499 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Hanz54321 wrote...

No, it wasn't sarcasm.  It was crappy, hurried writing unfortunately.  The confirmation of this is that if you agree to help Wynne you gain influence w Anders.  If you refuse to help Wytnne on the grounds that the Libertarians are right, Anders objects and you lose influence.

I don't think it was hurried writing as much as I think Anders fundamentally lacks a certain kind of courage.  He certainly has enough personal courage and some to spare and actually makes a good Grey Warden in DAA, but he's afraid of consequences so much that he (at leats IMO and iMX) can't make decisions and the idea of forcing a conflict terrifies him.

That I think is why Anders agrees with Wynne.  Anders is a Libertarian, no doubt, but he's scared of what the Chantry will do (read Exalted March) and this fear is not unjustified, and doesn't think Freedom is worth the cost.  In this larger issue, Anders is like a guy who loves meat but can't stand the thought of butchering an animal.  Judging by Ines, if Wynne is counting on Ines' support, she might be in for a very rude shock.

-Polaris

[frostajulie]

13 pages what an awesome thread! IanPolaris YOU are my hero. I don't understand and probably never will how anyone can side with a practice so blatantly evil and against basic human rights that are so universal across all time periods and cultures and even literary works. Ripping children away from their families is wrong and you can't paint it right by warning against potential damage said child may do. Locking up people who did nothing wrong can't be defended or viewed as right it just can't.



I may not be able to express myself as eloquently as you or even as your detractors but I know the difference between right and wrong and I am glad to have such a strong defender of what is right and just who is able to express my own thoughts on this subject much better than myself.

[EmperorSahlertz]

They aren't "rping children away" from their families.

First of all, magical talent usually only manifest during the late teens.

Second of all, many of these children are shuned by their own parents when their talents manifest.

Third of all, it was a very common practice in Medieval times to send your child away when he reached apporximately the same age as the mages, so that he could learn etiqutte and such.

Fourth of all, what is truely mind boggeling is how feriously some defend "basic human rights" and "mage rights", when the common peasant of Thedas have it MUCH worse than the mages. Talk about double standards.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

They aren't "rping children away" from their families.

Yeah, they are, for the most part.

First of all, magical talent usually only manifest during the late teens.

Wrong. it manifests normall from late childhood to early teens. Late teens is pretty old, as Anders was unusual in this respect, entering the circle in his teens. Jowan. Wynne, and most  others generally manifest around ages 6-12.

Second of all, many of these children are shuned by their own parents when their talents manifest.

Not necessarily. While Wynne and Jowan, perhaps, had that happen, Finn and Connor have parents who did not shun them at all.

Third of all, it was a very common practice in Medieval times to send your child away when he reached apporximately the same age as the mages, so that he could learn etiqutte and such.

Nobility, yes, and were sent to friends and relatives, not some cold, impersonal institution. For the rest of the populations, kids seldom left their parents until they got married.

Fourth of all, what is truely mind boggeling is how feriously some defend "basic human rights" and "mage rights", when the common peasant of Thedas have it MUCH worse than the mages. Talk about double standards.

Ehh...no they don't. It is illegal to kill a common person on sight, unlike an apostate mage, where they can be slain first, ask questions later. Nor is it legal to take away the commoner's child at birth, without their consent. A commoner can also freely marry, have children, and raise families, a mage is not allowed except under rare circumstances, and only if approved by the Chantry.

Your average commoner's existance is protected by law and social custom far better than themage.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

They aren't "rping children away" from their families.

Yeah, they are, for the most part.

First of all, magical talent usually only manifest during the late teens.

Wrong. it manifests normall from late childhood to early teens. Late teens is pretty old, as Anders was unusual in this respect, entering the circle in his teens. Jowan. Wynne, and most  others generally manifest around ages 6-12.

Gaider said that magical talent usually manifest in the teens, some earlier some later. I can't find the exact quote, but then again I didn't try very hard.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Second of all, many of these children are shuned by their own parents when their talents manifest.

Not necessarily. While Wynne and Jowan, perhaps, had that happen, Finn and Connor have parents who did not shun them at all.

Isolde very much shun what Connor had become, she still loved him, but she wanted to save her image more. And Finn is the single story of an understanding mother we've got. Sorry, but the general population is NOT going to like the idea of a mage child.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Third of all, it was a very common practice in Medieval times to send your child away when he reached apporximately the same age as the mages, so that he could learn etiqutte and such.

