In case anyone missed it, some quotes regarding the Qunari and their views on magic:
[quote]Mary Kirby wrote...
[quote]Addai67 wrote...
I'm wondering why mages have their tongues cut out. DA mages don't seem to require incantations to work spells, so not being able to speak wouldn't seem to be a deterrent to rogue magic.[/quote]
It doesn't stop them from doing magic. It stops a mage who has been possessed by a demon from communicating and possibly corrupting someone else, as Uldred did.
[/quote]
I thought I might include a few more quotes to help with this discussion:
[quote]
Mary Kirby wrote...
[quote]Anarya wrote...
Gonna go out on a limb and guess forbidden magic is anything you do without being commanded to by your handler.
[/quote]
This would be the correct answer. The Qunari view saarebas as if they were poisonous snakes. They keep them around: You need a snake's venom to make antivenom, and you need mages to fight magic. But they never believe for a second that the saarebas are anything but a threat to themselves and to innocent people.
[/quote]
[quote]
David Gaider wrote...
[quote]attend wrote...
Maybe I am making incorrect assunptions but that would give the Tamassrans an incredible amount of influence. They choose the pairings, handle the upbring and education, and determine the roles of the next generation.[/quote]
They might not see it the same way, but yes-- the Tamassrans wield a huge amount of influence. It's also a female gender role (as all administrative tasks are) which might lead an outsider to conclude that female qunari rule their society. Qunari don't, however, look on ruleship quite the same way. The brain could be said to rule the body... but so does the heart, the lungs, the stomach. They are part of the whole.
[quote]What happens if a large majority of the creche does not provide candidates for a much needed role. Would they be forced to accept a life/role they were not meant for? For example say healers.[/quote]
If it was a task within the confines of that gender, yes. Even then a qunari might do it if the need was great enough-- though they would feel a task belonging to another gender beneath them. A male qunari will farm, if he must, just as a female qunari will fight. They won't like it, however.
[quote]What about the mages? Are they among those defeated or do the Qunari have their own?[/quote]
They have their own mages. The
saarebas (from the word "bas" or "thing/object) are considered defective tools-- but the qunari don't waste those, either.
[/quote]
[quote]
David Gaider wrote...
[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...
Yeah but Templars keep them on leashes as well, what's the difference between both?[/quote]
The qunari mages are
literally kept on leashes, held by an
arvaarad (their "handler", if you will). The templars only keep mages on figurative leashes.
[quote]Do the Qunari allow the Mages to practice and hone their abilities and give them positions where their powers will be useful, or shun the use of magic and just give them simple menial tasks like chef / bard?[/quote]
I think it would be better to think of qunari mages as trained attack dogs.
[quote]And if they DO use magic, do they allow it for fighting purposes and allow the Female Qunari to fight with their talents (If they can be mages)?[/quote]
A female qunari who is a mage is no longer female. She is
saarebas-- a "dangerous thing", not even a person really. So, yes, female qunari do fight with their magic, but they're considered part of the arvaarad the same way a sword would be part of the warrior.
[/quote][/quote]
And now off-topic, but a response:
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
I argued that the possibility exists for the Dalish elves to side with the ruler if there was a war between Orlais and Ferelden, you countered that with a PR excuse that completely ignored that there would be people who would side with a ruler who has given a significant part of his or her nation over to the Dalish.
[/quote]
You lost me a bit here. Do you perhaps believe that people would support the attempt to restore the Dales because they'd expect that would somehow make elves return the lands they were given in Ferelden? That feels like quite alien reasoning to me -- do you know a single case in history where a nation said "hey guys, we don't need all the land we currently own and the money/supplies we can generate from it since we aren't really planning to grow, strive and prosper so, please, have some of it"? [/quote]
You mean an example in Ferelden? No problem. Alistair and Anora hand over the Hinterlands to the Dalish in the Epilogue.
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
Also, you bring up interesting counter-point to your own argument here -- if the elves already own significant part of Ferelden as you put it, why would they want to throw themselves into suicidal attempt to maybe restore older colony of theirs, when they can alternatively simply develop brand new "Dales 2" on their new grounds? There doesn't seem to be incentive for it other than sentimentalism, the Dales weren't anything special otherwise, just a chunk of land given to elves for service they rendered. [/quote]
Given that it was the Orlesians who took the Dales in the first place, you're honestly asking why the Dalish would side with the ruler of Ferelden who handed over land to them, as opposed to doing nothing and risking losing their third homeland to the Orlesians who stole their previous homeland?
