499 réponses à ce sujet

[Erika T]

BelgarathMTH wrote...
 I don't think the story suggests that mages stay in the Circle Tower for life. It is quite the opposite - a mage who is fully trained and passes the Harrowing must find a job, either in the Circle Tower or out in the world. I think what bothers most people who want fewer restrictions is that the mages have to have Circle approval for whatever they do. But "hired mercenary" is not necessarily a denied position, to my understanding. Thus, mages regularly hire out as what amounts to security guards. Military service is also a common job for mages.

Anyway, I always argue on the side of law and order, and the common good (I'm lawful good alignment to the core, both in games and in real life), but I also always look for balance and the golden mean between extremes. I also tend towards making the most merciful decision I can even when evil has been committed.

I think it speaks to the superlatively high quality of Dragon Age that it presents us with moral decisions while playing the game that can provoke such passionate philosophical and ethical debate and discussion.

Hi Belgarath

That is a good point.  What do those mages do after the harrowing?  I remember my mage asking the guards by the door if she can leave - they reply something along the lines of "of course you cant leave, Im surprised you even ask" implying that it should be obvious to all that once youre within those doors, you can only leave on official business. Have you had any encounters that support the theory that mages can leave? I cant remember any but that doesnt mean much because I havent really explored this subject much in-game.

So what evidence supports that mages CAN leave (on other than official circle business)?  (I think we can agree that the fact that they DO leave does not mean they are allowed or encouraged to). Did anyone say anything to this effect in the game?

I also played as a loyal mage because Irving is just so likeable and worth being loyal to., by the way.  Its very hard for me to play evil characters - I tend to base my actions on what I am like in real life, and whilst some would argue that its not very good role playing, i feel most comfortable doing that.

Also, this is not strictly on topic but isnt Howes mage a blood mage?  or is it a simple mage?

[mousestalker]

I don't remember seeing any of Howe's mages use blood magic. That doesn't mean they aren't though.

[Sarah1281]

Now take this strength: Put the influence of a demon behind it that amplifies the strength, what do you have? Probably one of the most devastating forces on Thedas, Grey Wardens don't even abide by Chantry law and they still only keep one Grey Warden mage at a time to possibly minimize the risk.

Really? Whenever does anyone say anything about GWs fearing that their members will turn into abominations? Awakenings has both Anders and Velanna join you, not to mention that you might be a mage yourself. I think that, at best, the 'one mage rule' just means that the Chantry will not let you take more than one mage without having to conscript them and Duncan didn't to keep the peace and since it wasn't a Blight.

Bigdoser, they can leave after their Harrowing, with approval. I think maybe it's that lifelong supervision and needing the Circle's "rubber stamp" on your every decision that bothers you so much.

What they are allowed to do is to go on special missions (like going to Ostagar) and then they are supposed to report right back.

[Erika T]

BelgarathMTH wrote...

Bigdoser, they can leave after their Harrowing, with approval. I think maybe it's that lifelong supervision and needing the Circle's "rubber stamp" on your every decision that bothers you so much.

In Uldred's case, I don't think he was motivated merely by wanting to be free. The guy wanted POWER. That's one of the most dangerous motivations in humanity, either fictional or real.

So very true what you say about power.

Why did Uldred want power however?  Was he always the unhappy, power-hungry, discontented type who would have turned out a monster anyway, whether a mage or not?  Or does his thirst for power originate in those long years without power (and without real respect, and without freedom)? 

Have  you noticed how nobles dont tend to fantasise about being nobles, and a child from a well-to-do family doesnt really dream of money?  If you have something, you dont really crave it.  Uldred wanted power and fear, because he felt (rightly or wrongly so) that the templars had power over him and they ruled them with fear.  Did this ignite his thirst for power?

If mages CAN leave after the Harrowing, then I think this should be made really obvious in the game (for me it isnt, I see no evidence for it, but I am more than happy to be convinced!!), because this would make all the difference for a lot of players I think. 

So far I only found one evidence that mages can leave after the harrowing - and thats Wynne asking for leave.  When the dialogue happened it seemed more like an exception to me than the rule...

[BelgarathMTH]

Erika T wrote...

