499 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...
Someone said something about three times in 700 years. I'd say this kind of works until we know how other systems work and if they work better.

It's actually 17 times in 700 years, meaning every 40 years or so. Divided into 6-7 Circles (at least). Which means that each has been annulled about 2.5 times.

Not a catastrophic number. But I'd say that the system is better at dealing with the symptoms than actually fixing them. But until we have a full understanding of how the other systems work, we can't know if it's an improvement or not. I personally doubt that Ancient Tevinter had to resort to the mass murdering of mages every generation, but who knows.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 03 janvier 2011 - 09:09 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

klarabella wrote...
Someone said something about three times in 700 years. I'd say this kind of works until we know how other systems work and if they work better.

It's actually 17 times in 700 years, meaning every 40 years or so. Divided into 6-7 Circles (at least). Which means that each has been annulled about 2.5 times.

Not a catastrophic number. But I'd say that the system is better at dealing with the symptoms than actually fixing them. But until we have a full understanding of how the other systems work, we can't know if it's an improvement or not. I personally doubt that Ancient Tevinter had to resort to the mass murdering of mages every generation, but who knows.

Since the government of Tevinter has been a magocracy since the beginning, and has remained intact for almost 2000 years, I think it's safe to assume mass murder of mages because they become abominations is not a normal part of their system. Since it would be kinda hard to maintain a civilization unbroken if you have to exterminate the ruling class every so often.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

And by the way, Wilhelm might have summoned a demon, but if you look in the codex and his notes, you will see Wilhelm was not some power mad evil nut, but was actually conducting research on finding out a way to make mages more resistant/immune to demonic possession. He wasn't doing it for his own amusement, and after a while, he decided he was going to dismiss the demon, but Shale kileld him before he could.



The Chantry, by contrast, regularly supports the summoning and light collaboration with demons (pride demons, the most dangerous) in the Harrowing. And Wilhelms purpose for summoning the demon is far more practical and useful than the Chantry purpose.

[Addai]

Deztyn wrote...
Like I said earlier, I support more freedom for responsible fully trained mages. I just don't agree that the mundanes should be allowed to raise mage kids. I just don't think the benefits for the mage minority outweigh the potential costs to the normal majority. Just think of the poor exploding elves in the Denerim Alienage. . .

Another problem that the Chantry exacerbates by its backward xenophobic ways.

I doubt we are going to come to any agreement, however.

[Addai]

klarabella wrote...
In Ferelden it would be easy for the mages to organize and try to overthrow the rest, in secluded communities with little contact to the world outside this is much less of an issue. That's why I said: Don't be so sure everyone else is treating mages with the utmost tolerance and respect to their individual freedom.

Since this is pure conjecture, not much to say in response.  It's also irrelevant, since Fereldans also don't practice slavery but that doesn't mean they should just because others do.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Addai67 wrote...

Since this is pure conjecture, not much to say in response.  It's also irrelevant, since Fereldans also don't practice slavery but that doesn't mean they should just because others do.

Most of the other Chantric nations treat mages worse. Ferelden still treats it's mages poorly, so that should tell you something.

I don't think you or I or others are saying there should be no system of checks and balances for the mage issue. I think that, however, the current system is unsustainable,potentially dangerous, ineffecient, and, depending on how one feels, immoral, and a better system needs to be put in place. I've said before, and I'll say it again, the first step for me would be removing Chantry control over mages, and making the Circle directly under the control and authority of the crown. But I think this should be done by multiple nations at about the same time, or by one powerful enough that it can easily afford pissing the Chantry off.

If I were to propose a system, I would have mage Circles be more like college dorms/ private schools, where mages go to study and learn for semesters, but are allowed out for weekends and holidays, as well as summertime breaks where they can go visit family and friends. There would be some major rite of passage like the Harowing, though not the exact same thing, to prove they are capable of controling themselves. After graduation, mages would be required to serve the crown in some capacity for a determined period, kinda like mandatory national service/draft. This could be either in the military, or direct service of the crown in some civic capacity. After which, they would be free to pursue whatever career path they choose.

there would be a control and safety net, should a mage become a public nuissance. There would still be phylacteries, but they would be held by the government, not the Chantry, in sort of a "national mage database". There would also be a sort of police force consisting of warriors trained in templar talents, but not templars themselves. This would be doable, since neither lyrium addiction nor religous belief are required to perform templar duties. This force would generally be tasked with tracking down troublesome mages as well as serving security at the Circles, but other than that, they would not be in a permanat position of power over the mages and their circles.

