1869 réponses à ce sujet

[sevalaricgirl]

Drugging templars with lyrium is like drugging our police men with heroin and then sending them out into the streets. It's just wrong, wrong, wrong. Who's to say, like Alistair says, that lyrium aids the templars in controlling mages. The Chantry is wrong on all accounts and they are slavers. Templars can do their jobs without lyrium and mages like Irving can be in charge of mages. We do have murderers out there, you can't stop it, but that doesn't mean that everyone with the capacity to kill will. Mages can govern themselves with the aid of non lyrium addled templars and the Chantry should be shut down for good. Can you tell that I hate the Chantry, lol.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Or perhaps he resisted capture, in which case the Tempalrs are forced to kill him, by their duty. Who knows? The Templars who did it, and Aneirin, the first we never meet, and the second never mentions it, so we are back to square one.

So they have no issue with a grown man like Anders, but need to kill a fourteen year old boy? Given that there's no evidence that he was a blood mage and they ordered his death because he was allegedly a maleficar (but when we meet him all he does is using healing spells).

LobselVith8 wrote...

No one has any rights in Thedas. There have been no convention and no signing of Human RIghts in Thedas, so that point is moot. And by that definition of Slaves (the one linked), everyone in Thedas are slaves, as all serve a master, through little to no choice of their own. They are closer to prisoners than slaves, and even then they are certainly priviliged prisoners.

That's not true. People do have rights in Thedas. Fergus can inherit the teyrnir of Highever because it's his right, as the eldest Cousland. The nobles of the Landsmeet have the right to vote on whether they will side with Loghain or the Grey Warden. Women have the right to join the military just the same as men do. On the other hand, mages can't inherit a title, they can't raise their children, they can't have relationships in certain Circles, and they live under the thumb of the Chantry because they have no rights, unless they become a Grey Warden - and it's explicitly made clear that there's typically only one Grey Warden mage at a time (Magi Origin and missing scene with Wynne involving the Warden's revelation as a blood mage).

[Rake21]

Maybe I;m alone on this one, but HELL NO!



I'm sorry, but if a child can hurl fireballs or kill you with THEIR MIND, then I'd like them taken someplace where they can be trained. You know so they don't electricute me to death on accident.



On top of that, mages tend to attract demons like flies to a cook out. They need to be trained to resist that as well.



Now, could the system the Chantry put in place be better? Yes, and mages shouldn't be treated as second class citezens. But they are incredibly dangerous to themselves and others if they aren't trained.

[Reaverwind]

LobselVith8 wrote...
That's not true. People do have rights in Thedas. Fergus can inherit the teyrnir of Highever because it's his right, as the eldest Cousland. The nobles of the Landsmeet have the right to vote on whether they will side with Loghain or the Grey Warden. Women have the right to join the military just the same as men do. On the other hand, mages can't inherit a title, they can't raise their children, they can't have relationships in certain Circles, and they live under the thumb of the Chantry because they have no rights, unless they become a Grey Warden - and it's explicitly made clear that there's typically only one Grey Warden mage at a time (Magi Origin and missing scene with Wynne involving the Warden's revelation as a blood mage).

You mean the top dogs have rights in Thedas - and the nobility are definitely on top. Mages aren't the only ones who can't inherit . As for the "One mage warden at a time" nonsense - are you seriously taking the word of one of the most ignorant NON-wardens to grace Thedas as gospel truth? Please.

[Beerfish]

LobselVith8 wrote...


That's not true. People do have rights in Thedas. Fergus can inherit the teyrnir of Highever because it's his right, as the eldest Cousland. The nobles of the Landsmeet have the right to vote on whether they will side with Loghain or the Grey Warden. Women have the right to join the military just the same as men do. On the other hand, mages can't inherit a title, they can't raise their children, they can't have relationships in certain Circles, and they live under the thumb of the Chantry because they have no rights, unless they become a Grey Warden - and it's explicitly made clear that there's typically only one Grey Warden mage at a time (Magi Origin and missing scene with Wynne involving the Warden's revelation as a blood mage).

All the rights of these people you have just listed are not offset by the fact that they might go beserk at any time and kill a whole pile of people.  Throughout this whole discussion you have skirted or totally ignored the dangers that mages face on a continuing basis to themselves and to others.  After many pages and tons of lines of discussion you haven't come close to allaying any fears about mages other than talk about some far off lands with little or no information about how mages are truly handled there.

