1869 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

October Sixth wrote...

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?

Because DA:O makes it clear they have no rights. I've already provided several examples in my prior posts concerning what Jowan says and what DG has said concerning their lack of rights. You're welcome to skim through the last two pages to read what I've discussed concerning the issue.

October Sixth wrote...

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.

Yes, I've already gone through their lack of rights in my prior posts across two different pages. Feel free to re-read them and if you have issue with any one in particular, you're welcome to discuss the issue with me.

October Sixth wrote...

I want you to prove that they have no rights.

I already addressed their lack of rights in prior posts. Feel free to go through them and address them as you'd like.

October Sixth wrote...

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.

Free to do as they please? You're a comedian, right? They're under the thumb of the Chantry, and even the ruler of Ferelden can't give them the freedom to govern themselves because the Chantry has the final say in the lives of the mages. Having no rights and only being permitted to leave with permission (that even the Senior Enchanters needed to get - like Wynne) doesn't speak highly for the mythical freedoms you seem to think they have.

October Sixth wrote...

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.

D'Sims was a fake mage, which you'd know if you actually bothered reading my posts. I mentioned that he was a fake mage several times. It's a little difficult to miss because I mentioned it every single time I mentioned who he was.

Aneirin was attacked because the templars claimed he was a maleficar, which seems to have no basis in reality since he never demonstrates any blood magic and never mentions this as a reason why he couldn't go back to the Circle of Ferelden when the topic is addressed by Wynne.

October Sixth wrote...

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.

Some people have an issue with slavery, others don't.

October Sixth wrote...

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

Slaves shouldn't be enslaved. You're welcome to disagree, of course.

October Sixth wrote...

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?

Why shouldn't mages be permitted to govern themselves? I don't see the issue here, since mages would still be supervised. The Dalish clans and the people of Haven had no templar or Chantry oversight. At the conclusion of DA:O, even the ruler of Ferelden admits that mages have earned the right to govern themselves. Better to have mages governing mages than have armed and armored drug addicts having absolute authority over them.

[IanPolaris]

NKKKK wrote...

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?

I am being pragmatic.  Where is the evidence that Mages are the danger the Chantry claims they are?  The only people that seem to think that mages will become autopossessed by having a bad dream are chantry idiots like Keli and Wynne.  In truth we see cultures with a significant mage present and (apparently) far less incidents of abominations than anything the chantry can claim....and the chantry didn't lock away mages in the circle to protect others from abominations in the first place!  The chantry wants you to believe that, but the chantry's own history (see codex entry History of the Circle) contradicts this.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

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

No, his guardmate says lyrium does that, and if you ask why his guardmate why his friend doesn't stop taking lyrium, he says then he wouldn't be able to be a templar then.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

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.

And I still see no reason to keep this current system in place if all it takes to kill someone is the mere suspicion of being a mage.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 20 janvier 2011 - 03:53 .

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

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

In Awakening, we see Rylock claiming that Anders killed the templars with absolutely no proof at all, and she has no problem trying to murder him and the Warden-Commander.

[IanPolaris]

The huge problem with the current system is it generates the very negative emotions and hatred on both sides that demons thrive on and create most of the problems in the first place (both Recliff and Uldred are both prime examples of this). It's made even worse by the chantry's ridiculous and brain-dead prohibition of blood-magic which is (potentially) far more powerful than any "legit" magic out there.....making it a perfect weapon for mage rebels fighting for their freedom.....and willing to do anything (including dealing with demons) to get it.



Remove the incentive by treating mages like human beings with civil rights like other human beings, and you don't generate the hatred by mages (or against mages) and most of that incentive goes away....and with it the leverage demons need to get a foothold.



Seriously when you compare chantry nations with non-chantry cultures, the chantry has a terrible record when it comes to abominations.



-Polaris



P.S. I would not be at all suprised if most Andrastian Nations kept a super secred cadre of apostate blood-mages in covert payroll precisely because of the chantry's policies....and the existance of Tevinter.