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
I did articulate my point, you seemed more interested in making sardonic remarks. What part of mages rising up against a nation that oppresses them in support for one that does is so difficult to grasp?[/quote]
Honestly, what makes it difficult to grasp is, using rather vague multiple terms when each of them means a different thing, and bouncing between them as if without noting they do mean different things. That's not articulation or maybe i'm just too dumb to read your mind, end effect is very much the same -- what you say and the way you put it, i find it confusing. [/quote]
That must explain your incessant need to debate this with me - since your alleged lack of comprehension for my writings doesn't seem to stop you from debating every single thing I say.
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
To clarify, when you talk of "mages rising up" this can mean many things -- one option is mages simply trying to escape their Circles and heading to Ferelden. Another option is passive resistance used as sign of solidarity and support. Yet another would be active resistance, going as far as rebellion, war and attempts to destroy the Chantry in countries other than Ferelden. The thing is, there's different counter-arguments for each of these options so when it's not clear what scenario you're envisioning behind the single word term you're using, the discussion becomes muddled. [/quote]
You claim don't understand what I say, and yet you always disagree with me.
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
I think in generic terms at the moment i can just sum up my point of view, that due to these counter-arguments applying to each of these scenarios, i believe the amount of mages actually attempting to "rise up" would be considerably smaller than you expect. I.e. you seem to be painting image where mages unanimously stand up for their Ferelden brethren and uprising on such scale would have considerable impact overall, while i'm of the view that such uprising would be rather small if it occured, and as such not mattering much to the big picture and/or relatively easy to squash down. [/quote]
Apparently, your lack of comprehension has magically dissolved since you, again, disagree with my point.
Your view seems to be that no mages would side with Ferelden if it supported the local Circle becoming independent; you seem to support the idea that no mages would go to Ferelden if it didn't recognize Chantry oversight for the Circle of Ferelden. I disagreed with both ideas. I said the potential exists for mages across Thedas to side with Ferelden if they emancipated the Circle of Magi from the Chantry. Uldred and the mages supporting him is proof that some mages would take the chance to be free from the Chantry. Even Wynne admits in Awakening that the Circles are debating making a complete break from the Chantry, and it's made clear in the Magi Origin that the Libertarians want to see more freedom from the Chantry.
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
You love to be condescending, I see. When you gain the ability to formulate strong arguments, let me know [/quote]
Well, how do you think your own writing comes across here? Yes, i'm using very much the same phrases towards you which i read aimed at me. If you find it condescending, please acknowledge this is the very same tone you've been using. [/quote]
To who? The person who told me that I shouldn't share my POV here because he personally disagreed with it and goes into cap overload when anyone disagrees with him? Or to you when you made a condescending remark towards me and I called you on it?
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
In a game that involves dragons, mages, curses, and abominations, you find the ruling made by the King in regards to his own people (or even a Queen) unrealistic?
[/quote]
Yes, given unlike the dragons, mages, curses and abominations the humans, their psychology, motives and ways they operate (politics, spheres of influence etc) are very much mundane.
If you want to use "it's magical setting, everything goes!" as excuse to make irrational behaviour plausible and to ignore human-related issues that wouldn't make sense in our own setting, then please keep in mind this argument can be used against your own points -- as after all your arguments how the mages, elves etc would act in this scenario we're discussing... are also based on logic and ideas how we, as people, reason and behave. What's stopping me from claiming now that all mages would just cheer at the Chantry attacking Ferelden, and dismissing your objection with "
In a game that involves dragons, mages, curses, and abominations, you find such behaviour of mages unrealistic?" [/quote]
Probably because I would cite Uldred and the mage rebellion, since it's canon. I've used codex examples in the past, and the codex mentions mages going against templars - it's the reason why the Rite was started, after all. And your 'little rant' here has absolutely nothing to do with what I said - I never said everything goes because it's a magical setting, I simply found it odd that you claimed a King making a ruling about his own people was unrealistic. Of all the things you can find outlandish in DA, and you've chosen that? You're certainly entitled to your opinion, of course.
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
The lead writer also wasn't the only person writing the game and making the decisions - dismissing the ending of the game simply because it doesn't conform to your ideas about how it should be isn't a valid argument.
