1503 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexXIV]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

True. I can aggree that some Templars have shown to be a bit over-zealous. However if the Templars allowed themselves to befriend the mages they may one day find themselves lacking the will needed to do what must be done. Though I also need to point out that all the stories of oppression comes from mages and mages alone, I think there are more than a little bias hidden somewhere in their complaints.

So if you complain about being treated unfair you are biased and therefore nobody should listen to you. Also that's simply not true. Not just mages think that it is a no go how they are treated. You won't believe it but I am not a mage irl and I still find it wrong, as do the majority of people I'd say.

Based on what? Testimony of the accusator? The only reason you feel anyhting for the mages, is because some mage has complained about being treated unfairly. A complaint he might have exagerated to any degree. And yes of course the Chantry underplays their oppression of the mages too.

Everwarden wrote...

They have their children taken away and aren't allowed to be in relationships. Said this before, but it bears repeating.

This alone is enough reason for the mages to revolt.

The mages are allowed to have all the friendships they want, just not romantic connections, which still happen (Wynne's adventure for instance), and no of course they can't raise their own children as that would lead to an attachment from the childs side and possibly to another Redcliffe incident. Its a heavy price a mage pays with no fault of his own, but he has to.

RazorrX wrote...
To throw this in:

There is a new Dragon Age Comic book that is written by Orson Scott Card. So far it has dealt with Mages and Templars.

1. Mages are forbidden to have children. When a mage turns up pregnant the Templar Commander strikes her, Makes a comment about telling the circle that two of their kind have been breeding, and later makes a statement that if he could she would be executed for it.

2. When she flees rather than have her child taken from her the templars are sent with this order “There is no capture for the witch, only death. This phylactery filled with her blood will lead you to her. When you find her, kill her at once, or you are no templar.”

3. Later when templars are heading out to ‘capture’ another apostate (a girl who is not a blood mage). They are joking about torturing and killing the ones they find rather than bring them to the tower.

1. They are forbidden to have children. It is as simple as that. She broke that rule and needs to be punished. This particular Knight-Commander seems in favor of capital punishment. She should have thought about that before she went and got herself pregnant.

2. She flees. This is the second time she breaks a fundemental rule of the Circle. That and she plans on harboring an appostate (her child) and possibly teach blood magic to stay alive. Too dangerous to leave alive. She should have thought about that before she ran away.

3. As I've mentioned some Templars are over-zealous. But some Templars are kind of heart too. This particular appostate drew the short straw in the game of fate, and had sadistic brutal templars sent after her. Too bad.

This might come across as cynical, and it is, but this is just the way things work.

It's the way things worked, but big changes are comming to all of Thedas. Good thing you mentioned you are being cynical because I was just starting to think you are beyond hope.

[Everwarden]

AlexXIV wrote...

It's the way things worked, but big changes are comming to all of Thedas. Good thing you mentioned you are being cynical because I was just starting to think you are beyond hope.

I can't wait for the big changes. All of the foreshadowing suggests that the 'big changes' will be a mage revolution, and I want to kick some templar ass like you can't even know!

[EmperorSahlertz]

Everwarden wrote...

Seriously? You're still defending the point? I didn't even know about the stuff in the comic, but it looks like my position is vindicated and yours is untenable, but you're still grasping at straws. Think about what you're defending.. hunting down and killing a pregnant woman who's trying to save her child. Epic fail, in my humble opinion. I hope you have a better moral compass than this in the real world.

So you think that because some abuse their power they ALL aspire to abuse their power? You think that because someone think that submission is best achieved through violence they all think that way? Are you that narrow-sighted? And in the real world I dont have to care about Abominations and possession so of course I got another moral-compas.....

Everwarden wrote...

To move past my little ad hominem rant: the rule that children of mages are given to the Chantry is ridiculous, and your justification fails. Why would there be a Conner situation in the tower? It's more likely that there will be a Conner situation outside of the tower because the child might be a mage, and will be untrained and unaware. That's why Conner ended up like he did, because he WASN'T in the tower. I wish I could get a pick and mine some big nuggets of fail from that vein of pure, epic fail.

