1503 réponses à ce sujet

[ImoenBaby]

Wow. I leave for a day, but the thread feels like a week's gone by

@LotionSoronnar

You might not even remember this, as it was a day ago. But you made some incorrect statements that reflect on your reading comprehension skills. 

In no way did I equate males with mages. Please read my original post and subsequent posts before declaring "Epic Fail". There's an internet law about people who declare victory, and it's not flattering towards you. 

I notice how you refuse to address the consequences of a specific example I used, as if "one" example were somehow too small to matter. There's no excuse. The example was used as concrete evidence of Chantry cruelty and oppression. Do you really believe that an organization that has a proven record of hunting all apostates - like Wynne's student - really only kills evil nasty bad men? *Any mage* who refuses Chantry rule will either be dragged in or killed. 
 
It does not follow that because some mages are abominations, all must be treated as abominations.  As I and others have advocated multiple times now, governance that respects the rights of both mages as individuals and the public at large is only fair.

But I guess that depends: do you believe in just governance? Government by the willing, for the willing? After all, if you were a mage, wouldn't you want an institution protecting you from the threat of abomination? That's something just and reasonable oversight could provide. But life on a leash, with the threat of execution for those who object to life in a tower, is unreasonable. I'm not talking about blood mages and abominations, but people who've never committed a crime or threatened anyone.

People with special power in RL have regulatory agencies - and yes, armed supervison - when justified. What you and I think is "justified" appears to be wildly different.  

Confinement for "their own good", or because you worry that they'll become abominations, is unjustified imprisonment. Confining all mages because some became abominations or blood mages is unjustified imprisonment.

Now, regulating mages (or anyone else who can rain wide swathes of destruction at near will) is definitely prudent. Mages and the public at large - including Templar-like organizations - can collaborate on such a project, and arrive at a reasonable solution. Oh, there will be disagreements. But that's life, isn't it?  Just like in RL, I think both sides will have to learn some compromize, and that their original agreements will probably evolve. But it's wrong to insist that someone born with the ability to set your hair on fire should spend their life imprisonned, away from family, and their own dreams for their future.  

/edited for spelling

Modifié par ImoenBaby, 15 septembre 2010 - 02:58 .

[Sir JK]

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

Actually... it's a bit more complex...
In a mediveal world the monarchs were the highest secular authority, but they derive their power, authority and even the law itself from the church (it is not an accident that all of the first universities were theological colleges. It was the church that made the law). Spiritual authority was ranker higher than secular...

The idea of the absolute sovereign monarch is a concept that came far later than the middle ages (though there were a few ones that tried, some even succeeded a short while). It's actually an post-reformation idea.

Besides... the chantry is the largest, richest and most influental organisation in the world (both internally and internationally). It is also fairly coherent, unlike under individual rulers you can expect all mages to be treated equally good/bad everywhere. Under local rulers, not only will they be treated as the monarch fancies... they would be forced into becoming political tools.
It is after all the chantry that demands that the circles remain politically neutral ,which is just as much a protection as it is a limitation... politics is bloody business.

[Everwarden]

ImoenBaby wrote...
Wow. I leave for a day, but the thread feels like a week's gone by

Thanks for coming back, fielding every mage-hater around alone was tiring. :happy:

[errant_knight]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

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.

And that's IF you believe what they tell you. The quests are pretty hinky. Of the 3 or 4 I tried, only one was something my character could do with a clear concience, the others could easily have been helping blood mages.

[ImoenBaby]

@LotionSoronnar



I forgot your Wynne reference in my response, and your misuse of "illogical," which is a pet peeve.



Do you actually think Wynne is somehow the ultimate authority on mage ethics? Even if she *were* an authority, it's fallacious to base an argument on appeal to authority, and such a weak one at that. You should argue based on the facts on hand, and advancing your own conjectures with reason - but only if you want to seem like you've thought about what you're saying. If you want to use Wynne, try using some of her arguments.



