valid complaint, if you've got dangerous criminals in your midst arresting and/or killing them is the reasonable approach. It's too bad we can't actually look into the allegations. 

 

Compare that to the mage whiner if you do hushed whispers, where all the guy does is complain how the Inquisition isn't up to snuff with regards to his previous cushy arrangements from the Circle. Kind of gives you a sense just how far mage entitlement goes. Its not enough that you save them from slavery to Tevinter, nope you have put them up in 5 star accommodations too, otherwise you're abusing them. 

[The Baconer]

You're talking about the one who was complaining to Cassandra right? The guy that points out the Inquisition has known dangerous criminals in its mage ranks and is doing nothing about it? That's actually a fairly valid complaint, if you've got dangerous criminals in your midst arresting and/or killing them is the reasonable approach. It's too bad we can't actually look into the allegations.

And I'm sure every Templar we bring on has a clean record.

Whatever faction is brought into the Inquisition has the right to shut up and do as they're told. They don't get to make demands anymore.

[thesuperdarkone2]

You're talking about the one who was complaining to Cassandra right? The guy that points out the Inquisition has known dangerous criminals in its mage ranks and is doing nothing about it? That's actually a fairly valid complaint, if you've got dangerous criminals in your midst arresting and/or killing them is the reasonable approach. It's too bad we can't actually look into the allegations.

Compare that to the mage whiner if you do hushed whispers, where all the guy does is complain how the Inquisition isn't up to snuff with regards to his previous cushy arrangements from the Circle. Kind of gives you a sense just how far mage entitlement goes. Its not enough that you save them from slavery to Tevinter, nope you have put them up in 5 star accommodations too, otherwise you're abusing them.

No when you do COTJ you can hear ambient dialogue from the Templars. Some say things like they hope to continue killing mages or how nobody can ever stop the Templars. Did you actually listen to what they said?

Also I mentioned that Templar later in the post. Did you actually bother to read?

[Drasanil]

No when you do COTJ you can hear ambient dialogue from the Templars. Some say things like they hope to continue killing mages or how nobody can ever stop the Templars. Did you actually listen to what they said?

 

Never heard it, and considering you have a habit of portraying things either falsely or out of context I'm not inclined to take your word for it,

 

Also I mentioned that Templar later in the post. Did you actually bother to read?

 

Have you tried being more specific when you're making a point? All I see templar this and templar that without you bothering to be overly clear on what you're talking about. 

[Steelcan]

Consider that lots of moderate Templars left the Templars to either join other groups like the inquisition, wardens, or stayed with the chantry. Also consider how most moderate Templars that still remained with the order were killed at the conclave. Thus, the remaining Templars are the extremists. This is supported by Templars in COTJ complaining about sitting around instead of killing mages, the Templar arguing that the inquisition isn't punishing mages if you recruit them, and the divine Vivienne ending where the Templars straight up refuse to serve Vivienne because she's a Mage shows how Mage hate is prevalent in the Templars and the good ones have been severely reduced.

yes there's only horrid evil templars left in the order, like Ser Barris, and all the other Templars who are more than happy to fight the Red Templars and fight alongside the Inquisition

[Drasanil]

And I'm sure every Templar we bring on has a clean record.

 

Doesn't make that specific templar's concerns with regards to known criminals unfounded. 

 

Whatever faction is brought into the Inquisition has the right to shut up and do as they're told. They don't get to make demands anymore.

 

That's a nice way of ignoring the issue. Kudos.

[thesuperdarkone2]

Never heard it, and considering you have a habit of portraying things either falsely or out of context I'm not inclined to take your word for it,


Have you tried being more specific when you're making a point? All I see templar this and templar that without you bothering to be overly clear on what you're talking about.

Considering I was specific when mentioning the Templar who complains about the inquisition not punishing mages if you recruit them, I'd say it's more you didn't bother to read. Also, play the mission and listen to what the Templars say but all things considered you won't do why bother continuing. I seem to be the only person who Actually plays different characters and chooses different dialogue sonI know I actually bother to do research.

[The Baconer]

Doesn't make that specific templar's concerns with regards to known criminals unfounded.

What makes them founded? His word? We have no particular reason to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially in the presence of others who would be privy to such matters and yet do not show the same concern.

That's a nice way of ignoring the issue. Kudos.

Does an issue actually exist?

