1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Beerfish]

Morroian wrote...


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.

No, I've not seen one proposal other then 'Let mages control mages' or 'In other lands mages are free to do what they want.'    I haven't seen a single proposal that would make me as a high level Chantry member or me as a low level peasant feel good or secure about easing restrictions.

(BTW as an aside, I don't hate the mage class.  I play mages, I like mages and in game I have the same feeling as the pro mage group on here.)

[Seagloom]

Morroian wrote...

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

I have yet to see a viable alternative, really. Perhaps one was proposed earlier in the thread before I began following this discussion. The last few pages I did participate in basically amounted to the opposing side advocating releasing mages with no care to the consequences, or any suggestions on how to deal with inevitable future problems. At this point the debate is closer to both sides purposelessly talking past each other.

Modifié par Seagloom, 19 janvier 2011 - 09:50 .

[Malanek]

Drifting in and out of this thread. Some of the opinions are very frustrating. Buit good posting LobselVith8.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Aneirin wasn't part of Zathrian's clan. He says himself that he doesn't consider himself part of the circle nor the Dalish, but likes to be on his own. To the Dalish he is just a friendly (elven) outsider.
Lanaya admits there were other candidates for Zathrian's apprenticeship, but we never meet any of them. In a small tightly knit group like the Dalish, anyone with magical talents would stand out, yet they aren't in the clan. Something sinister may be at play, or something innocent like being sent to a clan in need of an apprentice, might have happened.
And all we know about the mages of Haven is that they aren't (neccesarily) restricted in what their role in their society is. Kolgrim isn't a mage, and nothing in the game suggest that he is. There is no scrying, teleportation or telepathy in Dragon Age (at least not amongst mortals), so even if he were a mage he wouldn't have known the fate of the ashes- It is just a minor plothole.
The mages of the Cirlce are also allowed to fight and die with the common man of Thedas, not exactly a privilige if you ask me, but you pointed it out. And we don't know what happens to mages in Haven in general. For all we know all the other mages than Father Eirik had a terrible existance, with the Reavers constantly harrassing them. We just don't have enough data to conclude wether or not it was a desirable alternative.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

And thus we are at an impasse.

I've said before that I don't see any resolution to this problem that doesn't involve violence.  The current arrangement involves violence (the mages are kept imprisoned, and killed if they escape), and as you point out, the ordinary citizens fear the mages enough to form mobs to kill them.

So, from the mages' perspective, the only available solution is to subjugate the other two groups as a form of self-preservation.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Beerfish wrote...

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. 

Ultimately, neither have you on the other side.  There's no justification offered to keep the mages in shackles, either, beyond that the other stakeholder groups don't like the alternative.

[Beerfish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

And thus we are at an impasse.

I've said before that I don't see any resolution to this problem that doesn't involve violence.  The current arrangement involves violence (the mages are kept imprisoned, and killed if they escape), and as you point out, the ordinary citizens fear the mages enough to form mobs to kill them.

So, from the mages' perspective, the only available solution is to subjugate the other two groups as a form of self-preservation.

This I agree with.  I also think you will find far fewer mages willing to do what is required than one may think.  There is nothing at all to suggest there is a really really large radical majority of mages ready to strike.

Perhaps we will find our answer in DA2.

[Beerfish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

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. 

Ultimately, neither have you on the other side.  There's no justification offered to keep the mages in shackles, either, beyond that the other stakeholder groups don't like the alternative.

Connor, multiple other cases of abominations being on the loose and causing havok.  The circle tower itself.  All reasons why the common man and or Chantry want tight control over the situation.  Heck look at all that Connor did, one single case of a boy making a deal with a demon.

[Morroian]

Beerfish wrote...

Morroian wrote...

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.

No, I've not seen one proposal other then 'Let mages control mages' or 'In other lands mages are free to do what they want.' 

What do you want a detailed treatise?

Beerfish wrote...
I haven't seen a single proposal that would make me as a high level Chantry member or me as a low level peasant feel good or secure about easing restrictions.

