1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Nashiktal]

Despite all of the arguing here the fact of the matter is this. As long as demons exist, mages can NOT have freedom. Simple as that.

[Beerfish]

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.

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?

Once again as Dave Gaider said that's the way it was in Tevinter.  You are still going to be controlled by someone that will Bslap you if you do anything they don't like.  If the discussion is now 'Is it better to be controlled by other mages than the chantry?' it may be for the mages themselves but still a big problem for the public and the Chantry.  A high level mage in that org goes rogue and the problem is much worse than just leting mages spread themselves out across the land. 

[LobselVith8]

Nashiktal wrote...

Despite all of the arguing here the fact of the matter is this. As long as demons exist, mages can NOT have freedom. Simple as that.

Yeah, because the two elven nations in the past that had mages and non-mages living together doesn't entirely disprove your point entirely. Or the existing Dalish clans, the mages and non-mages fighting living and fighting side by side at Haven, and the respected mages of Rivain also disproving your point entirely.

JamesX wrote...

Abominations only occure if a mage gets possessed. You cannot have an Non-mage that can turn into abomination.

And yet Ander's possessed cat killed four templars...

JamesX wrote...

Mages are all time bombs waiting to explode. That is a fact. Some may never slip and show weakness for a Demon to exploit, but they are never immune from the possibility. And the fact is that mages turn abomination with dangerous frequency. You can say some abominations are not dangerous, and you are right. But by far majority of abominations seems dangerous.

So dangerous that the templars at the Circle of Ferelden were incapable of handling the situation. Thankfully, there was a Grey Warden from the Circle of Ferelden to resolve the situation they couldn't (at least for me).

JamesX wrote...

The only way to contain abomination is to contain its source. Just like the easiest way to contain a plague is to contain its carriers. It is already a miracle that mages are allowed to form the circle instead of being killed upon discovery.

Considering that the Chantry treats them like their own personal slaves, having the tranquil craft magical items and having mages as footsoldiers against the invading Qunari, it's not much of a surprise.

JamesX wrote...

You can argue that disease is part of life, there for it must be good or else the maker would not have allowed it. There for we should let it ran rampant and don't even bother to alleviate some of the dangers of it. Does that sound reasonable to anyone with common sense?

Disease? WTF? Your argument really doesn't make much sense to me. This isn't intelligent darkspawn we're discussing, bringing darkspawn disease where they go,  it's mages, who have aided against all Five Blights and were essential in stopping the Qunari invasion during the New Exalted Marches.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

They aren't forcing it on you. You are free to enter the Korcari wilds any time you want. But as long as you live on their territory, it is their right to at least try and convert you.

That's very true, just ask the Dalish.

Wyndham711 wrote...

I think Finn is the one worthy of most admiration - a man who gave proper value to his luck and truly saw what a privileged life he actually led.

Considering that Finn would be killed by the templars for his little ritual involving Dalish blood and asks the Warden not to reveal it, even he knows how dangerous the Chantry can be.

Wyndham711 wrote...

If one believes that spreading the faith to the four corners of the world and making it believed by everyone a) is the Maker's will, and will trigger the Maker's return, ensuring eternal happiness for everyone - then conversion by the sword is indeed a justified act, not to mention a logical one. I don't see any solid reason for the subjects of the Chantry to not believe that to be true.

Murdering innocent people to force your religion in the region is never justifiable.

Seagloom wrote...

I agree that in an ideal scenario it would be better not to oppress people, but this is not an ideal scenario. Setting mages free is tantamount to doing nothing about the abomination question, and apparently that has not worked out well in the past. I usually play mages too; and not loyalist mages. Quite the contrary. However, what my character in the game believes and what I do are not always related. When I play, I role-play from my character's perspective. When I debate I use my own; and from my own point of view? That is some scary crap. If mages were real, I would be terrified of what they could do to me and my loved ones, whether intentionally or by accident. I would want a person who at any time could become an unstoppable monster to be far away from me. (Unstoppable by my standards. I am not a super warrior or ninja rogue capable of stopping a freakish monster. I am just a regular person. A fragile, run of the mill person.)

