1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Shadow Warior]

Freedom Vs Security
I love these sort of problems, and I hope they are never solved,
ONLY AGGRAVATED:devil:

Modifié par Shadow Warior, 19 janvier 2011 - 06:17 .

[LobselVith8]

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 guess being slaves of the Chantry makes some people think there should be a mage revolt so they can finally get some rights.

Johnny Shepard wrote...

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.

Except we know that the elves of Arlathan, the Dales, and the Dalish clans have no templars watching over them. Even the mages of Haven are in positions of authority (like Father Eirik of the Haven Chantry, and possibly Kolgrim given his ability to know the fate of the Urn of Sacred Ashes). There's no reason they should be slaves to the Chantry.

Johnny Shepard wrote...

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.

And this is exactly why mages should be emancipated from the Chantry and the templars. The Chantry preaches hatred, and enslaves mages. As the definition of slavery illustrates:

"2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence"

That defines the mages relationship to the Chantry, who control them.

Johnny Shepard wrote...

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.

There's no reason armed and armored drug addicts should be watching over mages at all.

Johnny Shepard wrote...

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.

Anders says that because the Chantry will murder mages before allowing them to gain freedom from the Chantry. Even Wynne says this when the Warden-Commander says they should be free from the Chantry.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

How can you disagree with Word of God? 

That must explain why the Architect suddenly has two hands in Awakening when he had one cut off in TC. Doesn't seem that Gaider had much imput in that little recton...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If DG sez Circles are necessary, then they are.

That must also explain why the Architect looks completely different than he did in the novel despite Word of God. Maybe somebody should have told the devs that they can't do that because Word of God says he looks completely different in Gaider's novel...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If he sez that the world was worse off before the Circles, then it is so.

I'm sure it's better for the people in power, but hardly for the mages who are stepped on by the templars, who have complete and total control over their lives. Was life better before mages were forcibly taken from their families and enslaved by the Chantry? I'm sure that, according to the Divine, the world is a much safer place.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

EDIT: B.t.w - a Circle is led by the First Enchanter (mage) and Knight-Commander (templar). So to say that mages have no say in how the Circle is run is bollocks.

It's bullocks to pretend that mages have any rights when they're under the control of the Chantry, actually. They can't stay with their families, they can't inherit a title, they can't marry in some Circles or even raise their children, and I don't see how you can pretend it's otherwise.

[Loc'n'lol]

[EmperorSahlertz]

In which circle aren't the mages allowed to marry? They aren't allowed to keep their children, for obvious reasons (which the two of us have discussed long and hard enough to realize neither of us will budge), but I havn't heard of any circle which outright denies the mages to marry. They may have different criteria, before the mage may marry, but the mage may still marry.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

In which circle aren't the mages allowed to marry? They aren't allowed to keep their children, for obvious reasons (which the two of us have discussed long and hard enough to realize neither of us will budge), but I havn't heard of any circle which outright denies the mages to marry. They may have different criteria, before the mage may marry, but the mage may still marry.

David Gaider mentioned this in the thread regarding templars a few months back, that delved into whether mages were allowed to marry or not. DG said some Circles forbid marriages, and other Circles permit it. It's the same thread where he said that Grey Warden mages were exempt from the restrictions of the Chantry because of their status as GWs.

[EmperorSahlertz]

I'll take your word for it. Got no desire to dig through months of old threads.



But I'd like to point out that what the Circles do, is not the Chantry. The only thing the Chantry decides, when it comes to the management of Circles, is who the Knight-Commander is. The Circles themselves have their own policies, which is made by the First Enchanter and his Senior Enchanters.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I'll take your word for it. Got no desire to dig through months of old threads.

The thread was essentially about the templars and chastity, and went into mages further on. Basically, a mage would need permission from the Chantry to get married, which could be given as a reward for good behavior, but that some Circles basically frowned on mages having relationships.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

But I'd like to point out that what the Circles do, is not the Chantry. The only thing the Chantry decides, when it comes to the management of Circles, is who the Knight-Commander is. The Circles themselves have their own policies, which is made by the First Enchanter and his Senior Enchanters.

That must explain how an insane Cullen can rule the Circle of Ferelden in fear as the new Knight-Commander.

