The Circle Tower? Templars? Really? (May contain some spoilers)

Remove all ads!

Well they already deem anything with "magic" in it as heretical. So Dragon Age should already be on their to-hate list, regardless. I don't think they bothered to play it.

The demon you meet in your Harrowing knew enough about the Harrowing itself and the templars/mages' role in it that the whole thing is probably staged. Otherwise, the demon could've just devoured you even if you completed it - win-win.

There are templar officials too, and Gregoir was even able to ask for the Right of Annulment from Denerim. That means templars also have considerable influence in the Chantry. The Chantry ultimately controls them because of their Lyrium addiction, though.

The Chantry is like old Christianity, you mean. We're talking around Medieval-Renaissance time Christianity, before the Reformation.

 

Good points koliva.

That's the Catholic church (what Munchkin Blender posted above).

 

Yup. I was born and raised Catholic. Yet I have no religion as an adult. I guess it is from the classes I took when I was still in college, though it took me 11 years to graduate. LOL.

 

I've been thinking about that question. Most of us will agree that Wynne is a decent character and she totally believes that templars are justified in doing what they do and that unchecked mages are bound to be dangerous (even to themselves). That got me thinking that from our modern point of view what the templars do is oppressive but that there might be some validity in the Fereldan setting.

 

Surely the whole point of the Harrowing is that you've proven you're able to stop the demon devouring you? Demons seem to know stuff about the world so my take on it was that they saw it as a free shot at possessing a mage boy, albeit the templars/officials would make it difficult to last long in it.

I don't think Lyrium is necessary for all the templars. A lot of rank and file probably believe that they are doing good and holy work and don't question their superiors.

The Orlesian version of the Chantry is. I would presume that when we get around to seeing the Teventir Chantry there'll be a heavy Orthodox influence. The two Chantries with their own popes mirror the Roman/Byzantine equivalent split in Christianity.

 

Hmm... I can't wait to see if the Roman/Byzantine churches has influenced the developers of DA. It will be very interesting indeed.

I just hope they keep with the gray scale and not so clear black and white.

 

IMO it's a safe bet to assume that Déise is right on that point.

Moral ambiguity is the best thing in the game so they'd be very silly to steer away from that. There may be areas where things appear to be more clear cut (especially the Connor quest after your first playthrough) but other choices often give me pause (killing Flemeth for instance). It gets all the more interesting if you decide that your character will be played following a few guidelines: for instance a Dwarf who is wary of the Chantry and of Mages, a Human Noble who insist on being noble, an evil bastard (works with all origins), a racist elf, a power hungry mage or a puritanical/fanatical warrior. Making such choices in character and keeping to these choices makes replaying the game more interesting. My current character is a Dwarf Noble who has a rather high opinion of himself and who is certainly not too fond of the Chantry and of Mages in general. It's been a nice game so far.

 

The Connor quest is not so clear cut. Especially if you follow Alister idea of going to Redcliffe first. If you go to Redcliffe first and time is of the essence it is either kill Connor or kill Connor's mom. If you wish to risk possible further harm to the village than you may risk going to the Circle of Mage. Even if you completed the Circle of Mage, traveling there and back takes time which you should consider if the game actually used time. Since the game doesn't use time than the choice you make is more clear cut but if you didn't know that the choice is harder. The PC isn't suppose to know that he has all the time in the world. So even Connor's quest is not so clear as initially thought.

 

The point about the 2 chantries is striking and could mirror the divide between Eastern and Western Christianity.

Though an interesting change is that (in spite of the seemingly similar level of orthodoxy of the time) the Eastern version seemed to be more female friendly in real history but the version of the chantry that compares most with the Western (Roman) Christianity is very female lead and orientated. Primary figures in it are female and so is the game's version of the Pope.

I would historically argue that Eastern Christianity was more woman friendly in the medieval days because some of the Byzantine Emperors (Empresses) were woman and, I think, had some influence on the religion through their position of power (when they held it as Byzantine government had Byzantine politics).

If we stay in character it is a tougher call roleplaying wise. I guess I can be happy to take advantage of those things the game's designers haven't yet been able to figure out how to or decided not to enforce (a sense of urgency).

I believe that there is a thread in AoDA for that discussion. And a counterpoint is that I am still Catholic-perhaps because of what I learned in college as well as the rest of life.





Does Wynne see most injustices but the one she was raised with (Templar oppression).

One the other hand the point was strongly made that mages that go bad can cause a great deal of damage. That calls for some sort of official and special attention. The form of which appears as heavy handed Templars.

 

Wynne makes a great point in one of the conversation you have with her about being a GW. The reality is that as a GW you have power and with the power comes responsibility to protect the land and its people. If you abuse the power it will have other affects, etc. If you talk to her while you are romacning any of the other NPC she also makes a remark about a choice between the greater good and your love; as a GW you should always pick the greater good over your lover.

As for wizard who use their magic for evil and become to powerful; the same could be said for anyone who isn't a mage. It is just easier for a mage to cause massive damage because they can use spells or become abomonations. Even without magic a person can cause serious damage.

To me the Chantry is a way to control something they don't know. Is it good, maybe. Is it right maybe. Could things be better if the Chantry didn't control magic, maybe. These are all areas of gray.