Exactly my point. Because Conner WASN'T in the tower, because he WASN'T seperated from his parent, because he WASN'T given proper training the Redcliffe tragedy occured. Now you go ahead and say that because some stupid brat of a mage girl wants a child she should be allowed to have it and raise it herself? And even outsdie the tower? Are you really that blind that you cannot see just how dangerous untrained and emotionally attached mage children are? Perhaps you should rather empty your own vein of fail before you try steal anything from mine?

Everwarden wrote...

And that is the biggest problem with the Chantry oversight, they go far beyond what is needed to regulate mages and abuse their authority at every left turn. I can think of few things that would make me want to actually invite
a pride demon in, but in the shoes of a mage who loses a child I think I
just might turn to that to get some templar-killing revenge.

They are doing EXACTLY what is needed to regualte and control the mages. Nowhere in their laws or wrtings does it say a Templar HAS to beat up the mages, some Templars just do, which is regretable. But some mages also just use Blood Magic, which is equally regretable....

Now lets try use real arguments instead of name-smudging shall we? Otherwise you can go harvest all the fail you want to.

[Akka le Vil]

Everwarden wrote...

I'm calling complete bull**** on that entire paragraph. The Chantry isn't trying to make anyone happy, they're keeping pets on a tight leash because mages make an excellent weapon. Again, the only reason the Qunari got beaten back in the exalted marches was mages.
They spend an enormous amount? No, they don't. They have to keep the templars there, obviously, but the mages are the ones who bring in the income via enchantment.

Actually, it's not the Chantry which decides if the mages goes to war or not, it's the lord of the land and the First Enchanter.
And of course that the Chantry spend an enormous amount. Mages bring income for THEMSELVES, they don't pay the Chantry. Templars are not paid for by mages.

For the rest, you just completely skip the core of the problem, that mages unchecked are a huge threat for other.

[Everwarden]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Exactly my point. Because Conner WASN'T in the tower, because he WASN'T seperated from his parent, because he WASN'T given proper training the Redcliffe tragedy occured. Now you go ahead and say that because some stupid brat of a mage girl wants a child she should be allowed to have it and raise it herself? And even outsdie the tower? Are you really that blind that you cannot see just how dangerous untrained and emotionally attached mage children are? Perhaps you should rather empty your own vein of fail before you try steal anything from mine?
.

My point was that the policy shouldn't be to ship off the children immediately, but keep them in the tower. That way there wouldn't have been a cause for her to flee in the first place. I am, in fact, saying that the brat of a mage girl should be allowed to have a child and raise it in the tower, and if the child isn't a mage the child should be allowed to leave and visit from time to time. There is no reason for the mages to have their human rights violated to the extent that they are, reproduction is a fundamental right.

In my scenario, you solve quite a few problems:
1. The mage doesn't run away, no need to hunt anyone down.
2. The child has oversight and an education in the likely event he/she is a mage, so there won't be a Conner incident.
3. You don't give the mage in question (and any sympathizers) a legitimate reason to revolt.

[Everwarden]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

I'm calling complete bull**** on that entire paragraph. The Chantry isn't trying to make anyone happy, they're keeping pets on a tight leash because mages make an excellent weapon. Again, the only reason the Qunari got beaten back in the exalted marches was mages.
They spend an enormous amount? No, they don't. They have to keep the templars there, obviously, but the mages are the ones who bring in the income via enchantment.

Actually, it's not the Chantry which decides if the mages goes to war or not, it's the lord of the land and the First Enchanter.
And of course that the Chantry spend an enormous amount. Mages bring income for THEMSELVES, they don't pay the Chantry. Templars are not paid for by mages.

For the rest, you just completely skip the core of the problem, that mages unchecked are a huge threat for other.

I'm not advocating that mages should be unchecked, I'm advocating the idea that they should be allowed to self-regulate their own. Mages have to be trained and isolated during that time, but there is no reason for templars to be present, since they do far more harm than good. No one in the Circle Tower would have followed Uldred if they hadn't been given some really good reasons to by the Chantry's abuse.

[Akka le Vil]

Everwarden wrote...

I'm not advocating that mages should be unchecked, I'm advocating the idea that they should be allowed to self-regulate their own.

Err...
And how exactly does make it mages kept in check if they are making the checking themselves ?