Steffen wrote...

I think thats a bit biased, surely not all templars hate mages, templars have been given the villain stamp in this discussion, and sometimes rightly so but, can you really blame them for being extra carefull with mages, take cullen forinstance, i would have reacted similar.

Being extra careful? You mean, like the templars who murdered the fake mage The Magnificent D'Sims, who pretended to heal people? Yeah, I can see how extra careful they were being when they slaughtered an innocent elf because he pretended to heal the sick. There's also the Dalish elves, who said the templars were sent into the Dales when they kicked out the human missionaries. As for the rebellion in the Circle Tower, what do you expect slaves to do when they want their freedom? It was a revolt that happened because mages want their freedom from the Chantry. They have absolutely no rights in Thedas because of the Chantry, and only Grey Warden mages have freedom.

Malanek999 wrote...

They require guidance and ultimately in the worst case policing. The chantry should have nothing to do with governance, their own prejudices render them unsuitable and actually dangerous. The incident with uldred is as much their fault as the blood mages. Templars should be placed under command of a mage council to assist policing. The mage council should be answerable to the countrys government, in Feraldans case the king/queen.

That must explain Arlathan, the Dales, the Dalish clans, the mages of Rivain, and the people of Haven (all have had mages with no Chantry oversight, and the world didn't end).

DragonOfWhiteThunder wrote...

The Circles need the Tranquil. Not speaking to the morality of the practice, here, but rather the simple necessity of those it creates. The Tranquil are the only non-dwarves able to work lyrium, and thus able to create enchantments. Without the revenue from selling magical objects, the Circles would not be able to continue to exist.

That sounds too similiar to the argument made against emancipating slaves in the rl.

Maria Caliban wrote...

Regulation is not the same as oppression. Oppression is subjugating someone in an unjust or cruel manner.

Having to pass a standardized test to drive a car is a form of regulation. If only adult females could take that test while adult males were barred from it and could never drive, that would be oppression. Alternatively, barring five-year-olds from taking the test isn't oppressive.

I know a woman who's an epileptic. She's not allowed to drive a car. Ever. This doesn't mean she's oppressed. It means society understands that some people are at such a high risk for losing control while driving, that letting them drive would be a danger to the community.

Is she forbidden from marrying? Forbidden from raising her own children? Is she being watched over by armored drug addicts? Does she not have the right to inherit from her family? Let's not pretend that all the templars do is regulate people. Mages have no rights, and they're basically slaves of the Chantry.

Nashiktal wrote...

Awakening also shows the extreme dangers of mages. The Orlesian noble who ruled the black marsh village is a prime example of why mages in leadership is a bad idea,

Or I could point out how Lanaya, as the leader of her clan and a mage, is able to keep the peace between the elves and the humans if the Hinterlands are handed over to them.

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

As for why Templars should be used in the process there's two reasons. 1) Having a 100% mage controlled saftey orginization would make the population of Thedas worried deeply. Templars are seen as being fair people and having them in the process would grant the solution alot of validity. 2) When dealing with and Abomination that has alot more magic to use than the average mage having a Templar and a mage working together would be the best bet on taking that threat out qucikly. The Templar would be able to cancel out all the magical attacks the Abomination throws at them while the mage can fire spell and take the thing down.

1) It would make people deeply concerned because the Chantry spreads propaganda against mages. That's why the people of Rivain have more relaxed attitudes towards mages.
2) The Warden resolves the issue of abominations in the Circle of Ferelden with absolutely no templar aid, so their presence isn't necessary.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 19 janvier 2011 - 07:21 .

[Beerfish]

Here is a question for the pro mage freedom supporters. How exactly do you envision mages living their lives and their quality of life if given 100% total freedom?



You may find out that what you envision and how things turn out are very very different.

[LobselVith8]

Beerfish wrote...

Here is a question for the pro mage freedom supporters. How exactly do you envision mages living their lives and their quality of life if given 100% total freedom?

You may find out that what you envision and how things turn out are very very different.

Let's ask the elves of Arlathan, the Dales, and the Dalish clans, who did (and do for the latter) exactly that. Or the mages of Haven, who can preside over the local Chantry (like Eirik, and possibly Kolgrim is his ability to know the fate of the Urn is based in magic) or the mages of Rivain, who are greatly respected.