Hi Belgarath

That is a good point.  What do those mages do after the harrowing?  I remember my mage asking the guards by the door if she can leave - they reply something along the lines of "of course you cant leave, Im surprised you even ask" implying that it should be obvious to all that once youre within those doors, you can only leave on official business. Have you had any encounters that support the theory that mages can leave? I cant remember any but that doesnt mean much because I havent really explored this subject much in-game.

You can't leave when you approach the guards because you have not received your official promotion to Enchanter after your Harrowing, and they think you are still a Novice. Even as an Enchanter, you would still need Irving's permission to leave.

So what evidence supports that mages CAN leave (on other than official circle business)?  (I think we can agree that the fact that they DO leave does not mean they are allowed or encouraged to). Did anyone say anything to this effect in the game?

Many of your own examples are the evidence: you see mages doing their jobs all over Ferelden. They are military soldiers, security guards, shopkeepers, librarians, researchers, research assistants, teachers, and tutors. The Mages' Collective mission "Notices of Termination" actually involves the player in the unfortunate duty of firing some employees.

Wynne is allowed to leave by Irving to join your party, and she was also assigned to the Battle of Ostagar. It is implied that she has held positions outside the Tower many times in her career, although she was mostly employed as a teacher within the Circle Tower.

I also played as a loyal mage because Irving is just so likeable and worth being loyal to., by the way.  Its very hard for me to play evil characters - I tend to base my actions on what I am like in real life, and whilst some would argue that its not very good role playing, i feel most comfortable doing that.

EDIT: whoops, I thought you said Jowan, and then I read your statement as though you meant you had been loyal to him. The first time I played the Jowan scenario, I felt sorry for him, and was moved by his and Lily's plight, so I supported them. After having seen what became of that choice, on all subsequent playthroughs I have supported Irving and identified my in-game identity as being a Loyalist. I was truly apalled and horrified by Jowan's willingness to kill everybody in that basement if he had been strong enough, and later by his poisoning of Arl Eamon.

It was the origin adventure in the Tower and Jowan's story that eventually led me to decide that, living in the world of Ferelden, I would be a loyalist.

Also, this is not strictly on topic but isnt Howes mage a blood mage?  or is it a simple mage?

I'm not sure, but I think he's a blood mage. Judging by the Lord Howe example, it is not that uncommon for unscrupulous nobles to support a blood mage and keep it hidden from the Circle that their hired mage is doing blood magic. There would be distinct advantages in having a mage under your patronage who could dominate the minds of your rivals and otherwise use magic unethically to support your agenda, including the kidnapping, imprisoning, torture, and murder of your enemies.

Modifié par BelgarathMTH, 28 décembre 2010 - 09:04 .

[Dave of Canada]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Really? Whenever does anyone say anything about GWs fearing that their members will turn into abominations? Awakenings has both Anders and Velanna join you, not to mention that you might be a mage yourself. I think that, at best, the 'one mage rule' just means that the Chantry will not let you take more than one mage without having to conscript them and Duncan didn't to keep the peace and since it wasn't a Blight.

Even in times outside the Blight (though I suspect the Blight would be more motivation to have more Grey Warden Mages), there's the one Grey Warden rule. Or at least that's what the dialogue around trhe start (Mage Origin / Ostagar) implies and what the cut dialogue with Wynne at the Circle Tower suggests greatly, though the canonicty of the cut dialogue is disputed.

I'm also a little iffy on Awakening, they had to make the companions Grey Wardens because of the entire plot behind it but they couldn't outright make one mage companion incase somebody hates that character but feel forced to drag him around. I'd like to believe it's one of those cases where gameplay trumps story, though I'll give it to you that you're correct (I'd just look like an ass to argue about something that's ingame ) about multiple mages in this case.

Though you'd still have to ask yourself, the rule exists for a reason. Why wouldn there be a rule about mages when they'd freely recruit people who are openly trying to kill the Grey Wardens, political pariahs, anti-human elves and such?

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 28 décembre 2010 - 08:58 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

BelgarathMTH wrote...
In Uldred's case, I don't think he was motivated merely by wanting to be free. The guy wanted POWER. That's one of the most dangerous motivations in humanity, either fictional or real.

Also potentially one of the most constructive.

In any case, Uldred was not alone. He may have wanted power, but those who followed him probably didn't.
While it's true that people like Uldred would probably find other ways to motivate them, the current situation makes them easier to manipulate.

