1869 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

October Sixth wrote...

The situation in the tower is not as grim as you make it sound.

That must explain why mages would risk death than continue living there.

October Sixth wrote...

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.

And the templars were wrong about Aneirin, Anders, the Magnificent D'Sims...

October Sixth wrote...

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.

Why do you ignore every other point pertaining to their lack of rights and only focus on them being imprisoned under armed and armored drug addicts? Again, mages aren't free - the fact that the Magi Warden can ask the ruler of Ferelden for the Circle to be given its independence is an example of how they aren't free.

October Sixth wrote...

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.

Seeing how Knight-Commander Greagoir failed to defeat the abomination Uldred, I don't see how the templars are much of a safeguard, especially when their institution helps condition people to turn to being blood mages and abominations to survive against the templars that hunt them down to kill them.

October Sixth wrote...

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

The definition fits, as I even provided the definition to prove. You don't like it? Take it up with the devs. I didn't write DA.

October Sixth wrote...

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

If by vague you mean the actual definition of the word slave...

October Sixth wrote...

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.

Those examples concerned mages and non-mages living together. It wouldn't be that difficult for Thedas to have a similiar future, if the Chantry didn't preach intolerance against the mages and didn't imprison them for having magical ability. You can see several examples by IanPolaris regarding how the lives of mages could be greatly.

[IanPolaris]

Il Divo wrote...

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.

Actually in many cases it is in fact that simple.  It was with Mouse (and he was a kick-arse pride demon) during your harrowing, and apparently it was with Conner as well.  Sure many demons use trickery, but many more simply give a mage a "devil's bargin" and the circle system is almost an open invitation for them to do so.

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.

The Tevinter Imperium weren't nice guys, but then again neither was Rome (in our real history) and obviously Rome didn't have magic.  Tevinter wanted power and magic was a means to an end.  If you want to say Tevinter was an evil empire and deserved what it got, I won't argue, but leave the magic out of it.  The magic was a means to an end, and that is all.

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.

Not so.  A Mage gets possessed because he either gives up his will for something he wants (it it's not always power), or forces a confrontation with a demon in the fade and loses (this later is much rarer of course).  Just because mages can oppress others with their power does NOT excuse the mistreatment of mages simply because they are mages.  Othewise you should lock away and enslave every noble in Thedas.

-Polaris

[October Sixth]

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

Blaming the Chantry/Circle/Templars for Connor's possession is really reaching.
I think Isolde, Jowan, and even Connor himself are much more at fault. Yes he's "only a child" but I like to think that even children should know better than to make Faustian Deals.

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?

I would neither bet against you nor bet with you. You're again trying to draw conclusions without evidence.
We don't know how many tranquil there are and now and we have no idea how many there might be during a recession.

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.

You give Gregoir and Irving too little credit.

And one person's comparison between prostitution and confinement is hardly the definitive word on it.

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).

It's original purpose is irrelevant.

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

If you can't leave it's a place you can't leave. If you want to use the loaded word "prison" that doesn't make life inside any worse. You certainly haven't proven that it is.

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

Okay.

Modifié par October Sixth, 20 janvier 2011 - 04:55 .

[October Sixth]

LobselVith8 wrote...

That must explain why mages would risk death than continue living there.

Some mages. Some mages risk death rather than continue living there.

And the templars were wrong about Aneirin, Anders, the Magnificent D'Sims...

They weren't wrong about them being apostates... well, maybe Sims but he was just an idiot. Don't pretend to be something that's illegal and you're probably better off.

Why do you ignore every other point pertaining to their lack of rights and only focus on them being imprisoned under armed and armored drug addicts? Again, mages aren't free - the fact that the Magi Warden can ask the ruler of Ferelden for the Circle to be given its independence is an example of how they aren't free.

They aren't free, but neither do they have no rights. You think this is a dichotomy. It isn't.

Seeing how Knight-Commander Greagoir failed to defeat the abomination Uldred, I don't see how the templars are much of a safeguard, especially when their institution helps condition people to turn to being blood mages and abominations to survive against the templars that hunt them down to kill them.

Gregoir was successful.

The definition fits, as I even provided the definition to prove. You don't like it? Take it up with the devs. I didn't write DA.

This has nothing to do with DA. I'm talking about your dictionary definition. It's problematic.

If by vague you mean the actual definition of the word slave...

Yes. That is what I mean.

Those examples concerned mages and non-mages living together. It wouldn't be that difficult for Thedas to have a similiar future, if the Chantry didn't preach intolerance against the mages and didn't imprison them for having magical ability. You can see several examples by IanPolaris regarding how the lives of mages could be greatly.

I disagree.

Modifié par October Sixth, 20 janvier 2011 - 04:54 .

