477 réponses à ce sujet

[burrito]

i'm actually a Christian and like opposing the Chantry. I believe in God but getting yelled at by churches is not my thing.

[LobselVith8]

tmp7704 wrote...

Except they're also fighting in exactly the manner the system is supposed to contain. I suppose the argument is akin to whether potential pyromaniac who burns down the asylum to escape it should be allowed to roam free in the first place.

There are a lot of real world parallels to individuals being imprisoned for being different. Turning someone into a soulless slave to make runes on command (tranquil) or murdering an elf boy because his teacher was too inept to properly instruct him and scared him away from the tower (Wynne's Regret) is the kind of enviornment that these mages endure, and what inspired them to revolt against the system. It's easy to dismiss their actions and state that they shouldn't have used blood magic to begin with, but hear what Duncan says in the Magi origin if you tell him that blood magic is evil - Grey Warden mages use blood magic because it turns the tide of battle against the darkspawn in their favor. Seeing how powerful blood magic is, wouldn't mages living under an oppressive system use it to free themselves? The Chantry rails against the mages of the Circle, but has no problem having the same mages they rail against as evil using magic when it suits them - such as stopping the Blights or fighting against the technologically superior Qunari. Maybe Dragon Age 2 is going to explore the hypocrisy of the Chantry and their exploitation of the mages through the POV of Hawke and Bethany.

tmp7704 wrote...

I think you may want to look at Sten for answer to this question -- why did he allow himself to be caged when he had full opportunity to be free after his emotional outburst?

The tricky part for the mages is, if they have their equivalent of such emotional outburst, it's pretty much a done deal, they don't get back to being themselves. So they have to make this decision pre-emptively and it's then largely a matter of what they value more -- personal freedom or the safety of population at large which they can potentially (and easily) harm merely by failing just once.

You're comparing a Qunari who felt shame over his murder of an innocent family to mages who are imprisoned the moment they show magical ability? Look at the Dalish elves or the mages among Kolgrim's Disciples of Andraste - no templars, no Harrowing, no tranquil, and no abominations. Considering that runaway mages feel the need to gather as much power as they can to survive against templars, even becoming abominations, I'd say the Chantry institutionalizes the need for such dangerous actions in the first place through their oppressive system. If the Circle was independent in the first place and mages weren't inhibited from having titles or being a part of society, Redcliffe wouldn't have been nearly obliterated and the revolt at the Circle never would have happened in the first place. I'm hoping that DA2 deals with this because it was disappointing to ask for the Magi Boon in DA:O and see it completely ignored in DA:A.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 10 août 2010 - 09:17 .

[captain.subtle]

I want to ask an opinion: What should be done with the mages, assuming chantry gives you the option to decide.

[iTomes]

captain.subtle wrote...

I want to ask an opinion: What should be done with the mages, assuming chantry gives you the option to decide.

hmmm, thats difficult. i would first try to integrate the mages into the society, propably by letting them work on places where they HELP the people, like hospitals or something.. they still would've to be a little guarded, especially the young ones, so they dont try to learn bloodmagic to get the girl they want or something. out of that reason we would still need the circle tower, the young mages need an excelent education so they dont feel like using bloodmagic or similar things. if that fails im out of ideas, propably a "magic utopia" on some island from which the mages cant escape and where they can live their lives happily just like everyone else in citys full of magic?

[captain.subtle]

I doubt that people learn blood magic just to free themselves from oppression. The chief reason I would guess is Power.

[thegreateski]

captain.subtle wrote...

I doubt that people learn blood magic just to free themselves from oppression. The chief reason I would guess is Power.

I 2nd this opinon.

also

"Come on boys! Lets go get us SOME ALE AND WENCHES! YEAH!"
*The Crimson Oars storm the Chantry*

I wana see these guys in the sequel.

[tmp7704]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Chantry rails against the mages of the Circle, but has no problem having the same mages they rail against as evil using magic when it suits them - such as stopping the Blights or fighting against the technologically superior Qunari. Maybe Dragon Age 2 is going to explore the hypocrisy of the Chantry and their exploitation of the mages through the POV of Hawke and Bethany.

The Chantry makes its stance rather clear -- "magic should serve the man, not to control them". So yes, they utilize the magic where it's suitable to "serve the man" while trying to ensure that's all the magic is going to be used for. There's no hypocrisy here imo, it would be different  if the Chantry was claiming magic shouldn't be used at all, but they don't do that.