Mages need discipline and regulation, and they need training. That much is clear. But the record of annulment every 40 years shows that the system is very flawed and unable to deal with the problem at its roots. It's not reducing the risk of possession or magic related disasters, merely reducing the damage it can inflict. While that's good obviously, the system remains incomplete.

[Sarah1281]

Many of your own examples are the evidence: you see mages doing their jobs all over Ferelden. They are military soldiers, security guards, shopkeepers, librarians, researchers, research assistants, teachers, and tutors. Wynne is allowed to leave by Irving to join your party, and she was also assigned to the Battle of Ostagar. It is implied that she has held positions outside the Tower many times in her career, although she was mostly employed as a teacher within the Circle Tower.

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific? By military soldiers I'm going to assume you mean the ones at Ostagar? Where Cailan had to specifically request mages and was only allowed to take seven who were to report right back to the Tower at the end of the battle and who weren't even allowed to light the beacon. The only 'security guards' I can think of are appostates or possibly ones allowed to protect nobles (which I doubt given how hard it was for Cailan to get seven mages for a fight against darkspawn). The shopkeepers are tranquil, not mages. The tranquil have no connection to the Fade, no magic, no emotions and are allowed to go wherever because they are no danger to anyone. What librarians? What researchers? Most research on magic comes from Tevinter where they do things differently. Do you mean Wilhelm? Given his association with the rebellion, he was likely a special case. And tutors? Really? What would they turor people in? Magic? If that were the case, then why did Isolde have to have a blood mage tutor her son? And, of course, the mage's collective are a group of apostates so anything they accomplish are not things mages are *allowed* to do.

[Sarah1281]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Really? Whenever does anyone say anything about GWs fearing that their members will turn into abominations? Awakenings has both Anders and Velanna join you, not to mention that you might be a mage yourself. I think that, at best, the 'one mage rule' just means that the Chantry will not let you take more than one mage without having to conscript them and Duncan didn't to keep the peace and since it wasn't a Blight.

Even in times outside the Blight (though I suspect the Blight would be more motivation to have more Grey Warden Mages), there's the one Grey Warden rule. Or at least that's what the dialogue around trhe start (Mage Origin / Ostagar) implies and what the cut dialogue with Wynne at the Circle Tower suggests greatly, though the canonicty of the cut dialogue is disputed.

I'm also a little iffy on Awakening, they had to make the companions Grey Wardens because of the entire plot behind it but they couldn't outright make one mage companion incase somebody hates that character but feel forced to drag him around. I'd like to believe it's one of those cases where gameplay trumps story, though I'll give it to you that you're correct (I'd just look like an ass to argue about something that's ingame ) about multiple mages in this case.

Though you'd still have to ask yourself, the rule exists for a reason. Why wouldn there be a rule about mages when they'd freely recruit people who are openly trying to kill the Grey Wardens, political pariahs, anti-human elves and such?

We do not know that there is a rule and if there is, whose rule it is. We know that the guy in the mage origin and then Wynne in the cut blood mage confrontation say that there is only ever one mage GW. Does this mean that if the Chantry offered Duncan fifteen mages he wouldn't take them? Or, more likely imo, does this mean that if Duncan asked for fifteen mages he would only be allowed to take one and have to conscript the rest? Duncan probably wouldn't conscript them not because he's scared of them but because he uses the RoC sparingly and doesn't want to ****** off the Chantry if he doesn't have to.

And I find 'Oh, everyone really cares about the one-mage rule and you're supposed to ignore the potential for three mages Wardens because the creators were worried you might not like Anders or Velanna' to be really, really weak. It is canon that you can have up to three mage Wardens in Awakening. They aren't going to allow you to make people who cannot be Wardens into Wardens because they're scared you won't like a companion.

And of course the "rule" exists for a reason: the Chantry hates losing control of mages!

[IanPolaris]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Now take this strength: Put the influence of a demon behind it that amplifies the strength, what do you have? Probably one of the most devastating forces on Thedas, Grey Wardens don't even abide by Chantry law and they still only keep one Grey Warden mage at a time to possibly minimize the risk.

Really? Whenever does anyone say anything about GWs fearing that their members will turn into abominations? Awakenings has both Anders and Velanna join you, not to mention that you might be a mage yourself. I think that, at best, the 'one mage rule' just means that the Chantry will not let you take more than one mage without having to conscript them and Duncan didn't to keep the peace and since it wasn't a Blight. 

