499 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

IanPolaris wrote...

Not only that but it's clear it was Andraste's intention for mages and mundanes to live side by side as well. 

Where do you get that impression? I don't think it's clear at all. Nowhere do I remember seeing her advocating living side by side with magse. I am not saying that she would have supported what the Chantry did, but saying it's 'clear' what Andraste's intentions were if she'd won the war is a stretch.

[maxernst]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Not only that but it's clear it was Andraste's intention for mages and mundanes to live side by side as well. 

Where do you get that impression? I don't think it's clear at all. Nowhere do I remember seeing her advocating living side by side with magse. I am not saying that she would have supported what the Chantry did, but saying it's 'clear' what Andraste's intentions were if she'd won the war is a stretch.

Well, she does say that magic is to serve man and not to rule over him, and it can be argued that by locking them up in a tower, they are prevented from serving their fellow man effectively.  I'm not convinced that ideal is really plausible, though.  Magic rules over the societies we know of where mages are free (the Dalish, the Tevinter Imperium, and the Chasind), with--as I noted before--the possible exceptions of Rivain and Anderfels. 

[Addai]

maxernst wrote...

Magic rules over the societies we know of where mages are free (the Dalish, the Tevinter Imperium, and the Chasind), with--as I noted before--the possible exceptions of Rivain and Anderfels. 

You say that like it's a bad thing.  Why should it be?

[DragonOfWhiteThunder]

Addai67 wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Magic rules over the societies we know of where mages are free (the Dalish, the Tevinter Imperium, and the Chasind), with--as I noted before--the possible exceptions of Rivain and Anderfels. 

You say that like it's a bad thing.  Why should it be?

Because Andraste did say "magic must serve man and not rule over him," and while it's a line very open to interpretation (see Tevinter Chantry), the general consensus in Thedas is that mages cannot be allowed to rule. As far as I've seen, you don't even have mage advisors because of the fear that they could be a blood mage attempting to rule where they shouldn't.

[maxernst]

Addai67 wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Magic rules over the societies we know of where mages are free (the Dalish, the Tevinter Imperium, and the Chasind), with--as I noted before--the possible exceptions of Rivain and Anderfels. 

You say that like it's a bad thing.  Why should it be?

For the same reason that it's a bad thing if only white males are permitted to hold political office in our world.  Actually, it's much worse than that, since mages are a tiny minority.

Modifié par maxernst, 05 janvier 2011 - 03:45 .

[Addai]

maxernst wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Magic rules over the societies we know of where mages are free (the Dalish, the Tevinter Imperium, and the Chasind), with--as I noted before--the possible exceptions of Rivain and Anderfels. 

You say that like it's a bad thing.  Why should it be?

For the same reason that it's a bad thing if only white males are permitted to hold political office in our world.  Actually, it's much worse than that, since mages are a tiny minority.

If the Dalish or anyone else chooses to organize themselves that way...?  You make it sound like all those arrangements are by fiat and maintained by force.  It's no more egregious than all rulers having to be nobility, an even smaller club.

[maxernst]

Addai67 wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Magic rules over the societies we know of where mages are free (the Dalish, the Tevinter Imperium, and the Chasind), with--as I noted before--the possible exceptions of Rivain and Anderfels. 

You say that like it's a bad thing.  Why should it be?

For the same reason that it's a bad thing if only white males are permitted to hold political office in our world.  Actually, it's much worse than that, since mages are a tiny minority.

If the Dalish or anyone else chooses to organize themselves that way...?  You make it sound like all those arrangements are by fiat and maintained by force.  It's no more egregious than all rulers having to be nobility, an even smaller club.

What makes you think they choose to be organized that way, any more than the Orlesians choose to have an absolute monarchy?  All governments are maintained by force.  I would have guessed the nobility were a larger club than mages, but even if they're not, it's theoretically possible for anyone to become nobility.  And while I don't care for aristocracy as a system of government, it's going to be a hell of a lot easier to overthrow.  Anybody with a horse and armor (both of which can be stolen) and a little training and experience (which can be bought) is as good as a noble--see Loghain.  An intolerable aristocracy will eventually be overthrown, an intolerable magocracy is likely to last forever.

