256 réponses à ce sujet

[ShrinkingFish]

SirShreK wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nicely said..the mage Circles ARE the compromise.

I agree whole-heartedly.

But not the only alternative. Other things can be compromised for a different form of peace. The Circle is not the only method of control with acceptable losses. The mages of the Tevinter Imperium guard against demonic possession just fine and there the mages run the Chantry as well as the Circles. It is not without its dangers, and therefore also flawed, but it is just another possible compromise.

[SirShreK]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nicely said..the mage Circles ARE the compromise.

I agree whole-heartedly.

But not the only alternative. Other things can be compromised for a different form of peace. The Circle is not the only method of control with acceptable losses. The mages of the Tevinter Imperium guard against demonic possession just fine and there the mages run the Chantry as well as the Circles. It is not without its dangers, and therefore also flawed, but it is just another possible compromise.

Hmm.... I normally try to stay away from Religious persecution vs. Freedomm of Liberties arguments... But I doubt that the Empire's methods were sound.

To prevent persecution of a handful of mages, they persecute the rest of the populous (majority of which in fact is mostly innocent in this matter).

isn't Chantry is better that way? It only perscutes those it sees as Maleficar (not all mages of course), brings in Apostates to the tower (by force if necessary) and leaves the rest of HUMAN population free to tend to their lives.

This was the compromise I was talking of. If you have a better solution that is more failsafe, let me know.

I don't really know any particular example where the Chantry clearly encroaches freedom of everybody. Perhaps you do and you would illuminate it?

[ShrinkingFish]

SirShreK wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

SirShreK wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nicely said..the mage Circles ARE the compromise.

I agree whole-heartedly.

But not the only alternative. Other things can be compromised for a different form of peace. The Circle is not the only method of control with acceptable losses. The mages of the Tevinter Imperium guard against demonic possession just fine and there the mages run the Chantry as well as the Circles. It is not without its dangers, and therefore also flawed, but it is just another possible compromise.

Hmm.... I normally try to stay away from Religious persecution vs. Freedomm of Liberties arguments... But I doubt that the Empire's methods were sound.

To prevent persecution of a handful of mages, they persecute the rest of the populous (majority of which in fact is mostly innocent in this matter).

isn't Chantry is better that way? It only perscutes those it sees as Maleficar (not all mages of course), brings in Apostates to the tower (by force if necessary) and leaves the rest of HUMAN population free to tend to their lives.

This was the compromise I was talking of. If you have a better solution that is more failsafe, let me know.

I don't really know any particular example where the Chantry clearly encroaches freedom of everybody. Perhaps you do and you would illuminate it?

I was refering to the current Tevinter Imperium as per Dragon Age: Origins and not the Ancient Imperium of the Andrastian Revolution, as it were. The one that has its own Divine and Chantry. The Divine also being the High Enchanter and all that. Thus mages policing mages and their methods appear about as sound as any other.

And all we know for sure about Tevinter's social practices is that they still practice slavery when it comes to elves. Not necessarily a direct link to mages in any way but to cultural practices. Not like any other country within the Chantry treats their elves much better than slaves in any case.

Modifié par ShrinkingFish, 30 septembre 2010 - 09:25 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Didn't David of Mary comment a while ago, how a mage running over to Tevinter in search for more freedom, might be severly dissapointed?



Something about the top mages keeping the other mages on a tight leash?

[tmp7704]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Didn't David of Mary comment a while ago, how a mage running over to Tevinter in search for more freedom, might be severly dissapointed?

Something about the top mages keeping the other mages on a tight leash?

Yes, it's apparently pretty much swapping one set of supervisors for another, and since these new supervisors see other mages as potential competitors to power, they have little interest in treating them any better the regular chantry does.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Wasn't that the purpose of the Warden asking the ruler of Ferelden for the Magi boon, to rectify that issue?

There is nothing to rectify. Taking away someone freedom is sometimes necessary.