Considering that the mages of Haven, Rivain, and the Dalish clans do just fine without the templars, I don't see the issue.

JamesX wrote...

Mage MUST be regulated.  They cannot be allowed to enjoy "freedom" like people who are not time bombs.  It might not be pretty or righteous, but it is necessary.  An mage can turn at any time, there for they need to be monitored constantly.  They have the option of becoming tranquile, and if they chose not to take that option then they would have to settle for the limitation.

Except for the Dalish clans, the people of Haven, the people of Rivain... they don't seem to find it necessary at all.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith, as I mentioned, just because tehre are no Templars in Haven, Arlathan, the Dalesm or amongst the Dalish does not mean they have no means of supervision or control. It's just not Templars. The Qunari don't have Tempalrs either, but they certainly supervise and control their magic.

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...
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.

Yes, Uldred became an abomination because he used a demon to attack his fellow mages (if that does not say lots about the man I don't know what will). The other mages in the tower were also harrowed. Did not protect them.
And as you say... a possessed cat killed four templars. Imagine what a possessed mage can do. The onyl difference between a mage and a non-mage is that a non-mage can only be possessed in the presence of demons or where the veil is torn. A mage can be possessed anywhere and at any time.

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

Which is how the circles and the templars came to be. A step too far? Some mages certainly thought so. Cue escalation.

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.

The former happened for plot-reasons however and if you want to look at their success think of it this way: Not a single abomination got out.
I cannot comment on the cat. I can't tell how serious Anders was (he could be telling us the truth... I just don't have enough data to discuss it)

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.

In the Meredith-thread, David Gaider says he does not consider the mages to be slaves of the chantry. Simply because that within the rules of the circles, their lives are their own.

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

True. I think it is very understandable and human. So is defending yourself and your friends though. Which is what the templars are doing (yes, in their eyes. But that is what matters to them, is it not?).

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.

This is why mages are allowed to live at all.

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.

However... it always ended up with the ones resisted against biting back.

If you bite your jailor. Rest assured he will bite back. In some way.

[October Sixth]

Sounds like some people in this thread want a repeat of the Connor incident.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]October Sixth wrote...

Sounds like some people in this thread want a repeat of the Connor incident.[/quote]

Some people don't like the idea of slavery, that's all.

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith, as I mentioned, just because tehre are no Templars in Haven, Arlathan, the Dalesm or amongst the Dalish does not mean they have no means of supervision or control. It's just not Templars. The Qunari don't have Tempalrs either, but they certainly supervise and control their magic.[/quote]

The Qunari treat their mages like animals, though.

As for the Dalish, mages are the leaders and second in command of the clans. They clearly have a different attitude towards magic. Genitivi's codex about Rivain illustrates that mages are respected. Haven has a mage presiding over the local Chantry, and Kolgrim (the leader of all the Disciples of Haven) may be a mage because he's aware of the fate of the Urn. These examples illustrate to me that there are working alternatives to the Chantry's practices.

[quote]Beerfish wrote...

[quote]Huntress wrote...

Are you for real about the time bomb? Or are you trying to pull some chains?

Do you even read you're post? The more I read the more I laugh, quite the imagination!

 Can someone at Bioware please hire this man!
[/quote]

What he said was 100% correct and since you have ZERO answers to rebut anything he says his view point overules yours. [/quote]

Except for the numerous examples of current and prior societies that had mages and non-mages living together, of course.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

The maker in this case is David Gaider, who has flat out said that before the Circle, mages become abominations at a higher rate, making the world a more dangerous place. That is what the Circle counters. [/quote]

The world seems pretty dangerous with the Chantry of Andraste having so much control over people's lives. Considering the invasion, rapes, and murder committed by the Orlesian Empire (and the Chatry's support of Orlais' invasion), they've brought their own danger into Thedas. As for the Circles across Thedas, they're under Chantry control. Controlling mages is what it's about. The Circle enslaves mages to the Chantry to be used as tranquil crafters or footsoldiers in their wars.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