[EmperorSahlertz]

In all do respect, but Cullen does not crack if he becomes Knight-Commander. He becomes tyrannical, certainly. But it is only if he doesn't become Knight-Commander that he goes insane with fear(/paranoia). When he gets to be Knight-Commander, he can overcome the illusion his paranoia is cauing him, by further restrcting the mages.

And here isn't enough data on Arlathan, the Dales, or even the Dalish to say for certain that they live(d) in a 100% free enviroment.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 19 janvier 2011 - 07:28 .

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

In all do respect, but Cullen does not crack if he becomes Knight-Commander. He becomes tyrannical, certainly. But it is only if he doesn't become Knight-Commander that he goes insane with fear(/paranoia). When he gets to be Knight-Commander, he can overcome the illusion his paranoia is causing him, by further restricting the mages.

He rules the Circle of Ferelden in fear as the new Knight-Commander; otherwise, if the Magi boon is requested by the Warden-Commander and the Circle was culled, he becomes a wandering mad-man, killing mages. In both scenerios, it seems evident that Cullen isn't all there.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And here isn't enough data on Arlathan, the Dales, or even the Dalish to say for certain that they live(d) in a 100% free enviroment.

The Dalish clans are led by the descendants of the leaders of the Dales and Arlathan; this is made clear when Lanaya is explaining how difficult it was for her to become First to Zathrian. Considering that mages are typically leaders of the Dalish clans, and there's nobody supervising them, I don't see how you can claim otherwise.

SnakeStrike8 wrote...

Should mages be free?
We know what happened in Redcliffe: a single, untrained mage massacred an entire garrison and almost laid waste to a whole village.
Do all mages do that? Probably not, but as long as the risk exists, Chantry supervision is justified. They don't exactly cut the tongues from mages or put them on leashes; they just gather them all in one place so they can teach each other the dangers of uncontrolled magic. I don't think it was the chantry's intention to turn the world against mages. People are simply always mistrustful of things they don't understand, templars included.

Supervision? It's slavery. Mages have no rights, can't see their families, can't raise children, can't marry in some Circles, and are hated because the Chantry preaches hatred and mistrust of mages. The templars have the full authority to make mages tranquil or kill them, since Jowan was going to be made tranquil despite First Enchanter Irving's reservations about the matter. Despite all their propaganda against the mages, they certainly had no issue using them to win the war against the Qunari in the New Exalted Marches.

Ziggeh wrote...

Avilia wrote...

I think its a reaction against the Imperium - wanting to make sure no one with magic has any kind of power or freedom.  I see the general feeling against mages and magic (not just the Chantry but general populace) stemming from their Andrastian beliefs.

Imagine you live with your family in a little village. Imagine a mage lives next door. No matter how small the odds, you know that one day that mage might turn into a monster that could strip the flesh from everyone you know and love.

How do you think that mage would be treated?

Considering that mages are born among the Dalish clans and aren't hated or feared, maybe the better question would be how people would view a mage if the Chantry didn't teach intolerance towards mages?

Beerfish wrote...

Well the mages themselves are secondary in this equation.

Mages bound by the chantry:  A safe life for those that possessed mages may do harm to.

Mages unboiund from the chantry:  A threat to all that a possessed mage my do harm to.

The chantry and the templars don't necessasarily go to all that bother because they want to be mean to mages.  It's for preservation and general good of the populace. 

That must explain how a mage-hating Cullen can rule the Circle of Ferelden in fear as the new Knight-Commander.

[atheelogos]

BIO18 wrote...

Yeah but what I mean is why change the order of things . The world still exists and existed for a long time with the templar protection . Why risk changing that , it could end up better , but it could end up really bad .

Change is always risky, but the effort must be made reguardless.

[Addai]

filaminstrel wrote...
Well, it doesn't suck the life force of innocents/slaves for power and it doesn't use that power to compel people to do things against their will. It just uses their blood to track them down.

I suppose you could say it uses a portion of the mage's own life force and compels him against his will (via his blood) to help them track him down. But even if we are to call it blood magic, the scale of it is certainly very miniscule in comparison to some other forms of blood magic.