Do you know what logic or illogic is, by the way? More irony: you didn't even know where to begin, yet declared "EPIC FAIL" and then failed to actually make your case. Try understanding informal logic before accusing other people of being illogical.

[ImoenBaby]

Everwarden wrote...

ImoenBaby wrote...
Wow. I leave for a day, but the thread feels like a week's gone by

Thanks for coming back, fielding every mage-hater around alone was tiring. :happy:

Word. It's been informative, thought provoking, and entertaining. 

[ImoenBaby]

Akka le Vil wrote...

ImoenBaby wrote...

Again, it doesn't follow that because some mages become abominations, all must be treated like abominations.

Actually, yes it totally may. It's called "taking risks into account". Of course it's somehow unjust for the many mages that could resist to becoming abomination.
But the opposite is even more unjust toward the many innocent victims of abomination and blood magic that would happen if the mages were left with no supervision at all - which is the point so many people completely overlook, simply because they either are very short-sighted and only see the "mages have no freedom" part, or even more often, can see themselves as mages, but not as peasant, so they consider it all from the PoV of mages alone.

Akka, please show how some mages becoming abominations justifies treating all mages as abominations.

Your worry or fear that someone - say a mage - has the power to seriously harm a lot of people, is not wrong. It's what you do based on your fear that's morally indefensible. Your fear is insufficient cause for a life of imprisonment, or possible execution.

An abomination rampaging in your backyard, or a blood mage using your blood against your will? Definitely cause for imprisonment. At a minimum. Notice that your neighbourhood hedge wizard is not an abomination, he's not cooking your blood, and in fact, the only crime he's committed is escape from the Chantry.

Please explain why a hedge wizard - or any other non-abomination, non-blood mage - should be punished for crimes they never committed. I believe if you were forced to spend the rest of your life in a tower for studying Cone of Cold, or having the ability to Heal minor wounds, you would understand the inherent injustice. But you shouldn't have to in order to grasp the concept.

I think it's been stated many times now that fair govenance - or regulation, or whatever you want to call it - is only reasonable.  I also think it's worth mentioning that mages aren't weapons - they do have access to very powerful weaponry - but they aren't actually weapons. They're persons. Think about that before responding - it's more than merely "somehow unjust" to treat these people otherwise.

Goverment by the willing, for the willing, is one of the foundations of a just state. By no means the only one...but it's crucial.

[RazorrX]

The biggest problem is the Chantry has 'demonized' mages to the world. When you do this to a people, it becomes more and more common to see atrocities done to them, as they are no longer perceived of as 'human' anymore. This was done in various wars/insurrections/genocides throughout history.

This is what the chantry has done, and it is WHY the Templars are the way they are. They are trained/conditioned to hate mages. Please make note – they are trained and conditioned to HATE mages.

So the problem is you do not have a ‘neutral’ police keeping force watching the mages, you have a force that hate and revile them watching them.

You cannot reform something that is so far to one side of a issue. There is no middle ground, thus there is no compromise.

Is there better ways to regulate mages? Sure. But the Chantry will never allow it.



If you notice, in the game when a templar talks about ANY non circle mage the term is first “Apostate” and next “Malificar”. Malificar is a term for blood mages, but to the chantry ALL non circle mages are “Malificar”.

[Chris Readman]

ImoenBaby wrote...

I think it's been stated many times now that fair govenance - or regulation, or whatever you want to call it - is only reasonable.  I also think it's worth mentioning that mages aren't weapons - they do have access to very powerful weaponry - but they aren't actually weapons. They're persons. Think about that before responding - it's more than merely "somehow unjust" to treat these people otherwise.

Goverment by the willing, for the willing, is one of the foundations of a just state. By no means the only one...but it's crucial.

I totally agree with almost all of your arguments. But I think you're missing out on something in this point. It is true that mages are persons and aren't weapons, that much is certain. However you have to take into account that people fear the unknown and the high potential for danger. They may not be weapons, but they have power, and people always mistrust power. Think of it this way, you would probably be more wary around someone if you knew he or she owned a gun would you not? Mages are probably more fearful since the weapon is built into them.