[IanPolaris]

[quote]October Sixth wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]October Sixth wrote...

Sounds to me like it is done.
[/quote]

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.[/quote]
Blaming the Chantry/Circle/Templars for Connor's possession really reaching.
I think Isolde, Jowan, and even Connor himself are much more at fault. Yes he's "only a child" but I like to think that even children should know better than to make Faustian Deals.
[/quote]

No it's not.  If it weren't for the Chantry's system, then Isolde could have declared that Conner was openly a mage and gotten the very best magical tutors for him (very likely with oversight from other mages and/or magical regulatory authories) instead of relying on an incompetant apostate who happened to be an assassin as well.

Without the Chantry system, there isn't an opening for a Jowan-like assassin, and there would be immedate magical support/help for Conner to help him overcome the temptation even if his father were poisoned anyway.

The Chantry system created a situation (and yes Isolde bears primary responsibility but the system is to blame too) where a six year old boy with barely any training is seeing his father poisoned and wants to do anything to save him.  Conner is a GOOD kid who TRIES to do what is right for his father.  The fact that he had no magical support network to help him realize what was and was not good for his father is something that the Chantry has to take some of the blame for.

[quote]
[quote]
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.
[/quote]

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?[/quote]
I would neither bet against you nor bet with you. You're again trying to draw conclusions without evidence.
[/quote]

I am not drawing conclusions without evidence.  I am stating a game-fact and that fact is that the tranquil are responsible for the overwhelming majority of circle revenues AND apprentices ultimately have no say as to whether or not they will become tranquil or not.

Wake up and smell the gold.

[quote]
We don't know how many tranquil there are and now and we have no idea how many there might be during a recession.


[quote]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.[/quote]
You give Gregoir and Irving too little credit.
[/quote]

Nope.  I am giving them what little credit they are due and I remind you that Gregoire is a radical liberal when it comes to Templars. 

[quote]
And one person's comparison between prostitution and confinement is hardly the definitive word on it.
[/quote]

When combined with all the other evidence, it's pretty compelling evidence when a Grey Warden Mage (and Royal Mistress no less) says that Life in the Circle was not an improvement over being an Orlesian Noble's Sex Slave.

[quote]

[quote]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).[/quote]
It's original purpose is irrelevant.
[/quote]

False.  It shows the Chantry is forwarding lies as the truth.  It's original purpose is very relevant since it's Andraste's own chant that is now being used as justification for the circle.


[quote]

[quote]If you can't leave it's a prison and I've shown it's worse than that.[/quote]
If you can't leave it's a place you can't leave. If you want to use the loaded word "prison" that doesn't make life inside any worse. You certainly haven't proven that it is.
[/quote]

Do mages have a choice to go to the tower?  No.  Can they leave when they wish?  No.  It's a prison.  By definition.


-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

October Sixth wrote...

Those examples concerned mages and non-mages living together. It wouldn't be that difficult for Thedas to have a similiar future, if the Chantry didn't preach intolerance against the mages and didn't imprison them for having magical ability. You can see several examples by IanPolaris regarding how the lives of mages could be greatly.

I disagree.

You'd be wrong as a matter of (game) fact.  Ancient Arlathan and the Kingdom of the Dales were both highly successful nations, and they had mages and non-mages living side by side with no issues.  The Exalted March didn't happen against the Dales because of magic.  It happened because the Divine got a hair up her arse over the fact that the Dales wouldn't worship the Maker (and more honestly because the Dales were beating the snot out of Orlais and that made the Chantry look bad....and Orlesian money/influence probably had something to do with it as well).

There is also Haven which while hardly a vacatio spot, functioned apparently quite well for centuries with mages and non-mages living alike (and many of those mages were blood mages).

-Polaris

[October Sixth]

No it's not.  If it weren't for the Chantry's system, then Isolde could have declared that Conner was openly a mage and gotten the very best magical tutors for him (very likely with oversight from other mages and/or magical regulatory authories) instead of relying on an incompetant apostate who happened to be an assassin as well.

Without the Chantry system, there isn't an opening for a Jowan-like assassin, and there would be immedate magical support/help for Conner to help him overcome the temptation even if his father were poisoned anyway.

The Chantry system created a situation (and yes Isolde bears primary responsibility but the system is to blame too) where a six year old boy with barely any training is seeing his father poisoned and wants to do anything to save him.  Conner is a GOOD kid who TRIES to do what is right for his father.  The fact that he had no magical support network to help him realize what was and was not good for his father is something that the Chantry has to take some of the blame for.

That's all I'm saying. Sure a lot of circumstantial factors play into it as well, but it's her fault more than anyone else.