(if you're talking here about the Chantry using specifically blood magic then i don't believe there's confirmed cases of that. What Duncan says doesn't really apply since Grey Wardens and the Chantry are two different organizations)

You're comparing a Qunari who felt shame over his murder of an innocent family to mages who are imprisoned the moment they show magical ability?

I'm pointing out that Sten have decided he should be imprisoned when he's realized he could be potentially dangerous to people he wouldn't normally harm. You have asked "why live in prison when you can be free" and that was my answer to your question -- it is possible for individual to decide the potential price the population could pay for that freedom is so high it is too much to ask for.

That the Chantry doesn't ask mages to make that choice but makes it for them is something else, and not part of your question which seemed to focus on why wouldn't a person always claim the freedom as long as they're capable of it.

Look at the Dalish elves or the mages among Kolgrim's Disciples of Andraste - no templars, no Harrowing, no tranquil, and no abominations.

We don't know jack about the Dalish elves on larger scale or the Kolgrim's people --  actually, when you want to go this route, two of the Dalish keepers out of three we get to meet in DAO and the Awakening do use their magic to actively harm humans, either through use of demons or simply by blowing stuff up. And one of them to boot does it merely because she's dumb xenophobe easily tricked by the darkspawn. This isn't the sort of track record you'd want to invoke to support the case how letting the mages run free can't possibly end in tears.

[Solstice-x]

I agree with this entirely. Being allowed to take an evil path would interest me a little bit more, especially without the morality bars. Its tiring being the goody two shoes hero, and it would be really nice to get in the mindset of a complete sociopath, or someone corrupted by power. It could add a new dimension to the game, rather than this "being evil behind everyone's backs" sort of thing.

[Gundar3]

Im very happy there are no morality bars. I made a long post about what they represent and why I hate them in the ME2 forums so I wont post it here... I think this discussion is interesting regarding how people wish to deal with the Chantry and how their characters are affected by it... Though I find it funny how we all look at it with modern eyes as if we know the real face of "freedom" and such. Its hard imo, to role play real valid feelings toward the Chantry in terms of belief considering that it bears only a minimal resemblance to what I believe in real life. That being said, its a great opportunity to leave your comfort zones and push the envelop of your own beliefs (assuming we are all seeking Truth) by creating a character that is not just pro/anti Chantry, but has ACTUAL reasons why.



Lol, I understand this thread was made for more entertainment purposes, just thought Id share my ideas.

[Teddie Sage]

Adriano87 wrote...

Solstice-x wrote...

I agree with this entirely. Being allowed to take an evil path would interest me a little bit more, especially without the morality bars. Its tiring being the goody two shoes hero, and it would be really nice to get in the mindset of a complete sociopath, or someone corrupted by power. It could add a new dimension to the game, rather than this "being evil behind everyone's backs" sort of thing.

what amount of evil? Sack Everything, Rape People and Kill them? Killing your companions if you don't like them?

ROFL! That would be intersting, but kinda disturbing...

Edit : Well... while playing DA:O, sometimes I was feeling like some of our choices didn't have that much consequences, like in the beginning of the game while being recruited and doing the Ostargar part. Then as the game progressed, I felt more into the character and the choices started to influence more and more the plot around me. Though I still felt like something was missing, probably the lack of emotions coming up from our characters and the fact they were voiceless. While BioWare are fixing these at some degrees, I can't stop wondering how much our choices will affect the storyline in DA2 and how much the path we took in Dragon Age: Origins will influence the flow of DA2. So yeah, I'm agreeing with above poster's for more reasons to do stuff, more purpose to do a thing. Basically, DA:O was all about fighting the Blight, now it's you and Hawke, and his rise to Power. We don't know yet what he will do, but I'm pretty sure there will be a lot of multiple endings to sattisfy our hunger for a good RPG.

Modifié par Teddie Sage, 11 août 2010 - 06:19 .

[captain.subtle]

"I want to rape,pillage, mutilate,loot, Burn and Murder. But the chantry??? Oooh its evil!!!!"

--An Observation

[Mister Mida]

I don't feel the need to fight the Chantry, but I do want to help the Circle to break away from them, without being labeled a maleficar.

[tmp7704]

jln.francisco wrote...

Sten imprisons himself out of guilt and he certainly is not behaving rationally when he makes that decision. He's a lot like that psycho mage you meet in the Tower's Chapel thing. He's convinced he's a vile repulsive monster and deserves to be locked away far from the light of day. 