Nobility, yes, and were sent to friends and relatives, not some cold, impersonal institution. For the rest of the populations, kids seldom left their parents until they got married.

Anyone who could afford it, sent their children away, it also became very common amongst the merchants. And it wasn't neccesarily to friends and relatives, it could also be to monasteries or academies (on a sidenote: these relatives were often complete strangers anyway). The reason kids didn't elave their parents home wasn't beacuse they didn't want to, it was because they couldn't afford it. The parents would probably love to be able to send more of their children away, as it would be less mouthes to feed, however only the mage children get "ripped away" for free.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Fourth of all, what is truely mind boggeling is how feriously some defend "basic human rights" and "mage rights", when the common peasant of Thedas have it MUCH worse than the mages. Talk about double standards.

Ehh...no they don't. It is illegal to kill a common person on sight, unlike an apostate mage, where they can be slain first, ask questions later. Nor is it legal to take away the commoner's child at birth, without their consent. A commoner can also freely marry, have children, and raise families, a mage is not allowed except under rare circumstances, and only if approved by the Chantry.

Your average commoner's existance is protected by law and social custom far better than themage.

Uhm... It is legal to slay an outlaw on the spot, so that equates your appostate claim (an appostate is an outlaw who just so happens to be a mage). And the nobles don't need to do anything illegal to take away a peasant's child, they are fully capable of claiming them by right of their nobility. And mages can freely marry and get children, they just can't raise families. But then again, many commoners won't ever be able to afford getting a family.

So no, the commoners do not have it better than the mages.

[IanPolaris]

Hoo boy...there is so much wrong with the following post it's hard to know where to begin...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

They aren't "rping children away" from their families.

Yes they are, and it's confirmed by mulitple sources in the game.  There is Wynne, Jowan, Anerin (Wynne's first student), and even the Mage PC him (or her)self.  Also Conner would have been had Isolde been forthcoming.

Not just that but if a Mage has a child, the chantry takes them away with no regard for their parents.  If that's not enough, read in the Calling how Fiona describes the circle.

You are flat out 100% wrong.

First of all, magical talent usually only manifest during the late teens.
Second of all, many of these children are shuned by their own parents when their talents manifest.

Wrong.  Anders was the exception not the rule (and if you have a DG quote directly to the contrary I challenge you to pull it out in the face of game and book evidence against you).  Mages show their talents either in childhood or their early teens as a rule and all sources (even Morrigan and Wynne) agree as do all examples of Mages in the game except Anders.

Third of all, it was a very common practice in Medieval times to send your child away when he reached apporximately the same age as the mages, so that he could learn etiqutte and such.

Never against the will of the parents and it was only commonplace in Noble Families.  Even then, squiring out was done either with relatives or close political allies/friends of your family which meant that the child was never cut off or denied their rights (nor their parents) as were the mages.

Fourth of all, what is truely mind boggeling is how feriously some defend "basic human rights" and "mage rights", when the common peasant of Thedas have it MUCH worse than the mages. Talk about double standards.

That is completely horsemanure especially in Fereldan.  A commoner has rights under the crown.  A mage has none.  A mage can be declared an outlaw by the chantry just by existing.  A commoner can not be made an outlaw without it first being reviewed as a case of high justice.  It generally takes a trial or at least a hearing for the crown to declare a commoner an outlaw.  A mage gets no hearing and no magistrate.  That's in addition to all the other little rights such as the right to marry who you choose, have and keep your own children, and even move to a different land (Fereldan Commoners tend to be yeoman) all of which are denied to anyone with magical talent.

Please.  You are trying to justify the unjustifiable.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Uhm... It is legal to slay an outlaw on the spot, so that equates your appostate claim (an appostate is an outlaw who just so happens to be a mage).

Declaring an a commoner an outlaw is an act of high-justice which usually means at least a hearing (admittedly often without the accused present).  The crown doesn't (or at least isn't supposed to) wake up on the wrong side of bed and declare all commoners with blue eyes to be outlaws.....certainly in Fereldan the Landsmeet would take issue with such a king.

However, that's pretty much exactly how it is with a mage.  If you have magical ability and you aren't on official Chantry parole, then you are an outlaw (and not even the crown can intercede) just by having blue eyes (or in this case magical talent). 