[Addai]

Obviously not, if Ferelden kicked out the Tevinters as did others. If you believe all forms of government are inherently oppressive, I guess I can't argue there. I'm just saying that a mageocracy is not inherently more oppressive than Ferelden's present system. The Dalish maintain theirs by custom, as does Fereldan aristocracy.

[LobselVith8]

DragonOfWhiteThunder wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Magic rules over the societies we know of where mages are free (the Dalish, the Tevinter Imperium, and the Chasind), with--as I noted before--the possible exceptions of Rivain and Anderfels. 

You say that like it's a bad thing.  Why should it be?

Because Andraste did say "magic must serve man and not rule over him," and while it's a line very open to interpretation (see Tevinter Chantry), the general consensus in Thedas is that mages cannot be allowed to rule. As far as I've seen, you don't even have mage advisors because of the fear that they could be a blood mage attempting to rule where they shouldn't.

According to the Andrastian Chantry, who treat mages as their own personal slaves, so I can see why they have no issue with mages being denied basic human rights. Considering that templars have killed people merely on the suspicion of being mages - like The Magnificent D'Sims, who was a fake mage who pretended to heal the sick - I see a real problem with the "general consensus" of the Andrastian Chantry.

maxernst wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Magic rules over the societies we know of where mages are free (the Dalish, the Tevinter Imperium, and the Chasind), with--as I noted before--the possible exceptions of Rivain and Anderfels. 

You say that like it's a bad thing.  Why should it be?

For the same reason that it's a bad thing if only white males are permitted to hold political office in our world.  Actually, it's much worse than that, since mages are a tiny minority.

That would be a better comparison if we were discussing how only humans can be Kings and Queens of Ferelden, how only humans have held positions of office and authority in nations of the Andrastian Chantry, how elves and mages have been denied basic rights because they're different, or how the Emperors and Empresses of Orlais can only be human. Comparing the racist ideology to societies that have mages and nonmages living peacefully together is hardly a fair comparison, especially when nonmages aren't denied basic rights.

maxernst wrote...

What makes you think they choose to be organized that way, any more than the Orlesians choose to have an absolute monarchy?  All governments are maintained by force.  I would have guessed the nobility were a larger club than mages, but even if they're not, it's theoretically possible for anyone to become nobility.  And while I don't care for aristocracy as a system of government, it's going to be a hell of a lot easier to overthrow.  Anybody with a horse and armor (both of which can be stolen) and a little training and experience (which can be bought) is as good as a noble--see Loghain.  An intolerable aristocracy will eventually be overthrown, an intolerable magocracy is likely to last forever.

You mean like when Andraste and Shartan were able to defeat the Tevinter armies with nothing more than newly emancipated slaves at their side? It's made clear that Tevinter is crumbling and was nearly defeated entirely by the Qunari armies in the New Exalted Marches, so I don't see why you'd attack societies that have mages and nonmages living together. The anti-mage ideology encountered in the Andrastian nations steams from the Andrastian Chantry, with religious zealots who have no issue forcing their religion across Thedas or forcing elves to live in ghettos and convert to their religion. They outlawed the elven pantheon. Comparing that to societies like the Dales, which was established by elven slaves who fought for their freedom, or the idyllic society of Arlathan, seems odd to me. Mages have power, true, but so do religious leaders, and it was the authority of the Chantry that prevented Maric and Loghain from dissolving it despite the Chantry's support for the Orlesian occupation of Ferelden.