I am not drawing conclusions without evidence.  I am stating a game-fact and that fact is that the tranquil are responsible for the overwhelming majority of circle revenues AND apprentices ultimately have no say as to whether or not they will become tranquil or not.

Wake up and smell the gold.

Unsupported sentence right there. Would the Chantry "tranquilize" mages for profit? You say "Yes." I say "prove it."

Nope.  I am giving them what little credit they are due and I remind you that Gregoire is a radical liberal when it comes to Templars.

Given that he's right, I'm not sure why you dislike him so much.

When combined with all the other evidence, it's pretty compelling evidence when a Grey Warden Mage (and Royal Mistress no less) says that Life in the Circle was not an improvement over being an Orlesian Noble's Sex Slave.

No. It's one person's account of their preferences.

False.  It shows the Chantry is forwarding lies as the truth.  It's original purpose is very relevant since it's Andraste's own chant that is now being used as justification for the circle.

Elaborate.

Do mages have a choice to go to the tower?  No.  Can they leave when they wish?  No.  It's a prison.  By definition.

I'll call it confinement you call it imprisonment. Try not to get caught up in the semantic argument.

[October Sixth]

IanPolaris wrote...

October Sixth wrote...

Those examples concerned mages and non-mages living together. It wouldn't be that difficult for Thedas to have a similiar future, if the Chantry didn't preach intolerance against the mages and didn't imprison them for having magical ability. You can see several examples by IanPolaris regarding how the lives of mages could be greatly.

I disagree.

You'd be wrong as a matter of (game) fact.  Ancient Arlathan and the Kingdom of the Dales were both highly successful nations, and they had mages and non-mages living side by side with no issues.  The Exalted March didn't happen against the Dales because of magic.  It happened because the Divine got a hair up her arse over the fact that the Dales wouldn't worship the Maker (and more honestly because the Dales were beating the snot out of Orlais and that made the Chantry look bad....and Orlesian money/influence probably had something to do with it as well).

There is also Haven which while hardly a vacatio spot, functioned apparently quite well for centuries with mages and non-mages living alike (and many of those mages were blood mages).

-Polaris

You're simplifying a lot here.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]October Sixth wrote...

[quote]
No it's not.  If it weren't for the Chantry's system, then Isolde could have declared that Conner was openly a mage and gotten the very best magical tutors for him (very likely with oversight from other mages and/or magical regulatory authories) instead of relying on an incompetant apostate who happened to be an assassin as well.

Without the Chantry system, there isn't an opening for a Jowan-like assassin, and there would be immedate magical support/help for Conner to help him overcome the temptation even if his father were poisoned anyway.

The Chantry system created a situation (and yes Isolde bears primary responsibility but the system is to blame too) where a six year old boy with barely any training is seeing his father poisoned and wants to do anything to save him.  Conner is a GOOD kid who TRIES to do what is right for his father.  The fact that he had no magical support network to help him realize what was and was not good for his father is something that the Chantry has to take some of the blame for.[/quote]
That's all I'm saying. Sure a lot of circumstantial factors play into it as well, but it's her fault more than anyone else.
[/quote]

You don't get to ignore the circumstantial factors because they are crucially important and damn the system.  If the system were different, then Isolde would not have made those bad decisions! Get it now?


[quote]
[quote]I am not drawing conclusions without evidence.  I am stating a game-fact and that fact is that the tranquil are responsible for the overwhelming majority of circle revenues AND apprentices ultimately have no say as to whether or not they will become tranquil or not.

Wake up and smell the gold.[/quote]
Unsupported sentence right there. Would the Chantry "tranquilize" mages for profit? You say "Yes." I say "prove it."
[/quote]

Read what I wrote more carefully.  I never said the Chantry would as a matter of fact tranquilize mages for profit.  I said that the system permitted it, and I point out that people will do almost anything for gold/profit, so why not tranquilize non-people (mages).  The first was a fact.  The second was a logical inference based on the fact.



[quote]

[quote]Nope.  I am giving them what little credit they are due and I remind you that Gregoire is a radical liberal when it comes to Templars.[/quote]
Given that he's right, I'm not sure why you dislike him so much.
[/quote]

I don't dislike Gregoire.  I respect him as a matter of fact.  I despise the system he represents.  As for being 'right', he's right in the case of Jowan as a matter of sheer luck.  Look how WRONG he was about the entire Fereldan Circle that had a Bloodmage Shadowcircle operating right under his (and Irving's) nose.


[quote]
[quote]
When combined with all the other evidence, it's pretty compelling evidence when a Grey Warden Mage (and Royal Mistress no less) says that Life in the Circle was not an improvement over being an Orlesian Noble's Sex Slave.[/quote]
No. It's one person's account of their preferences.
[/quote]

Again you willfully want to ignore evidence you don't like.  It's one person's perspective that is damning when combined with multiple other perspectives.  it's damning evidence.  Please don't insult the rest of us by pretending it isn't.