Mages have to be trained and isolated during that time, but there is no reason for templars to be present, since they do far more harm than good. No one in the Circle Tower would have followed Uldred if they hadn't been given some really good reasons to by the Chantry's abuse.

Hu yes there is : to prevent mages to take control ?
What if the mages in the tower decide they want to be free and plot something and there is no Templar to keep an eye on them ?

Your reasoning is just completely... well, inexistant. Basically it's "hey let them do whatever they want, and somehow there won't be any problem".

[EpicBoot2daFace]

I don't want to fight the Chantry or help them. Is there is an option to just ignore them?

[Everwarden]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

I'm not advocating that mages should be unchecked, I'm advocating the idea that they should be allowed to self-regulate their own.

Err...
And how exactly does make it mages kept in check if they are making the checking themselves ?

Mages have to be trained and isolated during that time, but there is no reason for templars to be present, since they do far more harm than good. No one in the Circle Tower would have followed Uldred if they hadn't been given some really good reasons to by the Chantry's abuse.

Hu yes there is : to prevent mages to take control ?
What if the mages in the tower decide they want to be free and plot something and there is no Templar to keep an eye on them ?

Your reasoning is just completely... well, inexistant. Basically it's "hey let them do whatever they want, and somehow there won't be any problem".

They still have laws they have to conform to, I'm just proposing they enforce the laws from a hierarchy within themselves. The crown, for example, could appoint well trained trustworthy mages to oversee the organization and ensure the rules are enforced on the lower ranks. That's exactly what happened if you picked the mage boon, are you suggesting that this is going to end in disaster because there are no nanny templars around? 

What is keeping the higher ranks in line? Several things, I assume the crown will check on the tower periodically. And if the leading body doesn't get the desired results they risk being replaced, or worse yet being put back under the yoke of the Chantry, which none of the mages want. That alone should ensure everyone remains on their best behavior.

[RazorrX]

Akka le Vil wrote...
Actually, it's not the Chantry which decides if the mages goes to war or not, it's the lord of the land and the First Enchanter.

Pretty sure that Gregior was against any more mages being sent to ostagar, to the point of NOT allowing it.  Irving can recommend, but Gregior has to approve.  No mage can leave the tower without the approval of the Templars.  In fact I think he tells Duncan that he has enough already, and No to more.

After you do Gregior's job for him (clearing the tower) he allows Irving to give you what you ask for.  Probably because he knows that it is a blight, that you just helped him out of a really horrible problem and that since you just did what he and his men could not, what is going to stop you from taking them?

Look at what the mage origin shows: 

Jowan - you ask if he can not be harrowed, etc. instead of tranquil and are told that NO.  There is no escaping it.  That *IF* it was up to Irving, things would be different, but they are not.  Irving says that Gregior 'Says he has proof'. IE Irving has not seen any proof, was not consulted, etc. was basically TOLD that Jowan was to be be made tranquil.

Irving tells Gregior that You were following his orders to show that Lilly was a part of Jowans plan.  Gregior was going to Tranquil you anyway (or have you killed, or imprisoned).  Duncan saves you by conscription.  So again, the first enchanter has no real power in the tower over what happens to mages.

[darkiddd]

Does the chantry imprison mages and may be wrong about the maker, the black city and the darkspawn origin? yes, but it has also imposed order in all Thedas, and we should think what would be worse, let the chantry remain or destroy the chantry and bring all Thedas into a new era of chaos, anarchy and magic freedom (which, I suppose, is what Flemeth wants)

[Everwarden]

darkiddd wrote...

Does the chantry imprison mages and may be wrong about the maker, the black city and the darkspawn origin? yes, but it has also imposed order in all Thedas, and we should think what would be worse, let the chantry remain or destroy the chantry and bring all Thedas into a new era of chaos, anarchy and magic freedom (which, I suppose, is what Flemeth wants)

Hitler imposed order on Germany. The allied victory brought chaos. I don't think that this argument holds up.

[Akka le Vil]

Everwarden wrote...

They still have laws they have to conform to, I'm just proposing they enforce the laws from a hierarchy within themselves. The crown, for example, could appoint well trained trustworthy mages to oversee the organization and ensure the rules are enforced on the lower ranks.