If there was nothing to rectify, the Magi boon wouldn't be one of the options, would it? The ruler of Ferelden wouldn't openly call out to everyone present at the royal ceremony that mages have earned the right to govern themselves.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And for the love of all that is holy, don't de-rail this topic with your chantry/templar hate!
We have the other thread for you to vent.

You mean the thread where your friend EmperorSahlertz said that mages were property of the Chantry? That thread?

ReconTeam wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Or the results of blood mages and abominations are because the Chantry conditions mages to gather as much power as they can to survive against the templars who are trying to kill them. Considering that mages existed in the Dales and among the current Dalish clans without abominations destroying entire nations, and Kolgrim's Disciples of Andraste have been around for hundreds of years without abominations destroying Haven, I see the Chantry and the templars as entirely unnecessary. I'm not saying mages shouldn't be properly trained, but there's a difference between training a person to use their abilities and forcing them to live under the tyranny of armored and armed drug addicts.

Yet a mages skills doesn't always mean the demon will be more powerful. Weaker mages are just more vulnerable. Look at the events at Redcliff. That demon was quite powerful despite how it only possessed a kid. The templars only kill apostates, not every random mage they stumble across. In their glory days the dalish clearly had methods of preventing such things, and some of this has likely passed down to the clans.

Templars tried to kill Wynne's fourteen year old apprentice Aneirin and only failed by chance. And the Dalish have a very different opinion of the Chantry, considering they say the Chantry is responsible for the fall of the Dales: after missionaries were kicked out because they refused to convert to the Chantry of Andraste, templars were sent in. And I've read that templars also hunt the Dalish mages.

ReconTeam wrote...
But how does this apply to the human kingdomes and city states? Their cultures are not anything alike. Kolgrim's disciples of Andraste still followed her teachings regarding magic no doubt, while they clearly became misdirected, their relatively small community knew to keep mages in check. Despite how harshly mages are treated, the templars are largely neccesary. And the Chantry still does pleny of good despite their "reputation."

I disagree. Templars aren't necessary. Greagoir couldn't even handle Uldred's rebellion. He himself admits they were completely unprepared. And Redcliffe is a perfect example of what happens as a result of the Chantry and the templars - if mages weren't imprisoned for having magical ability and the Chantry didn't instill fear on people over mages, Isolde never would have tried to hide Connor's magical talent. The Dales and Arlathan are two examples of nations with mages who were in leadership positions without turning into the Tevinter Imperium; the Dalish Keepers and Firsts are mages as well.

ReconTeam wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Except for the templars in A Broken Circle who need outside help to deal with Uldred and the abominations, and the possibility that help could come in the form of a Mage Warden illustrates why the ruler of Ferelden says that the mages have earned the right to govern themselves. And considering how many mages there are, and the vital role they played against the Qunari in the New Exalted Marches, it's possible they could deal with the templars and the Qunari. There are Circles all across Thedas, after all. And Orzammar can get an independent Circle with no Chantry interference. With the right leader, anything is possible.

It is unneeded internal conflict that only benefits the enemy. The right leader could do a lot of things, but if the endings DA1 show anything, it is that not everything turns out as planned.

Considering that Arlathan, the Dales, the Dalish elves, and the Disciples of Andraste all have mages in leadership positions without templar or Chantry oversight, I'd argue that the conflict was necessary: mages don't need fanatics watching over them, especially armed drug addicts who, as Cullen admits, discuss killing mages with glee.

[tmp7704]

LobselVith8 wrote...

If there was nothing to rectify, the Magi boon wouldn't be one of the options, would it? The ruler of Ferelden wouldn't openly call out to everyone present at the royal ceremony that mages have earned the right to govern themselves.

That's called politics -- lots of pretty words but without necessarily any real will to follow through.

