Hey guys. So do you think that the Chantry has a limited lifespan currently? We can look at this in a variety of contexts. Religion plays a major role in Dragon Age games, so a future game without it may be problematic but that's not what i'm arguing. Rather, in regards to influence. Will the chantry-or could it rather-loose it's grip on the power it has held? I am not talking about the complete eradication of such a thing, and for all we know it may gain more power than it already has according to choices, but rather in regards to its influence and control over certain institutions "such" as the Mages and a variety of other things. What do you think will be the consequences of their fall in influence. Lets not bring contemporary ideals in regards to religion into this, but look at it in the context of the games.---Lazare326 (talk)>
Everything dies eventually, but I assume you're asking if the Chantry will fall apart in the near future. I think this depends of the outcome of the mage-templar war. If the mages win then yes, the Chantry is probably done for. If the Templars win, the Chantry will probably survive, but not in its current state. I'd imagine that the Templars would take direct control of things and the Chantry might get completely or partially restructured. So either way, the Chantry as it is at the end of DA2 is probably gone for good. Varric actually hints at this in the epilogue: "your precious Chantry has fallen to pieces..." Things do not look good for the Chantry. Silver Warden (talk) 18:22, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
As was said earlier religion exists as long as faith. So many people still believe and as long as they do this, the religion survives. Cult of old gods isn't extinct, blood band are successors of that cult and in real world we still have worshippers of Zeus. Without Andrastian Chantry we still have Imperial Chantry, but we have no guarantee that they won't become godless, but the cult of the Maker will survive, because faith is an idea that can't be destroyed easily. The real world churches have no armies, but they still exist. Chantry doesn't need armies to work as a religious organisation. When Silver Warden says "Everything dies eventually" it sounds preety nihilistic. Middle Age is hard to imagine without churches. Besides this topic is very flamebaiting.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 18:34, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
- I believe the OP was asking if Chantry organization would survive, not belief in the Maker. To use your own example sure, there might be a handful of people who believe in Zeus (though I've never actually heard of this), but the organized worship of the Greek gods died out thousands of years ago.
- Oh, and the statement everything dies might be nihilistic but it is also true. In a hundred years, we'll probably all be dead. In a thousand years, no one will remember your name. In a million years humanity will either be extinct or changed to the point where it will be unrecognizable to modern humans. In a billion years the oceans will evaporate and plate tectonics will cease, killing off nearly all life on Earth. In a trillion years, the Milky Way will have merged with all nearby galaxies, and most of the rest of the universe will have moved beyond the cosmological horizon (making it unobservable). And in a quadrillion years, all the stars will burn out, making the universe almost entirely black. Planets will float around in a lightless abyss cooled to nearly absolute zero, where no life or even any kind of interesting geological change could take place.
- Now, the DA world might be held together by magic and lit by a giant disc of fire or some kind of sun god, but even there nothing lasts forever. The ancient elves are gone. The dwarven kingdoms have been reduced to just Orzammar and Kal Sharok. Even the Old Gods have become tainted creatures that were later slain by mortals. Do you honestly think that the Chantry could survive forever in such a world? It's had nine hundred years, that's a pretty good run. Silver Warden (talk) 19:17, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
Is that you drell since it claims you edited it. Well I think Silver Warden has a point, and it's not nihilistic, which means "the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless." He never interpreted that, HOW IS THIS FLAME BAITING, . This is asking for an opinion on the topic, as i said " Lets not bring contemporary ideals in regards to religion into this, but look at it in the context of the games." WHY ARE YOU?!, seriously?!?. This is a query and opinions of others. In no way did i intend fury, and it's you who is disregarding others opinions which is flame baiting. I provided a premise for both sides of the argument, and was neutral in it, not taking sides and maintaining my own opinion therefore one could argue for both sides. . ---Lazare326 (talk)>
- Drell claims all discussions regarding to religion and mages is a source of flamebaiting. He always involve himself to it.112.200.25.64 (talk) 04:17, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
Faith is very important in the DA universe. Even if the mages "win" that doesnt stop the faithful from praying to the maker. It would just mean the chantry doesnt control the mages. Belief of the Maker is WIDESPREAD. They've had wars far worse then the M-T one. Will it be weaker without mages? possibly.... but theres no way they would disappear entirely. Worst case scenario is they have to do a full reform, where they change the way they train their templars, and possibly lose out a little bit of the pull they held over political leaders. Warden Mage: Ferris (talk) 18:54, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
I wasn't saying faith would be eradicated but its influence.In no way did I imply it would disappear entirely, or argue about its widespreadness You talk about wars worse than the M-T, when it hasn't even concluded yet? Who knows to what extent it could go to. ---Lazare326 (talk)>
- I would argue the influence of the Chantry IS faith, but I suspect you mean "Is the chantry's current position of power (where they hold sway over kings) at an end?" To that I'd still say no... Though it wont really be the same. Warden Mage: Ferris (talk) 19:59, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
Obviously the influence of the chantry is "faith". It would take decades to centuries for "faith" to dwindle to a minority, in a normal situation which it is not. Again faith is a vague answer depending on what way you go. Either it could mean a strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof, or complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Now the latter, anything can take its place, but the chantry holds a tight centurial grip on the former and the latter. And why do you think it'd stay the same in it regards to their sway over kings, which is one of the many things. In all reality, the Chantry is much more than FAITH now. It's a deep, embedded organisation due to the faith of the majority. There could be defiance of the chantry in regards as an ORGANISATION, but as FAITH, it's highly unlikely as you said. That's with many of things, and in all realness, I see it loosing influence or power as an organisation, but as a faith it will sustain itself. ---Lazare326 (talk)>
Even if I support the templars, I will reform them, for example replace lyrium by magic-resistant armors and weapons, they would depend on own strength rather on magic that works only on mages. Other templars of my version of order woule denepnd on agility like antivan crows, former Chantry assassins.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 19:21, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
I think that's a very context-heavy question. In regards to the M/T conflict? Possibly. But there exists the possibility of the status quo being restored, or even the destruction of the mages; neither eventuality doesn't seem very pleasing. In the assumption that the templars win, they have formally separated themselves from the Chantry's influence, and may not cede that freedom back once the warring is all done with. As for a mage victory, the templars will definitely cease to exist, and the Chantry would likely be utterly dissolved as some sort of retribution. Again, very displeasing eventuality. I think the answer to the actual question is "yes", but I would specify it in relation to how the Chantry as it exists now will cease to exist, but will likely change enough after the war to reflect whatever new values have been introduced. EzzyD (talk) 23:00, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
If the Chantry were to somehow lose their grip over the lyrium trade, it would fall upon each individual government to establish their own lyrium trade contracts with the dwarves and so the Templars would be controlled by sovereign heads of nations instead of a religious office. Since Ferelden is the closest in proximity to Orzammar, and Alistair being knowledgeable in the arts of a templar, I'd assume it would be the new home of the Templar Order. I'm sure there would still be templars to uphold the peace, even after the fall of the Chantry but they'd be just like knights who just happens to fight against magic. The Chantry would probably be back to just being a clergy, though I'm sure they could resort to their old past time of assassination to exert their political will.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 23:16, April 8, 2014 (UTC))
- I wouldn't say that the a Mage victory in the war would necessarily spell the end of the Chantry. Perhaps in it's current form, but by enlarge most mages remain Andrastians, this isn't like the Tevinters abandoning their olds gods in the wake of the First Blight. And though the Chantry has been historically represive, they are not the one's directly fighting the Mages. The Templars and Seekers broke away because the Chantry wasn't willing to act, given this it's not certain that victorious mages would wish to dismantle the Chantry at the end of the war.
- For a start they'd have to contend with the fact that most humans are Andrastians, if they want a peace where mages can live in Freedom, they have to prepared to give and take. Not doing deals with Templars, doing deals with Priests. Dirty deals? Maybe, in the eyes of hardliners like Anders. But peace doesn't last when it's made by uncompromising people. Mages will be blamed by ALLOT of people (rightly or wrongly) even after a victory in the war.