I agree that the Divine has too much power. So does every single noble, considering the undemocratic nature of a feudal system. Ferelden seems to be a bit better than other countries, but it's far from something I would like to see in the real world. I accept it in a medieval setting though. Considering that it's a medieval setting, the Circle seems almost benign. Had mages existed in our world, they would have been killed as children at first sign of magic power during the medieval period.[/quote]

In our world, plenty of people are killed and have been killed for being different. That's hardly an excuse for such behavior.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No, it's just that templars are the best at that job. Mages cna be stopped by common folk, but it will be harder and with more casualties. [/quote]

That must explain the situation at the Circle of Ferelden, when Uldred and his abominations defeated the Knight-Commander Greagoir's templars...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

A government that supports slavery and thrives on it...yes, I can say wihout doubt that it's worse than anyone elses. [/quote]

And that's exactly what the Chantry does with the mages - enslaves them.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I've played 3 mage characters....I don't recall Templars treating me like crap.
Really, I'm interested in these examples of templar "eeeeevilness". [/quote]

They did murder the Magnificent D'Sims because they thought (wrongly) that he was healing people with magic...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You choice. But life is not fair to start with. Never was.
Being a mage is a double-edged balde. you get power, but with that power comes danger and responsiblity. [/quote]

The responsibility to have no rights and live in a nation that fears and hates mages because of Chantry propaganda?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

While I can undersatand a mother that doesn't want to give up her child, even if it's was desease ridden and will kill off an entire village if not put in quarantene, I'd still support the army that comes to take it forcibly away, even using lethal force if necessary.
At the end of the day, holding you own happines above the lives of your fellow citizens is an act of supreme selfishness. [/quote]

Except mages aren't diseased, so that's a poor analogy. There's no valid reason that a child needs to be torn from his mother merely because that mother is a mage. The Dalish clans, the people of Haven, and the people of Rivain have been doing it for centuries, after all.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

A mage can achive a prestigious position and a good amount of freedom with his hard work. If that is not enough for some mages...well..they can have my sword..it their gut.[/quote]

A prestigious position? They can't inherit a title, can't raise their own children, and can't have relationships in some Circles, so I don't see how they would be able to get anything worthwhile. They have no rights, they're basically slaves of the Chantry. Hard work is going to amount to them still being slaves.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

But that is not the issue. Some people will ALWAYS want more, not matter what you give them.

The only issue is - if there's good reason to keep the mages locked in a tower. Yes. Yes there is. [/quote]

Mages have no rights. I'm not surprised they'd be willing to fight for their freedom.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No, the comparison is almost perfect.
Just liek possesion, it doesn't amtter to the desease if you are a good or bad person. Even mages with best interest at heart can be possesed and do massive damage. So yes, a mage - ANY mage, regardless of how godo or bad he is - is in CONSTANT danger of becoming an abomination.

The danger of a mage, the potential for damage and the lack of any criteria is what makes it so like a desease.[/quote]

No, it's actually pretty bad. Unless we're discussing intelligent darkspawn, the comparison makes absolutely no sense. Mothers have raised mages among the Dalish, in Haven, and in Rivain, so it already disproves that a mage can't raise a child.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 19 janvier 2011 - 09:14 .

[Beerfish]

October Sixth wrote...

Sounds like some people in this thread want a repeat of the Connor incident.

What tact are you taking on this?  The fact that the childs magical talents were hidden because the parents did not want their child to be taken by the Chantry?  That could and does probably happen more often than that one case.

The Chantry and Templars would simply point to it as a reason that mages must be controlled and accounted for.

In the end there does seem to be enough apostates roaming around the land that not all mages are indeed under the thumb of the Chantry.

The interesting thing is in relation to the whole DA story I'd say it is worse experience being a Grey Warden than it is being a mage.  And perhaps more nefarious in how they get their recruits.

[Addai]

filaminstrel wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

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.

It also apparently doesn't even require a mage to perform, so how can it be blood magic?

Templars use magical abilities, too, as Alistair points out.  But since it's only against mages... and since it's only bad blood magic if they say so....

Nuance!