Duncan certainly shows no real fear of abominations and bloodmagic (although he urges a healthy respect for the later).  It's also demonstrably false that the Grey Wardens only have one mage at a time (see Soldier's Peak and Awakenings).  I chalk up this chestnut to Chantry propaganda really (and Wynne as usual being wrong).

-Polaris

[mousestalker]

As for the 'one mage rule'. What about Avernus? He is a Grey Warden and he had mage apprentices. The 'one mage rule' may be a recent innovation, perhaps part of the price paid for being allowed back in Ferelden?

[BelgarathMTH]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Many of your own examples are the evidence: you see mages doing their jobs all over Ferelden. They are military soldiers, security guards, shopkeepers, librarians, researchers, research assistants, teachers, and tutors. Wynne is allowed to leave by Irving to join your party, and she was also assigned to the Battle of Ostagar. It is implied that she has held positions outside the Tower many times in her career, although she was mostly employed as a teacher within the Circle Tower.

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific? By military soldiers I'm going to assume you mean the ones at Ostagar? Where Cailan had to specifically request mages and was only allowed to take seven who were to report right back to the Tower at the end of the battle and who weren't even allowed to light the beacon. The only 'security guards' I can think of are appostates or possibly ones allowed to protect nobles (which I doubt given how hard it was for Cailan to get seven mages for a fight against darkspawn). The shopkeepers are tranquil, not mages. The tranquil have no connection to the Fade, no magic, no emotions and are allowed to go wherever because they are no danger to anyone. What librarians? What researchers? Most research on magic comes from Tevinter where they do things differently. Do you mean Wilhelm? Given his association with the rebellion, he was likely a special case. And tutors? Really? What would they turor people in? Magic? If that were the case, then why did Isolde have to have a blood mage tutor her son? And, of course, the mage's collective are a group of apostates so anything they accomplish are not things mages are *allowed* to do.

To my interprestation, the Mages' Collective mission "Notices of Termination" implies the existence of jobs in research. This despite the fact that the Collective is not necessarily sanctioned by the Circle.

There is a dialogue tree with Duncan where he speaks about how valued mages are in military situations, and to me, it is implied that military service is a pretty regular option for mages.

I don't argue against the apparent fact that mages cannot be in control of when and how they come and go. Every decision must be approved by the head enchanter of the local Circle Tower.

Anyway, I think that our disagreement is one of interpretation of some admitedly vague implications and references, which doesn't necessarily invalidate either interpretation. These kinds of interpretative differences come up in any kind of literary discussion.

Also, I notice that in our passion for talking about our various takes on magic in Ferelden, we may be digressing from the original poster's question: Are Templars Really That Bad? I hold to my original answer at this point in the discussion: Some of them are, and some of them aren't, taken as individuals. Do we need Templars at all? In my opinion, we absolutely do, just as in real life, we absolutely need the police. Would any one argue that in real life, because the police often enforce laws that many and perhaps the majority of the people consider frivolous or unjust, (55mph on the interstate, for example), and do so with much eagerness, often abusing their power, that we should abolish the police force? I don't think any sane, rational person would want to live in a society with no police force.

Modifié par BelgarathMTH, 28 décembre 2010 - 09:16 .

[IanPolaris]

BelgarathMTH wrote...

Erika T wrote...

Hi Belgarath

That is a good point.  What do those mages do after the harrowing?  I remember my mage asking the guards by the door if she can leave - they reply something along the lines of "of course you cant leave, Im surprised you even ask" implying that it should be obvious to all that once youre within those doors, you can only leave on official business. Have you had any encounters that support the theory that mages can leave? I cant remember any but that doesnt mean much because I havent really explored this subject much in-game.

You can't leave when you approach the guards because you have not received your official promotion to Enchanter after your Harrowing, and they think you are still a Novice. Even as an Enchanter, you would still need Irving's permission to leave.

That's just it.  Even as a supposedly mature, proven mage (i.e. harrowed), you have to ask permission just to be alive (to paraphrase Finn), and you most certainly may not leave the tower after you are harrowed unless the First Enchanter and Knight Commander say you can.  That certainly seems like prison to me.

