1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8: The way you answered my previous post, the one about who was slave and who was not did point out that in Thedas the definition "someone who is in abject subservience to another" is not enough to define a slave. Since it's vague enough to include almost everyone alive.



What rights the mages do not have:

They may not leave the circle's location without permission

They may not practise forbidden magic

They may not have children (sometimes: they may not raise their children)

They may not inherit land and titles



Did I forget anything? The punishment varies, but lets look at them individually.

The may not leave the circle tower thing is something they have in common with every prisoner, soldier, slave and in practise just about any peasant in the world. A soldier/templar leaving his/her posting deserts and is subject to summary execution (unlike mages, where in theory the templars have to bring them back if they don't resist). Prisoners too may not leave on their own accord, not seldom condemned to labour as well.

Peasants may technically leave, but do so means starvation and possibly death so it's not really a choice. Look at the Blackmarsh, where the baroness was tolerated for so long because legally she was in the right (apart from the child snatching thing). Look at the uprising at Amaranthine, they were starving but because they were peasants they could not leave.

In this mages just happen to have the same lot in life as... 90% of the population.

If a noble's peasants start running away... you can bet the noble will send his soldiers to get them back and to impale a few as an example.



The Forbidden magic is blood magic and demonology. I don't think I need to explain why that one is forbidden, do I?



They may not have children. Amusingly, this is something actual slaves are allowed. Sure, the children might be slaves too, but they're allowed them in most cases. David Gaider explained that the children are taken away because manipulating someone through their children is the oldest trick in the book. Presumably, this started because demons actually did make mages abominations through promises to save/protect their children. If a demon offered to spare your child from a lethal disease if you gave your soul... what mother would not do that?



They may not inherit land or titles. You do know that inheriting land and titles is strictly the prerogative of landed nobility? And just the heirs? Our cousland for instance, would not have inherited any land or titleshim/herself. Nor would any of the peasants. Only the eldest child of the nobility inherits this. It's not a right in Thedas... it's a privilege.

As for why? Look at the Blackmarsh.



In comparison. All mages have the right to eat full meals. A right not everyone have. All mages have access to one of the finest learning institutions in the world for free. A right not everyone have. Mages are politically neutral. A right noone else have (this means the circle won't get purged everytime nobles fight). A mage have a choice wether to participate in any war. A right no noble or soldier have (to refuse their king is treason, which gets them... and probably their family executed). Mages do not have to work. A right (?) few others have.



However. They are subject to abuse. Both tolerated and untolerated. This is undeniable. This does not mean they are slaves however. The free city elves have probably the worst lot in Andrastian Thedas. Abused, shunned and unable to leave the alienage safely. But they are free. Just like mages.

This is a world where freedom to go wherever you want is not guaranteed. Few have that. For some due to duty (templars, soldiers, grey wardens) for some because of circumstance (peasants) and for some just plain fate (slaves, mages).



This is more or less just semantics. But the point of this post is that while mages have it undeniably bad, the rest of the world is not exactly a shiny paradise in comparison. I'm fairly convinced that if mages do win their complete freedom and sever all connections to the Chantry... they'll find that life did not turn out quite the way they wanted it to.



Life is hard. Extremely so.

[Aldandil]

I'd also like to refer to my post at page 10 in this thread, considering that we've been discussing real life analogies and the semantics around the mage situation. Mages are like inmates in a mental institution, because they are a danger to society. Just like inmates in a mental institution, they can be rational beings for the most part but if they become possessed/have a psychosis, they become dangerous to themselves and everyone around them. There might be a discrepancy between the likelihood of a psychosis and possession, but that is made up for by the danger when it does happen.



We've spent a few pages discussing how bad the tower is, and it's clear that some mages consider it to be very bad, and others think it's OK. We've discussed mages status in society, It seems clear that mages are out of luck. For starters, I'd like to say that whether or not the Circle Tower is a bad place isn't really part of the question whether mages should be free or not. It has been made clear that mages are a danger if they aren't under control, and in the game, I don't think you can find anyone who says something else. Considering that we don't know much about other systems of controlling mages, it's hard to tell how effective it is, but an indication would be that Tevinter uses the same system, even though their Imperial Chantry is run by mages.



Arguments about the status in Rivain, Haven, the Dales and with the Dalish clans is very hard to verify. We know nothing, (and I really do mean nothing, not a thing) about the way they control their mages. What we do know is that they do control them, or deal with comparatively more cases of abominations than for instance Ferelden. This is based on what David Gaider has said about the rate of Abomination attacks before the Circles.



