1503 réponses à ce sujet

[Todd23]

Sure, some mages seek power through blood and demons, but everyone seeks power, theyre just doing with the fade, what nobles do with assassinations and marriages. That doesn't meen the chantry needs to lock them all away and hold there hand while they take precautions.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Why are people constantly throwing the "Irving wants to tranquilize Jowan!" out there? Irving was trying to save the boy's life. Jowan had 3 choices: Tranquility, Harrowing or execution. Harrowing and execution would have let to death (especially that first one), so tranquil was the only way to keep him alive and not be a waste of dirt on the graveyard.



Everyone got a responsebility for the people around them. Mages are a danger to everyone around them, so they need to step up to this responsebility. If they won't then why on sweet mother earth should we treat them with anything else than hostility?

A mage is allowed to leave the tower. A mage is allowed to fall in love. A mage is apparently even allowed to get and keep a child. All have to do is behave and do as he is told. It is that simple. Step up to your responsebility damn mages.

[Ortaya Alevli]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Harrowing and execution would have let to death (especially that first one)

You...didn't write this purely for laughs, did you?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Harrowing and execution would have let to death (especially that first one)

You...didn't write this purely for laughs, did you?

Hark! I'm exposed for my jestful nature!   But yes that parentese was to bring smile to lips

[Ortaya Alevli]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Harrowing and execution would have let to death (especially that first one)

You...didn't write this purely for laughs, did you?

Hark! I'm exposed for my jestful nature!   But yes that parentese was to bring smile to lips

Phew. hehe

[Chris Readman]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why are people constantly throwing the "Irving wants to tranquilize Jowan!" out there? Irving was trying to save the boy's life. Jowan had 3 choices: Tranquility, Harrowing or execution. Harrowing and execution would have let to death (especially that first one), so tranquil was the only way to keep him alive and not be a waste of dirt on the graveyard.

Everyone got a responsebility for the people around them. Mages are a danger to everyone around them, so they need to step up to this responsebility. If they won't then why on sweet mother earth should we treat them with anything else than hostility?
A mage is allowed to leave the tower. A mage is allowed to fall in love. A mage is apparently even allowed to get and keep a child. All have to do is behave and do as he is told. It is that simple. Step up to your responsebility damn mages.

Yes, they should step up to their responsibility. THEY should, not anyone else. They are the ones that are ultimately responsible for their powers. So does a permanent babysitter help them in this situation?

Also, did you even read the rest of the posts? Wynne is allowed to leave because it's a special situation just because the Warden saved the tower, and the only mage we know which was allowed to keep a child was one who apparently saved a prince.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Chris Readman wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Why are people constantly throwing the "Irving wants to tranquilize Jowan!" out there? Irving was trying to save the boy's life. Jowan had 3 choices: Tranquility, Harrowing or execution. Harrowing and execution would have let to death (especially that first one), so tranquil was the only way to keep him alive and not be a waste of dirt on the graveyard.

Everyone got a responsebility for the people around them. Mages are a danger to everyone around them, so they need to step up to this responsebility. If they won't then why on sweet mother earth should we treat them with anything else than hostility?
A mage is allowed to leave the tower. A mage is allowed to fall in love. A mage is apparently even allowed to get and keep a child. All have to do is behave and do as he is told. It is that simple. Step up to your responsebility damn mages.

Yes, they should step up to their responsibility. THEY should, not anyone else. They are the ones that are ultimately responsible for their powers. So does a permanent babysitter help them in this situation?

Also, did you even read the rest of the posts? Wynne is allowed to leave because it's a special situation just because the Warden saved the tower, and the only mage we know which was allowed to keep a child was one who apparently saved a prince.

They need that "babysitter" because all it takes is for one asocial ****** amongst them to not give a damn about his responsebilities and then it will go "total ****storm" again.
Wynne got permission to leave, and how about all the other mages you meet out there? Some are apostates others are circle mages. They got leave to... leave... So clearly they are allowed to leave the tower.
And nevertheless Wilhelm got to keep his son. Other mages can get to keep their children too.

[Chris Readman]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
They need that "babysitter" because all it takes is for one asocial ****** amongst them to not give a damn about his responsebilities and then it will go "total ****storm" again.
Wynne got permission to leave, and how about all the other mages you meet out there? Some are apostates others are circle mages. They got leave to... leave... So clearly they are allowed to leave the tower.
And nevertheless Wilhelm got to keep his son. Other mages can get to keep their children too.

What other mages are you talking about? Which ones and at which specific parts of the games? I don't recall any outside the tower other than the ones I had to fight (which would mostly be apostates), and I don't recall any other mages having children, other than Wynne who had him taken away.

I am not asking for mages to run free among the plains and into the sunset, obviously they need supervision, but the templars and Chantry are doing a horrible job at it now.

[Riona45]

Chris Readman wrote...

Irving is as much a prisoner as he is the warden, sure he runs the Circle, but he doesn't make the rules does he? He himself longs for the freedom that the other mages. At the end of the game, when you ask for for the freedom of the mages from the chantry, I don't think Irving look the gift horse in the mouth.

Correct--and he is in fact touched that the mage PC asked for freedom for the other mages when she could have asked for anything (ie. power and wealth).

[EmperorSahlertz]

Chris Readman wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
They need that "babysitter" because all it takes is for one asocial ****** amongst them to not give a damn about his responsebilities and then it will go "total ****storm" again.
Wynne got permission to leave, and how about all the other mages you meet out there? Some are apostates others are circle mages. They got leave to... leave... So clearly they are allowed to leave the tower.
And nevertheless Wilhelm got to keep his son. Other mages can get to keep their children too.