Such a system, like all systems, does have potential flaws. but compared to the current system, it's far better in my opinion, and also provides a greater benefit for a larger number of people, even beyond the mages. The nation itself benefits from having mages integrated into national security or eprforming services for the benefit of society as a whole.

[EmperorSahlertz]

What about the mages who then goes home, and become possessed at their home village? There would be no fast-response Templar group ready to battle that threat. An entire village could be destroyed and the veil torn for eternity, just because some mage needed a weekend fishing with his father.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

What about the mages who then goes home, and become possessed at their home village? There would be no fast-response Templar group ready to battle that threat. An entire village could be destroyed and the veil torn for eternity, just because some mage needed a weekend fishing with his father.

More "view with alarm".  The evidence we have seems to show that as isolated incidents:

1.  Mage Abominations are fairly rare (and you don't have to be a mage to be an abomination).
2.  They don't immediately cause tears in the veil and mass destruction.

This is a chantry pushed myth.

Given that most villages seem to have at least a small guardforce, even a watch-warrior or two should be more than sufficent to send a message to the nearest outpost to get help...in the RARE case where such is needed.  I also note that the Viel can tear naturally when there is a lot of death as well, and not just because a mage had a bad dream (and indeed far more likely to in such a case).

You seem to think that Mages are dangerous unexploded bombs, but there is nothing that substaniates that myth beyond what the chantry says.

-Polaris

[Addai]

The only ones who believe in insta-possession disasters are Chantry tools like Wynne. With the actual possession story lines we see in the game, there is a progression of events that culminate in the possession, some of these exacerbated by the very system people are defending. Besides the secrecy with Connor, there is suggestion from Ines that it was the Circle that made Uldred go batty. The blood mage who asks to be spared also points to the fact that they turned to blood magic to win their freedom. If they had had normal human dignity and freedom to begin with, it might not have happened.

I mean, if mages really are that dangerous, then I'm surprised we haven't seen people advocating wholesale slaughter.  Just kill anyone who shows signs of magic outright, then there will never be a chance for them to escape and cause these horrible disasters.

Modifié par Addai67, 03 janvier 2011 - 07:44 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

What about the mages who then goes home, and become possessed at their home village? There would be no fast-response Templar group ready to battle that threat. An entire village could be destroyed and the veil torn for eternity, just because some mage needed a weekend fishing with his father.

More "view with alarm".  The evidence we have seems to show that as isolated incidents:

1.  Mage Abominations are fairly rare (and you don't have to be a mage to be an abomination).
2.  They don't immediately cause tears in the veil and mass destruction.

This is a chantry pushed myth.

Given that most villages seem to have at least a small guardforce, even a watch-warrior or two should be more than sufficent to send a message to the nearest outpost to get help...in the RARE case where such is needed.  I also note that the Viel can tear naturally when there is a lot of death as well, and not just because a mage had a bad dream (and indeed far more likely to in such a case).

You seem to think that Mages are dangerous unexploded bombs, but there is nothing that substaniates that myth beyond what the chantry says.

-Polaris

Yes abominations are rare (thankfully), and no you dont HAVE to be a mage to become possessed. However, for a non-mage to become possessed, they would have to have been in physical contact with a demon, whereas a mage could just have had a bad dream, so to speak.
No, they don't immediately cause a tear in the veil, but they may. Once a tear has been made, they are exceptionally hard to close, if not impossible.

A single mage-child abomination was enough to overpower the entire garrison at Redcliffe Castle AND effectively cut-off Redcliffe village itself, what hope would some backwater village have then?

A single failure of a mage outside the circle (in the scenario posed) could have dire ramifications for an entire nation. All for some vaunted illusion of freedom. Why take the chance? For the sake of the few, we should sacrifice the many? It is bound to go wrong some day, and I'd much rather have it go wrong in a controlled enviroment. Either that, or all mages should have a Templar companion always, sorta like the Qunari mage-handlers, just without the leashes, depersonification of the mages and with the mages being allowed to make their own choices.

