172 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean during A Broken Circle in the Fade, in the Fade where mages and templars have gone insane?

No, i mean Anders. It didn't even cross my mind to use Fade here since it's a trap set up by a demon in the first place and as such is very warped vision of reality (which given Fade is distorted interpretation of our realm to begin with... well)

[LobselVith8]

tmp7704 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean during A Broken Circle in the Fade, in the Fade where mages and templars have gone insane?

No, i mean Anders. It didn't even cross my mind to use Fade here since it's a trap set up by a demon in the first place and as such is very warped vision of reality (which given Fade is distorted interpretation of our realm to begin with... well)

You're talking about a guy who was joking around (like he does in most of his dialogue) while Cullen is deadpan serious when he says that templars have talked about such things (i.e. killing mages) with glee.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Dalish mages being hunted by the templars would see them as the same thing.

Being seen as the same != Actually the same.

I suppose that could have been worded better. According to the Dalish, they were driven out of their second homeland because they refused to convert to the Andrastian Chantry. In their eyes, the Chantry is dangerous on many levels - their political power, their religious authority on Andrastian societies.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Change is needed. That's the entire purpose behind the Magi Boon, after all. The templars have been in place for over 900 years now, since the Cult of Andraste was made into an official religion by the Orlesian Emperor Kordillus Drakon I, who also established the Order of Templars and the Circle of Magi.

The Magi Boon was pretty darn vague.   That change is needed I'm not entirely certain of.  It's not an ideal situation, but again I'd need to an alternative plan to be in place before I disturbed the current system because to do otherwise would be reckless and irresponsible.  Plus, mages are a minority and without the presence of a representative republic to protect them from the tyranny of the majority, I doubt that the monarchy and Chantry would bother - aside from said requested Boon.  And the masses of the normal people, who fear mages, are unlikely to engage in any sort of popular demonstration on their behalf.  That leaves a violent revolution by the mages against the Templars, Chantry, and established order. 

On the other hand, in the Ultimate Sacrifice ending, the ruler actually orders Knight-Commander Greagoir to allow the mages to have the new tower that's being built in honor of the Grey Warden.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Technically, it was mentioned of the spin-off, Crusade. One of the crew members was a former Psi-Corps member. And the ruler of Ferelden completely supports the idea of mages governing themselves from the US ending where its decreed and the post-DR/Redeemer ending where the Magi boon is a possibility for both Alistair and Anora as ruler.

Point taken on Crusade.  Though with regards to the Boon and the monarchy's support, I believe Gaider said somewhere that the relationship between the monarchy and the Chantry authority isn't top-down.  The monarchy can make requests of the Chantry but the latter is under no obligation to do as they ask.  I imagine that isn't the monarchy's last recourse, but I have doubts it would become anything but a bloody, convoluted mess.  The Chantry isn't going to back down because some King asks them to.

David Gaider said that in a thread I started, which makes sense since Hawke is heading to templar central for the Free Marches and a Ferelden with an independent Circle would run counter to that (especially with a sister who is an apostate), but seems to make more sense for DA2 instead of DA:O, especially given the US ending. It does cheapen the importance of the Magi boon for DA:O, since it renders it meaningless.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Aren't they oppressed under the Chantry? Being turned into a tranquil is monstorous. The fact that they hunted down Wynne's fourteen year old apprentice when he was just scared is a brutal method for policing mages. Uldred's revolt illustrates how the oppression by the Chantry is inevitably going to turn violent as long as the Chantry keeps them under their thumb.

That's where the difference between them being potentially dangerous and just another oppressed ethnic group (like say, the elves in the alienage) comes in to play.  It's not entirely humane, obviously, but it's closer to the idea of prison than the idea of slavery.  Is pre-emptive inprisonment morally justified?  Eh, not really no - not without the original sin concept of mages screwing up the whole Black City thing and causing Blights - if I remember the lore right - but is it legally and practically justified?  Maybe.  It's certainly more open for debate than an open-and-shut-case either for (the Chantry's position) or against (the apostate position) its existence.

