1503 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

They lost however many templars and mages they had inside, gave up those who were still alive, locked some door and Greagoir was like, "Now we wait and pray." Like a handful of city guards under siege. For all we know, it was Wynne who did the containing if there was any. If the Warden didn't arrive and save the day, it was only a matter of time before Wynne got exhausted and overrun by the bad guys that would in turn break open the doors and slaughter the rest of templars, including Greagoir. Templars were completely ineffective and did not deserve credit. As for the odds, they aren't supposed to be stacked against templars. If they aren't prepared for such insurgencies, there's little point in putting them there.

You cannot prove that statement.

[AlexXIV]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Even if the Circles were removed from Chantry oversight. I would still suggest putting a non-mage organization in a position to check the Circles. Crazy mages are worse than crazy ordinary people. Templars or similar is still a must for such an organization if a rogue mage or rogue faction needs to be dealt with.

Edit: Would this change the situation at all? Perhaps, but at least all the anti-mages and psychos who wish to only hurt mages will try to join the other organization and get the hell out of the Chantry.

Well that's reasonable because the highest authority in a country is their monarch. So the king/queen at least should have some sort of control over what their mages are doing. But not the Chantry. Not as long as my main character still has a heartbeat left.

Funny, my main character, who is a mage, is in full support of the Chantry. However, I will disagree with the king/queen governing their own Circles. The Circle is an international organization, it would be frustrating to have separate nations using the Circles to their own end. An internation organization that is not tied to politics outside the Circle should be made. Heh, good luck with that... Still, kings/queens should not have complete say over an international organization.

Edit: I can just imagine kings/queens using mages freely in whatever war they find themselves in, and having a bunch of mages fighting in wars, even against other Circle mages, could be a problem. Which is why the involvment of mages in wars is limited. They can be needed, especially against the qunari, but they can cause a lot of damage.

I thought the Circle of Magi is a Ferelden thing only actually but could be wrong.

Edit: Well I was wrong it is as you say.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 15 septembre 2010 - 08:35 .

[Daerog]

AlexXIV wrote...

I thought the Circle of Magi is a Ferelden thing only actually but could be wrong.

No, it's an international thing that is overseen by one of the few international organizations in Thedas, the Chantry. Another international organization being the Grey Wardens.

Remember Wynne talking about going to a meeting of senior circle mages in Nevarra?

There are individual towers which are overseen by a First Enchanter, but the Circle of Magi is an international thing.

"The College of Enchanters in the city of Cumberland is the Circle's headquarters, as that's where Enchanters gather to determine Circle policy." From the wikia.

http://dragonage.wik.../Circle_of_Magi

Edit: Ha, idea just came to mind. Let the Formari police the Circles. They are very focused on their duties, right? Woo Tranquil Powa!

Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 15 septembre 2010 - 08:41 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Everwarden wrote...
We're going in circles here, I've already answered that earlier in the tread.

But to restate: It's a gamble either way, and I believe the chantry is doing more harm that good by provoking the mages into revolt. Seriously, imagine you are caged because of what you are, not what you've done. Imagine you, in a moment of passion, father a child on some fellow mage... and for this horrible crime against the maker the woman (and you) are brutally beaten and the child is taken away by the Chantry. Is that necessary? How exactly does that serve to defend the innocent people of Fereldan from magic?

It doesn't, you know it doesn't, and you're going to try saying it does anyway. The odds are that you'd feel enormous resentment at best, and be volunteering yourself to a pride demon just for some payback at worst.
The Chantry needs to be removed not because of the purpose they serve in guarding the mages, but because they completely abuse their position. I don't think it would be much of a mental leap to assume mage women would have a lot to fear from templars, as well. People don't usually take vows of chastity seriously.

I disagree. Mages have it rough, but that's their lot in life.
You can either accept it, and go with the flow, making the best of it - or you cna be unreasonable and try to fight it. but you'll be going agaisnt the wrold and you WILL fail.

