^ You are the one coming up with the hostile rants most of the time. I merely react, besides, if you are that interested in baiting, why then ignore if someone took it? *lol*
I'm not going to stop pointing out mere factual blunders in your posts, like your wrong use of political terms.
I wasn't going to reply to this mess at first, but alas...
<<Lily outright Disbands the Order this is the biggest mistake given you CAN'T kill an Ideal>>
That sounds a bit like TIM. *lol*
Eh, did the templars ever lived up to this supposed lofty ideal? If so, someone might consider at least trying to get rid of that ideal regardless.
<<Even their own lives for something as petty and unrealistic as complete Freedom=Anarchy/Chaos.>>
Some many wrong things in one sentence make me cinge.
Since when is freedom petty?
Anarchy means absence of rulership. The word you are looking for might be "anomie", but even that isn't quite equivalent to vague "chaos". I'm aware that "anarchy=chaos" is a popular misconception usually pushed to discredit, and that's the reason while I'm fond of correcting that.
Freedom=/=Chaos. Otherwise certain types of US citizens would be promoting "chaos" given how much they harp about "freedom", no?
<<Lily=Mages have Freedom to do what they like. Help the common man instead of making enemies with them...Which means following Andrastain Teachings and Ideals!>>
They are not free to do whatever they like, nobody is. Being "helpful"=/=being andrastian as well, unless you want to claim that only andrastians can be "helpful" which is... pretty disturbing, to say the least.
<<Anyone who's Anti-Regulation is a Terrorist this has been proven with Mage Extremists from Venatori to Anders.>>
Yup, everyone who's not with me... that's still pretty totalitarian, just like before.
"Submit or die" 2.0? Besides, "Regulation" can mean anything if so desired, from having mages obey the same basic laws as everyone else to Qunari modus operandi.
<<Templars are Re-Leashed to the Will of the Chantry specifically to a Mage Divine they will NOT be rebelling or committing further abuses anytime soon.>>
I'm not sure if Viv's intention behind tightly leashing the templars to her own authority is to prevent abuse. That might be a useful side-effect, but I suspect it is more to have her personal band of enforcers to deal with any possible dissent, especially among mages.
<<Kirkwall is NOT going to happen again the General Populace and Chantry will now be keeping a very close eye on the Mages and Templars both from here on out.>>
I'm not so sure that a thing like that will never ever happen. Also, "Chantry and populace" watching templars and (especially) mages has be a thing before as well, so bruh.
Last thing... the politcal monikers ascribed to the candidates previously have been a tad bit off in my view. On a two-axis graph of progressive vs. conservative and libertarian vs. authoritarian, I'd place Cassandra into a more conservative region, Leliana as more progressive and Viv as clearly authoriarian.
<<"Dalish clans are hunted and massacred when they are found." Give me one single actual proven instance of that. Also how would that negate anything I said about the Dalish? I never claimed a single faction as superior or benevolent.>>
Why do you think would they stay away from human settlements? Why do you think Tamlen mentions that the Sabrae clan will have to move regardless once they were found? Oh, I forgot that you seem to believe that all Dalish like to invade the next best human city for no reason and slaughter everyone in sight... For the second part, I'm just copying what I already wrote above:
<<The Truth is the Elves as a whole are a shitty people that deserved to have their society fall to ruins. They brought it on themselves.>>
(Emphasism by me)
<<Slavery was invented by the Elves towards other Elves.>>
<<Persecution is something the Dalish do to other Elves and Humans...>>
<<Indoctrination is exactly what you'd call their biased history wait wrong word it's just propaganda.>>
Everyone does that, especially as far as religion is concerned. It is more of a question of what kind of propaganda you would prefer.
<<Also there's no examples of the Chantry or States trying to forcefully convert them in modern Thedas.>>
Doesn't matter, Dalish faith is still outlawed. The Chantry still has a conversion mandate.
<<That the Elves started through a massacre of innocents they slaughtered for their prejudicial beliefs?!>>
That has nothing to do with what you wrote before. But it is pretty nice how you single-mindedly focus on elven prejudice and apparently totally ignore the orlesian prejudice and claims about elves eating human babies or something.
<<Their cultural identity is Evil>>
I've got the same opinion about organised andrastianism. Besides evil not saying much in terms of details.
