1503 réponses à ce sujet

[aaniadyen]

Morroian wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Who knows why he didn't try. Maybe he respected you for figuring him out (he is a thing of pride after all)? Maybe time was up and he felt how the mages were drawing you back and he wouldn't have time to do it? Maybe he simply didn't feel it was worth the effort? Maybe it was because he knew the Templars would notice if he did it by force (whereas if you invited him, he'd be able to hide and bide his time)?
Who knows...

OK I stand corrected. However what does force mean? Killing you in a battle of magics in the fade as happened in the harrowing?

I'm pretty sure he means posessing you without permission. This would very easily draw attention from the templars.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
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.

You jsut can't get it, can you? Yes, the situation is comparable is some way. No, a mage isn't contagious, but the danger level is similar. Just like a whole village can be destroyed by a single infected person, so can a whole village be destroyed by a singel mage going bonkers or turnign into an abomination.

Naturallly, no comparison is 100% perfect, but if you insist on probing that, insted of focusing on the basic idea behaind the comparion, you never wil get it.

But fine..since you're so picky..another comaprison.
A mage is like a man with a unremovable mini-nuke inside him..on a timer that you have no idea when and if it will go off. What you want to live next door to him? No, you wouldn't.
WMD's are kept in secure, remote location for a very good reason. Unfortunalty for mages, they are living, sentient WMD's. They are human, but that doesn't change the fact that they are also WMD's.

The Circle Towers are the ONLY logical course of action. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Tragic, and it sucks to be one of the few, but it's a harsh reality of the universe.

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.

And? How does that prove hte abominations could breach the door and the templar blockade?

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.

Bollocks. Now you're really reaching for it. Why would the chantry kill children, when they can raise them to be usefull, devout members of the community?
You have any proof of child-murdering? No, you don't.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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.

Again, harping on a comparions, while comepltely ignoring why hte comparison was made...let me repet myself.

WE, TODAY, TAKE CHILDREN AWAY FROM PEOPLE AND TAKE AWAY THEIR FREEDOM IF WE CONSIDER IT WARRANTED.

Mages are threated differently because they are different. That it a undeniable fact. It is not to be contested.

The short-sightendnes and the inabiltiy to see the bigger picture and conseuqnces of some people here really astounds me.
And the tempalr/Chantry hate is trough the roof, up to the point that accusation are made with nothing to back it up but the seeting hate one has. I'll expect that the enxt thing I'll hear is that templars eat mage babies for breakfast.

[Lotion Soronarr]

ImoenBaby wrote...

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.

You mean just like a armed fugitive will be shot by police officers after a warning? Especialyl if he's resisting arrest.
D oyou think police officers go asking "are you truly guilty" before pulling the trigger?

 

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.

No, it's no unreasonable.
Mages being contained in one place is the only thing that makes sense. Like the walking nuke or infected example - you HAVE to quarantenne/keep everyone in one place, as unjust as it may be to those that will be no danger.
FULLY, 100% JUSTIFIED. This how we act in RL, and the peopel in Thedas acting differently would frankly be very unrealistic.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Everwarden wrote...

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

I'm not a mage-hater.

I'm a chatry-and-templar-unreasonable-hater-hater.

[Everwarden]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And precisely because of that, an abomination was on the loose. The tempalrs at least contained the threat. The Collective is inacapalbe of it. This is why towers exist.

No. The reason they can't police themselves is because of the system in place, if they tried to organize enough to get any real system of enforcement going they would be much easier to hunt down. Follow the rules or not, they're still apostates and will be killed or jailed.

[Everwarden]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Bollocks. Now you're really reaching for it. Why would the chantry
kill children, when they can raise them to be usefull, devout members of
the community?
You have any proof of child-murdering? No, you don't.

I doubt the Chantry would outright kill the children. Still, if you were a black man would you want to hand your child over to a known and admittedly racist organization even if you didn't think they would kill him/her? I doubt it. Again, completely undue provocation* on a dangerous individual. The policy should be discarded if only for pragmatic reasons if the gross human rights violation is meaningless to you, people will (typically) fight far harder to protect their children than they will to protect themselves.

*I'll still point out that you haven't even come close to demonstrating that this policy is necessary, just, or reasonable. I suspect the reason you haven't is because it's an indefensible policy.

[Morroian]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
There's no evidence that there isn't any system in palce. You've said the templars in question were out of hte tower, hunting the apostate? Without witnesses?

Well, that' like saying that if a group of police officers  catches you in a dark, empty ally, and beats you to death and get away with it , that there is no system in place to monitor policemen.
No system is perfect.