[IanPolaris]

This is false. A non-mage can "wake up" in the fade especially if trapped and thus can be possessed by a demon that way as well.



It's also not like there is an overhwelming number of abominations EXCEPT in the circle towers (hmmmm....wonder why).



*sigh* More thoughtless, "view with alarm" to justify the morally unjustifiable.



-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

I will deconstruct this point by point:

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Yes abominations are rare (thankfully), and no you dont HAVE to be a mage to become possessed. However, for a non-mage to become possessed, they would have to have been in physical contact with a demon, whereas a mage could just have had a bad dream, so to speak.

As I explained above, this is false.  You can be trapped in the fade and if a non-mage wakes up in the fade, he or she can become an abomination via the fade just as a mage can.  In addition, abominations seem so rare that I challenge that you have a sample space to make the spectacular claim you are making about mages and abominations.  Extraordinary claims like this require extraordinary evidence.

No, they don't immediately cause a tear in the veil, but they may. Once a tear has been made, they are exceptionally hard to close, if not impossible.

Anyone can tear the veil if they are willing to shed enough blood.  The veil is torn at Ostagar and not because of magic, either.  Again more "view with alarm".

A single mage-child abomination was enough to overpower the entire garrison at Redcliffe Castle AND effectively cut-off Redcliffe village itself, what hope would some backwater village have then?

Thanks to the extraordinary circumstances, i.e. a self-centered noble idiot (Isolde) that hid the problem until it was far, far too late.  This is NOT NORMAL.  In fact the only time abomintions seem to occure regularly and do a lot of damage is in the Circle Towers themselves (which have to be destroyed about once per generation or so).

A single failure of a mage outside the circle (in the scenario posed) could have dire ramifications for an entire nation. All for some vaunted illusion of freedom. Why take the chance? For the sake of the few, we should sacrifice the many? It is bound to go wrong some day, and I'd much rather have it go wrong in a controlled enviroment. Either that, or all mages should have a Templar companion always, sorta like the Qunari mage-handlers, just without the leashes, depersonification of the mages and with the mages being allowed to make their own choices.

A single instance of an Arab Terrorist with a suitcase nuke may have dire consequences for this nation and so we should lock away all Arabs without trial.

It's exactly the same argument.

-Polaris

[Deztyn]

Skadi,

1) The Rite of Annulment was created because attempts to isolate and kill rogue mages in a tower failed catastrophically and the resulting damage to innocent bystanders was considered too great to allow again. So you think Tevinter doesn't mass murder it's mages? I'm inclined to agree. But try to prove that less innocent people (not less mages) die as a result of abominations or mages abusing their power there, than die by invoking the Rite. You can't because we're not given enough information about Tevinter.

The one example of a modern Tevinter mage we do get doesn't inspire much confidence that it's a great place to live. (How many had to die for that measly +1?)

2) The fact that Wilhelm wasn't some power mad nut doesn't make it better. In my opinion it makes it worse. Or at least harder for me to justify letting adult mages run around outside the circle.

3) So rather than having mages controlled by an organization that spans several nations and has proven for 700 years that it makes protecting humanity on a whole from their dangers a priority, you'd like to see them placed under one man or woman per nation of unknown character, with unknown motivations and unknown goals, who's free to direct them as s/he sees fit without that pesky dogma about 'ruling over men' getting in the way?

And you genuinely think this is going to be better for the mages and the rest of the world?

Addai67,



If you don't like my example, you can change it to rich people, or foreign people, or ugly people, or fat people, people with scars, people with bad hair, or white teeth or whatever someone could possibly be unfairly prejudiced against. Hey, how about religious people? It was a random example of someone being a bad role model for a kid with a lot of power and very bad things happening as a result.

I get that you believe that family trumps everything. But will you at least acknowledge that the inevitable cost of allowing mages to live at home is that some of them (Heck, just one of them)  will end up being raised by people who should not have any influence over a growing mage?

If you do, we could at least agree on one thing!