Try using that defense at your maleficarum trial in Aeonar and see how well the logic carries over.

[Beerfish]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Here is a question for the pro mage freedom supporters. How exactly do you envision mages living their lives and their quality of life if given 100% total freedom?

You may find out that what you envision and how things turn out are very very different.

Let's ask the elves of Arlathan, the Dales, and the Dalish clans, who did (and do for the latter) exactly that. Or the mages of Haven, who can preside over the local Chantry (like Eirik, and possibly Kolgrim is his ability to know the fate of the Urn is based in magic) or the mages of Rivain, who are greatly respected.

You never answered my question.  We are not talking about any of those other places.  Remember in the words of Dave Gaider himself Fereldan is a bit of a back water place.

How do you envision life with no restrictions, a quiet country existence raising a family and doing the odd but of beneficial magic?

Modifié par Beerfish, 19 janvier 2011 - 07:53 .

[Sir JK]

Just a suggestion. Let's leave the Dalish, Arlathan and the treatment of non-mage elves out of this. It's a different situation and based on different things. It really has not bearing on mage policy, which is what the thread is about.

Similarily, with Rivain, Tevinter and exact Dalish practises. We don't know about them. We can speculate they are paradises of free mages, or horrid placed where mages have even less rights. Point is. We don't know and any position we have is purely opinion. We will never hold a proper discssion that leads anywhere regarding those topics... yet.



On topic:

The way I see it is that the problem boils down to a number of things:

1. Mages can become abominations. Not every mage, but any mage. It will happen without warning and without provocation. It cannot be prevented, but the risk can be reduced.

This is why the circles exist.

David Gaider did also confirm that in the era before the circles, abominations did indeed roam the countryside like roaming monsters and did cause death and devestation.



2. Unlike a single maddened soldier, abominations hit like natural disasters. A single swordsman attacking village is not on the same scale. A flood hitting the village, an earthquake, a roof caving in, a mine collapsing. Those are more apt approximations on the scale of the trauma suffered by a abomination attack.

This is why the Chantry restricts their right to travel and hunt those outside towers



3. Some mages resent being captive, which they take out on the Templars. Some templars resent mages fighting back (because it hurts them and kills their friends) and take that out on mages. This is a cycle of escalation that has been going on for generations. Every time templars tighten their grip, mages hit back. Every time mages fight back templars tighten their grip.

The current situation is something templars and mages have made together.

This is why mages struggle under opression and why Templars hate mages.



4. Mages are inheritarily powerful. They can do magic since their late teens. They can shoot fire, lightning, raw magic and whatnot at anything they can see. They can shield themselves as long as theyr breathe. Some can heal. Some can take control of other's mind.

Bloodmage or not. Mages are individually more powerful than anyone else alive. They are born with raw power that can be used to coerce, intimidate, threaten, control, manipulate or destroy others.

This is why people try to control mages.



The situation the mages are in is not acceptable no. It needs to improve. But mages have been part in those that made their own cage. And I am not talking about silly things like ancient myth here. But what they keep doing today.

Killing templars. There is no surer way of making sure they will hate mages. For every templar that die, no matter how cruel... the templars will hate mages a little more.

Of course the opposite is true as well. For every cruelty, every death and every restraint the mages hate the templars a little more.

[atheelogos]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...


And here isn't enough data on Arlathan, the Dales, or even the Dalish to say for certain that they live(d) in a 100% free enviroment.

Well your right about that and I would go a step further and say there is no such thing as 100% free enviroment. Every society makes laws in which they chose to govern themselves. Checks on freedom if you will.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Beerfish wrote...

You never answered my question.  We are not talking about any of those other places.  Remember in the words of Dave Gaider himself Fereldan is a bit of a back water place.

How do you envision life with no restrictions, a quiet country existence raising a family and doing the odd but of beneficial magic? [/quote]

Technically, you never mentioned Ferelden in your inquiry. Considering Orzammar can get an independent Circle because of Dagna's research, it doesn't seem out of place to consider that mages can live alongside non-mages without destroying each other.

