1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

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.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

LookingGlass93 wrote...
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.

It proves you can keep one demon out of your mind. This assumes that all demons are of the same strength, and that such strength is constant in both the mage and demon. People have bad days.

[Reaverwind]

LookingGlass93 wrote...

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.

You're confusing Uldred with Connor - Uldred was taken over by a demon he'd summoned. The point is that the Harrowing provides NO protection from possession.

[Vit246]

What exactly is the point of the Harrowing since it doesn't actually protect mages from possession?

[Beerfish]

Vit246 wrote...

What exactly is the point of the Harrowing since it doesn't actually protect mages from possession?

Some mages are weak willed, it shows that the mage in question has the ability or wherewithall to not become possessed easily.  It's like taking a math test except if you fail you die.

[Reaverwind]

Vit246 wrote...

What exactly is the point of the Harrowing since it doesn't actually protect mages from possession?

More sinister explanation: Cull the mage population.

Less sinister explanation: Prove the mage in question can resist possession (though it's not a guarantee).

Modifié par Reaverwind, 18 janvier 2011 - 05:57 .

[Sir JK]

LookingGlass93 wrote...
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.

Actually, David Gaider commented on this almost 6 months ago in a similar discussion. The Tevinter Imperium is not free for mages. The magisters are using the same methods the chantry uses on their brethren. They are still restricted to a circle. They still must go through a harrowing. There is still templars hunting down any mage the Imperial Chantry deems have broken the rules.

The mages do have more political power however. With all the implications thereof. In Tevinter... a skilled, dutiful but ambitious mage can get assassinated because the Magisters deem him or her a threat.

My source for this

David Gaider wrote...
All the reasons people have mentioned are valid.
There's
also the fact that the Tevinter magisters don't particularly like the
idea of having foreign mages flooding into the Imperium and possibly
becoming competitors-- they're not sympathetic to the plight of mages
elsewhere. Remember that the magisters are at the top of the food chain
there. For them it's a matter of political power.
Even if
a foreign mage *was* able to get into the Imperium, that wouldn't
automatically make them a magister. They might find that life among a
pack of piranha at the bottom of their particular pile, while filled
with much more "freedom" than they're used to, comes with its own...
difficulties.
---
Ah, but there is a Circle of
Magi in Tevinter. And that means that mages are no more free to not be a
part of it than they are elsewhere in Thedas. Yes, you have
significantly more power and freedom, but you exchange being controlled
by the Chantry for being controlled by... other mages.
But I'm
sure some might see it as a potential haven, even so. Provided they can
make the long trip and evade the man-eating tigers they might even be
right.
---
There are indeed Imperial templars. Their primary role is to enforce
magical law, and since they are part of the Chantry-- which is
controlled by the Circle-- they are thus controlled by the mages. The
majority of Imperial templars, however, lack the ability to counter
magic. They are primarily soldiers.

[blothulfur]

Don't the wise women of rivain (about whom only two facts are known) invite spirit/demon possession and still hold a respected position in their society as well as remaining sane, forgot where I read that but along with Wynnes condition it may point to some earlier iteration of the harrowing among mages of old.

[Vit246]

From what we know of Rivain, it sounds like the mages there can form some sort of symbiotic relation/possession with non-demonic spirits. And seeing as how Wynne has this and also says she cannot be possessed by another spirit such as a demon, it sounds like an alternative to the Harrowing. But then, summoning spirits and not demons is said to be difficult and risking demonic possession.

Modifié par Vit246, 18 janvier 2011 - 06:11 .

[HiroVoid]

Beerfish wrote...

 It's like taking a math test except if you fail you die.

Sounds like my school years. *Drum beats*

Modifié par HiroVoid, 18 janvier 2011 - 06:12 .

[Huntress]

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?

The Chantry need's people in fear, whats better than Mages?  ( for now)
Not one but a mage really knows whats going on  him/herself, If magic was so bad, then the maker would have removed the first time it manifested on his creation, Life is magic by itself. Anyone can make good/evil choices and not everyone is a mage.

Not all mages are evil, Anders, Morrigan, Merril and so many others are testament that magic can also be very good for the people.