And the nobles don't need to do anything illegal to take away a peasant's child, they are fully capable of claiming them by right of their nobility. And mages can freely marry and get children, they just can't raise families. But then again, many commoners won't ever be able to afford getting a family.

Maybe in Orlais, but that definately is not true in Fereldan, and Orlesian nobles that insisted on their 'rights' in Fereldan often found this out the hard way.  Commoners especially in Fereldan are not slaves and are not property and taking their children is NOT a noble's due....unless you are a mage.

The point is at least in Fereldan, a commoner has rights under both law and custom and a mage does not.  Also mages do not have the right to marry whom they please and have children as they please.  Wynne makes that perfectly clear.  There may not be an explicit celibacy oath for mages as there are for Templars, but don't think they have carte blanche in the marriage dept and especially not in the children dept.

So no, the commoners do not have it better than the mages.

Yes they do.  The only way mages might have it better is they don't have to work as hard physically in the tower as they would on a farm. Honestly, that's a pretty poor trade for what is taken away.

-Polaris

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

@Ian: Thanks you saved me the trouble of having to respond. You summed it up nicely there.



Mages have no rights, period. the commoners do.



A commoner becoming an outlaw requires the commoner to conciously comit an illegal act. A mage, who is born as such without choice, is an outlaw simply for existing outside of the Chantry.

[Bad King]

The Templars claim that they monitor and protect the mages from apostasy yet it was a grey warden and not a Templar that defeated Uldred and saved the Circle. They're not as great at their jobs as the chantry makes them out to be.

Modifié par Bad King, 02 janvier 2011 - 02:25 .

[IanPolaris]

Hanz,



Which explains why a Warden Recruit and Warden who was once a Templar (presumptive) can singlehandedly clean out the tower when all the Templars in the tower can't. It also says bad things about both Irving and the Templars that Uldred could have a bloodmagic shadowcircle for YEARS under their very noses (and it especially makes them both look bad vis a vis Jowan).



-Polaris

[Deztyn]

I'm only on page two but I feel compelled to respond, forgive me if I'm repeating what others have already said.

I won't argue that system shouldn't be modified. There should be some changes. Adult mages proven to be responsible with their abilities do deserve a bit more freedom. But, the idea that mage children should remain with their families ignores important facts about the Dragon Age world and human nature.

I very much doubt that the Chantry has the resources to teach every mage child in or even near their home villages, and travel is a long hard process. There are no planes, trains and automobiles. The average farmer isn't going to have paid vacation time to travel days or weeks to drop the kid off at school for a semester. Never mind the other logistics of travel; protection, shelter, supplies. Mage kids being trained at home or even away for only parts of the year is impractical.

More importantly, allowing the kids to remain at home means allowing them to be influenced by their families beliefs and morals. In a perfect world with perfect parents this wouldn't be a bad thing but the Dragon Age world is far from perfect. How do you really think the average working class laborer or farmer scraping to get by would react to having a child who could bend the forces of reality? Encourage her to use those abilities responsibly for the benefit of the world in accordance with Chantry rules and regulations? Or would they care more about how they could benefit from knowing someone with that much power at their fingertips? I suspect for most people it would be the latter. The only way it can be ensured that the kids have the proper influences growing up is by being the proper influence.

That's assuming their families would even want to keep them. Never mind what the neighbors would think. How safe would you feel knowing that you're just one temper tantrum away from being burned to cinders? That a little tussle between siblings could result in one of your children having their lifeforce leeched away? Taking the kids away and having them guarded by templars and constantly supervised by more experienced mages is the only way to guarantee collateral damage is kept to a minimum.

Modifié par Deztyn, 02 janvier 2011 - 07:55 .

[IanPolaris]

Deztyn,



If what you say is so, then how did the Tevinter Imperium, Ancient Elves, Dalish (both as tribes and as their own independant kdm) let alone the Rivain who actually encourage a controlled sort of possession within their own witches survive.



I think it's very clear that the dangers of a mage child growing up in a normal family is grossly overstated by the Chantry and I am not convinced given the examples of circle mages we've seen that the Chantry actually cares two coppers about training them at all....once they are "safely" locked away.



-Polaris

[Addai]

Deztyn wrote...
Taking the kids away and having them guarded by templars and constantly supervised by more experienced mages is the only way to guarantee collateral damage is kept to a minimum.