- There's no doubt that the Chantry can only survive in it's pre-war state if either a truce is declared, or the Templars win. Otherwise I would have thought I'd be reduced to what the Catholic Church became in the 17th and 18th centuries (maybe earlier). Fangs removed; an institution that has power only over faith, and requires influence to sway nations, rather than armies. Alexsau1991
(talk page) 23:33, April 8, 2014 (UTC)
- Yes the majority of Thedas are Andrastians, that doesn't necessarily mean they are all Orleasian Chantry Andrastians. The Imperial Chantry for example, think of magic as a gift and mages as people. People like Thrask and the Mage Underground think that mages shouldn't be locked up in a Circle tower. That they deserve freedom to walk among the people. Yes there will still be prejudices, people will want the old ways of the Circle. But the mages at least has a chance to establish a home and a choice if they win, a place where they can belong and not be oppressed. And if the Chantry loyalists want to live in a Circle tower, they can CHOOSE to surrender themselves to the templars. There's several potential countries where the mages can find a home where they can be free. Tevinter if you don't mind the blood magic and the slavery. Rivain if you follow the Qun and become Seers. And there's Anderfels, surely the Wardens wouldn't fear magic and think of it as a boon against their constant assaults from the Darkspawn. With the Power of Blood, the Wardens have a bit of magic themselves. As Malcolm Hawke once said, "Freedom's price is never cheap", and if it means war with the Chantry, the bigots, and the Templars, it'll be a worthy cost.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 01:36, April 9, 2014 (UTC))
- I need to reiterate this from our previous conversations but please STOP associating the Templars and the Chantry together, they seperated, the current war with the Mages has nothing to do with the current Chantry. One of the big things stopping the Chantry from reforming the Circles was the Templars, and that seems rather pointless now that both groups have left. As to original question, then no, many mages are Andrastians themselves, and many of them separated not specifically against the Circle but out of self-defense against the abuses and threat of the Templars. The Chantry could fall depending on our decisions, but just as easily we could manage to bring this conflict to heel and promote a reformation that will finally deal with the underlying issues the Nevarran Accord had kept buried until now.--KrimzonStriker (talk) 02:18, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Why is the Chantry something that needs to be preserved? For thousands of years they have promoted the persecution of mages, forced the Circle institution on thousands of mages. You don't need some old lady called a Divine telling people what's right or wrong, she's a just a human being, nor to tell people if what they believe in is heretical or not. How many Exalted Marches were unjust after Andraste? The Dales, the slaughter of Rivain Qunari ring a bell? She doesn't speak for the Maker and isn't needed for people to believe in the Maker. And why are so many mage Loyalists cling to the institution of the Chantry? I get that they don't want to hurt anyone, but mages like everyone else have only one life to live and it is unjust to force that way of life on everyone. As Mahatma Ghandi says, "It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.". Why should the Chantry institute the Circle imprisonment on everyone? The mages can finds ways of protecting themselves without the Chantry.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 02:27, April 9, 2014 (UTC))
- I need to reiterate this from our previous conversations but please STOP associating the Templars and the Chantry together, they seperated, the current war with the Mages has nothing to do with the current Chantry. One of the big things stopping the Chantry from reforming the Circles was the Templars, and that seems rather pointless now that both groups have left. As to original question, then no, many mages are Andrastians themselves, and many of them separated not specifically against the Circle but out of self-defense against the abuses and threat of the Templars. The Chantry could fall depending on our decisions, but just as easily we could manage to bring this conflict to heel and promote a reformation that will finally deal with the underlying issues the Nevarran Accord had kept buried until now.--KrimzonStriker (talk) 02:18, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Yes the majority of Thedas are Andrastians, that doesn't necessarily mean they are all Orleasian Chantry Andrastians. The Imperial Chantry for example, think of magic as a gift and mages as people. People like Thrask and the Mage Underground think that mages shouldn't be locked up in a Circle tower. That they deserve freedom to walk among the people. Yes there will still be prejudices, people will want the old ways of the Circle. But the mages at least has a chance to establish a home and a choice if they win, a place where they can belong and not be oppressed. And if the Chantry loyalists want to live in a Circle tower, they can CHOOSE to surrender themselves to the templars. There's several potential countries where the mages can find a home where they can be free. Tevinter if you don't mind the blood magic and the slavery. Rivain if you follow the Qun and become Seers. And there's Anderfels, surely the Wardens wouldn't fear magic and think of it as a boon against their constant assaults from the Darkspawn. With the Power of Blood, the Wardens have a bit of magic themselves. As Malcolm Hawke once said, "Freedom's price is never cheap", and if it means war with the Chantry, the bigots, and the Templars, it'll be a worthy cost.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 01:36, April 9, 2014 (UTC))
- It's a symbol of authority and stability, and whatever its flaws it's better then many alternatives like the Imperial Chantry or the Qun. Please go back in the timeline, persecution of mages started well before the Chantry was concieved, mainly because of the abuses by mages in the Imeprium as I recall. And I can argue just as forcefully that the Circle SAVED mages from greater atrocities as the were hunted following the waning of the Imperium, look to the original Inquisition for proof of that. The Dales just as easily brought that on themselves in my opinion, they had a shot at a nation and they blew it on aggressive expansionism and indifference to their Andrastian saviors during the Blight, note they had practiced their pantheon religion long before the March was called. Yes Rivain was an atrocity but the Chantry was not the only one involved with that, the kingdoms all had their own agenda behind it, and it's not as if that persecution continued once the Lloyrem Accord was signed. It's not just about the mages or the people who fear them, that's the selfishness of everyone's perspective in all this, it's about both. That quote by Ghandi goes both ways and can give non-magic people who have no such power reason to rise up as well. Do I think the Circle and Chantry need reform, absolutely, but it's also the only solution presented to hold mages accountable as well, and their responsibility to use magic wisely and with care so as to not present themselves as threats to be feared. In many ways the only thing holding back outright genocide of mages has been the Chantry--KrimzonStriker (talk) 03:14, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Mages can't be extinct, magic is a part of everyone as everyone goes to the Fade when they sleep. Mages were just born with a way to express it. It's in everyone's bloodlines. Mages will always be born from families. The only way to genocide mages is to kill everyone except for dwarves. What the Chantry does by perpetuating this cycle of prejudism and violence is just creating more Anders and more Aldenons. If the Kirkwall's Circle is anything to go by, they are still being hunted and persecuted. The Chantry isn't saving anything. It might as well be the Qun. And what of mages like Feynriel and Avexis who are too powerful for the Circle to control? Do you kill them in cold blood?(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 03:34, April 9, 2014 (UTC))
- You're playing on semantics when you know exactly what I mean, no genocide will ever be 100% complete but it can come extremly close where you have mages killed the minute they are born or discovered with magic. Did I NOT just say the Circle needed to be reformed? And that doesn't change my original point as to what life was like before the Circles and after the Imperium's decline, compared to that it does in fact seem better then any other alternative. And it could easily have been arranged that it would be like the Qun, so think before you tempt or type with those kinds of comparisons, you'd likely find yourself regretting that outburst if it actually came to pass. Why are you constantly harping as if I think the system is perfect for every situation that might arise such as Feynriel or Avexis, it's better then no answer short of the Imperium, or are you suggesting that as an alternative? And Avexis was remarkably well-adjusted considering she is a Circle mage as I recall. Should mages be given more freedom and ability to explore/study/understand magic to better control it, absolutely, but abuse of that freedom/power also has to be guarded against lest the people overreact in fear of another Imperium. Mages need to be made a part of society, but they can't in turn be allowed to threaten or dominate it, and seperation only leads to paranoia and future conflict, we need a balance to alley everyone's concerns and fears--KrimzonStriker (talk) 04:03, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Hawke and Bethany are both apostates and they grew up well adjusted, you don't need to be a Circle mage to be well adjusted. Mages lose either way, whether in the Circle or the Qun, they are being threatened with violence into compliance. The only way out is freedom. Let them live among the Wardens, or the Rivaini, as I said above, there are alternatives. It's the Chantry who refuses to even entertain the possibility. Not all mages turn to blood magic. And those like Anders can't because he is fused with a spirit of virtue. There will never be an alternative found unless the mages discover for themselves if they can survive with out the Chantry. As Flemeth says, "It is only when you fall that you learn whether you can fly." People can't control everything, let alone A people. That is just the way of the world. Mages will find a way to fight against the Chantry and harmony and peace doesn't happen by bludgeoning one into submission, only by living with honor and trusting one another. That's what Calenhad believed. And I think that's what the Maker would believe too. That's how you really spread of Chant of Light all over the corners of Thedas.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 04:19, April 9, 2014 (UTC))