The Chantry want one thing, everyone who doens't agree with them be put down, they made war with the dalish, they will make war with the dwarve's, after this they will make war with anyhting also they find not going by the chantry rules.

Thedas need more god's to manifest themselves or make a new god, if you ask me.

Mages need to be free from the chantry!

Modifié par Huntress, 18 janvier 2011 - 06:27 .

[atheelogos]

Seagloom wrote...

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.

I feel as though you've overlooked something. You tone makes it sound as if there is an option, a way forward if you will, that will fix the abomination problem. There is not.

If mages are free then abominations will still exist.
If mages are under control of the chantry abominations will still be a problem
And if mages police themselves abomination will still be around.

The average person will have have to deal with those facts wither they like it or not, but oppressing mages serves no real purpose seeing as abominations are there no matter what you do.

Oppressing them is cruel plan and simple. They are being charged and convicted for crimes they didn't commit.

[Ziggeh]

atheelogos wrote...

oppressing mages serves no real purpose seeing as abominations are there no matter what you do.

It contains and limits the potential damage if and when it does happen, while reducing the cases through testing and vigilance.

[atheelogos]

hhh89 wrote...

They aren't heroes, in their ranks there are good people as well as bastards.

Granted, there are good and bad people in every organization, but thats not what we're arguing here. The debate is whether or not they're organization and bigotry is necessary at all. Again I come down on the side that says it is not.

[HiroVoid]

Huntress wrote...

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?

The Chantry need's people in fear, whats better than Mages?  ( for now)
Not one but a mage really knows whats going on  him/herself, If magic was so bad, then the maker would have removed the first time it manifested on his creation, Life is magic by itself. Anyone can make good/evil choices and not everyone is a mage.

Not all mages are evil, Anders, Morrigan, Merril and so many others are testament that magic can also be very good for the people.

The Chantry want one thing, everyone who doens't agree with them be put down, they made war with the dalish, they will make war with the dwarve's, after this they will make war with anyhting also they find not going by the chantry rules.

Thedas need more god's to manifest themselves or make a new god, if you ask me.

Mages need to be free from the chantry!

I thought the Dalish attacked them first just liked they attacked the barbarians in Ferelden first.

[The Elder King]

atheelogos wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

They aren't heroes, in their ranks there are good people as well as bastards.

Granted, there are good and bad people in every organization, but thats not what we're arguing here. The debate is whether or not they're organization and bigotry is necessary at all. Again I come down on the side that says it is not.

Even if mages are free, someone will inevitably became abomination. It happened back in the Tevinter Imperium, it happened with the Chantry. And is probably that some mages will abuse their power.Someone has to deal with, and I believe that both templars and mages can do it, and they can be more effective it they fight together. A mage-templar cooperation would be fine to me.

[atheelogos]

hhh89 wrote...

atheelogos wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

They aren't heroes, in their ranks there are good people as well as bastards.

Granted, there are good and bad people in every organization, but thats not what we're arguing here. The debate is whether or not they're organization and bigotry is necessary at all. Again I come down on the side that says it is not.

Even if mages are free, someone will inevitably became abomination. It happened back in the Tevinter Imperium, it happened with the Chantry. And is probably that some mages will abuse their power.Someone has to deal with, and I believe that both templars and mages can do it, and they can be more effective it they fight together. A mage-templar cooperation would be fine to me.

That sounds like a fine compromise for peace, so I hear you on that point, but can it happen is the real question. At the moment the Templars are top cop on the block. It will be very hard to convince them to step down and stand with the mages as equals. Especially in Kirkwall

[Eclipse_9990]

White_Buffalo94 wrote...

drahelvete wrote...

The qunari have the right idea.

As much as I dislike the chantry, I'd have to say the Chantry has a better idea. They know mages are useful, which is why they don't kill them all off. Mages are the reason the Qunari were pushed back, despite their superior tech and cannons

EDIT: It's truly amazing and awesome how I will be able to destroy TWO groups I severely want to beat down. The Qunari and the Templars/Chantry

Ditto... I don't like the Chantry, but I have to say I like the way they deal with mages a lot more than the Qunari.. It kind of irks me that they have Mages tongues cut out, and treated like dogs, its pretty disgusting.