It's also been said that the Alamarri barbarians coped without a Chantry or a Circle. Maybe they did, but that doesn't mean they were happy about it. Clearly, there were abominations back then who killed a lot of people before they were killed themselves.



Sure, it could be argued that the mages could be better treated in the tower. I'm sure no one thinks differently. Everyone also agrees that City Elves should have more resources, the Dalish should have a land of their own, that dwarven society should have a less strict caste system, and that no one in a position of power should be corrupt. No one is arguing these points. What we're disagreeing about here, is whether or not treating some people badly is worth it to let the major population be safe. To use a Star Trek cliché: "The needs of the many over the needs of the few".



PS: Damn you Bioware, for creating an imperfect world. Could'nt you have warned us about the darkness and the grit?!

[Lotion Soronarr]

Addai67 wrote...
When the Chantry supervises, it's not really blood magic.  It's blood-based magic.  Get the difference?

Neither do I.  lol

There is a big difference. Plachyatries are used to track down mages. They do not syphon power from other people or control minds.
It is in essence a small vial of blood taken from a mage, to track that mage down if he/she escapes.

Captain Crash wrote...

Everyone has the right to freedom.
No matter what your belief on the issue of mages being powerful or a
threat. Being subjugated only causes fear and anger which in turn
causes revolt.

Common theme in history which happens over and
over again. Take away someones right to live free and face the
consequences. No one ever learns.

Quarantene and bio-warfare..nukes and bombs. We should not limit those things. Viruses must be free to spread to all 4 corners of hte earth.

No one ever learns....

LobselVith8 wrote...


Except we know that the elves of
Arlathan, the Dales, and the Dalish clans have no templars watching over
them. Even the mages of Haven are in positions of authority (like
Father Eirik of the Haven Chantry, and possibly Kolgrim given his
ability to know the fate of the Urn of Sacred Ashes). There's no reason
they should be slaves to the Chantry.

You again? That argument again?
The argument that was shot down numerous times in numerous other threads about mages and templars?

I am dissapoint.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
How can you disagree with Word of God?../../../images/forum/emoticons/andy.png

If DG sez Circles are necessary, then they are.

That
must explain why the Architect suddenly has two hands in Awakening when
he had one cut off in TC. Doesn't seem that Gaider had much imput in
that little recton...

That must also explain why the Architect looks completely different than
he did in the novel despite Word of God. Maybe somebody should have
told the devs that they can't do that because Word of God says he looks
completely different in Gaider's novel...

So you do disagree with Word of God?
Retcon or not, DG said what he did just a few days ago. The freshest information on the subject.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

EDIT: B.t.w - a Circle is led by
the First Enchanter (mage) and Knight-Commander (templar). So to say
that mages have no say in how the Circle is run is bollocks.

It's
bullocks to pretend that mages have any rights when they're under the
control of the Chantry, actually. They can't stay with their families,
they can't inherit a title, they can't marry in some Circles or even
raise their children, and I don't see how you can pretend it's
otherwise.

They don't have ANY rights? Seems to me like they don't have some rights, but hey. Not all people have all rights anyway. Can't the government take away someones right to freedom? Can't hte government take away someon right to raise children? It sure can.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

He rules the Circle of Ferelden in fear as the new Knight-Commander; otherwise, if the Magi boon is requested by the Warden-Commander and the Circle was culled, he becomes a wandering mad-man, killing mages. In both scenerios, it seems evident that Cullen isn't all there.

Strictness is not an indication of madness. So no, it's not evident.

The Dalish clans are led by the descendants of the leaders of the Dales and Arlathan; this is made clear when Lanaya is explaining how difficult it was for her to become First to Zathrian. Considering that mages are typically leaders of the Dalish clans, and there's nobody supervising them, I don't see how you can claim otherwise.

Again the same tired, failed argument. Again and again. Like a broken record....
When will you finally realise that we know far too little of the Dalish to use them as an example (and if you want an example ..how about Zathrien and his curse?)

Supervision? It's slavery. Mages have no rights, can't see their families, can't raise children, can't marry in some Circles, and are hated because the Chantry preaches hatred and mistrust of mages. The templars have the full authority to make mages tranquil or kill them, since Jowan was going to be made tranquil despite First Enchanter Irving's reservations about the matter. Despite all their propaganda against the mages, they certainly had no issue using them to win the war against the Qunari in the New Exalted Marches.

It's NOT slavery. Again, Word of God. Check a few pages back, a direct quote by DG made 2 days ago.
And no, the chantry doesn't preach hatered of mages.
Mistrust? It's natural given what mages can do. Mages would be feared and mistrusted without the Chantry. It's just basic human behavior.

[Big I]

Sir JK wrote...

