Forum:Can the Chantry be Reformed?

Forums: Index > Lore DiscussionCan the Chantry be Reformed?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3628 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not continue it unless it really needs a response.

Basically what the title says. If, given the option to, would you reform the Chantry rather than destroying it or letting it burn? I got my own ideas for it but I want to hear what you guys have to say on this. Supergodzilla118 (talk) Supergodzilla118 18:44, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

Of course it can be reformed. To what extent it can be reformed calls for a different question-one that you imply. The Imperial Chantry is some what of a schism of the Andastrian chantry, and the current events give further impetus as to why a reformation is possible. Personally I'd reduce its influence on nations, it's monopoly of truth as well as reducing its armed wing, the Templars have split away and I think they should be a separate body.

If you haven't realised how flawed my proposition is, read it again. No matter how far its reformed there's gonna be opposition to it, and hard line opposition. Whether its a year, decade, or a century later. There will be those fundamentalists. And those fundamentalists may be leaders of nations. If thats the case, they may want to reinforce it. Other than that, what are your ideas?Lazare326 (talk) 19:54, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

One the things I so much disliked about the Chantry, even something I dislike in today's society, is how the Chantry declared Exalted Marches against those who reject their rule, like the Elves, Qunari and Tevinter, though the latter is understandable. If I were to reform the Chantry, I would have it mirror some of the US's amendments that allows all religion to be practiced or in the Chantry's case, allows the Elves or whoever to practice what they want. The Chantry believes its power to be absolute and no better than that of a tyrannical dictatorship in some case, depending on how you view it.

Then there is the Circle situation. The Circle being a place for mages is a good idea, but it shouldn't be made as a prison for them like its been portrayed in the game. One thing regarding magic is that Chantry believes all magic is evil, when it is not so. It is the mage that is evil, not magic in general. Just like with the Mutants from the X-Men comics. Mutants were treated badly b/c of the power they had as some abused it, but not all of them.

My suggestion regarding the Circle is to reform it as well as teh Chantry. Have Mages come and go as they please and not be taken away from their families. Limit the Templar's power as well. Part of the whole 'mage issue' regarding why mages try to escape is b/c of the Templar's abuse of power. Magic isn't the only power that can be abused, authority can be as well. My idea goes that there could be a Mage-Templar police force that's like the Spectres that are assigned to capture high level apostates, blood mages, or other criminals that normal guards can't handle. And I would limit the usage of lyrium for the Templars.

What do you think? Supergodzilla118 (talk) Supergodzilla118 21:31, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

It'd take a lot of work. I'm quite sure that a forum just like this was created maybe.. 3 weeks ago? But no matter. The Chantry is effectively powerless now without the majority of its Seekers and next to no templars. Before reformation can even be considered, those deviating parties need to be brought back under the fold, and then the puppeteer can re-string themselves, so to speak. It would certainly be nice if their extra-legal authority was severely restricted or outright removed; the law of the given country should supersede any power the Chantry would desire to use. Plain and simple, I say. EzzyD (talk) 20:06, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

They're saving that for the next game, Dragon Age: Reformation.

A bunch of people, while ever faithful to the underlying tenets of the Chantry, feel that its dogma has seen it depart from the true message of Andraste. Subsequently, they split off to form their own branch of Andrastianism, causing all sorts of sectarian tension and becoming a vehicle for provincial rulers, sick of living under the yoke of the Chantry, to exercise their power (and right to wed however many people they damn well please) with greater autonomy.

After a while, and partly as a result of its manipulation by those in power, the new branch of Andrastianism becomes exactly as dogmatic as the old. Though the message of love preached by Andraste is nominally maintained as its central message, the new branch starts to use this to create an 'us and them' attitude amongst its followers, which serves to justify various imperial conquests and widespread mistreatment (occasionally coming to a head in the form of genocide) of 'unbelievers'.

At the end of the day, the intended aims of its founders are entirely subverted; murder and hatred continue to rule in Thedas.