Mages self-regulating themselves still means that there is a layer of mages that is unchecked, and hence can start to abuse its power. How can you control people if they start using mind-controling magic ? Cullen is shown has being broken by witnessing how people have been "turned" by blood magic. Regardless of his personnal opinion, it shows there is extreme danger in having such practitionners (the whole Uldred revolt is basically this, the top-layer responsible for enforcing the rules which didn't manage to do it because it was corrupted at the top).

Now imagine that there isn't even checks at the top...

That's exactly what happened if you picked the mage boon, are you suggesting that this is going to end in disaster because there are no nanny templars around?

I don't see which part of the game you're referencing here. Can you refresh my mind ?

What is keeping the higher ranks in line? Several things, I assume the crown will check on the tower periodically. And if the leading body doesn't get the desired results they risk being replaced, or worse yet being put back under the yoke of the Chantry, which none of the mages want. That alone should ensure everyone remains on their best behavior.

If the leading body doesn't get the desired results, it means you already have a war or a slaughter on your hands. It's simply gambling with the stability of the kingdom and the lives of the people. How exactly it is more moral than the actual situation ?

[Akka le Vil]

RazorrX wrote...

Pretty sure that Gregior was against any more mages being sent to ostagar, to the point of NOT allowing it.  Irving can recommend, but Gregior has to approve.  No mage can leave the tower without the approval of the Templars.  In fact I think he tells Duncan that he has enough already, and No to more.

Yes, he can prevent MORE mages being sent. He can not says "send more mages".
My point was that the mages weren't the personnal weapons of the Chantry. Templars are. As such the Chantry doesn't pay the Circles of Magi to have its army of mages, it pays for it to keep mages in check without having to kill them. That's somehow a generous goal (imperfect of course, which is the interesting part of the situation).

Mages going to the Exalted Marches are going there on their own free will (though I can, of course, imagine there can be a lot of pressure to convince them if the Chantry really wants it, but it's not the same as a built-in military conscription).

[RazorrX]

Akka le Vil wrote...

RazorrX wrote...

Pretty sure that Gregior was against any more mages being sent to ostagar, to the point of NOT allowing it.  Irving can recommend, but Gregior has to approve.  No mage can leave the tower without the approval of the Templars.  In fact I think he tells Duncan that he has enough already, and No to more.

Yes, he can prevent MORE mages being sent. He can not says "send more mages".
My point was that the mages weren't the personnal weapons of the Chantry. Templars are. As such the Chantry doesn't pay the Circles of Magi to have its army of mages, it pays for it to keep mages in check without having to kill them. That's somehow a generous goal (imperfect of course, which is the interesting part of the situation).

Mages going to the Exalted Marches are going there on their own free will (though I can, of course, imagine there can be a lot of pressure to convince them if the Chantry really wants it, but it's not the same as a built-in military conscription).

Ummm it is more like "you are going to go with us on this exhalted march OR we will annull the tower since we can no longer give it proper oversight".

[JabbaDaHutt30]

Anathemic wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

Anathemic wrote...

The current Chantry is totally perverted in what Andraste originally wanted:

"Magic is meant to serve man, not to rule over him"

ZOMG WE MUST IMPRISON AND PERSECUTE ALL MAGES LOCK EM UP IN DA TOWA!!!!

No, Andraste's original message was that magic is a powerful tool, and like everything that comes with power comes great responsibility.

So it's a typical religion then? Skewing what is meant to serve their needs and desires.

Religion is humanity's way of coping with mysteries and what they don't understand. So yes the Chantry is a religion but uses their ideaology to pervert society's way of thinking that all mages are bad and Exalted Marches are of the Maker's will, too bad one of their Exalted Marches got pwned when they tried it on the Qunari

I don't understand why I see so many atheists on the internet these days. Atheism will lead to the downfall of human morals. The Chantry may not be right in the way it treats mages, but without religion all hope is lost. <3

[Sir JK]

RazorrX wrote...

Ummm it is more like "you are going to go with us on this exhalted march OR we will annull the tower since we can no longer give it proper oversight".

Well... anyone with an armed force/threat of violence could pull that card...
Orlesian king: "Right... I want a bunch of mages in my army or we'll see how easily this tower of yours burns"
Crazed bloodmage revolutionary: "If you're not with me then you're with the chantry"
Warden Commander: "Right of conscription"
Darkspawn ... uh... wait...