Peasants may technically leave, but do so means starvation and possibly death so it's not really a choice. Look at the Blackmarsh, where the baroness was tolerated for so long because legally she was in the right (apart from the child snatching thing). Look at the uprising at Amaranthine, they were starving but because they were peasants they could not leave.

They may not have children. Amusingly, this is something actual slaves are allowed. Sure, the children might be slaves too, but they're allowed them in most cases. David Gaider explained that the children are taken away because manipulating someone through their children is the oldest trick in the book. Presumably, this started because demons actually did make mages abominations through promises to save/protect their children. If a demon offered to spare your child from a lethal disease if you gave your soul... what mother would not do that?

They may not inherit land or titles. You do know that inheriting land and titles is strictly the prerogative of landed nobility? And just the heirs? Our cousland for instance, would not have inherited any land or titleshim/herself. Nor would any of the peasants. Only the eldest child of the nobility inherits this. It's not a right in Thedas... it's a privilege.

Firstly, while the freedom of people in Fereldan is constrained by economic circumstance, it is protected by law. The Politics of Fereldan Codex Entry  shows that freeholders have the ability to choose their lords of their own volition. As for why the Baroness was tolerated, it's because she saved her commoners from a dragon.

Secondly, the argument against them having children is an argument against them having any sort of human contact and friendship at all. One could even argue that in the absence of a family your friendships take on even greater importance. If you take Wynne into the fade you find her tormented at the idea of having failed her apprentices.

Thirdly, if you ask Dairren what he's heard about you (in the Cousland origin) he says that people think it more likely that you'll inherit than Fergus, meaning it's not always based on primogeniture. Also, even commoners can inherit property from their family, it's why Kaitlyn had her grandfathers' sword in Redcliffe.

Simply because their own work (enchantment) provides Circle mages with a good standard of living and a good education is no reason to deny them the basic rights of all other people.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

There are alternatives to Tevinter: Arlathan, the Dales, Rivain, the town of Haven, and the Dalish clans. All of them had mages without Chantry or templar supervision, and the world didn't end. The fact that Haven may have been around for almost 900 years without being destroyed by abominations indicates that they are able to handle the threats.

I'm going to ignore all mention of Dales, Rivian or Haven fomr reasons or not knowing enough about them. I list them under "pure speculation and not facts".

I will adress the "world didn't end" bit. No, it didn't. Nobody said it would. A flood doesn't end the world. a earthquake doesn't end the world. A horrible desease doesn't end the world.
They do cause massive devastation and loss of life...like abominations.

Disasters generally don't cause a kigdom to crumble (unless there's really a LOT of them in a very short time span). Yet everyone would like to prevent them.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

With great power comes great responsibility. Even moreso if you can loose control of that power at any time. Anyone who shies away from that responsibiltiy is a egoistical jackass that needs to have a hot poker shoved up his ass.

And yet I don't see how templars having absolute control over mages is any indicator that it does anything more than keep the mages as pawns of the Chantry, to be used as tranquil for crafting items or footsoldiers against their enemies, like the Qunari.

Saying that the fall of the Dales, giving elves the option between being homeless or living in a ghetto, and forbidding their religion gives people plenty of reason to see the Chantry of Andraste as the bad guys. It's up to interpretation, certainly, but it's their right - as is your right to see the Chantry as the good guys and think that nothing's wrong with how they treat the mages.

According to the Dalish, templars were sent in after they kicked out their missionaries. Orlais claimed that it was because of the attack against Red Crossing, but it's impossible to say if the attack was in retaliation for a prior attack made by the Orlesians. Scholars have argued it was due to territorial disputes.

It's irrelevant.
You keep bringing in - again and again - unconfirmed things and speculations in these discussions as fact. Even after your theory has been debunked or your facts revealed as speculations.

So please, don't do it.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Bah. Peope lagin forget to factor in everying, and look only from a very narrow point of view. They think of perfect scenarios (that are impossible) insted of thinking what is attainable.

You CANNOT have mages run free. They don't even in Tevinter. Tevinter also has mage towers and templars. Only the select few have freedom. A mage in tevinter isn'treally better off than in Ferleden.

Except for Arlathan, the Dales, the Dalish, Haven, and Rivain... but besides those people...

This...AGAIN?

I swear, I'm putting you on igore if I see those places mentioend again...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The second issue isn't with good/bad potential of mages. Sure, like any human they can be good or bad. That is not the problem. Even with the best intentions, a mage can STILL be possesed and f*** everything up (Jowand Can Connor hald onyl good intentions). A normal man can't.

And yet, despite the risks, the town of Haven still exists, even with all its Chantry-free mages...