As a mage supporter myself, I'm pretty conflicted in this subject. I would probably fight against the Chantry if I were to play a mage within the game, just for the sake of personal freedom. However, I do understand that the rules the Chantry imposes are there for a reason. They may not be fair reasons, but I think the fear is pretty justifiable when you think about it.

[Ortaya Alevli]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Mhm. And what do you suggest? That Wynne would manage to keep the barrier up indefinitely, even though she herself states that it made her weary later on? Or that Greagoir would be able to hold off the abominations and blood mages even if Wynne failed?

What kind of "proof" do you require, if you don't mind me asking?

[AlexXIV]

Sir JK wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

Actually... it's a bit more complex...
In a mediveal world the monarchs were the highest secular authority, but they derive their power, authority and even the law itself from the church (it is not an accident that all of the first universities were theological colleges. It was the church that made the law). Spiritual authority was ranker higher than secular...

The idea of the absolute sovereign monarch is a concept that came far later than the middle ages (though there were a few ones that tried, some even succeeded a short while). It's actually an post-reformation idea.

Besides... the chantry is the largest, richest and most influental organisation in the world (both internally and internationally). It is also fairly coherent, unlike under individual rulers you can expect all mages to be treated equally good/bad everywhere. Under local rulers, not only will they be treated as the monarch fancies... they would be forced into becoming political tools.
It is after all the chantry that demands that the circles remain politically neutral ,which is just as much a protection as it is a limitation... politics is bloody business.

Well then remains to wonder why this high and mighty organisation didn't battle the Blight. Instead the war against the Blight was led by a new warden recruit that survived Ostagar. Also this would kinda put the actions of the nobles in the city elf origin in a really bad situation. Would they talk to a sister of the Chantry that way if they were as powerful?. Not to mention, would the Chantry not have the last word in crowning a new king? It doesn't seem that the Chantry is really powerful in Ferelden. Mostly they beg for help and don't do much to battle the darkspawn. Even the Templars think it is more importan to guard the remaining mages than actually fighting darkspawn in Denerim. Unless you wiped out the Circle ofc.

[ImoenBaby]

RazorrX wrote...

The biggest problem is the Chantry has 'demonized' mages to the world. When you do this to a people, it becomes more and more common to see atrocities done to them, as they are no longer perceived of as 'human' anymore. This was done in various wars/insurrections/genocides throughout history.

Indeed. Think of the panicked, irrational, and hysterical slides into certain political movements, like fascism  -  I'm deliberatly avoiding other examples, as the thread will then conform to Godwin's law.

It's also worth noting the Chantry's account of the Dark City forms much of the basis for Fereldan policy. If it's slander, then it's doubly wrong. If it's truth, it still doesn't follow that all mages - everywhere, at all times - should be held captive or slain because of the actions of the Tevinter Imperium magi. But it does show what at least blood magic is capable of, and maybe all powerful magic. 

Remove the irrationality and the oppressive aspects; introduce shared governance, regulation by mage and non-mage, with a system of checks and balances.  No easy task, or even realistic in the short term. But change doesn't always come overnight, as many abolitionists and suffragests would attest.


 

[ImoenBaby]

Chris Readman wrote...

ImoenBaby wrote...

I think it's been stated many times now that fair govenance - or regulation, or whatever you want to call it - is only reasonable.  I also think it's worth mentioning that mages aren't weapons - they do have access to very powerful weaponry - but they aren't actually weapons. They're persons. Think about that before responding - it's more than merely "somehow unjust" to treat these people otherwise.

Goverment by the willing, for the willing, is one of the foundations of a just state. By no means the only one...but it's crucial.