Variations on this theme continue for the rest of history, until ultimately the world is consumed by the Cosmic Owl, such is the course of nature.--2.28.38.139 (talk) 22:50, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

The overt pre-Renaissance themes aside, I think you're very correct there. I'm not sure they'd even need a new game for that, though, since similar actions are already (apparently) occurring/occurred in Asunder-into-Inquisition. Additionally, such a split already occurred with the Tevinter Chantry, which is confirmed to be a real-world reference. EzzyD (talk) 23:02, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

So many say chantry is hypocritical because of philactery, but almost nobody mentions hypocrisy of the Imperial Chantry. In Tevinter they all say blood magic is outlawed, but it's no secret it's common from lowest pupil to highest ruler. Current lack divine is a blood mage. The local templars have Right of Annulement, but they have no possibility of using it. Law in Tevinter about magic is false and only for show.156.17.71.249 (talk) 12:30, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Since when is that anything new. Look at the long list of things the Catholic church says are forbidden and immoral, then look at the long list of things the Catholic church has been caught doing. There's a lot of overlap on that particular venn diagram. But I'm not picking on one church, or even religion. Look at the list of things secular governments say are illegal; "No spying, no killing, no drugs, no equal rights for minorities." And then in the same breath "We've been spying on this country and need you all to go over there and kill as many as you can for us, but first buy some tobacco and alcohol. I'll be over here, secretly having it off with a member of that minority I hate so much." That's not Tevinter, dude. That's EARTH. 16:33, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

I was being facetious.

Also, the Tevinter spilt is more an analogue to the split between the Catholic church and the Greek Orthodox (in line with the general Byzantine feel to Tevinter). I was more referencing the split between Catholicism and Protestantism. Also, we haven't seen a theological split similar to the real world reformation; the Templars are still philosophically in line with the Chantry (at least broadly), they've just separated for practical reasons. --2.28.38.139 (talk) 23:27, May 11, 2014 (UTC)

It can be reformed if right people are in right positions. Surely I don't want it to be absorbed by the Imerial Chantry. To reform it I must first end the mage-templar war, so the magisters wouldn't smile and laugh from it. Even if war with demons is over, south will be grievously weakened and easer to conquer by Tevinter or Qunari. Arishok told that his soldiers will return one day and it's hard too believe in Tevinter aren't more ambitious and power hungry magisters like Aurelian Titus.156.17.71.249 (talk) 12:30, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you are Drell using another IP. It is very obvious that you hate magic and condemn it with passion by saying that Imperial Chantry is just as hypocritical as the Chantry.110.54.244.252 (talk) 12:46, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong, I am not Drell.156.17.71.249 (talk) 13:01, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Keep denying that you are not it is very obvious that you are Drell.110.54.244.252 (talk) 13:06, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not anti-magic, but if you think the Imperial Chantry aren't at least as hypocritical the normal one, you're wrong. I've found people's reactions to the magic issue interesting (and I think it's to BioWare's credit that they've managed to politicise the issue so much, you see similar issues in other fantasy settings, but Dragon Age is one of the very few where there's enough in the setting to convince people to take an anti-magic stance).

On the one hand (speaking generally), you have the 'Mage-freedom' cabal, who are determined to apply real world political ideology (namely, liberalism) to a situation where it doesn't apply without some alterations (or, at least, without some notable exceptions being taken into account). While liberalism is the predominant ideology in most of the western world, it's still common practise (and consistent with the doctrine, seeing how it all stems from the harm principle) to take away the freedom of people who are deemed to be a threat to themselves and others (by sectioning people who are severely mentally ill). While the Templars are extreme in their practices, unmitigated mage-freedom would be stupid. These are people who are born as an extreme threat to themselves and others, so they need monitoring, and that monitoring calls for restrictions on their freedom. This is consistent with liberalism because it is consistent with the (public) harm principle; mage-freedom is restricted because not doing so would almost certainly lead to severe public harm.

On the other hand, you have people who acknowledge that mages are dangerous, but erroneously conclude from that that the Templars are justified. The Templar's mistreatment of mages goes far beyond anything they can justify. The can restrict their freedoms without treating them like scum and murdering them at any slight excuse, but they don't because they're mostly bigots.--2.28.38.139 (talk) 15:32, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

The question though is how much freedom restriction should be considered ethical? Mages aren't mentally ill people who are driven by compulsion through an imbalance of brain activity, they're perfectly healthy sane people. The Harrowing is a rite of passage where they actually prove that they are strong enough to resist a demon, chances of becoming an abomination are unlikely, and more importantly displayed mastery of their powers. Should they not at that point then be given the benefit of the doubt that they are no longer a danger to others unless they choose to be once they pass their harrowing? And after they pass their harrowing shouldn't they be able to leave the Circle tower to live life as they choose, be given the same liberties and judged by the law as all men? Like driving a car or registering for a firearm, once you pass the test, a mage technically has proven oneself. What people fear is the abuse of magic. In which case, they lock them up, slaughter them, make them tranquil "just in case". But that is unjust. It's not so much that mages need to be protected from themselves. That is a pretense of mutual benefit and nobility. It's more to keep them downtrodden so they don't have the opportunity to abuse magic on those who don't have any. The Circle system hides behind a pretense of nobility but it's a sham: corralling mages in tower and threatening them with annulments and tranquility. Why? Because at the core of everyone's rationalization, it's that mage freedoms, their rights, their happiness, their existence, are less valued than those without magic. And that is unjust. Might as well just make them all tranquil or slaughter every mage or do what the Qunari does to their mages if that is their intent because at the core, the system is built on a foundation of oppression. I'm not saying that mages should be able to abuse magic with impunity nor encourage that, but they should not be given less liberties than others.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 17:06, May 12, 2014 (UTC))