Can you prove that they didnt' have abominations appear and just managed to handle it? For a vilalge that's been there 900 years with noone leaving, there's not that many of htem there... gee, I wonder why?
Maybe an abominations keep culling their numbers every once an a while..
Maybe they were jsut lucky..or maybe the only abominations that ppeared where wake ones (lucky again).

The point is - we don't know. So you cannot use that as evidence.

[IanPolaris]

Aldandil wrote...

Arguments about the status in Rivain, Haven, the Dales and with the Dalish clans is very hard to verify. We know nothing, (and I really do mean nothing, not a thing) about the way they control their mages. What we do know is that they do control them, or deal with comparatively more cases of abominations than for instance Ferelden. This is based on what David Gaider has said about the rate of Abomination attacks before the Circles.
!

Put up or shut up.  I want do see the specific quote where DG says that the rate of Abominations was greater before the circle system than after because I see precious little evidence for that (and indeed just the opposite) in both the game and the lore.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

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

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

Again, you know nothing of those societies so it cannot be used as an argument. STOP IT ALREADY.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

No, it makes perfect sense. You too completley miss the point.

I bolded and underscored the relevent part for you. If you cannot really grasp this comparison, then there no point in discussing with you, as the basics of logic and reason are beyond your reach.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Can you prove that they didnt' have abominations appear and just managed to handle it? For a vilalge that's been there 900 years with noone leaving, there's not that many of htem there... gee, I wonder why?
Maybe an abominations keep culling their numbers every once an a while..
Maybe they were jsut lucky..or maybe the only abominations that ppeared where wake ones (lucky again).

The point is - we don't know. So you cannot use that as evidence.

The chantry itself did not think isolating mages from the population was necessary for public safety.  Indeed for the first two hundred years (approx) of the current (Chantry) age, mages lived alongside mundanes as they have thoughout most of human history and there was no outcry to isolate mages for public safety.  The only reason mages were isolated in the first place was because a semi-insane Divine wanted to teach a bunch of striking mages who was boss and it was that or slaughter all mages (a solution that her own templars barely talked her out of).  It's all in the codex WRITTEN BY CHANTRY SOURCES (History of the Circle).

That means the stated reason for the circle towers is a bald faced lie

That doesn't mean mages shouldn't be trained and systems exist (of which the Templars might be a *part*) to deal with abominations, but there is no evidence that the Chantry has made the situation any better and I challenge anyone to show me evidence to the contrary (and saying there were abominations before the Circle isn't enough....it's the rate that matters).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Some of you can compare to disease all you like, but obviously other societies (including Andrastian society for the first two hundred years) did not think the problem was serious enough to deny mages civil rights including the right to live along side mundane people. That came later not from public safety concerns but because of Chantry politics.



In short, Mages might blow up is an EXCUSE not a reason.



-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
Put up or shut up.  I want do see the specific quote where DG says that the rate of Abominations was greater before the circle system than after because I see precious little evidence for that (and indeed just the opposite) in both the game and the lore.

-Polaris

Check a few pages back..

But since peopel are lazy and don't botehr to read (sometimes even the very things tehy are quoting)..

here:

David Gaider wrote...
That is, of course, ignoring the fact that the world back then was a
much more dangerous place. An abomination tearing up the countryside was
simply something that happened and needed to be dealt with. You also
had an empire ruled by mages that oppressed everyone else, and (if Chantry dogma is to be believed) started the Blight.
I think an argument can definitely be made that magic is inherently dangerous, yes.

Can you say...OWNED!!!!

David Gaider wrote...
I guess it depends on what you consider punishment. The Chantry looks on
the Circle as a mercy -- what is the alternative, after all? The mages
would say "let us watch ourselves", but then we're back to the specter
of the magisters. And what if there are mages who don't care for the
idea of other mages coming after them, either? Would that not place them
in the position of being oppressed, as well?

There is no easy answer, here, which is just as I like it. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png

David Gaider wrote...
That's an argument with blood magic, yes, but not with abominations. The
mere fact that you possess this knowledge does not mean you will go on a
killing rampage against your will.
The problem with mages is that even those with the best intentions can
still present a threat. It complicates the issue precisely because there
is no set criteria for who is at risk.

David Gaider wrote...
Imprisonment, sure, but I'm not sure you can equate the mages to being
slaves. Their life is not their own, but they are not servants to
anyone.
---
Relationships are only discouraged because fraternization inside such a
closed community can make things quite complicated. It's not technically
forbidden, though marriages generally aren't allowed. As for families,
that's discouraged for the same reason -- not least of which is that it
makes the mage much more susceptible to demonic influence. Remember
Connor? Manipulating someone through the people they care about is the
oldest trick in the book for demons.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 20 janvier 2011 - 09:01 .