[quote]

[quote]False.  It shows the Chantry is forwarding lies as the truth.  It's original purpose is very relevant since it's Andraste's own chant that is now being used as justification for the circle.[/quote]
Elaborate.
[/quote]

Oy Vey..... If mages really were the threat that the Chantry teaches, then Andraste would have demaned mages be segregated from the very start, yet the Chantry's own historical records show just the opposite.  Mages explicitly lived alongside mundanes and had an important if cermonial role in the Chantry itself and no one was concerned that this would lead to abominations run amuck. 

Given this fact, it means the entire Chantry justification for the Circle Towers is a LIE,  Clearer now?


[quote]

[quote]Do mages have a choice to go to the tower?  No.  Can they leave when they wish?  No.  It's a prison.  By definition.[/quote]
I'll call it confinement you call it imprisonment. Try not to get caught up in the semantic argument.
[/quote]

Confinement is generally temporary.  Being a Mage is not a temporary condition, ergo it's imprisonment.  Please don't pretty it up.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

October Sixth wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

October Sixth wrote...

Those examples concerned mages and non-mages living together. It wouldn't be that difficult for Thedas to have a similiar future, if the Chantry didn't preach intolerance against the mages and didn't imprison them for having magical ability. You can see several examples by IanPolaris regarding how the lives of mages could be greatly.

I disagree.

You'd be wrong as a matter of (game) fact.  Ancient Arlathan and the Kingdom of the Dales were both highly successful nations, and they had mages and non-mages living side by side with no issues.  The Exalted March didn't happen against the Dales because of magic.  It happened because the Divine got a hair up her arse over the fact that the Dales wouldn't worship the Maker (and more honestly because the Dales were beating the snot out of Orlais and that made the Chantry look bad....and Orlesian money/influence probably had something to do with it as well).

There is also Haven which while hardly a vacatio spot, functioned apparently quite well for centuries with mages and non-mages living alike (and many of those mages were blood mages).

-Polaris

You're simplifying a lot here.

Actually I really am not.  Societies INCLUDING Andrastian society worked just fine with mages living aside mundanes for almost all of history.  Mages weren't segregated for public safety.  They were segregated because the Divine wanted to break a magical strike and it was that or slaughter all mages.  Read your codex entries.

-Polaris

[October Sixth]

You don't get to ignore the circumstantial factors because they are crucially important and damn the system.  If the system were different, then Isolde would not have made those bad decisions! Get it now?

That's one too many ifs. She was presented with a situation and she made the wrong decision. People need to take responsibility for their own decisions.

Read what I wrote more carefully.  I never said the Chantry would as a matter of fact tranquilize mages for profit.  I said that the system permitted it, and I point out that people will do almost anything for gold/profit, so why not tranquilize non-people (mages).  The first was a fact.  The second was a logical inference based on the fact.

No. It's a ridiculous assertion. Ridiculous. You either have a terrible preconceived notion of the Chantry or a terrible preconceived notion of humanity that you are projecting on to the Chantry. You must be incredibly jaded.

Again you willfully want to ignore evidence you don't like.  It's one person's perspective that is damning when combined with multiple other perspectives.  it's damning evidence.  Please don't insult the rest of us by pretending it isn't.

One person's account is not damning evidence. It is not a fact that life in the Circle Tower is worse than prostitution. Any other evidence you care to provide will only argue that life in the Circle Tower is less desirable than life outside it. Fine. That's not the point.

Oy Vey..... If mages really were the threat that the Chantry teaches, then Andraste would have demaned mages be segregated from the very start, yet the Chantry's own historical records show just the opposite.  Mages explicitly lived alongside mundanes and had an important if cermonial role in the Chantry itself and no one was concerned that this would lead to abominations run amuck.

Given this fact, it means the entire Chantry justification for the Circle Towers is a LIE,  Clearer now?

Wow, you're just full of malice. It does not necessarily mean it's a lie. They could have come to the realization that mages were dangerous later on. Unless the Chant forbids the segregation of mages and normal people. Does it?

Confinement is generally temporary.  Being a Mage is not a temporary condition, ergo it's imprisonment.  Please don't pretty it up.

No, but being confined is. Mages can leave the Circle Tower.

[October Sixth]

IanPolaris wrote...

October Sixth wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

October Sixth wrote...

Those examples concerned mages and non-mages living together. It wouldn't be that difficult for Thedas to have a similiar future, if the Chantry didn't preach intolerance against the mages and didn't imprison them for having magical ability. You can see several examples by IanPolaris regarding how the lives of mages could be greatly.