Mages know what will happen to their child if they have one. If they still go on and have one, then best go along with it. The child will be taken care off, and wil lprobably havea  good life in the care of hte Chantry. Might even go farone day.  It hurst to be separated, but such are the rules.
Unfortunate things happen, unfortuanate and drastic measures are used, even in real life.
After all, if two people with severe mantal problems have a child, don't we take it away from them?
Don' we take away peoples freedoms, don't we lock them up in some cases?
We do, if we think it's warranted.
The people of Thedas think it is. And for the most part, they are right.

Again, mages are NOT ordinary people. You want to leave the child with the mother...and what if the mother gets possesed? And then the resulting abomination sucks the childs marrow?


Yes, the mages should be treated a bit better, but there are limits.
Frankly, I don't know if taking the child away is the best idea. But I understand why it's done. It might be necessary.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 15 septembre 2010 - 08:42 .

[Akka le Vil]

Morroian wrote...

What consequences? You keep saying mages are nukes, well the in game evidence suggest they very rarely go off, and all groups independent of the chantry or self governed do appear to manage to keep them under control. The one example of the nuke going off happened under tempar control.

Actually, if you talk a bit with everyone, we hear A LOT of personnal stories about abominations ravaging the countryside, blood mages doing bad things and lots of people being killed and many templars dying before the threat is suppressed. And you realize that they ARE under check, so it stands to logic that, well, yes, they rarely go off ?
The consequences are lots of death and chaos each time. I say it's a pretty good reason.

They would already have more freedom then so what would they be rebelling against? As it is a lot of mages, if not the majority of mages, agree with the restrictions. If they policed themselves more and had less restrictions there would be a lot less even that now.

They would not necessarily "rebel". They could just want to get more power. It's a reasonable precaution to keep the restraining bolt strongly fastened when dealing with powers like those of mages. It's not necessarily the best (there is rarely a perfect solution), but it's totally understandable when you try to think a bit and put yourself not ONLY in the mages' shoes, but also in everyone else's shoes. Mind control, sucking your life to fuel their power and abomination slaughter ARE terrifying prospects, and it's only natural to protect people from this.

Many people advocating war on the Chantry in this thread just "want to free mages" and stop their reflection here. Of course THEY don't live in a world where anyone with magic can become an abomination anytime and raze your village, or some guy passing by can take control of your mind. These are the little details that make someone radically rethink his point of view

There's always going to be a layer on top of any hierarchy. Other mages just have to be aware that those at the top aren't immune from scrutiny.

Yes there is always a layer on top. The problem here is that the layer is made of mages, and the point of keeping them in check is that they have, by their nature, very dangerous powers. If there is a layer at the top that is unchecked, it rather defeat the purpose of keeping mages in check, doesn't it ?

Modifié par Akka le Vil, 15 septembre 2010 - 09:03 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Not to mention that ALL mages are in danger of being possesed at all times. That includes the mages at the top.

[Daerog]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Not to mention that ALL mages are in danger of being possesed at all times. That includes the mages at the top.

Let's have the Formari police the Towers for the Chantry or other international organization. They are the only group that you can really say who are not corrupt and can't be possessed. They are also very focused on whatever duty they are given. Have the Templars nearby, but let the Formari be the eyes and ears who report to whoever. Compromise-ish?

Maybe I just like the tranquil for some reason...

[Everwarden]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I disagree. Mages have it rough, but that's their lot in life.
You can either accept it, and go with the flow, making the best of it - or you cna be unreasonable and try to fight it. but you'll be going agaisnt the wrold and you WILL fail.

Mages have it more rough than is needed to perform the task of keeping them contained, and that is the reason the Chantry should be fired and replaced with another system. You continue to assert with no evidence that the Chantry does what needs to be done. How is abusing mages needed? Again, just provoking the most dangerous individuals in the world without any real cause. How is it needed to take the children away? It isn't. It's completely counter to their purpose, which is to keep mages under control. The child will likely have to return to the tower anyways if both parents were mages, so all you've managed to do is give undue psychological stress to someone who is at higher risk of becoming a dangerous killing machine. Great policy, Chantry. Really good thinking.