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It's NOT slavery. Again, Word of God. Check a few pages back, a direct quote by DG made 2 days ago.
And no, the chantry doesn't preach hatered of mages.
Mistrust? It's natural given what mages can do. Mages would be feared and mistrusted without the Chantry. It's just basic human behavior.

Doesn't preach hatred?  You must have heard a whole different Reverend Mother in Ostagar and Lothering than the one I heard.  For that matter you must have talked to a completely different Keli and even Lily than the one I did.  Hatred for mages seems almost universal and the only reason (as Duncan himself observes) that the Chantry permits magic at all is because they have to (see Qunari and Darkspawn) or else it would be a total disaster.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

Yes, the chantry goes around saving mages for pesants with pitchforks because they hate them..<_<


Lord knows people don't form into angry mobs when agitated and take the law into their hands in every coutnry in the world. Mages are dangerous. This is not merely propaganda. People don't like danger.
It is as simple as that.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 20 janvier 2011 - 09:06 .

[IanPolaris]

I thought so.  Your WoG "proof" falls far short of the mark. I will destroy your assumptions in turn:

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Put up or shut up.  I want do see the specific quote where DG says that the rate of Abominations was greater before the circle system than after because I see precious little evidence for that (and indeed just the opposite) in both the game and the lore.

-Polaris[/quote]

Check a few pages back..

But since peopel are lazy and don't botehr to read (sometimes even the very things tehy are quoting)..

here:

[quote]David Gaider wrote...
That is, of course, ignoring the fact that the world back then was a
much more dangerous place. An abomination tearing up the countryside was
simply something that happened and needed to be dealt with. You also
had an empire ruled by mages that oppressed everyone else, and (if Chantry dogma is to be believed) started the Blight.
I think an argument can definitely be made that magic is inherently dangerous, yes.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Guess what Sherlock, no one disputes this.  NO ONE says that magic isn't inherently dangerous and NO ONE says that magic and mages shouldn't be regulated.  DG carefully does not say that the Chantry has improved abominations nor does he say that abominations don't roam the countryside even with the circle system in place (because we all know they do).  He simply says that abominations occured before the circle which is another point that was never in dispute.

You've just been PWND.  Your precious quote doesn't prove what you thought it did.

[quote]
[quote]
I guess it depends on what you consider punishment. The Chantry looks on
the Circle as a mercy -- what is the alternative, after all? The mages
would say "let us watch ourselves", but then we're back to the specter
of the magisters. And what if there are mages who don't care for the
idea of other mages coming after them, either? Would that not place them
in the position of being oppressed, as well?
[/quote][/quote]

Substitute nobles for mages and you can say the same regarding anyone that has power.  Anyone at all.  The proper solution would be to integrate mages into society so that mages would have a strong say (and stake) to what happens to them.  Shocking notion, no?

Remember the Chantry is substituting one oppression for another, and that never ends well especially not when it comes to magic as descrdibed in the Dragon Age universe.

Also remember that DG is explicitly writing this from the Chantry's PoV not the authorial PoV.

[quote]
[quote]
That's an argument with blood magic, yes, but not with abominations. The
mere fact that you possess this knowledge does not mean you will go on a
killing rampage against your will.
The problem with mages is that even those with the best intentions can
still present a threat. It complicates the issue precisely because there
is no set criteria for who is at risk.
[/quote]
[/quote]

So can someone with a sword.  Again, the point that was made and never disputed by DG is that other societies including the immediate culture predecessors to Feredan and even societies in Fereldan (Chasind, Avvaar, Haven, etc) do just fine without Templar oversight (not to mention the Dales).  They don't seem to have a problem and it's an argument that can not be waived away.

[quote]
[quote]
Imprisonment, sure, but I'm not sure you can equate the mages to being
slaves. Their life is not their own, but they are not servants to
anyone.
[/quote]

Tranquil making money for the Chantry/Circle seems like slavery to me especially since making a mage tranquil removes an essential component of free will.

[quote]
[quote]
---
Relationships are only discouraged because fraternization inside such a
closed community can make things quite complicated. It's not technically
forbidden, though marriages generally aren't allowed. As for families,
that's discouraged for the same reason -- not least of which is that it
makes the mage much more susceptible to demonic influence. Remember
Connor? Manipulating someone through the people they care about is the
oldest trick in the book for demons.
[/quote]
[/quote]

Again, this reeks of excuse.  DG is clearly speaking from the PoV of the chantry but as I point out the chantry's own history contradicts this.  As for emotional dependancy, oppressing a group of people is almost like putting an "Eat at Joes" sign for demons because of the negative emotions generated.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 20 janvier 2011 - 09:17 .