[Beerfish]

"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. "



I'd say we ran into quite a few abominations in DA just with our little group over a short period of time.

[October Sixth]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Because DA:O makes it clear they have no rights. I've already provided several examples in my prior posts concerning what Jowan says and what DG has said concerning their lack of rights. You're welcome to skim through the last two pages to read what I've discussed concerning the issue.

Yes, I've already gone through their lack of rights in my prior posts across two different pages. Feel free to re-read them and if you have issue with any one in particular, you're welcome to discuss the issue with me.

I already addressed their lack of rights in prior posts. Feel free to go through them and address them as you'd like.

Free to do as they please? You're a comedian, right? They're under the thumb of the Chantry, and even the ruler of Ferelden can't give them the freedom to govern themselves because the Chantry has the final say in the lives of the mages. Having no rights and only being permitted to leave with permission (that even the Senior Enchanters needed to get - like Wynne) doesn't speak highly for the mythical freedoms you seem to think they have.

Essentially all you're saying is that they can't leave the Circle Tower. That's hardly the equivalent of "no rights whatsoever"

D'Sims was a fake mage, which you'd know if you actually bothered reading my posts. I mentioned that he was a fake mage several times. It's a little difficult to miss because I mentioned it every single time I mentioned who he was.

Aneirin was attacked because the templars claimed he was a maleficar, which seems to have no basis in reality since he never demonstrates any blood magic and never mentions this as a reason why he couldn't go back to the Circle of Ferelden when the topic is addressed by Wynne.

Some people have an issue with slavery, others don't.

You mean confinement. Some people have an issue with confinement. So they broke the one rule that they are expected to obey and were punished for it. Makes sense to me.

Why shouldn't mages be permitted to govern themselves? I don't see the issue here, since mages would still be supervised. The Dalish clans and the people of Haven had no templar or Chantry oversight. At the conclusion of DA:O, even the ruler of Ferelden admits that mages have earned the right to govern themselves. Better to have mages governing mages than have armed and armored drug addicts having absolute authority over them.

If mages govern mages then who governs the governing mages? Some one needs to be at the top, it might as well be the people trained specifically in anti-magic combat.

Modifié par October Sixth, 20 janvier 2011 - 03:59 .

[IanPolaris]

Beerfish wrote...

"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. "

I'd say we ran into quite a few abominations in DA just with our little group over a short period of time.

Yes and all but one were directly caused by the Chantry's system (and even that one could arguably be connected).

-Polaris

[Beerfish]

IanPolaris wrote...

Remove the incentive by treating mages like human beings with civil rights like other human beings, and you don't generate the hatred by mages (or against mages) and most of that incentive goes away....and with it the leverage demons need to get a foothold.

.

Okay so what so you have in mind.  What does your 'treat them like humans with civil rights' entail because that is a very broad statement.

[Beerfish]

IanPolaris wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

"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. "

I'd say we ran into quite a few abominations in DA just with our little group over a short period of time.

Yes and all but one were directly caused by the Chantry's system (and even that one could arguably be connected).

-Polaris

Eh?  No all of them were caused by a mage being taken over by a demon by choice or by force which is the real worry.  Blaming the Chantry for the actions of a mage is weak.  All it proves to the chantry, the templars and the public should be very very worried about the actions of mages.  One could easily argue that the templars were slack in that situation.

[Big I]

Beerfish wrote...

I'd say we ran into quite a few abominations in DA just with our little group over a short period of time.

I can only remember one, the apprentice who became an abomination and killed his master, in the encounter where you get the Feldspar Ring.


EDIT: And of course the ones in the Circle, which I blame on the actions of one spectacularly stupid man, Uldred.

Modifié par LookingGlass93, 20 janvier 2011 - 04:05 .

[Big I]

Beerfish wrote...

Okay so what so you have in mind.  What does your 'treat them like humans with civil rights' entail because that is a very broad statement.

The ability to travel freely, have children, and not be forcibly made Tranquil would I think be a start.

Modifié par LookingGlass93, 20 janvier 2011 - 04:05 .