<<it's prejudicial hostile >>
Eh, still less hostile than Andrastianism and the Qun
<<and seeks to destroy the modern world>>
Uhm, what? Were did you get that from? *lol*
<<So GOOD I love that the other nations and peoples are hostile to it! They SHOULD destroy it for the threat it poses!>>
<<You outright refuse to admit they've ever done any wrong.>>
Eh, I'm not the one constanly yelling on how they are all assholes, regadless.
<<It's overly Bias and Prejudicial. Just because Humans do evil too DOES NOT negate or pardon the Elves for anything.>>
You have one-sidedly harped about evil elves repeatedly. That's overly biased and prejudicial.
<<If they aren't so different, the Dalish, generally speaking, wouldn't refer to all non-Dalish elves with the pejorative term Flat Ears.>>
I'd like to remind everyone that city elves also like to do this to anyone who leaves their communities.
<<This is just basic psychology, a group that doesn't submit will always look down and think the other group is lesser for submitting.>>
Sure. But I guess it is pretty hard to find value in submitting (again) to a bunch of racist humans beating you over the head with their asshole faith.
<<Elves have a superiority complex with each other.>>
Show me one race in the setting who does not.
<<The Dalish, if they are made aware of how the people they worship actually were. Perhaps they may throw away their culture, at least parts of it. Then perhaps they could co-exist with City Elves? I have my doubts, they are a proud people.>>
I'm in favour of both groups throwing away the respective shitty parts of their culture which is any possible direct/literal adherence to the Evanuris as well as Andrastianism.
<<Besides, City Elves have been dunked on by everybody their entire lives. If they are made aware of who the Evanuris really were. Perhaps they take this one opportunity to *justly* dunk on the Dalish Elves that looked down upon them and their culture.>>
Eh, why justly? Doesn't this create more fracturing? Of course, some factions would like that, divide & conquer afterall.
Are you baiting or what's the purpose of that diatribe? Besides, I'm the rage demon here.
As for human "mass murderers", well we've got the seven magisters, countless other tevinter nobles, countless orlesian nobles, noble rulers of any kind, Kordillius Drakon I., every templar commander who ever carried out an annulment... and basically every single Divine, both Tevinter and orlesian. I don't want to know how many bodies each single one of these piled up over the years to stay in power.
<<Bad apples of the Dalish have committed Massacres of Innocents. Whole Clans have been known to commit Hunts systematic killings of Humans...For what? Racism plain and simple you don't gain justice or revenge by butchering innocents. The Dalish are Racists and Murderers they DO NOT deserve respect when they act like Brutal Cunts.>>
Eh, humans also do this aplenty. And unlike the Dalish, they do not need to fear repercussions from the authorities. Let's say a bunch of idiot humans decide to attack some Dalish for whatever reason. The Dalish in this case are in a loose-loose situation. They can defend themselves, sure, but what if a human makes it out and tells the local guards? Whom do you think would the guards side with?
Ach, just take the intro of the Dalish OS. You've run into a trio of humans. At first, their leader tries to be play the "we are betters" card, but has no leg to stand on since he's unarmed, for one. You are then presented with three choices.
1. Kill one to intimidate the rest. Problem: They could not be intimidated sufficiently and come back with a retaliatory mob,
2. Kill them all so they cannot talk. Problem: Someone could miss them and lead a search, suspecting elves (why not, humans hate them anyway) and just go and kill any elf they come across.
3. Let them all get away unscathed. Problem: They could get back on their word and still come back with a mob.
<<If Racism is to be ended in Thedas people need to stop defending one side and condemning the other.>>
Practise what you preach?
<<The truth of the matter is EVERY single last culture in Thedas has practised a system of prejudice and mass killings against a group of people they claimed as inferior or deserving of death.>>
Eh, not quite true for the smaller cultures I suppose, but we don't hear much about them anyway.
<<Also sure the Dalish do represent Elvhen Culture...What was that culture born of again? The Abuse of Magic, False Gods that Enslaved and Genocided everything in their path to power,>>
Well, you can either claim they are shitty historians or that they are exactly like their ancestors. Please decide. Also, "false gods" is as irrelevant as ever.
<<The destruction of the entire Natural Order of the world by destroying the Titans and creating the Veil.>>
Angry stretch pretty much. I reserve my judgement until I know the whole picture behind Solas' decision. If his Veil prevented, say, some kind of super-blightification, even at the cost of a whole civilisation, then he's probably the first Grey Warden in history, "greater good" decisions and all.