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yes, the chantry goes around saving mages for pesants with pitchforks because they hate them..<_<

They do it because the Chantry needs them.  A monopoly on magic is worthless without mages to control.  If you think the chantry saves mages out of the goodness of it's heart, think again.

Lord knows people don't form into angry mobs when agitated and take the law into their hands in every coutnry in the world. Mages are dangerous. This is not merely propaganda. People don't like danger.
It is as simple as that.

Hatred inflamed and encouraged by the Chantry I might add.  Where the Chantry doesn't hold influence, mages aren't hated except the Qunari.  Everywhere else that the Chantry doesn't hold sway (even in Black-Chantry Tevinter), we don't see such angry mobs and that's not even a universal experience anyway (per Finn and Anders).

If mages aren't viewed as dangerous animales by the society they live in (see Dalish, Rivvain, Haven), then you don't see this.

-Polaris

[Aldandil]

IanPolaris wrote...

Some of you can compare to disease all you like, but obviously other societies (including Andrastian society for the first two hundred years) did not think the problem was serious enough to deny mages civil rights including the right to live along side mundane people. That came later not from public safety concerns but because of Chantry politics.

In short, Mages might blow up is an EXCUSE not a reason.

-Polaris

The comparison I made was with mental illness, which clearly is not a disease and is dealt with differently. That mages might blow up is clearly a reason, not an excuse. They don't do it for grins and giggles.

The US government didn't think slavery was an issue for the first hundred years either. Things change. In this case, it's quite possible that Templars found it easier and safer to control mages in Circles. It's quite possible that they oppress out of laziness. It can still be in (almost) everybody's best interest.

Also, thanks to Lotion for digging up the DG quote. I don't like the "put up, shut up" argument, so I'm happy I didn't have to do either.

[IanPolaris]

Aldandil wrote...

The comparison I made was with mental illness, which clearly is not a disease and is dealt with differently. That mages might blow up is clearly a reason, not an excuse. They don't do it for grins and giggles.

The argument fails, however.  Most cases of mental illness do not require institutionalising patients, and doing so is regarded these days as regressive.  You only do so for patients with a proven inability to deal with society.  Mages don't even come close to this standard either currently or historically.

The US government didn't think slavery was an issue for the first hundred years either. Things change. In this case, it's quite possible that Templars found it easier and safer to control mages in Circles. It's quite possible that they oppress out of laziness. It can still be in (almost) everybody's best interest.

There is no evidence that any other way was ever considered by the Chantry after it was done, NOR was it an issue that required a war/political strife to settle.  The Divine used the circle system to control mages absolutely and for no other reason.  It was much later that the abomination excuse was trotted out.  Read your own codex entries.

Also, thanks to Lotion for digging up the DG quote. I don't like the "put up, shut up" argument, so I'm happy I didn't have to do either.

Deal with it because the DG quote proves absolutely nothing that wasn't already granted.  No one disputes that magic isn't dangerous.  It says nothing about the circle system being necessary.  NOTHING nor does it say that abominations were more of a problem before than after it.  Read the quote carefully and note what is not said.

-Polaris

[Aldandil]

IanPolaris wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

The comparison I made was with mental illness, which clearly is not a disease and is dealt with differently. That mages might blow up is clearly a reason, not an excuse. They don't do it for grins and giggles.

The argument fails, however.  Most cases of mental illness do not require institutionalising patients, and doing so is regarded these days as regressive.  You only do so for patients with a proven inability to deal with society.  Mages don't even come close to this standard either currently or historically.

The US government didn't think slavery was an issue for the first hundred years either. Things change. In this case, it's quite possible that Templars found it easier and safer to control mages in Circles. It's quite possible that they oppress out of laziness. It can still be in (almost) everybody's best interest.

There is no evidence that any other way was ever considered by the Chantry after it was done, NOR was it an issue that required a war/political strife to settle.  The Divine used the circle system to control mages absolutely and for no other reason.  It was much later that the abomination excuse was trotted out.  Read your own codex entries.

Also, thanks to Lotion for digging up the DG quote. I don't like the "put up, shut up" argument, so I'm happy I didn't have to do either.

Deal with it because the DG quote proves absolutely nothing that wasn't already granted.  No one disputes that magic isn't dangerous.  It says nothing about the circle system being necessary.  NOTHING nor does it say that abominations were more of a problem before than after it.  Read the quote carefully and note what is not said.

-Polaris

True, there's a level to mental illnesses. There's no level to being a mage, either you are or you aren't. My full analogy can be found at page 10 in this thread.