Dragging kids away from their homes, locking them up for life, subjecting them to 24-7 surveillance and to the Harrowing or a tranquility rite, and at any time killing them outright is a lot of collateral damage.  Not to mention the sexual abuse that Wynne mentions.

The Chantry already has chapels in most larger towns, but I don't think they should be in charge anyway.  They just exploit mages for their own gain.  Something like a mages' collective on a larger scale should be in charge.  Everyone has the right to self-determination.  If the Chantry didn't have a stranglehold on the lyrium trade and enchanting, that could be used to fund mage training.

[Deztyn]

I'd say that nothing is "very clear". We don't have enough information about how mages were actually raised and trained in those societies to make any conclusive judgments. Nor are there any statistics on how effective those methods actually were.

But we can look at Redcliffe as an example. Isolde was stupid and selfish, Jowan was an apostate and Eamon was being poisoned, yes. But when you strip the situation down to it's core you have a good kid from a good home with incomplete training making a deal with a demon because daddy was sick and a lot of people dying as a result. A situation that could easily arise with other children from good homes lacking proper guidance from experienced mages and templars watching for signs of corruption.

And not every mage child will come from a good noble home. Most will come from poor struggling homes where the potential for a deliberate misuse of the child's abilities is as likely as the unintentional misuse. A point you haven't made any attempt to address.

Edit:

Addai67 wrote...
[
Dragging kids away from their homes, locking them up for life, subjecting them to 24-7 surveillance and to the Harrowing or a tranquility rite, and at any time killing them outright is a lot of collateral damage.  Not to mention the sexual abuse that Wynne mentions.

If the alternative is those children being untrained or improperly trained and many, many more people dying as a result. Then yes, that is keeping the damage to a minimum. A single bad mage on rampage can probably cause more death and destruction to the normal people of Thedas in a few hours than there are mages in the  tower at Lake Calenhad.

I do support more freedom for adult fully trained mages, but I think it's naive to believe that living with their families with outside tutoring is going to be the best approach to training young mages.  The potential for even a loving family to abuse their child's power is something you really can't ignore.

 And I'm fairly certain the sexual abuse isn't part of the institution, just the abuse of power by people within that institution. It's not fair to use that as an example of the system itself being broken.

Modifié par Deztyn, 02 janvier 2011 - 10:43 .

[IanPolaris]

Deztyn,



Evidence for all you say would be nice. The Conner situation is an extraordinary case and if you go by that, I could point out the case of Amelia in Honneth who is no mage but can also become an abomination just as (seemingly) easily.



The point is that we have entire cultures past and present in Thedas that weren't under the influence of the Chantry and if the danger of abomination were as great as you say, then it should be "Abominations Run Wild" in those culture....but that is not so.



So please. Draw the obvious conclusion.



-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Deztyn wrote...

 And I'm fairly certain the sexual abuse isn't part of the institution, just the abuse of power by people within that institution. It's not fair to use that as an example of the system itself being broken.

Sure it is because it points out that the Chantry doesn't hold it's Templars accountable for their behavior towards mages and has no interest in doing so.

-Polaris

[Deztyn]

Evidence?

That most people in Thedas aren't rich? That if most people in Thedas aren't rich it follows that most mage kids aren't from rich families? That being poor in a medieval society is no fun and you'll have more basic needs that aren't met and therefore be more likely to turn to crime to fill those needs? That many humans are selfish? That not all parents are unconditionally loving, perfect role models and incapable of exploiting their children to get ahead? That mages are really powerful and a normal person is helpless against a fireball of sufficient power? That it doesn't take a few seconds and a visit with Old Tegrin to get from Lake Calenhad to Denerim? That Connor was responsible for the deaths of a lot of innocent people? That he is the perfect example of what can go wrong when a young mage isn't trained properly because he was a young mage who wasn't trained properly? That Amalia was possessed by a demon that had been summoned from the Fade by a mage who was allowed to live outside the circle and have a family? That the game doesn't give detailed information about the raising and training of mages in cultures outside of the Chantry? Or how often abominations happen in any culture? Or how they're dealt with and what safeguards are in place to stop them from happening? That mages have the potential to be just plain bad or misguided people with no demonic possessions required, just like the rest of us but with much more disasterous consequences?

Which of these things needs clarification and/or evidence? Tell me and I'll be happy to provide it.