That said, the boon thing had its own thread a while ago and supposedly it may make some impact on DA2 if it was taken in DAO. But Mr.Gaider said also, since the circles are handled by the Chantry even "ruler of Ferelden" is limited pretty much to:

Ruler of Ferelden: "say old chaps, could you please let the mages in Ferelden circle govern themselves?"
Chantry person: "nope."

[LobselVith8]

tmp7704 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If there was nothing to rectify, the Magi boon wouldn't be one of the options, would it? The ruler of Ferelden wouldn't openly call out to everyone present at the royal ceremony that mages have earned the right to govern themselves.

That's called politics -- lots of pretty words but without necessarily any real will to follow through.

That said, the boon thing had its own thread a while ago and supposedly it may make some impact on DA2 if it was taken in DAO. But Mr.Gaider said also, since the circles are handled by the Chantry even "ruler of Ferelden" is limited pretty much to:

Ruler of Ferelden: "say old chaps, could you please let the mages in Ferelden circle govern themselves?"
Chantry person: "nope."

It could also be considered a recton considering the ruler actually orders Greagoir to allow the mages to be free in the US ending, but that's another discussion for another time.

Gaider also said the discussion didn't end there.

[tool_bot]

SirShreK wrote...

Reality will always win. There is no way to be idealistic in real life. Compromises need to be made and those who don't make them will perish.

And I'll go out with my dignity intact.

[ShrinkingFish]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Didn't David of Mary comment a while ago, how a mage running over to Tevinter in search for more freedom, might be severly dissapointed?

Something about the top mages keeping the other mages on a tight leash?

I honestly wouldn't be at all surprised. But I didn't see that post, if you could find it I'd love to read it.

But yeah, my point isn't really that the Tevinter system would be better for mages necessarily, just that it would be different. Pointing out that the way of the Circle and the Chantry that we see in Fereldan isn't the only method available for policing mages. That the compromises made there are not the only acceptable compromises.

[ShrinkingFish]

tmp7704 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If there was nothing to rectify, the Magi boon wouldn't be one of the options, would it? The ruler of Ferelden wouldn't openly call out to everyone present at the royal ceremony that mages have earned the right to govern themselves.

That's called politics -- lots of pretty words but without necessarily any real will to follow through.

That said, the boon thing had its own thread a while ago and supposedly it may make some impact on DA2 if it was taken in DAO. But Mr.Gaider said also, since the circles are handled by the Chantry even "ruler of Ferelden" is limited pretty much to:

Ruler of Ferelden: "say old chaps, could you please let the mages in Ferelden circle govern themselves?"
Chantry person: "nope."

If he actually cared he could force the issue. Of course this would cause a religious schism to occur between the Orlesian Chantry and the Fereldan Chantry, somewhat like the schism between the Tevinter and Orlesian Andrtastean faith. Fereldan would be forced to establish their own Divine to give them supreme authority over the religion within their borders and require the military and public support to defend this schism.

It could be done. It would just mean a heap of trouble.

[silentassassin264]

Well not that much trouble if they asked Tevinter to side with them against Orlais. Tevinter would probably love to get revenge and Orlais would not dare fight both of them.

[ShrinkingFish]

silentassassin264 wrote...

Well not that much trouble if they asked Tevinter to side with them against Orlais. Tevinter would probably love to get revenge and Orlais would not dare fight both of them.

Not sure what the political realities are surrounding those two groups.

But it is possible that Tevinter could be a potential ally in another country's fight for religious independance. Though I expect that the only condition they'd be willing to help under would be that the country then ascribe to Tevinter's Chantry instead of forming their own, thus expanding Tevinter's sphere of influence.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
There is nothing to rectify. Taking away someone freedom is sometimes necessary.

If there was nothing to rectify, the Magi boon wouldn't be one of the options, would it? The ruler of Ferelden wouldn't openly call out to everyone present at the royal ceremony that mages have earned the right to govern themselves.

Someone giving you something (or you asking for it) DOES NOT equal you need that something or that that something was necessary. A boon is a GIFT.
As such, it has nothing to do with the need to "rectify" anything.