It comes down to this.  Some mages are dangerous, their very nature is dangerous.  Not all mages are dangerous, the majority might be terrific helpful benevolent people but even they are subject to possession and all the bad things that go along with it.

[LobselVith8]

Rake21 wrote...

Maybe I;m alone on this one, but HELL NO!

I'm sorry, but if a child can hurl fireballs or kill you with THEIR MIND, then I'd like them taken someplace where they can be trained. You know so they don't electricute me to death on accident.

On top of that, mages tend to attract demons like flies to a cook out. They need to be trained to resist that as well.

Now, could the system the Chantry put in place be better? Yes, and mages shouldn't be treated as second class citezens. But they are incredibly dangerous to themselves and others if they aren't trained.

I agree - mages should be properly trained, as opposed to the current system of imprisoning mages for having magical ability and leaving them under the supervision of armored templars who are (as Alistair says) are turned into drug addicts to be kept under Chantry control themselves.

Reaverwind wrote...

You mean the top dogs have rights in Thedas - and the nobility are definitely on top.

I suspect your example isn't going to involve someone or a group who can be killed by templars merely for existing, though (like the Magnificent D'Sims was: a fake mage at that).

Reaverwind wrote...

Mages aren't the only ones who can't inherit . As for the "One mage warden at a time" nonsense - are you seriously taking the word of one of the most ignorant NON-wardens to grace Thedas as gospel truth? Please.

Regarding that comment about Wynne, I can't argue with you there.

[LobselVith8]

Beerfish wrote...

All the rights of these people you have just listed are not offset by the fact that they might go beserk at any time and kill a whole pile of people. 

Because people in power never abuse their authority? Let's tell that to the casteless when King Harrowmont murders the people of Dust Town with his golems in order to retain his power. Let's ask the elves of the Alienage how they feel about Bann Vaughan or Teyrn Loghain. Seems like a lot of people can die because of people in power who don't have magical ability.

Beerfish wrote...

Throughout this whole discussion you have skirted or totally ignored the dangers that mages face on a continuing basis to themselves and to others. 

I didn't ignore them, but enslaving mages to a tyrannical system isn't going to make Thedas any safer. The Chantry's system conditions blood mages and abominations who resort to those methods in order to survive against the templars who would otherwise murder them - as a codex for the abominations makes clear:

"We arrived in the dead of night. We had been tracking the maleficar for days, and finally had him cornered... or so we thought.

As we approached, a home on the edge of the town exploded, sending splinters of wood and fist-sized chunks of rocks into our ranks. We had but moments to regroup before fire rained from the sky, the sounds of destruction wrapped in a hideous laughter from the center of the village.

There, perched atop the spire of the village chantry, stood the mage. But he was human no longer." 

Mages should be properly trained on the use of their powers, not imprisoned for having magical ability.

Beerfish wrote...

After many pages and tons of lines of discussion you haven't come close to allaying any fears about mages other than talk about some far off lands with little or no information about how mages are truly handled there.

Besides the fact that mages and non-mages co-exist together? Yeah, providing alternatives to the current system employed by the Chantry (like the Dalish and the people of Haven) merely illustrates that mages don't need to be imprisoned by a tyrannical system that wishes to exploit their abilities.

Beerfish wrote...

It comes down to this.  Some mages are dangerous, their very nature is dangerous.  Not all mages are dangerous, the majority might be terrific helpful benevolent people but even they are subject to possession and all the bad things that go along with it.

In order words, mages should be trained to use their powers effectively? I don't disagree with that. I do disagree with the way that the Chantry imprisons people for having magical ability, and spreads hateful propaganda about them.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Except Lyrium isn't a drug like heroin. Lyrium gets you addicted, but you don't get "high" or "stoned" because of it, only when the withdrawal kicks in.

And mages can't be kileld by Templars on awhim. Where do you get that? Sure it happens, but the Templars aren't allowed that. The cases where a Templar is allowed to slay a mage is clear cut: If he is a Maleficar or if an Apostate resists capture. Those are the two cases.

And the scene with Wynne was cut, and is no longer part of the lore.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Except Lyrium isn't a drug like heroin. Lyrium gets you addicted, but you don't get "high" or "stoned" because of it, only when the withdrawal kicks in.