You continue to provide the analogy that mages are like mental patients... which is just asinine, to be honest. Are you suggesting that it would be acceptable to beat and abuse mental patients? No, I suspect not. How is it different? The mages have a full grasp of their mental faculties and haven't commit crimes to warrant being treated the way they are.

The arguement is not that mages need a carte blanche to do whatever they want, the regulations on controlling abominations and preventing abuse of magic should remain in place, but you have yet to demonstrate that the chantry does this job well. They exacerbate the problem due to their ridiculously unfair treatment. Rough? Rough doesn't cover it, and even if it did, their job is to prevent abuse of magic, not to give mages a 'rough' life.

When the tower was overrun by abominations and demons, what did the templars do? Tucked tail and ran. Yes, we've treaded these waters already, but it bears repeating. The templars managed to get a few of their ranks out and slammed the door behind them. Is this evidence that the tower was well run? Were they prepared for that? Isn't that exactly the point of them being there? So they are abusive AND useless?

The fact that they managed to momentarily contain the problem isn't an argument that they are competent, because it was Wynne and the mages that put up the barrier the demons couldn't cross, and the warden and friends who cleared the problem up. How do you know they would have held long enough for reinforcements to arrive if the warden hadn't arrived and Wynne hadn't been there? You don't, because there is no evidence that this is the case.

As for mages revolting against the world and losing, we'll just have to wait for Dragon Age 2 won't we?

[Everwarden]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Not to mention that ALL mages are in danger of being possesed at all times. That includes the mages at the top.

Let's have the Formari police the Towers for the Chantry or other international organization. They are the only group that you can really say who are not corrupt and can't be possessed. They are also very focused on whatever duty they are given. Have the Templars nearby, but let the Formari be the eyes and ears who report to whoever. Compromise-ish?

Maybe I just like the tranquil for some reason...

That is actually a very good suggestion.

[Daerog]

Everwarden wrote...

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Not to mention that ALL mages are in danger of being possesed at all times. That includes the mages at the top.

Let's have the Formari police the Towers for the Chantry or other international organization. They are the only group that you can really say who are not corrupt and can't be possessed. They are also very focused on whatever duty they are given. Have the Templars nearby, but let the Formari be the eyes and ears who report to whoever. Compromise-ish?

Maybe I just like the tranquil for some reason...

That is actually a very good suggestion.

Drawback will be slow response to trouble, though. But if Templars are just next door and make weekly/monthly checks here and there... could work?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Everwarden wrote...

Mages have it more rough than is needed to perform the task of keeping them contained, and that is the reason the Chantry should be fired and replaced with another system.

And that is debatable. Peopel in Thedas would most likely disagree with you on that issue.

You continue to provide the analogy that mages are like mental patients... which is just asinine, to be honest. Are you suggesting that it would be acceptable to beat and abuse mental patients? No, I suspect not. How is it different? The mages have a full grasp of their mental faculties and haven't commit crimes to warrant being treated the way they are.

When have I said that? But why do you assume mages are beaten and abused on a regular basis?
Sure, it happens occasionly if the guard is a jerk, but jerks will be found everywhere. Yes, there probably are those who work in mental insititions that do abuse mental patients. Sad thing.

And how is it comparable? Because the mages are not fit to raise the child, in the eyes of the society. And they are dangerous. A  LOT more dangerous than and guy thrown in an asylum. Posibly dangerous to their own children.

The arguement is not that mages need a carte blanche to do whatever they want, the regulations on controlling abominations and preventing abuse of magic should remain in place, but you have yet to demonstrate that the chantry does this job well. They exacerbate the problem due to their ridiculously unfair treatment. Rough? Rough doesn't cover it, and even if it did, their job is to prevent abuse of magic, not to give mages a 'rough' life.