I totally agree with almost all of your arguments. But I think you're missing out on something in this point. It is true that mages are persons and aren't weapons, that much is certain. However you have to take into account that people fear the unknown and the high potential for danger. They may not be weapons, but they have power, and people always mistrust power. Think of it this way, you would probably be more wary around someone if you knew he or she owned a gun would you not? Mages are probably more fearful since the weapon is built into them.

As a mage supporter myself, I'm pretty conflicted in this subject. I would probably fight against the Chantry if I were to play a mage within the game, just for the sake of personal freedom. However, I do understand that the rules the Chantry imposes are there for a reason. They may not be fair reasons, but I think the fear is pretty justifiable when you think about it.

I absolutely agree that people have a reason to fear mages. If my neighbour could Chain Lightning me at will, I might start sleeping in a rubber bomb shelter.  On the otherhand, my neighbours are actually very nice, and we help each other out. He even uses Flame Blast to clear the snow from my driveway...

I don't think fear is justification in itself for imprisonment or execution. I believe imprisonment should follow an actual crime, and only one that can be considered morally wrong.

What if my neighbour's power was regulated by our society at large? Granted, Chain Lightning seems harder to control than a rifle, but, if mages and non-mages collaborated together, I think it would be easier, safer, and ultimately fairer.

I suspect all mages would want some regulatory body, if only to protect them from abominations.

[Akka le Vil]

ImoenBaby wrote...

Akka, please show how some mages becoming abominations justifies treating all mages as abominations.

Well, just read the message you quoted. It actually, surprising as it may, include the answer.

Your worry or fear that someone - say a mage - has the power to seriously harm a lot of people, is not wrong. It's what you do based on your fear that's morally indefensible. Your fear is insufficient cause for a life of imprisonment, or possible execution.

You mix "fear" and "taking consequences into account", and as such try to equate a "non-perfect solution that offer one of the best min/maxing result" with "knee-jerk reaction in fear".

The real problem comes from your reasoning, and is extremely obvious here :

An abomination rampaging in your backyard, or a blood mage using your blood against your will? Definitely cause for imprisonment. At a minimum. Notice that your neighbourhood hedge wizard is not an abomination, he's not cooking your blood, and in fact, the only crime he's committed is escape from the Chantry.

Please explain why a hedge wizard - or any other non-abomination, non-blood mage - should be punished for crimes they never committed. I believe if you were forced to spend the rest of your life in a tower for studying Cone of Cold, or having the ability to Heal minor wounds, you would understand the inherent injustice. But you shouldn't have to in order to grasp the concept.

The problem is that you completely miss both the point, and the very concept of "risk management".

It's not a question of punishment, it's a question of protecting others from the inherent danger caused by mage. Nobody is saying that mages are all evil. What is said is that mages are VERY dangerous, and the nature of this danger require to separate them from population. And no, not "dangerous" like "a man can take a knife and be dangerous too !". Dangerous like "a man have a built-in nuke and can explode anytime". That's not exactly the same scale of danger.

Also, your examples shot down your own reasoning : the neighbourhood wizard is not an abomination, no... Until the day he becomes one, and then you've a hundred deads.
Now how exactly is it just toward these deads ? How do you justifty it ?

He's not cooking my blood either ! Good ! Well, unless he's mind-controling me. How do you KNOW a mage isn't using blood magic ? It's pretty obvious from countless situations in the game that you can't tell apart a blood mage and a non-blood mage until the blood mage does something obvious. The hedge wizard could hold all the village under his spell for all you know.
How exactly it is just to expose people to this danger ? How do you justify it ?

I think it's been stated many times now that fair govenance - or regulation, or whatever you want to call it - is only reasonable.  I also think it's worth mentioning that mages aren't weapons - they do have access to very powerful weaponry - but they aren't actually weapons. They're persons. Think about that before responding - it's more than merely "somehow unjust" to treat these people otherwise.

Nobody argue that mages aren't persons.
What is explained is that they have in them huge potential dangers, and these dangers need to be kept in check. And the problem is, you can't separate the danger from the mage, hence to keep the danger in check, you have to keep the mage himself in check.
And yes it's unjust. The problem is that not doing this is also unjust, to the others that aren't mages.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Everwarden wrote...