So what evidence supports that mages CAN leave (on other than official circle business)?  (I think we can agree that the fact that they DO leave does not mean they are allowed or encouraged to). Did anyone say anything to this effect in the game?

Many of your own examples are the evidence: you see mages doing their jobs all over Ferelden. They are military soldiers, security guards, shopkeepers, librarians, researchers, research assistants, teachers, and tutors. The Mages' Collective mission "Notices of Termination" actually involves the player in the unfortunate duty of firing some employees.

The termination notices and their masters are all wanted apostates.  In fact the entire Mage's Collective is a wanted and criminal organization according to the chantry.  I suspect that many of the other mages you see are also technically apostates (i.e. mages that got permission to leave the tower at one time and neglected to report back and now have the tacit protection of their employers).  In fact I would be shocked if every major kingdom in Thedas (given Tevinter) doesn't have a very potent and covert cadre of Apostate Mages...absent the knowledge fo the Chantry.

Wynne is allowed to leave by Irving to join your party, and she was also assigned to the Battle of Ostagar. It is implied that she has held positions outside the Tower many times in her career, although she was mostly employed as a teacher within the Circle Tower.

As a Senior Enchanter (one step down from First Enchanter) and only after she begs Irving for permission.  Not a good example.  Also Wynne is basically a broken person who has last her battles with the Chantry and thus expects other mages to give up because she failed.

I also played as a loyal mage because Irving is just so likeable and worth being loyal to., by the way.  Its very hard for me to play evil characters - I tend to base my actions on what I am like in real life, and whilst some would argue that its not very good role playing, i feel most comfortable doing that.

EDIT: whoops, I thought you said Jowan, and then I read your statement as though you meant you had been loyal to him. The first time I played the Jowan scenario, I felt sorry for him, and was moved by his and Lily's plight, so I supported them. After having seen what became of that choice, on all subsequent playthroughs I have supported Irving and identified my in-game identity as being a Loyalist. I was truly apalled and horrified by Jowan's willingness to kill everybody in that basement if he had been strong enough, and later by his poisoning of Arl Eamon.

Jowan did nothing of the sort.  He essentially wounded (yes) but didn't kill a group of people in clear self defense so he could escape.  Pretty much in any reasonable court of law, it's clear self-defense.  I often side with Irving too, but seeing this and the fact that Gregoire wants to execute you ANYWAY even after following Irving's order is enough to turn my stomache.

It was the origin adventure in the Tower and Jowan's story that eventually led me to decide that, living in the world of Ferelden, I would be a loyalist.

Quite the opposite.  Being a loyalist requires that you not only pemit slavery but think it's a good thing.

Also, this is not strictly on topic but isnt Howes mage a blood mage?  or is it a simple mage?

I'm not sure, but I think he's a blood mage. Judging by the Lord Howe example, it is not that uncommon for unscrupulous nobles to support a blood mage and keep it hidden from the Circle that their hired mage is doing blood magic. There would be distinct advantages in having a mage under your patronage who could dominate the minds of your rivals and otherwise use magic unethically to support your agenda, including the kidnapping, imprisoning, torture, and murder of your enemies.

I agree with this which goes to show how stupid the chantry is when it comes to blood magic.  While I don't condone it's general practice or dissemination, a blanket ban is just stupid on multiple levels.  At the very least a select and trusted cadre of mages should be approved bloodmages if for no other reasons than to deal with mages like this.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

mousestalker wrote...

As for the 'one mage rule'. What about Avernus? He is a Grey Warden and he had mage apprentices. The 'one mage rule' may be a recent innovation, perhaps part of the price paid for being allowed back in Ferelden?

I think it's a Chantry invention because the Grey Wardens are the one way a mage can almost completely slip out of Chantry control.  However, from Awakenings (if nothing else) it's clear the Grey Wardens themselves don't have it.  I think it's a Chantry chestnut that they tell their mages.

-Polaris

[Erika T]

BelgarathMTH wrote...


Many of your own examples are the evidence: you see mages doing their jobs all over Ferelden. They are military soldiers, security guards, shopkeepers, librarians, researchers, research assistants, teachers, and tutors. The Mages' Collective mission "Notices of Termination" actually involves the player in the unfortunate duty of firing some employees.

Wynne is allowed to leave by Irving to join your party, and she was also assigned to the Battle of Ostagar. It is implied that she has held positions outside the Tower many times in her career, although she was mostly employed as a teacher within the Circle Tower.