The templar at the front doors in Denerim seemed pretty out of it to me.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And mages can't be kileld by Templars on awhim. Where do you get that? Sure it happens, but the Templars aren't allowed that. The cases where a Templar is allowed to slay a mage is clear cut: If he is a Maleficar or if an Apostate resists capture. Those are the two cases.

When it comes to Circle mages, that's true, unless the templars declare that he's become a maleficar, regardless of whether they have any actual evidence or not. Irving didn't even speak of knowing what evidence Greagoir had when Jowan was put to be made tranquil. And we have the example of the Magnificent D'Sims, an elf who was killed because the templars thought he was a mage - because he pretended to heal people.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And the scene with Wynne was cut, and is no longer part of the lore.

The scene with the mage cleaning Duncan's room is still there, though, and he mentions how there's typically one mage among the GWs.

[Reaverwind]

LobselVith8 wrote...

When it comes to Circle mages, that's true, unless the templars declare that he's become a maleficar, regardless of whether they have any actual evidence or not. Irving didn't even speak of knowing what evidence Greagoir had when Jowan was put to be made tranquil.

Name me one organization that discusses disciplinary actions with members of the lower echelons. Irving doesn't tell your newly harrowed mage because it isn't your mage's place to know.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Except Lyrium isn't a drug like heroin. Lyrium gets you addicted, but you don't get "high" or "stoned" because of it, only when the withdrawal kicks in.

The templar at the front doors in Denerim seemed pretty out of it to me.

And that was a result of Lyrium Withdrawal.

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And mages can't be kileld by Templars on awhim. Where do you get that? Sure it happens, but the Templars aren't allowed that. The cases where a Templar is allowed to slay a mage is clear cut: If he is a Maleficar or if an Apostate resists capture. Those are the two cases.

When it comes to Circle mages, that's true, unless the templars declare that he's become a maleficar, regardless of whether they have any actual evidence or not. Irving didn't even speak of knowing what evidence Greagoir had when Jowan was put to be made tranquil. And we have the example of the Magnificent D'Sims, an elf who was killed because the templars thought he was a mage - because he pretended to heal people.

Apparently D'Sims resisted capture. He shouldn't have. He probably knew that Templar's were Mage-Hunters and he did pretend to be a mage. He is basically just a man who played with fire, and got burned. And Irving was the one who planted the books about Blood Magic amongst the apprentices, to weed out amongst them. I don't think, what Irving wanted to happen to Jowan is any nicer than being made Tranquil.

[Faerillis]

Mages are dangerous, so is dogma. Speaking in all matters, though I certainly am massively biased, believe that if you put any religion in charge of anything it is dangerous. Religious organizations are required to be static and unchanging by their nature. Societies, norms and people simply don't remain static. What happens when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
Mages are innately dangerous, but supervision, oppresion and custody are different. Supervision of mages would be necessary. Oppresion and Custody, are not.

[October Sixth]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Considering mages have no rights and the Chantry controls the Circles, I see no reason why the definition doesn't fit perfectly.

I didn't realize I actually needed to explain why slavery is wrong.

How do you know that the mages in the Circle have no rights? Keep in mind that there is a difference between no rights and restricted rights. If the mages have only restricted rights then what specifically are those?

Also, you do have to explain why "slavery" is wrong if your entire argument is:
"The mages are slaves in the curret situation, thus the current situation needs to be changed."

It would be much more productive to tackle your individual grievances with the rights that have been taken away from the mages of the Circle, but you seem to think that they have no rights whatsoever.

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.

I want you to prove that they have no rights.

Jowan says they can't inherit a title, Gaider has said they can't raise their own children, Gaider has said that in some Circles they're not permitted to have relationships, First Enchanter Irving mentions that he can't do anything about Jowan because Knight-Commander Greagoir has already decided his fate

If that is an exhaustive list of their restricted rights then they have quite a few. Outside of having a family they are free to do as they please. Sure it's not unrestricted freedom but it's hardly comparable to modern imprisonment.

mages can be killed simply for being mages (like the Magnificent D'Sims was despite not actually being a mage), and a baseless accusation against a mage can get him killed - like Aneirin.

I'm not familiar with these two individuals. Apparently Magnificent D'Sims was killed for being an apostate mage (breaking the rules of the less-than-terrible Circle containment) and Aneirin was attacked for escaping the Circle Tower. These two, according to Wiki, were not attacked "simply for being mages" but because they refused confinement. My point is that confinement is not a problem so it should be understandable that I see no problem with punishing those who choose to escape it.