And the Dalish elves do choose to live that way, as did the elves of the Dales. The elves willingly re-established themselves in the Dales and tried to reclaim their lost culture, and it's the same for the Dalish clans who have survived the onslaught of the Orlesian occupation of the Dales. Considering that the last time the elves of the Dales declined the missionaries of Andraste and forced them to leave their homeland, the Chantry responded by sending in the templars, and eventually forcing them to either be homeless or live in ghettos and forcibly convert to their religion, I see the Andrastian Chantry as the bigger threat than any mage.

[Deztyn]

Addai,

Answer that question? No. Because you've stretched the analogy so far that it's no longer even remotely applicable. Not that it was ever intended to parallel the mages being taken away. It was a response to the insane idea you seemed to be advocating--that no one can judge whether or not a parent is fit.

Now, maybe if your crack baby was guaranteed to be an addict, and also had an assault rifle with inexhaustible ammo permanently attached to it's arm...

Anyway, if you think that the question I asked was irrelevant than you clearly don't understand my perspective. And since you haven't shown me any indication you're willing to try seeing my view, I'm officially over this discussion.

Modifié par Deztyn, 05 janvier 2011 - 06:35 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

maxernst wrote...

Well, she does say that magic is to serve man and not to rule over him,  

Technically we don't know Andraste said anything of the sort. Not all of the Chant of Light was spoken by Andraste.

That same verse you are quoting goes on to say that those who have used magic to harm others are basically 'going to hell'. Not a lot of living side by side there.

Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him.
Foul and corrupt are they
Who have taken His gift
And turned it against His children.
They shall be named Maleficar, accursed ones.
They shall find no rest in this world
Or beyond.
-Transfigurations 1:2

and it can be argued that by locking them up in a tower, they are
prevented from serving their fellow man effectively.  I'm not convinced
that ideal is really plausible, though.  Magic rules over the societies
we know of where mages are free (the Dalish, the Tevinter Imperium, and
the Chasind), with--as I noted before--the possible exceptions of Rivain
and Anderfels.

Arguing philosophically, magic can serve man quite well if the mage is in a position of leadership; it's when that power is abused, as with any power, that it goes rotten and corrupt. The Chantry has simply taken it to the extreme that mages *cannot* be allowed to lead and must *always* have a role of servitude.

Look at the schism in the Chantry. Tevinter went Andrastian for a while, until the mages started chafing against the Orlesian Chantry's doctrine that mages *are not* allowed to have political power. That's when the church split, Orlais declared several (failed) Exalted Marches and cut off the lyrium trade.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 05 janvier 2011 - 07:08 .

[LobselVith8]

Deztyn wrote...

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 mages in Haven seem to have been able to co-exist with nonmages for possibly 900 years. The Dalish clans are guided by mages. Maybe it's the restrictive and abusive system that the Chantry employs to control mages as though they were little more than slaves that causes so many mages to seek alternatives in order to be free, effectively conditioning mages to become blood mages and abominations in order to be free from the templars sent to murder them. 

Personally, I don't think the templars or the Chantry have any right to imprison people for being mages. They strip away their rights, take them from their families, and isolate them from the rest of the world. They also preach to the rest of the people intolerance about mages, blaming them as a whole for the actions of the Tevinter Imperium.

Deztyn wrote...

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?)

True, the Tevinters have little issue with slavery, but the Keepers of the Dalish clans, the mages of Haven, and the mages in Rivain seem to have prospered without destroying the world despite the lack of templar oversight.

Deztyn wrote...

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.

Wilhelm helped the people of Ferelden emancipate themselves from the Orlesians. He helped the Rebel Queen and Maric during their insurrection. Avernus can also fall pretty far after Dryden's battle in the Warden's Keep, but when told that the Warden won't be his judge, he changes his ways of his own volition.

Deztyn wrote...

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?

So better to have innocent men, women, and children under the guard of armed and armored drug addicts?

Deztyn wrote...

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

Mages have done well with at Haven, with the Dalish, and Rivain without templar oversight. In fact, the elves of the Dales and Arlathan prospered without Chantry oversight as well. Why not allow them to govern themselves?