You have yet to demonstrate the chantry (and the templars) DON'T do their job well. I covered your "Broken Cricle quest" arguments already. They contained the problem. You cannto prove they woul have faield if hte warden didn't arrive.

Oh, and the reason the warden clears the tower? It's because of plot armor. He has the magical save/load bottun. If the templars did everything, there wouldn't be anything for the palyer to do, now would it? And I stand by the logical reasoning - if 4 pople can clear the tower, 15 pople can do it too.

And yes..rough covers it.

[Everwarden]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

When have I said that? But why do you assume mages are beaten and abused on a regular basis?
Sure, it happens occasionly if the guard is a jerk, but jerks will be found everywhere. Yes, there probably are those who work in mental insititions that do abuse mental patients. Sad thing.

And how is it comparable? Because the mages are not fit to raise the child, in the eyes of the society. And they are dangerous. A  LOT more dangerous than and guy thrown in an asylum. Posibly dangerous to their own children.


You have yet to demonstrate the chantry (and the templars) DON'T do their job well. I covered your "Broken Cricle quest" arguments already. They contained the problem. You cannto prove they woul have faield if hte warden didn't arrive.

Oh, and the reason the warden clears the tower? It's because of plot armor. He has the magical save/load bottun. If the templars did everything, there wouldn't be anything for the palyer to do, now would it? And I stand by the logical reasoning - if 4 pople can clear the tower, 15 pople can do it too.

And yes..rough covers it.

There is no reason to think a mage mother would be dangerous to her child. You asserting it doesn't make it so, and it doesn't excuse that kind of evil.

As for mages merely having it rough.. again, the comics.. read them. I'm right.

I have demonstrated that they don't do their job well. They allow unneeded abuse that increases the likelyhood of a revolt and thus they irresponsibly endanger others. When a problem occured they were unable to deal with it.. they merely shut the door. That is a bandaid fix at best. We don't know what would have happened if the warden hadn't arrived, but you can't assert that they 'had it under control'. The fact that it happened in the first place shows that they didn't.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Everwarden wrote...

There is no reason to think a mage mother would be dangerous to her child. You asserting it doesn't make it so, and it doesn't excuse that kind of evil.

When you become an abomination ,youre free will goes down the drain as well. So yes, a mage mother that becomes an abomination would be dangerous to her shild.

You must also remembe,r this isn't only about what the mages think, or what you think, or what I think. It's also about what the people in Thedas think.

As for mages merely having it rough.. again, the comics.. read them. I'm right.

Read my previous comment on the comics. Either way you'd have to do better than that.
A single example does not a regular thing make. That's like saiyng the US army needs to be destroyed because they are evil..because some soldiers raped and killed.

I have demonstrated that they don't do their job well. They allow unneeded abuse that increases the likelyhood of a revolt and thus they irresponsibly endanger others. When a problem occured they were unable to deal with it.. they merely shut the door. That is a bandaid fix at best. We don't know what would have happened if the warden hadn't arrived, but you can't assert that they 'had it under control'. The fact that it happened in the first place shows that they didn't.

You have demonstrated nothing.
Shutting the door IS an appropriate response. And you fail to grasp the purpose of the templars. They aren't there to stop abominations being created in the first palce - they can't stop that, no one can. They are just there to minimize damage and contain and stop abominations once the worst happens.

And they did that. The revolt at the tower is not a faliure - abominations getting away and wasting nearby vilalges would be one.

[Everwarden]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Read my previous comment on the comics. Either way you'd have to do better than that.
A single example does not a regular thing make. That's like saiyng the US army needs to be destroyed because they are evil..because some soldiers raped and killed.

A single example is representative of a trend and is meant to reflect the attitude in place, and the attitude in place is templars can do whatever they want to the mages. We only have a few examples of most things in the Dragon Age world simply because we only have a limited number of case studies to go on here. We can't go interview a templar or a mage (or David Gaider, and I really would like his take on this entire thread) to pry out some more examples.

