1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Kakistos_]

The reason that I believe that the treatment of mages is not justified is that the Chantry and common people are more afraid of what mages are and the power they posses more so than what they may become. The Chantry sees the mages as a threat to their influence. No doubt a drawback from the once very powerful Tevinter Imperium.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the great DG already chimed in on this issue.

[Seagloom]

I like playing mages and dislike most of what the Chantry spouts. There are clearly many well meaning people serving as priestesses, brothers, and templars however, so I consider it a mixed bag rather than an organization of ultimate tyranny under the guise of spiritual benevolence.

I do not think I ever played a mage that was whole hog libertarian. I prefer the freedom for myself route than freeing everyone, and that is because I think most mages should be policed. What I am not so sure about is if templars should do it with the circle system or if mages should monitor themselves. Either way mages present a very real danger to everyone else, including other mages. The average abomination is a maddened, indiscriminate killer. That any mage, whether they are masters of magic or barely capable of a cantrip is susceptible, is a serious deterrent to letting them have too much freedom. Corralling them has its own moral and societal implications, some of which are very unfair. What it comes down to is who do I feel for more: the mage who is shunned, forced into an isolated location where they may be oppressed, or the average peasant in danger of being run down by an abomination or killed by the runaway spells of a neophyte practitioner?

Unfortunately there is no perfectly fair way to do it. Even if mages policed themselves, the threat of possession is very real. I certainly would not be keen on gambling my personal safety for the sake of mage's freedom were I living in Thedas. Life would be dangerous enough with the possibility of mundane thieves, murderers, darkspawn, and roaming animals without throwing in the chance Bob next door could crack one day and burn my entire family into ash.

I will not even get into the whole blood magic thing. Abominations and potentially careless use of magic is more than enough in my opinion.

Modifié par Seagloom, 18 janvier 2011 - 02:15 .

[AlexXIV]

hhh89 wrote...

About the question about who is bettere in dealing with mages, mages or templars: in DAO gameplay surely mages are better than templars. Mana Clash kills the majority of mages, or weakens them a lot. But, in DAO gameplay blood mages aren't too tough. Instead, a lore description (and the events or the Circle and in part Redcliffe°) said that blood mages are powerful, most ofthe time stronger than the other mages. And templare are descripted as very suited in dealing with mages.
I think that a nice idea is to form mix squad of mages and templars in dealing with apostates and maleficare. We should remember that the chantry generally don't kill the apostates, if they can take them alive. They generally kill the maleficar.
I really dont have an opinion about what is better, Chantry control or mage freedom. Both have their pros and cons. If in DA2 we'll have the possibility to side with both factions, I'm going to make different Hawkes with different opinion about the topic.

I don't know what you mean by 'generally' but they tried to kill Aneirin even though he wasn't a bloodmage and he merely wished to join the Dalish.

[The Elder King]

I don't remember well, but Wynne maybe said that they called him "maleficar", so maybe they thought he was a blood mage. Or maybe the templars that found Aneirin was more "evil" than others.

Anders fled from the Circle seven times and they never killed him. Only when they thought that he killed the templars they wanted to kill him.

Maybe sometime templars go over their duty. I don't remember if it's a lore description or a dev's post, but templars are supposed to find apostated and bring them back (or in the Circle, or in the mage prison). Probably there are templars that want to kill every mages outside the Circle. They aren't heroes, in their ranks there are good people as well as bastards.

[Gabey5]

i think they should be free. its not like masges are unkillable

Modifié par Gabey5, 18 janvier 2011 - 12:42 .

[Nerevar-as]

Gabey5 wrote...

i think they should be free. its not like masges are unkillable

While I agree about they should be free, and in fact most mage related problems from Origins (Connor, Broken Circle) wouldn´t have happened without the Chantry laws, don´t understimate them. The GW and party could easily deal with the tower disaster (in story terms, only Sloth was close to defeating them), but average people would have no chance. If an abomination appears somewhere where there isn´t anyone strong enough to deal with it, it could do a lot of harm for a time.

[Lotion Soronarr]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

The Chantry and Templars are not needed as much as people tend to believe. Take the Tevinter Imperium. That country is ruled entirly by mages and have been for centuries yet clearly that country hasn't fallen appart having large sections of its population turning into Abominations now do they? The Harrowing is a Tevinter system to make sure that doesn't happen, they probably have other systems or rituals take place at different periods of a mages life to ensure that they don't turn into an Abomination.

If the Tevinter can maintain a completly stable government with Mages in charge than surely we can live in a world where Mages are free of being controled and not fear situations like Uldred happening.