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 (Heck, just one of them)  will end up being raised by people who should not have any influence over a growing mage?

Isn't it obvious that the inevitable cost of treating them like they're less than people, that revolts like Uldred's will transpire over and over again? The Chantry villifies mages, but has no issue using them to fight their battles for them, basically turning the tide against the advanced technology of the Qunari in the New Exalted Marches.

[Addai]

Deztyn wrote...

Addai,

Answer that question? No. Because you've stretched the analogy so far that it's no longer even remotely applicable. Not that it was ever intended to parallel the mages being taken away. It was a response to the insane idea you seemed to be advocating--that no one can judge whether or not a parent is fit.

The discussion was never about whether there aren't some people who abuse magic, be it their own or that of their children, but whether the extremes of the Circle system are justified because of those few who might do so.  We don't imprison people because they might commit a crime.  We shouldn't imprison children, deprive them of basic human dignity and torture people because some parents might be bad parents.  Speaking of insane ideas...

[DPSSOC]

klarabella wrote...
The point is: We don't know why the world is still standing. Are mages among the Chasind or Dalish more responsible, deeply altruistic beings who never would abuse their immense powers for their own benefits? What if they do?

While we don't know any of this for certain there is at least one safe conclusion we can draw.  Andrastian Mages are treated poorly, have few rights, and no freedoms.  This breeds resentment of the established order leading the truly disgruntled to search out new sources of power to use against their opressors.  The easiest routes are Blood Magic and Demons, but these paths are exceedingly dangerous so when things go wrong they go really wrong.

In cultures where mages are accepted, even respected, this isn't an issue.  Mages don't become desperate malcontents because they don't have the whole system working to keep them down.  It's like Newton said, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.  The harder you push people down the harder they're inevitably going to push back.

maxernst wrote...
It's also worth noting that all of these societies are ruled by mages.  With the possible exception of Anderfels and Rivain (which we know little about), we know of no societies where political power is actually shared between mages and non-mages.

I may have missed it but is it ever stated that the Dalish, or Chasind, are only run by mages?  Specifically among the Chasind I got the impression that they were tribes similar to Germanic and Scandinavian barbarians (as well as what I know of Native Americans) where you have a tribe leader (Chief) and a spiritual leader (Shaman) both of them hold considerable influence, but they also know and respect the boundaries of their position (usually).

And are Dalish Keepers only mages?  Do we have anything definitive on whether or not all Keepers are mages or perhaps it's merely a coincidence?  Admittedly it does look like Keepers are all mages but I'm not entirely convinced.

maxernst wrote...
Either mages rule and everyone else is a second-class citizen, or mages are kept under the thumb of the non-magical authority by some means.

Anyone here play a Dalish and feel like a second-class citizen?  Sure I'm not in charge but I held a position of respect (hunter) and wasn't really talked down to by anyone (ok that one girl in the Origin kind of did but she's young, I was a bit of a ****** too when I was that age).  Though that could be a strictly Dalish things as the clans strike me as extended family groups which operate under slightly different dynamics.

maxernst wrote...
And if Zathrian is any indication, the Dalish are hardly poster-boys for responsible use of magic.

Depends on how you look at it I suppose.  In all the centuries he's been alive Zathrian has abused his power once (that we know of), and that in a moment of grief.  Now let's think about that for a moment; Zathrian had the time and the power to attempt to avenge almost every wrong ever comitted against his people, and he chose to keep wandering the forest.  Yes he went a bit far, but aside from one act of selfish revenge he never sought to dominate or destroy.  I think that what he could have done and didn't is a better indicator of his character than a single act of vengeance.

You can judge Zathrian all you want, but can any of us honestly say we wouldn't do the same?  That if the people closest to us were taken and we had the power we wouldn't ensure those responsible sufferred?

