1041 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Totally true, but let's bring up a hypothetical scenario. 

 

Imagine the College of Enchanters 200 years after the events of Inquisition have taken over as the dominant institution for teaching mages magic in Southern Thedas, and have established an elite force of spirit magic users whose task is to bring rogue mages in to justice when they break the law or engage in banditry. 

 

You have a college in Orlais and there is evidence of magical abuse going on in the local marketplace so the College sends a team. But the leader of the team is a member of a noble family and is a frequent visitor of the court and regularly plays the game. He builds up his reputation and pedigree as someone who is skilled in tracking down and defeating "criminal" mages. 

 

At what level of trust do we have that this man or woman is not creating scenarios to engage in self-promotion or may even have set up the crime in the first place as a player of the Game?

 

And then imagine if the leadership of the College started engaging in questionable practices, but they lead the investigators?

 

It ultimately reminds me of Atris and the Handmaidens in KOTOR2. We would slowly be building a pazaak pyramid with a weak foundation, which is what we will ultimately get with any powerful institution where the watchers are governed by the watched. 

 

Which leads us to...."Who watches the Watchmen?"

Sadly, this is utterly inevitable with any law-enforcement agency and the problem you describe is still milder than the Templar Order's day-to-day. I would definitely, however, institute a separation of powers between the College's central administrative agency and individual, regional colleges, with the special task force being forbidden to have local ties.

 

 

No they won't, because the only way the Chantry can reliably enforce it's Lyrium monopoly is through those very same governments and the local authorities.

 

As for Tresspasser, it's only be two years out and the Inquisition is still at full strength [until the very end of the DLC] and presumably, whether you picked mages or templars, fulfilling the oversight role. 

And why is that? The only nation that could possibly interfere directly with it is Ferelden, as that's where the entrance to Orzammar is.

[Boost32]

Isn't that how Hawke's parents met? I remember Lenadra mentioning that's how she met Malcolm.

Yes, just like Vivienne and Bastien.

And I quote both Fenris AND Dorian in how Tevinter very much resembled Southern Thedas at one time, and slowly, inch by inch, political battle after political battle, slowly but cut off the power of the templars there, then cut off their lyrium supply and thus access to their abilities, then built up political power, and end result is they are no different than they were in ancient days. 
 
Vivienne certainly wouldn't allow Orlais, Nevarra or Ferelden to become like Tevinter. But having a mage as Divine sets a unique precedent in the White Chantry. And then the Divine after her may be a mage who doesn't share her convictions. Or you get a few mage Grand Clerics who are utterly sympathetic to mages and not necessarily the Circle system. And then possibly may question the need for those restrictions in the first place. 
 
It's the first step of what would likely be a long and slow transformation. Plenty of time to turn back, but those who listened to Fenris and Dorian recognize danger there.

If they want to elect a mage Divine, they will with or without Vivienne on the Throne.
And I doubt they will do it again in a foreseeable time, because she can only get elected because the Divine and the most important Clerics died at the Conclave. Without any other mages in the Chantry, what you say is impossible to happen.

The only danger you see, is the one you want to see because you dont like Vivienne on the Throne.

[dragonflight288]

 

 

Sadly, this is utterly inevitable with any law-enforcement agency and the problem you describe is still milder than the Templar Order's day-to-day. I would definitely, however, institute a separation of powers between the College's central administrative agency and individual, regional colleges, with the special task force being forbidden to have local ties.

 

 

Well that's something, and a pretty good measure overall. 

 

I don't think the setting will go like that as the games progress but it's a good checks and balance system. 

[Drasanil]

And why is that? The only nation that could possibly interfere directly with it is Ferelden, as that's where the entrance to Orzammar is.

 

Does the Chantry control trade routes of Thedas? Can the Chantry prevent a and/or go to war over Orzammar's entrance against a nation state? Does Ferelden have an inherent interest in prohibiting Orzammar from conductiing trade as it sees fit? Pretty sure the answer to all of those questions is no. 

[Xilizhra]

Does the Chantry control trade routes of Thedas? Can the Chantry prevent and/or go to war over Orzammar's entrance against a nation state? Does Ferelden have an inherent interest in prohibiting Orzammar from conductiing trade as it sees fit? Pretty sure the answer to all of those questions is no. 

Why would any of this be necessary? Why would it be in Orzammar's interest to break its contract with the Chantry?

[dragonflight288]

 

 

If they want to elect a mage Divine, they will with or without Vivienne on the Throne.
And I doubt they will do it again in a foreseeable time, because she can only get elected because the Divine and the most important Clerics died at the Conclave. Without any other mages in the Chantry, what you say is impossible to happen.

The only danger you see, is the one you want to see because you dont like Vivienne on the Throne. 

 

Uh huh. 