I disagree.

You'd be wrong as a matter of (game) fact.  Ancient Arlathan and the Kingdom of the Dales were both highly successful nations, and they had mages and non-mages living side by side with no issues.  The Exalted March didn't happen against the Dales because of magic.  It happened because the Divine got a hair up her arse over the fact that the Dales wouldn't worship the Maker (and more honestly because the Dales were beating the snot out of Orlais and that made the Chantry look bad....and Orlesian money/influence probably had something to do with it as well).

There is also Haven which while hardly a vacatio spot, functioned apparently quite well for centuries with mages and non-mages living alike (and many of those mages were blood mages).

-Polaris

You're simplifying a lot here.

Actually I really am not.  Societies INCLUDING Andrastian society worked just fine with mages living aside mundanes for almost all of history.  Mages weren't segregated for public safety.  They were segregated because the Divine wanted to break a magical strike and it was that or slaughter all mages.  Read your codex entries.

-Polaris

You're simplifying the transplanting of culture.

[IanPolaris]

October Sixth wrote...

You don't get to ignore the circumstantial factors because they are crucially important and damn the system.  If the system were different, then Isolde would not have made those bad decisions! Get it now?

That's one too many ifs. She was presented with a situation and she made the wrong decision. People need to take responsibility for their own decisions.

No one is suggesting that Isolde shouldn't be held accountable for her bad decisions.  However, it was the Chantry System that made those bad decisions possible and that's pretty directly stated in the game.  That's hardly one too many ifs.  You just don't want to admit that the Circle-System created the toxic environment which enabled Isolde to make (and encouraged her to make) such awful decisions.  Don't give the Chantry a pass on this!

Read what I wrote more carefully.  I never said the Chantry would as a matter of fact tranquilize mages for profit.  I said that the system permitted it, and I point out that people will do almost anything for gold/profit, so why not tranquilize non-people (mages).  The first was a fact.  The second was a logical inference based on the fact.

No. It's a ridiculous assertion. Ridiculous. You either have a terrible preconceived notion of the Chantry or a terrible preconceived notion of humanity that you are projecting on to the Chantry. You must be incredibly jaded.

I have the preconceived notion that people will sell other people (who aren't even regarded legally as people) for money, and that makes me jaded?  Wake up and smell the napalm.  That's been standard operating procedure for most of human history.  Given the power and opportunity, people in power will sell other people for money and increased power/influence.  It's so predictable it's almost trite.

Again you willfully want to ignore evidence you don't like.  It's one person's perspective that is damning when combined with multiple other perspectives.  it's damning evidence.  Please don't insult the rest of us by pretending it isn't.

One person's account is not damning evidence. It is not a fact that life in the Circle Tower is worse than prostitution. Any other evidence you care to provide will only argue that life in the Circle Tower is less desirable than life outside it. Fine. That's not the point.

I never said that what Fiona said was a fact.  I said the fact that she did not regard the circle as an improvement over a life of effective (and forced) prostitution is damning and it is when this evidence is compiled with all the other evidence of life in the tower.

Oy Vey..... If mages really were the threat that the Chantry teaches, then Andraste would have demaned mages be segregated from the very start, yet the Chantry's own historical records show just the opposite.  Mages explicitly lived alongside mundanes and had an important if cermonial role in the Chantry itself and no one was concerned that this would lead to abominations run amuck.

Given this fact, it means the entire Chantry justification for the Circle Towers is a LIE,  Clearer now?

Wow, you're just full of malice. It does not necessarily mean it's a lie. They could have come to the realization that mages were dangerous later on. Unless the Chant forbids the segregation of mages and normal people. Does it?

Passing off information as fact when you know (or think you know) it is not factual is a LIE.  It's is a LIE by defintion.  What else do you want to call it.  The story the Chantry tells (i.e. Mages are locked away for their protection and the protection of others) is a provable lie.

Confinement is generally temporary.  Being a Mage is not a temporary condition, ergo it's imprisonment.  Please don't pretty it up.

No, but being confined is. Mages can leave the Circle Tower.

Not without permission (read parole).  Thus BY DEFINITION the Circle Tower is a prison.  It's even called such by both Sten and by Duncan during the game introduction (for mage PCs).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

October Sixth wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

October Sixth wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

October Sixth wrote...

Those examples concerned mages and non-mages living together. It wouldn't be that difficult for Thedas to have a similiar future, if the Chantry didn't preach intolerance against the mages and didn't imprison them for having magical ability. You can see several examples by IanPolaris regarding how the lives of mages could be greatly.

I disagree.