- They weren't self-trained, their father trained them and he was a circle mage, his teachings are based on what he was thought in the circle. Self-trained apostates, who didn't get possessed by demons and are adults are few. You say like every circle was like in Kirkwall, but we haven't seen all cricles in Thedas.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 05:15, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- And not every apostate mage is a blood mage and I know you did. So don't make any generalization to all mages. You making another flame-bait reaction.112.200.25.64 (talk) 05:40, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- As Drell makes a point you conveniently leave out they were trained by their father who was in fact a Circle Mage, so once again a good benefit that shows the necessity of an institution like a Circle to teach proper methods of control. At least they aren't being chained and having their mouths sown even when they comply, that's a pretty big difference in my view. Yes, because the Wardens are the picture of unbound freedom from restrictions and obligations,oh wait you're forgetting about darkspawn taint, the right of conscription, must keep their secrets or be killed, sacrifice yourself to fight darkspawn etc, etc.... and the Rivani HAD a Circle last I recall, they just modified it to suit their culture which isn't that different from my reform suggestions. Why do you talk as if conveniently forgetting that the Chantry HAS entertained that possibility with the current Divine, the people who are absolutely against it are the TEMPLARS, please acknowledge the factual difference and separation since it does exist now. I'm not saying control, I'm talking about accountability and their responsibility towards others with their gifts. Am I arguing that isn't the case or that I disagree? I feel like you're just ignoring me whenever I say there's a need to reform the Circles at this point. Honor and trust are good suggestions, but they need to be tempered with accountability and responsibility in order for them to be earned, which is all I'm really saying in regards to the positives with the Circles. I'm starting to wonder if you are purposefully leaving out facts given your previous example of Aldenon's showed that even Calenhad knew when compromise was required after he called on the Chantry and Circle for assistance. I'm not even going to try to justify contemplating what an omnipotent God may or may not believe, if he exists at all, I'd rather deal with the actual realities the Maker has left us with since he turned away.--KrimzonStriker (talk) 05:48, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- They weren't self-trained, their father trained them and he was a circle mage, his teachings are based on what he was thought in the circle. Self-trained apostates, who didn't get possessed by demons and are adults are few. You say like every circle was like in Kirkwall, but we haven't seen all cricles in Thedas.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 05:15, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Hawke and Bethany are both apostates and they grew up well adjusted, you don't need to be a Circle mage to be well adjusted. Mages lose either way, whether in the Circle or the Qun, they are being threatened with violence into compliance. The only way out is freedom. Let them live among the Wardens, or the Rivaini, as I said above, there are alternatives. It's the Chantry who refuses to even entertain the possibility. Not all mages turn to blood magic. And those like Anders can't because he is fused with a spirit of virtue. There will never be an alternative found unless the mages discover for themselves if they can survive with out the Chantry. As Flemeth says, "It is only when you fall that you learn whether you can fly." People can't control everything, let alone A people. That is just the way of the world. Mages will find a way to fight against the Chantry and harmony and peace doesn't happen by bludgeoning one into submission, only by living with honor and trusting one another. That's what Calenhad believed. And I think that's what the Maker would believe too. That's how you really spread of Chant of Light all over the corners of Thedas.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 04:19, April 9, 2014 (UTC))
- You're playing on semantics when you know exactly what I mean, no genocide will ever be 100% complete but it can come extremly close where you have mages killed the minute they are born or discovered with magic. Did I NOT just say the Circle needed to be reformed? And that doesn't change my original point as to what life was like before the Circles and after the Imperium's decline, compared to that it does in fact seem better then any other alternative. And it could easily have been arranged that it would be like the Qun, so think before you tempt or type with those kinds of comparisons, you'd likely find yourself regretting that outburst if it actually came to pass. Why are you constantly harping as if I think the system is perfect for every situation that might arise such as Feynriel or Avexis, it's better then no answer short of the Imperium, or are you suggesting that as an alternative? And Avexis was remarkably well-adjusted considering she is a Circle mage as I recall. Should mages be given more freedom and ability to explore/study/understand magic to better control it, absolutely, but abuse of that freedom/power also has to be guarded against lest the people overreact in fear of another Imperium. Mages need to be made a part of society, but they can't in turn be allowed to threaten or dominate it, and seperation only leads to paranoia and future conflict, we need a balance to alley everyone's concerns and fears--KrimzonStriker (talk) 04:03, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Mages can't be extinct, magic is a part of everyone as everyone goes to the Fade when they sleep. Mages were just born with a way to express it. It's in everyone's bloodlines. Mages will always be born from families. The only way to genocide mages is to kill everyone except for dwarves. What the Chantry does by perpetuating this cycle of prejudism and violence is just creating more Anders and more Aldenons. If the Kirkwall's Circle is anything to go by, they are still being hunted and persecuted. The Chantry isn't saving anything. It might as well be the Qun. And what of mages like Feynriel and Avexis who are too powerful for the Circle to control? Do you kill them in cold blood?(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 03:34, April 9, 2014 (UTC))
- There are many humorous things in the world, among them the Chantry’s notion that it is less savage than the other savages. Oh right, Kirkwall was the only Circle with abuses. What of Cole then, a Circle in the heart of the Chantry falling into despair. The Circles are wrong by principle. The fact that people listen to the Chantry to kill people and treat them like criminals is wrong by principle. I'd take my chances on Imperial Chantry reform better than I would with this corrupt Orlesian Chantry. When mages realize that they need to band together, they can institutionalize a socialist training reform just as well as the Chantry and they don't have to be threatened to submit or die by some old lady claiming herself a Divine. If there is a Maker then may he punish all the Templars for their hubris in thinking that locking up mages is a solution. If there isn't, well may Tevinter and Maleficarum enslave them all with blood magic as its either resort to blood magic or be gutted by a templar pig amirite?(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 06:01, April 9, 2014 (UTC))
- Most people I talk to would probably be grateful for not having their tongues cut out, I'm just saying. And I'm REALLY starting to get annoyed at how you keep forgetting what I say. Only a few statements ago I made the point that people were already hunting mages before the Chantry was even formed, you can't blame the Chantry for the stigma the Mages received, it was already there and it was something that it had to deal with and considering the alternatives I still feel it was the best compromise anyone could achieve at the time. And what, never-mind the Imperial Chantry practices outright SLAVERY on everyone else, what kind of hypocrisy are you trying to prop up here trying to make the Imperial Chantry out as being less corrupt then the Orlesian one? All well and good to talk about in principle but that leaves out the part of how they make themselves accountable or how they peacefully interact/integrate themselves with the rest of society who will be at their mercy, where's the checks and balances here? Like he punished mages with the Blight you mean? Oh for Makers sake how can you even say that with a straight face, how can one extremism justify the other when the end result is the same. Does balance and compromise and accountability/responsibility mean nothing to you where you would just let anarchy reign with no remorse?--KrimzonStriker (talk) 06:28, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- The Circles were meant to be a safe haven but as long as the Chantry can loom that Right of Annulment over their heads it will always be a prison. It's like an alienage that can't even escape. If the mages are allowed to have place where they police themselves, then they will police themselves and hold themselves accountable. Times are different than the times of Andraste. The Chantry has no more right to judge the mages than the Qunari has to judge the rest of Thedas. The Qunari thinks the Chantry's ways are doing things are wrong, should they hold the Chantry "accountable"? "There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction." And the Circles, the Chantry's supervision over mages, are an injustice that cannot be compromised. Even Calenhad in the end regretted his "compromise". The Orlesians think Ferelden anarchy but to the Fereldens its home. If anarchy is the price for a "home", I choose "home". The price of your compromise is the degradation of the mages and that makes them no better than the magisters.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 06:44, April 9, 2014 (UTC))
- When you hear me talking about reform what exactly is the definition you think I'm using? Do you think I disagree with you about the Right of Annulment when I'm talking about reform, which by the way is a moot point considering the right no longer exists per the nullification of the Nevarran Accord. Like with the Imperium? That's not a reassuring example on curbing authority and abuse, if mages want to be trusted by the greater populace wouldn't it behoove them to have a system in place that makes the process transparent and compels them to cooperate or have real consquence in order for them to be accountable? And people's fears remain the same even after all these times, and every abomination justifies those fears that some institution is needed. It's not about right, it's about peoples relationships to one another and whether or not they can coexist. How is it right to invoke wars no one asked for or drag people into conflicts not of their making? And that's garbage, we make compromises on those issues all the time, sometimes we make compromises BECAUSE of those moral issues, and often compromise is the only rational course of action regardless of knowledge or truth, there are no absolutes to anything and to pretend otherwise ignores human existence. Well they were for a good 1000 years or so and I'm pretty sure the world didn't end when they did. Which didn't mean he actually did anything to change it last I checked, you can regret a lot of things but still see and do what is necessary. And I'm not joking, quit pretending like I actually think the Circle is perfect and doesn't need to be reformed, I'm getting ticked off with having to repeat this. Why are you using the example as if Ferelden IS in Anarchy, even Ferelden has a system in place to govern and hold themselves accountable. Freedom cannot come without responsibility, that's always been the compromise and it's what needs to be remembered whenever the issue comes up. I don't want to see senseless anarchy and chaos and fear perverting magic and non-magic relationships, and that's what's going to happen if all anyone resorts to is simple violence instead of coming up with a viable solution that takes into account EVERYONES concerns, otherwise no one will get anything they want.--KrimzonStriker ([[User
- The Circles were meant to be a safe haven but as long as the Chantry can loom that Right of Annulment over their heads it will always be a prison. It's like an alienage that can't even escape. If the mages are allowed to have place where they police themselves, then they will police themselves and hold themselves accountable. Times are different than the times of Andraste. The Chantry has no more right to judge the mages than the Qunari has to judge the rest of Thedas. The Qunari thinks the Chantry's ways are doing things are wrong, should they hold the Chantry "accountable"? "There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction." And the Circles, the Chantry's supervision over mages, are an injustice that cannot be compromised. Even Calenhad in the end regretted his "compromise". The Orlesians think Ferelden anarchy but to the Fereldens its home. If anarchy is the price for a "home", I choose "home". The price of your compromise is the degradation of the mages and that makes them no better than the magisters.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 06:44, April 9, 2014 (UTC))