[/quote]
I don't see it as dismissing the ending of the game. Rather, i find the information provided by the lead writer as
follow up to that ending, something the game itself for whatever reasons didn't show. [/quote]
I figured Greagoir saying "Yes, your majesty" was all the information anyone needed. There's nothing in DA:O to even support that Alistair had no legitament authority to order Greagoir to do that - and I've accepted that the developers might be changing that for DA2. I've said that it seems that the developers are changing lore to suggest that the Circle of Magi belongs to the Chantry, because there's no mention of it made in DA:O - and they're obviously doing it with the Qunari now all having horns, despite absolutely no reference to this in DA:O. Considering that there's no evidence in-game of DA:O to suggest that Alistair, a man who was trained as a templar and raised by the Chantry, would give an order to the Knight-Commander as King that he couldn't enforce, I find it plausible that the devs decided that since DA was going to continue, they would change the ending Highlander style and say that it didn't really mean what it meant.
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
You're implying that the Dalish don't trust mages in the same paragraph that you acknowledge they place two in positions of authority over everyone else. That's a fundamentally flawed argument.
[/quote]
No, not necessarily -- i could be also implying that strange absence of Dalish mages other than the Keeper and their First suggests that the Dalish may have other way of handling the mages than putting them in circles, but that "other way" sure as heck doesn't seem to involve letting these other mages operate as part of the tribe. What that "other way" involves we're unfortunately never told, and i wouldn't mind if that was addressed/revealed at some point by the writers. [/quote]
You're basing how they function in lore on game mechanics - it'd be like me arguing that Zathrian isn't really a Keeper, only a blood mage, because according to game mechanics, that's exactly what he is. We see mages in Ferelden as part of quests, or in the tower, but as I said, most of the NPCs we see are generic mages or elves, repeating the same lines of dialogue. Lanaya references that there were others who were up for the position of First, and the messanger we can speak to after Nature of the Beast is completed says that the Dalish clans only meet once a year, so they don't really encounter one another. Given that mages are trusted as leaders and there needs to be a potential replacements in case something happens to the First or the Keeper, I see no reason to assume why mages wouldn't be part of the Dalish clans. If you have any evidence to support your theory besides a reference to generic NPCs who say the same thing, feel free to share it.
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
You mean the mages that are part of the Mages Collective quest? Or the tranquil dealer who is part of the Circle? The only Dalish we encounter live at the camp. You really think this supports your issue? They're NPCs that are part of quests, not evidence that mages are running rampant
[/quote]
Why is "being part of quests" supposed to be of any significance here? Regardless if the NPCs are part of quest or not, they are present in the places where they're put by the creators of the game, they do exist there. Are you saying that existence of mages outside of the Circle is nothing but game mechanics, and this presence should be ignored because if they weren't "part of quests" they wouldn't be there at all? [/quote]
They serve a purpose to the game, and you seem to be making an assumption on lore due to game mechanics. We only see the Dalish at the camp, we see virtually all mages in the Circle Tower, and two are part of an easter egg near the inn and the others are mercenaries, members of the Disciples, or the Mages Collective quest. There are about nine named Dalish NPCs we can speak to, after all.
[quote]tmp7704 wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
and there aren't any Dalish NPCs in the cities, only at the camp.
[/quote]
I guess i'm not wording myself very well, let me try again:
human population in cities which you encounter in game: peasants, soldiers, nobles, mages
elf population in elf encampment which you encounter in game: peasants, warriors, "nobles" who also double as mages, but no "regular" mages
it just feels odd you don't get to see a single regular Dalish elf capable of hurling fireballs, that's all. After all if they don't send their mages away to the Circles then there should be some hanging around in the tribes, no? It's not like setting class of NPC to "mage" is any harder than setting it to "rogue" or "warrior".
[/quote]
There are about
nine named NPCs we can speak to at the Dalish camp: Mithra, Zathrian, Lanaya, Varathorn, Elora, Cammen, Gheyna, Athras, Sarel, and the messenger. All of them serve a purpose. There's no indication that the mages aren't part of the plan in lore. There's no codex stating that only two Dalish mages are permitted, after all. The situation with the Circles and Chantry oversight was initiated by the Orlesian Kordillus Drakon I, who (according to the Codex Entry: The Founding of the Chantry) established a cult of Andraste as a formal religion and formed the Order of Templars and Circle of Magi (according to the Codex Entry: The History of the Chantry, Chapter 4).
Retour en haut