No but does it matter for this discussion? Their opinion would matter if you're actually living in Ferelden and trying to implement it but we're talking on a theoretical level about human rights etc. Practically, it may never be able to happen but that doesn't make it right.  

[LobselVith8]

October Sixth wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

...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.

Mages are 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 (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.

October Sixth wrote...

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

They have no rights, and the Chantry has control over them. How is that not slavery? Even the definition of slavery fits the way that the Chantry controls mages.

October Sixth wrote...

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

Wynne's apprentice would disagree - they tried to murder him because he ran away from the Circle at fourteen. So would the Magnificent D'Sims, who was murdered because templars thought he was a mage who healed people. Yes, a fake elven mage killed because templars thought he was healing people. Even Cullen admits that some of the templars discuss killing mages with glee...

Beerfish wrote...

No, I've not seen one proposal other then 'Let mages control mages' or 'In other lands mages are free to do what they want.'    I haven't seen a single proposal that would make me as a high level Chantry member or me as a low level peasant feel good or secure about easing restrictions.

(BTW as an aside, I don't hate the mage class.  I play mages, I like mages and in game I have the same feeling as the pro mage group on here.)

The Chantry doesn't even grant the Magi boon, so why pretend anything will change their mind? Considering the Chantry enslaves mages, it's not going to change unless mages fight to gain their freedom.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Beerfish wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

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. 

Ultimately, neither have you on the other side.  There's no justification offered to keep the mages in shackles, either, beyond that the other stakeholder groups don't like the alternative.

Connor, multiple other cases of abominations being on the loose and causing havok.  The circle tower itself.  All reasons why the common man and or Chantry want tight control over the situation.  Heck look at all that Connor did, one single case of a boy making a deal with a demon.

Those are reasons why the other stakeholders don't like the idea, but would mages find those reasons compelling?

Some of them do.  Others clearly don't.

Either the pro-slavery mages need to stamp out the anti-slavery mages, or there will eventually be a civil war.

[Malanek]

Beerfish wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

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. 

Ultimately, neither have you on the other side.  There's no justification offered to keep the mages in shackles, either, beyond that the other stakeholder groups don't like the alternative.

Connor, multiple other cases of abominations being on the loose and causing havok.  The circle tower itself.  All reasons why the common man and or Chantry want tight control over the situation.  Heck look at all that Connor did, one single case of a boy making a deal with a demon.

This was a failing of the Chantry and the Templars. The current scheme failed and exasperated the situation. The mages rebelled because they were oppressed.

[JamesX]

Morroian wrote...
No but does it matter for this discussion? Their opinion would matter if you're actually living in Ferelden and trying to implement it but we're talking on a theoretical level about human rights etc. Practically, it may never be able to happen but that doesn't make it right.  

It also doesn't make it wrong.  Life doesn't have right or wrong most of the time.  There is always a choice, and every choice have flaws.  You can talk armchair society all day long, but in the end of the day, you will have to live in a world.

Who doesn't want a perfect happy world where Mages can run free and not be a danger to everyone around them?  But that is wishful thinking.  One has to deal with realities.

Human Rights only exist on theoretical level, btw.  The entire idea of rights is a societal construct.  There is no inborn right to exist for humans.  We constructed society and formed those rules so we can co-exist as best as we can.  In good times those rights occur in abundance, in times of crisis those rights are trampled on.  It is the pattern of human society as old as the written word.

Feralden/World of Dragon Age, is a world in constant crisis.  With petty wars and supernatural threats on every front.  It is not a world where people enjoy stability and the safety of Law.  To talk what works in Modernized Countries and apply that theoretics to an ancient society on the blink of destruction is rather impractical.  To try to summarize that as a practical solution is even worse.

[Edit]
As for Circle being slave to the Chantry that is actually not true.  From all we can tell the Mages of the Circle are self-governing.  The Templar are there to oversee and execute if they turn abomination, but they have never demonstrated the power to Enforce any particilar course of action outside of that narrow jurisdiction.  In fact the Leader of the Circle (Irwin IIRC) can countermand Leader of the Templar (Gregor)'s orders.  The Circle is more similar to Indian Reservation in the U.S.  They have their own laws and runs their own lands normally.  But if one turned serial killer then the F.B.I. gets called in.  They are not state of slavery as the word actually mean it.