A mage can end the Fifth Blight, after all. From the Circle of Ferelden, a mage Warden can become the Hero of Ferelden and the Arl of Amaranthine, with absolutely no restrictions because (as DG said) GW mages have no ties to the Chantry. Even Anders is admired for his actions in defending the Keep by the soldiers, and Velanna defends an entire village by herself - these actions can go a long way in changing people's perceptions towards mages. Considering that the Chantry won't allow them to be free without a blood fight, I say it's a moot point to speculate.

[quote]HiroVoid wrote...

[quote]drahelvete wrote...

The qunari have the right idea.[/quote]
*High fives*

[/quote]

I'm guessing neither of you are women?

[quote]Seagloom wrote...

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? [/quote]

The people of Haven have evidently been able to handle mages without templar assistance. So have the Dalish clans. So have the people of Rivain. And even the ruler of Ferelden will openly admit that mages have earned the right to govern themselves, if the Warden asks for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its freedom.

[quote]Seagloom wrote...

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. [/quote]

I'm more worried about the templars who only answer to the Chantry.

[quote]Seagloom wrote...

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. [/quote]

Duncan admits that GWs have had to resort to blood magic to defeat the darkspawn. Even Uldred became an abomination because of his practice of demonology, as there's no evidence if he even practiced blood magic.











[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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. [/quote]

There are alternatives to Tevinter: Arlathan, the Dales, Rivain, the town of Haven, and the Dalish clans. All of them had mages without Chantry or templar supervision, and the world didn't end. The fact that Haven may have been around for almost 900 years without being destroyed by abominations indicates that they are able to handle the threats.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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. [/quote]

And yet I don't see how templars having absolute control over mages is any indicator that it does anything more than keep the mages as pawns of the Chantry, to be used as tranquil for crafting items or footsoldiers against their enemies, like the Qunari.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.[/quote]

Saying that the fall of the Dales, giving elves the option between being homeless or living in a ghetto, and forbidding their religion gives people plenty of reason to see the Chantry of Andraste as the bad guys. It's up to interpretation, certainly, but it's their right - as is your right to see the Chantry as the good guys and think that nothing's wrong with how they treat the mages.

According to the Dalish, templars were sent in after they kicked out their missionaries. Orlais claimed that it was because of the attack against Red Crossing, but it's impossible to say if the attack was in retaliation for a prior attack made by the Orlesians. Scholars have argued it was due to territorial disputes.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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, when he describied a typical templar and andrastian. That all-consuming hate of mages and desire to destroy them doesn't exist in general. [/quote]

Except Cullen admits that some of the templars discuss killing mages with glee...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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. [/quote]

I agree about Tevinter being a bad example as a nation for mages. Their use of slaves is horrific.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

number of non-mages >>>> number of mages
Why should the minority bow down to a minority? [/quote]

Better yet, why allow mages to be slaves to the Chantry simply because of how they're born?

[quote]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. [/quote]

Except for Arlathan, the Dales, the Dalish, Haven, and Rivain... but besides those people...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.[/quote]

Besides the need for the Chantry to control mages, of course.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.
[/quote]

And yet, despite the risks, the town of Haven still exists, even with all its Chantry-free mages...

[atheelogos]

[quote]Shadow Warior wrote...

Freedom Vs Security
I love these sort of problems, and I hope they are never solved,
ONLY AGGRAVATED:devil:

[Beerfish]

"Technically, you never mentioned Ferelden in your inquiry. Considering Orzammar can get an independent Circle because of Dagna's research, it doesn't seem out of place to consider that mages can live alongside non-mages without destroying each other.

A mage can end the Fifth Blight, after all. From the Circle of Ferelden, a mage Warden can become the Hero of Ferelden and the Arl of Amaranthine, with absolutely no restrictions because (as DG said) GW mages have no ties to the Chantry. Even Anders is admired for his actions in defending the Keep by the soldiers, and Velanna defends an entire village by herself - these actions can go a long way in changing people's perceptions towards mages. Considering that the Chantry won't allow them to be free without a blood fight, I say it's a moot point to speculate."

Well in that case the whole discussion is a moot point no?

If mages were totally free, whether it be Orzammar or Ferelden some of their lives would be much better off, no question about that.  However it certainly wouldn't be happy happy joy joy.  The actions of a select few, whether it be in mage forum or by becoming abominations would affect all mages.