Dictatorship and opressive regimes often live for quite long. Does that means that it' a "good" coutnry and something to aspire to? The fact that Tevinter didn't completely crumble doesn't indicate anythin really, nor does it imply the government is compeltely stable and all is peachy fine.

Look, Mages have magic for a reason, and that reason sure as hell wasn't to "serve", power is meant to rule, and control.

With great power comes great responsibility. Even moreso if you can loose control of that power at any time. Anyone who shies away from that responsibiltiy is a egoistical jackass that needs to have a hot poker shoved up his ass.

Hell even the chantry knows, and acknowleges this. They use "control" to
keep they're templars leashed to them(I.E making them lyrium addicts).
They use faith to control the masses.(people don't question them when
the Chantry went off to destroy the Dales, and force Elves into
Alienages..).

The Chantry didn't force elves into Alianages. The kingdowm that fought agaisnt the Dalish, and the elves desire to separete themselves gave bith to the alinages.
The war of the dales is a murky matter, so raging agaisnt the "evil Chantry" stinks of bias.

It's all about control with them.. Hell if the Chantry was able too,
they would probably want kill all Mages at birth. Also it doesnt help
that they're constantly, inciting people against mages, and they
completely forget, and probably completely destroyed evidence of( or
tried to..) that Andraste was a mage herself..
They're hypocrites the lot of them..

That must be some other setting..because DA is nothing like that. While your wild theories are fun to read, they lack even a semblance of facts.
Even DG pretty much confirms this, hen he describied a typical templar and andrastian. That all-consuming hate of mages and desire to destroy them doesn't exist in general.

The morality of the country is not what is in question here. The
question was can Mages be free and be trusted not to become
Abominations. Clearly the Tevinter has found a way of allowing every
Mage freedom and we don't see Abominations coming out of that place.

Yes..like you didn't see the abomination in Uldred, untill IT decided to show itself.<_<
The truth is that we know very little about what's going on inside tevinter borders....aside that it's not a cuddly place, especially for non-mages.

If it's okay for the non-mages to oppress the mages in Ferelden, why is it not okay for the opposite to be true in Tevinter?

number of non-mages >>>> number of mages
Why should the minority bow down to a minority?



Bah. Peope lagin forget to factor in everying, and look only from a very narrow point of view. They think of perfect scenarios (that are impossible) insted of thinking what is attainable.

You CANNOT have mages run free. They don't even in Tevinter. Tevinter also has mage towers and templars. Only the select few have freedom. A mage in tevinter isn'treally better off than in Ferleden.

Logisticly and practicly, it would be a nightmare to have mages roun around. You would need a LOT more funding and manpower dedicated to watching them, and your prevention and containment efficiency would suffer horribly even than.
There's a reason why all mages are gathered in the tower.

The second issue isn't with good/bad potential of mages. Sure, like any human they can be good or bad. That is not the problem. Even with the best intentions, a mage can STILL be possesed and f*** everything up (Jowand Can Connor hald onyl good intentions). A normal man can't.

[Lotion Soronarr]

To recap Davids words:

That is, of course, ignoring the fact that the world back then was a
much more dangerous place. An abomination tearing up the countryside was
simply something that happened and needed to be dealt with. You also
had an empire ruled by mages that oppressed everyone else, and (if Chantry dogma is to be believed) started the Blight.
I think an argument can definitely be made that magic is inherently dangerous, yes.

I guess it depends on what you consider punishment. The Chantry looks on
the Circle as a mercy -- what is the alternative, after all? The mages
would say "let us watch ourselves", but then we're back to the specter
of the magisters. And what if there are mages who don't care for the
idea of other mages coming after them, either? Would that not place them
in the position of being oppressed, as well?

There is no easy answer, here, which is just as I like it. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png

That's an argument with blood magic, yes, but not with abominations. The
mere fact that you possess this knowledge does not mean you will go on a
killing rampage against your will.
The problem with mages is that even those with the best intentions can
still present a threat. It complicates the issue precisely because there
is no set criteria for who is at risk.

Imprisonment, sure, but I'm not sure you can equate the mages to being
slaves. Their life is not their own, but they are not servants to
anyone.
---
Relationships are only discouraged because fraternization inside such a
closed community can make things quite complicated. It's not technically
forbidden, though marriages generally aren't allowed. As for families,
that's discouraged for the same reason -- not least of which is that it
makes the mage much more susceptible to demonic influence. Remember
Connor? Manipulating someone through the people they care about is the
oldest trick in the book for demons.