IanPolaris,

No,

"A single instance of an Arab Terrorist with a suitcase nuke may have dire consequences for this nation and so we should lock away all Arabs with suitcase nukes without trial."

THAT is exactly the same argument.

Modifié par Deztyn, 04 janvier 2011 - 05:54 .

[Addai]

Deztyn wrote...
I get that you believe that family trumps everything. But will you at least acknowledge that the inevitable cost of allowing mages to live at home is that some of them will end up being raised by people who should not have any influence over a growing mage?

Who decides?  How do you get to decide- or the Grand Cleric- that some people are not fit to be treated as human beings but like animals?

[Deztyn]

Addai67 wrote...

Deztyn wrote...
I get that you believe that family trumps everything. But will you at least acknowledge that the inevitable cost of allowing mages to live at home is that some of them will end up being raised by people who should not have any influence over a growing mage?

Who decides?  How do you get to decide- or the Grand Cleric- that some people are not fit to be treated as human beings but like animals?

So you think in our real world when the government takes a baby away from his mother because she was crackhead prostitute who shook him so bad he's in a coma-- that's treating mom like an animal and not a human being?

If you can't admit that there are bad families out there, and not all kids everywhere should live with the ones that birthed them, then I have nothing more to say to you.

Modifié par Deztyn, 04 janvier 2011 - 06:03 .

[Addai]

And do you lock that baby up for the rest of its life simply because of its genetic makeup?  Subject the child  to a lifetime of an oppressive, totalitarian existence?  How about put him through a crack binge when he comes of age just to make sure he won't be as harmful as his mother, and kill him if he fails?

Modifié par Addai67, 04 janvier 2011 - 07:22 .

[IanPolaris]

Deztyn wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Deztyn wrote...
I get that you believe that family trumps everything. But will you at least acknowledge that the inevitable cost of allowing mages to live at home is that some of them will end up being raised by people who should not have any influence over a growing mage?

Who decides?  How do you get to decide- or the Grand Cleric- that some people are not fit to be treated as human beings but like animals?

So you think in our real world when the government takes a baby away from his mother because she was crackhead prostitute who shook him so bad he's in a coma-- that's treating mom like an animal and not a human being?

If you can't admit that there are bad families out there, and not all kids everywhere should live with the ones that birthed them, then I have nothing more to say to you.

You overlook a crucial difference here.  The govt can (and this is considered extraordinary action) take away a child for the child's best interest based on what the mother has done or failed to do.  Even then, it's considered a last-ditch intervention.

You are advocating ripping children away from their families just by being who they are.  You may as well say, "The chantry claims all children with blue eyes."  It's the same damn thing.

-Polaris

Edit:  Ninjaed by Addai

Modifié par IanPolaris, 04 janvier 2011 - 07:18 .

[IanPolaris]

Deztyn wrote...

IanPolaris,

No,

"A single instance of an Arab Terrorist with a suitcase nuke may have dire consequences for this nation and so we should lock away all Arabs with suitcase nukes without trial."

THAT is exactly the same argument.

No, what you are advocating is the equivalent of arresting and locking away all Arabs because they MIGHT have a suitcase nuke (without evidence mind you other than they are Arab)....and then taking your jolly sweet time about seeing if any really do. 

In short, you are advocating the rephresensible.  Sorry but you are and it's been recognzed as rephrensible not just in modern times but even as early as the Magna Carta (which contains rights for commoners to stop nobles from doing just what you suggest).

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 04 janvier 2011 - 07:33 .

[nos_astra]

IanPolaris wrote...
No, what you are advocating is the equivalent of arresting and locking away all Arabs because they MIGHT have a suitcase nuke (without evidence mind you other than they are Arab)....and then taking your jolly sweet time about seeing if any really do. 

They are locking away people because they might be mages? No, they are locking them away because they are mages.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Yes abominations are rare (thankfully), and no you dont HAVE to be a mage to become possessed. However, for a non-mage to become possessed, they would have to have been in physical contact with a demon, whereas a mage could just have had a bad dream, so to speak.

As I explained above, this is false.  You can be trapped in the fade and if a non-mage wakes up in the fade, he or she can become an abomination via the fade just as a mage can.  In addition, abominations seem so rare that I challenge that you have a sample space to make the spectacular claim you are making about mages and abominations.  Extraordinary claims like this require extraordinary evidence.