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).

The collective leaves a note in a bag and hope for someone to handle it, and you call it effective self-regulation, I call it responsebility rejection. If you don't do the quest chances are the note gets to lie in the bag and mold before someone, sometime decides to handle it. It is NOT effective self-regulation.

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Mhm. And what do you suggest? That Wynne would manage to keep the barrier up indefinitely, even though she herself states that it made her weary later on? Or that Greagoir would be able to hold off the abominations and blood mages even if Wynne failed?

What kind of "proof" do you require, if you don't mind me asking?

The Templars closed the door and held off the abominations before Wynne erected the barrier. Wynne only erected the barrier AFTER she was denied acces to the Templar holdout, ergo the Templar have been able to hold off the abominations without Wynne's barrier.

[Sir JK]

ImoenBaby wrote...

Akka, please show how some mages becoming abominations justifies treating all mages as abominations.

Your worry or fear that someone - say a mage - has the power to seriously harm a lot of people, is not wrong. It's what you do based on your fear that's morally indefensible. Your fear is insufficient cause for a life of imprisonment, or possible execution.

I think the core of the problem is that mages, in the admitedly rare cases they do go wrong, doesn't hit like a madman with a club (or even a handgun) but more like a lesser and very localized earthquake. By the time you hear of it and can actually act on it there is a huge risk that the number of victms lie in the dozens, if not more.

An abomination rampaging in your backyard, or a blood mage using your blood against your will? Definitely cause for imprisonment. At a minimum. Notice that your neighbourhood hedge wizard is not an abomination, he's not cooking your blood, and in fact, the only crime he's committed is escape from the Chantry.

This is raises the second problem of magi. Not only are they insanely dangerous to innocent bystanders, but even more so to the people going after them. I wouldn't be surprised if the templar apostate-hunting squads have a rather high mortality rate, even despite being templars.

This is not even touching if said apostate has turned abomination or blood mage. Then the hunters would be in -real- trouble. Just sending them after normal mages is bad enough in terms of danger, these things would have no qualms at all about absolutely destroying the templars (or in some, or most, cases using innocents as ammunition).

Also... the problem with imprisoning a blood mage is that how do one prevent them from mind controlling the warden? They might even go along peacefully and not use their powers until they feel confident they can get out. How do you actually keep them locked up? 

As for hedge wizards, I thought the policy was to bring them in if one can but a carte blanche to kill was given if they resist (which naturally would be abused by some, but such things are difficult to prevent... or prove). After all... not all mages they bring in are small children... if I understood correctly they sometimes bring in people in their late teens too (I'd assume magic has long since surfaced by then, making them hedge wizards)...

Please explain why a hedge wizard - or any other non-abomination, non-blood mage - should be punished for crimes they never committed. I believe if you were forced to spend the rest of your life in a tower for studying Cone of Cold, or having the ability to Heal minor wounds, you would understand the inherent injustice. But you shouldn't have to in order to grasp the concept.

I think it's been stated many times now that fair govenance -
or regulation, or whatever you want to call it - is only reasonable.  I
also think it's worth mentioning that mages aren't weapons - they do
have access to very powerful weaponry - but they aren't actually
weapons. They're persons. Think about that before responding - it's more
than merely "somehow unjust" to treat these people otherwise.

Goverment
by the willing, for the willing, is one of the foundations of a just
state. By no means the only one...but it's crucial.

I'd say cone of cold is a very poor example (the healing one is a lot better) since it hardly seem like the most harmless of spell, you know. I think it's fairly safe to say it can easily be fatal for the one caught in it. Same thing applies to many other spells too... and therein lies the problem. One can restrict people access to arms or prevent them from the resources from making things like explosives. But how do you limit a mages potential of killing? It's practically inside them... you can't really take it away (well... you can tranquilize... but neither of us wants that, right?) or even limit it. No matter what you do, short of killing or tranquilizing, a mage will always be dangerous.