A Templar cannot randomly kill mages and then kill a fine - because he only damanged property.  Mages have a say in their own actions and can refuse service.  A Slave would be executed for it.

You guys seems to misunderstand the state of the world - and how dark slavery truly is.

Modifié par JamesX, 19 janvier 2011 - 10:17 .

[Morroian]

Seagloom wrote...

I have yet to see a viable alternative, really. 

You don't think better education could help or that properly trained mages are better to deal with abominations than templars.

From Delingr in the Meredith thread that led to this thread:
"Well even if you assume the risk is pretty high as a baseline, it can be drastically reduced with training, and I'd imagine that the best people for understanding the risks and how to manage them effectively are the more experienced mages, mages are motivated to avoid possession and keep their free will, obviously.

Yeah, I'd say the tevinter imperium would have far more intense training and testing procedures, their rulers know the risks first hand so they have a good idea of what's needed to manage the risks of possession properly, it's not in any government's interest to have abominations running around smashing things.

If all else fails, really mages are best-equipped to fight abominations" 

[Beerfish]

Morroian wrote...

No but does it matter for this discussion? Their opinion would matter if you're actually living in Ferelden and trying to implement it but we're talking on a theoretical level about human rights etc. Practically, it may never be able to happen but that doesn't make it right.  

That's what my whole viewpoint in this discussion has been based on, the person living in Fereldan.  If I'm just discussing is it nice to be free and not be subjected to what the mages go through?  Then sure it is nice.  The person living in Fereldan is a key stake holder in this discussion.  You can't just narrow it down to a Chantry/Templar vs mage death match.  The conclusions and or battle between the other two is going to have a very profound effect on the common Fereldan.

[Beerfish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

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. 

Ultimately, neither have you on the other side.  There's no justification offered to keep the mages in shackles, either, beyond that the other stakeholder groups don't like the alternative.

Connor, multiple other cases of abominations being on the loose and causing havok.  The circle tower itself.  All reasons why the common man and or Chantry want tight control over the situation.  Heck look at all that Connor did, one single case of a boy making a deal with a demon.

Those are reasons why the other stakeholders don't like the idea, but would mages find those reasons compelling?

Some of them do.  Others clearly don't.

Either the pro-slavery mages need to stamp out the anti-slavery mages, or there will eventually be a civil war.

And the other stakeholders are the ones you have to convince not other mages for the most part.  Even with other mages you have to be honest and say.  It will be a good thing to be free of the Chantry but we will still be cast out, possibly killed and persecuted for being mages.

[Reaverwind]

scyphozoa wrote...

I've been under the impression that mages are a collective entity throughout Thedas. They have their political factions, and if they could create a reprasentative entity independent of the chantry, essentially mages could usurp authority of the Circle Towers around Thedas. Then they should be able to regulate and police themselves. I envision mages having their own analogue of Templars. They would have an internal police force that would probably be more efficient and humane than the Chantry's templars.

I was under the impression that's the way the Mage's Collective works - some of their jobs involve "damage control" - getting rid of certain malificars before they draw too much attention, as well making certain reports disappear.

[LobselVith8]

Malanek999 wrote...

Drifting in and out of this thread. Some of the opinions are very frustrating. Buit good posting LobselVith8.

Thank you!

Seagloom wrote...

I have yet to see a viable alternative, really. Perhaps one was proposed earlier in the thread before I began following this discussion. The last few pages I did participate in basically amounted to the opposing side advocating releasing mages with no care to the consequences, or any suggestions on how to deal with inevitable future problems. At this point the debate is closer to both sides purposelessly talking past each other.

Viable alternatives already exist. They have existed, in fact. I've named several of them. There are numerous examples of mages and nonmages living together. It'd be less of an issue in Ferelden if the Chantry didn't preach hatred and fear toward mages because of a baseless claim about what the Tevinter mages allegedly did. Given how a Warden can be celebrated as the Hero of Ferelden and be a mage, not to mention be handed over the regins to the teyrnir of Amaranthine, this seems to be the first steps towards changing and challenging people's views on mages. As for the mages themselves, most people aren't arguing against mages being properly instructed on the use of their abilities, only against imprisoning mages for having magical ability.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Aneirin wasn't part of Zathrian's clan. He says himself that he doesn't consider himself part of the circle nor the Dalish, but likes to be on his own. To the Dalish he is just a friendly (elven) outsider.