Seriously though... the chantry won't call in every templar in the world for exalted marches. Beyond protecting/opressing mages and hunting maleficar, they also form the guards of the chantries and the protectors of missionaries. Removing them would leave every chantry in the world open to be robbed... by the same reasoning the circles will remain manned even during an exalted march.

Besides... you saw the Revered Mother at Ostagar. Did it seem like she wanted Uldred and his bunch there?

[Everwarden]

Akka le Vil wrote...

I don't see which part of the game you're referencing here. Can you refresh my mind ?

Play through as a mage, and when asked what you want request independence from the Chantry, the ruler declares that the Circle will now have the right to self-govern and exist outside of Chantry authority.

To respond to your point of mages

If the leading body doesn't get the desired results, it means you
already have a war or a slaughter on your hands. It's simply gambling
with the stability of the kingdom and the lives of the people. How
exactly it is more moral than the actual situation ?

Because you're gambling with the lives of people as it is. The Chantry abuses are what drive otherwise good mages to turn to violence. The way the Chantry treats mages -justifies- the use of blood magic, so where in the normal course of things evil mages would do evil and good mages would do good, the status quo encourages good mages to do evil things just to earn their basic human rights.

[Everwarden]

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

I don't understand why I see so many atheists on the internet these days. Atheism will lead to the downfall of human morals. The Chantry may not be right in the way it treats mages, but without religion all hope is lost. <3

Troll begone.

[RazorrX]

Sir JK wrote...

RazorrX wrote...

Ummm it is more like "you are going to go with us on this exhalted march OR we will annull the tower since we can no longer give it proper oversight".

Well... anyone with an armed force/threat of violence could pull that card...
Orlesian king: "Right... I want a bunch of mages in my army or we'll see how easily this tower of yours burns"
Crazed bloodmage revolutionary: "If you're not with me then you're with the chantry"
Warden Commander: "Right of conscription"
Darkspawn ... uh... wait...

Seriously though... the chantry won't call in every templar in the world for exalted marches. Beyond protecting/opressing mages and hunting maleficar, they also form the guards of the chantries and the protectors of missionaries. Removing them would leave every chantry in the world open to be robbed... by the same reasoning the circles will remain manned even during an exalted march.

Besides... you saw the Revered Mother at Ostagar. Did it seem like she wanted Uldred and his bunch there?

That was in response to the statement that mages did not HAVE to go on the marches if they did not want to.  No.  IF the chantry wanted them, they would go or be killed.  Mages do not have any freedom where the chantry is involved.

[RazorrX]

Everwarden wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

I don't see which part of the game you're referencing here. Can you refresh my mind ?

Play through as a mage, and when asked what you want request independence from the Chantry, the ruler declares that the Circle will now have the right to self-govern and exist outside of Chantry authority.

Sadly, this does not hold true though.  In my playthroughs, the tower is not free.  In Awakening, it is still very much under chantry rule (at least according to Wynne) and in Witch Hunt it is.  SO that boon does not work it seems.

[Everwarden]

RazorrX wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

I don't see which part of the game you're referencing here. Can you refresh my mind ?

Play through as a mage, and when asked what you want request independence from the Chantry, the ruler declares that the Circle will now have the right to self-govern and exist outside of Chantry authority.

Sadly, this does not hold true though.  In my playthroughs, the tower is not free.  In Awakening, it is still very much under chantry rule (at least according to Wynne) and in Witch Hunt it is.  SO that boon does not work it seems.

I think that the reason behind this isn't actually canon, but lazy programming for a cheap DLC. They would have had to write an entirely different set of dialogue for Finn and come up with a new person to greet you if they acknowledged that boon. Also, David Gaider said that the crown made the demand, and the Chantry said no... so we'll see where it goes.

Modifié par Everwarden, 14 septembre 2010 - 07:55 .

[Saibh]

Everwarden wrote...

JabbaDaHutt30 wrote...

I don't understand why I see so many atheists on the internet these days. Atheism will lead to the downfall of human morals. The Chantry may not be right in the way it treats mages, but without religion all hope is lost. <3

Troll begone.

I immediately envisioned a Febreze can. Odor begone!