1503 réponses à ce sujet

[RazorrX]

Morroian wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
And its not choice. A demon can forcibly posses any mage.

No they can't. As has been said a demon may seduce a mage into letting them in but its still a choice.

Actually, maybe they can.

In The Calling it talks about what happened when Fiona first came into her power and the description was that MANY demons suddenly were clawing at her trying to enter her mind.  She collapsed and was incoherent as she was fighting for her sanity.

That is what the harrowing was supposed to be, they loose the mage into the fade unprotected and allow the demons to assail them.  The mages who make it back whole are allowed to live, the ones who slip are killed.

The player had a really really really easy harrowing (was a let down) compared to what was implied about it.

[Everwarden]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

As I recall (might be wrong), they attacked a town that got too near their territory and the Chantry had been looking for an excuse to declare full war, and they used that. The Dalish weren't innocent in the situation, certainly, but genocide is evil whichever way you cut it.


I'll even agree that templars are needed for enforcement, I don't see why you couldn't have templars around, assuming the tranquil are the ones who actually deem when force needs to be used (outside of the obvious abomination possession), and the templars don't have authority over the circle and serve only as keepers of the peace.

[RazorrX]

The best oversight is to have The circle train and harrow mages, but have the Templars no longer act as judge jury and executioner. You need someone trained and skilled to fight mages to handle rogue mages (Ie evil harmful ones, abominations, etc. - not ones who simple don't want to be locked up).

The groups that go and collect the new mages/runaways need to have oversight, IE if it is a group of 6 then 3 templars and 3 mages go.

Then you would have the templars stationed outside the Tower (Not inside) and only be called to the tower in case of something bad, or during a harrowing.

The church would have to try and "un-demonize" the concept of magery, which will never happen.

[Azahel]

I can't stand the chantry, they are an evil that must be purged!

[RazorrX]

Everwarden wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

As I recall (might be wrong), they attacked a town that got too near their territory and the Chantry had been looking for an excuse to declare full war, and they used that. The Dalish weren't innocent in the situation, certainly, but genocide is evil whichever way you cut it.


I'll even agree that templars are needed for enforcement, I don't see why you couldn't have templars around, assuming the tranquil are the ones who actually deem when force needs to be used (outside of the obvious abomination possession), and the templars don't have authority over the circle and serve only as keepers of the peace.

It is pretty close, the chantry and Orlais in general were shocked at how hard the Elven people fought.  The elven rebellion was close to taking most of Orlais when the Chantry called for an exhalted March.  The elves had, indeed, gotten too close to the seat of power for the chantry.

What is funny is that the chantry did not care when Orlais took over ferelden.  It did not care when they commited rape, murder, etc. to the fereldens.  In fact, in The Calling the reverend Mother that fought alonside Loghain's father had left the church because of the corruption. 

Then the chantry removed the sacred verses of the chat that told of how the Elves Rose up and helped Andraste in her rebellion.  THey helped so well that they were rewarded with thier own country, a new home.  They helped so much that Shaitan was killed alongside her.  And now they are less than an animal to the chantry.  Chantry has a lot of power in Orlais, yet elven slavery is still allowed under a 'don't speak - don't tell rule.  (As per Fiona's story that if it is elven slavery it is okay in the Calling).  

[Lotion Soronarr]

Everwarden wrote...
 be wrong), they attacked a town that got too near their territory and the Chantry had been looking for an excuse to declare full war, and they used that. The Dalish weren't innocent in the situation, certainly, but genocide is evil whichever way you cut it.

You are wrong..Tehre were border disputes between the Dalis and Orlais, the dalish army didn't do anything when a human town attacekd, tensions flared and war broke out between Orlais and the Dalish. The Chantry didn't do anything initally and teh Exhalted March was called for only when the elven army was practicly knocking at the doros of the capital..which also happens to be the seat of the Chantry.

Also, the elven slavery thing - it's not the Chantrys decision, but rather that of the rulers of each specific land.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Comparing the quarantine of infected individuals with mages being forced to live under the oppression of the templars is still a poor comparison, and you still ask me questions and answer them for me instead of allowing any room for debate. 

Mages have power. Yes, we all know that. No one is saying that mages should be given proper instruction on how to use their abilities, the argument is over the Chantry, and their oppressive methods that cause more harm than good. Mages have power, and you're arguing that they are likely to misuse that power. I'd rationalize that abusing them under a tyranny - stealing their children, forcing them under the constant and watchful eyes of drug addicts who hate them, giving them no rights to own land or see their families - would create a greater chance for the mages to use their power in an attempt to liberate themselves from their oppressors, which is exactly why the Uldred revolt transpired.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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?