Aneirin never says he's not part of Zathrian's clan. Nobody in the clan who tells you about him makes any such claim, either. The elves in the campfire clearly know him. All they say is that he's out in the forest, nobody says Aneirin is not part of the clan. Even his rebuttal towards Wynne is merely that he'll consider the offer to come back to the Circle, and his passing mention that Irving was nice to him.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Lanaya admits there were other candidates for Zathrian's apprenticeship, but we never meet any of them. In a small tightly knit group like the Dalish, anyone with magical talents would stand out, yet they aren't in the clan. Something sinister may be at play, or something innocent like being sent to a clan in need of an apprentice, might have happened.

Except they seldom meet the other clans, so that possibility wouldn't be feasible.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And all we know about the mages of Haven is that they aren't (neccesarily) restricted in what their role in their society is. Kolgrim isn't a mage, and nothing in the game suggest that he is. There is no scrying, teleportation or telepathy in Dragon Age (at least not amongst mortals), so even if he were a mage he wouldn't have known the fate of the ashes- It is just a minor plothole.

Considering that Eirik presides over the Haven Chantry, and mages are fighting alongside non-mages, it's clearly more open-minded than the Andrastian Chantry. As for Kolgrim, it's impossible to say. He clearly knows what's happened to the Urn, and you're welcome to disagree that he might not be a mage, but it's still a possibility to explain how he knows about the Urn. We know relatively little about magic in the DA universe, as we can see from Hawke's blood magic talents (and our inability to use such talents in DA:O). There's no telling what Kolgrim might be capable of if he's a mage and practices blood magic.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The mages of the Cirlce are also allowed to fight and die with the common man of Thedas, not exactly a privilige if you ask me, but you pointed it out. And we don't know what happens to mages in Haven in general. For all we know all the other mages than Father Eirik had a terrible existance, with the Reavers constantly harrassing them. We just don't have enough data to conclude wether or not it was a desirable alternative.

You realize that the Reavers get their powers from blood magic, right? Kolgrim doesn't even deny it, and attacks the Chantry of Andraste's position on blood magic if you mention to him that it's forbidden.

As for mages of the Circle: The battle at Ostagar was an exception because of the Blight, and only seven mages (Senior Enchanters, at that) were permitted to leave. Even with the King requesting more (through Duncan), Knight-Commander Greagoir clearly refused.

[Beerfish]

Malanek999 wrote...


This was a failing of the Chantry and the Templars. The current scheme failed and exasperated the situation. The mages rebelled because they were oppressed.

Correct, the chantry and templars did not find out about the mage child and thus they failed to prevent this tragedy.  That is how it would be spun to the general populace.

"We feel badly that children must be taken from their parents, we wish we did not have to do so.  However if you want proof as to why this must be done look no furhter than the Redcliffe tragedy. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Beerfish wrote...

And the other stakeholders are the ones you have to convince not other mages for the most part.  Even with other mages you have to be honest and say.  It will be a good thing to be free of the Chantry but we will still be cast out, possibly killed and persecuted for being mages.

And I'm saying that we can't do that, because each side's position is fundamentally one of preference, and nothing more.  As such, it carried no prescriptive force and no one outside that group will find it at all compelling.

Neither side in this fight has any rhetorical tool that will sway the other side.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 19 janvier 2011 - 10:21 .

[Beerfish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

And the other stakeholders are the ones you have to convince not other mages for the most part.  Even with other mages you have to be honest and say.  It will be a good thing to be free of the Chantry but we will still be cast out, possibly killed and persecuted for being mages.

And I'm saying that we can't do that, because each side's position is fundamentally one of preference, and nothing more.  As such, it carried no prescriptive force and no one outside that group will find it at all compelling.