You'd be wrong as a matter of (game) fact.  Ancient Arlathan and the Kingdom of the Dales were both highly successful nations, and they had mages and non-mages living side by side with no issues.  The Exalted March didn't happen against the Dales because of magic.  It happened because the Divine got a hair up her arse over the fact that the Dales wouldn't worship the Maker (and more honestly because the Dales were beating the snot out of Orlais and that made the Chantry look bad....and Orlesian money/influence probably had something to do with it as well).

There is also Haven which while hardly a vacatio spot, functioned apparently quite well for centuries with mages and non-mages living alike (and many of those mages were blood mages).

-Polaris

You're simplifying a lot here.

Actually I really am not.  Societies INCLUDING Andrastian society worked just fine with mages living aside mundanes for almost all of history.  Mages weren't segregated for public safety.  They were segregated because the Divine wanted to break a magical strike and it was that or slaughter all mages.  Read your codex entries.

-Polaris

You're simplifying the transplanting of culture.

Actually I am not.  Haven (Cultists), Tevinter, Arlathan, Dales (modern), Dales (Kdm of), and Rivvain are all very differnt places culturally.  The thing they have in common is that mages live alongside non-mages and there is no oppressive circle system.  Thus my original statement is very valid.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[double post]

Modifié par IanPolaris, 20 janvier 2011 - 05:55 .

[IanPolaris]

[triple post]

Modifié par IanPolaris, 20 janvier 2011 - 05:55 .

[Reaverwind]

IanPolaris wrote...

Nope.  I am giving them what little credit they are due and I remind you that Gregoire is a radical liberal when it comes to Templars.

Given that he's right, I'm not sure why you dislike him so much.

I don't dislike Gregoire.  I respect him as a matter of fact.  I despise the system he represents.  As for being 'right', he's right in the case of Jowan as a matter of sheer luck.  Look how WRONG he was about the entire Fereldan Circle that had a Bloodmage Shadowcircle operating right under his (and Irving's) nose.

I wouldn't be so sure that Greagoir just got lucky in the case of Jowan. Given what's in Irving's journal, it's more than likely Uldred turned him in to deflect attention from his Shadowcircle. Also, Jowan struck me as not being all too bright, so it is possible he outed himself before his attempted escape.

[October Sixth]

IanPolaris wrote...

I have the preconceived notion that people will sell other people (who aren't even regarded legally as people) for money, and that makes me jaded?  Wake up and smell the napalm.  That's been standard operating procedure for most of human history.  Given the power and opportunity, people in power will sell other people for money and increased power/influence.  It's so predictable it's almost trite.

Like I said, you're jaded. We have no evidence that the Chantry is this monstrous capitalist enterprise. As least give them the respect of saying that they are well meaning but misguided. Your comments are far too harsh.

Passing off information as fact when you know (or think you know) it is not factual is a LIE.  It's is a LIE by defintion.  What else do you want to call it.  The story the Chantry tells (i.e. Mages are locked away for their protection and the protection of others) is a provable lie.

Not if they really think they're doing it for their protection and the protection of others.

Just because Andraste didn't see the danger in mages doesn't mean that the current Chantry still believes that mages can peacefully co-exist in society with normal people. As I said, unless it's written in the Chant that mages and normal people must live together then the current Chantry is not lying. It just changed its mind.

[IanPolaris]

Reaverwind wrote...
I wouldn't be so sure that Greagoir just got lucky in the case of Jowan. Given what's in Irving's journal, it's more than likely Uldred turned him in to deflect attention from his Shadowcircle. Also, Jowan struck me as not being all too bright, so it is possible he outed himself before his attempted escape.

I can only judge by what I see in the game, and from what I see in the game Gregoire's evidence is very shakey indeed.  I would agree that eyewitness testimoney would be enough to "arrest" Jowan for being a bloodmage and then he's have some explaining to do....but Gregoire is essentially sentencing him to death based on what amounts to hearsay and that was a no-go even in middle-ages England let alone the DAO universe...unless you are a mage with no rights.

-Polaris

[October Sixth]

IanPolaris wrote...

October Sixth wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

October Sixth wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

October Sixth wrote...

Those examples concerned mages and non-mages living together. It wouldn't be that difficult for Thedas to have a similiar future, if the Chantry didn't preach intolerance against the mages and didn't imprison them for having magical ability. You can see several examples by IanPolaris regarding how the lives of mages could be greatly.

I disagree.

You'd be wrong as a matter of (game) fact.  Ancient Arlathan and the Kingdom of the Dales were both highly successful nations, and they had mages and non-mages living side by side with no issues.  The Exalted March didn't happen against the Dales because of magic.  It happened because the Divine got a hair up her arse over the fact that the Dales wouldn't worship the Maker (and more honestly because the Dales were beating the snot out of Orlais and that made the Chantry look bad....and Orlesian money/influence probably had something to do with it as well).