- Most people I talk to would probably be grateful for not having their tongues cut out, I'm just saying. And I'm REALLY starting to get annoyed at how you keep forgetting what I say. Only a few statements ago I made the point that people were already hunting mages before the Chantry was even formed, you can't blame the Chantry for the stigma the Mages received, it was already there and it was something that it had to deal with and considering the alternatives I still feel it was the best compromise anyone could achieve at the time. And what, never-mind the Imperial Chantry practices outright SLAVERY on everyone else, what kind of hypocrisy are you trying to prop up here trying to make the Imperial Chantry out as being less corrupt then the Orlesian one? All well and good to talk about in principle but that leaves out the part of how they make themselves accountable or how they peacefully interact/integrate themselves with the rest of society who will be at their mercy, where's the checks and balances here? Like he punished mages with the Blight you mean? Oh for Makers sake how can you even say that with a straight face, how can one extremism justify the other when the end result is the same. Does balance and compromise and accountability/responsibility mean nothing to you where you would just let anarchy reign with no remorse?--KrimzonStriker (talk) 06:28, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- It's a symbol of authority and stability, and whatever its flaws it's better then many alternatives like the Imperial Chantry or the Qun. Please go back in the timeline, persecution of mages started well before the Chantry was concieved, mainly because of the abuses by mages in the Imeprium as I recall. And I can argue just as forcefully that the Circle SAVED mages from greater atrocities as the were hunted following the waning of the Imperium, look to the original Inquisition for proof of that. The Dales just as easily brought that on themselves in my opinion, they had a shot at a nation and they blew it on aggressive expansionism and indifference to their Andrastian saviors during the Blight, note they had practiced their pantheon religion long before the March was called. Yes Rivain was an atrocity but the Chantry was not the only one involved with that, the kingdoms all had their own agenda behind it, and it's not as if that persecution continued once the Lloyrem Accord was signed. It's not just about the mages or the people who fear them, that's the selfishness of everyone's perspective in all this, it's about both. That quote by Ghandi goes both ways and can give non-magic people who have no such power reason to rise up as well. Do I think the Circle and Chantry need reform, absolutely, but it's also the only solution presented to hold mages accountable as well, and their responsibility to use magic wisely and with care so as to not present themselves as threats to be feared. In many ways the only thing holding back outright genocide of mages has been the Chantry--KrimzonStriker (talk) 03:14, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
talk:KrimzonStriker|talk]]) 07:14, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- You DON'T address the Circle's concerns that's the problem. You just say everything is going to be alright when we have a pow wow. You say there is no absolutes but you're so certain that the only way to gain the people's trust is for the mages to submit to them. The same people you say that will FOREVER DISTRUST mages, that same people with the stigma "that will always be there" as you put. And you want these same people to be judge, jury, and executioner. Do you think the Chantry is some saintly church? That it's solely comprised of unbiased angels of the Maker? That there are no Petrices? How do you think reform can come from that? The best you can do is degrade each other like some sort of petty game like Irving and Greagoir did using Lilley and Jowan in a game of "you're kind is the worse." And that is if a Circle is as civil as Fereldan's. If a mage tries to argue even reasonably, they threaten Tranquility. The only way to cure Tranquility is with a spirit. If you summon a spirit, they label you maleficarum and invoke annulment. If you run, the templars catch and kill you or make you tranquil. There is no reform because as you said, the people stigmatize mages, they hate mages, they don't trust them, they don't see them as people worthy of saving if it endangers them. They take the easy safe route like you're doing which is oppression or murder. What I don't understand is why you think it can be any different? It seems so foolhardy with all evidence to the contrary. If you're protemplar just say so but don't act like a neutral party. Divine Justinia V, we have no evidence is going to change the system. Maybe if she was a mage... I can only hope but this blind faith in her goes against all reason. I don't trust the Chantry, I don't trust the templars, and I don't know how the Chantry is going enforce accountability with out tyranny which is why the Circles are rebelling. There is no way for Chantry to be the collar and the whip on the mages and protector at the same time.No matter what sweet words the Chantry says. The world hasn't ended in 1000 years but its still a shitty place to live in. There will still be a system to regulate magic, but it will be the mages who enforce it, not a corrupt church. If your ticked off say something of substance then instead of saying things will get better had only the mages stayed the course with no explanation of how or why.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 07:44, April 9, 2014 (UTC))
- I don't see you laying out a Five-Year plan in terms of the particulars of how a new system of self-governing mages will work, all you assume is that the mages CAN police themselves, never mind how that works in terms of their relationships with others or what they will do to actually check abuses on their part. All YOU'VE done is list the problems without presenting viable solutions (socialist system, how vague can you get?) and pushed for war as the only viable solution because the Chantry is SO corrupt and unsalvagable. Who said submit? I said COOPERATE, stop putting words in my mouth, to show that mages can work as an integral part of the rest of society. Now you're just making things up, I never said they would ALWAYS distrust mages, I specifically said prior to now that mages need a system they can work with to EARN peoples trust, if they always distrust them then how could I make the suggestion they could earn it? And 1500+ years of uncontested domination by the Imperium has gone a long way to dent that trust. Of course not, it's made up of men and mostly women, but that's true of EVERY institution but that doesn't change how necessary its been for people to function, what do youo think the consequences would be if the Chantry was just torn down? How many real-life revolutions devolved into an even worst kind of blood-shed and tyranny then the one they rebelled against? Isn't it better to try and reform the current systems faults in place of using war and violence to get what you want? And I do think reform can come from that, as all reform comes about because the circumstances necessitate that they come in order for the system to continue functioning at all. If anything can show or make it different this time it is SEEING the alternative with the current Mage-Templar civil war and its conseqeunces and if no one budges, on EITHER side, that's all anyone will have in terms of a future, constant war and bloodshed, if the Fade doesn't consume everything in the process anyway. Oh, so are you going to accusse Wynne of being pro-templar now because SHE was a neutral party as well last I checked. The fact that the Divine HELPED the mages avoid the templars does in fact demonstrate a willingness to change the system, and in any event there's no system she has to right or fight against cause the system is gone as I've REPEATEDLY stated with the nullification the Nevvaran Accord, it's the perfect opportunity for her to start from scratch and create something new that can accommodate everyones concerns, if both sides put down their arms for a second and see the possibility anyway. I simply have a realistic outlook that no one can prosecute this war to some absolute victory, and if that's not possible then what's the point of fighting? I once mentioned to you that war is not the sole objective, it's to achieve a political end both sides can live with by demonstrating the consequences of war if they do not. And the 1500 plus years of the Imperiums domination prior to that was some sort of picnic for everyone else?? How about putting your money where your mouth is before calling out someone else for not having all the answers. The truth is I don't have all the answers, and if you were being honest and not a hypocrite you would admit it to in terms of how self-regulating mages will actually work in terms of making them accountable for any abuses or crimes they might commit against others, since the only example of that has been the Imperium and it doesn't exactly bolster your case. But what I do know is how terrible war and violence can be. If you recalled what I've said in our previous discussions you'd know that in the face of the zealotry of the Templars I actually agreed with the decision of fighting in self-defense on the part of the mages because there was no choice, but that's not an overall objective anyone should want and ultimately it has to come to an end, and unlike you it seems I want to bring about this end peacefully and through negotiation and compromise on both sides so that we don't have to fear or kill one another for the rest of eternity.--KrimzonStriker (talk) 15:27, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- To be more ironic, Imperial Chantry says that blood magic is forbidden, but it's no secret that's common from the lowest acolyte to highest archont. The imperial chantry has own templars aand right of annulement, but that's no use because of it's fake law. Many say mages are slaves, but even Gaider says it's not slavery. Other will say that Orlesian nobles have slaves, slavery is illegal, but not every crime can be detected quickly and nobles have enough money to destroy evidences of them abusing authority.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 06:40, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- But when Rivaini Circle created those laws then the Chantry called an Exalted March against it Sports has a point. People hate change, they fight it every fiber of their existence. Many people in Thedas hate mages along with the templars, they do everything to prevent them to be free.112.200.25.64 (talk) 05:58, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- But that's not to say every person does hate mages either, the freaking DIVINE doesn't for Makers sake, I feel like I'm just talking to myself when everyone seems to conveniently forget that. And that may be true and people fear/fight change, but that often depends on how that change comes about and how that change is presented in a way for them to see the ultimate benefit behind it. There's more then one method to change then having to fight in an ever-lasting bloodbath if our own real-world reformers have shown us anything--KrimzonStriker (talk) 06:28, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- But when Rivaini Circle created those laws then the Chantry called an Exalted March against it Sports has a point. People hate change, they fight it every fiber of their existence. Many people in Thedas hate mages along with the templars, they do everything to prevent them to be free.112.200.25.64 (talk) 05:58, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- @Krimzon Even there are people wanted reform like Thrask and Wynne. Their opinions are highly disregarded by the many. And those people always die before they see those things to happened.112.200.25.64 (talk) 09:35, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Which doesn't discount that those changes DO ultimately happen despite the sacrfice or more accurately because of the sacrifice people like Thrask and Wynne make. I never said it would be easy, only that it has to be a better alternative compared to war and death and destruction upon everyone's heads, including the innocent caught in the crossfire.--KrimzonStriker (talk) 15:27, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- @Krimzon Even there are people wanted reform like Thrask and Wynne. Their opinions are highly disregarded by the many. And those people always die before they see those things to happened.112.200.25.64 (talk) 09:35, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- I think the OP is asking if the Chantry will exist, not if it should exist, that's a separate question. As for the Templars being officially separate from the Chantry and therefore the the war shouldn't affect the Chantry...well that's completely ridiculous. The war will affect the sales of Orlsian cheese, never mind the very institution that started oppressing mages to begin with. Yes, they're technically separate, but tell that to the mother of a mage child who watched her little girl get decapitated by a Templar. This mother associates Templars with the Chantry, and rightly so. The Templars were once part of the Chantry, and they were created by the Chantry - the fact that they have very recently separated will not quench that mother's rage toward the Chantry. And she's not even a mage!