If I was around in Thedas in a position of power, I'd definitely be trying to figure out an alternative.  But I'd better make absolutely damn sure I knew what I was doing.  It isn't like the Emancipation Proclamation.

That is the Andrastian Chantry's claim - the Tevinter Magister Lords and the Golden City. However, given that an emotionally broken Cullen can end up as the new Knight-Commander and rule the Circle in fear, it shows me that mages are oppressed under the templars. Even the First Enchanter has to abide by the Knight-Commander's orders; there's really no one to side with the mages if the templar crosses the line like Cullen can (if the Circle is culled), because the Chantry views magic as evil.

[Morroian]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I can't forget something that only happened in books and comics that I never read.  The way B5 ended for telepaths was very dubious indeed.  The whole Byron thing did not end well.  For further response, I'd point to my earlier distinction between the fact the Psi-Corps existed in the context of a modern liberal democracy complete with an established bureaucracy and the decentralized nature of a medieval monarchy.  That and the whole "what's the alternative, given the situation in Thedas?" point in this post.

Despite the medieval setting another answer is still clearly needed simply due to the fact that mages are clearly sick of their lot and want to rebel. Even in a medieval setting the answer to that is greater self determination. I agree there still needs to be oversight, and if mages are given more self determination then they should be given more responsibility for the oversight as well.

LobselVith8 wrote...

That is the Andrastian Chantry's
claim - the Tevinter Magister Lords and the Golden City. However, given
that an emotionally broken Cullen can end up as the new Knight-Commander
and rule the Circle in fear, it shows me that mages are oppressed under
the templars. Even the First Enchanter has to abide by the
Knight-Commander's orders; there's really no one to side with the mages
if the templar crosses the line like Cullen can (if the Circle is
culled), because the Chantry views magic as evil.

Yep I said it in that chantry thread, there appear to be very few checks and balances in the way templars deal with mages. It comes down to the individual tempars concerned, and when they have power over something or someone they despise...........

Modifié par Morroian, 05 octobre 2010 - 04:19 .

[upsettingshorts]

Morroian wrote...
Despite the medieval setting another answer is still clearly needed simply due to the fact that mages are clearly sick of their lot and want to rebel. Even in a medieval setting the answer to that is greater self determination. I agree there still needs to be oversight, and if mages are given more self determination then they should be given more responsibility for the oversight as well.

I thought that the various political parties - I forgot what they were called precisely - weren't in agreement, and the majority of the mages with political power and/or authority supported maintaining the status quo?

[tmp7704]

LobselVith8 wrote...

You're talking about a guy who was joking around (like he does in most of his dialogue) while Cullen is deadpan serious when he says that templars have talked about such things (i.e. killing mages) with glee.

Leaving aside deadpan delivery is also brand of humour, do you believe Cullen to be capable of judging whether the templars who talked about it were serious or not? For all we know the guy may be the butt of Circle jokes because he's gullible and it's fun to yank his chain and see him freak out. You can do it even yourself if your character is of the right gender.

There's also another factor here -- being able to separate talk from reality. I can talk with glee about doing things to my boss (or whoever) too, it doesn't necessarily mean it's something i'd want to practice.

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 octobre 2010 - 04:25 .

[Dave of Canada]

David Gaider wrote...

It's very easy to demonize the Chantry, but the fact remains that it's largely an organization of people that mean well-- and who are looking to help and protect these mages as much as they are to control them.

Well, we haven't seen much of the Chantry in a good light. Much of what we hear, see or read about seems to cast them out in a bad light. The comics don't help either.

[Gabey5]

case by case

[tmp7704]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Well, we haven't seen much of the Chantry in a good light. Much of what we hear, see or read about seems to cast them out in a bad light. The comics don't help either.

What about providing shelter and support for the poor, going as far as templars visiting alienage in attempt to help there? We don't exactly witness anyone else caring enough to do these.

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 octobre 2010 - 04:29 .

[Morroian]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I thought that the various political parties - I forgot what they were called precisely - weren't in agreement, and the majority of the mages with political power and/or authority supported maintaining the status quo?