<<What a damn fine morally upstanding culture they have to restore at the cost of genocide against three other races!>>
Uhm, what? If you mean Solas, then you might take into account that not all elves side with him or even know who he is and what he might do.
<<The Truth is the Elves as a whole are a shitty people that deserved to have their society fall to ruins. They brought it on themselves.>>
Besides this being your opinion and not "The Truth", *insert "That's racist!" meme here* Good, then go ahead and kill them off, and please don't whine about me not liking the Chantry.
<<Blaming Humanity and negating any bad that Elves do isn't going to change that fact either.>>
I think dragging the survivors of Arlathan into slavery and then Orlais culturally genociding them again wasn't necessay, eh?
<<They DO need to learn Humility or they need to die off. Because if they don't learn Humility and Adaptability and Basic Morality>>
Every one of these things is true for humans as well, more so for andrastians. These do not come across as very humble to me.
<<they're a Threat not just to Humanity but to Existence itself.>>
LOL, how did you come up with that last part? Sure sounds dramatic though.
^^ One does not need Solas for that. Pretty much every ogre my mage wardens encounter end up like that. Or Crushing Prison. Or Paralysis, Glyph of Paralysis, Paralysis Explosion, Blood Wound. Sometimes Cone of Cold, but the short range makes that a last resort.
<<I'd rather you not call my opinions BS, but that's about civility.>>
Probably wrong choice of phrasing, sure. Though it is not lost on me that some of my own opinions (usually those in disagreement with Chantry viewpoints) have been called BS in recent times as well (not by you anyway), so I might be a tad bit over-sensitive here.
In any case, if one wants to justifiy the existence of circles in the traditional sense by "they do not know it different, so that's for their own good", one might as well justify the continued existence of slavery, as slaves are just as commonly discouraged to think about on how they could survive without depending on their masters.
<<Given that many Circles, mages could leave for short or long periods of time, I think the mages who wanted the Circles back should have their opinions respected.>>
That comes across justification cooked up by those wanting the circles to stay in their traditional sense, for whatever reason. I'm reasonably sure that mages would, despite all the benefits of banding together, like to have the chance to have an informed choice as opposed to Vivienne's fear-abuse and the traditional "Join-us-or-die!"-character of the circles (and she does not change that).
<<As to the second, those mobs tended to form from a) magic manifesting in very violent and destructive ways, b) mages behaving badly (see: Anders, which was NOT designed to get public support at ALL, or the mages in Witchwood all 'we will rule over the sheep' and killing wagons full of children with lightning bolts).>>
Wagons full of what? Ah, you mean the people who got robbed (and sometimes raped) by the rogue templars before or after?
"We will rule over sheep" is mirrored nicely by Cullen's charming "We rule over the mages by divine right". Also, most of the time these "apostates" direct their hate at the tamplars and non-mages ignorantly acting on what they were told. I see these things as the result of the "us-vs.-them" mentality between both mages and templars and mages and the general populace that the Chantry has nurtured over the ages.
<<Circles were created by both the Chantry and the mages discussing and negotiating matters,>>
Where does that come from? From what I could glean from the murky first-Inqisition-time records is that the Chantry and the first Inquisition apparently created the circles/Nevarran Accord, even before that one Divine almost exalted-marched her own cathedral. I doubt that all mages at the time felt represented or even knew of these negotioations, to say nothing about the supposed viewpoints of the Inquisition itself.
^^ Nah, the krogan turned the Chevalier into mincemeat and then tried to eat him, but died choking on the usual fancy armour.
<<I was also glad to see that the Circles did re-form, given we know from Asunder and DAI both that many mages actually wanted the Circles, and that there were a lot of angry mobs targeting them without the Circles.>>
Eh, they do not know much about alternatives anyway, being never much encouraged to think much about them. I sense Stockholm. As for the second part, well, nice move from the Chantry's opinion builders to promote alienation and hate for centuries so they could step in and claim to save the mages. TL:DR: BS argument.
<<Vivienne, I like best when looking at mage rights. The College of Enchanters still exists, the Circles are reformed,>>
Well, when looking at the epilogues, well, yes you could say it exists, but just barely and it is pretty clear to me that Vivvy would not have much issue exterminating them.
"The reaction from the new Divine is instantaneous: a war to dissolve the College before it begins.