 

Vivienne asking me how I would change things and telling her I would put mages in the Chantry giving her a massive approval increase, and her giving mages more positions while keeping real power with her are certainly worth making me second-guess her motives and long-term course, even after she is gone. 

 

It's not about keeping her off the sunburst throne so much as it is looking at the potential problems that may come up further down the road with such a precedent. 

 

But believe what you like. 

[dragonflight288]

Why would any of this be necessary? Why would it be in Orzammar's interest to break its contract with the Chantry?

 

I can only see one viable alternative. If someone else offered more. 

 

But that's the only reason. 

[Jaison1986]

It's a good thing I have Cassandra as Divine then. 

 

... I don't get it then. I got the impression that you were saying that Vivienne was the better option in the previous posts.

[Boost32]

Why would any of this be necessary? Why would it be in Orzammar's interest to break its contract with the Chantry?

Because the Chantry, in your world state, does not have the Circle and the Templar Order. So why they would buy Lyrium?

[Drasanil]

Why would any of this be necessary? Why would it be in Orzammar's interest to break its contract with the Chantry?

 

Well, for one it already does break it unofficially through smugglers, secondly it breaks it officially in game by supplying the Inquisition. Finally, depending on who you have as Divine the contract with the Chantry is essentially null and void. 

 

For instance under Leliana there are no mages or templars in the Chantry meaning it has no reason to buy Lyrium at all. Or are you pretending she'll dedicate massive resources to just buying up Lyrium for its own sake, as opposed to using those funds to help the poor and for charity work like both her and Cassandra want to do. 

[dragonflight288]

... I don't get it then. I got the impression that you were saying that Vivienne was the better option in the previous posts.

Honest mistake. I'm cautious of the precedent set and prefer honest reforms, not a return to the status quo.

She's a great character with a strong personality and has solid logical reasons for what she says and does, but I can't bring myself to trust anyone so engaged in the Game.

[Xilizhra]

Because the Chantry, in your world state, does not have the Circle and the Templar Order. So why they would buy Lyrium?

To keep it from the various untrustworthy kingdoms and to parcel it out to the College.

 

 

Well, for one it already does break it unofficially through smugglers, secondly it breaks it officially in game by supplying the Inquisition. Finally, depending on who you have as Divine the contract with the Chantry is essentially null and void. 

 

For instance under Leliana there are no mages or templars in the Chantry meaning it has no reason to buy Lyrium at all. Or are you pretending she'll dedicate massive resources to just buying up Lyrium for its own sake, as opposed to using those funds to help the poor and for charity work like both her and Cassandra want to do. 

See above.

[Drasanil]

To keep it from the various untrustworthy kingdoms and to parcel it out to the College.

 

 

See above.

 

Yeah, and now you've just gone full circle in your argument. Why would these "unworthy" Kingdoms who the Chantry depends on to actually enforce its monopoly, if it chooses to maintain it depending on which Divine you have, actually ever enforce it in the first place?

[thesuperdarkone2]

I find it funny that pro-templars claim you can't kill the idea of the circle yet they acted as though siding with the templars and killing the mage rebellion would somehow kill the belief of mage rebellion. Hypocrisy at its finest. Glad Trespasser proved them wrong.

[Drasanil]

I find it funny that pro-templars claim you can't kill the idea of the circle yet they acted as though siding with the templars and killing the mage rebellion would somehow kill the belief of mage rebellion. Hypocrisy at its finest. Glad Trespasser proved them wrong.

 

Well yeah, except for the part where you're completely wrong of course. The idea of siding with the templars isn't to kill belief in the mage rebellion, some will always believe in it, but rather to discredit the idea so that it becomes a fringe position with minimal support.

 

Similarly destroying Fiona's rebellion does not necessarily prevent future rebellions from occurring, though it may inform their nature for good or ill, in the same fashion that disbanding the Templar order will not prevent a successor from eventually emerging. Because the core idea that spawned them will still exist.

[dragonflight288]

I find it funny that pro-templars claim you can't kill the idea of the circle yet they acted as though siding with the templars and killing the mage rebellion would somehow kill the belief of mage rebellion. Hypocrisy at its finest. Glad Trespasser proved them wrong.

 

This kind of comment is unnecessary. 

 

Let me put it this way. Before the forum was updated, I enjoyed debates with an ardent pro-templar who was passionate and logical about the Circle's. But these kinds of comments, attacking the character of pro-mages made her question the side of the aisle she was on, and then we had a nice, long PM discussion and found we had a lot in common in principle and how mages ought to be treated within the system and how the system should hold people accountable for their actions. If a mage commits a crime, the mage ought to be punished, not the collective, and if a templar abuses their authority they should have the heavy hand of justice fall on them as well. 