I guess I'd like the Chantry a bit more if they didn't take all of the Mages freedom.. I can understand taking a Mage child for training, for obvious safety reasons, but I don't think they realize(or they don't care) that if more Mages were treated better, and were allowed to live they're lives, they're would probably be less prone to rebellion. It's kind of ironic, and pretty funny actually..
The peasants/slaves fought for they're freedom against Tevinter Mages.. Now Mages are fighting for they're freedom against the peasants.. Ah.. The circle of bull****. 

Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 18 janvier 2011 - 07:17 .

[Seagloom]

atheelogos wrote...

I feel as though you've overlooked something. You tone makes it sound as if there is an option, a way forward if you will, that will fix the abomination problem. There is not.

If mages are free then abominations will still exist.
If mages are under control of the chantry abominations will still be a problem
And if mages police themselves abomination will still be around.

The average person will have have to deal with those facts wither they like it or not, but oppressing mages serves no real purpose seeing as abominations are there no matter what you do.

Oppressing them is cruel plan and simple. They are being charged and convicted for crimes they didn't commit.

My point was each of the options have their faults. Whether mages police themselves or the Chantry circle system continues, mages will still live with certain freedoms curtailed. I cannot say with certainty if one method is superior to another, but either is preferable to allowing mages unfettered freedom exactly because I believe abominations will *not* go away any time soon. Forcing mages into circles keeps them in one constantly monitored location where abominations can be more readily dealt with than if they were scattered across the countryside. Quite frankly, I would care more about the mundanes of Thedas than mages. I am not a mage in real life, no matter how much I enjoy playing the class in DA. If I put myself in the shoes of Jane commoner living in Thedas, I want the chance of ever seeing an abomination to be as small as possible.

Will some mages be unfairly treated? Yes. Will some mages be accused of being maleficar and put to death as a result? Yes. The Chantry and Imperium are going to have paranoid or straight out cruel people passing unfair judgment over mages. However, setting them all free does even *less* to solve that problem. It can be cruel to force them into circles and take them from families, but I find it crueler to put innocents in danger of being killed or worse by unstable mages. As well, it keeps them from being killed by mobs as others have pointed out in the last page or so. Talk to Wynne and Irving in-game and they both explain how the tower protects as much as confines mages. Wynne specifically goes into an anecdote about what can sometimes happen to people suspected of practicing magic before templars arrive or are even notified. If the Chantry does not corral mages into towers, than a fearful populace will eventually take matters into their own hands. They will not simply accept their neighbors happily--not after the first incident of possession or feeling the consequences of an unintentionally cast spell. Is that really an improvement?

Modifié par Seagloom, 18 janvier 2011 - 07:33 .

[The Elder King]

atheelogos wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

atheelogos wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

They aren't heroes, in their ranks there are good people as well as bastards.

Granted, there are good and bad people in every organization, but thats not what we're arguing here. The debate is whether or not they're organization and bigotry is necessary at all. Again I come down on the side that says it is not.

Even if mages are free, someone will inevitably became abomination. It happened back in the Tevinter Imperium, it happened with the Chantry. And is probably that some mages will abuse their power.Someone has to deal with, and I believe that both templars and mages can do it, and they can be more effective it they fight together. A mage-templar cooperation would be fine to me.

That sounds like a fine compromise for peace, so I hear you on that point, but can it happen is the real question. At the moment the Templars are top cop on the block. It will be very hard to convince them to step down and stand with the mages as equals. Especially in Kirkwall

It will be good if we can do it in DA2, although it's very difficult. Probably in DA2 we'll have the possibility to side with the mages OR the templars/chantry. I hope I'm wrong.

[Wyndham711]

None of my characters have ever had any reason to doubt the chantry. So they don't. Even my mage is an avid supporter of the Chantry and its ways, given how cozy his life was in the Ferelden tower.

He got fed, clothed, had access to a vast library, had friends, a personal army protecting him from outside threats, great teachers, a soft bed, possibilities for career progression, and a lot of free time. Something I might call pretty ideal way of life especially for a person living in a medieval society. He only left the Circle because he had to.

[SgtElias]

Ziggeh wrote...

atheelogos wrote...

oppressing mages serves no real purpose seeing as abominations are there no matter what you do.