The implication from Wynne in Awakenings is that they are about to try and free themselves from the chantry in the Cumberland get together. My feeling is that the effect of this will be seen in DA2.

Modifié par Morroian, 05 octobre 2010 - 04:34 .

[Dave of Canada]

tmp7704 wrote...

What about providing shelter and support for the poor, going as far as templars visiting alienage in attempt to help there? We don't exactly witness anyone else caring enough to do these.

I can think of maybe one example (the dwarf lady and her casteless son) of them offering genuine shelter to somebody, excluding Lothering (simply because everybody is sleeping everywhere in Lothering).
---
The templar in the Alienage wasn't sent to help the Alienage, he was sent to route out some Blood Mages.

[upsettingshorts]

Yeah, you can tell it's been a while since I played either game. Still, there's a lot to overcome:

1) Institutional inertia on both the part of the Chantry/Templars and the Circle of Magi
2) A complete lack of widespread support, very likely to the point of widespread fear
3) The Chantry's will and influence in Ferelden and beyond
4) The weakened powerbase of the Ferelden monarch means implementing policy changes of that scale would be difficult
5) The lack of an obvious, existing alternative that would satisfy the problems raised by the issues above
6) (Metagaming) The very good chance that the Warden either was not a mage, did not select the Magi boon, or had the Tower cleared out

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 octobre 2010 - 04:37 .

[tmp7704]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I can think of maybe one example (the dwarf lady and her casteless son) of them offering genuine shelter to somebody, excluding Lothering (simply because everybody is sleeping everywhere in Lothering).

Whole village of Redcliffe hiding in the Chantry..? There's also Awakening, if you go for the route to try and save the city -- the local Chantry gathers and tends to the survivors.

The templar in the Alienage wasn't sent to help the Alienage, he was sent to route out some Blood Mages.

Yes, but he did not find any sign of blood mages yet decided to stay because he sensed something else. He had no obligation to try and do anything at that point. Granted, this is just an individual but his attitude does reflect on the organization on the whole just as much as these who are used as negative examples.

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 octobre 2010 - 04:47 .

[Dave of Canada]

tmp7704 wrote...

Whole village of Redcliffe hiding in the Chantry..? There's also Awakening, if you go for the route to try and save the city -- the local Chantry gathers and tends to the survivors.

I just took that as the Chantry being the largest and strongest building, so it's logical to stash everybody in there instead of say... a small home or shop. Considering the people, they'd need a rather large building to stash everybody.

Yes, but he did not find any sign of blood mages yet decided to stay because he sensed something else.

But it's still his job to look for that something else. Do you suspect the Chantry would've sent a Templar to the Alienage to help the elves if there wasn't anything going on? They probably wouldn't have.

[tmp7704]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I just took that as the Chantry being the largest and strongest building, so it's logical to stash everybody in there instead of say... a small home or shop. Considering the people, they'd need a rather large building to stash everybody.

It's part of that sure, but you actually have the Chantry people try to comfort and calm down people while they're scared there and such. They appear to be genuinely concerned with the others and trying to help them in what little way they can.

But it's still his job to look for that something else. Do you suspect the Chantry would've sent a Templar to the Alienage to help the elves if there wasn't anything going on? They probably wouldn't have.

Well, that actually depends on attitude i think. Someone less concerned and/or more cold hearted could very well shrug and say "oh hey i was only sent to check for maleficarum. None found, anything else ain't my problem. These are just elves anyway and besides maybe it's just my indigestion".

My view could be coloured here by the fact i've encountered this guy for the first time when playing the CE. He was literally the only person* who shows up there not to start trouble or screw the elves in one way or another, but to do something that's actually positive for them. (even Duncan doesn't exactly show up to help but rather to get some cannon fodder for his little army)

*) okay technically there's also the Chantry sister who arranges player's wedding and tries, weakly, to stand up for them when arl's bastard of the son shows up. So that makes two Chantry people out of two?