Someone mentioned Connor.  In my view, the Connor situation is made worse by the oppression of the Chantry system and is therefore a cautionary tale about it.  If they weren't taking children away from their parents and stigmatizing mages, fewer people would try to skirt the controls.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith, as I mentioned, just because tehre are no Templars in Haven, Arlathan, the Dalesm or amongst the Dalish does not mean they have no means of supervision or control. It's just not Templars. The Qunari don't have Tempalrs either, but they certainly supervise and control their magic.

The Qunari treat their mages like animals, though.

As for the Dalish, mages are the leaders and second in command of the clans. They clearly have a different attitude towards magic. Genitivi's codex about Rivain illustrates that mages are respected. Haven has a mage presiding over the local Chantry, and Kolgrim (the leader of all the Disciples of Haven) may be a mage because he's aware of the fate of the Urn. These examples illustrate to me that there are working alternatives to the Chantry's practices.

But are these alternatives desirable? Who knows what happens to a mage amongst the Dalish who isn't a Keeper or an apprentice (no one does, as we've never met one (Wynne's apprentice wasn't part of any clan, but a hermit))? Who knows what the existance of a mage was like in Haven? The fact of the matter is we don't have any data to conclude wether or not these alternatives are desirable for any part. All we can conclude is that they are there.

[Beerfish]

"Some people don't like the idea of slavery, that's all."



That's a fairly narrow view of the subject since I'll wager out of all the stake holders in the situation (people of the land, chantry, mages) that only one our of those three groups would come to that conclusion.



In this whole discussion my biggest beef with the 'free the mages' side is that I see no easy to swallow alternatives to the present situation other than "Freeeeeedooommmmm!"



If you want to be free you have to convince the people of the land and the Chantry it's a good idea. The Chantry sways in the wind to suit themselves always wanting to be on the winning side so if you convinced the people of the land it was good for them for all mages to be free you may have a chance. And you may be able to do just that,,,,,,until the 1st abomination goes on a killing spree.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

But are these alternatives desirable? Who knows what happens to a mage amongst the Dalish who isn't a Keeper or an apprentice (no one does, as we've never met one (Wynne's apprentice wasn't part of any clan, but a hermit))? Who knows what the existance of a mage was like in Haven? The fact of the matter is we don't have any data to conclude wether or not these alternatives are desirable for any part. All we can conclude is that they are there.

Being allowed to govern people in Haven, to preside over them without being killed? The opportunity to fight side by side with mages and non-mages alike? That sounds pretty good to me.

As for the Dalish, why assume they do anything if there's more than two mages? If something happens to the Keeper or the First, they need a replacement. Lanaya admitted there were other contenders to be First, after all. Wynne's apprentice was with Zathrian and Lanaya's clan, and he was a mage. Nobody batted an eye about him having magical ability, and not being the Keeper or the First.

Sir JK wrote...

Yes, Uldred became an abomination because he used a demon to attack his fellow mages (if that does not say lots about the man I don't know what will). The other mages in the tower were also harrowed. Did not protect them.
And as you say... a possessed cat killed four templars. Imagine what a possessed mage can do. The onyl difference between a mage and a non-mage is that a non-mage can only be possessed in the presence of demons or where the veil is torn. A mage can be possessed anywhere and at any time.

I'm not arguing against mages being properly instructed on the use of their abilities, I'm arguing against imprisoning people for having magical ability.

Sir JK wrote...

Which is how the circles and the templars came to be. A step too far? Some mages certainly thought so. Cue escalation.

Mages have no rights, have no freedom, and are at the mercy of the templars. I'm not surprised some fight to have freedom.

Sir JK wrote...

The former happened for plot-reasons however and if you want to look at their success think of it this way: Not a single abomination got out.

Thanks to the Warden.

Sir JK wrote...

I cannot comment on the cat. I can't tell how serious Anders was (he could be telling us the truth... I just don't have enough data to discuss it)

Anders did seem pretty proud of what that cat did, though...

Sir JK wrote...

In the Meredith-thread, David Gaider says he does not consider the mages to be slaves of the chantry. Simply because that within the rules of the circles, their lives are their own.