[IanPolaris]

October Sixth wrote...

Essentially I'll you're saying is that they can't leave the Circle Tower. That's hardly the equivalent of "no rights whatsoever"

It's worse than that although being unable to leave the tower is bad enough.  I remind you that the circle towers were not made to protect mundanes from mages or vice versa.  They were made as an alternative to a nutty divine that wanted to slaughter all mages to break a magical worker's strike.

Mages can not have children and can not keep children without the chantry's say-so (confirmed by Wynne).  Mages can not have property or live outside the tower without the explicit OK of the First Enchanter and Templar Knight Commander (again confirmed in game).  A templar has the right to kill an apostate at any time outside the tower (the templar in Lothering confirms this).

In addition, you can be lobomized and used as slave labor with absolutely no input of your own (see Tranquil) and it can be done with no evidence against you.

Sounds like no rights to me.

D'Sims was a fake mage, which you'd know if you actually bothered reading my posts. I mentioned that he was a fake mage several times. It's a little difficult to miss because I mentioned it every single time I mentioned who he was.

Aneirin was attacked because the templars claimed he was a maleficar, which seems to have no basis in reality since he never demonstrates any blood magic and never mentions this as a reason why he couldn't go back to the Circle of Ferelden when the topic is addressed by Wynne.

Some people have an issue with slavery, others don't.

You mean confinement. Some people have an issue with confinement. So they broke the one rule that they are expected to obey and were punished for it. Makes sense to me.

Why shouldn't mages be permitted to govern themselves? I don't see the issue here, since mages would still be supervised. The Dalish clans and the people of Haven had no templar or Chantry oversight. At the conclusion of DA:O, even the ruler of Ferelden admits that mages have earned the right to govern themselves. Better to have mages governing mages than have armed and armored drug addicts having absolute authority over them.

If mages govern mages then who governs the governing mages? Some one needs to be at the top, it might as well be the people trained specifically in anti-magic combat.

You think mages are this monolithic bloc.  They are not.  Mages are human (or elven) and like any other group of humans and elves, you have good ones, bad ones, trustworthy ones, and untrustworthy ones.  There is no reason why the very best mages (the most trustworthy) couldn't be integrated along with fighters with anti-magic training to police magic.

I will never say that magic shouldn't be regulated!  Far from!  However, it should be done sensibly from the basis of rationality and not out of fear.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

October Sixth wrote...

Essentially all you're saying is that they can't leave the Circle Tower. That's hardly the equivalent of "no rights whatsoever"

You are a comedian, I see. I guess you have an issue with reading the last three pages to see the points that I addressed concerning their lack of rights. If you think otherwise, you're welcome to address what rights they do have. Dying at the end of a sword of mercy, perhaps? Not having the right to have a relationship in some Circles?Not being able to raise their own children? Not being able to inherit a title? Being imprisoned for having magical ability and having their lives controlled by the Chantry, making them slaves? Being turned into tranquil to craft magical items? Being killed without evidence on the basis of the mage being accused of being a maleficar, regardless of whether there's any actual evidence?

October Sixth wrote...

You mean confinement. Some people have an issue with confinement. So they broke the one rule that they are expected to obey and were punished for it. Makes sense to me.

No, I mean slavery, as per the actual definition of slave that I've provided on the last two pages. Mages are slaves to the Chantry. If you have no issue with it, that's your right.

October Sixth wrote...

If mages govern mages then who governs the governing mages? Some one needs to be at the top, it might as well be the people trained specifically in anti-magic combat.

Considering the lack of templars at Haven and among the Dalish, mages can govern other mages.

[IanPolaris]

Beerfish wrote...
Eh?  No all of them were caused by a mage being taken over by a demon by choice or by force which is the real worry.  Blaming the Chantry for the actions of a mage is weak.  All it proves to the chantry, the templars and the public should be very very worried about the actions of mages.  One could easily argue that the templars were slack in that situation.