There is also Haven which while hardly a vacatio spot, functioned apparently quite well for centuries with mages and non-mages living alike (and many of those mages were blood mages).

-Polaris

You're simplifying a lot here.

Actually I really am not.  Societies INCLUDING Andrastian society worked just fine with mages living aside mundanes for almost all of history.  Mages weren't segregated for public safety.  They were segregated because the Divine wanted to break a magical strike and it was that or slaughter all mages.  Read your codex entries.

-Polaris

You're simplifying the transplanting of culture.

Actually I am not.  Haven (Cultists), Tevinter, Arlathan, Dales (modern), Dales (Kdm of), and Rivvain are all very differnt places culturally.  The thing they have in common is that mages live alongside non-mages and there is no oppressive circle system.  Thus my original statement is very valid.

-Polaris

Oh, no doubt they can. But when people throw these examples around it's as if Ferelden could just adopt some other culture and everything would work out right.

[IanPolaris]

October Sixth wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I have the preconceived notion that people will sell other people (who aren't even regarded legally as people) for money, and that makes me jaded?  Wake up and smell the napalm.  That's been standard operating procedure for most of human history.  Given the power and opportunity, people in power will sell other people for money and increased power/influence.  It's so predictable it's almost trite.

Like I said, you're jaded. We have no evidence that the Chantry is this monstrous capitalist enterprise. As least give them the respect of saying that they are well meaning but misguided. Your comments are far too harsh.

Why should I?  If one could lobomize twice as many apprentices for twice the gold (much of which I could pocket), in the long run who's going to say no?  Very few especially when you are raised to hate mages anyway (and most in the Chantry do from what I gather) and especially not if you know that no one will be the wiser or even really care.

Basic human nature at work.  The Chantry is a monstrous organization in a lot of ways.  What other organization runs through children (and per Fiona and a few others might even rape them) simply becasue they can (and call them 'malificar' afterwards).

Passing off information as fact when you know (or think you know) it is not factual is a LIE.  It's is a LIE by defintion.  What else do you want to call it.  The story the Chantry tells (i.e. Mages are locked away for their protection and the protection of others) is a provable lie.

Not if they really think they're doing it for their protection and the protection of others.

The Chantry's own history proves it's a lie.  Read Codex Entry: History of the Circle which is WRITTEN by a Chantry Rev Mother for crying out loud!

Just because Andraste didn't see the danger in mages doesn't mean that the current Chantry still believes that mages can peacefully co-exist in society with normal people. As I said, unless it's written in the Chant that mages and normal people must live together then the current Chantry is not lying. It just changed its mind.

Of course the Chantry won't change it's mind.  Magic and Mages are perhaps the most powerful force in Thedas and the chantry will not give up it's monopoly on that power.  Right and wrong has nothing to do with it.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

October Sixth wrote...

Oh, no doubt they can. But when people throw these examples around it's as if Ferelden could just adopt some other culture and everything would work out right.

Considering the Avvars and Almarri Barbariand did just fine (and that is not much more than 400 years or so in the past), it's not an unreasonable thing to think actually.

-Polaris

[October Sixth]

IanPolaris wrote...

Why should I?  If one could lobomize twice as many apprentices for twice the gold (much of which I could pocket), in the long run who's going to say no?

Moral people. The kind you think don't exist among the Chantry or the Templars.

Basic human nature at work.

This is what I mean by jaded -lumping humanity into this disgusting category.

The Chantry is a monstrous organization in a lot of ways.  What other organization runs through children (and per Fiona and a few others might even rape them) simply becasue they can (and call them 'malificar' afterwards).

Wow... what a poor opinion of the Chantry you have. Why do you think they kill innocent children and call them 'malificar' afterwards?

The Chantry's own history proves it's a lie.  Read Codex Entry: History of the Circle which is WRITTEN by a Chantry Rev Mother for crying out loud!

Of course the Chantry won't change it's mind.  Magic and Mages are
perhaps the most powerful force in Thedas and the chantry will not give
up it's monopoly on that power.  Right and wrong has nothing to do with
it.

We're talking about the Circle in the present day. In the "Dragon Age" why does the Circle exist? Is it possible that the current Chantry believes itself to be protecting the common people?

Considering the Avvars and Almarri Barbariand did just fine (and that is
not much more than 400 years or so in the past), it's not an
unreasonable thing to think actually.

That's not Ferelden

Modifié par October Sixth, 20 janvier 2011 - 06:19 .