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 octobre 2010 - 05:06 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I suppose that could have been worded better. According to the Dalish, they were driven out of their second homeland because they refused to convert to the Andrastian Chantry. In their eyes, the Chantry is dangerous on many levels - their political power, their religious authority on Andrastian societies.

The Dalish lost their nation because they invaded Orlais and couldn't fight off all the Andrastian nations combined. The Dalish try very hard to simplify and victimize themselves in this whole situation. They don't bother mentioning themselves massacering a few villagers or even tell about the decade long war. Oh no, they just *poof* lost their country.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Aren't they oppressed under the Chantry? Being turned into a tranquil is monstorous. The fact that they hunted down Wynne's fourteen year old apprentice when he was just scared is a brutal method for policing mages. Uldred's revolt illustrates how the oppression by the Chantry is inevitably going to turn violent as long as the Chantry keeps them under their thumb.

That's where the difference between them being potentially dangerous and just another oppressed ethnic group (like say, the elves in the alienage) comes in to play.  It's not entirely humane, obviously, but it's closer to the idea of prison than the idea of slavery.  Is pre-emptive inprisonment morally justified?  Eh, not really no - not without the original sin concept of mages screwing up the whole Black City thing and causing Blights - if I remember the lore right - but is it legally and practically justified?  Maybe.  It's certainly more open for debate than an open-and-shut-case either for (the Chantry's position) or against (the apostate position) its existence.

If I was around in Thedas in a position of power, I'd definitely be trying to figure out an alternative.  But I'd better make absolutely damn sure I knew what I was doing.  It isn't like the Emancipation Proclamation.

That is the Andrastian Chantry's claim - the Tevinter Magister Lords and the Golden City. However, given that an emotionally broken Cullen can end up as the new Knight-Commander and rule the Circle in fear, it shows me that mages are oppressed under the templars. Even the First Enchanter has to abide by the Knight-Commander's orders; there's really no one to side with the mages if the templar crosses the line like Cullen can (if the Circle is culled), because the Chantry views magic as evil.

No where at all does it state that Aneirn was simply scared. Actually Wynne says he was very defiant towards humans, and especially towards humans in a posistion of command, and that he often talked about a desire to seek out the Dalish. And as we have mentioned before, we don't know the specifics of his "capture", if he resisted the Templars was in their full right to kill him, and he seems likely to have resisted.

Secondly, that Cullen can rule the Circle in fear prooves nothing, except that they are going to be oppressed by him specifically. We also meet a Knight-Commander who is willing to take bribes from mages (apostates even). Does that then proove that the Circle aren't oppressed? No, that just prooves that there are Templars who are willing to loosen up the "iron grip".

[LobselVith8]

tmp7704 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You're talking about a guy who was joking around (like he does in most of his dialogue) while Cullen is deadpan serious when he says that templars have talked about such things (i.e. killing mages) with glee.

Leaving aside deadpan delivery is also brand of humour, do you believe Cullen to be capable of judging whether the templars who talked about it were serious or not? For all we know the guy may be the butt of Circle jokes because he's gullible and it's fun to yank his chain and see him freak out. You can do it even yourself if your character is of the right gender.

There's also another factor here -- being able to separate talk from reality. I can talk with glee about doing things to my boss (or whoever) too, it doesn't necessarily mean it's something i'd want to practice.

Considering the option that initiates this dialogue comes from a Mage (eventually Mage Warden) who says "I thought all templars enjoyed killing mages," it hardly seems that either Cullen or the Warden were jossing around. The fact it's possible to later say to Irving that Greagoir hates all mages (as the Warden's opinion, fair enough) and that a little girl is scared of them (again, her opinion), there's no indication that we're suppose to infer that Cullen was anything but serious. Niall mentions how he'd be killed if he simply ran away to live away from people (and we know that would be by the templars) despite apparently being a Senior Enchanter (as he was at the meeting the Circle had with Uldred) and Duncan comments on the tensions between the mages and the templars when asked about the argument later on. What makes you think the writers of the Magi Origin intended anything other than what's actually said?

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
I suppose that could have been worded better. According to the Dalish, they were driven out of their second homeland because they refused to convert to the Andrastian Chantry. In their eyes, the Chantry is dangerous on many levels - their political power, their religious authority on Andrastian societies.