Some mages surrender; others return to the Inquisition. Either way, the new Circle of Magi stands triumphant." (Base game)
"She grudgingly allowed them to remain as the College of Enchanters, as a mark of her regard for the Inquisition. For the next few years, the College and the Circle coexisted peacefully, if barely." (Trespasser)
It is also quite surprising that people like to propose being "pro-mage" while than harping on the claimed necessity of the exact same old structures instead of considering new attempts (of mages) to band together.
<<they made Vivienne a massive hypocrite.>>
Nah, she was a hypocrite from the get-go. You nailed it pretty well,
<<For all her fancy rethoric about how mages have to make sacrifices for the greater good, she sure was quick to throw that out the window for her shiny Grand Enchanter title.>>
but she's basically "Everyone back to the circles, expect me, 'cause I'm special." from the get-go.
<<Bear in mind that Josephine's life is in danger until the problem is solved.>>
That's actually the main justification I like to have my characters come to for Leliana's proposal. While her war table briefing assumes that casualties are possible, the debrief does not indicate any (and the "mark" is a piece of paper anyway). On the other route, we have some dead guards at any rate and the chance of hositle knife nuts roaming Skyhold and I-don't-how-much inquisition personnal could have been killed as well. Besides, how would the orlesian "honour-bound" assassins react if the next one trying to defend Josi was not a nameless guard but someone from the inner circle? Would they, say, try to kill Cassandra or the Inquisitor themselves to reach their mark?
I don't ignore it, but I'm inclined to call the execution not very well thought out.
I can see why they did not wanted to go down the rabbit hole half-races present, but sometimes I feel as if elf-bloodedness was added originally and solely for Alistair's background. I probably would have made it not so much of damning all-or-nothing thing, like instead of 100% chance of children from these unions being fully human, I would have set it up as 75% chance of fully human vs. 25% chance of the child being fully elven. These are still pretty bad ratios if we consider overall elven survival, but at least not impossible.
Oh, and I just hate how quite a lot of fans aware of the concept whine about them elves being so evil for isolating themselves. Well, they frickin' need to do that to a certain degree if they do not just want to cease to exist, duh. Also, for any female elf in relationship with a human, quite some folks seem to ignore the implications, i.e. Cullavellan seems to be very popular, but very few seem to think of the implications of female Dalish elf + quite conservative andstrastian human male.
<<Arguing that Seekers failed to fulfill their job is another argument entirely.>>
Of course. That's while I'm dropping the point about harm now as it will probably just lead to pointless squabbling over definitions.
<<It's written by chantry sister, and nor reference is clear cut or backed up by any evidence regarding seeker function elsewhere.>>
Thing is, if you got a secret organisation, yelling for evidence is kinda pointless to a certain extent, no?
<<So as far I know it just may be "be good or bogeyman will come for you" claim.>>
Well, that's a way to trivaliase it in a way, but that does not change the notion or intent behind it.
<<External threats can refer to many other more likely things, from Tevinter and Qunari, to plots conducted by nobles, apostates>>
Sure. That does not contradict what I said, however.
<<as far I saw I could openly trash refuse faith in the maker as the warden on multiple occasions without fear of seekers or chantry and no actual consequences of that.>>
That is because you are the warden.
<<That it could mean that doesn't mean they do, in fact evidence not only is absent but some evidence I've stated contradicts notion.>>
You did not state anything contradictory except perhaps for the warden part.
I don't think that the seekers are busy tracking down any dissenting peasant, but since we can assume that 1) organised religions can view dissent as a fundamental "threat to the faith" and we know that the Chantry does ban certain works, I suppose it is safe to assume they could be involved in that process.
<<not every organization with religious undertones is hunting down heretics.>>
Eh, no. But this one does. Simply by using the word "heretics" it confirms that there are interpretations it flat out does not tolerate.
<<If they're allowing them to exist then they aren't doing good job of flushing them out aren't they?>>
I'm not responsible for the seeker's operational shortcomings.
<<There is no real evidence of that they are secretly getting rid of Libertarians, I mean if they did you would think they would off people like Uldred and Adrian years ago.>>
*shrugs* You brought up the fraternities. I stated a possible explanation. It could be argued that the Chantry is aware that making dissenters disappear in an obvious way would lead to more dissent and finally outright violence, so they allow a controlled way of release, while at the same times enabling finger-pointing at the Libertarians for the sake of keeping the rest in line.