I contest this.  The mages certainly were taken over by a demon, but fundamentally, you need to want to let that demon in.  If Johnny or Jannie mage could just randomly be forcibly taken over by demons at the known rate (17 annulments in 700 years), we should see a lot more abominations in non-chantry lands....but we don't.

It's far more rational to think that the very system creates an enviroment where mages WANT to make deals with demons just to be free.....and presto...abomination.  That is largely what happened in the Fereldan Circle.  In Redcliff, you had a situation where a little kid was being taught by an incompetant apostate (Jowan) who put the kid into an impossible situation by poisoning his father.  Of COURSE the kid became an abomination!  It was almost like putting out a sign to the demons saying, "Eat a Joes".  Why did this happen?  Isolde didn't want to subject her son to the treatment that she knew would occure in the tower.  I am no fan of Isolde, but the system bears a large part of the blame.

The only abomination that isn't directly linked is the Feldspar ring incident, and I'd argue that this is a case where mage self-policing worked.  A mage had a troubling apprentice and called in his fellow mages to help....they got help and the abomination was taken down before much damage was done....and I strongly suspect that some varient of this self-policing is what works (far better than the chantry version!) in non-Chantry cultures.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[Double Post]

Modifié par IanPolaris, 20 janvier 2011 - 04:12 .

[October Sixth]

IanPolaris wrote...

October Sixth wrote...

Essentially I'll you're saying is that they can't leave the Circle Tower. That's hardly the equivalent of "no rights whatsoever"

It's worse than that although being unable to leave the tower is bad enough.  I remind you that the circle towers were not made to protect mundanes from mages or vice versa.  They were made as an alternative to a nutty divine that wanted to slaughter all mages to break a magical worker's strike.

Mages can not have children and can not keep children without the chantry's say-so (confirmed by Wynne).  Mages can not have property or live outside the tower without the explicit OK of the First Enchanter and Templar Knight Commander (again confirmed in game).  A templar has the right to kill an apostate at any time outside the tower (the templar in Lothering confirms this).

In addition, you can be lobomized and used as slave labor with absolutely no input of your own (see Tranquil) and it can be done with no evidence against you.

Sounds like no rights to me.

D'Sims was a fake mage, which you'd know if you actually bothered reading my posts. I mentioned that he was a fake mage several times. It's a little difficult to miss because I mentioned it every single time I mentioned who he was.

Aneirin was attacked because the templars claimed he was a maleficar, which seems to have no basis in reality since he never demonstrates any blood magic and never mentions this as a reason why he couldn't go back to the Circle of Ferelden when the topic is addressed by Wynne.

Some people have an issue with slavery, others don't.

You mean confinement. Some people have an issue with confinement. So they broke the one rule that they are expected to obey and were punished for it. Makes sense to me.

Why shouldn't mages be permitted to govern themselves? I don't see the issue here, since mages would still be supervised. The Dalish clans and the people of Haven had no templar or Chantry oversight. At the conclusion of DA:O, even the ruler of Ferelden admits that mages have earned the right to govern themselves. Better to have mages governing mages than have armed and armored drug addicts having absolute authority over them.

If mages govern mages then who governs the governing mages? Some one needs to be at the top, it might as well be the people trained specifically in anti-magic combat.

You think mages are this monolithic bloc.  They are not.  Mages are human (or elven) and like any other group of humans and elves, you have good ones, bad ones, trustworthy ones, and untrustworthy ones.  There is no reason why the very best mages (the most trustworthy) couldn't be integrated along with fighters with anti-magic training to police magic.

I will never say that magic shouldn't be regulated!  Far from!  However, it should be done sensibly from the basis of rationality and not out of fear.

-Polaris

Sounds to me like it is done.

The situation in the tower is not as grim as you make it sound. There are few tranquil so it's not as though the Chantry is using mages as free slave labour. We don't know exactly how often it happens, but when it does it happens for a reason. Remember, Gregoir and Irving were right about Jowan. He was a blood mage.