First Enchanter Irving was convinced that if Uldred wasn't stopped, he would eliminate the remaining templars and threaten all of Ferelden.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Because mages can't become members of the Chantry. That's made clear in the Magi Origin. Even the unnamed blood mage who asks for mercy can't become a member of the Chantry, as pointed out by Alistair, who was raised by the Chantry and nearly became a templar. I didn't say with certainty that the templars killed the children, but it's certainly a possibility. Do you have proof that they don't kill the child? I'd warrant that you don't. That's the entire point. So far, none of us know what happens to them. What we do know is that Wynne's apprentice Aneirin was nearly killed by the templars (who thought they killed him, and he was only fourteen years old), the templar Cullen makes it clear that he's aware that there are plenty of templars who hate mages and discuss killing them with glee, and the culling of the Circle entails murdering every man, woman, and child of the Circle tower. Even Senior Enchanter Wynne didn't know what happened to her son. Again, for all we know, the Chantry culls the children of mages.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 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 completely ignoring why the 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 treated 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 consequences 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.

People probably detest the Chantry because of what's resulted from them - the destruction of the Dales, the oppression of the mages, sanctioning the occupation of Ferelden that lead to the rape and murder of countless people, and forcing their religion throughout Thedas. Even your point was about how the Chantry steals the children from mages, and plenty of people have argued that it's wrong of them to do so, regardless of how they want to rationalize it.

[Lumikki]

Mages go the test of harrowing, because they have to show others that they don't become abomination. Only mages can become abomination because they magic powers. So, if mage fails in harrowing, they are killed because there is no point of saving them. Those failed mages are risk, because they can become abomination over and over. They where too weak to be free mage.

Also the Circle of mage tower isn't prison, it's place where mages learn they magic and are repared best what can be, for test of harrowing. This is done because it has to be done, so that abominations would not walk over the lands, because no-one did not care to make sure those mages where strong enough to stand they own.

This also means that mage who can done and pass the test of harrowing, is free to do what they want they lives.

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 septembre 2010 - 02:54 .

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

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.

Restraint? That depends on who you think started the war. The Dalish clearly blame Orlais. Orlais blame the Dalish elves. We, as the Warden in DA:O, don't know who started the the war. Yes, there were border disputes. Who started them? Again, we don't know. On 1:25 of the Divine Age, it's claimed that the Dalish simply watched the darkspawn attack the town of Montsimmard during the Second Blight. The Dalish likely didn't interact with humanity because they wanted to reclaim their immortality, which they believe was lost as a result of interacting with humans, the "quick children." The Dalish wanted to reclaim the ways of their ancestors from Elvhenan that were lost when the Tevinter Imperium enslaved them and destroyed their homeland.

According to Orlais, the war started when the elves of the Dales attacked the town of Red Crossing on the day 2:9 during the Glory Age. It's entirely possible the attack was a response to a prior attack made by the Orlesians, it's impossible to say. Val Royaux is in Orlais, and Orlais forbid the practice of worshipping elven gods when they won the war. I can see why some view the Chantry as evil for what transpired; it's clear the Dalish view themselves as the wronged party.

Lumikki wrote...

Mages go the test of harrowing, because they have to show others that they don't become abomination. Only mages can become abomination because they magic powers. So, if mage fails in harrowing, they are killed because there is no point of saving them. Those failed mages are risk, because they can become abomination over and over. They where too weak to be free mage.
 
Also the Circle of mage tower isn't prison, it's place where mages learn they magic and are repared best what can be, for test of harrowing. This is done because it has to be done, so that abominations would not walk over the lands, because no-one did not care to make sure those mages where strong enough to stand they own.

This also means that mage who can done and pass the test of harrowing, is free to do what they want they lives.

You realize that Uldred manages to turn senior mages into abominations during A Broken Circle? And during the Magi Origin, it's stated by Mouse that mages aren't the only ones who can become possessed. If the mages thought that Kinloch Hold wasn't a prison, Uldred and the mages who followed him wouldn't have revolted in the first place.

Mages aren't free. They can't inherit a title (as made clear by Jowan when he explains why Connor's mother Isolde didn't want anyone to know the Arl's son was a mage), they can't keep their children, and they're killed if they flee the tower (even as a child, as Wynne's apprentice nearly was at fourteen).

Modifié par LobselVith8, 16 septembre 2010 - 03:07 .

[RazorrX]

Lumikki wrote...

Mages go the test of harrowing, because they have to show others that they don't become abomination. Only mages can become abomination because they magic powers. So, if mage fails in harrowing, they are killed because there is no point of saving them. Those failed mages are risk, because they can become abomination over and over. They where too weak to be free mage.