Tehre's mroe thanthis about the subject.

[atheelogos]

Johnny Shepard wrote...

There was a really intresting discusion in the Meredith thread before it go compleatly of track with talk about Mages should be ruling the world and blowing up things for fun.
I would really want that discusion to continue so I started this thread. I hope some Devs vill stop by and give their take on the mather as well.


As I se it, the problem isn't that the Mage's are under guard because they can be dangerus and Im not just talking about Blood Magic. They can't compleatly controll what can happen to them.

The
problem, as I se it, is the way the Templars and the Chantry treat the
Mages with hate and disgust as if they where monsters. Like it was the
Mage's fault that he/she was born a Mage.
And that they are forbidden to have a family.

If
Templars where more as protectors then jailers there would not be as big of a
problem. I don't thin Mage's would rebell or run away if they could
live there own life with Templars guarding them. Its the misstreatment
and the fact that they are held in a Tower that makes them act up.

And
it comes down to being the Chantrys fault because they misstreat the
Templars (making them addicts) who themseves take it out on the Mages.

Should
the Mages be on their own? No. Even Anders knows that would be a big
problem (infact he say's just that). But they should not be treated like
evil monsters.

What do you think?

Should mages be on their own? Yes and its only a problem because the Chantry and Templars would make it one. If the Chantry weren't so bigoted the Mages wouldn't need to fight them.

[Ziggeh]

atheelogos wrote...
Should mages be on their own? Yes and its only a problem because the Chantry and Templars would make it one.

Making a mountain out of the occasional massacre. Just because large numbers of people occasionally die horrible doesn't mean there's a problem.

[JamieCOTC]

Destroy the demons. Problem solved.

[Nashiktal]

Oh Jamie you naive child.

[Beerfish]

Kakistos_ wrote...

The reason that I believe that the treatment of mages is not justified is that the Chantry and common people are more afraid of what mages are and the power they posses more so than what they may become. The Chantry sees the mages as a threat to their influence. No doubt a drawback from the once very powerful Tevinter Imperium.

I disagree about the common people.  The Chantryno doubt wants to hold the reigns on things, that maybe is a legit beef but the common folk are very afraid of what mages will become, as in an abomination.

[DJBare]

There is no straight answer to the mages, consider this, hypothetically think of people who are capable of mind reading living in your community, would you feel comfortable with their presence even if they are the nicest folk in the world?.

[Beerfish]

Gabey5 wrote...

i think they should be free. its not like masges are unkillable

After a few villages here or there get wiped out?   The problem is that if you have no restrictions on them at all then be prepared for the Salem witch hunts.  As it is common people probably don't trust mages but they feel somewhat safe because of the tight rule of the Chantry and the Templars.

Take that away and after one or two bad possession incidents and it will be open season on mages everywhere.

[Big I]

Beerfish wrote...

After a few villages here or there get wiped out?   The problem is that if you have no restrictions on them at all then be prepared for the Salem witch hunts.  As it is common people probably don't trust mages but they feel somewhat safe because of the tight rule of the Chantry and the Templars.

Take that away and after one or two bad possession incidents and it will be open season on mages everywhere.

Unlike people in Salem mages actually have magical powers. I doubt there'd be many witch trials when any mage they catch can Fireball their way out of it. It's why templars exist in the first place, they're the only ones who can take them down.


As to these trials happening, why does freeing mages lead to dead villages? Harrowed mages are protected from demons and won't become abominations, and their first impulse upon gaining their freedom is unlikely to be "lets see how many commoners I can massacre."

[Reaverwind]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

After a few villages here or there get wiped out?   The problem is that if you have no restrictions on them at all then be prepared for the Salem witch hunts.  As it is common people probably don't trust mages but they feel somewhat safe because of the tight rule of the Chantry and the Templars.

Take that away and after one or two bad possession incidents and it will be open season on mages everywhere.

As to these trials happening, why does freeing mages lead to dead villages? Harrowed mages are protected from demons and won't become abominations

Really? Explain Uldred and co.

[blothulfur]

Freedom for beasts?, the qunari know that a beast should at the least be shackled and tongueless and this mad desire to acknowledge these things as human should not even be discussed among civilized men.

Thought for the day: Know the Qun, know thyself.

[Big I]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Bah. Peope lagin forget to factor in everying, and look only from a very narrow point of view. They think of perfect scenarios (that are impossible) insted of thinking what is attainable.