You're right that the mages are indeed persons and it is very unfortunate for them to be loaded with this raw power. It is not their fault (nor anyone elses). But how do you protect people from it? Like i mentioned above... it isn't like a weapon but more like a natural disaster in terms of the power.

But you can't hook mages up to wireless seismographs (even if they had existed), you can't study weather patterns to determine the risk of them abusing or losing control of it. You can't predict who or when they'll become abominations or turn to blood magic. You can't even determine who is prone to abuse it and who isn't...

All you have is a population of mages, some of which (but we don't which ones and can't ever know until it's too late) really shouldn't have it at all... both for their own and others sake.

All you can do is keep them localised and under surveilance, allow them to help each others become better and keeping themselves safe.

How do you prevent it from happening far from your reach other than keeping them localized in small areas?
How do you prevent them from gambling with their own and others lives if not keeping constant watch over them?
How do you prevent the free-roaming and abusing ones from killing lots of innocents and the ones sent after them (or even sort them out)?
How do you prevent the ones that won't make it from slaughtering their friends?
How do you prevent the manipulative ones from using their fellow mages against you?

and, unfortuantely, the most important one:
How do you assure the afraid non-mages that the actions taken are appropriate to keep them safe? (because you know how we humans get when we're afraid of something... we kill it).

The treatment of the mages is not good... and many members of both chantry and templars are unnecesarily cruel and treat mages with excessive force... Yes. Unfortunantely this is because ultimately... they're all human, naked and afraid before that the one they opress hold more power at the flick of a hand and whim than they ever will come close to.

It isn't acceptable... It isn't good... It certainly can and should be improved upon something fierce...
Unfortunantely it's the only realistic option...

[EmperorSahlertz]

RazorrX wrote...

The biggest problem is the Chantry has 'demonized' mages to the world. When you do this to a people, it becomes more and more common to see atrocities done to them, as they are no longer perceived of as 'human' anymore. This was done in various wars/insurrections/genocides throughout history.
This is what the chantry has done, and it is WHY the Templars are the way they are. They are trained/conditioned to hate mages. Please make note – they are trained and conditioned to HATE mages.
So the problem is you do not have a ‘neutral’ police keeping force watching the mages, you have a force that hate and revile them watching them.
You cannot reform something that is so far to one side of a issue. There is no middle ground, thus there is no compromise.
Is there better ways to regulate mages? Sure. But the Chantry will never allow it.

If you notice, in the game when a templar talks about ANY non circle mage the term is first “Apostate” and next “Malificar”. Malificar is a term for blood mages, but to the chantry ALL non circle mages are “Malificar”.

Not all apostates are maleficar in the eyes of the Chantry. Anders is a perfect example of that. He was just branded apostate the first 7 times he escaped. Only when they realized that he would never stop trying to escape, did they try to brand him as maleficar to have an excuse to execute him. The reason the Chantry brand many apostates as Maleficar is because they usualy are. At some point most apostates have to use blood magic to escape the Templars.

And is there a better way to regulate mages? So far all you anti-chantry people have been able to come up with is "let them self-regulate" or "let someone else than Templars regualte". Both of these examples are useless as has been pointed out.

[Chris Readman]

ImoenBaby wrote...


I don't think fear is justification in itself for imprisonment or execution. I believe imprisonment should follow an actual crime, and only one that can be considered morally wrong.

What if my neighbour's power was regulated by our society at large? Granted, Chain Lightning seems harder to control than a rifle, but, if mages and non-mages collaborated together, I think it would be easier, safer, and ultimately fairer.

I suspect all mages would want some regulatory body, if only to protect them from abominations.

Well, my point was that the fear itself is justified, the actions that come after are definitely not.