And Redcliffe is a perfect example of what happens as a result of the Chantry and the templars - if mages weren't imprisoned for having magical ability and the Chantry didn't instill fear on people over mages, Isolde never would have tried to hide Connor's magical talent. The Dales and Arlathan are two examples of nations with mages who were in leadership positions without turning into the Tevinter Imperium; the Dalish Keepers and Firsts are mages as well.

And criminals woudln't occasionally shoot at police officer if there were no prisons. It is the police that FORCES the poor criminals to shoot! Abolish all prisons!

Dear lord, listen to yourself. Your arguments make no sense whatsoever. Do you realsie that containing the mages in a tower is NECESSARY? The Alternative is far worse for everyone!

[Lotion Soronarr]

ShrinkingFish wrote...

But yeah, my point isn't really that the Tevinter system would be better for mages necessarily, just that it would be different. Pointing out that the way of the Circle and the Chantry that we see in Fereldan isn't the only method available for policing mages. That the compromises made there are not the only acceptable compromises.

Granted, that would depend what you consider acceptable. The general populace would be worse off, and the mages no better under the Tevinter system.

[ShrinkingFish]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Dear lord, listen to yourself. Your arguments make no sense whatsoever. Do you realsie that containing the mages in a tower is NECESSARY? The Alternative is far worse for everyone!

It is only necessary if the only alternative is to release all mages and just cross our fingers that they don't turn into abominations.

Otherwise there are always other alternatives...

We could cut their heads off, there is an alternative.

We could put them on leashes, there's another.

We could establish methods of training and security that do not involve life imprisonment, there's another.

How about the idea that for every mage living there is a Templar who gets to be their personal watch dog? Once mages are trained and through the Harrowing they can then lead the lives they want, their phlacteries given to a loyal Templar, preferably one they get along with, and whereever one goes the other follows?

They could move to the same town, become neighbors, each meet a nice girl or guy, settle down, have a family (if you're into that sort of thing) and live freely.

Just an idea.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
There is nothing to rectify. Taking away someone freedom is sometimes necessary.

If there was nothing to rectify, the Magi boon wouldn't be one of the options, would it? The ruler of Ferelden wouldn't openly call out to everyone present at the royal ceremony that mages have earned the right to govern themselves.

Someone giving you something (or you asking for it) DOES NOT equal you need that something or that that something was necessary. A boon is a GIFT.
As such, it has nothing to do with the need to "rectify" anything.

It's not a wedding present the ruler is handing over, it's the emancipation of the mages of Ferelden. Both Anora and Alistair see it as a measure that should be taken, and the ruler actually ordered Greagoir to leave the mages alone after the new tower is built in the US ending. Apparently, the sacrifice of the mage Warden made the ruler feel that the measure was entirely necessary.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith66 wrote...

And Redcliffe is a perfect example of what happens as a result of the Chantry and the templars - if mages weren't imprisoned for having magical ability and the Chantry didn't instill fear on people over mages, Isolde never would have tried to hide Connor's magical talent. The Dales and Arlathan are two examples of nations with mages who were in leadership positions without turning into the Tevinter Imperium; the Dalish Keepers and Firsts are mages as well.

And criminals woudln't occasionally shoot at police officer if there were no prisons. It is the police that FORCES the poor criminals to shoot! Abolish all prisons!

Dear lord, listen to yourself. Your arguments make no sense whatsoever. Do you realsie that containing the mages in a tower is NECESSARY? The Alternative is far worse for everyone!

The police aren't on drugs with absolutely no oversight, instilling fear in people by ripping them from their family and tossing them in a prison where they might get turned into an emotionless drone to craft magical items on command, and they don't murder children for running away like the templars tried to do with Wynne's fourteen year old apprentice.