 

Just to be clear I didn't intend to imply that whatever attention paid to mages must come in the form of heavy handed templars.

Far from it, I tried arguing against their being necessary already but someone pointed out to me that even a very skilled fighter probably couldn't wipe out an entire town on his own (with a bunch of henchmen sure, but that means you have to have people agree to be henchmen first), but that an abomination could.

That means finding the right balance of this individual vs everyone else (society at large) is trickier, but I think more could be done to ease up on mages.

 

More could be done, yes. So far no one has just agreed on anything yet. I guess this is because the majority abhor magic and mages. The game is also set in a time where all races have become too complacent.
Sadly Ferelden is different from other fantasy settings like the Forgotten Realms where there are races like the Gnomes and Halflings, the usual proponents of change.

 

First off, I think it's really great that we are so captivated by this game world that we are spending our efforts wrestling with it's struggles and issues.

My opinions about the chantry only continue to grow stronger the more I think about this situation. I'm of the opinion that the chantry desperately needs to be overthrown, or at least knocked down in power by several pegs.

What they are doing to mages, really, is one of the worst forms of discrimination. Sure, mages can become extremely dangerous, but the vast majority do not abuse their powers in such ways. In our world, what they are doing could be compared to making the observation that most terrorist attacks are made by people from particular nationalities/ethnicities. These terrorist attacks have the potential to be wildly descructive, and in spite of the fact that the vast majority of people of the nationalities/ethnicities in question are decent human beings, all of them need to be confined and separated from the rest of the world. You know, it's just safer that way.

Pretty disgusting. Sure, the world wouldn't be as safe with mages having more freedoms. But punishing entire group of people for the sins of a few... not good.


In the immortal "word" of Mel Gibson portraying William Wallace --- FREEEEEEDOOOOOM!

 

My point is exactly that the Connor quest is only a challenge in your first run through (or if for whatever reason you side with the Templars or side with Wynne but don't manage to save Irving -arguably because you don't use the Litany).

Roleplaying this quest makes it interesting but it's still biased because of the foreknowledge you have (while dealing with Flemeth is still a difficult choice in some instances since it may mean betraying Morrigan).

Regarding mages and discrimination it's also interesting to keep in mind that Connor's fate is sealed because no matter what he will be taken from his family and he won't ever inherit his father's estates because of his magic gift (curse?). Being part of the Circle means losing one's freedom to serve others (what Mages do) and it's not that different from a Grey Warden's fate: it becomes impossible to have a family or a regular life for Mages or Grey Wardens. Hence the option of becoming a Grey Warden actually means more freedom for a Mage than for other characters because Grey Wardens do have more freedom in the sense that they are not limited to a life within the Circle Tower under the constant watch of the Templars.

 

Good point. I've always taken advantage of that fact and never really thought about it until now.

 

I don't think it's quite the same though. Good mages can still be possessed unwillingly, can't they? That's an important distinction as it means everyone of them is a potential threat. Hence I can understand the Chantry's actions. It's not the ideal solution but it does work so I wouldn't stop doing it until I came up with something better.

 

The Chantry made some mages very desperate, desperate enough to become maleficars and follow Uldred

 

As one of the blood mages tell you that you have to do dramatic things to make changes happen. Wynne replies there are other ways, etc... I actually agree with the blood mage. Look back on the history of the world and change rarely happens unless someones does something dramatic. I believe the same can be said in DA:O.

I know when I was a mage at the very end of the game I had an option and picked that over the others to give the mages more freedom and the chantry less control over the mages. Irving thanked my GW and was very happy about that decision. I wonder if that choice would impact the expansion?

 

The problem with going the dramatic and/or violent route is that that kind of dramatic change often leads to new problems. Also, if my understanding of Dragon Age history is true, the way the Chantry treats mages began as a dramatic and violent response to problems mages caused.

A vicious response can lead to more problems.

Also while the Civil War was dramatic for the US Lincoln started his campaign for the Presidency with a firm but gradualist policy of weakening, if not undoing, slavery. He moved slowly on slavery but strongly compared to the rest of US history.

Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement posed a bigger challenge to racist laws than more militant groups.

Revolutions certainly aren't in themselves a bad thing government wise-I can be quite sympathetic to a group of people toppling a tyrant. There is a problem that arises where the group itself turns authoritarian after gaining power-which has happened more than once.

Change has to happen for a lot of social improvement. But the method by which that change happens can define if that improvement actually comes true and if there is an unpredicted cost as well.

I don't knock gradualists if gradualism is actually about continual movement forwards rather than no movement at all.


Wow, sorry I wrote so much when in saying that.




EDIT:


Actually.... as you have finished as a mage already do you have the option of becoming First Enchanter yourself?

Just curious about that.

 

DA has another instant where the GW challenge the king but lost. That is not typical of the GW but they thought he was a tyrant and something had to be done. My guess is that is why the GW were abolished from Fereladen. As for the Chantry, they do seem to do things in extreme and have little to no care about taking a life of a mage.

To me the actions taken don't justify the means but it at least makes a point about how mages are being treated and that something needs to be done.

As a mage GW you do have an option after you complete the game to do something about that. Besides that, there is any mention on what mages could do to make a change other than revolt.