I'm not saying that the Circle is the optimal solution. See my post above. I'm saying that it is better to have strict control than no control. The Circle is better than no Circle. Let's view this as a continuum and make another thread if we want to discuss what level of control, or what shape that control should be. A circle tower with green drapes might be an improvement over a circle tower without green drapes. My point is that current solution is preferable to total freedom. We could argue compromises between the two, if you like, but that's less polarizing and less fun.

We could also do close readings and deconstructions of David Gaider's posts, but remember that it's neither a poem nor a text of law. I think it's a fair interpretation of the text to say that since he states that Abominations happened and had to be dealt with, the world was more dangerous and that magic is dangerous, Abominations were a part of making the world more dangerous.

[packardbell]

Obviously the restrictions placed on a mage in captivity forces them to use blood magic, if they were given more freedoms and treated like a person rather than a threat to be contained at all costs.. then maybe you wouldn't get such resistance.

[Aldandil]

packardbell wrote...

Obviously the restrictions placed on a mage in captivity forces them to use blood magic, if they were given more freedoms and treated like a person rather than a threat to be contained at all costs.. then maybe you wouldn't get such resistance.

True, that is why Blood Magic wasn't practiced when mages ruled the better part of the continent.

[IanPolaris]

Aldandil wrote...
True, there's a level to mental illnesses. There's no level to being a mage, either you are or you aren't. My full analogy can be found at page 10 in this thread.

Now that's not true and you know it.  There are many levels to being a mage and some are more innately gifted (cursed) than others.  This was one reason why Jowan dabbled in bloodmagic to start with....he was tired of always being second best to the incredibly talented PC mage.  I also note that Fade awareness varies greatly (and contrary to her own hype Wynne does very badly in this) with Nial and the PC Mage being near the top.

The point is there seems to be considerable variance in not just magical ability but the ability to deal with it's consequences (and no doubt such tests were part of the Dalish winnowing out of Apprentice Keepers).

On a slight tangent, we know at least in Zathrian's clan that there are far more than two mages.  There is Zathrien and Lanaya of course, but the Shop Keeper and Halla herder also cast spells and advance spells at that (if you side with the werewolves) and we have no reason to think that Zathrian's clan is esp unique in that regard.  So mages do live side by side with non-mages (even in non-"leadership" positions) and do quite well and apparently this was a tradition carried over from when the Dales were an explicit kingdom in their own right.

In any event, using the standards of mental illness, mages as a group don't even come close to the danger standard that would merit preemptively locking them all away and tossing the key.  Not even close.  In fact even in the case of Conner, he had to LET the demon in, and that seems to be the usual case.  The only other case (Uldred) is if you try to dominate a demon in the fade in fail (which is what Uldred was trying to do when he tried summoning too many demons). 

I'm not saying that the Circle is the optimal solution. See my post above. I'm saying that it is better to have strict control than no control. The Circle is better than no Circle. Let's view this as a continuum and make another thread if we want to discuss what level of control, or what shape that control should be. A circle tower with green drapes might be an improvement over a circle tower without green drapes. My point is that current solution is preferable to total freedom. We could argue compromises between the two, if you like, but that's less polarizing and less fun.

This is a false dilemna which is why I keep pointing to the Dales, Haven, Rivvain, and even the Andrastian nations in the first two hundred years.  No one is saying that mages and magic shouldn't be regulated.  I expect most mages would agree with that as well.  Likewise no one is saying that magical crimes and misbehavior shouldn't be dealt with harshly, but that does not excuse treating mages as non-people just becasue they are mages.  It's possible (clearly because we see it in the game) to control mages and still have mages live side by side with mundanes with a stake in society.  As part of society (likely along with Templar-like fighters trained to deal with magic) there is no reason why mages shouldn't be part of a magical police force (which the Mage's Collective itself does very well considering the handicaps it is under).

We could also do close readings and deconstructions of David Gaider's posts, but remember that it's neither a poem nor a text of law. I think it's a fair interpretation of the text to say that since he states that Abominations happened and had to be dealt with, the world was more dangerous and that magic is dangerous, Abominations were a part of making the world more dangerous.

I disagree.  I think you are reading into DG's quote what you want to read.  All I see is him saying that abominations have always existed and that magic is dangerous.  As for the world being more dangerous, that does NOT say or even imply that there were more abominations before the circle and Arlathan and Ancient Tevinter are strong indicators (to say nothing of the Avvaar, Chasind, etc) that the opposite is true.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Guess what Sherlock, no one disputes this.  NO ONE says that magic isn't inherently dangerous and NO ONE says that magic and mages shouldn't be regulated.  DG carefully does not say that the Chantry has improved abominations nor does he say that abominations don't roam the countryside even with the circle system in place (because we all know they do).  He simply says that abominations occured before the circle which is another point that was never in dispute.