<<It was actually confirmed as factual the Libertarian faction exists solely to easily categorize and monitor Dissident Circle Mages. I forget where this was stated though I believe DA2.>>
Yeah, also thought so but cannot remember where it came from.
<<As for the hunting of Heretics they do a terrible job given the Dalish, Qunari and Apostates all over the South.>>
I'm not responsible for possible operational shortcomings or lack of success. To invoke Godwin's law for a moment, well the nazis tried to kill all the Jews, but the fact that they did not suceed does not make their act any less terrible. Also, they might just be more concerned with the "internal" part, i.e. non-approved andrastian interpretations.
<<But the Chantry is hypocritical with the Dwarves while trading for Lyrium they don't care about their Anti-Chantry Pro-Stone views so there's a precedent of non-aggression towards the other faiths.>>
I suppose in this case the need for lyrium to keep templars and pet mages powered up (as well as not having to deal with the Darkspawn directly) weighs heavier than the need to kill some infidels. I would argue that not all dwarves are "anti-Chantry" (one can be "anti-Chantry" without being "anti-andrastian" anyway), they simply don't care. Of couse, the Chantry usually takes any refusal of submission as a hostile "anti" action.
<<I think the Chantry overall doesn't care about other Faiths as long as they don't interfere with Chantry policies and rule.>>
Existing might already interfere with their rule, or more likely the stated end goal, but we have been there before. They might not act on that immediately, of course. I could think that the Chantry views internal dissent as more of an immediate threat than the already demonised competition (the Qun) or the fringe cultures (human "barbarians", Dalish, etc.)
<<Inaction doesn't cause harm because to cause harm you would need act in way that harmed you>>
Eh, that depends. While it might not fit your definition, where I live there are laws obliging citizens to administer help; "Failure to render assistance" is a thing here.
Since we lack a comprehensive view on the Chantry laws in general, it is hard to judge. On the other hand, we do have a prominent example of a decision maker not doing their job when required, causing everything to go to shit.
Regarding the thought police thing, WoT 2 (p. 125) contains what is at least a tongue-in-cheek reference, if not an outright admission, given that WoT quotes codex entries verbatim at times and is otherwise set up like an-universe source. Also, one does not be a genius to notice that the generic "protecting the Chantry from internal and external threats" could very well mean hunting down "heretics" and other threats on the ideological level, given we got an organisation here which barely tolerates disagreement. And before you start, faith isn't logical, so these people do not need to be rational. As far as the circle fraternities are considered, why do you think are the Liberatarians are allowed to exist at all? I presume to flush out any possible dissent.
Creepy state police/black ops/thought police claiming divine entitlement, intended to protect the Chantry from any "threats". Given andrastian attitude just about everything, that does not sound very good. The role of overseeing the templars seems to go down the drain as senior templars are joining the Seekers (Lambert), blurring the lines between the two groups.
Honestly, first time I played DAI and seeing Cassandra, I though "Ugh, the book-stabbing Chantry Gestapo again..." *lol*
Orlais first and foremost. They've got their past with punching down elves, their territory is pretty large, and ironically, quite some land they occupy isn't of much use to them anyway, since nobody ever goes there due to "elven curses" or something.
Second would be Antiva, I suppose. Anything that rids Thedas of that creepy Mary Sue mafia called the Crows is a good thing in my book.
Of those we know about? Ferelden. Even if anything else goes to shit, they still got dogs. Of those we haven't visited yet? Rivain, but Nevarra is close. Of those not visited and partially not listed, but still being states? Rivain and Tevinter.
My two sovereigns: They are both assholes.
SPOILERS AHEAD in case you play it for the first time!
If you just want to be done with it, save Celene's sorry butt and have her continue as before; I suppose that's the quickest way. Otherwise it depends on the political goals that the Inquisitor may or may not have.
-Celene alone is the most stable, back-to-status-quo choice, for good or ill, especially the others are executed as well.
-Gaspard alone has more detractors among the nobles.
-Celene reunited with Briala makes the former somewhat attackable, and instead of Briala doing something for the city elves, she must just forget about all that (again) an be just busy f*cking Celene.
-Gaspard leashed to Briala would in my view have the chance to have her achieve more, and this combo is also easier to get rid of if necessary.