The comparison to the US army fails. If the POLICY of the US army was that rape was acceptable then I would say they are evil and the organization should be destroyed. That, however, is not the policy. In the military that kind of thing will get you severe punishment. What exactly could a templar do to a mage that would merit ANY punishment? Now, I obviously can't prove this, but the impression I get is that the answer is just about nothing would get you punished unless you did something just sickening like love one of them.

When you say what matters isn't my opinion, or your opinion, but the opinion of the general public in Thedas I view that as a goalpost shift. You're losing an argument on objective grounds and are forced to move the goalpost over and claim that what matters is the subjective opinion of the (mostly Chantry brainwashed) denizens of Thedas. I am arguing from the perspective of an objective viewer measuring whether or not the Chantry control over the circle is effective*, necessary, and just.

You claim that a mage woman is not a fit mother because she 'could' become an abomination. Any mother in the real world could become a crack addict if her willpower and state of mind were sufficiently damaged and do similar harm to her child, the mere possibility doesn't mean that women shouldn't be allowed to have children. Further, you're using an argument to justify the policy that the templars wouldn't really agree with. They object to mages breeding on the ground that it produces 'vile witchspawn', not because they fear the parents will endanger the child.

*Let's assume, for the sake of argument that the Chantry -is- effective, does that suggest that there isn't a better way to govern the circle? Are you suggesting that the crown could not take over the job, and do it just as well without the same **** mindset and brutality?

Modifié par Everwarden, 15 septembre 2010 - 12:50 .

[Roth]

I'm going to fight for the Chantry. Mages are to dangerous to be free and I don't want The Free Marches to turn into a new Tevinter.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Everwarden wrote...
A single example is representative of a trend and is meant to reflect the attitude in place, and the attitude in place is templars can do whatever they want to the mages.

And it is so because you say so, right?
You do not have enough proof or data to simply say "this is the attitude"...By the sme logic, I can cite a few examples of nice templars and say "the attitude in place is that templars are nice".

I ask for proof, and you give nothing.

The comparison to the US army fails. If the POLICY of the US army was that rape was acceptable then I would say they are evil and the organization should be destroyed. That, however, is not the policy. In the military that kind of thing will get you severe punishment. What exactly could a templar do to a mage that would merit ANY punishment? Now, I obviously can't prove this, but the impression I get is that the answer is just about nothing would get you punished unless you did something just sickening like love one of them.

Ah. Exactly. You can't prove it.  You just ASSUME that a templar could do anything and get away with it, wihout any proof to back that up.

When you say what matters isn't my opinion, or your opinion, but the opinion of the general public in Thedas I view that asa goalpost shift. You're losing an argument on objective grounds and are forced to move the goalpost over and claim that what matters is the subjective opinion of the (mostly Chantry brainwashed) denizens of Thedas. I am arguing from the perspective of an objective viewer measuring whether or not the Chantry control over the circle is effective*, necessary, and just.

And *YOU* would be that objective viewer? You are the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong?

What you fail to realise that you are using curent moraltiy applied to regular people in this world, and applying to to a different world, with different circumstances and maybe even a different set of morals.

You claim that a mage woman is not a fit mother because she 'could' become an abomination. Any mother in the real world could become a crack addict if her willpower and state of mind were sufficiently damaged and do similar harm to her child, the mere possibility doesn't mean that women shouldn't be allowed to have children. Further, you're using an argument to justify the policy that the templars wouldn't really agree with. They object to mages breeding on the ground that it produces 'vile witchspawn', not because they fear the parents will endanger the child.

It looks to me like you're unsing that comic as your sole source and gospel. A comic that is very anti-templar b.t.w.
The "vile withch-spawn" argument doesn't hold. Just because some templar in a comic said something, doesn't make it the default stance and reason of behavior.