Abomination goes beserk, kills 100 people in three villages.  News travels, do you think any mage is going to be welcomed with open arms in the whole region?  As I said before, freedom is a double edged sword because people will be showing up at a mages doorstep with torches and pitchforks and wopuld happily kill any suspected mage whether they had anything to do with the other incident or not.  Mages are already met with suspicion and worry by the public for the most part even being 'controlled' by the Chantry.  I would guess that over time there is a decent chance that mages would be even more persecuted being free than otherwise.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

In all do respect, but Cullen does not crack if he becomes Knight-Commander. He becomes tyrannical, certainly. But it is only if he doesn't become Knight-Commander that he goes insane with fear(/paranoia). When he gets to be Knight-Commander, he can overcome the illusion his paranoia is causing him, by further restricting the mages.

He rules the Circle of Ferelden in fear as the new Knight-Commander; otherwise, if the Magi boon is requested by the Warden-Commander and the Circle was culled, he becomes a wandering mad-man, killing mages. In both scenerios, it seems evident that Cullen isn't all there.

He doesn't rule in fear, but with fear. He imposes a far more strict and cruel regime, than Greagoir did. Which has it's root in the way the Blood Mages treated him during the Broken Circle. This is a way for him to process the trauma he experienced during that time.
If the Warden did not side with him, and asked for the mage boon, Cullen is never able to properly process his trauma, and finally snaps.

Both of these cases require the Warden to be a mage IIRC.

Lobes, you also have to remember that just because there are no Templars in Haven, Arlathan, the Dales or the Dalish clans, does not equal that tehre is no supervision or control. There are no Templars amongst the Qunari either for instance, but tehre is certainly supervision and control.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 19 janvier 2011 - 08:22 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Just a suggestion. Let's leave the Dalish, Arlathan and the treatment of non-mage elves out of this. It's a different situation and based on different things. It really has not bearing on mage policy, which is what the thread is about.
Similarily, with Rivain, Tevinter and exact Dalish practises. We don't know about them. We can speculate they are paradises of free mages, or horrid placed where mages have even less rights. Point is. We don't know and any position we have is purely opinion. We will never hold a proper discssion that leads anywhere regarding those topics... yet. [/quote]

Fair enough, but nobody is pretending they were paradises - only that they were alternatives to the current practices committed by the Chantry of Andraste.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...
On topic:
The way I see it is that the problem boils down to a number of things:
1. Mages can become abominations. Not every mage, but any mage. It will happen without warning and without provocation. It cannot be prevented, but the risk can be reduced. [/quote]

It cannot be prevented? Uldred become an abomination because he practiced demonology. The entire point of the Harrowing is to steel mages against possession. And anyone in Thedas can be possessed - it's merely that mages can become abominations. The fact that a possessed cat was able to kill four templars attests to the power that a possessed person can have - according to Anders.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

This is why the circles exist.
David Gaider did also confirm that in the era before the circles, abominations did indeed roam the countryside like roaming monsters and did cause death and devestation. [/quote]

Which means that there should be safeguards in place, not that mages should be stripped of any freedoms or liberty.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

2. Unlike a single maddened soldier, abominations hit like natural disasters. A single swordsman attacking village is not on the same scale. A flood hitting the village, an earthquake, a roof caving in, a mine collapsing. Those are more apt approximations on the scale of the trauma suffered by a abomination attack.
This is why the Chantry restricts their right to travel and hunt those outside towers [/quote]

Not only were the templars at the Circle of Ferelden unable to deal with the abominations, but Ander's possessed cat was able to kill four templars. That tells me that the system in place needs to be reformed.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

3. Some mages resent being captive, which they take out on the Templars. Some templars resent mages fighting back (because it hurts them and kills their friends) and take that out on mages. This is a cycle of escalation that has been going on for generations. Every time templars tighten their grip, mages hit back. Every time mages fight back templars tighten their grip. [/quote]

Mages resent being slaves to the Chantry. Even the definition for slave fits the relationship between mages and the Chantry (as I explicitly wrote in a prior post). Looking at it again:

slave
play_w2("S0466200")
(slv)
n.
1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence

The second seems to fit the relationship between the mages and the Chantry perfectly.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

The current situation is something templars and mages have made together.
This is why mages struggle under opression and why Templars hate mages. [/quote]