And yet the definition for slavery matches the relationship between the Chantry and the mages. Considering they have no rights, no freedoms, and have to obey the Chantry and the templars, I don't see how there's any room to disagree.

Sir JK wrote...

True. I think it is very understandable and human. So is defending yourself and your friends though. Which is what the templars are doing (yes, in their eyes. But that is what matters to them, is it not?).

I don't think all templars are evil or anything like that, I just think mages shouldn't be imprisoned simply because they have magical ability.

Sir JK wrote...

This is why mages are allowed to live at all.

And why the ruler of Ferelden agrees that they earned the right to govern themselves.

Sir JK wrote...

However... it always ended up with the ones resisted against biting back.

If you bite your jailor. Rest assured he will bite back. In some way.

True, but the opportunity to be free is worth the risk.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Beerfish wrote...

"Some people don't like the idea of slavery, that's all."

That's a fairly narrow view of the subject since I'll wager out of all the stake holders in the situation (people of the land, chantry, mages) that only one our of those three groups would come to that conclusion.

The slaves are usualy the first people to object to slavery.  That's not too surprising.

[LobselVith8]

Beerfish wrote...

"Some people don't like the idea of slavery, that's all."

That's a fairly narrow view of the subject since I'll wager out of all the stake holders in the situation (people of the land, chantry, mages) that only one our of those three groups would come to that conclusion.

Considering that we're discussing Andrastian nations, it would be hard to say otherwise. However, the definition is accurate. I even included the definition of slavery to support this claim.

Beerfish wrote...

In this whole discussion my biggest beef with the 'free the mages' side is that I see no easy to swallow alternatives to the present situation other than "Freeeeeedooommmmm!"

If you want to be free you have to convince the people of the land and the Chantry it's a good idea. The Chantry sways in the wind to suit themselves always wanting to be on the winning side so if you convinced the people of the land it was good for them for all mages to be free you may have a chance. And you may be able to do just that,,,,,,until the 1st abomination goes on a killing spree.

The Chantry isn't going to give up control over the mages - they're slaves with absolutely no rights unless they become Grey Wardens. Even the Hero of Ferelden and the feats against the Archdemon, the Blight, the Architect and the Mother mean nothing to change the Chantry's position on how it treats mages, despite the royal boon. And considering how Knight-Commander Rylock tries to murder the Commander of the Grey or Cullen's killing spree, even those actions do nothing to stop templars from having control over mages, so why should mages face persecution for the actions of the few?

[steelfire_dragon]

the mages are imprisoned in dark forboding fortresses against their wills.


the Chantry is a lie and spread lies and Rumors and even drug the Templars.


I'll have no problems killing every chantry member I come across.



they go looking for trouble and then they find it.

Anders was no blood mage, and yet even the Templars said he was.



freedom ofr the mages..... or at the least, no more dark forboding fortresses.


burn the towers down and the chantries too

Modifié par steelfire_dragon, 19 janvier 2011 - 09:29 .

[Morroian]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith, as I mentioned, just because tehre are no Templars in Haven, Arlathan, the Dalesm or amongst the Dalish does not mean they have no means of supervision or control. It's just not Templars. The Qunari don't have Tempalrs either, but they certainly supervise and control their magic.

I don't think many are arguing that there shouldn't be some form of supervision and control its just what form it takes.

[October Sixth]

I see a lot of people claiming that the Circle makes the problem worse and that other countries have better solutions. The problem is that we don't know in any detail what those solutions are. That the situations both for mages and for common people living amongst mages are better is purely anecdotal

What we do know is that apostates in Ferelden during the time period that we have personally witnessed (Connor) can be extremely dangerous if untrained and uncontained. I think the onus is on "pro-freedom" advocates to explain how Fereldens would be safer in a world without Circles.

[Morroian]

Beerfish wrote...

In this whole discussion my biggest beef with the 'free the mages' side is that I see no easy to swallow alternatives to the present situation other than "Freeeeeedooommmmm!"

Alternatives have been proposed which are more complex than just freedom. True they're rooted in modern notions of and individuals rights but something of the sort does exist in Thedas as evidenced by the existence of the Libertarians.