- If wars were just about who technically belongs to one faction or another...well, there wouldn't be wars. There would be battles over land and resources and other logistical things, but no wars. That is why it is possible to win a battle but impossible to win a war - though each side believes they are fighting for victory, they are actually just fighting to see who loses the least.
- The Chantry can and will get caught in the crossfire, and it may not survive. If it does, it will be forever changed. Would the Divine order the Seekers to capture and interrogate Varric if the Chantry itself wasn't threatened? Or did Cassandra simply want to stare at his chest hair for twenty hours? Silver Warden (talk) 02:59, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- That's indirectly affected however, I meant directly involved with this war which they are not. Your presenting a hypothetical mother we're not sure even exist, not accounting for the fact that said mother is likely a follower and believer in the Chantry to begin with and may see the need for it. Or that the Chantry or the Templars won't make the proclamation of their seperation loudly known throughout Thedas. And nevermind the dozens of other non-mage mothers who are quietly thankful for the Circles to begin with and take their assurance in the Chantries authority. And who is that mother going to take her anger out on even if she were to exist, the priest and Clerics? The churches of followers praying for salvation?--KrimzonStriker (talk) 03:14, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- The hypothetical mother is not meant to be anyone specifically, although given the millions of people affected by the war, that situation or one very similar to is likely to happen several times over. My point was that people are not rational, especially when their loved ones die violently and en mass. The Chantry is a huge institution, it would get affected by the war if the war was over whether or not the Grey Wardens should continue to use griffons as their symbols. This war is mages v. templars, and templars are closely associated with the Chantry. Yes, there will be just as many mothers and spouses and orphans grieving over loved ones killed by mages, but that's my point. This is not about who logically did what to whom. People are dying, therefore people are angry and want vengeance for the dead. This is the hate that fuels war, not the desire to control or freedom for mages. Vengeance for killing the guy who killed your friend. That's what people care about and some people - some people - will take that out on the Chantry. And it will change because of that. Silver Warden (talk) 22:07, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- And my point was that given most of Thedas follows the Chantry I expect little to no military action against them directly and at the very least the Circles are aware of the separation between the Chantry and the Templars by this point, so I don't see them directly targeting Chantry institutions. And of course I fully expect the Chantry to change as an indirect consequence, my point was you won't see direct front-line involvement of the Chantry like an exalted march or something since the loss of the Templars has de-fanged them militarily. Given the scale of everything do we really expect to see a few people who 'might' blame the Chantry make any real difference or pose some danger to the institution. Which gets to my MAIN point on the original question of whether or not the Chantry will die out, which I am stating I severely doubt. The REAL danger is loss of people's morale in the Chantry's capabilities in light of the Mage-Templar war and clear display of lack of control on the Chantry's part now. But that's still vastly different to saying their going to die out or be overthrown, I don't expect anywhere near enough popular opinion to affect THAT kind of change.--KrimzonStriker (talk) 01:48, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
- I see. Well I obviously don't think priests and clerics will duke it out with mages. I do think that if the mages defeat the templars, they will have all the remaining military power (or most of it), and as a consequence they will either uproot the Chantry completely or at least severally neuter it. The populous might hate that but these are unrestrained mages we are talking about, who just won a victory over their centuries-old oppressors. Look at the Imperium. They may not care about the populous. Belief in the Maker won't be affected, but the Chantry itself? It's in serious danger if the mages win.
- If the templars win, things look a lot better for the Chantry but it won't be the same. The templars will probably seize political or maybe even physical control over it, and that will inevitably change it to the point where it will be something unlike the current Chantry. They'll probably keep the same name for the institution, and maybe even use the same titles, but will likely shift into either a figure head position that legitimatizes templar power, or a husk of its former self containing that power - think Reverend Fathers or Commander Grand Clerics or something like that.
- And my point was that given most of Thedas follows the Chantry I expect little to no military action against them directly and at the very least the Circles are aware of the separation between the Chantry and the Templars by this point, so I don't see them directly targeting Chantry institutions. And of course I fully expect the Chantry to change as an indirect consequence, my point was you won't see direct front-line involvement of the Chantry like an exalted march or something since the loss of the Templars has de-fanged them militarily. Given the scale of everything do we really expect to see a few people who 'might' blame the Chantry make any real difference or pose some danger to the institution. Which gets to my MAIN point on the original question of whether or not the Chantry will die out, which I am stating I severely doubt. The REAL danger is loss of people's morale in the Chantry's capabilities in light of the Mage-Templar war and clear display of lack of control on the Chantry's part now. But that's still vastly different to saying their going to die out or be overthrown, I don't expect anywhere near enough popular opinion to affect THAT kind of change.--KrimzonStriker (talk) 01:48, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
- The hypothetical mother is not meant to be anyone specifically, although given the millions of people affected by the war, that situation or one very similar to is likely to happen several times over. My point was that people are not rational, especially when their loved ones die violently and en mass. The Chantry is a huge institution, it would get affected by the war if the war was over whether or not the Grey Wardens should continue to use griffons as their symbols. This war is mages v. templars, and templars are closely associated with the Chantry. Yes, there will be just as many mothers and spouses and orphans grieving over loved ones killed by mages, but that's my point. This is not about who logically did what to whom. People are dying, therefore people are angry and want vengeance for the dead. This is the hate that fuels war, not the desire to control or freedom for mages. Vengeance for killing the guy who killed your friend. That's what people care about and some people - some people - will take that out on the Chantry. And it will change because of that. Silver Warden (talk) 22:07, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Either way, the current Chantry is unlikely to survive. Silver Warden (talk) 02:56, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
- But here's the facet of the argument you're forgetting and which has been proven true for any opponent that posses superior military capability but does not command moral authority to sway popular opinion, you ultimately fail because no amount of military force can cover for entire segments of the population that doesn't buy in to your authority. The Imperium is in fact a good example of that given it's eventual break-up. Drakon is another good example because even as his armies eventually faded and his conquests were lost the Chantry remained dominant. Belief is a very powerful force if properly harnessed, and the Chantry has had centuries of practice in doing so. While there's a small possibility of what you say coming to pass, I still severely doubt it, especially if some how the mages win because of their smaller numbers, they'll likely want to negotiate with the Chantry to reach an accord because any attempt to rule would be met with hostility and be extremely difficult to sustain without sizable support and resources they don't possess like say from the Imperium, whose busy with the Qunari last I checked. And given the long association between the Chantry and the Templars I'm sure their betrayal will strike a blow to their credibility as well, especially since they separated as a political entity. Had they stayed in the Chantry I would have given your prediction more consideration, but like with the original Inquisition I don't see the Templars winning enough support behind their arbitrary justice, throwing their unrecognized authority in the face of both the kingdoms of Thedas and the primary religious institution, to really take over either. It's possible, I'm not denying that, but I still find it highly unlikely--KrimzonStriker (talk) 05:51, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
- I actually think the Imperium was a huge success given that it lasted for 1500 years, but I was actually talking about the current Tevinter Imperium. Mages have all the power there. Mages are more than just a political faction, they have supernatural powers, among which is the ability to literally mind control other people. I don't mean that's how they'll get everyone to go their way, nor do I even think everyone will. I think very few people will want to follow the mages, but the mages are so powerful that when unrestrained by templars and outside of their circle tower prisons they will be impossible to even attempt to challenge. You say that throughout history no military force, however powerful, can effectively conquer an area without the moral support of the local populous. While that's normally true, there are exceptions. Look at what happened to the Native Americans when Europeans arrived in North and South America. The European military forces were so much more powerful than the Native Americans that there was an almost complete genocide - the most successful genocidal campaign in human history. I think it will be like that for the mages if they can defeat the templars. Normal humans won't disappear, but they will be rendered both politically and physically powerless. And without any templars to defend it, the victorious mages will take their anger out on the Chantry which, up until very recently, was so closely associated with the templars that many mages might not see the difference, or even care about it.
