Freedom for the Mages or control by the Chantry?

The game repeatedly gives you examples of bad, cruel, and untrustworthy mages.

However I lean towards at least weakening Templar control over that Circle.

*spoiler warning for anyone who cares*

At the end it is pretty apparent that Templar, or at least some of them, are willing to kill mages who innocent.

A more cooperative relationship would be best but in DA2 I would oppose killing innocent mages so I guess that would define which side I help towards the end.

 

I tended to hate the Chantry in both game out of spite 'cause it reminds me too much of the catholic church and all its bigotry, hatred, and such. Also I played in both game as an opportunistic, thieving, lying, smug, condescending mage who did everything he could to undermine the chatry's and everybody else's authority. From his point of view he saved the world only because of how awesome it would make him oh and romance Morrigan too I guess She's voiced by Claudia Black ! What can I say ? I could almost convince myself Morrigan was Aeryn Sun, almost.

*However on a less ridiculous note; I think the Chantry should back off the mage's back and let them police themselves. Abominations are a real threat to Thedas (though significantly less so than the darkspawn but hey you can't be a biggot towards those *things so yeah go team racist ?) but that's no reason to be a dick about it and treat every mage like a second class citizen.

I never bought the whole sin of men and the Gold city thingy... it seemed too convenient for the Chantry. If "the Maker" was truly there and was truly interested in mankind's affairs then why the f would he allow the tevinter imperium to worship dragons for so long ? What about the Qunari, the elves or the dwarves ? The Chantry seems wayyy to much human-centrist in a world inhabited by a wide array of different sentient species. Besides, weren't the dwarves the first one to actually encounter the darkspawn ? They certainly don't worship Andraste's Maker.

NB [and irrelevant as far as the topic goes]: Gotta love Chrome's spellchecker "mage or Mage" isn't treated as real word but Klingon is Awesome Which brings me to my next fantasy in DA3: Can I get a bat'leth already ? pwetty please

 

Freedom for mages of course. Although I never could figure out how I, as a mage, could run around casting spells willy nilly and no one ever thought to apprehend me.

 

Aparantly every single mage in Kirkwall dabbles with the rare use of blood magic, so I sided with the chantry. Wich, of course, didn`t matter at all in the end. The story was allready set in stone.

 

Slightly off game but.....

As both a history major and a practicing Catholic I suspect I may know at least as many things horrible, bad, or stupid is associated with Catholicism.... but I have to ask what bigotry you refer to is it an based on religion, skin color, racism, or what?

Sexism I could get but many of the priests in DA are women (with a few men thrown in there) so that may be well balanced.

Agree.

I think this is up for debate, as one who hasn't spent much time in the storyline's realm referred to as the Fade you don't know. You seem to be questioning if claims made in the storyline about its history actually are part of the storyline's history and then move on to questioning the claims to questioning the interpretation made by figures in the storyline.


But just to clarify the dwarves got hit hardest in the storyline by Darkspawn but that doesn't mean they would be hit the first.

I'm guessing they have problems due to location, sure social problems as well but the darkspawn seem to have slowly taken them by surprise and a DA what if could be what would have changed if the dwarves responded more aggressively to the darkspawn earlier and closer to what the storyline describes as the height of their power.

Also it appears the darkspawn were just more adaptable to the deep tunnels and wanted to be there-searching for the trapped dragons.

I guess it never hurts to ask.



Back to the topic....

I see Mages and Templars both having a place provided neither tries to be the overlord of the other. I don't like some of the BS mages face and see Templars as being the biggest offender in this regard..... except fot the Quanari (worse in treatment of mages than templars but simply less seen by the main character).

 

I agree that the mages should have their freedom; however, DAII simply pushes that mages wishing to leave the circle are blood mages, not matter who the mage is, which is not how it was in DAO.

 

They say ex-catholic makes the most fervent atheist, I can certainly vouch for that. I was baptized and all the jazz it entails, but I soon realise something was fishy about it. Anyway that's waayyyyy off topic. I don't want to start a flame war, religion can be a tricky subject. But to answer your question; what about women ? 'twas Eve who ate the apple not Adam. Several instances in the Gospel clearly stipulate they are to be subjected to man's will. What about the homosexuals they too have got it pretty bad. They are to be hatred solely in the fact of who they are ? Anyone not conforming to the Bishop of Rome's will is wrong. No salvation outside the church, indeed

As for the Chantry's and the blight history; well there's some hint in the Legacy DLC (DA2) that the true origin of the blight might not be as clear as they say it is. Dunno, it's just a hunch I guess, or maybe wishful thinking. Why does magic's got to be divine in origin in pretty much every fantasy story ? Why does magic have to be explained ? Can't we just be content with the fact that there is magic ?