The Dalish lost their nation because they invaded Orlais and couldn't fight off all the Andrastian nations combined. The Dalish try very hard to simplify and victimize themselves in this whole situation. They don't bother mentioning themselves massacering a few villagers or even tell about the decade long war. Oh no, they just *poof* lost their country.

That's the claim by Orlais, the same nation that invaded Ferelden for over a century where people were raped and murdered; we have no way of knowing whether the attack on the town of Red Crossing was provoked or not. Scholars viewed it as a result of territorial disputes between the Dales and Orlais. According to the Dalish codex:

Halamshiral, "the end of the journey," was our capital, built out of the reach of the humans. We could once again forget the incessant passage of time. Our people began the slow process of recovering the culture and traditions we had lost to slavery.

But it was not to last. The Chantry first sent missionaries into the Dales, and then, when those were thrown out, templars. We were driven from Halamshiral, scattered. Some took refuge in the cities of the shemlen, living in squalor, tolerated only a little better than vermin.

We took a different path. We took to the wilderness, never stopping long enough to draw the notice of our shemlen neighbors. In our self-imposed exile, we kept what remained of elven knowledge and culture alive.

--"The End of the Long Walk," as told by Gisharel, Keeper of the Ralaferin Clan of the Dalish elves

The Dalish Warden Origin also has a storyteller named Paivel who says the humans attacked the Dales because they refused to worship the human god.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Aren't they oppressed under the Chantry? Being turned into a tranquil is monstorous. The fact that they hunted down Wynne's fourteen year old apprentice when he was just scared is a brutal method for policing mages. Uldred's revolt illustrates how the oppression by the Chantry is inevitably going to turn violent as long as the Chantry keeps them under their thumb.

That's where the difference between them being potentially dangerous and just another oppressed ethnic group (like say, the elves in the alienage) comes in to play.  It's not entirely humane, obviously, but it's closer to the idea of prison than the idea of slavery.  Is pre-emptive inprisonment morally justified?  Eh, not really no - not without the original sin concept of mages screwing up the whole Black City thing and causing Blights - if I remember the lore right - but is it legally and practically justified?  Maybe.  It's certainly more open for debate than an open-and-shut-case either for (the Chantry's position) or against (the apostate position) its existence.

If I was around in Thedas in a position of power, I'd definitely be trying to figure out an alternative.  But I'd better make absolutely damn sure I knew what I was doing.  It isn't like the Emancipation Proclamation.

That is the Andrastian Chantry's claim - the Tevinter Magister Lords and the Golden City. However, given that an emotionally broken Cullen can end up as the new Knight-Commander and rule the Circle in fear, it shows me that mages are oppressed under the templars. Even the First Enchanter has to abide by the Knight-Commander's orders; there's really no one to side with the mages if the templar crosses the line like Cullen can (if the Circle is culled), because the Chantry views magic as evil.

No where at all does it state that Aneirn was simply scared. Actually Wynne says he was very defiant towards humans, and especially towards humans in a posistion of command, and that he often talked about a desire to seek out the Dalish. And as we have mentioned before, we don't know the specifics of his "capture", if he resisted the Templars was in their full right to kill him, and he seems likely to have resisted.

Secondly, that Cullen can rule the Circle in fear prooves nothing, except that they are going to be oppressed by him specifically. We also meet a Knight-Commander who is willing to take bribes from mages (apostates even). Does that then proove that the Circle aren't oppressed? No, that just prooves that there are Templars who are willing to loosen up the "iron grip".

First, Aneirn was fourteen years old when he leaves because Wynne was a bad instructor, because he didn't have anyone to turn to. Wynne admits he tried to reach out to her and she didn't let him. He had no one. As for a threat that he might have posed, he's fairly young at the time, and when we meet him he's a healer; there's no indication he has any training in destructive arts, so armored and armored templars hunting this teenager down aren't likely to be dealing with the kind of threat a blood mage or abomination pose. They left him to die, so obviously he wasn't much of a threat and they weren't as altruistic as you imply.