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...
True, the Tevinters have little issue with slavery, but the Keepers of the Dalish clans, the mages of Haven, and the mages in Rivain seem to have prospered without destroying the world despite the lack of templar oversight.
...
Mages have done well with at Haven, with the Dalish, and Rivain without templar oversight. In fact, the elves of the Dales and Arlathan prospered without Chantry oversight as well. Why not allow them to govern themselves.

... Did you just call Haven and Dalish "prosperous societies"? And if Rivain is prosperous, its probably more because of Qunari influence, than letting their mages become abominations.

DPSSOC wrote...

maxernst wrote...
And if Zathrian is any indication, the Dalish are hardly poster-boys for responsible use of magic.

Depends on how you look at it I suppose.  In all the centuries he's been alive Zathrian has abused his power once (that we know of), and that in a moment of grief.  Now let's think about that for a moment; Zathrian had the time and the power to attempt to avenge almost every wrong ever comitted against his people, and he chose to keep wandering the forest.  Yes he went a bit far, but aside from one act of selfish revenge he never sought to dominate or destroy.  I think that what he could have done and didn't is a better indicator of his character than a single act of vengeance.

You can judge Zathrian all you want, but can any of us honestly say we wouldn't do the same?  That if the people closest to us were taken and we had the power we wouldn't ensure those responsible sufferred?

Every day he let the curse stay on people not responsible for the crime commited. were a disgrace. What happened to Zathrian's Children was tragic, but what he did was horrible.
And yes, I can safely say that I wouldn't do as Zathrian did. Zathrian didn't just stop at the ones responsible, he also took generations of innocents with him.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Every day he let the curse stay on people not responsible for the crime commited. were a disgrace. What happened to Zathrian's Children was tragic, but what he did was horrible.
And yes, I can safely say that I wouldn't do as Zathrian did. Zathrian didn't just stop at the ones responsible, he also took generations of innocents with him.

What Zathrien did was a horrible crime, no question, but when you look at it as a whole, it seems to be an abberation not the rule.  When compared with the Chantry Sanctioned forced Slave Labor of an entire segment of society just based on an accident of birth (Circle Mages), it pales in comparison.

Just a little perspective is needed.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

... Did you just call Haven and Dalish "prosperous societies"? And if Rivain is prosperous, its probably more because of Qunari influence, than letting their mages become abominations.

The Kingdom of the Dales was by all accounts a very powerful and prosperous kingdom.  So much so that it took an entire Exalted March to put them down...with extreme difficulty and before that they were wiping the floor with the Orlesian Empire.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Not only that but it's clear it was Andraste's intention for mages and mundanes to live side by side as well. 

Where do you get that impression? I don't think it's clear at all. Nowhere do I remember seeing her advocating living side by side with magse. I am not saying that she would have supported what the Chantry did, but saying it's 'clear' what Andraste's intentions were if she'd won the war is a stretch.

I never said Andraste advocated mages and non-mages living side by side.  I said that during her time they did and she apparently has zero problems with that given that the circle system was established long after Andraste's death.  As for my source, check your codex entries and specifically "History of the Circle: Chapter 1"  This codex specifically states the circle was established to break an anti-chantry mage's strike and not for reasons of "public safety" at all, AND that same codex goes on to say, "for the first time in human history, mages were seperated from society".

-Polaris

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...

I never said Andraste advocated mages and non-mages living side by side.  I said that during her time they did and she apparently has zero problems with that given that the circle system was established long after Andraste's death.  As for my source, check your codex entries and specifically "History of the Circle: Chapter 1"  This codex specifically states the circle was established to break an anti-chantry mage's strike and not for reasons of "public safety" at all, AND that same codex goes on to say, "for the first time in human history, mages were seperated from society".

-Polaris

Here's a quote:

It is a truth universally acknowledged that nothing is more successful at inspiring a person to mischief as being told not to do something. Unfortunately, the Chantry of the Divine Age had some trouble with obvious truths. Although it did not outlaw magic-quite the contrary, as the Chantry relied upon magic to kindle the eternal flame
which burns in every brazier in every chantry-it relegated mages to lighting candles and lamps. Perhaps occasional dusting of rafters and eaves.