It's said that in Thedas the elves were the first and they were, and still are as far as the Dalish are concerned, polytheists. Sebastian also hints that the elves' gods, Andraste's Maker and the dwarves' primeval gods (as shown at the end of DA2 act 1 in the primeval thaig) could be the one and same supernatural force. So who's to say the Chantry's got it right ? For all we know The Maker could be just one badass spirit in the fade with a massive ego. I mean, shaping the whole world according to your desire ? What exactly are you compensating for mate ?

 

Even though Anders is the spitting image of the norwegian killer of the same name, I'd still side with the mages.

The chantry is a religious organisation, so they have no place to curtail the rights of other human beings, forcing them into servitude, oppressing them and quite literally 'demonising' them. The meddling in secular affairs is another comparison with the catholic church. Whether the chantry's divine justification for their actions is true or not, they still should not have the mandate to imprison mages. The maker made mages too, but I find that discussing morality using logic is pointless, if you are talkiing with religious people (because they already know the 'right' answers, they just can't explain them)

It's comparable to imprisoning the handicapped, because people find them offensive.
If it is truly necessary to curtail the freedoms of mages, let it be done by people who don't believe that mages are responsible for the Maker turning away from them...

 

The thing about the world of Dragon Age is that mages and magic are real. Considering what happened to Redcliffe, where all it took to wipe out a lot of the population was a small boy with some magical potential, I'd thank my lucky stars there's even an organization that looks out after mages at all.

While I do not believe that the Chantry's methods are ideal, I do believe that a conflict that assures that only those who, in some way, are able to deal with their magical talent without killing everyone around them is necessary. While it does not have to be Mages vs Chantry, what matters is that the conflict is there. Ideally it should be one that doesn't end up with people losing their basic rights, but even in the real world...

 

Actually I've never heard that before and I know a few of people I'm quite sure are ex-Catholics.

Now as a practicing Catholic (Mass each Sunday, Catholic grade school, high school, and college as well as Baptized and Confirmed-granted the last 2 are arguably part of same thing) who is waiting for the day there are married lesbian priests I would like to point out to you that while the Pope is considered a figure of authority Catholics are allowed to disagree with him on a wide range of topics, theres is a limited list which people are not to but other than that a Catholic has the right to differ so long as it is on a topic he/she sincerely feels (not in a situation where the Pope has said stealing is wrong and someone else agrees until an X-Box is within arms reach and nobody else is looking). And yes, I figure people who weren't Catholic can get to Heaven too.

To the game..... the Chantry should have struck you as different from the Catholic Church where women are concerned right off the bat. Having women as priests and in the similar positions to that of a bishop. If anything men should be complaining about discrimination-though I do recall seeing male priests in Dragon Age so the priesthood is bi-gender.

We don't know how the Chantry treats gay people either. Sure the Chantry has church like buildings, a priesthood, and templars, but on the topics of treatment of women and gays you don't know if the Chantry mirrors Catholicism or not.

Many people like having an explanation. If one wasn't given I'm pretty sure some people would ask as things relating to magic are important parts of the plot.

Sounds similar to Unitarians in thought..... though I'm sure some sect of Catholics as well as other branches of Christianity and other religions shares it..... sorry drifting from game to reality.

Though yes there could, in the game, be a unified maker-making every theological organization in the games' storyline part right and part wrong.

Chantry doesn't have to be right, or at least not completely right. Though I imagine that many people in the game would rather exist than not (even if the reason they do is because some spirit from the fade felt like it for some reason).


Coine

Correct me if I'm wrong but this is based on fantasy which is somewhat based on the feudal days back when (unless you're N. Korean in which case today is somewhat feudal). In the feudal days there wasn't necessarily a bright shining line between secular government and religious organizations. Both would try to influence the other. Kings would encourage certain people become priests and rise within the organized theological structure and Popes and Bishops would sometimes tell kings and lords what to do. Plus both had lands under their direct control at one point.

Paracelsi

I totally agree with you there is a need to have some group react to when a mage goes bad, gets possessed, or starts sending strange critters to wipe out a town.

I think we both agree the templars take it too far.

After all, Wynne in DA:O not being able to get married or keep her own child simply because she is a mage strikes me as neither protecting against possessed mages nor fair in its own right.