Second, it proves that a mage-hating templar can rule over men, women, and children who have no one to turn to. The fact you're comparing a corrupt templar who disposes of evidence with a brutal templar who makes the lives of every mage in the tower a living hell is hardly comparable. There's no one for the mages to turn to with someone like Cullen in charge of the Circle, especially since the Chantry views magic as evil.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 05 octobre 2010 - 12:11 .

[Sir JK]

Just a question, but could we keep the Dalish out of this thread (unless you wish to discuss wether the Templars are trying to bring in Dalish mage-children to the circles, that'd be ontopic. my guess would be yes)? Just keep to the policy of mages, circles and parents of mages?



On topic...one thing I'd really love to see is a scene where a group of people would gather around this demagogue spitting fire and brimstone (figuratively) and working his crowd up for a killingfrenzy against the scared mageling he's holding in his arms. Enter a group of templars that passes through the crowd, the leader going straight up to the demagogue and knocking his teeth out. Then, with one templar holding back the crowd, one taking the mageling to safety and the leader giving the crowd a good chewing out and a genuine, from the heart, speech defending the mage's right to live.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
You're talking about a guy who was joking around (like he does in most of his dialogue) while Cullen is deadpan serious when he says that templars have talked about such things (i.e. killing mages) with glee.

Stop using this redicolous "argument" already.
People talk all the time. Thre are morons and bloodthirsty people in every group. Among hte police. Among the general populace. among the soldiers. And yes, among the templars. And among the mages too.


The mages are more line in a quaranteene than in a prison. Tehy are kept inside for their own good and hte good of hte general populace.
You may argue it's monstrous, but if I could belch fire and raise dead, and compeltely loose my sanity at any moment, you would want me in chains.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

First, Aneirn was fourteen years old when he leaves because Wynne was a bad instructor, because he didn't have anyone to turn to. Wynne admits he tried to reach out to her and she didn't let him. He had no one. As for a threat that he might have posed, he's fairly young at the time, and when we meet him he's a healer; there's no indication he has any training in destructive arts, so armored and armored templars hunting this teenager down aren't likely to be dealing with the kind of threat a blood mage or abomination pose. They left him to die, so obviously he wasn't much of a threat and they weren't as altruistic as you imply.

You know who was also a young mage? Connor. Younger than Aneirn if I'm not mistaken...and he surly didn't  seem harmless.  A kid with a gun can still kill you.

Second, it proves that a mage-hating templar can rule over men, women, and children who have no one to turn to. The fact you're comparing a corrupt templar who disposes of evidence with a brutal templar who makes the lives of every mage in the tower a living hell is hardly comparable. There's no one for the mages to turn to with someone like Cullen in charge of the Circle, especially since the Chantry views magic as evil.

It doesn't prove that there is no oversight. Al lwe have is an epiloge, and I don't recall the words "living hell" there.  Again - wrong epopel got into positions of power in systems with plenty of checks and balances before. It can happen.

[Nerevar-as]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The mages are more line in a quaranteene than in a prison. Tehy are kept inside for their own good and hte good of hte general populace.
You may argue it's monstrous, but if I could belch fire and raise dead, and compeltely loose my sanity at any moment, you would want me in chains.

And anyone around you could lose their mind some day, get a weapon, and kill anyone in sight. The only difference that the weapon is part of you makes is training so it doesn´t go off by accident. Or do you want to put everybody in  the whole world in a bottle? Only way to be sure.

[Lotion Soronarr]

No...for one one would have to get a weapons. A mage is his own weapon.

For another, a regular weapons can only do so much damage. A mage can do a LOT of damage.

A crazed man cannot raise the dead of mind control people.

A crazed man does not equal an abomination, neither in power nor in the danger it presents.

Lastly, a mage is far more likely to "loose ones mind" than anyone else. And when I say "loose ones mind" I mean "get possesed". Which is something that almost never happens to regular people, and when it does (IIRC, only when they sleep, or in places where the veil is torn), the result is far less terrifying.