This is neither noble nor helpful to the people he harmed. It's self loathing at its max.

It's not supposed to help the people they harmed. It's supposed to help these who could get yet harmed. And it is hardly just self-loathing when potential risk they pose is a fact -- a mage has no insurance they won't ever become possessed. They are making judgement call based on their faith in their own abilities, and that in turn is based largely just on their ego. What you refer to as "self loathing at its max" can be very well a recognition that one likely wouldn't be able to resist a demon's attempt to overcome them. There is room for such middle ground between "i'm utterly worthless" and "i'm so good nothing could ever take me down".

This is just stupid. What Zathrian and what's her face (never played Awakening but if she likes slaughtering humans, I'm all for her.) do isn't comparable to the damage done by abominations. What they do is of their own free will (as much as anything anyone does is based on their own free will) and no more damaging then anything a non mage with power would do.

Zathrian has manufactured a contagious curse which could potentially spread through all Ferelden and beyond, on humans and elves (and dwarves) alike. In fact his wakeup call and realization what he's really done only comes when his own people suffer from his creation. Velanna single-handedly cuts off large province from supplies, a feat which would otherwise require a decent army to accomplish. The point is, a single mage can wreak havoc on scale few mere mortals can even without any abominations involved, so the argument how we don't witness abominations at work means nothing bad ever happens with mages left without supervision simply doesnt' work.

And really, you don't know first thing about Velanna or her reasons, but you're "all for her slaughtering humans"? If anything is "just stupid", it'd be attitude like that.

The arl's son at denerim terrorizes elves and even goes so far as to rape and murder their women. All without the use of magic. Howe manages to butcher the entire Cousland family and walks away with more titles then he can count.

Regular humans like them are naturally limited in what they can do -- it takes a consent of many men willing to follow them and perform atrocities in their name to do anything on such scale. The worse the atrocities, the more people is likely to balk at them. A mage only needs to wake up on bad side of the bed and snap their fingers, no part of them will ever go "this is crazy, i'm out of here, you do your dirty work yourself".

To put it differently, mages aren't feared because they're just like other humans power-wise. They're feared because they're far more than that.

Anyone in a position of power is also in position to abuse that power. That's the nature of the beast.

So why the surprise and outcry there's conscious effort to contain that potential abuse where it's possible?

[LobselVith8]

tmp7704 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Chantry rails against the mages of the Circle, but has no problem having the same mages they rail against as evil using magic when it suits them - such as stopping the Blights or fighting against the technologically superior Qunari. Maybe Dragon Age 2 is going to explore the hypocrisy of the Chantry and their exploitation of the mages through the POV of Hawke and Bethany. 

The Chantry makes its stance rather clear -- "magic should serve the man, not to control them". So yes, they utilize the magic where it's suitable to "serve the man" while trying to ensure that's all the magic is going to be used for. There's no hypocrisy here imo, it would be different  if the Chantry was claiming magic shouldn't be used at all, but they don't do that. 

(if you're talking here about the Chantry using specifically blood magic then i don't believe there's confirmed cases of that. What Duncan says doesn't really apply since Grey Wardens and the Chantry are two different organizations)

Actually, I'm trying to say that the Chantry professes that it has strong values, but it's really more about making people follow their line of thought. The hypocrisy of the Chantry is the fact that they take the moral high ground, however they make their templars addicts and abuse the mages of the Circles. How can you say that there's no hypocrisy in the line of thought that, technically, the Circle of Magi is supposed to be independent (as Alistair, a former templar, himself says) but in reality it's under the oppression of the templars and the Chantry. Alistair alsobelieves the Chantry is lying about the use of lyrium, and given his ability to use such powers without lyrium, it's an argument that makes sense.

tmp7704 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
You're comparing a Qunari who felt shame over his murder of an innocent family to mages who are imprisoned the moment they show magical ability?

I'm pointing out that Sten have decided he should be imprisoned when he's realized he could be potentially dangerous to people he wouldn't normally harm. You have asked "why live in prison when you can be free" and that was my answer to your question -- it is possible for individual to decide the potential price the population could pay for that freedom is so high it is too much to ask for.

That the Chantry doesn't ask mages to make that choice but makes it for them is something else, and not part of your question which seemed to focus on why wouldn't a person always claim the freedom as long as they're capable of it.

And here I thought Sten allowed himself to be imprisoned because of his guilt and the failure of his mission. You're making it sound like mages would bring the country to the brink of ruin when it's make perfectly clear that mages have helped save Ferelden in every Blight. You also try to make the Chantry sound like it's being perfectly reasonable in putting people in prison because they have magic, leaving out the institutionalized hatred of those with magic they instruct throughout Thedas.