It contains and limits the potential damage if and when it does happen, while reducing the cases through testing and vigilance.

It also ensures the creation of more blood mages and abominations. Survival and freedom are powerful motivators. Whether or not you agree, people will fight and make extremely dumb decisions to have a chance at what they consider to be a better life. Putting aside the human rights argument, by rounding up the most powerful people (in theory) in Thedas and locking them away, the Chantry has virtually guaranteed a rebellion, and the resulting chaos that ensues.

Now, whether that's the lesser of two evils is arguable. There's not any way of knowing exactly how many mages would have become abominations over the years had they been left alone to live without the templars supervision, and no way to compare it to the inevitable casualty list that will ensue when the mages rebel. So I guess the question, at the end there, does come back to human rights.

Wyndham711 wrote...

None of my characters have ever had any reason to doubt the chantry. So they don't. Even my mage is an avid supporter of the Chantry and its ways, given how cozy his life was in the Ferelden tower.
He got fed, clothed, had access to a vast library, had friends, a personal army protecting him from outside threats, great teachers, a soft bed, possibilities for career progression, and a lot of free time. Something I might call pretty ideal way of life especially for a person living in a medieval society. He only left the Circle because he had to.

Anders tried to escape the tower seven or more times. Each time, he left behind a warm bed, relative security, three square meals a day, a vast library in which to study and spend recreational time, and, in theory, friends. Why? Because that's not enough for some people. I wanted a family (and children) my entire life. I also don't want to be caged; you can bet if I was locked in a tower, I'd escape time and again until they finally executed me. Pointing out that "it's not so bad," is not really something that can be applied to everyone.

Modifié par SgtElias, 18 janvier 2011 - 08:37 .

[Wyndham711]

SgtElias wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

None of my characters have ever had any reason to doubt the chantry. So they don't. Even my mage is an avid supporter of the Chantry and its ways, given how cozy his life was in the Ferelden tower.
He got fed, clothed, had access to a vast library, had friends, a personal army protecting him from outside threats, great teachers, a soft bed, possibilities for career progression, and a lot of free time. Something I might call pretty ideal way of life especially for a person living in a medieval society. He only left the Circle because he had to.

Anders tried to escape the tower seven or more times. Each time, he left behind a warm bed, relative security, three square meals a day, a vast library in which to study and spend recreational time, and, in theory, friends. Why? Because that's not enough for some people. I wanted a family (and children) my entire life. I also don't want to be caged; you can bet if I was locked in a tower, I'd escape time and again until they finally executed me. Pointing out that "it's not so bad," is not really something that can be applied to everyone.

Of cource it can't, thats the fun in the scenario - it allows many different kinds of characters to be created and they can have reasonably different reactions to the situation they are in. Though personally I do think the mages are definitely living a relative life of luxury (at least in the Ferelden tower), considering this is a medieval society we are talking about.

Especially for the mages who were born in poor families. It's a remarkable societal leap that offers a much more possibilities than say a life in the streets would have, and in great many cases will increase your chance of living a long life and experiencing more happiness.

Really, it's even better than the life in a medieval monastery, since you don't have take part in the religion in any major way should you not want to, not to mention there are members of the opposite sex available. And should you prove yourself you might even start getting assignments in the outside world - something that might well quench that thirst for adventure some mages may suffer from.

Outside of nobility, I can hardly think of people more well off than the mages. An idle lifestyle should you want it so, no worry for tomorrow, taken care of for the rest of your life, protected, with a plenty of stimulus offered to satisfy even the most active of minds. Sure, you have to give up some things in life if you happen to be born a mage, but considering the absurd amount of benefits (that most others can only dream of) you get in return, I would seriously think it a bargain.

[atheelogos]

hhh89 wrote...

atheelogos wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

atheelogos wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

They aren't heroes, in their ranks there are good people as well as bastards.

Granted, there are good and bad people in every organization, but thats not what we're arguing here. The debate is whether or not they're organization and bigotry is necessary at all. Again I come down on the side that says it is not.