Some people would rather die on their feet than live on their knees. I don't blame them.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

4. Mages are inheritarily powerful. They can do magic since their late teens. They can shoot fire, lightning, raw magic and whatnot at anything they can see. They can shield themselves as long as theyr breathe. Some can heal. Some can take control of other's mind.
Bloodmage or not. Mages are individually more powerful than anyone else alive. They are born with raw power that can be used to coerce, intimidate, threaten, control, manipulate or destroy others.
This is why people try to control mages. [/quote]

Like the Chantry of Andraste, who used mages to win the war against the invading Qunari armies in the New Exalted Marches. Considering that mages played a vital role in the people of the Andrastian nations of Thedas being free from the Qunari and the role they've played in all five Blights, I see how valuable they've been to the civilizations across Thedas.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

The situation the mages are in is not acceptable no. It needs to improve. But mages have been part in those that made their own cage. And I am not talking about silly things like ancient myth here. But what they keep doing today.
Killing templars. There is no surer way of making sure they will hate mages. For every templar that die, no matter how cruel... the templars will hate mages a little more.
Of course the opposite is true as well. For every cruelty, every death and every restraint the mages hate the templars a little more.[/quote]

Mages have resisted being slaves of the Chantry - I'm not surprised. When people are denied basic rights and freedoms, they will always resist. There are countless examples in rl to illustrate this.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

To recap Davids words:

[quote]
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. [/quote]

That doesn't seem like a good analogy to me. How is the idea of mages being free from the Chantry akin to the horrid practices of the Tevinter Imperium? All it means is that mages have rights - right now they're slaves of the Chantry and have none, unless they become Grey Wardens. Even the end of DA:O presents the ruler of Ferelden admitting that mages have earned the right to govern themselves.

[quote]Beerfish wrote...

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. [/quote]

Because the Chantry preaches intolerance. That's why the Dalish clans don't immediately fear mages any more than the people of Haven do - after all, Father Eirik is a mage who presides over the local Chantry.

[CitizenThom]

Why don't Mages regulare Mages? Who is really better prepared to battle an abomination when you think about it? Templar's powers are handy against Mages, but in all truth Mages are more capable of dealing with Abominations than Templars are.



No individual is entirely free within a social context... social interaction impacts the freedoms of both parties, whether it's by allowing the other person to talk, or forcing the other person to hear you... so the question isn't whether Mages should have perfect freedom or be under perfect control... the question I think is, who should be in control of Mages, and who should determine what the balance of security and freedom should be. Who would know better than Mages what this perfect balance is?

[LobselVith8]

CitizenThom wrote...

Why don't Mages regulare Mages? Who is really better prepared to battle an abomination when you think about it? Templar's powers are handy against Mages, but in all truth Mages are more capable of dealing with Abominations than Templars are. 

If the Warden is a mage, then the ruler of Ferelden agrees with this very point - admitting that mages have earned the right to govern themselves.

blothulfur wrote...

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.

Very true. Genitivi's codex about Rivain admits as much.

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.

Like the Magnificent D'Sims, a person who was murdered by templars because they wrongly thought he was a mage who healed people?

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

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****. 

That happens a lot in rl. Revolutions happen, and they end up being as bad as the institutions that they tried to replace. Andraste and Shartan lead rebellions against the Tevinter, and now it seems that the mages of DA2 might be leading their own rebellion against the Chantry.

Seagloom wrote...

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?

Wynne also suggests to Anerin that he should go back to the Circle that nearly killed him in the first place, so I wouldn't be too quick to use her as an example of good judgement. Considering that the whole reason that no person in Thedas trusts mages is because of the Chantry preaching intolerance, it's obvious that change needs to happen, and allowing the Chantry to continue to enslave mages isn't going to change anything.

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.

Wynne defends the Chantry, too, to the point of suggesting to her apprentice that he should return back there, despite how the templars nearly murdered him when he was 14 years old for running away.

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.

Benefits? The inability to have relationships in some Circles? Never seeing your family again? Never being able to raise your own children? Being hated and despised because the institution that enslaved you to its Circle also preaches intolerance towards your kind? And considering how Cullen admits that some templars discuss the killing of mages with glee, I'd be pretty damn worried.