All we can go is the evidence in game and the evidence is that there aren't many checks and balances in place to moderate the templar treatment of mages. As I said before it appears to come down to the personal inclinations of those in charge at particular towers.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And precisely because of that, an abomination was on the loose. The tempalrs at least contained the threat. The Collective is inacapalbe of it. This is why towers exist.

Yeah but what about a properly trained mage police force.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Everwarden wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Actually no, you haven't adressed this, you've based your argument on "choices", while becoming an abomination is clearly not a choice, but simply a failing.
.

No, it's a choice. You have to choose to let the demon in.

No actually. The demon can posses a mage trough a pact/trickery or tough sheer force.


@ImoenBaby:

Your proposals and ideas are not realistic, even the slightest.
You don't even have a clear plan or alternative..."The mages would figure it out" is not an answer.

Honestly? You stike me as a person who would go promoting peace and tolerance in the WH40K universe.

I doubt the Chantry would outright kill the children. Still, if you
were a black man would you want to hand your child over to a known and
admittedly racist organization even if you didn't think they would kill
him/her? I doubt it. Again, completely undue provocation* on a
dangerous individual. The policy should be discarded if only for
pragmatic reasons if the gross human rights violation is meaningless to
you, people will (typically) fight far harder to protect their children
than they will to protect themselves.

*I'll still point out
that you haven't even come close to demonstrating that this policy is
necessary, just, or reasonable. I suspect the reason you haven't is
because it's an indefensible policy.

The Chantry doesn't stike me like a racist organization. And yes, they cna give a child safety and good education - they do it on a regular basis.

And again, you haven't really proven the policy isn't necessary.
I'd argue that the mage circel is no place to raise children, as it can be a dangerous place in itself. Mages can become abominations at any time, remeber?

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 16 septembre 2010 - 07:49 .

[Everwarden]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No actually. The demon can posses a mage trough a pact/trickery or tough sheer force.

Demonstrate that. Name a mage who was possessed by a demon through sheer force in the game and not by being tortured or tricked. The only evidence that it is possible is the assertion that it is in the codex entry, but keep in mind that DG has said that the codex is written in a biased viewpoint and isn't to be taken as concrete. In Thedas it is also common understanding that there is no pushing a demon out once a mage is an abomination, and we know that isn't true.

Seriously, if a demon can brute his way in why didn't the pride demon do it in the mage origin? A pride demon, the strongest kind, just letting a largely untrained mage apprentice go free. Do you really buy that?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Actually, I believe DG said that at one point.



Demons can try to brute force their way in - once that happens, the possesion is permanent and cannot be undone. In case of Connor it could be undone, since Connor agreed to the possesion.



And who said brute-forcing your way in is easy? Demon would probably wait for a moment of weakness before trying that. IIRC, the weaker the veil, the easier it is for the demon.

I believe we did run into a few abomniations that resulted from forced possesion (in the Broken Circle quest)

[Everwarden]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And again, you haven't really proven the policy isn't necessary.
I'd argue that the mage circel is no place to raise children, as it can be a dangerous place in itself. Mages can become abominations at any time, remeber?

The burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate that the policy is needed, not on me to demonstrate that it isn't. That's how any law works, can you demonstrate that it isn't necessary to ban watermelon consumption on the third tuesday of each month? 

...well, most likely you could, but it's far easier for you to simply reply, "What is the purpose of such a law?"

The circle is a fine enough place for them to drag 8 year olds, I don't see the distinction. Mages -can- become abominations, but that is also very rare and even I'll admit that the templars present could likely put down one abomination with no casualties, so the point falls flat.

Do you think the policy is helpful? If so, to the extent that it counterbalances the increased hostility of mages towards their jailors? 

Besides, isn't a child of two mages likely to turn out as a mage? Seems to make sense you would want them in the tower if only to ensure they don't lose control, get possessed by a demon, kill all of the defenseless chantry sisters and send their corpses out to rampage through Denerim. Just saying.

[Everwarden]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Actually, I believe DG said that at one point.

Demons can try to brute force their way in - once that happens, the possesion is permanent and cannot be undone. In case of Connor it could be undone, since Connor agreed to the possesion.

And who said brute-forcing your way in is easy? Demon would probably wait for a moment of weakness before trying that. IIRC, the weaker the veil, the easier it is for the demon.
I believe we did run into a few abomniations that resulted from forced possesion (in the Broken Circle quest)

Well,if DG said it then it's true and I would have to concede the point.

I don't think we did run into any mages who were brute forced, however. You see them torturing mages, so they likely just had no tolerance for pain and 'let' the demons in, especially if that would be the easier way to get in for the demon.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Morroian wrote...