- As far as the templars go, if they win, I imagine they'll seize control of anything they can get their hands on, including the Chantry. Oh, at first they'll say it's a temporary measure that's necessary in order to restore security...but temporarily with will become indefinitely, which will become permanently. The Chantry would then be simply something that justifies the military power of the templars, and would no longer be like the Chantry from DAO and DA2. This is something that happens throughout history as well. Once the victors seize power, they will not let it go. That's true regardless of who is victorious. And since the Chantry isn't a military faction in this war, they can't win. Silver Warden (talk) 22:07, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
- Only in terms of the fact that there was no alternative to that power and authority, once Andraste rolled around even the mages in Tevinter had to subject themselves for a time, and why they had to shrink back their borders and authority considerably. I'm not saying they can't be a significant power, but domination on the level of the original Imperium seems generally impossible in my view. The problem with the native american argument wasn't the Wests military superiority, it was the political divide between Native American tribes and the outbreak of disease that trimmed the population back more so then any outright military victory. Look at all the other places that colonization was attempted like in Africa, India, and Asia and you'll see the difference. Also, you're putting mages into too narrow a political category, look at the fraternities and colleges, there are many believers within the Cirlces themselves and leaders who know the Divine helped them, plus no faction within the Circles has a political agenda like that against the Chantry itself, without any indication of a faction like that getting mainstream traction amongst the mages combined with the difficulties of being vastly outnumbered by Chantry followers I think your fears are still exaggerated and more then likely I believe the mages would follow the path of moderation if they were victorious. Plus they don't have the institution or resources to be as big a threat as the Imperium, which has millenia of tradition to shore up their rule amongst the populace within their home regions, once again its about who has popular support and with most of Thedas it's not the mages, the best I think they can hope for is some type of negotiated deal with the Chantry that would benefit both sides once the war is over.
- But once again your forgetting popular support, if the Chantry itself takes a stand and members of their convents will flock to its defense, and no matter how strong the Templars are they don't have the numbers to keep the rest of Thedas in line so long as the Chantry commands that popular support and actively resists such an attempt, every occupying force faces that problem and downfall eventually, look at what happened with Orlais and Ferelden. Like I said if the Nevarran Accord hadn't been nullified I might agree with you, but it was so the Templars could operate with impunity, but in turn they no longer have sanction and the blessing of the Chantry behind their actions. They've made themselves into an external political entity outside of Chantry law now, and will be regarded as such by many of the Chantry faithful, i have no doubt, so you can't fool them into following you if you made that type of takeover now, everyone knows they're on the outs of the Divine's favor and that means something. Never doubt the power of faith that sways the masses is all I'm saying, many military forces tried and failed when they did--KrimzonStriker (talk) 23:05, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm aware that before the mage rebellion there were several factions within the circles. But I assume a war would bring them all together under one banner. Otherwise they'd have no hope of winning. I also doubt that even the Chantry would entertain a truce until the templars were nearly defeated, at which point the mages wouldn't need a truce. Now, I don't think they'd instantly start another Imperium - a lot of them might actually have good intentions, but power corrupts. I tend have a more pessimistic outlook than most, and if I were to be more optimistic just for the sake of augment, I could see how the victorious mages could allow a Chantry stripped of all political or military power to exist. But that seems unrealistic to me - the mages will likely follow vengeance over pragmatism.
- And I think you're over estimating the difference that the templars' recent separation from the Chantry makes. Most people will still see templars and think Chantry. I doubt any kind of PR by the Chantry or templars could change that. This would make it much easier for the templars to seize control of the Chantry, which they almost certainly would do if they won. I don't mean punching clerics in the face and storming churches with soldiers. I mean placing puppet leaders in religious positions and perhaps eventually occupying those positions themselves. This could easily go over well with the populous. The templars would be heroes that saved them from the evil mages. Anything they did immediately after the war would have their approval. And long after the war? People would forget it wasn't always like that.
- Even if there were a truce (which seems more unlikely than anything else), the Chantry would need to change. It would need to adjust to operating without templars, which would completely nullify it's military abilities and render its political power impotent. (Though people would still respect them for a while). They could also no longer demonize mages, and without a convenient scapegoat, religions lose their footing fast. The Chantry's outlook would be better in this case than a victory for either side but still, it would be radically changed. Silver Warden (talk) 01:39, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- You're assuming way too much I think, and it's naive to believe factions simply disappear during a war, war only serves to cover up differences, but politics remains long after that. In order to get true unity you need negotiation and a political action plan that can achieve consensus, and something as controversial as overthrowing the Chantry will never get that kind of consensus even among mages, who many are in fact believers and were supportive of the system, who would have stayed in said system if the Templars hadn't forced them to defend themselves. Plenty of people operate with their own agenda even when on the same side in a war, and will go right back to them when the threat is passed, look at the Allies with the Soviets and the West during WW2 to see that. And nothing I've seen so far from the current main factions suggest such a pessimistic outlook is likely, who do in fact know the difference between the Templars and the Chantry if no one else does. Many mages do believe in the Chantry, just like how many people believed in the Qun, and don't see it in that oppressive light you might think it is. Look at Wynne or Cassandra's mage friend to see the truth of that.
- And I think you're underestimating the significance of a public proclamation of separation, if no one else pays attention, then wouldn't it be the power brokers and nobles of other kingdoms who rely on the Chantry for stability in their lands? You think they'll accept an illegal Templar overthrow and domination that would affect their lands now that they no longer have the official sanction of the Chantry? It's why none of those nobles have ever tried what you're suggesting, the potential for instability and loss of control is simply too great and would backfire just like that. It's why the Chantry can call on them and receive their aid in an Exalted March. Your pessimism is really startling that you would dismiss the power of faith or how many examples the simple word of one person in the right position like the Divine can sway millions. Perception is everything, a simple tearing of a piece of paper like the Nevarran Accords, while you might think is unimportant, opens up all kinds of flood gates because it counteracts established laws that people need in order to function, and a now clearly illegal entity will find itself with little welcome for threatening that because they threaten all established authorities by doing so. As I said, had the Templars remained in the Chantry I might have taken your suggestion more seriously, they could have managed to pull off the legal fiction your suggesting because no one would have dared interfere in what would have been an entirely internal affair of the Chantry, but by separating they in turn would make an enemy of ever power bloc that relies on the Chantry, and they've removed the shield of the blessing of the Maker that protected and justified their actions they originally signed the Nevvaran Accord for, and just like the original Inquisition they will find many who would resent their arbitrary authority and all the excuse to intervene should the Templars threaten them with it.
- And I agree with you the Chantry will need to change in order to function effectively in the future, I'm just saying suggestions of it's dissolution or overthrow isn't nearly as likely as some people seem to believe it is after 1000 years of existence in the minds of the people of Thedas. And you don't necessarily need military power to be an effective force in the world because of that. The Chantry still has its soft power in terms of its charities and orphanages and churches and proclamations across Thedas to keep the populaces good will and spread their message/propaganda. A system like that doesn't just fade into the dust, empires and kingdoms may, but religious institutions can endure long afterwards so long as they retain that moral authority and belief, which the Chantry still has in abundance last I checked.--KrimzonStriker (talk) 02:56, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- While I recognize the different factions in the circles, I don't see how that would really matter after a war. Death and grief and hatred are more powerful than political ideals, and almost all of the mages will be grieving and angry. They will want blood, and with the templars vanquished, and most of the other nations in Thedas mired in their concerns (this is mentioned below: Fereldon is recovering from a Blight, Orias had a civil war to deal with, the Free Marches aren't unified, Antiva doesn't really have an army, etc.) only the mages will have military power. They will want vengeance, and while I'll concede that any institution they attempt to start may not stick, enough of them will blame Chantry to threaten its very existence. Belief in the Maker won't be affected, but belief in the Maker does not equate to belief in the system that supports said belief. The templars and the Chantry have had 900 years together and a couple of months of separation that happens conveniently right before a war cannot undo the emotional association of the two.
- If the templars win they will be heroes that defeat the evil mages. They wouldn't outwardly claim a desire to seize control of the Chantry, and probably wouldn't even consciously want to. But the populous would want them to take control, they saved them when on one else could. The Chantry would be more or less forced to accept them back with open arms, and once back in their good graces, the templars would (slowly at first) gain political control. This seems fairly obvious, the templars would resent anyone who did not support them, thus only pro-templar clerics and mothers would be supported, and those women could more easily be manipulated by the templars to become little more than mouthpieces for their power.