Neither side in this fight has any rhetorical tool that will sway the other side.

Why use big words when diminuative ones will suffice? 

Each side?  As I've said there are three sides.  To ignore the actual people being torn to bits by abominations or being helped by free mages is ignoring a huge part of all of this.

[LobselVith8]

JamesX wrote...

As for Circle being slave to the Chantry that is actually not true. 

Only if you ignore the definition of slavery.

JamesX wrote...

From all we can tell the Mages of the Circle are self-governing. 

You realize Gaider has already admitted that the Chantry controls the Circles and said no to the Magi boon, correct?

JamesX wrote...

The Templar are there to oversee and execute if they turn abomination, but they have never demonstrated the power to Enforce any particilar course of action outside of that narrow jurisdiction.  In fact the Leader of the Circle (Irwin IIRC) can countermand Leader of the Templar (Gregor)'s orders.  The Circle is more similar to Indian Reservation in the U.S.  They have their own laws and runs their own lands normally.  But if one turned serial killer then the F.B.I. gets called in.  They are not state of slavery as the word actually mean it.

You're mistaken. Irving cannot countermand Greagoir's orders. That's why they're debating about Duncan's message from the King of Ferelden for more troops, which Knight-Commander Greagoir evidently turns down. Even Irving admits he can do nothing about the fate of Jowan because Greagoir has already decided his fate and the matter isn't up to him.

JamesX wrote...

A Templar cannot randomly kill mages and then kill a fine - because he only damanged property.  Mages have a say in their own actions and can refuse service.  A Slave would be executed for it.

Actually, they can randomly kill people. The templars murdered the elven Magnificent D'Sims because they thought he was a mage who healed people, but he was actually a fake mage.

Again, mages have absolutely no say in their lives. They're under Chantry control.

[Seagloom]

Beerfish wrote...

That's what my whole viewpoint in this discussion has been based on, the person living in Fereldan.

That has been my viewpoint as well. From the onset I tried to imagine how I would feel about the situation were I an average person living on Thedas.

Morroian wrote...

You don't think better education could help or that properly trained mages are better to deal with abominations
than templars.

Yes, education could help. Of course, the circle already provides education. The only difference here is there would be no templars watching over the mages. Perhaps a Tevinter method would better prepare a mage to resist possession, but are possibly better teaching practices sufficient to start letting mages roam free? Monitoring mages spread across a city, let alone a countryside, would be a logistical nightmare. Having them all in one place just makes the most sense if for no other reason than for mages to be around to deal with sudden possessions. Perhaps there could be mage outposts in every settlement to deal with the local population, thus allowing freedom from circles and towers, but there are not that many mages to go around, and ultimately they would still be on a leash--just a longer leash than before.

Modifié par Seagloom, 19 janvier 2011 - 10:29 .

[LobselVith8]

David Gaider wrote...

It does come up, actually.

Keep in mind, however, that the kingdom doesn't control the Circle of Magi. That conversation no doubt went a little like this:

King/Queen: "We would like mages in Ferelden to be free."
Chantry: "No."

That said, the conversation doesn't necessarily stop there-- as you'll see. We can indeed pick up the boons the Origins player was granted and do intend to use them in the future.

Considering that the elven Bann epilogue and the Magi epilogue are both still bugged... nevermind. In other words, the Chantry controls the Circles across Thedas.

Beerfish wrote...
Why use big words when diminuative ones will suffice? 

Each side?  As I've said there are three sides.  To ignore the actual people being torn to bits by abominations or being helped by free mages is ignoring a huge part of all of this.

Or the innocent people murdered because templars thought they were mages, like the Magnificent D'Sims.

Beerfish wrote...

Correct, the chantry and templars did not find out about the mage child and thus they failed to prevent this tragedy.  That is how it would be spun to the general populace.

"We feel badly that children must be taken from their parents, we wish we did not have to do so.  However if you want proof as to why this must be done look no furhter than the Redcliffe tragedy. 

You mean the tragedy that happened because a pious woman was embrassed that her son was a mage? Sounds like a reason for the Chantry to stop pushing it's propaganda against mages to avoid similiar scenerios.