The Circles are under the direct control of the Chantry, and at the Landsmeet it's mentioned that templars don't answer to the nobles - only to the Chantry.

Okay.

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...

(see above)

Besides the fact that, instead of bringing him back, they tried to murder him? Or how templars can murder a person suspected of being a free mage?

Discipline for breaking the rules is a separate argument. I happen to have no problem with this punishment though.

Not being under the control of an entity that preaches hatred and mistrust towards mages seems like a better alternative to me. The Dalish clans evidently have mages and non-mages living side by side, as do the people of Haven. The people of Rivain evidently revere their mages. Having a system that didn't place mages under the control of people who are taught to fear and hate them is the first step. Allowing them to have rights and gain a place in society would be the next. I'm not saying anything new here, others have already made this point loud and clear. Again, I'm not arguing against properly instructing mages on how to use their magical abilities, only that they shouldn't be imprisoned under the guard of armored and armed drug addicts.

That still doesn't say anything about what Ferelden should do. My question was what kind of safe-guards should be in place, if not the Circle Tower, to ensure that Fereldens are safe. What I'm reading here is "Nothing." Do you really think that would be best for the non-magical Fereldens?

[sevalaricgirl]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Except Lyrium isn't a drug like heroin. Lyrium gets you addicted, but you don't get "high" or "stoned" because of it, only when the withdrawal kicks in.
And mages can't be kileld by Templars on awhim. Where do you get that? Sure it happens, but the Templars aren't allowed that. The cases where a Templar is allowed to slay a mage is clear cut: If he is a Maleficar or if an Apostate resists capture. Those are the two cases.
And the scene with Wynne was cut, and is no longer part of the lore.

Hmm, that's why Cullen says to kill them all.  Templars are people.  They can kill on a whim.  Who's to stop them?  The Chantry?  I don't think so.  I killed many mages in game so I'm sure that any templar that wanted to kill a mage can.  It's just like, again my comparison to police officers, they have guns, they can kill anyone. The choice is theirs.  Templars can kill, the choice is theirs.  There are just repercussions to it but I believe that the Chantry would hail the templar who killed a mage as doing his/her duty.

Modifié par sevalaricgirl, 20 janvier 2011 - 03:13 .

[Morroian]

October Sixth wrote...

Besides the fact that, instead of bringing him back, they tried to murder him? Or how templars can murder a person suspected of being a free mage?

Discipline for breaking the rules is a separate argument. I happen to have no problem with this punishment though.

You think escaped prisoners should be executed on sight?

[October Sixth]

Morroian wrote...

October Sixth wrote...

Besides the fact that, instead of bringing him back, they tried to murder him? Or how templars can murder a person suspected of being a free mage?

Discipline for breaking the rules is a separate argument. I happen to have no problem with this punishment though.

You think escaped prisoners should be executed on sight?

I don't think it's too severe. It's hardly relevant to the issue of whether they are appropriately treated in the Circle Tower though.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Except Lyrium isn't a drug like heroin. Lyrium gets you addicted, but you don't get "high" or "stoned" because of it, only when the withdrawal kicks in.

Actually Lyrium does have some pyschoactive effects as the game makes perfectly clear.  How much is disputable but it does.

And mages can't be kileld by Templars on awhim. Where do you get that? Sure it happens, but the Templars aren't allowed that. The cases where a Templar is allowed to slay a mage is clear cut: If he is a Maleficar or if an Apostate resists capture. Those are the two cases.

In practice, a templar can do whatever he wants to a mage even in the tower.  The only person that can stop him (or her) are other templars.  After all, the templar simply has to claim that the mage was a malificar or abomination, and that templar is in the clear unless another templar intervenes.  That is made depressingly clear with Jowan in the tower.  Gregoire had no proof and no real evidence, but Jowan was going to be lobotimized anyway.

And the scene with Wynne was cut, and is no longer part of the lore.

Wrong.  It's canon, and it is part of the game.  The scene was not cut.  The triggers were disabled but that's far, far from the same thing.