Hmmm

So the notices of termination quest is a brilliant example - I never thought about it. 
Wynne serves as another example, although this is very plot specific and it might not happen in the normal, blight-free ferelden.
Also, I found another example to support your theory - the mages at the landsmeet.  They are unlikely to be apostates...

Can we try to bit a bit more specific about the rest? 
security guards? teachers and tutors outside the circle? - how, where and whats the evidence that they are endorsed by the circle/templars?

I remember the following mages  -

Ostagar - large group of circle mages, nothing to mention here.
Korcari Wilds - ??
Lothering - there was one mage in the tavern and those men were working for Loghain so if your theory is correct, that mage could be on a hired out circle mission.Was there a mage with the bandits, if yes, thats highly unlikely that he/she is on circle mission.
Lothering - there was a blood mage on the highway when we meet Bodahn - not likely on circle business!
Circle tower - n/a
Brecilian forest - dalish mages, blood mages - none of these are likely to be approved by the circle
Orzammar - Jarvias mages - not likely to be circle-approved
Orzammar - mages at the provings when fighting non canon fights - not likely to be circle-approved
Redcliffe - I dont remember any mages apart from Jowan who is a runaway mage as we all know.
Haven - I find it highly unlikely that those cultist mages are circle/templar/chantry approved
Mages with Zevran - possibly foreign mages or they can be circle-approved mages if Loghain/Howe hired them out first so this could support your theory
Random mages encountered in side quests - ???
Deserted building - of course none of these mages are "approved"
Alienage mages (main quest) - can be tevinter mages or hired out by Loghain
Howes mages - ??
Forst Drakon mages (is there any?)
Landsmeet mages (when group fighting Loghain) - whoa re they?  they must be circle approved, see above

Cant seem to think of any other but I am sure there are more.  Having thought this through, I have still not convinced myself! I still think that if mages are allowed to leave then that should be made really obvious in the game. 

Also, I have other questions:

How come, when travelling with Morrigan, no templar ever says "hang on a minute - this is an apostate mage"?
How come, when travelling with Wynne, no templar ever say "Hang on, this is a mage - lets find out if shes on official circle business, otherwise we'll have to bring her in"?

[dbfandillyjam]

I completely agree with BelgarathMTH. Most of the templars you actually meet are decent people. In fact when I do the Mages Collective quests I always turn in the bribery evidence to the templar in Dennerum rather than giving the bribe to the templar in Redcliff. I don't like it that the Chantry makes the templars addicts and I hate the idea that a mages would use that to their advantage.

[Sarah1281]

dbfandillyjam wrote...

I completely agree with BelgarathMTH. Most of the templars you actually meet are decent people. In fact when I do the Mages Collective quests I always turn in the bribery evidence to the templar in Dennerum rather than giving the bribe to the templar in Redcliff. I don't like it that the Chantry makes the templars addicts and I hate the idea that a mages would use that to their advantage.

It's not the mages' fault that the templars are addicts and they aren't forcing them to pay for more lyrium. The mages' collective has to bribe templars or else they will be killed or dragged back to the Circle. It's not very nice for the templars, but I think for the mages it's not so much about morality as an us vs. them mentality.

[BelgarathMTH]

As to my ideas about mages working outside the Tower, I defer to the superior literary skills of Erika T and Polaris. I might be able to find more examples, but I guess I'm just too lazy.

I could always resort to, "well, it's just a story, and I can imagine it differently if I want to." :innocent:

I know that's not a valid argument, I'm just kidding.

Can y'all tell I'm about ready to lighten up?

Anyway, I got to state my opinion that Templars are a necessary evil, if "evil" they be.

Modifié par BelgarathMTH, 28 décembre 2010 - 09:51 .

[frostajulie]

Anytime the circumstances of ones birth become the sole cause of imprisonment, abuse, subjugation, and reduction of quality of life then the offending organization, people, way of thinking or law etc is evil, no necessary about it.



We have a word for such practices and it is called slavery and it should never be tolerated in any form. When children can be ripped from the arms of their parents due to a condition of birth it is wrong, it is evil and it is NOT necessary.



When men and women guilty of no wrong or harm can be killed on sight due to a condition of their birth it is wrong, it is evil and it is NOT necessary.