I agree that the way everything is set up is more to prevent mages getting into power, and I agree that the way the current system works is unethical. That said, I think the Harrowing-firearms license analogy is invalid. The harrowing doesn't prove that they will always resist demons, it just proves that some of them can't. Mages are always at risk of possession. We all have weaker moments, and if a mage is unmonitored in a moment of despair, that leaves many people (including the mage) at risk.

You say they shouldn't be given fewer liberties than others, but that is a point you've already conceded. Your argument allows for the harrowing, which is a massive restriction on their liberties. The argument is about how much of a restriction is fair, and personally I think the constant monitoring provided by the circles is a significantly lesser evil than allowing mages to 'prove' themselves and then letting them live unmonitored. It's also worth noting that the circles don't have to be oppressive, it's just the bigotry of the Templars that makes them that way.

And I think the insanity-being a mage analogy does work. The only reason we restrict the freedom of some mentally ill people is that they are deemed a threat to themselves and others. It is just a fact that mages live with the constant risk of becoming that kind of threat, and to a far greater degree than the mentally ill.

There's also some merit in keeping mages out of power, as their inherent abilities make it far harder to balance against that power.--2.28.38.139 (talk) 18:35, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

Mages have existed for centuries even before the Circle and there are mages who go their whole lives with out ever becoming an abomination. So somewhere, at some time, a mage was able to not be a danger to anyone their whole lives. And demons can only possess a mage if they summon it or in their sleep, and since they pass the harrowing they have proven that they can resist a demon. Mages are the dreamers and have more power in their sleep than demons. Thus they aren't always in danger of being possessed. If the Harrowing proves nothing then what's the point of continuing living if they always have to live in fear of being possessed? Might as well commit suicide or become Tranquil as its false hope. But I know that's wrong because as I said, there are mages who live their whole lives with out becoming an abomination. Whether strength or will or some method, it is possible. It is not a fact that they are a danger to themselves. It seems like your mentally-ill analogy is a skewed rationalization to try to convince yourself it is your right to control someone who is not your right to control. It is no more right than a magister trying to convince you you should be beneath a mage as a divine being gifted a mage with power and you with out.

And in my opinion, the Circle will always be an oppressive institution because you cannot weed out prejudism and fear when the institution promotes that and templars will always have life and death power over the mages in that institution thus promoting abuse.(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 22:23, May 12, 2014 (UTC))

Ok.

1) Mages did exist before the Chantry, but what limited history we know from that time indicates that without regulation they were a threat. You might turn around and say that it wasn't mages that were the problem, but the magocracy. This doesn't stand up as we're given plenty of information about the magocracy arising in large part from the influence of demons. Also, the simple capacity of mages to dominate the less naturally powerful lends itself to magocracy and oppression, which is something to be avoided. A better example might be the Elves, who we assume on fine without regulation. In this example we just don't know enough about the history to draw any conclusions from it. There could've been a system of regulation for all we know. The modern Dalish might also be raised as an example, but that doesn't really support your point because: a) their society isn't even vaguely analogous to human society and b) they do have a system of monitoring and regulation with the Keeper/First system. What history we know in more detail gives a strong indication that mages generally are a threat to society.

2) That individual mages can avoid possession says nothing about whether mages generally are a threat, and subsequently says nothing to what the general system should be. Also, not being possessed does not = not being threatened with being possessed. It just doesn't follow. And they are always in danger of it, because it does follow from the fact that demons are always trying to break through that there is some constant chance that they will.

3) I didn't say the harrowing proves nothing. Implying that I did is a huge straw man. It proves that the mage is relatively strong, and it proves that the ones who fail weren't strong enough. What it doesn't prove is that they need no regulation, which is what you were arguing.

4) Just reiterating, not ending up suffering the consequences of something doesn't mean that there was no danger that you would. As an example, if I share a drink with someone who has a cold, and don't catch their cold, it doesn't mean that I didn't risk catching their cold.