Beerfish wrote...
If you want to be free you have to convince the people of the land and the Chantry it's a good idea. The Chantry sways in the wind to suit themselves always wanting to be on the winning side so if you convinced the people of the land it was good for them for all mages to be free you may have a chance. And you may be able to do just that,,,,,,until the 1st abomination goes on a killing spree.

The raison d'etre for templars is control of mages, do you really think they're going to give up their power, especially given they're part of a medieval religion.

[Beerfish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

"Some people don't like the idea of slavery, that's all."

That's a fairly narrow view of the subject since I'll wager out of all the stake holders in the situation (people of the land, chantry, mages) that only one our of those three groups would come to that conclusion.

The slaves are usualy the first people to object to slavery.  That's not too surprising.

Also they are the only ones calling themselves slaves out of the three stake holders.  The Chantry and Templars are saying.  You're not slaves, you have freedoms within the circle.  We need to know what you are up to at all times, we can't allow fraternization but you are not slaves.

The people of the land are saying.  Gee that's too bad but it's a necessity, after all if they let a mage run loose in my village I'd kill em with my axe I would.

[LobselVith8]

October Sixth wrote...

I see a lot of people claiming that the Circle makes the problem worse and that other countries have better solutions. The problem is that we don't know in any detail what those solutions are. That the situations both for mages and for common people living amongst mages are better is purely anecdotal

What we do know is that apostates in Ferelden during the time period that we have personally witnessed (Connor) can be extremely dangerous if untrained and uncontained. I think the onus is on "pro-freedom" advocates to explain how Fereldens would be safer in a world without Circles.

Isn't that an argument for why mages should be properly trained on the use of their abilities, rather than imprisoned by a tyrannical system that enslaves them? The Chantry's policies practically condition mages to resort to blood magic and become abominations in order to survive against the templars who would otherwise murder them merely because they want to be free from slavery.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

White_Buffalo94 wrote...

I will be the first to acknowledge that mages are indeed dangerous, but it doesn't give someone else any right or authority over them. Mages should have limited freedom, just as any other Thedosian. And if you break the rules, you will be punished accordingly.

It cannot work that way.
That would be an ideal solution, but one that the reality of THeDAs doesn't allow.

It's simply too impractical to work.
Mages MUST be confined in towers or similar comunities.

Sure, if we ignore all the existing and pre-existing societies that had mages and non-mages living together without templar or Chantry oversight...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You miss the poitn. Utterly and compeltely. And focus on the wrong thing. Not the first one either, but I realyl wish you peopel strained your little grey cells a bit before replaying.
But allright..let me spell it out for you, sicne you cannto seem to graps the underlaying principle:

I'm not comparing people with a desease. I'm comparing the dangers of an abomination with a desease.

- Becase you cannot tell just by looking who is a carrier of a deadly desease. Neither can you tell who is possesed.

- Because how nice or bad you are as a person is irrelveant to the danger you present if contagius. Just like mages.

- Because a desease can utterly destroy a whole communitys. Just like a rampaging abomination.

- Becasue the best way to prevent and contain a desease is a quaranteene. Just like with mages and possesion.


Now, if you still cannot understand why this comparison is so good, then we have nothing further to talk about.

You're comparing the potential danger of an abomination with a diseased person still makes little to no sense. Much better if we were discussing intelligent darkspawn, and the threat they pose to the people of Thedas. People are arguing for mages to have rights, to be properly instructed on their powers, and simply for them not to be enslaved by an institution that preaches fear and hatred towards them while using lobotomized mages to make magical items and having no issue using their magical powers against their enemies (like the Qunari and the darkspawn).

[Morroian]

October Sixth wrote...

What we do know is that apostates in Ferelden during the time period that we have personally witnessed (Connor) can be extremely dangerous if untrained and uncontained.

As Addai mentioned the Connor situation was essentially brought on by the mage situation. Its a vicious circle.

October Sixth wrote...
I think the onus is on "pro-freedom" advocates to explain how Fereldens would be safer in a world without Circles.

Alternatives have been proposed its a matter of opinion whether they would be better or worse. 