As Morrigan pointedly tells you there are no trials for apostates they are killed on sight.



When playing the mage origin the guards tell you the doors do not get opened for just any reason, afterall it takes 4 templars to open the doors. I wonder how often the mages were let out of the tower just to enjoy the day? Probably not often. When playing the mages origin you overhear female apprentices talking about how the templars watch you bathe. Is that not another abuse? Constant supervision so you can't even take a wiz without a templar giving you the thumbs up?

Then when you go into the forbidden chambers to rescue Jowans phylactery you see torture devices, and cages as well as cells all over the place. I always wondered what that was for? Probably a place to "interrogate" apostates or suspected apostates.



Is it any wonder what happened in the broken circle quest happened? History has shown us repeatedly that one thing men will fight and kill and die for is the right to be free, to choose their own lives and how to live them. Magic is a weapon just like a sword or an axe. So train mages in restraint and teach them to use their powers, but no one should have the right to destroy a family because of what could POTENTIALLY happen and noone should have the right to kill someone or imprison them because of what they might do.

[Addai]

Dave of Canada wrote...

When a lone child abomination is enough to cause the destruction of an entire castle filled with guards and the village, you've got to realize that the templars are just trying to protect the people.

Connor was being protected by a stupid mother who put his welfare over that of an entire city.  But, Isolde is a symptom of the system, too, in that she felt she had to hide him because he would be taken away and disinherited just for being a mage.  Again, the Chantry and Circle system makes the problem worse, not better.

[BelgarathMTH]

frostajulie wrote...

Anytime the circumstances of ones birth become the sole cause of imprisonment, abuse, subjugation, and reduction of quality of life then the offending organization, people, way of thinking or law etc is evil, no necessary about it.

We have a word for such practices and it is called slavery and it should never be tolerated in any form. When children can be ripped from the arms of their parents due to a condition of birth it is wrong, it is evil and it is NOT necessary.

When men and women guilty of no wrong or harm can be killed on sight due to a condition of their birth it is wrong, it is evil and it is NOT necessary.

I'm sorry Frosta, but I have to disagree with your analogy to slavery. Mages are not merely innocent children of a certain race, persecuted merely because they are born into that race.

Mages are genetically rare individuals present in all racial populations (not only the human ones), who have extreme raw power to help or to harm, and who demonstrably choose harm, destruction, and unfair dominance over the general population on a regular basis. Mages are slaves to no one. They are policed and restrained by their own kind in addition to the Templars, the Chantry, and the justifiably afraid general population.

We mages are people with the potential to become every possible horror movie archetype. Our powers, undisciplined, cause destruction, suffering, and horror on a tremendous scale.

We are born with this power. It makes perfect sense that we must be raised as children by people with the same power, who can therefore discipline us into well-adjusted and compassionate adults. No parent without magic has any hope of successfully raising a mage child. It will always turn out just like Isolde and Connor for those who try. Always.

[Sarah1281]

...We?



And what does it matter that mages are from many species? Just because mages have power they are taken from their homes, forced to live in a tower most of their lives, can be killed at will with no way of defending themselves, are forced to come back or killed if they try to escape...you really don't see that as a form of slavery? The reasoning behind the enslavement shouldn't mean that it isn't still similar.

[Reika]

Sorry BelgarathMTH, but your arguments still aren't convincing me why people should be punished just for being born. And honestly that's how I perceive the entire thing with the Circle.

[Bigdoser]

So Belgarath what about the part where a mage cannot have a family or bear a title? Do you agree that mages cannot have none of these things? Is it right that wynne had her child taken away and she never saw him/her again? Is it right that if they try and escape they can be killed? Many men and women can go far if they want freedom. Also you cannot leave if you finish the harrowing I know because I tried.

Modifié par Bigdoser, 29 décembre 2010 - 01:14 .

[BelgarathMTH]

Reika, I don't see a Circle education as punishment. You seem to be saying, what, you as a mage child should be free to run around setting other children on fire, and your parents too when they tried to discipline you? Or perhaps you'd like to be free to make them dance like puppets for your entertainment? Or enclose a regular child who bullies you in a block of ice?



You cannot be allowed to roam free in a population of children and adults who are defenseless against any number of horrible things that you can do to them. And I, for one, am very glad that in Ferelden as in real life, wiser heads prevail, through force of police.