-Public truce is the hardest outcome to achieve (needs material on all three sides=careful spending of Halla statuettes) and since they are all just bullied in to compliance by the Inquisition, it breaks apart easily afterwards.
Eamon just looks that old, he was born in 8:86, so by Trespasser, he is around 60. Anyway, given that the Inquisition has pretty close orlesian ties (and some characters like Josi being rather giddy about that), I'd say Teagan doing the Loghain here does not totally come out of the blue. A crackpot theory would be that Connor(s girlfriend) did some... lasting damage to him that manifests past 9:30. Yeah the monarch issue. Any combination including wardens isn't very like to make heirs, and Anora apparently refuses to marry again. I guess she did not like Fergus much...
<<Swooping is bad...Just kidding, bad joke. Jump in any ol' time.>>
Heh, it is always appropriate in DA fandoms.
<<Execution because he caused multiple deaths. Tranquility because, he didn't do it out of malice, he got possessed. Perhaps they didn't want to kill him because he was sent on a job by them and they feel some blame in the matter?>>
Do you suggest Tranqulity as the milder punishment? According to what I've read on Pharamond's wiki page, he wanted to die instead of being made Tranquil again, so I would consider respecting his wish as the milder form then.
<<However, I think people really need to absorb the reality that if a Mage fails their Harrowing. There isn't a second chance. They kill the mage. Failure is death. If there was a job you wanted, and if you fail the interview they would kill you. How bad do you really want that job? If you do succeed in getting the job, now you are under constant daily threat of being possessed by demons. You would really want that job wouldn't you?>>
I'm not above questioning the validity of the Harrowing, or at least certain aspects of it. The details of the whole ritual are horribly vague. Do they really summon a demon? Or is it just a benevolent spirit masking as one (Or "Why did Mouse not just possess Amell/Surana if it really was a Pride Demon?")?
Thing is, the way how Harrowing and Tranquility are intertwined makes a tidy way for the Chantry to wash their hands of any possible mage blood, and they get very useful, and to use Sebastian's words, "tractable", workers out of it. So why not scare the shit out of the apprentices beforehand, have gossip circle around the tower until they are all so fucked up that, if not being easier to possess, they practically beg for Tranquility.
No mage "applies" for their "job", they have no way to turn down the job or avoid it any way in the first place. They are also under that threat well before. The Harrowing also does not preclude future possessions completely.
<<I would focus more on changing the culture rather than the methods.>>
No disagreement there.
<<I don't know if you saw this or not, but this my opinion on that situation [of Erimond].>>
My bad. My paragraphs past the first one were addressing several points mentionend across multiple topics dealing with Tranquility in some way.
I noticed that you adressed the issue with punishing mages in a pretty either/or way before if I'm not mistaken. Thing is, I would say that Tranquility is also a degree of capital punishment (where I live, we usually use the equivalent of "death penalty", the english term "capital punishment" allows a wider range of interpretations, as least to me), in a way that it, at least in the past, was supposed to be permanent. Apart from the lack of experience with turning it back, the argument of "emotionally unstable, too dangerous" could always easily be leveled. I'm not quite sure how that "binding spell" used on Erasthenes is supposed to work ("Binding spell" is also used with regards to spirits), but that also carries the notion of an interrogation device. Funny thing though, it made me remember something from the Magi Origin: The group's attempts to open the direct entrance to the phylactery chamber via fire rod fails due to protective runes engraved into the doorframe and Jowan notices that he's unable to cast spells. Lily then points out that Irving and Greagoir have mundane keys for the door. These protective enchantments (I have to think of Dweomer runes now) sound like something for a mage-specific prison cell.
<<This statement is coming from a person born into money or is emotionally compromised by their beliefs.>>
Please elaborate. Right now, I can imagine a host unfortunate ways to interpret it with regards to my person, but don't want to jump to conclusions. I'd still dismiss the thought that measures like Tranquility are acceptable merely for economic reasons.
<<The profit that Dwarves get from making and selling enchanted runes doesn't go to the Circles does it? Also, it is also rids the market of the competition and the Dwarves gain more of a monopoly on making and selling runes. It also means, that the mages or Chantry would be buying less lyrium, that could mean less money coming in for the Dwarves as well.>>
The part you quoted was to point out that we won't loose general access to runes if the use of Tranquility winds down. I'm no expert on economy but I could imagine that, without the "competition" from the circles, the dwarves have the chance to sell more runes, if demand stays the same. They would use that lyrium themelves then, I presume. Though I have no clue how the local economy of Orzammar works, it might even out in the end.