I'm guessing you're leaving out the fact that the Chantry also pillaged the Dales because they refused to believe in the Maker and have expanded into the Free Marches to force their religion on others because they're being so honorable in turning people into mindless drones in order to have rune making slaves? You also continue to ignore my comment about the difference between having a place where mages can be properly instructed on their magical abilities and being imprisoned for having magical abilities.

tmp7704 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Look at the Dalish elves or the mages among Kolgrim's Disciples of Andraste - no templars, no Harrowing, no tranquil, and no abominations.

We don't know jack about the Dalish elves on larger scale or the Kolgrim's people --  actually, when you want to go this route, two of the Dalish keepers out of three we get to meet in DAO and the Awakening do use their magic to actively harm humans, either through use of demons or simply by blowing stuff up. And one of them to boot does it merely because she's dumb xenophobe easily tricked by the darkspawn. This isn't the sort of track record you'd want to invoke to support the case how letting the mages run free can't possibly end in tears.

I don't remember any Dalish abominations. And you're referencing an immortal Dalish Keeper who had his daughter raped and son murdered by humans, and another who lost their entire group because humans were framed for the murder of the group. I don't think it compares to the 700 years of Rites that the templars have invoked and the countless men, women and children they murdered in the name of the Maker. 700 years versus two people. Wow, guess that's not really a track record you want to invoke, either.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 12 août 2010 - 08:59 .

[captain.subtle]

tmp7704 wrote...

jln.francisco wrote...

Sten imprisons himself out of guilt and he certainly is not behaving rationally when he makes that decision. He's a lot like that psycho mage you meet in the Tower's Chapel thing. He's convinced he's a vile repulsive monster and deserves to be locked away far from the light of day. 

This is neither noble nor helpful to the people he harmed. It's self loathing at its max.

It's not supposed to help the people they harmed. It's supposed to help these who could get yet harmed. And it is hardly just self-loathing when potential risk they pose is a fact -- a mage has no insurance they won't ever become possessed. They are making judgement call based on their faith in their own abilities, and that in turn is based largely just on their ego. What you refer to as "self loathing at its max" can be very well a recognition that one likely wouldn't be able to resist a demon's attempt to overcome them. There is room for such middle ground between "i'm utterly worthless" and "i'm so good nothing could ever take me down".

This is just stupid. What Zathrian and what's her face (never played Awakening but if she likes slaughtering humans, I'm all for her.) do isn't comparable to the damage done by abominations. What they do is of their own free will (as much as anything anyone does is based on their own free will) and no more damaging then anything a non mage with power would do.

Zathrian has manufactured a contagious curse which could potentially spread through all Ferelden and beyond, on humans and elves (and dwarves) alike. In fact his wakeup call and realization what he's really done only comes when his own people suffer from his creation. Velanna single-handedly cuts off large province from supplies, a feat which would otherwise require a decent army to accomplish. The point is, a single mage can wreak havoc on scale few mere mortals can even without any abominations involved, so the argument how we don't witness abominations at work means nothing bad ever happens with mages left without supervision simply doesnt' work.

And really, you don't know first thing about Velanna or her reasons, but you're "all for her slaughtering humans"? If anything is "just stupid", it'd be attitude like that.

The arl's son at denerim terrorizes elves and even goes so far as to rape and murder their women. All without the use of magic. Howe manages to butcher the entire Cousland family and walks away with more titles then he can count.

Regular humans like them are naturally limited in what they can do -- it takes a consent of many men willing to follow them and perform atrocities in their name to do anything on such scale. The worse the atrocities, the more people is likely to balk at them. A mage only needs to wake up on bad side of the bed and snap their fingers, no part of them will ever go "this is crazy, i'm out of here, you do your dirty work yourself".

To put it differently, mages aren't feared because they're just like other humans power-wise. They're feared because they're far more than that.

Anyone in a position of power is also in position to abuse that power. That's the nature of the beast.

So why the surprise and outcry there's conscious effort to contain that potential abuse where it's possible?

<3

[maxernst]

I think it would be interesting to be able to play for or against the chantry, or perhaps between different factions within the chantry (one favoring the Tevinter chantry, for example). I would hope that if they do that it would be more like a Bhelen/Harrowmont kind of choice than a straight-up goody-two-shoes vs monster choice.