As for necessary, Arlathan had no tower, the Dales had no tower, the Disciples of Andraste have no tower, the Dalish have no tower... the alternative of not having a tower apparently worked fine for them.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 01 octobre 2010 - 09:23 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

And here you go again stating that Templars got no oversight even though you got no proof of that. We know there are seekers, and that these seekers act like a sort of inquisition. These Seekers probably also regulate the Templars. We got no proof of that, but at least thta is reasonable compared to what you are trying to imply.

Edit: And you even (again) imply that there were no oversight at all in any of those cases. You got no proof of that either. The only thing those cases DIND'T have for sure is Templars, which is true no doubt, but that does NOT mean there weren't any oversight at all in any of those cases. You are arguing out of baseless implications. There simply is no proof for anything you say.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 01 octobre 2010 - 09:51 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

We don't know how Arlathan or the old Dales handled mages..so don't talk out of your a**.



Also, you can repeat that anti-templar propaganda a zillion times, it won't make it any more true.

You have no proof that templars have no oversight.

You paint with a VERY wide brush with little to support it, using singular events as porof of an overall trend (without anything to back it up).



Interestingly enough, look up "murder" under the dictionary. Murder = UNLAWFULL killing. The law is on the templars side. Killing apostates is not murder.

[ShrinkingFish]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

ShrinkingFish wrote...

But yeah, my point isn't really that the Tevinter system would be better for mages necessarily, just that it would be different. Pointing out that the way of the Circle and the Chantry that we see in Fereldan isn't the only method available for policing mages. That the compromises made there are not the only acceptable compromises.

Granted, that would depend what you consider acceptable. The general populace would be worse off, and the mages no better under the Tevinter system.

The general populace does not have to be worse off if mages are given more freedoms.... perhaps it will only be the Chantry that is worse off.

Forcing the Chantry to expand their programs, recruiting more Templar for an open door policy. It would certainly cost the Chantry much time and money, stretching their resources thin, perhaps they would have to cut down on buying books and artifacts and building new and better Chantry's. But such could be considered an acceptable trade by some.

[ShrinkingFish]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

We don't know how Arlathan or the old Dales handled mages..so don't talk out of your a**.

Also, you can repeat that anti-templar propaganda a zillion times, it won't make it any more true.
You have no proof that templars have no oversight.
You paint with a VERY wide brush with little to support it, using singular events as porof of an overall trend (without anything to back it up).

Interestingly enough, look up "murder" under the dictionary. Murder = UNLAWFULL killing. The law is on the templars side. Killing apostates is not murder.

This is true. Though the law is a subjective entity, subject to fault and change. Different people may have different laws. But yes, according to the Chantry's laws the Templars are completely within their rights to kill apostates and malificar. And the Chantry is the power at this time in Thedas.

Whether or not this is morally justified is another question. The actions of individuals depending on many circumstances that are entirely unmeasurable by law. Naturally there will be cases when Templar's should not let the blade fall and do, as well as cases where they should have sliced some throats but didn't.

With power comes abuses. The Chantry is no more free from this truth as the old Tevinter Imperium was before them. It is not their fault... and the answer is not necessarily to enforce additional scruples onto Templar shoulders which would only impede them in their duties.

This is simply just another necessary evil that the Chantry is willing to accept. An evil that is entirely unacceptable to others.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And here you go again stating that Templars got no oversight even though you got no proof of that. We know there are seekers, and that these seekers act like a sort of inquisition. These Seekers probably also regulate the Templars. We got no proof of that, but at least thta is reasonable compared to what you are trying to imply.

Edit: And you even (again) imply that there were no oversight at all in any of those cases. You got no proof of that either. The only thing those cases DIND'T have for sure is Templars, which is true no doubt, but that does NOT mean there weren't any oversight at all in any of those cases. You are arguing out of baseless implications. There simply is no proof for anything you say.

Greagoir has no oversight in the Circle Tower. There's no Seer to stop him from executing Jowan. And Cullen rules the Circle in fear if the Warden agrees to cull the Circle, and he can do that because there's no oversight.