A lack of mobility and family, outside permissions, is still not the equivalent of no rights. The mages are still free within the confines of the Circle Tower. It's not a prison cell by any means.

Regarding mages being a part of the administrative/security process, there is nothing wrong with their involvement. It does, however, become an issue when they are completely autonomous. Who gauges the "trustworthiness" of mages? Other mages? There needs to be another safeguard against possession at the highest level.

[October Sixth]

LobselVith8 wrote...

October Sixth wrote...

Essentially all you're saying is that they can't leave the Circle Tower. That's hardly the equivalent of "no rights whatsoever"

You are a comedian, I see. I guess you have an issue with reading the last three pages to see the points that I addressed concerning their lack of rights. If you think otherwise, you're welcome to address what rights they do have. Dying at the end of a sword of mercy, perhaps? Not having the right to have a relationship in some Circles?Not being able to raise their own children? Not being able to inherit a title? Being imprisoned for having magical ability and having their lives controlled by the Chantry, making them slaves? Being turned into tranquil to craft magical items? Being killed without evidence on the basis of the mage being accused of being a maleficar, regardless of whether there's any actual evidence?

October Sixth wrote...

You mean confinement. Some people have an issue with confinement. So they broke the one rule that they are expected to obey and were punished for it. Makes sense to me.

No, I mean slavery, as per the actual definition of slave that I've provided on the last two pages. Mages are slaves to the Chantry. If you have no issue with it, that's your right.

October Sixth wrote...

If mages govern mages then who governs the governing mages? Some one needs to be at the top, it might as well be the people trained specifically in anti-magic combat.

Considering the lack of templars at Haven and among the Dalish, mages can govern other mages.

You throw around the word slavery far too much and qualify it far too little.

And just to be clear, I don't think slavery is wrong in the vague sense in which you use it.

I don't think you can just transplant another cultures method of dealing with mages and get the same result, especially when you don't know much about that culture.

Modifié par October Sixth, 20 janvier 2011 - 04:21 .

[Il Divo]

IanPolaris wrote...

I contest this.  The mages certainly were taken over by a demon, but fundamentally, you need to want to let that demon in.  If Johnny or Jannie mage could just randomly be forcibly taken over by demons at the known rate (17 annulments in 700 years), we should see a lot more abominations in non-chantry lands....but we don't.

It is of course impossible for a demon simply to absorb a Mage, but I also think we need to give this due consideration. Becoming an abomination is not as simple as wanting to become an abomination; it's as much a result of trickery on the part of the demon and vanity on the part of the Mage. Desire Demons rely on what we want most to take control, We often hear for example how Mages willingly enter pacts with demons, only for them to get the upper hand, etc.

It's far more rational to think that the very system creates an enviroment where mages WANT to make deals with demons just to be free.....and presto...abomination.  That is largely what happened in the Fereldan Circle.  In Redcliff, you had a situation where a little kid was being taught by an incompetant apostate (Jowan) who put the kid into an impossible situation by poisoning his father.  Of COURSE the kid became an abomination!  It was almost like putting out a sign to the demons saying, "Eat a Joes".  Why did this happen?  Isolde didn't want to subject her son to the treatment that she knew would occure in the tower.  I am no fan of Isolde, but the system bears a large part of the blame.
-Polaris

The problem here is that the instane is not as simple as letting Mages police themselves. The Tevinter Imperium demonstrated the dangers of magical excess, for example. In turn, the Chantry rules the Mages with an iron fist. It seems almost as if a never-ending cycle. But Mage self-governance doesn't guarantee all will be well.

At its core, Mages are possessed because they lust for power. It's a perfect example of man's reach exceeding his grasp. It is far too easy for any mage to say "Hey, I can handle blood magic, no problem!" but doesn't always end well. Under templar rule, mages are oppressed, but self-governance does not logically lead to the world remaining free of demons.

[Reaverwind]

Il Divo wrote...

At its core, Mages are possessed because they lust for power. It's a perfect example of man's reach exceeding his grasp. It is far too easy for any mage to say "Hey, I can handle blood magic, no problem!" but doesn't always end well. Under templar rule, mages are oppressed, but self-governance does not logically lead to the world remaining free of demons.