[Drasanil]

 

What makes them founded? His word? We have no particular reason to give them the benefit of the doubt, especially in the presence of others who would be privy to such matters and yet do not show the same concern.


Does an issue actually exist?

 

It's too bad we can't actually look into the allegations.

 

Notice the words I used? As for these others who are privy to such matters, who do you mean exactly? Cassandra with her known inability to investigate properly or Leliana the radical mage-sympathiser who thinks conscription is too harsh?

[Wulfram]

(I have now discovered that there is a limit to the amount of quotes you're allowed to make. Addressing that may have hurt the readability of this, sorry. And the fact that I ran into that limit is probably a good sign that this is a ridiculous wall of text that's far longer than it should be)
 

Since the Circles are outright re-established in two of the three Divines, and we have multiple mentions that prove the existence of non-rebel mage factions, and frequent references to mages who did not go along with it and got away from the rebel mages as soon as they were able...
 
I'm going to leave a *citation needed* for the claim of 'surrenders not accepted.'

The mages effectively are conquered rebels in most of the end states. The rebelled. They got beaten. Their fate falls into the hands of others, and is ultimately determined by the whim of the political master they rebelled against. That the Templars are also defiant of the Chantry doesn't change that- especially since, one way or the others, the Templar survivors are almost always brought to heel and control re-asserted.
 
It's also a bit odd to claim the Templars equally rebelious since the Templars are, in the context of the mage rebellion, the radical enforcers of the established system, not an uprising against it. The Navarran Accord was an agreement between the Templars and the Chantry to keep the Circles and such- that's the organizational premise for the Templars. The Templars are a rogue agency, not a rebel one.

All endings represent a defeat for the Templars. They are forced to accept the Divine's will as to the settlement of the mages.

Talk to the mages in Redcliffe. The ones who don't want to be there are there because they have no choice, because the Templars left them no choice.

The various mages who are hiding don't really support the argument that the Templars wouldn't kill them. Vivienne might, but she is still effectively hiding in places where she's shielded by political influence.

It's the Templars who broke the established order by stripping the mages of their various rights and privileges, and ultimately by shaking off the restraining hand of the Chantry. Many mages obviously also wished to break the existing order, but ultimately the Lord Seeker rebelled by attacking the Mage leadership at White Spire before the Grand Enchanter could orchestrate a vote for independence.
  

Repeating a claim of genocide doesn't make it true- and you're contradicting yourself to boots. Religious fanatics that aren't following the religious authority (or any religious dogma or leadeer) aren't exactly showing themselves to be religious fanatics.
 
If anything, the Templars are the secular security extremists with not enough religious deference. Their arguments for not allowing Mage independence are generally non-religious

I didn't call them religious, just fanatics. If you prefer "extremists", whatever.

But classing them as being about security is rather dubious. They set the continent on fire to protect a system that's shown little real advantage for security. That shows prejudice and hatred, not a desire to keep things secure.
 

You're changing arguments now. Martial law is, has been, and routinely been done in the aftermath of failed rebellions. It's not an unusual or extreme prospect.

You make it sound like the two are mutually exclusive- even if you're still just repeating yourself.

This is a bit weird, since magic really isn't 'invisible AK47s', and it's not clear why you think that would actually pose an obstacle to an occupation either.
 
If your analogy is military occupations aren't imposed on people who've got the power of AK47s and more, you're blatantly wrong. That's what most modern occupations over the past half-century have been. If your analogy is that military occupations aren't imposed on people who have 'invisible' threat potential- which I'll assume you mean that the occupier doesn't know if the person has the threat capability or not until the person attacks- then, again, you're also wrong, because the vast majority of occupations are imposed on populations where the actual rebellious sub-group isn't obvious.

Either way, you definitely haven't been paying attention to the middle east over the last decade... or to the previous Bioware games, in which Templars were already occupying your people who've effectively all got invisible AK47s.

I'm addressing your argument, which it is true is rather tangential to my own
 
Military occupations are on large populations with small groups of combatants. The mages are all de facto combatants

The previous games, where one tower is obliterated and the other is nearly obliterated? And where mages nevertheless cause widespread destruction? And where it succeeded it was only because there was a certain degree of trust and acceptance and reliance on the chantry. Which has been shattered by the Templar's decision to show the Chantry's restraining hand is meaningless and wage war on the Mages.