Even if mages are free, someone will inevitably became abomination. It happened back in the Tevinter Imperium, it happened with the Chantry. And is probably that some mages will abuse their power.Someone has to deal with, and I believe that both templars and mages can do it, and they can be more effective it they fight together. A mage-templar cooperation would be fine to me.

That sounds like a fine compromise for peace, so I hear you on that point, but can it happen is the real question. At the moment the Templars are top cop on the block. It will be very hard to convince them to step down and stand with the mages as equals. Especially in Kirkwall

It will be good if we can do it in DA2, although it's very difficult. Probably in DA2 we'll have the possibility to side with the mages OR the templars/chantry. I hope I'm wrong.

In future games we may be able to mend relations between mages and the chantry, but I highly doubt that will happen in this game.

The Templars have been treating them like crap and keeping the mages in a prison for god knows how long. The mages aren't just going to say "lets let bygones be bygones"

Modifié par atheelogos, 18 janvier 2011 - 09:49 .

[SgtElias]

Wyndham711 wrote...

Outside of nobility, I can hardly think of people more well off than the mages. An idle lifestyle should you want it so, no worry for tomorrow, taken care of for the rest of your life, protected, with a plenty of stimulus offered to satisfy even the most active of minds. Sure, you have to give up some things in life if you happen to be born a mage, but considering the absurd amount of benefits (that most others can only dream of) you get in return, I would seriously think it a bargain.

Yes, you would think it's a bargain. That was my original point. The choice to give up personal freedom and the hope of having a family in exchange for security is a chioce that you might think fair, but to others it would be absolutely inconceivable, and that just depends on the person. I have to admit I think that societally most people would not choose the option to give up a family in order to gain security.

Not that I have a problem with how you're creating or playing your characters; more power to you. My only point was that a blanket statement of "it's a bargain" does not take into account many variables, largest of which is the fact that what "a bargain" is varries greatly depending on the individual.

Is it better than the alienage? Almost certainly. However, I can scarcely think of a place I'd be less happy, and I would, literally, die before I let anyone take my children from me, religious organization or no.

Modifié par SgtElias, 18 janvier 2011 - 09:57 .

[atheelogos]

Wyndham711 wrote...

SgtElias wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

None of my characters have ever had any reason to doubt the chantry. So they don't. Even my mage is an avid supporter of the Chantry and its ways, given how cozy his life was in the Ferelden tower.
He got fed, clothed, had access to a vast library, had friends, a personal army protecting him from outside threats, great teachers, a soft bed, possibilities for career progression, and a lot of free time. Something I might call pretty ideal way of life especially for a person living in a medieval society. He only left the Circle because he had to.

Anders tried to escape the tower seven or more times. Each time, he left behind a warm bed, relative security, three square meals a day, a vast library in which to study and spend recreational time, and, in theory, friends. Why? Because that's not enough for some people. I wanted a family (and children) my entire life. I also don't want to be caged; you can bet if I was locked in a tower, I'd escape time and again until they finally executed me. Pointing out that "it's not so bad," is not really something that can be applied to everyone.

Of cource it can't, thats the fun in the scenario - it allows many different kinds of characters to be created and they can have reasonably different reactions to the situation they are in. Though personally I do think the mages are definitely living a relative life of luxury (at least in the Ferelden tower), considering this is a medieval society we are talking about.

Especially for the mages who were born in poor families. It's a remarkable societal leap that offers a much more possibilities than say a life in the streets would have, and in great many cases will increase your chance of living a long life and experiencing more happiness.

Really, it's even better than the life in a medieval monastery, since you don't have take part in the religion in any major way should you not want to, not to mention there are members of the opposite sex available. And should you prove yourself you might even start getting assignments in the outside world - something that might well quench that thirst for adventure some mages may suffer from.

Outside of nobility, I can hardly think of people more well off than the mages. An idle lifestyle should you want it so, no worry for tomorrow, taken care of for the rest of your life, protected, with a plenty of stimulus offered to satisfy even the most active of minds. Sure, you have to give up some things in life if you happen to be born a mage, but considering the absurd amount of benefits (that most others can only dream of) you get in return, I would seriously think it a bargain.

Your reasoning is flawed. You need only look at what happened in origins. The Majority of Tower rose up in rebellion despite everything they were given. People want freedom and rights not accessories.