You've just been PWND.  Your precious quote doesn't prove what you thought it did.

Wrong again.
You don't bother to read properly (you might want to abc ktrack and find hte actual question asked to DG and read teh answer again).

He specificly said the countryside was more dangerous before, with abominations roaming free.

Can you say ULTRA-PWNED?

Substitute nobles for mages and you can say the same regarding anyone that has power.  Anyone at all.  The proper solution would be to integrate mages into society so that mages would have a strong say (and stake) to what happens to them.  Shocking notion, no?

Remember the Chantry is substituting one oppression for another, and that never ends well especially not when it comes to magic as descrdibed in the Dragon Age universe.

Also remember that DG is explicitly writing this from the Chantry's PoV not the authorial PoV.

Earth to Polaris, Earth to Polaris:
Stick to reality of the setting please.
No, the situation is not the same. It cannot be the same. No sane person would ever reason it's the same

A noble in power is not equal to a mage. In any way, shape or form.

Also, restriocting of freedom is sometimes warranted and necessary. the needs of hte many outweigh the needs of the few. Regardless how unjust it may sound, it is hte reality of not only TheDas, but hte Real World too.

That's an argument with blood magic, yes, but not with abominations. The
mere fact that you possess this knowledge does not mean you will go on a
killing rampage against your will.
The problem with mages is that even those with the best intentions can
still present a threat. It complicates the issue precisely because there
is no set criteria for who is at risk.

So can someone with a sword.  Again, the point that was made and never disputed by DG is that other societies including the immediate culture predecessors to Feredan and even societies in Fereldan (Chasind, Avvaar, Haven, etc) do just fine without Templar oversight (not to mention the Dales).  They don't seem to have a problem and it's an argument that can not be waived away.

Again, lack of information on those societies makes them poor examples to use. Actually, it makes them INVALID as examples. Youdon't know how mages are treated tehre. You THINK you do, but there's noa actual hard facts. So untill some facts come our way, those societies are irrelevant to the discussion.
This is something I've ben trying to explain to LobselVith8 for an eternity, and now apperently to you too.

Suffice to say that I will ignore any further attempts at using those societeis as evidence of anything.
Because they are not.

***

For the rest of your "arguments", they are not even worth answering, since all you do is trying to circuvent or diminish what DG sez. It's sad to see someone so entrentched in an oppinion, that he's rather argue aganst the creators and basic reason before giving up.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 20 janvier 2011 - 10:04 .

[IanPolaris]

Aldandil wrote...

packardbell wrote...

Obviously the restrictions placed on a mage in captivity forces them to use blood magic, if they were given more freedoms and treated like a person rather than a threat to be contained at all costs.. then maybe you wouldn't get such resistance.

True, that is why Blood Magic wasn't practiced when mages ruled the better part of the continent.

Blood magic  has always been practiced by all magic using cultures.  It was Tevinter that abused it but let's not make the mistake of saying that bloodmagic is inhernetly evil.  Only chantry idiots like Kelli and Wynne believe that.  It IS dangerous, should NOT be used by just any mage, and should be tightly controlled (because of mind control if for no other reason), but it's no more 'evil' than a .45 pistol IRL.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

packardbell wrote...

Obviously the restrictions placed on a mage in captivity forces them to use blood magic, if they were given more freedoms and treated like a person rather than a threat to be contained at all costs.. then maybe you wouldn't get such resistance.

You'd still get resistance. It would be a bit less, but you'd still get it. There will allways be resistance.

Given that, there's really no reason for the Chantry to give em more freedom. Tehy have plenty.
Since they're gonna have periodic uprisings anyway, they might as well leave it as it is, to cull the bigegst malcontents.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Blood magic  has always been practiced by all magic using cultures.  It was Tevinter that abused it but let's not make the mistake of saying that bloodmagic is inhernetly evil.  Only chantry idiots like Kelli and Wynne believe that.  It IS dangerous, should NOT be used by just any mage, and should be tightly controlled (because of mind control if for no other reason), but it's no more 'evil' than a .45 pistol IRL.

-Polaris

You can't honestly belive that?

Not all things are equall. Not all forms of power are equally tempting or prone to abuse.

That's why blood magic is labeled evil. Because it's pwoer corrupts so easily. If anything, I'd compare it to the One Ring from LOTR (with the corrupting influence being indirect).
Tehre is nothing more intoxicating and tempting then the power to control minds. Farting nukes is insignificant compared to it.