Seriously, your reasoning it totally fubar.

*Let's assume, for the sake of argument that the Chantry -is- effective, does that suggest that there isn't a better way to govern the circle? Are you suggesting that the crown could not take over the job, and do it just as well without the same **** mindset and brutality?

I don't know if X could do a better job. Was it tried in the history of thedas?
It's liek asking would X police force be better than Y police force. I do not know. But if Y police force works, I dont' see a real reason to replace it fully. Making adjustments is more sensible.

[Everwarden]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And it is so because you say so, right?
You do not have enough proof or data to simply say "this is the attitude"...By the sme logic, I can cite a few examples of nice templars and say "the attitude in place is that templars are nice".

I ask for proof, and you give nothing.

I cited two examples, actually. The Calling and the comic series. One example has to be taken as representative because we don't have a large pool of samples to study, here. If someone wants to discuss the personality of a desire demon we only have the one that possessed Conner and kitty as references, but I think most people would take those two examples as a fair idea of the desire demon archtype. The same with pride demons, we only have two examples and from those examples we extrapolate to come to an understanding of the typical pride demon. You're only taking exception to it in this case because I am using it in the context of disagreeing with you. I could just as easily demand you give me a dozen examples of mages turning into abominations and going on a rampage.

Ah. Exactly. You can't prove it.  You just ASSUME that a templar
could do anything and get away with it, wihout any proof to back that
up.

I can't prove it, but it's still a reasonable assumption considering the attitude displayed by the Chantry towards mages.

And *YOU* would be that objective viewer? You are the sole arbiter of what is right and wrong?

What
you fail to realise that you are using curent moraltiy applied to
regular people in this world, and applying to to a different world, with
different circumstances and maybe even a different set of morals.

I am not the sole arbitor of right and wrong. I might have chosen my wording poorly there, I should have said 'outside viewer' rather than 'objective'.

It looks to me like you're unsing that comic as your sole source and gospel. A comic that is very anti-templar b.t.w.
The
"vile withch-spawn" argument doesn't hold. Just because some templar in
a comic said something, doesn't make it the default stance and reason
of behavior.

Seriously, your reasoning it totally fubar.

Well, the comics are canon. I will concede that the actions in question are done by a specific couple of men. I don't think calling any source of official lore biased is making much of a case for your argument, though. I have yet to see you condemn the templar that decked a pregnant woman.

I don't know if X could do a better job. Was it tried in the history of thedas?
It's
liek asking would X police force be better than Y police force. I do
not know. But if Y police force works, I dont' see a real reason to
replace it fully. Making adjustments is more sensible.

Well there are various other groups that self regulate outside of Chantry hands.. the Mage Collective, the Dalish, the Imperium. We have no accounts of abominations in either the Collective or among the Dalish keepers. That could simply be a lack of evidence and not evidence of abscence, but it doesn't support the notion that the templars have a monopoly on effective mage regulation.

[Teddie Sage]

Fight.

[LadyJaneGrey]

OP: Depends on the issues/evidence presented.  I'll let you know late March.

Modifié par LadyJaneGrey, 15 septembre 2010 - 02:28 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Well then we can use the example of one of the Templars which picked up Wynne as a child and Ser Bryant in Lothering both of which seems honorable. Now as you refuse to look at these two examples, we will refuse to look at your examples and state that ALL Templars are honorable good men, who only wants the best for everyone....

[EmperorSahlertz]

Everwarden wrote...

Well there are various other groups that self regulate outside of Chantry hands.. the Mage Collective, the Dalish, the Imperium. We have no accounts of abominations in either the Collective or among the Dalish keepers. That could simply be a lack of evidence and not evidence of abscence, but it doesn't support the notion that the templars have a monopoly on effective mage regulation.

One of the Collective quests have you go on an abomination hunt... Another to hunt Blood Mages. They are doing a very poor job of self-policing since they leave it to strangers to clean up their own mess.