Also the Circle of mage tower isn't prison, it's place where mages learn they magic and are repared best what can be, for test of harrowing. This is done because it has to be done, so that abominations would not walk over the lands, because no-one did not care to make sure those mages where strong enough to stand they own.

This also means that mage who can done and pass the test of harrowing, is free to do what they want they lives.

Ummmm no.  No that is not correct.  Mages can not leave the tower without the approval of the templars and the first enchanter.  Well, the first enchanter recommends and the Templars say yes or no - so you can not leave the tower without permission of the Templars/chantry.

Mages are not allowed to do what they want after they pass the harrowing.  Ask First Enchanter Irving if you can leave the tower now and you will be told "No."

Mages are the property of the Chantry, as such you have no rights, no freedom, etc. unless the chantry chooses to give it to you.

The circle IS a prison.  Yes you can learn there, yes you can have friends there, but it is like  a roach motel for most mages, you check in and never get to check out.  How is that NOT a prison?  On, yeah, and there are armed guards to stop YOU from leaving, not to stop others from entering.

[Lumikki]

No mages are not property of Chantry, they are part of Circle of Mage. How ever, all mages are watched over by Chantry. Meaning Circle of Mages deside lifes of mages as what they do, but Chantry has also word in what happens, because they are forced to keep eyes of mages, unless some out side influence go over Chantries "power". Like Grey Warden or maybe King or Queen.

Asking First Enchanter has no meaning, because player can't do anything agaist story.

My point was that before mage is tested, mage can't go outside of tower in any way ever, but when you have been tested and passed, the possibility is now open. It's just where you duty will be, it doesn't have to be inside the tower. Example Wynne has duty inside the tower but was able to go travel as she wanted, because Irving did give permission for it. There was no Chantry involved in that decission.

Modifié par Lumikki, 16 septembre 2010 - 03:45 .

[LobselVith8]

Lumikki wrote...

No mages are not property of Chantry, they are part of Circle of Mage. However, all mages are watched over by Chantry. Meaning Circle of Mages deside lifes of mages as what they do, but Chantry has also word in what happens, because they are forced to keep eyes of mages, unless some out side influence go over Chantries "power". Like Grey Warden or maybe King or Queen.

You realize that the Circles of Magi throughout Thedas all belong to the Chantry, right? That's why there's an issue if you ask for the Ferelden Circle to become independent at the end of DA:O as a Magi Warden. According to David Gaider:

David Gaider wrote...

It does come up, actually.

Keep in mind, however, that the kingdom doesn't control the Circle of Magi. That conversation no doubt went a little like this:

King/Queen: "We would like mages in Ferelden to be free."
Chantry: "No."

That said, the conversation doesn't necessarily stop there-- as you'll see. We can indeed pick up the boons the Origins player was granted and do intend to use them in the future.

Lumikki wrote...

Asking First Enchanter has no meaning, because player can't do anything agaist story.

My point was that before mage is tested, mage can't go outside of tower in any way ever, but when you have been tested and passed, the possibility is now open. It's just where you duty will be, it doesn't have to be inside the tower.

The point is that you can't leave, even as a newly Harrowed mage, because the First Enchanter refuses to allow you to leave. Even Wynne, a Senior Enchanter, needs to ask permission to leave the tower.

[RazorrX]

You are the most promising student ever (or to Irving) and you are not allowed to leave.

Fiona joyfully joined the Grey Wardens to be free of the circle - and she KNEW what the joining did.



Once harrowed you have a chance to leave the tower (for how long is up to the chantry as well), that does not sound like freedom. It sounds like you can have parole. To the chantry the circle is where they keep possible dangerous mages locked away from the world (The dangerous ones are either killed or sent to the mage prison which is really bad). To the mages it is a guilded jail.

[Lumikki]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The point is that you can't leave, even as a newly Harrowed mage, because the First Enchanter refuses to allow you to leave. Even Wynne, a Senior Enchanter, needs to ask permission to leave the tower.

Player mage is refused, because it would be agaist story. Yes, every mage would need permission from Irving, because they are now part of Circle of Mages. How ever, that does not mean every mages duty is inside tower or that Chantry makes all the decissions. Other example, who was the mage in noble origing story, who lived there? It looked to me like he was someking of teacher there for children.

[LobselVith8]

Lumikki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The point is that you can't leave, even as a newly Harrowed mage, because the First Enchanter refuses to allow you to leave. Even Wynne, a Senior Enchanter, needs to ask permission to leave the tower.