Um. How does a non-mage 'wake up' in the Fade? Can you provide any in-game examples or references of non-mages becoming abominations without waking-world intervention (eg. being sent into the Fade fully aware)? Mundanes and animals don't just 'wake up' in the Fade, and I think if Fade-bound demons targetted ALL sleeping minds rather than just mages it'd be a teensy bit hard for the Chantry to lie about.

Seriously, for all your demands for evidence, you provide very little of your own.

[Deztyn]

IanPolaris wrote...
No, what you are advocating is the equivalent of arresting and locking away all Arabs because they MIGHT have a suitcase nuke (without evidence mind you other than they are Arab)....and then taking your jolly sweet time about seeing if any really do. 
-Polaris

No.

They have the nuke the only thing you can argue is whether or not they'll use it. And whether you're willing to take the chance that they will.

I'll make it more simple for you.

The mages are the nuke.

Addai,

I asked a pretty direct question. if you're not going to bother to read or respond to what I say, apparently even when you're quoting me, then I have no reason to continue discussing this with you. Seriously, don't even bother to answer this, unless you intend to actually, you know, answer.

Deztyn wrote...
But will you at least acknowledge that the inevitable cost of allowing mages to live at home is that some of them (Heck, just one of them)  will end up being raised by people who should not have any influence over a growing mage?

Modifié par Deztyn, 04 janvier 2011 - 08:18 .

[Deztyn]

Oops. Hit quote when I meant to edit.

Modifié par Deztyn, 04 janvier 2011 - 08:17 .

[IanPolaris]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Yes abominations are rare (thankfully), and no you dont HAVE to be a mage to become possessed. However, for a non-mage to become possessed, they would have to have been in physical contact with a demon, whereas a mage could just have had a bad dream, so to speak.

As I explained above, this is false.  You can be trapped in the fade and if a non-mage wakes up in the fade, he or she can become an abomination via the fade just as a mage can.  In addition, abominations seem so rare that I challenge that you have a sample space to make the spectacular claim you are making about mages and abominations.  Extraordinary claims like this require extraordinary evidence.

Um. How does a non-mage 'wake up' in the Fade? Can you provide any in-game examples or references of non-mages becoming abominations without waking-world intervention (eg. being sent into the Fade fully aware)? Mundanes and animals don't just 'wake up' in the Fade, and I think if Fade-bound demons targetted ALL sleeping minds rather than just mages it'd be a teensy bit hard for the Chantry to lie about.

Seriously, for all your demands for evidence, you provide very little of your own.

The fade sequence in the tower is a prime example.  So is the scene in Blakmire in DAA (and this is even a better example since it's a darkspawn that sends you into the fade).

In the tower fade sequence you run into all kinds of templars who have "awakened" in the fade and the sloth demon (and this is confirmed elsewhere) says that what makes mages attractive to demons is that they are "aware".

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

klarabella wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
No, what you are advocating is the equivalent of arresting and locking away all Arabs because they MIGHT have a suitcase nuke (without evidence mind you other than they are Arab)....and then taking your jolly sweet time about seeing if any really do. 

They are locking away people because they might be mages? No, they are locking them away because they are mages.

Which is exactly the same thing as locking away say people with blue eyes because they have blue eyes.

Seriously.

There is nothing about being a mage that intrinscally makes you a suitcase nuke.  The chantry likes to make you think so but their evidence is seriously lacking.  What makes mages dangerous is the specific training they get and how they get it.  In short, it's the magic that's potentially dangerous not the mage in of him or herself.

However, that applies to everyone else as well.  Being trained as a warrior doesn't make you a criminal.  How you use that training determines that.  Same. Same.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Deztyn wrote...

The mages are the nuke.

Evidence would be nice.  So far I haven't seen any real evidence that mages are enough more dangerous intrinsically to justify that statement.  I am seeing a lot of fear and "viewing with alarm" but not much evidence.

It is a game fact that non-mages (even Dwaves) can be trapped in the fade and can 'wake up' there....and it's self-aware creatures in the fade that demons find 'interesting'.

-Polaris