You CANNOT have mages run free. They don't even in Tevinter. Tevinter also has mage towers and templars. Only the select few have freedom. A mage in tevinter isn'treally better off than in Ferleden.

The second issue isn't with good/bad potential of mages. Sure, like any human they can be good or bad. That is not the problem. Even with the best intentions, a mage can STILL be possesed and f*** everything up (Jowand Can Connor hald onyl good intentions). A normal man can't.

First, I would say that apart from slavery the Tevinter system of government is no worse than anyone elses. In Orlais chevaliers have "rights" over  commoners, in Orzammar the casteless are treated like dirt, etc. The closest thing to democracy we've seen in Thedas is in Fereldan, where everyone has the right to change which lord they hold alleigance to if they desire.


Second, Tevinter is run by mages. It's why the Imperial Chantry split from the Chantry. It's not a case of a few magisters and a lot of oppressed "normal" mages; the mages are the nobility. This codex entry mentions a magocracy in charge of Minrathous. Thus, Tevinter is an example of a nation where mages are a) free, and not a significant threat to order.


Thirdly, Harrowed mages are not at risk of becoming abominations unless they're stupid enough to make deals with demons, which is what Uldred did. That's what the Harrowing is for, to stop mages becoming abominations. How humane it is to toss children into the fade to fight demons is another discussion.


Fourth, just because mages are more powerful than most people is no reason to lock all of them up for what they might do. Everyone, mage or not, has the capacity to commit harm. It's like saying anyone who's particularly strong should be locked away because the consequences of them being violent is greater.


Finally, if free mages would still likely stay associated with and/or live at the Circle. In the Origins epilogue, if you created an incentive for mages to go to Orzammar via the Dagda side quest they formed a Cirlce once they got there, and Wynne often talks about how her home is the Circle. They want to stay a part of a community of mages.

[Big I]

Reaverwind wrote...
Really? Explain Uldred and co.

He used blood magic to make a bad deal with a demon, and it ate him. He then tortured people until their will broke. The moral: don't use blood magic to summon and/or make deals with demons unless you want to become an abomination.

[Ziggeh]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Unlike people in Salem mages actually have magical powers. I doubt there'd be many witch trials when any mage they catch can Fireball their way out of it. It's why templars exist in the first place, they're the only ones who can take them down.

Heh, you think increased fear would reduce witch hunting?

LookingGlass93 wrote...
Harrowed mages are protected from demons and won't become abominations

No, they're not.

[Big I]

Ziggeh wrote...

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Unlike people in Salem mages actually have magical powers. I doubt there'd be many witch trials when any mage they catch can Fireball their way out of it. It's why templars exist in the first place, they're the only ones who can take them down.

Heh, you think increased fear would reduce witch hunting?

LookingGlass93 wrote...
Harrowed mages are protected from demons and won't become abominations

No, they're not.

Yes, I do think fear would reduce witch trials. In Lothering you can intimidate bandits into letting you pass by pointing out you're a mage, and you can do something similar to Dwynn in Redcliffe. I doubt commoners would have more stomach for confronting a mage than trained fighters.


As for Harrowing, it proves that you can keep demons out of your mind. The only way a Harrowed mage can be made an abomination is through conscious acceptance of a demon, either through a deal or physical torture. It's not involuntary.

[Beerfish]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

After a few villages here or there get wiped out?   The problem is that if you have no restrictions on them at all then be prepared for the Salem witch hunts.  As it is common people probably don't trust mages but they feel somewhat safe because of the tight rule of the Chantry and the Templars.

Take that away and after one or two bad possession incidents and it will be open season on mages everywhere.

Unlike people in Salem mages actually have magical powers. I doubt there'd be many witch trials when any mage they catch can Fireball their way out of it. It's why templars exist in the first place, they're the only ones who can take them down.


As to these trials happening, why does freeing mages lead to dead villages? Harrowed mages are protected from demons and won't become abominations, and their first impulse upon gaining their freedom is unlikely to be "lets see how many commoners I can massacre."

There are a million and one ways where your low level militia or even a movement within a Bann or country could come down hard on mages and just because "in game" mages can kick the ass of any commoner it doesn't mean they can't be attacked, killed, detained when their guard is down.

Harrowed mages are not protected from becoming demons.  They have merely passed a test set out to see if they can in that one instance not be taken over by a demon.  All through their lives they will have to face the possibility of possession, becoming an abomination is a constant possibility.

[DJBare]

LookingGlass93 wrote...
Yes, I do think fear would reduce witch trials.

No it would not, ignorant frightened people tend to do stupid things, stupid things like mob rule.