- Essentially what I'm saying is the victors will seize control, which is what happens after a war. Is that so hard to believe? The Chantry is not, by your own admission, an actual combatant in the war. Therefore, they can't win no matter what happens. They might not be outright destroyed instantly, but as a neutral party caught in the crossfire, they can only be weakened by any outcome. Unless the Divine is given godlike heretic-smiting powers by the Maker, the Chantry, which is already stripped of military power, will be subject to the wills of the victors. The fine details of what exactly the victors might want to do is up for debate, but after a devastating war, do you honestly expect things to more or less regress to the way they were before it (Chantry-wise)? I can only see radical change for the Chantry in Thedas's future. Silver Warden (talk) 17:25, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- What do you expect from interrogations? Giving candies and telling fairy tales? Interrogations to receive as many informations as possible and the interrogated one needs to be sometimes intimidated to speak the truth. Every interrogatiator has own methods accepted as long as effectives. In every state interrogations aren't supposed to be pleasant, but effective in receiving informantions. Complaining on nature of interrogations is like complaining on every single flaw of everything.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 06:17, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- So as you Drell. Well Dragon Age is not an ideal world to live in. It is a world that is full of grey in it.112.200.25.64 (talk) 09:39, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Drell my point was that the interrogation was happening at all. I didn't say anything about its methods nor is that even relevant to the point I was making. Seriously man, work on your reading skills. Silver Warden (talk) 22:10, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
Whoever wins mage-templar war, fear from victors will increase. Both mages and templars are seen as powerful. Mages will show what they can do to decimate their enemies, summoning natural catasrophies or demons will destroy the continent and people will be more afraid of mages because they just witnessed what can they do and everyone will be feared ones, who can cause massive destructions with single thought. If templars win, they also will be feared because they defeated army of mages and survived their most destructive spells, people will see such durable warriors and think they are unstoppable. Most of people in DA are simple-minded commoners, not people like us, the wikia contributors, who can see the big pictures. Templars are an army and mages are able to cast spells able to decimate armies. Templars are well-trained warriors and their powers work only on magical creatures, one warrior is very weak compare to a natural catastrophy summoned by a single mage, blizard and thunderstorm are preety destructive spells. So destructive or so durable beings make people fear them.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 15:45, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- How does this comment have any sort of revelance to the topic of chantry days are number Drell? What are talking about here sounds like it should be in a complete different topic.
But on topic on hand, I don't think chantry days are number. I think they will just have a major reform. How reform will probably be determine in DAI.--Dalish Arrow (talk) 19:50, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
- Some went off topic a bit, so I thought it won't be bad if I also do so. Silver told about violant interrogations of Cassy, Krimzon and Sport had argument about what's right or wrong.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 19:55, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
This went way off topic, the subject isn't about the rights of wrongs with the Chantry, or why we should hate it, but whether it will survive if the Templars lose the war against the Mages.
- "Yes the majority of Thedas are Andrastians, that doesn't necessarily mean they are all Orleasian Chantry Andrastians."
Yes, they are. Or a significant majority of them are, this isn't an ideological war against the teachings of Andraste, and there's no evidence that the people of Thedas are interested in a protestant Chantry, free from the control of the Divine. So the evidence is on balance, that the Chantry will likely survive the war. So far as we know there isn't any closer to remove the Divine - if the Templars win, I would have thought they'll insist on a more implacable Divine is elected. If the Mages win they will have to contend with the fact that most Theodosians are members of white Chantry. Thus, if they want peace they are going to have to recognise that fact as it is. Dismantling the Chantry would no doubt see any peace short lived, and the Mages victory challenged. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 21:08, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
They are if I have anything to say about it. 67.61.234.198 (talk) 23:01, April 9, 2014 (UTC)
With the information we have right now, I think the Chantry’s time as a major world power is probably running out, yes. Strictly in terms of its political strength as an independent entity, everything hinged on one basic principal: the Chantry was all that stood between the people and the dangers of both heretics and sinister magic. In short, it had the templars. The mage rebellion put a crack in the Chantry’s image by showing their control over magic was not as strong as it seemed, but there would still be the assumption that they would just let the mage-hunters out to restore order. Once the templar secession/rebellion happened, though, the political power shifted significantly (if not entirely) away from the Chantry and onto the templars--because, as strictly a religious institution, the Chantry can’t really do anything. The templars, however, are an army with a party line, a clear message, and the ability to deliver on the Chantry's core promise to protect the people from danger/"danger." The Chantry will still be around, that’s for certain. But it will not be its own semi-empire anymore. HELO (talk) 14:34, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
- You answered the question well. Others have deeply misinterpreted it. ---Lazare326 (talk)>
- And I'd say it's mainly an exchange of views between Krimzon and Sport.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 15:08, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
- That is right, it is. ---Lazare326 (talk)>
- Heh, anything related to Chantry issues is a hot-button topic for a lot of people. I thought you qualified the topic quite well to help keep things very specific, but it's sort of unavoidable. Though, to be fair, most everything--on point and digression--has kept to the context of the DA universe. I call that a win.
- Oh, and good question, by the way. HELO (talk) 16:12, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
The notion that 'religion exists as long as faith does' has been raised, and while that isn't completely on topic, I do think it's germane to the point Lazare originally brought to the table. the Chantry may have originally drawn their power and clout from faith itself, but over the centuries and ages, their power no longer comes from faith. It comes from the faithFUL, yes, but that's a big difference. Andraste's teachings can survive and be passed on without the Chantry as a whole--as they did from about -186 to -3 Ancient, according to the timeline in 'The World of Thedas.' The Chantry simply (and I say 'simply' with my tongue in my cheek, because there's nothing simple about the Chantry) provides structure--both literally and figuratively. It is in human nature to seek something greater than oneself, and there will ALWAYS be houses of worship for whatever deity, someplace--whether that's Andraste, the Maker, Bob the Head of Lettuce, whatever.
And there are within the Chantry those who aren't hardline on any side. It's easy for us, as players, to see everything and to draw our own conclusions and make generalisations--hell, it's easy and even the choices in DA are rather generalised. But be that as it may --just because Anders is a mage and decided to go off his nut and blow up a Chantry doesn't mean that all mages want freedom or to be terrorists or to sling their blood around like party favours. For example, Niall in the Ferelden Circle, basically just wanted his own little island where he could be left alone. no power, no magic, just let him be. Uldred, on the other hand, got a big fat swelled head and was stupid enough to believe Loghain. so Uldred died and then everyone was happy. it's the same with the templars: for every Cullen there is an Alrik. for every Thrask, a Rylock. what about the mages and the templars caught in between? who simply have faith in the Maker and Andraste and want to do right by their fellow human beings but are caught in impossible circumstances like when a commanding officer starts losing their crap and glowing red and all but screams 'off with their heads!'
and before people start yelling about certain comparisons, NO, i'm NOT sympathising with cold-blooded homicidal killers. I'm simply asking the question: all right, we're all so smart, what would WE do with either situation? eradicate the ticking time bombs, like Drell says? train the Templars up to be a big spiffy army?--which, frankly, the Templars are NOT the Chantry's army right now, thanks.
no one on here is talking about the hardest thing of all: educating. we're seeing this in the real world every day with racial sterotypes, gender roles, people's very private sexuality being splashed across tabloids. all because we're quick to judge. all because it's easy for us to do because it doesn't affect us. me personally, i believe it's the same thing in Thedas: human nature is human nature is human nature. they fear what they don't understand (magic and mages), so they try to kill it or lock it up. they find certain types of people distasteful for no good reason other than the Chantry once declared an Exalted March on them and thus put them in alienages. Fereldens are dog lords, everyone knows that, and Maker knows all magisters are bloodthirsty maniacs.
it's all stereotypes. no one's bothering to try and change that, which is what i think ultimately (yes, i did come back round to it) the Chantry is going to have to do. in its current incarnation, i personally think the Chantry is in its death throes. however, i DO NOT think it will cease to exist--after all, the Catholic Church in our world didn't...but it *did* take a long time for the church as an organisation to evolve. perhaps the Circles in Thedas will become Colleges for mages where they can learn about their powers. perhaps not. perhaps the Chantry will preach more about forgiveness and compassion and ministering to those who are truly lost spiritually. perhaps not. but what i *do* expect is that the Chantry's evolution is not going to be peaceful. it will be violent. it will be bloody. and it will last a while, by DA's timeline. keep in mind--no one in Thedas has ever done this before. we can say all we want, bleah, but we know our own history. the Thedosians are fumbling about in the dark, trying like hell to do the right thing, but the road to hell, and all that.