As for the Wardens only having one mage, that's a Chantry fable.  We know from several sources within the game and lore that this simply isn't so.  It's probably far more accurate to say that the Chantry only willingly permits one mage to be recruited at any one time.  Heck in DAA, you could have as many as three mage wardens and the Chantry couldn't do anything about it.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
And mages can't be kileld by Templars on awhim. Where do you get that? Sure it happens, but the Templars aren't allowed that. The cases where a Templar is allowed to slay a mage is clear cut: If he is a Maleficar or if an Apostate resists capture. Those are the two cases.

In practice, a templar can do whatever he wants to a mage even in the tower.  The only person that can stop him (or her) are other templars.  After all, the templar simply has to claim that the mage was a malificar or abomination, and that templar is in the clear unless another templar intervenes.  That is made depressingly clear with Jowan in the tower.  Gregoire had no proof and no real evidence, but Jowan was going to be lobotimized anyway.

So we can both agree that a Templar can't just go about killing mages whenever he feels like it? He needs reason. A mage being a mage, or a mage being cheeky, aren't reasons. Nor do Templars just scream "Maleficar!" and gut a mage. They need proof. At least when it comes to a Circle mage. And they had lots of stuff to go with Jowan. Like for instance how he all of a sudden had gone from an inferior mage, to a capable mage. And his nightly ventures outside the apprentices' quarters (these might only have been to Lily, but its stands to reason that some of them was also to study Blood Magic). Greagoir and Irving had lots of evidence.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 20 janvier 2011 - 03:38 .

[LobselVith8]

Reaverwind wrote...

Name me one organization that discusses disciplinary actions with members of the lower echelons. Irving doesn't tell your newly harrowed mage because it isn't your mage's place to know.

Actually, Irving discusses the situation regarding Jowan if you reveal that you know he's going to be made tranquil. He further says things would be different if it were up to him, but it isn't.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And that was a result of Lyrium Withdrawal.

The templar at the front doors of the Chantry in Denerim, not the templar imprisoned by Howe.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Apparently D'Sims resisted capture. He shouldn't have. He probably knew that Templar's were Mage-Hunters and he did pretend to be a mage. He is basically just a man who played with fire, and got burned. And Irving was the one who planted the books about Blood Magic amongst the apprentices, to weed out amongst them. I don't think, what Irving wanted to happen to Jowan is any nicer than being made Tranquil.

He pretended to be a mage who healed people, and if he resisted capture, he obviously didn't display any magical ability because he had none.

[IanPolaris]

Faerillis wrote...

Mages are dangerous, so is dogma. Speaking in all matters, though I certainly am massively biased, believe that if you put any religion in charge of anything it is dangerous. Religious organizations are required to be static and unchanging by their nature. Societies, norms and people simply don't remain static. What happens when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
Mages are innately dangerous, but supervision, oppresion and custody are different. Supervision of mages would be necessary. Oppresion and Custody, are not.

I am going to disagree a bit.  Magic is dangerous to be sure, and having people with magical ability running around untrained is a recipie for disaster.  However, the Chantry makes much of the fact that mages are walking/talking timebombs that can become horrid abominations at any time and create widespread havok.

However, just how true is this really?  We know that the Chantry system has had 17 Rites of Annulment in 700 years which is just a shade more than once per generation.  If that rate of abomination were present outside the Chantry, then we should be hearing about it but we don't.  Rivvain encourages limited possessions yet we don't hear about abominations wrecking havok in the countryside there.  Same applies to the Dales both now and when they were a static independant kingdom in their own right, and of course there is the Tevinter Imperium.  If Abominations really were the issue that the Chantry makes them out to be, then we should be hearing all sort so horror stories about what happens when the Templars aren't there to protect the innocent....yet we don't.  That tells me (because the Chantry has all sorts of incentive to do this) that in fact abominations aren't a problem unless the mages are repressed to such a degree that they WANT to make a deal with demons....and that was the heart of the problem in the Circle of Fereledan (and indirectly what caused Redcliff as well).

I would argue that far from protecting the population from abominations, the Chantry's Circle system of mages and treatment of mages is actually making the problem far worse than it needs to be and historically was.

Finally I note that even right after Andrastre herself, mages weren't considered so dangerous that they had to be locked away for public safety.  Even during the early days of the chantry, Mages worked and lived along side everyone else (see History of the Circle Codex Entry).  The Mages weren't exiled to the Circles because of a public safety crisis either.  They were exiled because the mages no longer wanted to be glorified candle lighters for the chantry and nothing else....and the Divine took extreme measures to break what was in effect a magical worker's strike (and she wanted to slaughter all the mages with a Divine March...her own Templars talked her out of it).