OR mage excesses. Remember Black Marsh? Before the village got zapped into the Fade, the Baroness was kidnapping children to power her rituals.

[IanPolaris]

October Sixth wrote...

Sounds to me like it is done.

The Villagers of Redcliff would beg to differ as would the people in Castle Redcliff....those that survived anyway.  The Circle System is a disaster not only because it (apparently) has increased the rate of dangerous abominations, but it's created a (literally!) explosive situations between mages and mundanes that can't end well.

The situation in the tower is not as grim as you make it sound. There are few tranquil so it's not as though the Chantry is using mages as free slave labour. We don't know exactly how often it happens, but when it does it happens for a reason. Remember, Gregoir and Irving were right about Jowan. He was a blood mage.

You don't know how many tranquil there are at any given time, nor are you told what criteria are used to determine if an apprentice is harrowed or made tranquil.  It is known that the circles (and chantry) depend on the tranquil for most of their income, so during a recession, care to bet that more apprentices are deemed "dangerous" than when times are good?

Really?

Sounds like a sick system (and slavery) to me.  As for Irving and Gregore being right, Irving did NOT know that Jowan was in fact a bloodmage.  Irving went along because he had no choice, and Gregoire didn't know either.  He got the report and lept to conclusions.  They both could easily have been wrong, and that illustrates perfectly how many rights a mage in the tower has (i.e. none).    Read the Calling and read what Fiona has to say about life in the tower and she WAS a sex-slave before she was sent to the tower and she didn't regard it as an improvement....and that should tell you everything you need to know about the tower.

Also the tower was NOT meant to protect mundanes from mages or vice versa no matter what Wynne likes to claim (or even Irving).  The Codex is quite clear.  The Tower was built to regulate mages to prevent another anti-chantry magical worker's strike (and the Divne wanted to kill all mages).

A lack of mobility and family, outside permissions, is still not the equivalent of no rights. The mages are still free within the confines of the Circle Tower. It's not a prison cell by any means.

If you can't leave it's a prison and I've shown it's worse than that.

Regarding mages being a part of the administrative/security process, there is nothing wrong with their involvement. It does, however, become an issue when they are completely autonomous. Who gauges the "trustworthiness" of mages? Other mages? There needs to be another safeguard against possession at the highest level.

I never said that mages should be autonomous.  I do think that mages should have the controlling say as to how mages should be judged and trained, but I would have mages integrated into society as a whole..  I wouldn't even have an issue with having special laws and harsher treatment for the practice of magic as long as the mages themselves had a say in it.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Reaverwind wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

At its core, Mages are possessed because they lust for power. It's a perfect example of man's reach exceeding his grasp. It is far too easy for any mage to say "Hey, I can handle blood magic, no problem!" but doesn't always end well. Under templar rule, mages are oppressed, but self-governance does not logically lead to the world remaining free of demons.

OR mage excesses. Remember Black Marsh? Before the village got zapped into the Fade, the Baroness was kidnapping children to power her rituals.

A mage that was an apostate lest you forget and apparently even before she became an abomination was a very evil person.

Judge the person, not the magic.

-Polaris

[Morroian]

Il Divo wrote...

At its core, Mages are possessed because they lust for power.

The Uldred revolt happened the majority of mages involved wanted freedom not power.

[Addai]

Rake21 wrote...

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.

So you solve that problem by purposely drawing demons to young mages?  If it's a cookout, then the Circle Tower is Sam's Backwoods BBQ.  With hot sauce.  Come n' get it y'all!

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.

They can be trained in other settings than Chantry-dominated prisons.

Modifié par Addai67, 20 janvier 2011 - 04:39 .

[TJPags]

Morroian wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

At its core, Mages are possessed because they lust for power.

The Uldred revolt happened the majority of mages involved wanted freedom not power.

Hmmm . . .I'd say that they wanted the power to grant themselves freedom.