 

She later created a thread and announced that she had changed her position from pro-templar to pro-mage because she felt that the reasonable pro-mages better represented her personal beliefs and then later changed her user name. 

 

You may know her now as Lil Yonce. 

 

One of the biggest things that had her consider her stance was the personal attacks made. 

 

It is also why many people I've debated on the forums switched from being pro-mage to pro-templar, because personal attacks had them wonder what kind of people they wanted to be seen associated with. 

 

The important thing is that each and every one of us loves Dragon Age, we wouldn't be here on the forums if we didn't. We can respect each others opinions even if we disagree, and if someone is a troll and makes good discussion impossible, there's always the ignore function. 

 

Rather than call pro-templars hypocrites in a dismissive tone, it would probably be better to take some time and go through the Dragon Age Wikia, look up codexes, moments in the games, captions from the books, and build up a solid case to support your own arguments derived entirely in the lore.

 

For example, a few pages back Dean the Young refuted one of my statements of appealing to the legality of Fiona's actions at the White Spire in regards to hijacking the meeting and calling for a vote outside the actual discussion and I responded by providing the authority that ought to be granted to all mages in the Circle and agreed upon by the Chantry and Templars in the Nevarran Accord.

 

Thus, with lore, rather than being dismissive of the person disagreeing with us, we can respectfully present an argument that supports our stance. 

 

So please, for the sake of all of us and for the sake of etiquette, try to be respectful to others, even if they disagree with you. 

[Xilizhra]

Yeah, and now you've just gone full circle in your argument. Why would these "unworthy" Kingdoms who the Chantry depends on to actually enforce its monopoly, if it chooses to maintain it depending on which Divine you have, actually ever enforce it in the first place?

I don't see why the Chantry needs them to enforce any monopoly still.

[Iakus]

Why not ensure that the corrupt elements of the templars are eliminated, forever, by siding with the mages?

Because while Templars can be corrupt, the Templar order is just an organization.  Just as while individual mages may be corrupt, the Circle (or the College, or whatever) is not.

 

Eliminating Templars will not solve the problem, it will only replace who's in charge.   And the corrupting influence of power will always be an issue.

[Xilizhra]

Because while Templars can be corrupt, the Templar order is just an organization.  Just as while individual mages may be corrupt, the Circle (or the College, or whatever) is not.

 

Eliminating Templars will not solve the problem, it will only replace who's in charge.   And the corrupting influence of power will always be an issue.

To be perfectly honest, I don't act in-game to eliminate the templars; I act to protect the innocents in the mage rebellion.

[Iakus]

Mages can counter other mages perfectly well; templars are unnecessary.

Yep, we can have mages abusing other mages just as easily as we can have templars abusing mages 

 

Oh, wait, we do have that...in Tevinter!

[Drasanil]

I don't see why the Chantry needs them to enforce any monopoly still.

 

You really don't? Well, how about just to start, the fact the Chantry has no standing army (except templars depending on the Divine) to threaten other nations with or any significant investigative branch (outside of the seekers who may or not exist as well depending on your choices) to investigate whether or not any nations are complying with the monopoly and finally no real means to actually enforce it's monopoly in practical terms beyond making unhappy noises.

 

I would add this too the monopoly isn't even religious in nature but practical, the Chantry had a monopoly on Lyrium prior to DA:I because the Chantry was the only institution outside of Tevinter that had a legitimate use for it. Once that legitimate use goes out the window so does any reasonable pretext for the monopoly. Because really there is nothing stopping a country from claiming they have a legitimate need for Lyrium if they want to set up specialized watchmen who can handle mage-criminals in the wake a templarless world. It is a perfectly reasonable concern after all, given mage-criminals are an objectively different manner of threat compared to regular criminals. 

[Xilizhra]

You really don't? Well, how about just to start, the fact the Chantry has no standing army (except templars depending on the Divine) to threaten other nations with or any significant investigative branch (outside of the seekers who may or not exist as well depending on your choices) to investigate whether or not any nations are complying with the monopoly and finally no real means to actually enforce it's monopoly in practical terms beyond making unhappy noises.

Who says the Chantry can't create a new, lyriumless Templar Order for purely military purposes?

[Iakus]

To be perfectly honest, I don't act in-game to eliminate the templars; I act to protect the innocents in the mage rebellion.

As do I.  But I suspect your definition and mine are quite different.

[Iakus]

 

Similarly destroying Fiona's rebellion does not necessarily prevent future rebellions from occurring, though it may inform their nature for good or ill, in the same fashion that disbanding the Templar order will not prevent a successor from eventually emerging. Because the core idea that spawned them will still exist.

A successor does appear:  The SIlver Shield.

[Xilizhra]

As do I.  But I suspect your definition and mine are quite different.

How do you suspect they are?