In short, when you really examine the evidence it doesn't support the Chantry's mistreatment (I would say criminal mistreatment) of mages.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So we can both agree that a Templar can't just go about killing mages whenever he feels like it? He needs reason. A mage being a mage, or a mage being cheeky, aren't reasons. Nor do Templars just scream "Maleficar!" and gut a mage. They need proof. At least when it comes to a Circle mage. And they had lots of stuff to go with Jowan. Like for instance how he all of a sudden had gone from an inferior mage, to a capable mage. And his nightly ventures outside the apprentices' quarters (these might only have been to Lily, but its stands to reason that some of them was also to study Blood Magic). Greagoir and Irving had lots of evidence.

Yes he can.  A templar doesn't need proof.  He can just claim that the mage was using blood magic and resisting arrest.  We see that several times in game lore.  So we are not going to agree on this point.

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And that was a result of Lyrium Withdrawal.

The templar at the front doors of the Chantry in Denerim, not the templar imprisoned by Howe.

I know. His guardmate tells us it is the Lyrium Withdrawal which causes him to be "distant".

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Apparently D'Sims resisted capture. He shouldn't have. He probably knew that Templar's were Mage-Hunters and he did pretend to be a mage. He is basically just a man who played with fire, and got burned. And Irving was the one who planted the books about Blood Magic amongst the apprentices, to weed out amongst them. I don't think, what Irving wanted to happen to Jowan is any nicer than being made Tranquil.

He pretended to be a mage who healed people, and if he resisted capture, he obviously didn't display any magical ability because he had none.

It doesn't matter what he pretended to do. It all boils down to him pretending to be a mage. And exactly when a mage is resisting capture is open to interpretation to the individual Templar. D'sims simply saying "I won't accompany you to the Circle Tower." Could be interpreted as resistance, and the Templars would be allowed to slay him. Besides "I'm not a mage!" is probably one of the excuses the Templars hear most often from apostates, when they try to squirm out of a bad situation.

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So we can both agree that a Templar can't just go about killing mages whenever he feels like it? He needs reason. A mage being a mage, or a mage being cheeky, aren't reasons. Nor do Templars just scream "Maleficar!" and gut a mage. They need proof. At least when it comes to a Circle mage. And they had lots of stuff to go with Jowan. Like for instance how he all of a sudden had gone from an inferior mage, to a capable mage. And his nightly ventures outside the apprentices' quarters (these might only have been to Lily, but its stands to reason that some of them was also to study Blood Magic). Greagoir and Irving had lots of evidence.

Yes he can.  A templar doesn't need proof.  He can just claim that the mage was using blood magic and resisting arrest.  We see that several times in game lore.  So we are not going to agree on this point.

-Polaris

Where do we see a Templar just randomly claiming a mage Maleficar and slaying him on the spot?

[NKKKK]

OH LOOK AT ME, IM A PRAGMATIST AND IM TRYING TO SHOW MY PRAGMATISM IN MY GAME. KEEP THOSE MAGES LOCKED, THEY'RE A DANGER, OH NO, THE NEEDS OF THE MANY AND ALL THAT.



But seriously...pragmatism in here?

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

So we can both agree that a Templar can't just go about killing mages whenever he feels like it? He needs reason. A mage being a mage, or a mage being cheeky, aren't reasons. Nor do Templars just scream "Maleficar!" and gut a mage. They need proof. At least when it comes to a Circle mage. And they had lots of stuff to go with Jowan. Like for instance how he all of a sudden had gone from an inferior mage, to a capable mage. And his nightly ventures outside the apprentices' quarters (these might only have been to Lily, but its stands to reason that some of them was also to study Blood Magic). Greagoir and Irving had lots of evidence.

Yes he can.  A templar doesn't need proof.  He can just claim that the mage was using blood magic and resisting arrest.  We see that several times in game lore.  So we are not going to agree on this point.

-Polaris

Where do we see a Templar just randomly claiming a mage Maleficar and slaying him on the spot?

Anerin for one.  Also Jowan is sentence to death (I consider being made Tranquil the equivalent of a death sentence) with no actual evidence presented let alone a trial.  Also Anders was going to be "executed" for 'murdering' his templar guard and being a malificar when everyone knew that wasn't so (and KC Ryloc was even going to go over King Alistair's head to do it!)

-Polaris