A revolver is not a bazooka is not a nuke.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 05 octobre 2010 - 01:44 .

[Doyle41]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No...for one one would have to get a weapons. A mage is his own weapon.

For another, a regular weapons can only do so much damage. A mage can do a LOT of damage.

A crazed man cannot raise the dead of mind control people.

A crazed man does not equal an abomination, neither in power nor in the danger it presents.

Lastly, a mage is far more likely to "loose ones mind" than anyone else. And when I say "loose ones mind" I mean "get possesed". Which is something that almost never happens to regular people, and when it does (IIRC, only when they sleep, or in places where the veil is torn), the result is far less terrifying.


A revolver is not a bazooka is not a nuke.

There are mainly 2 reasons mages turn to blood magic. Desperation to escape the chantry's rule and being caged by templars, or they are trying to acquire greater powers. I think all ambitious people without integrity are dangerous. Not just mages. Arl Howe and Loghain proved this. I understand the need to monitor mages, but not control them.
 Why could they not just have mages registered and collect their phylactary? To live and move about freely?

"Lyrium use is regulated by the Chantry, but some templars suffer from lyrium addiction, the effects of which include paranoia, obsession, and dementia. Templars knowingly submit themselves to this "treatment" in the service of the Order and the Maker. It is this sense of ruthless piety that most frightens mages when they draw the templars' attention: When the templars are sent to eliminate a possible blood mage, there is no reasoning with them, and if the templars are prepared, the mage's magic is all but useless. Driven by their faith, the templars are one of the most feared and respected forces in Thedas. "

Yep, if I were a mage I would be afraid of these guys too. Like I said before, fear can cause great harm to a particular cause. People will go to great lengths to protect themselves (e.g.) Jowan.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Mages aren't allowed to move around freely because it would be a logistical hell to keep track of, even with the phylacteries. And if one mage were to become possessed it could potentially turn out like in Redcliffe because the Templars wouldn't be able to respond in time.



If I were a mage I wouldn't be afraid of the Templars, because I would stand up to my responsibility towards the rest of mankind, and stay in the tower.

[tmp7704]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Considering the option that initiates this dialogue comes from a Mage (eventually Mage Warden) who says "I thought all templars enjoyed killing mages," it hardly seems that either Cullen or the Warden were jossing around.

Hmm i don't know, really. When you think of it, starting a conversation in this way is much like having say, a turian start conversation with a human with "I thought you humans were all racist". Depending on character of the human in question and how much they enjoy sarcasm, getting a response confirming such fears just because the question was found annoying, ridiculous or narrow-minded ... isn't really out of place.
 

Niall mentions how he'd be killed if he simply ran away to live away from people (and we know that would be by the templars) despite apparently being a Senior Enchanter (as he was at the meeting the Circle had with Uldred) and Duncan comments on the tensions between the mages and the templars when asked about the argument later on.

Yes, after all the templars operate under the rule that apostates have to be either brought to the Circle or killed (or just killed if they're found out to be maleficarum) so Niall is correct, and the tension between mages and templars is also natural given the relationship between these two groups. However, i'd argue that doesn't itself mean and/or confirm that templars enjoy these duties.

On the other hand, realistically, there is probably such individuals who do enjoy this sort of things, because it's given there's going to be few unhinged individuals in a group large enough. This however is true for about any group -- using it as basis to deny the group right to operate we would have to disband armies, governments and well, pretty much all organizations. Instead, we focus rather on removing these "weak links" if they actually prove themselves to have flaws affecting their performance and/or judgement.

[LobselVith8]

tmp7704 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Considering the option that initiates this dialogue comes from a Mage (eventually Mage Warden) who says "I thought all templars enjoyed killing mages," it hardly seems that either Cullen or the Warden were jossing around.

Hmm i don't know, really. When you think of it, starting a conversation in this way is much like having say, a turian start conversation with a human with "I thought you humans were all racist". Depending on character of the human in question and how much they enjoy sarcasm, getting a response confirming such fears just because the question was found annoying, ridiculous or narrow-minded ... isn't really out of place.