You present a very ideal scenario, and I believe that we all know that's not possible. After all, there is human nature to be wary of. Even if mages and normal people are more the most part cooperative, there will be a few bad eggs, maybe not even just a few. There will be mages with dreams of granduer, there will be normal people who think that it's easier and better to lock them up since cooperation doesn't mean definite safety, and both sides will know what the other side is thinking, creating constant tension.

[Everwarden]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The collective leaves a note in a bag and hope for someone to handle it, and you call it effective self-regulation, I call it responsebility rejection. If you don't do the quest chances are the note gets to lie in the bag and mold before someone, sometime decides to handle it. It is NOT effective self-regulation.

Funnily enough I already addressed that. They haven't got a headquarters, a membership register, or any real police force.. the fact that they are attempting to enforce the rules among themselves at all is a wonder. Remember, they don't have to try to enforce anything, they're dead if they're caught either way... and the note left in the bag is likely narrative convenience just to introduce you to the group without having to contrive an excuse to get your warden in touch with people who are supposed to be in hiding.

Modifié par Everwarden, 15 septembre 2010 - 05:23 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

The only reason they tell you to go hunt blood mages is because they are doing rituals too close to hte questgivers hideout and he fears capture himself. He doesn't give two pots of ****** that it is blood magic. Hell he probably is one himself.

The abomination quest isn't actually about getting to an abomination but merely a rogue apprentice, who happens to be possessed.

[ImoenBaby]

Akka, if you cannot justify why non-abomination mages should be treated like abominations, that's all you need to say.



Again, your fear that the mage poses a risk is insufficient cause for life imprisonmment. The Chantry's "imperfect solution" is exactly that - something that needs correcting.



Do *you* understand the concept of risk management? You need actual data to form an analysis and make a recommendation. Not hysteria, prejudice, or religious dogma - actual evidence. The kind a biased body cannot be relied upon to provide. As proposed many, MANY times now, a collaborative effort between mage and non-mage would address this need.



I have admitted the dangers magic poses, but you are incorrect when you assert that there is "inherent danger caused by mages". You are only as dangerous as your choices, and again, a regulatory body would have a great dampening effect on dangerous choices. If you understood that mages are persons, and not potential explosions of power, you would understand.



Don't be hysterical and equate magical talent with a built in nuclear bomb. It's fallacious. Supposing you did have a mage with that kind of power, she or he would indeed require heavy regulation. Why are you treating all mages as if they did? Because you think they might, or could?



That's not justification for life imprisonment. Sorry to break it to you, again and again.



The threat of potential "walking bombs" could be contained by a reasonable regulatory body. One that acknowledges that mages are people, who need their families and freedom to pursue a reasonable life - as well as being potentially threatening. This is why I keep bringing up "persons". You're not treating them like persons, regardless of your protests.



How do YOU know, by the way, that blood mages are active, or that secret mind control is occuring, or that that the hedge wizard will become an abomination? If you have proof, you would have reason. You have neither. A reasonable court of law requires evidence. And - again - a reasonable regulatory body, one where mage and non-mage work together, could address this with preventative measures.



I have mentioned the need for checks and balances. Refer to some of my previous posts.



While it's charming you think I've shot down my own reasoning - while you run off into strawmen and slippery slope land - I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist.

[ImoenBaby]

Chris Readman wrote...


Well, my point was that the fear itself is justified, the actions that come after are definitely not.

You present a very ideal scenario, and I believe that we all know that's not possible. After all, there is human nature to be wary of. Even if mages and normal people are more the most part cooperative, there will be a few bad eggs, maybe not even just a few. There will be mages with dreams of granduer, there will be normal people who think that it's easier and better to lock them up since cooperation doesn't mean definite safety, and both sides will know what the other side is thinking, creating constant tension.

*Nods*

Word. No disagreement here. My "ideal scenario" is a worthy goal, but only one possibility.

[EmperorSahlertz]

ImoenBaby wrote...

Akka, if you cannot justify why non-abomination mages should be treated like abominations, that's all you need to say.