I recently ran a Rolemaster campaign set in 7th century Italy with the action centering around the fallout from the Pope excommunicating the Patriarch of Constantinople. I love church/state conflict and political intrigue.

[tmp7704]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Actually, I'm trying to say that the Chantry professes that it has strong values, but it's really more about making people follow their line of thought. The hypocrisy of the Chantry is the fact that

the act of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have

Hmm i was rather under impression they don't as much pretend to possess these values but instead promote them as the "Maker-approved way of life". How well each individual follower manages to meet them is largely down to the individual themselves.

There's no hypocrisy in the line of thought that, technically, the Circle of Magi is supposed to be independent (as Alistair, a former templar, himself says) but in reality it's under the oppression of the templars and the Chantry.

The circles effectively function as prisons so there's naturally going to be friction between prisoners and guards. Stanford prison experiment has explored that, to rather disturbing conclusions. I don't really know how avoidable it is, this isn't my area of experience.

You're making it sound like mages would bring the country to the brink of ruin when it's make perfectly clear that mages have helped save Ferelden in every Blight.

I point out mages can do that, yes. How would the Uldred's disaster end if it wasn't for player's timely arrival? Either in circle getting completely wiped or in the abominations breaking out to rampage free through the country adding to the Blight rather than helping to stop it.

The thing is, while most mages are reasonable and willing to do the good things, it only takes few who don't to turn things upside down and any mage can become one of such few, even despite their own will. This is a huge risk and we don't really know how many abominations the templars do cut down before they get out of hand. (or in case of maleficarum, after they get out of hand)

You also try to make the Chantry sound like it's being perfectly reasonable in putting people in prison because they have magic, leaving out the institutionalized hatred of those with magic they instruct throughout Thedas.

I can't say i've experienced cases of preaching hatred towards mages from the Chantry when playing non-mage characters, that i can remember. Could you give some examples to jog my memory?

I'm guessing you're leaving out the fact that the Chantry also pillaged the Dales because they refused to believe in the Maker and have expanded into the Free Marches to force their religion on others because they're being so honorable in turning people into mindless drones in order to have rune making slaves?

It's made rather clear in the game there's no clear "universal truth" version of what exactly happened regarding the Dales. It's also worth noting the timeline specifies the exalted march on the Dales was called after the elves attacked and pillaged some nearby human towns, not the other way around. In any case, i'm not sure if it has much to do with the issue of mage treatment.

You also continue to ignore my comment about the difference between having a place where mages can be properly instructed on their magical abilities and being imprisoned for having magical abilities.

There isn't much i can say regarding this -- yes, there's obvious difference between these two. Having the mages imprisoned ensures these who get taken over by a demon or simply get illusions of grandeur can be kept away from population they could harm through their actions. The same mage being free can pose much more danger, and having been instructed how magic works and/or being told it's bad to be bad isn't going to do much for these who for one reason or another decide to be above such trivialities. You can only reason with reasonable people and being a mage isn't guarantee of automagically being perfectly reasonable.

I don't remember any Dalish abominations. And you're referencing an immortal Dalish Keeper who had his daughter raped and son murdered by humans, and another who lost their entire group because humans were framed for the murder of the group.

My point was, we see very small glimpse of the Dalish, so i wouldn't be quick to extrapolate such little info on "abominations don't happen to the dalish, ever". And yes, i'm referencing a Dalish keeper who got so blinded by racial hatred he wouldn't even realise he's putting their own folk in danger exacting his revenge, and another keeper who was also too dumb to see the truth but quick to jump to conclusions. In other words, being a mage doesn't prevent the person from acting stupid especially when under strong emotions, but them being the mage means consequences of their stupidity are far more drastic than what a stupid regular person can do.

I don't think it compares to the 700 years of Rites that the templars have invoked and the countless men, women and children they murdered in the name of the Maker. 700 years versus two people. Wow, guess that's not really a track record you want to invoke, either.

You know, using your own argument from just before "we don't see any rites" in the game, does it mean not one such thing has happened?

But the obvious siliness of this argument aside, the point was, that's 2 keepers out of 3 we get to meet, and in just 1-2 years too. If that was to be treated as sample of how things are on average, then just think how much mess and grief such things possibly cause to the population, repeated over course of these same 700 years you mention?

[captain.subtle]

Another great post by tmp7704. I would like to add in an insignificant details or two:

People with power will eventually use it.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Modifié par captain.subtle, 11 août 2010 - 08:31 .