<<They could. However, it states in the wiki that it is the Circle's primary source of income. Now, if you have a Mage Independence worldstate. That means the Circle won't have the Chantry resources. The Circle probably didn't have to worry about paying for taxes, food, supplies, etc. That will be their responsibility now. My assumption, the Circle is going to be on the low end of the totem pole for receiving tithes and donations.>>
They should, regardless what the current situation says. They also make potions, and this does not require hitting someone with the brand.
Generally speaking, I see no point in arguing that the Chantry "pays for the mages" if it denied them any way to maintain their living on their own for centuries. You said in the past that there is a dependency if I recall right. I'd say this dependency was created or furthered intentionally in part to cut off any attempts in self-sustainability, chaining the mages to the circles in yet another way.
<<This is worse than the alternative of him continuously and unjustly beating the hell out of people? Alright..>>
I already said that I find the use of Tranquility for mere economical reasons very problematic. I cooked up a simple example to show how this could also be applied to non-mages, yet nobody seems to consider it, for the right reasons, I might add. Yet mages seem to be put to a different measure. It is not about that hypothetical thug escaping punishment, but about the notion I got of "mage being mindraped to work=acceptable, anyone else=no way!"
^ Same to you. See all the talk about Meredith and moral lines? Yet you seem to wonder.
Notice my use of of "hypothetical"? I start to wonder if your much-vaunted command of language is somewhat... broken? And I'm not even a native speaker and regularly stumble over prepositions. Anyway, it depends on the scale used. But I'm not the one trying to sell ridiculous (and horribly biased) hyperbole as a proper analogy or something.
Illnesses? What are you talking about?
Well, yeah, you might be right if just trying to invoke technicalities again, but that does not change the fact the interests of religious institutions and politcs are so horribly intertwined at times that it is impossible to make out a line most of the time. And that's from a modern perspective, where a precious little number of states has attained anything close to secularisation. People with the "wrong religion" have precious little chances of advancement in Thedas' societies, with the larger ones being worse for reasons obvious. Funny you mention Kirkwall, a city state which was effectively ruled by a templar commander for the better part of sixteen years if my math is correct, with the blessing and support of the Chantry authorities. And if I remember right, you just wrote off the nobles acting against Meredith as some insignificant 'lil uprising she would have crushed anyway.
Eh, don't mistake annoying users out of topics for a victory. I'm pretty surprised that someone who likes to harp on other's (perceived) mistakes in formal logic seems to be that ignorant of this.
^ Just to swoop in here, I don't understand the apparent burning desire to punish Pharamond. I did not read Asunder though, but just sifting through his wiki article, I got the impression that he mostly acted on orders, so I find it pretty hypocritical for the Chantry people (i.e. the guys ordering him to research in the first place) to judge him. Executing him, I might agree with that, but putting him right back comes across as mere vengeful pettyness from Lambert.
Anyway. I'm a bit torn on the whole topic. There's one case I came across where I'd say an individual actually made a more or less informed decision of being made Tranquil, though I find the background provided still very vague. Otherwise, I'm extremely wary of any other claims of people desiring Tranquility, which really usually boiled down to coercion and long-time exposure to andrastian guilt-tripping. Speaking of which, I'm pretty sure that any culture harboring an inherent bias against mages and magic is incapable of not falling into the trap of abusing Tranquility.
"A mage's punishment for a mage's crime!" is discriminatory nonsense. I don't know why people are so seeming obsessed with trying to find "poetic justice" for Erimond. If I'm a mage and opposed to the use of punitive Tranqulity, I'll just have that guy's head cut off and be done with him. Pondering on poetic justice is just giving this idiot more credit than he deserves and I don't care about his delusions about being rewarded in the next life or something.
I dismiss the economical argument as well. Besides Dwarves being able to make runes as well, tranqilising people for mere gain is very disturbing. Mages can do other things which could pay. The circle mages seem pretty learned on alchemy for example. Tevinter Nights mentioned wards against Blood Magic. Very interesting.
If we just go by making "offenders" economically useful, we could also take a hale and hearty young lad who beat several people to a pulp and has no intention of stopping, use quamek on him and have him carry heavy stuff around for the rest of his life.