Player mage is refused, because it would be agaist story. Yes, every mage would need permission from Irving, because they are now part of Circle of Mages. How ever, that does not mean every mages duty is inside tower or that Chantry makes all the decissions. Other example, who was the mage in noble origing story, who lived there? It looked to me like he was someking of teacher there for children.

Considering how powerful the Couslands are politically, and that all mages are part of the Circle (unless they are Grey Wardens) it's likely he was sanctioned to be there (with permission).

[HopHazzard]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The point is that you can't leave, even as a newly Harrowed mage, because the First Enchanter refuses to allow you to leave. Even Wynne, a Senior Enchanter, needs to ask permission to leave the tower.

Player mage is refused, because it would be agaist story. Yes, every mage would need permission from Irving, because they are now part of Circle of Mages. How ever, that does not mean every mages duty is inside tower or that Chantry makes all the decissions. Other example, who was the mage in noble origing story, who lived there? It looked to me like he was someking of teacher there for children.

Considering how powerful the Couslands are politically, and that all mages are part of the Circle (unless they are Grey Wardens) it's likely he was sanctioned to be there (with permission).

We don't know for sure he was a mage. All we know is he wears a robe. It could've just been a fashion statement. I noticed plenty of "mage robes" in the DN origin and we know for sure none of the people wearing them were mages.

[Lumikki]

HopHazzard wrote...

We don't know for sure he was a mage. All we know is he wears a robe. It could've just been a fashion statement. I noticed plenty of "mage robes" in the DN origin and we know for sure none of the people wearing them were mages

That is true, I assumed that he would be somekind of mage, but all we know that Aldous is somekind of scribe and scholar, who teach history of nobles to childrens.

[EmperorSahlertz]

THe problem with letting the mages police themselves is that depending on the strength of the abomination they are sent to destroy they might just give the abomination more shock troops. If you send 3 Templars and 3 Mages against 1 Abomination, and this abomination prooves to be stronger than anticipated, the 3 Templars might very well end having to fight 4 abominations. Better to just send the 6 Templars and let them handle it.

On a side note I don't really trust the tranquil as supervisors. Since they a totally devoid of emotion they are ruled entirely by their own logic. So once one with the logic of: "All mages are dangerous, better kill them all" attains power, you are looking at an even more severe oppression. I simply can't imagine a system where the Templars wouldn't play a crucial role in control of the mages (and yes, mages needs to be controlled).

[Everwarden]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

THe problem with letting the mages police themselves is that depending on the strength of the abomination they are sent to destroy they might just give the abomination more shock troops. If you send 3 Templars and 3 Mages against 1 Abomination, and this abomination prooves to be stronger than anticipated, the 3 Templars might very well end having to fight 4 abominations. Better to just send the 6 Templars and let them handle it.
On a side note I don't really trust the tranquil as supervisors. Since they a totally devoid of emotion they are ruled entirely by their own logic. So once one with the logic of: "All mages are dangerous, better kill them all" attains power, you are looking at an even more severe oppression. I simply can't imagine a system where the Templars wouldn't play a crucial role in control of the mages (and yes, mages needs to be controlled).

The tranquil don't seem like the types to do anything so drastic or covert. They're basically robots that do what the person they deem as an authority over them tell them to do. The advantage to the tranquil being the ones in charge of mage internal affairs is the complete and utter lack of bias, there would never be even one case of abuse or violence that wasn't actually required.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Everwarden wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

THe problem with letting the mages police themselves is that depending on the strength of the abomination they are sent to destroy they might just give the abomination more shock troops. If you send 3 Templars and 3 Mages against 1 Abomination, and this abomination prooves to be stronger than anticipated, the 3 Templars might very well end having to fight 4 abominations. Better to just send the 6 Templars and let them handle it.
On a side note I don't really trust the tranquil as supervisors. Since they a totally devoid of emotion they are ruled entirely by their own logic. So once one with the logic of: "All mages are dangerous, better kill them all" attains power, you are looking at an even more severe oppression. I simply can't imagine a system where the Templars wouldn't play a crucial role in control of the mages (and yes, mages needs to be controlled).

The tranquil don't seem like the types to do anything so drastic or covert. They're basically robots that do what the person they deem as an authority over them tell them to do. The advantage to the tranquil being the ones in charge of mage internal affairs is the complete and utter lack of bias, there would never be even one case of abuse or violence that wasn't actually required.