Again, your fear that the mage poses a risk is insufficient cause for life imprisonmment. The Chantry's "imperfect solution" is exactly that - something that needs correcting.

NO mage should be treated like an abomination. ALL mages should be treated like a potential abomination, because that is what they are.

ImoenBaby wrote...
Do *you* understand the concept of risk management? You need actual data to form an analysis and make a recommendation. Not hysteria, prejudice, or religious dogma - actual evidence. The kind a biased body cannot be relied upon to provide. As proposed many, MANY times now, a collaborative effort between mage and non-mage would address this need.

There IS a mage+non-mage collaboration already! Its called the Circle of Magi. The CIrcle of Magi consists of mages and are regulated by Templars under control of the Chantry. THe mages in the Circle does have a say of day-to-day management of the tower you know.

ImoenBaby wrote...
I have admitted the dangers magic poses, but you are incorrect when you assert that there is "inherent danger caused by mages". You are only as dangerous as your choices, and again, a regulatory body would have a great dampening effect on dangerous choices. If you understood that mages are persons, and not potential explosions of power, you would understand.

Don't be hysterical and equate magical talent with a built in nuclear bomb. It's fallacious. Supposing you did have a mage with that kind of power, she or he would indeed require heavy regulation. Why are you treating all mages as if they did? Because you think they might, or could?

Because of the inherit danger of possession ALL mages suffer ALL THE TIME it is simply too dangerous to allow mages to run around willy nilly on the countryside. Someone, somewhere sometime is bound to turn bad, and if the Templars aren't there to stop it, all hell might break loose because of it.

ImoenBaby wrote...
That's not justification for life imprisonment. Sorry to break it to you, again and again.

Its not a lifetime imprisonment you know. Mages are allowed to leave the tower if they seek proper permission and are even sometimes sent on missions out of the tower. They aren't constantly sorrounded by cold stone walls. Stop trying to make it sound like it.

ImoenBaby wrote...
The threat of potential "walking bombs" could be contained by a reasonable regulatory body. One that acknowledges that mages are people, who need their families and freedom to pursue a reasonable life - as well as being potentially threatening. This is why I keep bringing up "persons". You're not treating them like persons, regardless of your protests.

However mages ARE walking time bombs. Wether they like it or not. You can't cahnge the fact that possession is a constant danger of mages. Yes they are persons too, but theyare also dangerous for eeryone around them, even if they only have good intentions.

ImoenBaby wrote...
How do YOU know, by the way, that blood mages are active, or that secret mind control is occuring, or that that the hedge wizard will become an abomination? If you have proof, you would have reason. You have neither. A reasonable court of law requires evidence. And - again - a reasonable regulatory body, one where mage and non-mage work together, could address this with preventative measures.

Uldred and Jowan is prime examples of Blood Magic being active. But even excluding them, Blood Magic does not need to be active, it is jsut the threat of it becoming active that is enough.

[Everwarden]

Possession isn't a constant danger to well trained mages. Name one example of a trained mage being possessed without being tortured into submission. Uldred doesn't really count because he intentionally summoned the demon.


I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it obviously isn't even remotely common.

Modifié par Everwarden, 15 septembre 2010 - 06:04 .

[ImoenBaby]

Emperor Sal,



I'm pretty sure leaving the tower on a day trip is not the same as actually leaving it. Get real. If you think the relationship between the Circle of Magi and the Chantry is one of equality, respecting the mage's individuality as well as the public weal, you should try playing the game this argument's based on.



If you have any evidence that mages are walking time bombs, by all means present it. The fact the some do become abominations is not.



Only mages who cannot defend themself become abominations - something a regulatory body could address. Fairly, reasonably, and acknowledging both the mage as a person and the public at large.



The potential to become an abomination is not the same as being one, and therefore should not be treated as such. And yes, the danger magical power presents is real, and the threat of blood magic becoming active is also real. Hence the concept of fair governance, in which both mage and non-mage respect the other's freedom. But this has been discussed many, many times, and you are not reading my previous posts.