It's obviously not a working system, and it's also not a military occupation.
 

You know what would also not be an empty gesture? Genuine and significant policy changes. The non-empty comes with the policy changes.

By assuming people have common sense enough to not make silly assertions, for one thing.
 
You claim that keeping a name and banner excuses the acts and forgets or devalues the victims. Why on Thedas (or anywhere else) should anyone believe that claim?
 
You'd be more convincing if you said that changing the name would encourages the excusing of past crimes and forgetting of victims: after all, your name changed neo-Templar organization is now 'no longer those bad Templars', and so doesn't have to bear the history of someone else's past, can resist charges of being too close to attitudes or crimes 'they' didn't commit, and so this 'fresh start' doesn't have to carry the history or memory of those who died. If the neo-Templars were supposed to dwell on the past of someone else, why would you insist it's a fresh start and call them something else?
If you intend to argue that change of policies requires a change of name, you're going to have to propose an argument in which a change of policies requires a change of name. Otherwise you'll do what you just did: claim that policies need to change, but then not link them.

But without a change in the mindset, the genuine and significant policy changes are an empty gesture. All the policy changes in the world don't matter when the guys with swords enforcing the policy hate and fear their charges.

And the way you change a mindset is in a large part by changing symbols.

Since you're keen on historical precedent, I'll cite the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Northern Ireland. Changing it's name to the Police Service of Northern Ireland certainly didn't fix things, but it was still an important part of changing things for the better.

Well, to be fair you could make truly radical changes that would make Templar mindset irrelevant. Let the mages have their own army, strip the Templars of any power of oversight and stuff like that. But I don't get the impression that is what either you or Cassandra are invisioning. In fact, since you seem to favour military occupation as a solution, you're not offering these policy changes at all, except in the opposite direction.

"Excuse me, Herr Policeman, why do you have a swastika on your arm?"
"To ensure that the crimes of the past aren't forgotten."

Yeah, no. Continuing to bear an organisation's banner and name is to honour it. To form a new organisation instead is to reject it.

Any change of policies that is intended to reassure mages that things will be better needs a change of name. Unless the Templars are utterly defanged.
 

Well, yeah, but you're silly like that. Your idea of moderation appeals strictly to one side- yay mage freedom- without addressing stated, demonstrated, or enduring concerns of the other side. (Like, you know, whether rebel mages can be trusted to police themselves when they, well, didn't.)

No, my idea of moderation offers distinctly little in way of "mage freedom", preferring security instead. Mages would continue to lead considerably restricted lives, particularly before they passed a (hopefully reformed) harrowing. It's purpose is to offer them a degree of security too, by placing their lives in the hands of people who don't hate them.

It's not Leliana's "You're free, I wash my hands of it". It's "Keep yourselves under control so we don't have to."

What it doesn't offer is concessions to the paranoia and hatred of the Templars. Because you don't get to shift what moderate means by being a total nutcase.
 

To top it off, you're not showing much introspection on the nature of the system you're proposing. Turning to the nations of Thedas to maintain an international system that renounces the legitimacy of the only major international moral authority is not going to support a major, politically powerful, socially antagonized population group on the merits of benevolent selflessness. If you expect the nations to support the mages monetarily, the mages are going to be required to support the nations in their interests- which itself would lead to mages being a prize to be divided, allocated, and secured between rival powers.

Useful if you'd like to mages reduced to tools and strategic assets. Not so much if you'd like them depoliticized and free. Why you think someone like Celene or Gaspard would let the mages be free and independent and left to their own device while trusted to look after themselves, rather than imposing national oversight and taking advantage, isn't clear. In fact, it's not something you've even raised, but really should before you disavow the Chantry- which, for all its flaws, has kept mages from being national bickering points.

I noted that there were many problems with the national solution, and you've noted them. It is far from ideal, it wouldn't be my choice. But it is another option, and it has considerable advantages over the previous one.

It means that any "Templars" whether so called or not are genuinely accountable, because Orlais has it's own army to keep them in line, unlike the chantry. And because the mages would no doubt be turned into tools for national advantage, that means they'd be valued
 

Sure it is- in fact, 'much the same as the old one' was the majority preference for both the mages and the Templars before the rebellion, until agitators and radicals on both sides tipped it over, and broadly accepted afterwards. A pre-established, generally desired, broadly acceptable position is 'moderate' by any reasonable usage of the word.
 