I will give my readers a moment to contemplate how well such a role satisfied the mages of the time.

It surprised absolutely no one when the mages of Val Royeaux, in protest, snuffed the sacred flames of the cathedral and barricaded themselves inside the choir loft. No one, that is, but Divine Ambrosia II, who was outraged and attempted to order an Exalted March upon her own cathedral. Even her most devout Templars discouraged that idea. For 21 days, the fires remained unlit while negotiations were conducted, legend tells us, by shouting back and forth from the loft.

The mages went cheerily into exile in a remote fortress outside of the capital, where they would be kept under the watchful eye of the Templars and a council of their own elder magi. Outside of normal society, and outside of the Chantry, the mages would form their own closed society, the Circle, separated for the first time in human history.
--From Of Fires, Circles, and Templars: A History of Magic in the Chantry, by Sister Petrine, Chantry scholar."

It's worth it also to have a look at the codex on templars, where it says that the Chantry deliberately avoids recruiting templars who have too many moral scruples that might interfere with their religious zeal.  They deliberately stoke the hatred for mages and magic, and the fear that goes along with it.

Though I feel the need to point out that I wrote two little short stories with the intention of showing a templar who took a compassionate view of his duties, here and here.

Modifié par Addai67, 06 janvier 2011 - 07:38 .

[Addai]

IanPolaris wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Why are we even arguing this? I'm still waiting for you to explain your claims that non-mages can become 'aware' in the Fade and at risk of becoming abominations without magic or demons being involved.

The game lore specifically states that anyone can become aware in the fade (not just mages), and you hear directly (Harrowing Sloth demon) that it's the self-aware quality that demons find 'interesting'. 

It's pat of the game lore, like it or not.

-Polaris

(husband)

Ok this is completely off topic.    But... if mages are self aware then why is Spirit Healer, Wynn a dumb sh*t about being in the Fade during the broken Circle Quest?

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Why are we even arguing this? I'm still waiting for you to explain your claims that non-mages can become 'aware' in the Fade and at risk of becoming abominations without magic or demons being involved.

The game lore specifically states that anyone can become aware in the fade (not just mages), and you hear directly (Harrowing Sloth demon) that it's the self-aware quality that demons find 'interesting'. 

It's pat of the game lore, like it or not.

-Polaris

(husband)

Ok this is completely off topic.    But... if mages are self aware then why is Spirit Healer, Wynn a dumb sh*t about being in the Fade during the broken Circle Quest?

Wynne isn't nearly as good a mage or Spirit Healer as she thinks she is and/or the spirit that is possessing her is interfering with her ability to handle the fade.  Morrigan is very much self-aware when in the fade as is Niall (who is otherwise a very average mage from what I can gather).

-Polaris

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Addai67 wrote...

(husband)

Ok this is completely off topic.    But... if mages are self aware then why is Spirit Healer, Wynn a dumb sh*t about being in the Fade during the broken Circle Quest?

Because she's Wynne. <_<

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
True, the Tevinters have little issue with slavery, but the Keepers of the Dalish clans, the mages of Haven, and the mages in Rivain seem to have prospered without destroying the world despite the lack of templar oversight.
...
Mages have done well with at Haven, with the Dalish, and Rivain without templar oversight. In fact, the elves of the Dales and Arlathan prospered without Chantry oversight as well. Why not allow them to govern themselves.

... Did you just call Haven and Dalish "prosperous societies"? And if Rivain is prosperous, its probably more because of Qunari influence, than letting their mages become abominations.