5) I don't really feel any need to rationalise my imaginary treatment of imaginary people (though, obviously, I do like arguing about it). The mental illness analogy isn't meant to be exact, it's meant to illustrate that even most liberals implicitly accept that there should be some restrictions on people's freedoms when they can be fairly said to be a threat to themselves or others. It might interest you to look up the public harm principle, since it's the foundation of the point I'm making. Basically, the idea is that if a particular freedom (e.g. the right to use heroin (FYI, I think that sale should be illegal but not possession (awkward choice of words))) leads to significant harm to society, it should be restricted. I think this is fair, and if you agree, the point hinges on whether you also agree that unrestricted mage-freedom would be a threat to (imaginary) society. You obviously don't, which is fair enough, but I think that it would be is something bioware have been busting a nut to get across.

6) I don't think the Chantry have by any means figured out the perfect system, and maybe bigotry is just so entrenched in the Templar order that they shouldn't have any hand in mage regulation (there's definitely an argument that they drive more mages to evil by treating them as badly as they do), but I do think mages merit regulation, and I do think that the circles are probably better than the freedom alternative (and I think they definitely would be if a less bigoted version of the Templars could be found). --2.28.38.139 (talk) 23:11, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

1) The Tevinter empire is a shadow of what it was before Andraste's rebellion. People always point to the Tevinter of old and say it can happen again but it can't. Mages are always the minority, thus there's no way they can enforce a totalitarian rule all across Thedas with out majority support of the mundanes even with blood magic. They're outnumbered and mundanes now have templars and reavers and assassins that can whittle the mage population down. Mages have no choice but to be sleeper cells and the difference between the tevinter now and the tevinter then is they had an Old Gods pantheon to help them enforce their rule. With out the Old Gods, their empire would whittle down to it's present size or less until they have whatever size an empire where they can maintain a presence, but it'll never reach all the way down to Ferelden or Orlais or maybe even the Free Marches again with out popular support. In present, the only oppression occurring is the Circle system so shouldn't that be avoided? Evil is still evil, oppression is oppression. Like the quote in the Witcher 3 trailer, "Lesser, greater, middling…makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary. The definition's blurred. If I'm to choose one over the other I'd rather not choose at all." Mages can be against Tevinter oppression and Circle oppression. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

2) Mundanes can now be a threat now that red lyrium is available and growing everywhere. Thedas is a world of magic and threats. There's darkspawn, ogres, bandits, qunari, diseases, demons, spirits. The oppression of mages isn't going to make the world safer. It's bullying a dragon and forcing it to be a danger. In order to have peace you have to have respect for your enemy, and mages don't even have to be an enemy if you respect their rights. Perhaps regulating mages should be no more than what cops do, investigate, dish out punishment only after the crime not before. Like an Inquisition or something. Not lock them all up in a tower. Will it make the world safe or stable? Maybe, maybe not, maybe that is not even a realistic goal. But it'll be whole lot fairer.

3) "What it doesn't prove is that they need no regulation, which is what you were arguing." No that was not what I was arguing. What I was arguing was that it proves that they deserve the benefit of the doubt that they won't kill people on accident or become possessed. That if they pass their Harrowing, they only hurt people if they choose to. And if they choose to hurt people, then it is appropriate to punish them but not before. And what you consider as fair regulation is not what I consider fair regulation. Being strong means absolutely nothing unless it comes with privileges.

5) If a society is so corrupt that it'll condone the oppression of another, it deserves to be harmed."They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin(Sports72Xtrm (talk) 04:46, May 13, 2014 (UTC))

The Chantry can absolutely be reformed. It just needs a top-down change in perspective: a reinterpretation/adaptation of the rules and an infallible declaration from the Divine (...assuming, of course, that the Divine has the same ex cathedra power as the Pope). Justinia V was on the way to doing exactly that, before all this war nonsense started up.

That said, “reforming the Chantry” is sort of a difficult idea to pin down, because the Chantry is an organization with authority over two separate yet quasi-related areas: religion and magic. And reforming one area does not necessarily mean reforming the other.

Regardless, I think I would reform Chantry--though only in terms of the mandate of the templars...or, really, only in terms of bringing the templars back to basics: they exist to monitor mages and protect against the dangers of magic, not destroy mages and magic altogether. The religious part is fine, as I see it. And I am more in favor of having Circles than the alternative. HELO (talk) 20:18, May 12, 2014 (UTC)

I would reform the chantry but I would take away their political and military power because they've abused it.64.90.137.2 (talk) 12:01, May 13, 2014 (UTC)