It's just not you, and you'd like to consider yourself and your preferences the moderate position.

In the sense that slavery was moderate until at least the 1790s, perhaps.

[Steelcan]

I fail to see how a Cassandra or Vivienne as Divine ending is a loss for the Templars, they get exactly what they wanted, the return of Mages to the Circles of Magi.  If the mages were allied they put up resistance to the idea, but there is no reason to suspect that the war was picked back up.

 

In those end states the Templars accomplished their objectives and return to the Chantry.

[The Baconer]

Notice the words I used? As for these others who are privy to such matters, who do you mean exactly? Cassandra with her known inability to investigate properly or Leliana the radical mage-sympathiser who thinks conscription is too harsh?

 

A former Knight-Commander, our spymaster, and literally the only Seeker on Thedas who was of any worth, who also just happened to have a list of renegade mages and Templars to be put down. But no, surely this rando we just lifted from Therinfal is going to have better credentials than that.

 

The Templars who followed the Lord Seeker had already demonstrated an inability to carry out their proper duties, among other things, and when the Inquisition commits the resources and effort to extricate them from their mess, the first thing this individual does is throw accusations at people who have already been working under our banner for some time, and among other Templars no less. If the host from Therinfal is going to be given the courtesy of a clean slate, it would behoove them not to dedicate their time and focus to pointing fingers, as Cassandra will communicate.

[Boost32]

But in the end, he was right. One of those, apostates is guilty of hineous crimes.

[TK514]

Still a shame we couldn't judge Fiona.  She should have been standing in line right behind Alexius.

[The Baconer]

But in the end, he was right. One of those, apostates is guilty of hineous crimes.

 

That wasn't the statement he made, no.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

You're talking about the one who was complaining to Cassandra right? The guy that points out the Inquisition has known dangerous criminals in its mage ranks and is doing nothing about it? That's actually a fairly valid complaint, if you've got dangerous criminals in your midst arresting and/or killing them is the reasonable approach. It's too bad we can't actually look into the allegations.

 

Yeah, and I did not like how Cassandra handled that one at all. It would be different if she said that they investigated and found his claims to be BS, or that they have been processed already. Instead, she is just like ~well they are Inquisition now so it no longer matters.

 

Seriously? That they are mages is irrelevant. If we are accepting criminals, they need to be processed carefully, or they can be less of an asset than liability.

 

Hate to say it, but Cassandra has egg on her face for lots of things, and SolASS getting away and (by the looks of it) going crazy again is a big one.

[Boost32]

That wasn't the statement he made, no.

He said one of the mages had comitted hineous crime, he was right.

[The Baconer]

He said one of the mages had comitted hineous crime, he was right.

 

Now, he says "There are mages here we know are guilty of heinous crimes". 

 

As in, even if we committed to an investigation as per his request, it wouldn't catch the mage you're thinking of.

[Boost32]

Now, he says "There are mages here we know are guilty of heinous crimes". 
 
As in, even if we committed to an investigation as per his request, it wouldn't catch the mage you're thinking of.

Maybe if Leliana did her job, we would.

[The Baconer]

Maybe if Leliana did her job, we would.

 

How would you have done it?

[thesuperdarkone2]

So if the mage complained that the Inquisition was doing nothing about templars who were known to have committed heinous crimes, would you have believed him?

 

Also, few problems with this:

 

1. What counts as a heinous crime? Does he mean the fact that the mages did something terrible like burning down a town or something silly like daring to fight back against the templars?

 

2. How do you know Cassandra hasn't done about the supposed criminals already?

 

3. What about any supposed criminals on the templars? Surely you can't think that every templar you recruit is some innocent saint? Why does nobody call out investigations for potential templar criminals? 

 

4. Why do you assume Solas has anything to do with what he says? 

[Boost32]

How would you have done it?

It doesnt matter, her incompetence is because the writers didnt want to the Inquisitor to discover he was lying.
But the "Hey I found Solas was lying after he had left! And I cant trace him with the Inquisition's spies because the writers want him alive for the next game" is terrible.

[The Baconer]

It doesnt matter, her incompetence is because the writers didnt want to the Inquisitor to discover he was lying.

 

Yes, it does matter. If the writers created a situation where she could never feasibly discern his true nature, even with significant effort, then that isn't incompetence on her part. You just want it to be because you don't like her.