[Everwarden]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Well then we can use the example of one of the Templars which picked up Wynne as a child and Ser Bryant in Lothering both of which seems honorable. Now as you refuse to look at these two examples, we will refuse to look at your examples and state that ALL Templars are honorable good men, who only wants the best for everyone....

Perhaps I should rephrase my position. Not all templars are evil, but there is proof that at least a portion of them are and there is no evidence that there is any system in place to make sure they can't get away with doing what they want to mages.

One of the Collective quests have you go on an abomination hunt...
Another to hunt Blood Mages. They are doing a very poor job of
self-policing since they leave it to strangers to clean up their own
mess.

I don't remember a quest to hunt abominations. Though you shoot yourself in the foot by pointing this out, the Collective discovers a member of their ranks is breaking their rules and they act on it. They can't necessarily do it personally because:
1. If they did there wouldn't be a quest and you wouldn't know about it as the warden. As was pointed out earlier in the thread by someone from your camp, the only reason the templars didn't handle the situation in the tower themselves and left it to the warden is because it was important to the plot for your character to do that quest. If that reasoning stands when it's used on your side it's inconsistent to say it doesn't work in the reverse.

2. They aren't allowed a chance to self regulate, and thus don't have one secure location where they all stay. It's a loose group of drifters from what I understand. The quest shows that while they object to being chained by a religious group they don't agree with, they are willing to do what they can to abide by the laws of the land, even though they aren't required to (they're no less apostate for the effort, after all).

Modifié par Everwarden, 15 septembre 2010 - 02:40 .

[0x30A88]

They treat mages as prisoners, thus choise is simple. FIGHT!

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Considering the revolts that transpire throughout the centuries because of mages wanting freedom from the Chantry and the templars, I'd say that many of them see the Chantry as oppressive regardless of how you care to personally define it. It's the entire reason of Uldred's revolt. [/quote]

It doesn't matter how much freedom you give to mages - as logn as it's not toal freedom, there will always be thsoe who resent it.
Yes, mages resent being loced up in towers. you know what? So do people thrown in jails. So do people locked up in menal institutions. It is irrelevant.
Do you honestly belive things would be better if mages roamed free? [/quote]

You're making a comparison between people who commit crimes and people who have abilities unlike most people. How does that even make sense?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

No, discrimination is never warranted. And your example is a poor one. There's a big difference between risking infection of a deadly disease and properly educating people on their magical ability without treating them like a second class citizen or having drug addicts who hate them supervise them.[/quote]

Actually, the comparison is an apt one. You don't know when a mage might go beserk or turn into an abomination (many won't).  But just like in the case of a unknown desease - you set up a quarantene.
No one gets in or out. You don't know who's infected and who isn't (just like you don't know which mages practices blood magic or will turn into an abomination)

Unfrair to those that aren't infected? Yes. Do you have a better way of handling it? No.

And that's the point. You don't have a better way of handling it. And you know you wouldn't get rid of a quarantene in real life. [/quote]

Do you enjoy asking me questions and answering them for me? It must be easy to win arguments that way.

It's unfair to the mages, and considering the results, it causes a lot of problems. No one is going to get infected because a mage uses his abilities. You're basically saying that, because a mage may abuse his power, that means that they should have their rights stripped from them and locked up in a tower. Have you considered that the cases of abominations steam from the fact that Chantry oversight conditions mages to gather as much power as they can in order to avoid being killed by the templars who hunt them down?

I'm not saying that mages shouldn't be trained properly in the use of their abilities, I'm saying that locking people up because they have magical ability and mistreating them is going to cause problems in the long run and is a bad idea. Uldred's revolt is a direcr result of an institution that oppresses mages because of their abilities.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Ortaya Alevli wrote...