Yeah but what about a properly trained mage police force.

As long as mages are spread around, it will do no good.
By the time your police force stops that abomination, the village is already gone..or worse.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I was reffering to the possesed templars. They seem to have been brute-forced.





And does a child of mages always end up being a mage? I'm not sure.

[aaniadyen]

Morroian wrote...
Yeah but what about a properly trained mage police force.

[Valygar]
They wouldn't happen to be called the Coweled Wizards, would they?
*suspicious*
[/Valygar]

[aaniadyen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And does a child of mages always end up being a mage? I'm not sure.

Well, in DA 2 apparently Hawke's dad is a mage, don't know about his mother though. His sister is a mage, but Hawke (main protagonist) can be anything. So my guess is no, children of mages don't need to be mages.

[Pzykozis]

Meh, all I'll say about containment through the Templars is that it isn't working. There's been two revolts in the ferelden circle in about twenty years, each time the Templars have been completely useless. The first time wasn't even abomination related it was just mages hatching a plot. If Templars can't handle a mage uprising they're a bit redundant really.



One way to combat the revolts would be to make the Circle a self governing institute, lack of discontent leads to less revolts (which seems like the reason a few mages took part in the DA;O uprising) whilst being noted in some sort of central/local registry(ies) allows for quick containment of a radical if such thing is necassary.

[Everwarden]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I was reffering to the possesed templars. They seem to have been brute-forced.


And does a child of mages always end up being a mage? I'm not sure.

We don't have much data on how magic is passed down other than that it is hereditary. I don't think the child of mages will always end up a mage, I just think it's a strong possibility and as such lends weight to the notion that the child should remain in the tower, at least until the child is old enough to decide what he/she wants to do themself, if they aren't a mage. If they are a mage you save the templars a trip.

Modifié par Everwarden, 16 septembre 2010 - 08:16 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

I believe that if they are a mage, the children are taken to the tower..if not, the Chantry probably raises them as lay brothers or templars.

As to why exactly are the children taken away - I don't know. We have no information on it. Could be the Chatnry has a good reason. Or maybe it doesn't.

Certanly it's not a solution I like, and if there is something that could use a reform, it's that (assuming there isn't a good reason for it, naturally).



The Chantry isn't evil, but it ain't all sunshine and lolipos either. For the most part it does good, altough it could use changes and improvements in some parts. The same holds true for everything tough...





@Psykozis - the register doesn't help if the mages are spread around. Again, mages have to be contained in one place.

[Everwarden]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I believe that if they are a mage, the children are taken to the tower..if not, the Chantry probably raises them as lay brothers or templars.
As to why exactly are the children taken away - I don't know. We have no information on it. Could be the Chatnry has a good reason. Or maybe it doesn't.
Certanly it's not a solution I like, and if there is something that could use a reform, it's that (assuming there isn't a good reason for it, naturally).

The Chantry isn't evil, but it ain't all sunshine and lolipos either. For the most part it does good, altough it could use changes and improvements in some parts. The same holds true for everything tough...


@Psykozis - the register doesn't help if the mages are spread around. Again, mages have to be contained in one place.

Well, at least you've budged from your original "Chantry doesn't need to change anything, the mages can STFU and deal with it." position, or maybe I just misjudged your position in the first place.

[Pzykozis]

@Psykozis - the register doesn't help if the mages are spread around. Again, mages have to be contained in one place.

Well, to be fair something like this is already used, since Wynne, Ines and various other mages are given leave to wander around Thedas, basically just allow this 'freedom' to be more common. (I actually don't really understand the consistency in this regard, the mages are told they have to stay in the tower, but... there's all sorts of mages around the world and in the case of Wynne and Ines, they're actual circle mages.)

The Phylacteries can still be used for tracking down mages after all.

I'm not saying getting rid of the circle, so not all mages will be all over the place, but I see the Circle better being used for guidance and education (and in some cases prosecution) rather than a golden cage.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Everwarden wrote...
Well, at least you've budged from your original "Chantry doesn't need to change anything, the mages can STFU and deal with it." position, or maybe I just misjudged your position in the first place.

I've never even claimed, at no point, that everything is perfect and no change is needed.

What I did claim was that the Chantry isn't EEEEEVIL and a quite a few peopel have a rather shallow and unrelistic view of hte situation.

[EmperorSahlertz]

A forceful possession might leave the husk the demon tries to possess twisted and weakend, it might mutate to show obvious marks of possession, there can be all kinds of reason for why a demon would want to have the host aggree. Burden of proof is not on us to proove the lore of the game is right...