[Beerfish]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Considering that we're discussing Andrastian nations, it would be hard to say otherwise. However, the definition is accurate. I even included the definition of slavery to support this claim.

If you want to use some of these strict definitions of slavery as in being unde control of another then youhad better expand the list to 99% of the land.


The Chantry isn't going to give up control over the mages - they're slaves with absolutely no rights unless they become Grey Wardens. Even the Hero of Ferelden and the feats against the Archdemon, the Blight, the Architect and the Mother mean nothing to change the Chantry's position on how it treats mages, despite the royal boon. And considering how Knight-Commander Rylock tries to murder the Commander of the Grey or Cullen's killing spree, even those actions do nothing to stop templars from having control over mages, so why should mages face persecution for the actions of the few?

You have once again provided not one shred of a plan as to why mages should not be controlled other than we don't like it. I still have niot seen even one good plausible reason why as a citizen of the lands I should clap and applaud mages being freed rather than be distrubed and worried.   And history shows that the Chantry will flip flop if there is a good enough reason to do so.  Does the Chantry like things the way they are?  Of course they do.  They also see it as a necessity and have the support of the people to back them up. 

[LobselVith8]

Beerfish wrote...

Also they are the only ones calling themselves slaves out of the three stake holders.  The Chantry and Templars are saying.  You're not slaves, you have freedoms within the circle.  We need to know what you are up to at all times, we can't allow fraternization but you are not slaves.

The people of the land are saying.  Gee that's too bad but it's a necessity, after all if they let a mage run loose in my village I'd kill em with my axe I would.

They have no freedom. I don't understand why you're pretending they do when they can't inherit a title, can't raise their children, can't leave the prison (as the VO for the Magi Origin terms the Circle Tower), and are at the mercy of the templars. They are slaves - even the actual definition of slavery matches the relationship between the mages and the Chantry of Andraste.

Seagloom wrote...

LoneStalker wrote...

I know, it's not directly relevant but I can't keep myself from asking:
How does the phlactery's work exactly? Yes, they contain blood of Circle mages and yes, templars use them to locate mages going rogue. But how exactly? It sounds as if blood magic is involved here. But hey, since it's conducted by the Chantry, who am I to suspect, right?

David Gaider at PAX

He answers that question starting at the 9:50 mark. Technically it is blood magic. Just one of the many reasons the Chantry is... iffy.

Very iffy.

[Raven_26]

I am not 100% sure if all mages should be running free, but locking them
in towers with armored and armed guards that watch their every move
sounds pritty much like a prison not to mention it being creepy!

I think the mages need to be educated about being mages, and non-mages need to learn not to fear all mages.



In the case of Jowan, in a way I can understand why he turned to blood
magic. Would you willingly allow someone to turn you into a tranquil?
Which is only of his major fears.

Uldred isn't the best argument either, we see him at ostagard where he
says the games could light the fire in the tower, and the chantry priest
tell his they can't even trust a mage to do that? Question is was
Uldred an abomination in the making, and did the caose in Ostagard,
pluse Loghain offer to free all mages help that along?



People keep saying mages can't run free and not be a problem at one
point, and to compare, they use the Tevinter, free mages like Flemeth,
Morrigan or even Conner as exampels.

But what about the Dalish? We know they have mages as well, their
Keepers. Sure not everyone is perfect. Take Keeper Zathrian, he turns to
blood magic to punish some humans, but Kepper Marethari is a problem.
Maybe it is a case of cause and effect?

[October Sixth]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Isn't that an argument for why mages should be properly trained on the use of their abilities

Absolutely.

...rather than imprisoned by a tyrannical system that enslaves them?

Those are rather inappropriate words to describe the relationship.
The Chantry contains them, but they are free within its walls. It's like living on campus. In this sense they are not "slaves" to "tyrants" either. They aren't at the beck and call of the Templars. They don't serve them.

If you want to defend this position then you'll need to explain why you consider them slaves.

The Chantry's policies practically condition mages to resort to blood magic and become abominations in order to survive against the templars who would otherwise murder them merely because they want to be free from slavery.

They don't need blood magic to survive and the Templars don't want to murder them. This is false.