[IanPolaris]

October Sixth wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Why should I?  If one could lobomize twice as many apprentices for twice the gold (much of which I could pocket), in the long run who's going to say no?

Moral people. The kind you think don't exist among the Chantry or the Templars.

You would be astonished about the depths of depravity otherwise moral people can talk themselves into if they fail to regard another group of people as fundamentally human.  The chantry makes exactly this mistake with mages, so I think it's very reasonable to think that the Chantry/Circle likely does lobomize some apprentices for profit....and likely lie to themselves that they are doing this.

Some of the SS Guards in the Third Reich were on the surface good family men and some of the most moral people you'd ever wish to meet.....with a few exceptions.  Studies (now banned) done in the 1960s showed that good moral people could do unspeakable things if a recognized authority figure told them to.

This isn't me being jaded.  It's being a student of history and human nature.

Basic human nature at work.

This is what I mean by jaded -lumping humanity into this disgusting category.

Nope.  Read up on Applied Psychology and the role of Authority Figures when making moral decisions.  I have human nature pretty much pegged here.

The Chantry is a monstrous organization in a lot of ways.  What other organization runs through children (and per Fiona and a few others might even rape them) simply becasue they can (and call them 'malificar' afterwards).

Wow... what a poor opinion of the Chantry you have. Why do you think they kill innocent children and call them 'malificar' afterwards?

Because they can.  Human beings will do monstrous things to other human beings if they can and they know they can get away with it.  Basic humanity at work.

The Chantry's own history proves it's a lie.  Read Codex Entry: History of the Circle which is WRITTEN by a Chantry Rev Mother for crying out loud!

Of course the Chantry won't change it's mind.  Magic and Mages are
perhaps the most powerful force in Thedas and the chantry will not give
up it's monopoly on that power.  Right and wrong has nothing to do with
it.

We're talking about the Circle in the present day. In the "Dragon Age" why does the Circle exist? Is it possible that the current Chantry believes itself to be protecting the common people?

Rank and file?  Perhaps especially if they are not well read and don't want to be.  Senior leadership (starting from senior bros and sisters and especially including Rev Mothers and the Divine)?  Not a chance.  They would have to know what the true history of the circle is (given that we are told from Chantry sources ourselves).  Certainly Bros Genetivi knows.

Considering the Avvars and Almarri Barbariand did just fine (and that is
not much more than 400 years or so in the past), it's not an
unreasonable thing to think actually.

That's not Ferelden

Actually it pretty much is Fereldan especially if you talk/read/interact with the Avvaar and Almari examples.  You provide no evidence that the circle system is even needed, and I provide evidence from the Chantry's OWN HISTORY written by the Chantry that it's not.  You lose.

-Polaris

[October Sixth]

IanPolaris wrote...

You would be astonished about the depths of depravity otherwise moral people can talk themselves into if they fail to regard another group of people as fundamentally human.  The chantry makes exactly this mistake with mages, so I think it's very reasonable to think that the Chantry/Circle likely does lobomize some apprentices for profit....and likely lie to themselves that they are doing this.

Some of the SS Guards in the Third Reich were on the surface good family men and some of the most moral people you'd ever wish to meet.....with a few exceptions.  Studies (now banned) done in the 1960s showed that good moral people could do unspeakable things if a recognized authority figure told them to.

This isn't me being jaded.  It's being a student of history and human nature.

No, it's generalizing all of humanity based on an exceptional case. And, more importantly, claiming that people will behave that way in unexceptional situations. If anything it's a demonstration that you can't distinguish between theory and actuality.

Congratulations on the Godwin though. I think that's the cue for the mods to shut threads down.

Nope.  Read up on Applied Psychology and the role of Authority Figures when making moral decisions.  I have human nature pretty much pegged here.

Because they can.  Human beings will do monstrous things to other human beings if they can and they know they can get away with it.  Basic humanity at work.

In exceptional situations, perhaps. Otherwise this is just hyperbole.

Rank and file?  Perhaps especially if they are not well read and don't want to be.  Senior leadership (starting from senior bros and sisters and especially including Rev Mothers and the Divine)?  Not a chance.  They would have to know what the true history of the circle is (given that we are told from Chantry sources ourselves).  Certainly Bros Genetivi knows.

I'm not asking whether they know the history of the Chantry but whether they believe that, despite its origins, the Circle helps to safeguard Ferelden. There is a difference.

Actually it pretty much is Fereldan especially if you talk/read/interact with the Avvaar and Almari examples.

No. Not culturally.

You provide no evidence that the circle system is even needed

Yep, check back.

I provide evidence from the Chantry's OWN HISTORY written by the Chantry that it's not.

No, you provide evidence that it didn't alway exist. There's a difference.

You lose.

-Polaris

Mature.