And I'm not sure I fully understand the obvious conclusion. It seems to be that other mage cultures are superior because we have not been told they're inferior so they must be superior because of course we would definitely be told they were inferior if they weren't superior. But I'm not sure, it's not so obvious to me. So Please. Can you help clear that up? With evidence of all you say would be nice.

Modifié par Deztyn, 02 janvier 2011 - 01:34 .

[Deztyn]

Oops.

Modifié par Deztyn, 02 janvier 2011 - 01:33 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

What does someone being rich have to do with anything? Do rich people care more for their children than poor people do?



if you haven't noticed, Thedas is not perfectly aligned with medieval society/culture. For example, women in Thedas have far more regard and social/personal mobility and power than they did in medieval society. Commoner families in Ferelden are much smaller and better educated than peasants in medieval society were. Homosexuality/bisexuality is tolerated far better. There also appears to be more effective medicine, both applied and prevenetive, than in medieval society.



So to draw a direct analogue between medieval norms and Thedas norms would not be accurate at all. Thedas is very generally based on medieval society, in very loose terms, as far as politics and religion go. But beyond that, many similarities end, and we see more evidence in many cases for more modern attitudes towards alot of things as well. it is a fantasy setting, after all.



And while there are certainly people, like Jowan's family, who would shun or discard a mage child, there are others who not only wouldn't, but would be quite devestating having their child ripped from their care and sent to a circle. Isolde, while wealthy and influential, was also pious and a supporter of the Chantry position on magic...that is, until it hit home. Moreso than the motivation to avoid shame and embrassment, however, Isolde really did love her child, and did not want him taken away, hence why she hired Jowan to teach Connor enough that he could suppress his talent, thus allowing the boy to live at home with a normal life.



Ripping away offspring from parents is one of the most traumatic things you can do to a person, and it's not limited to humans. Many mamals and birds also suffer alot of distress and upset if you take their offspring away. Even cows, generally considered to be very dumb animals, will often wander away from the safety of farm and herd to look for a calf that has been taken away.



So for most humans, the act of taking a child by force from their parents, especially their mothers, is highly traumatic for both child and parent. Further seperating and destroying family bonds by discouraging familial contact just adds to this even more.



Setting up a system where mages can be trained, but still be part of their family and not suffer such trauma, would not be an impossible or impractical task, especially if you put control of national magic in the hands of a relatively impartial state, not a heavily biased religon.

[nos_astra]

You really can't let your 21st century world view go, can you?

People have survived for centuries without being coddled and wrapped up in cotton wool. Personal freedom, individual fulfilment didn't always have top priority.

In the context of the DA world the life of mages isn't worse than the life of others, those who have to serve, those who don't have access to magical healing, those who are considered the casualties in a war for the greater good. Anders (the way I have seen him written) is a perfect example for a naive mage who thinks the grass is greener on the other side and continues to make his situation worse to a point where the system he is living in would start considering him a threat and punish him.

On a similar note, I also don't get why people do hate Eamon for "what he has done to Alistair". He took a bastard in, put a roof over his head, had him fed, much better than many orphans or commoner children. Same thing, really. Eamon isn't worse or better than other characters, he's there to provide you with information how life is in Ferelden and Thedas.

It's just a matter of perspective. I don't immerse myself in a dark, medieval fantasy world to get all worked up because it is dark and medieval and people are not treated the way I'm used to.

Modifié par klarabella, 02 janvier 2011 - 05:15 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Skadi, the mages are allowed to keep their family connections, they just aren't allowed to live with their families. Which is partially why I say they aren't "ripped away" from their families. The other part is because some of the families don't even want their child, after it shows magical talents.

[IanPolaris]

Wilhelm was an extraordinary case. He was a war hero and even then the Tower kept close tabs on him. In short his entire existance hinged by the sufference of the chantry. Also it's not just Amerlia but Sofia Dryden was no mage and she got possessed as well while under the same conditions that BLOODMAGE Avernus did not get possessed. That right there should be solid in-game evidence that the risk of mages becoming abominations run-wild is at the very least overblown by the Chantry.



Also we have multiple in-game sources that say that not only are children ripped away from their families, but future contact is shall we say, "strongly discouraged".



The point is this: Mages are the only people in Fereldan that have no rights simply because of what they are rather than who they are (i.e. what they have done).



I am amazed that people continue to defend and apologize for the indefensible.



-Polaris