What other mages are you talking about? Which ones and at which specific parts of the games? I don't recall any outside the tower other than the ones I had to fight (which would mostly be apostates), and I don't recall any other mages having children, other than Wynne who had him taken away.

I am not asking for mages to run free among the plains and into the sunset, obviously they need supervision, but the templars and Chantry are doing a horrible job at it now.

Well off the top of my head: The mage who accompanies the emissery of Theyrn Loghain to Orzammar. Also I'd imagine the two mages with Arl Howe are circle mages too. And the one accompanying Ser Cauthrien when she arrests you. The mage curing Arl Eamon is probably a circle mage too. Bottom line: Mages get to leave the tower.
I'm not saying amges in general get to keep their children, cause they don't, I'm saying that its apparently possible for mages to be allowed to keep their children.
The Chantry and the Templars are doing a fine job of supervising the mages so far. I'm more concerned with the way the Chantry treat Templars than I am the way the they treat mages. Actually if the Chantry were to relinquish control of the Templars a lot of problems would be solved.

[EmperorSahlertz]

MariSkep wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Wynne got permission to leave, and how about all the other mages you meet out there? Some are apostates others are circle mages. They got leave to... leave... So clearly they are allowed to leave the tower.
And nevertheless Wilhelm got to keep his son. Other mages can get to keep their children too.

...
...

My god man, do you know what you sound like?

'Oh well he got a crust of bread. He's eaten for the day, that's good enough. Should be grateful he even got that.'

They should be grateful they even got that. Look at the Qunari.

[Chris Readman]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Well off the top of my head: The mage who accompanies the emissery of Theyrn Loghain to Orzammar. Also I'd imagine the two mages with Arl Howe are circle mages too. And the one accompanying Ser Cauthrien when she arrests you. The mage curing Arl Eamon is probably a circle mage too. Bottom line: Mages get to leave the tower.
I'm not saying amges in general get to keep their children, cause they don't, I'm saying that its apparently possible for mages to be allowed to keep their children.
The Chantry and the Templars are doing a fine job of supervising the mages so far. I'm more concerned with the way the Chantry treat Templars than I am the way the they treat mages. Actually if the Chantry were to relinquish control of the Templars a lot of problems would be solved.

Sure, but they're still just there as servants. Do you think they went "Oh, I want to serve these people, let me ask for permission to join them. What do you know? I get to go!". It's more like Loghain going "Hey, give me two good mages, don't even bother telling me their names, I'll forget anyway.".

And they're doing things well? Are you sure? Look, it's been mentioned in the topic many times already: failure to respond to an emergency that they're supposed to be specialised in, constant repression that allowed to build up of resent and eventual rebellion, killing mages just because they simply don't like them or feel the thrill for the kill (this doesn't apply to all templars, but it seems prominent). This doesn't sound like a well thought out system to me.

[Chris Readman]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

MariSkep wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Wynne got permission to leave, and how about all the other mages you meet out there? Some are apostates others are circle mages. They got leave to... leave... So clearly they are allowed to leave the tower.
And nevertheless Wilhelm got to keep his son. Other mages can get to keep their children too.

...
...

My god man, do you know what you sound like?

'Oh well he got a crust of bread. He's eaten for the day, that's good enough. Should be grateful he even got that.'

They should be grateful they even got that. Look at the Qunari.

Now you're comparing the situation to the Qunari? If you want to play this game, then look at the Dalish elves. Their leaders are mainly mages.

You can't make a comparison to the Qunari because their culture is so vastly different. If you want to compare, then you'd have to bring in other issues such as the Qunari's obvious misogyny and vastly different system of power.

[Lumikki]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Apparently, it was the line of thought by people like Uldred and all of the mages who rebelled against the templars in A Broken Circle.

Yes, Uldred's side was rebelling agaist Chantry (Templars) and Circle of Mages (Mages). Mages where divided, so it was take over Circle of Mages as well. Do you think example Wynne and Irving would be alive after the battle, if they would have been fighting agaist Templars.  I'm sure you understand this one. So, question is why wasn't all mages fighting for they "freedom"? They actually fighted agaist each others too. Can you explain that?

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 septembre 2010 - 03:42 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

If the Templars had truely failed, we would still be hunting stray abominations on the countryside. Actually I would rather see mages treated like the Qunari mages..

[Daerog]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

They should be grateful they even got that. Look at the Qunari.

Well, at least the qunari don't set up death squads to murder mages. Also, the comparison thing, while that is true, isn't that great of an argument. I mean, its like saying, "We should help this man, he's been shot!" and having the response, "At least he's not dead like this person over here!"

However, there does need to be nonmages to help govern the Circles along with loyal Circle mages. I don't think the Tevinter Imperium is the best example, as we don't really know how that works and how much of a connection their Circles have to the Circle of Magi. Their chantry likely still governs their Circles, but it hasn't been said that Imperial Circle policy is any different from any other Circle, other than mages getting permission easier and more lax with mage stuff. However, their culture has been built on that kind of thing, with their Divine and Archon being mages, so it's not like the populace is ill at ease over this issue. However, can't say their nation is better off.

Edit: The death squad thing was an exageration, not really my opinion.

Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 19 septembre 2010 - 03:47 .

[Chris Readman]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

If the Templars had truely failed, we would still be hunting stray abominations on the countryside. Actually I would rather see mages treated like the Qunari mages..

Okay, you have established your stand on the issue: that you are not for the Chantry, but just plain against mages, and maybe you just get a kick out of taunting mage supporters. Good luck with that.