Look at the history between mages and templars. Templars have killed mages for hundreds of years, and mages have no rights to speak of in Andrastian nations. A mage is taken from their family and forced to live in a tower, where they can live out their lives, get killed, or turned tranquil. It explains the mage-hunter comment that can be said to Alistair when he said he used to be a templar, and Alistair admitting that almost being a templar has rubbed every mage the wrong way at Ostagar. You're free to disagree, but I think it's slightly different when you're equating a group of mages living under the rule of templars who actually do kill them or turn them tranquil as the worse case scenerios at the Circle Tower.

tmp7704 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
 
Niall mentions how he'd be killed if he simply ran away to live away from people (and we know that would be by the templars) despite apparently being a Senior Enchanter (as he was at the meeting the Circle had with Uldred) and Duncan comments on the tensions between the mages and the templars when asked about the argument later on.

Yes, after all the templars operate under the rule that apostates have to be either brought to the Circle or killed (or just killed if they're found out to be maleficarum) so Niall is correct, and the tension between mages and templars is also natural given the relationship between these two groups. However, i'd argue that doesn't itself mean and/or confirm that templars enjoy these duties.

On the other hand, realistically, there is probably such individuals who do enjoy this sort of things, because it's given there's going to be few unhinged individuals in a group large enough. This however is true for about any group -- using it as basis to deny the group right to operate we would have to disband armies, governments and well, pretty much all organizations. Instead, we focus rather on removing these "weak links" if they actually prove themselves to have flaws affecting their performance and/or judgement.

And given the lack of authority mages have to protect themselves from the templars, it's a scenerio that needs to change. As I've said in the past, I think mages should be properly instructed on how to use their magic, but not imprisoned for it.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Mages aren't allowed to move around freely because it would be a logistical hell to keep track of, even with the phylacteries. And if one mage were to become possessed it could potentially turn out like in Redcliffe because the Templars wouldn't be able to respond in time.

If I were a mage I wouldn't be afraid of the Templars, because I would stand up to my responsibility towards the rest of mankind, and stay in the tower.

Responsibility to be pawns of the Chantry, you mean? Templars aren't necessary; the Disciples of Andraste, the Dalish clans, the elves of the Dales and Arlathan, and the mages of Rivian never needed templars or Chantry oversight.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

First, Aneirn was fourteen years old when he leaves because Wynne was a bad instructor, because he didn't have anyone to turn to. Wynne admits he tried to reach out to her and she didn't let him. He had no one. As for a threat that he might have posed, he's fairly young at the time, and when we meet him he's a healer; there's no indication he has any training in destructive arts, so armored and armored templars hunting this teenager down aren't likely to be dealing with the kind of threat a blood mage or abomination pose. They left him to die, so obviously he wasn't much of a threat and they weren't as altruistic as you imply.

You know who was also a young mage? Connor. Younger than Aneirn if I'm not mistaken...and he surly didn't  seem harmless.  A kid with a gun can still kill you.

And it never would have happened if children weren't taken away from their families by the Chantry, where they can be expected to survive, get killed by a sword of mercy, or turned into an emotionless rune-crafting slave. The Dalish, the Disciples, the elves of the Dales and Arlathan, and the mages of Rivian don't seem to have an issue, and none of them had Chantry oversight.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Second, it proves that a mage-hating templar can rule over men, women, and children who have no one to turn to. The fact you're comparing a corrupt templar who disposes of evidence with a brutal templar who makes the lives of every mage in the tower a living hell is hardly comparable. There's no one for the mages to turn to with someone like Cullen in charge of the Circle, especially since the Chantry views magic as evil.

It doesn't prove that there is no oversight. Al lwe have is an epiloge, and I don't recall the words "living hell" there.  Again - wrong epopel got into positions of power in systems with plenty of checks and balances before. It can happen.

Cullen rules the Circle in fear as the new Knight-Commander - how else are you going to interpret that?

As I said previously, plenty of others have existed alongside mages without templars or the Chantry, and everything is fine. The Chantry and the templars aren't necessary for mages - it's an issue of control for them.