And a single abomination has been known to kill entire squads of Templars, so the threat of abominations is a big deal. Men trained to kill just that kind of enemy. Now imagine what a single loose abomination could do to Redcliffe.. oh wait...



Can anyone give us one concrete suggestion toan alternative to the cirlce? So far you have only given us "Let the mages be free" or "Let the mages be in charge" both of which have been shot down as impossible. THe only plausible suggestion so far was letting the Tranquil be the supervisors, which is a good idea, though I fear for the response time of the tranquil.

[Everwarden]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

A forceful possession might leave the husk the demon tries to possess twisted and weakend, it might mutate to show obvious marks of possession, there can be all kinds of reason for why a demon would want to have the host aggree. Burden of proof is not on us to proove the lore of the game is right...
And a single abomination has been known to kill entire squads of Templars, so the threat of abominations is a big deal. Men trained to kill just that kind of enemy. Now imagine what a single loose abomination could do to Redcliffe.. oh wait...

Can anyone give us one concrete suggestion toan alternative to the cirlce? So far you have only given us "Let the mages be free" or "Let the mages be in charge" both of which have been shot down as impossible. THe only plausible suggestion so far was letting the Tranquil be the supervisors, which is a good idea, though I fear for the response time of the tranquil.

Letting the mages govern themselves is not an impossible solution, the police watch over themselves. I agreed with the person who suggested the tranquil act as internal affairs (I count them as mages), so I think that this is a point we can agree on. The tranquil are absolutely perfect for the job. They have no bias or emotions at all, so they could regulate any organization pretty well, and already have intimate knowledge of mages and the arcane.

The burden of proof is not on you to prove the game lore right, but I don't think the codex counts as 100% solid lore. Mainly because it has been stated that it is not. I already said I was wrong and that forceful possessions are possible, so I don't see the purpose behind this. I didn't know that David Gaider confirmed forceful possessions before. Though I do think that my arguments -would- have held up in the absence of that, you don't get any proof of forced possession in the game or lore.

What I did claim was that the Chantry isn't EEEEEVIL and a quite a
few peopel have a rather shallow and unrelistic view of hte situation.

I don't think the Chantry is.. well, not completely evil. That's the thing with Bioware, they do a really good job putting an organization in the grey area. The Chantry has a lot of good people, and I don't even dislike the templars who were in charge of the Ferelden circle, I didn't get the impression Greagoir wanted to kill the mages but felt obligated to do so.

With that said, the Chantry also has a lot of wrongs that can be laid at their doorstep. The march against the Dales, for example. The policy on seperating mages from their children, which I've already harped on enough. The abuse in the circles that goes on unchecked, and despite your claims there is nothing in the lore that suggests there are any limits on what can be done to the mages if the wrong templar happens to get into the Knight-Commander's chair. I should qualify that, as I guess I haven't been doing, with the fact that this is not a universal claim, and not every templar would kill an apostate just to save the effort of having to drag him back to the tower (as is evidenced by Ander's seven escapes).

Modifié par Everwarden, 16 septembre 2010 - 12:24 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Everwarden wrote...
Letting the mages govern themselves is not an impossible solution, the police watch over themselves. I agreed with the person who suggested the tranquil act as internal affairs (I count them as mages), so I think that this is a point we can agree on. The tranquil are absolutely perfect for the job. They have no bias or emotions at all, so they could regulate any organization pretty well, and already have intimate knowledge of mages and the arcane.

The tranquil would be good adminstrators, but bad enforcers. They have no effective way of combating mages. Mages can fight other mages, but since all mages are prone to possesion, mages alone as a policing force just don't cut it.
As DG once said, Templars are needed.

Though I do think that my arguments -would- have held up in the absence of that, you don't get any proof of forced possession in the game or lore.

IIRC, we onnly have confirmation on the kind of possesion in 3 instances - Uldred, Wynne and Connor - which was all willingly. For all the other cases of possesion, the game said nothing.

With that said, the Chantry also has a lot of wrongs that can be laid at their doorstep. The march against the Dales, for example. The policy on seperating mages from their children, which I've already harped on enough. The abuse in the circles that goes on unchecked, and despite your claims there is nothing in the lore that suggests there are any limits on what can be done to the mages if the wrong templar happens to get into the Knight-Commander's chair. I should qualify that, as I guess I haven't been doing, with the fact that this is not a universal claim, and not every templar would kill an apostate just to save the effort of having to drag him back to the tower (as is evidenced by Ander's seven escapes).

Didn't the Chantry call for the March only when the elvish army was attacking Val Royaux itself?
A surprising amount of restraing UMHO. I would hardly call their actions rash and evil, in that case.