They lost however many templars and mages they had inside, gave up those who were still alive, locked some door and Greagoir was like, "Now we wait and pray." Like a handful of city guards under siege. For all we know, it was Wynne who did the containing if there was any. If the Warden didn't arrive and save the day, it was only a matter of time before Wynne got exhausted and overrun by the bad guys that would in turn break open the doors and slaughter the rest of templars, including Greagoir. Templars were completely ineffective and did not deserve credit. As for the odds, they aren't supposed to be stacked against templars. If they aren't prepared for such insurgencies, there's little point in putting them there.
[/quote]

You cannot prove that statement.

[/quote]

You're saying that Wynne could indefinitely keep up the barrier that she herself admits was exhausting her during A Broken Circle? It's common sense that it was only a matter of time before she couldn't keep it up.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]Everwarden wrote...
We're going in circles here, I've already answered that earlier in the tread.

But to restate: It's a gamble either way, and I believe the chantry is doing more harm that good by provoking the mages into revolt. Seriously, imagine you are caged because of what you are, not what you've done. Imagine you, in a moment of passion, father a child on some fellow mage... and for this horrible crime against the maker the woman (and you) are brutally beaten and the child is taken away by the Chantry. Is that necessary? How exactly does that serve to defend the innocent people of Fereldan from magic?

It doesn't, you know it doesn't, and you're going to try saying it does anyway. The odds are that you'd feel enormous resentment at best, and be volunteering yourself to a pride demon just for some payback at worst.
The Chantry needs to be removed not because of the purpose they serve in guarding the mages, but because they completely abuse their position. I don't think it would be much of a mental leap to assume mage women would have a lot to fear from templars, as well. People don't usually take vows of chastity seriously.

[/quote]

I disagree. Mages have it rough, but that's their lot in life.
You can either accept it, and go with the flow, making the best of it - or you cna be unreasonable and try to fight it. but you'll be going agaisnt the wrold and you WILL fail.[/quote]

You mean like the apostates Flemeth and Morrigan? You mean like the blood mage Jowan, who can get his freedom? Or do you mean like the Magi Warden-Commander, the new Arl of Amaranthine and doesn't answer to the Chantry? Or are you referencing the mages who create their own independent Circle in Orzammar who have no Chantry oversight?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Mages know what will happen to their child if they have one. If they still go on and have one, then best go along with it. The child will be taken care off, and wil lprobably havea  good life in the care of hte Chantry. Might even go farone day.  It hurst to be separated, but such are the rules. [/quote]

Will be taken care of? We don't know that. For all we know, the child is murdered to avoid the possibility of another mage.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Unfortunate things happen, unfortuanate and drastic measures are used, even in real life.
After all, if two people with severe mantal problems have a child, don't we take it away from them?
Don' we take away peoples freedoms, don't we lock them up in some cases?
We do, if we think it's warranted.
The people of Thedas think it is. And for the most part, they are right. [/quote]

Another bad example that makes little sense. Mages don't have mental issues, the parallel doesn't make any sense, because mages are treated differently since they have abilities that most people don't possess. Getting proper training is what should happen, not living under an oppressive system under drug addicts that enjoy killing mages and having their children stolen from them.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Again, mages are NOT ordinary people. You want to leave the child with the mother...and what if the mother gets possesed? And then the resulting abomination sucks the childs marrow?

Yes, the mages should be treated a bit better, but there are limits.
Frankly, I don't know if taking the child away is the best idea. But I understand why it's done. It might be necessary.[/quote]

The current situation is to hand over the children of mages to those who hate mages, who may very well murder the children for all we know? It's monstrous.

[XTriton]

They do seem to play out that the Templars have been doing a fine job of hunting and policing illegal mages. Since mages are always scared ****eless of being hunted by them. I think the Circle of Magi incident was played out as an unexpected occurrence. Wouldn't be unfair to surmise they were merely taken by surprise. Many superior military powers have fallen victim to weaker ones due to cunning. (No pun intended)



Seeing as Mages are prone to cowardice and general nerdiness I would fight with the chantry. I dont want abominations all up in my shiz. Not mentioning Tevinter of course.