I argued they were alternatives to the templars that worked without Chantry oversight. How is that not true? Arlathan, the Dales, the Disciples of Andraste, and the Dalish have had mages in leadership positions. Arcane Warriors were elven mages. The ancient elves were said to be great wielders of magic. Father Eirik and it can be inferred Kolgrim (from his knowledge about the fate of the Ashes) are mages. The Keepers and the Firsts are mages. How are they not examples of alternatives to the Chantry oversight of mages? The Dalish may be scattered now, but the Dales was an entire nation of mages and non-mages living together...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

We don't know how Arlathan or the old Dales handled mages..so don't talk out of your a**.

Let's try to have a civilized conversation here, okay? Considering the leaders of the Dalish were descended from the ruling leaders of the Dales and Arlathan, and they have magical abilities.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Also, you can repeat that anti-templar propaganda a zillion times, it won't make it any more true.
You have no proof that templars have no oversight.
You paint with a VERY wide brush with little to support it, using singular events as porof of an overall trend (without anything to back it up).

Interestingly enough, look up "murder" under the dictionary. Murder = UNLAWFULL killing. The law is on the templars side. Killing apostates is not murder.

Again, Cullen can rule the Circle in fear in the Epilogue where the Circle was culled. If he isn't a leader, he goes on a killing spree. That's the type of person who becomes Knight-Commander of the Ferelden Circle. And the law may be on their side when they murder individuals for having magical ability, but that hardly makes it mortally correct. Plenty of people have been killed in the real world because they were different, and at the time it was legal to do so.

Again, you support the Chantry and the templars. I get it. Why do you get so defensive when I bring up an alternative to their approach on mages? Arlathan, the Dales, the Disciples of Haven, and the Dalish are alternatives to the Chantry's solution to mages. Why not reference them to show people that mages and non-mages have lived together? Why not debate an alternative, instead of supporting the current condition that murders illegal mages?

[EmperorSahlertz]

BEcause you bring them up with nothing to support it. You toss out a lot of examples where we got no knowledge of how they handled magic at all, and give them out as an example of how a system can work flawlessly even though you got no data stating such. For all we know the examples you state are extreme terror states where they mistreat every mage who isn't in a posistion of power. WE DON'T KNOW. That is why we "get all defensive".

[Lotion Soronarr]

ShrinkingFish wrote...
The general populace does not have to be worse off if mages are given more freedoms.... perhaps it will only be the Chantry that is worse off.

I was referring to the Tevinter model of policing.
Aparently, it's not a nice place for your average Joe...but again, that might be bias in the Codexes.

Forcing the Chantry to expand their programs, recruiting more Templar for an open door policy. It would certainly cost the Chantry much time and money, stretching their resources thin, perhaps they would have to cut down on buying books and artifacts and building new and better Chantry's. But such could be considered an acceptable trade by some.

Maybe reduce the amount of money that goes towarsd the common folk?

I just don't see the open door policy as viable. In fact, if several templar have to accompany every mage, it might cost the mages even more privacy.

Whether or not this is morally justified is another question. The
actions of individuals depending on many circumstances that are
entirely unmeasurable by law. Naturally there will be cases when
Templar's should not let the blade fall and do, as well as cases where
they should have sliced some throats but didn't.

With power
comes abuses. The Chantry is no more free from this truth as the old
Tevinter Imperium was before them. It is not their fault... and the
answer is not necessarily to enforce additional scruples onto Templar
shoulders which would only impede them in their duties.

This is
simply just another necessary evil that the Chantry is willing to
accept. An evil that is entirely unacceptable to others.

Unacceptable or not, it is unavoidable.
Justified use of deadly force, determined by hte pofficer o nthe scene. That's how the police do it, and sometimes, people die. Sometimes, the police officer is a vengfull dick and shoots when it's not warranted. Sometimes, that gang kid pulls out a gun and hte officer shoots to protect his life.
It's sad, but is similar to the situation here.