Yeah, I see their advantages, but I also see their disadvantages. Being ruled by logic completely is not neccesarily a good thing. The problem being that logic is not universal. While one might see the logical solution as solving the problem another would see the logical answer is to prevent the problem. If you catch my drift. And when two schools of logic collide blackholes are made

[RazorrX]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

THe problem with letting the mages police themselves is that depending on the strength of the abomination they are sent to destroy they might just give the abomination more shock troops. If you send 3 Templars and 3 Mages against 1 Abomination, and this abomination prooves to be stronger than anticipated, the 3 Templars might very well end having to fight 4 abominations. Better to just send the 6 Templars and let them handle it.
On a side note I don't really trust the tranquil as supervisors. Since they a totally devoid of emotion they are ruled entirely by their own logic. So once one with the logic of: "All mages are dangerous, better kill them all" attains power, you are looking at an even more severe oppression. I simply can't imagine a system where the Templars wouldn't play a crucial role in control of the mages (and yes, mages needs to be controlled).

Actually, there is no evidence that 1 abomination can creat/force other mages to be abominations.  Uldred was more than an abomination.  He looked different, had different powers, etc. and he was converting the mages by force in a ritual using other abominations to help convert 1 mage.  IE 3 and 4 vs 1 not 1 vs 3 or 4.  

When you run into a mage who has confronted an abomination in the game (collective quest) the mage is dead, not also an abomination.

That said if 1 abomination can defeat 3 templars with 3 mages then it can defeat 6 templars.

Oversight is needed to be fair, a mixed group is needed to be fair.  The problem is that the chantry is NOT fair and it will not be fair as it has demonized all mages.

I agree that you need the skills that templars have to fight mages, but they need better oversight.  The existing method is flawed, as it allows killer groups to go out and get new mages (ie not apostate by running away, just fresh to the magic and fleeing the imprisonment, or hiding so they can stay with the family, etc.).  These groups kill someone who MAY have gone peacefully, vs a mixed group would be more kind.

[EmperorSahlertz]

http://dragonage.wik...y:_Abominations

It clearly states that as soon as an abomination is created, it will try to create more of its kind. And Uldred was an abomination, just an extremely powerful one since it was a Pride Demon which possessed him.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 16 septembre 2010 - 06:04 .

[Sir JK]

...there is no evidence that 1 abomination can creat/force other mages to be abominations....

This is not directed at you as such as against this statement in general (as more people have made it or similar ones). I just want to point out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



There has been no clear cut case of forced possession, no. This does not mean that mages cannot be forcefully possessed against their will. It only means we have yet to see it.

You might be correct that they cannot, but you cannot say that it is a true statement (except hypothetically for thought experiments).



The things we have supporting the argument of forced possession are three: 1. The codex entry makes note of such. 2. The mages speak of it in fear. 3. The templars refer to it (and claim they are there to prevent it. As much conspiracy some people might shout, consider the huge amount of resources put into keeping the circles under constant watch. It is way beyond something vague... they must genuinely believe that it might happen. To the point of having evidence)

No, alone these are not enough to prove it. But it is enough that we shouldn't dismiss it. Basically.. before we make any verdict we need more data.

[nightcobra]

Sir JK wrote...

...there is no evidence that 1 abomination can creat/force other mages to be abominations....

This is not directed at you as such as against this statement in general (as more people have made it or similar ones). I just want to point out that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There has been no clear cut case of forced possession, no. This does not mean that mages cannot be forcefully possessed against their will. It only means we have yet to see it.
You might be correct that they cannot, but you cannot say that it is a true statement (except hypothetically for thought experiments).

The things we have supporting the argument of forced possession are three: 1. The codex entry makes note of such. 2. The mages speak of it in fear. 3. The templars refer to it (and claim they are there to prevent it. As much conspiracy some people might shout, consider the huge amount of resources put into keeping the circles under constant watch. It is way beyond something vague... they must genuinely believe that it might happen. To the point of having evidence)
No, alone these are not enough to prove it. But it is enough that we shouldn't dismiss it. Basically.. before we make any verdict we need more data.

*this is not a rebuttal to your post 

well, even if they can't be forcefully possessed, mages can be tortured enough to agree to being possessed like how it happened with uldred torturing mages on the top floor to the point that their only escape is to join him and be possessed

[RazorrX]

Okay I said the group to hunt mages and/or abominations should be a mixed group to prevent needless killing,etc.

The rebuttal was that an abomination could convert the 3 mages so it needs to be 6 templars. Thus no oversight and you have what we have today.

IF an abomination is SO powerful as to dwarf the power of uldred, who was able to take out all the templars in the tower, the fact that here are 3 and 3 is a moot issue, as a group of 6 templars are dead anyway.

The fact is it takes time to beat down/wear down a mages resistance. As shown in the circle tower with Uldred and in the Calling with Fiona. During that time the rest of the mages should be fighting along with the templars to stop it from happening.