so...yeah. that's my really long-winded bit.--TheWickedKat (talk) 16:11, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
I have no doubt that the Adrastian faith will survive whatever happens, but the future of the Chantry as a politico-military organisation is likely in serious jeopardy. If the mages win, the Chantry will lose its credibility as a "divinely sanctioned" authority to protect against the threat of magic, and it will lose the Templars (its military wing) which gives it a large part of its political influence (the threat of an Exalted March); the Chantry without the Templars is nothing but a bunch of sermonising old women who can be safely ignored by secular governments when it suits them. If the Templars win, the mages will most likely be rounded up and executed, and the Templars will set themselves up as a sort of authoritarian military regime right across Thedas (in the same way Meredith Stannard sought to do in Kirkwall), justified by the alleged need to protect against more magic induced disorder. In that scenario, the Chantry will be reshaped to be a theological mouthpiece for the military regime, and whose doctrines endorse the policies of the Templar authorities. In effect, the power relationship within the Chantry will be inverted; where the Templars previously obeyed the authority of the Divine, the Divine and the Chantry will now be tools to justify the rule of the Templars over Thedas. In the end, I think the Chantry will either become a religious organisation with no strategic power, or the puppet of an authoritarian military dictatorship. Either way, the Chantry as it was before Asunder is dead.--Darkly Tranquil (talk) 16:18, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
- Templars are replacable as are all soldiers. Chantry was always a religious organisation, not military, that was templar's doing. With all executed mages there will be no need for templars and they know it. You think templars want dictatorship, because Meredith successfuly took position of the viscount in Kirkwall. I see Grey wardens as military regime in Anderfels, they are technical rulers of that nation with weak disrespected king, also I see Antivian Crows as military regime in Antivia. You also ignore that victor of that idiotic war will be feared because of it's destructive power and durability for destructive power of their opponents. Organisation with same purpose and name technically isn't dead, with newer purposes that's simply a change.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 15:58, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
- The Antivan Crows are not military, they are a guild of Assassins. The true rulers of Antvia may also belong to the guild, but primarily they are wealthy merchants. Antiva is an oligarchy. The Templars ruled Kirkwall long before Meredith formally took command of the city, they ousted Viscount Threnhold, and chose Viscount Dumar - a man with no backbone who was nothing more than a glorified arbiter between the many different Kirkwall factions. And really, you shouldn't use the word 'dictatorship' - it doesn't have the same meaning in this word, as it does today. Before the days of democracy, most countries were more or less dictatorships. Alexsau1991 (talk page) 21:42, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
- In my language dictatorship and regime is one and the same.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 21:49, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
- The Antivan Crows are not military, they are a guild of Assassins. The true rulers of Antvia may also belong to the guild, but primarily they are wealthy merchants. Antiva is an oligarchy. The Templars ruled Kirkwall long before Meredith formally took command of the city, they ousted Viscount Threnhold, and chose Viscount Dumar - a man with no backbone who was nothing more than a glorified arbiter between the many different Kirkwall factions. And really, you shouldn't use the word 'dictatorship' - it doesn't have the same meaning in this word, as it does today. Before the days of democracy, most countries were more or less dictatorships. Alexsau1991
I think Darkly’s idea that the Chantry will become the mouthpiece of the templars (which is wonderfully dark) is very likely--but only for one of the three or four potential factions the Chantry will (yes, I think it’s a given) split into.
That said, I’m still a little unsure about how powerful the templars, just on their own, currently are and how powerful they can become in the future. Mostly, it’s a matter of logistics (of which we know very little about, regarding the whole of the Mage/Templar Rebellions): I mean, how many templars are there? Enough to significantly outlast mage-inflicted casualties? Enough to pose a threat to the leadership of the respective countries they inhabit? How quickly can they recruit and adequately train new templars? And is their PR campaign convincing enough for civilians to see them as heroes rather than as one half of the people responsible for burning their town to the ground? They aren’t going to get anywhere without the people’s support. HELO (talk) 21:10, April 10, 2014 (UTC)
- While I agree that the military strength of the Templars is a bit of an unknown variable, it should also be noted that the military forces of many nations in Thedas are in a seriously weakened state. Ferelden is still recovering from Blight, Orlais is split and fighting a civil war, the Free Marches are individually weak and only loosely allied. Antiva is weak in conventional military terms (although it has the Crows), and Rivain is a bit of an unknown. So, while the Templars may not be an overpowering force, they may be the military organisation in the best overall state of repair and readiness. Of course, this will all depend on how much they suffer while fighting the mages. As I see it, the Mage/Templar war will drag most nations into siding with one faction or the other, even if they do not contribute much to the fighting.
- The advantage the Templars will have from an ideological/political perspective is that they will be able to claim that they represent the status quo, and that the current leadership of the Chantry (Justinia V) is espousing heretical notions and that they are the true defenders of the faith against backsliders who would go easy on the evil mages who blew up the Chantry of Kirkwall. This position will likely draw a lot of support from the more conservative elements who fear the change these new ideas represent. The Chantry faction has to try to convince fearful people that change is required and that in spite of what happened at Kirkwall, the status quo needs to change. That is a much harder sell. Ultimately, I think it will come down to which side can lure more allies to its side.--Darkly Tranquil (talk) 13:06, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, I totally agree with the notion that templars would be perceived as the more obviously heroic side in the Mage/Templar conflict. Like you said, they’re the ones who would make the people feel safe, both in terms of literal protection and in keeping the social ship steady. And they will almost certainly parlay that “restoring the status quo” into a more hardline stance on mages--but I don’t know that their influence would manage to extend beyond controlling the argument over the treatment of mages. Though the Andrastian perspective is deeply entwined with the social identities of the nations of Thedas, I don’t feel like the templars are perceived as...well, as Andrastian representatives (like Chantry priests would be).
- But, then again, if they can successfully discredit the more lenient Justinia V, perhaps they could just plop in a new Divine that was just as hardline as they would want. Which, now that I think about it, could be an easy sell, depending on how much damage the rebelling mages are. Hm.
- Of course, this would also depend on how big this Mage/Templar War actually is. Because the scale of it isn’t quite clear. (Or, at least, I haven’t read that far into The World of Thedas, yet, for it to be clear.) Is it an out-and-out war? Is it occasional skirmishes in the countryside? HELO (talk) 18:56, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
wait...in an effort to clarify something (so that i can wrap my not-awake brain around it, heh), is the generalisation being made that 'all Templars are against mages' and vice versa? because, according to canon, i could swear that that's not the case. someone correct me if i'm wrong. (crap, i wasn't logged in, sorry...)--TheWickedKat (talk) 14:53, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Some tend to make that generalisation. But their isn't a majority who actually want the freedom of mages. There may be many "good" templars and many "bad" templars, but I'd beg to think that their is only a minority who want their freedom. Guess there are many other factors too. ---Lazare326 (talk)>
- "But their isn't a majority who actually want the freedom of mages. " Is there? It says that the Aquetarians and the Libertarians who were the majority who voted to rebel for freedom. Has the templars evoked the Rite of Annulment and must slaughter any mage they come across or do they fight those who resist and apprehend those who surrender?(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 15:25, April 11, 2014 (UTC))
- Representatives voted, not all members. It was Wynne who voted against the separation and later it was Rhys, who voted for the separation. Voting means also denying will of those, who voted otherwise than victors.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 16:18, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- So only by voting to not separate from the Chantry can your opinion be made valid? That's not hypocritical at all drell.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 17:14, April 11, 2014 (UTC))
- Representatives voted, not all members. It was Wynne who voted against the separation and later it was Rhys, who voted for the separation. Voting means also denying will of those, who voted otherwise than victors.FirstDrellSpectre (talk) 16:18, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- "But their isn't a majority who actually want the freedom of mages. " Is there? It says that the Aquetarians and the Libertarians who were the majority who voted to rebel for freedom. Has the templars evoked the Rite of Annulment and must slaughter any mage they come across or do they fight those who resist and apprehend those who surrender?(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 15:25, April 11, 2014 (UTC))
Lets say as the Inquisition you sided with the mages, and with the combined force of your army with the mages ends the MvT war. What would stop those Templar (the few that remained) from returning to the Chantry and using their loss to their advantage saying that with the mages being free and independent Thedas needs Templars more then ever. Playing on the fear of the common folk, demanding the faithful to join their cause for a new exalted march? Warden Mage: Ferris (talk) 18:24, April 11, 2014 (UTC)
- Mages are still the minority and perhaps they can only cow the other nations of Thedas into a reprieve before they replenish the templars' ranks. That's why I don't think "vengence" against the Chantry is even an option even with a mage victory against the templars. The mages would best serve entrenching themselves where the Chantry can't reach them, either in Tevinter or some dwarven thaig like Kal-Sharok, wherever they can find sanctuary and acceptance. There is no way the mages will be able to conquer all of Thedas again as long as the mundanes can create new templars. Then just bide their time until a new Blight happens or Qunari war which leaves the mages a leverage in negotiation. As for the Inquisitor, he has the power to open tears in the Veil and unleash demon armies. That's enough to cow the commoners in line.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 18:30, April 11, 2014 (UTC))