Considering you quoted me, you're welcome to read what I wrote and tell me how you interpreted "prospered without destroying the whole world" to mean. I thought it was plainly evident that it showed that alternatives to the Chantry's method of imprisoning mages for having magical ability exist, and work. If Haven was built after Andraste's death, then it's roughly 900 years old, and will only be in ruins depending on the Warden's choice with the ashes, not because it has mages and nonmages living together. Arlathan was destroyed by the Tevinter Imperium. The Dales were sacked by the Orlesian Empire for reasons that are disputed by Orlais and the Dalish. The Dalish clans continue to exist, and a semi-permanent settlement exists on the border of Rivain (and in the Hinterlands depending on the Warden's actions). Rivain helped negotiate a true between the Qunari and the Andrastian nations during the New Exalted Marches. I don't see how anyone can claim that the Chantry's method is the only one when we're introduced to alternatives that obviously work. And the Rivain may have abominations like Wynne, where a spirit has a symbiotic relationship with the host, but they remain in control of themselves.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

maxernst wrote...
And if Zathrian is any indication, the Dalish are hardly poster-boys for responsible use of magic.

Depends on how you look at it I suppose.  In all the centuries he's been alive Zathrian has abused his power once (that we know of), and that in a moment of grief.  Now let's think about that for a moment; Zathrian had the time and the power to attempt to avenge almost every wrong ever comitted against his people, and he chose to keep wandering the forest.  Yes he went a bit far, but aside from one act of selfish revenge he never sought to dominate or destroy.  I think that what he could have done and didn't is a better indicator of his character than a single act of vengeance.

You can judge Zathrian all you want, but can any of us honestly say we wouldn't do the same?  That if the people closest to us were taken and we had the power we wouldn't ensure those responsible sufferred?

Every day he let the curse stay on people not responsible for the crime commited. were a disgrace. What happened to Zathrian's Children was tragic, but what he did was horrible.
And yes, I can safely say that I wouldn't do as Zathrian did. Zathrian didn't just stop at the ones responsible, he also took generations of innocents with him.

Except you're not in Zathrian's position, you're completely isolated from it. It's easy to judge someone and say you'd do better when you're not facing the same trials and tribulations. True, Zathrian's actions impacted the humans who murdered his son and assaulted his daughter, but that's why the Warden can help Zathrian move past this. Humans attacked elves, elves attacked humans, and the cycle of violence continues until the Warden can make a difference, as Layana does when she becomes Keeper and resolves disputes between the two.

[DPSSOC]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

maxernst wrote...
And if Zathrian is any indication, the Dalish are hardly poster-boys for responsible use of magic.

Depends on how you look at it I suppose.  In all the centuries he's been alive Zathrian has abused his power once (that we know of), and that in a moment of grief.  Now let's think about that for a moment; Zathrian had the time and the power to attempt to avenge almost every wrong ever comitted against his people, and he chose to keep wandering the forest.  Yes he went a bit far, but aside from one act of selfish revenge he never sought to dominate or destroy.  I think that what he could have done and didn't is a better indicator of his character than a single act of vengeance.

You can judge Zathrian all you want, but can any of us honestly say we wouldn't do the same?  That if the people closest to us were taken and we had the power we wouldn't ensure those responsible sufferred?

Every day he let the curse stay on people not responsible for the crime commited. were a disgrace. What happened to Zathrian's Children was tragic, but what he did was horrible.

 
Yes I agree, he went too far, but it's still only 1 act in centuries.  Should he have stopped it?  Probably.  Is it understandable that he didn't?  I think so.  Does it detract from the fact that in centuries of life Zathrian never expanded the scope of his vengeance?  No.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
And yes, I can safely say that I wouldn't do as Zathrian did. Zathrian didn't just stop at the ones responsible, he also took generations of innocents with him.

Then you are a better man than I.  I didn't even have a lot of time to get attached to my HN family but the only thing keeping me from subjecting Howe, his children, and all his descendents to relentless sufferring from now until the end of time is that I didn't have that power.  Yes that would have made me a monster, but I know and am honest enough with myself to admit that wouldn't stop me.