1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir JK]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
The Chantry controls the Circles, that's why the Chantry says no to the royal boon asked by a Magi Warden, according to DG.[/quote]
Yep, and kings control kingdoms and would say no if anyone asked them to give it up. Still doesn't mean they control the lives of every individual subject.
Circles as organisations are under Chantry control. Individual mages are not... besides the rules and confines. That is a form of control I admit. But the Chantry cannot tell a mage what to do specifically (only what not to do).

[quote]And yet a sexually abused Fiona (an elven mage, at that) didn't seem to think that the Circle was any better than her previous life...[/quote]
True. She doesn't. Nor did Aneirin. That does not mean that mages do not have it better than elves.

[quote]But not for being soldiers.[/quote]
Not that it matter much. If mages try to leave without permission they get at worst killed. If soldiers try to leave without permission they get killed. It's technically not a prison for soldiers... but they don't have the freedom to leave.

[quote]They're not automatically tossed into prison for being nobles, though, so I fail to see how the comparison even matches the mages, who are always thrown into Chantry controlled prisons.[/quote]
They are tossed into the dungeons for being noble. Not as international policy perhaps, but it happens often enough to be common.

[quote]
A soldier typically joins the army. A noble can refuse to accept his inheritance and leave. A peasant can leave for a better life elsewhere. A commoner can try to find opportunity elsewhere. A priest can choose to become a priest. How do any of those comparisons even match mages, who don't choose to be mages and are dehumanized by the same Chantry that imprisons them for having magical ability?[/quote]

Uh Lobsel... volounteer army is a 20th century thing. Soldiers are "conscripted" (actually levied but the difference is hair-fine).
As for nobles refusing their title... yes. They can choose to become beggars instead.
Commoners can choose to leave. In the same sense that mages can. They'll probably both die... but  the choice is there <_<. A choice between death or obedience is not a right and not a freedom. I think you agree.
Priests are something you get educated to. Like craftsmen they are put in training at age 5-7, and then when it comes to take a vow there's no other life viable. It's about as chosen as a harrowing. Like the nobles they can technically decide to leave their life behind them. They¨ll have nowhere to go and probably end up in poverty. But the freedom to give up their life is there... Again... it's not really a choice.

[quote]But those people have a choice. Mages don't.[/quote]
No... they don't. Noone does. Nobles are born to be noble. Priests and templars are put in training as children. Craftsmen take their apprentices at age 5. Soldiers are called to duty. 

[quote]
I think it's a fair description of the relationship between the Chantry and the mages. Mages are denied rights and forced to live in a prison where they can be given a lobotomy, with no say in the matter, or they can fight wars for the same Chantry that dehumanizes them.[/quote]
Then it is a fair name to anyone in the entire world and when the mages leave the chantry... they'll still be slaves... or worse... slaveowners. That's my point.

It's not the modern humanistic world... this is a harsh world that knows and demand duty. You are put in your social position by your birth and have no rights but those you earn or those luck grants you. This is true of everyone. Mage and non-mage alike.

[quote]In other words, by having no opportunities, they don't risk losing anything. How nice.[/quote]
Such is the way of the world. If you have nothing you have nothing to lose. If you have a lot people will try to take it from you.

[quote]That must explain why there are mages who would risk their lives just to be free.[/quote]
Heh... I think Libertarians are so busy hating the Chantry they forget to actually look at the world they want out to. That is rather human though. The grass is always greener on the other side. They're up for a nasty surprise if they succeed.

[quote]Mages are imprisoned for being mages, and the examples you provided illustrate people who aren't imprisoned merely for being who they are. There is a difference. That's the reason why there are mages who would risk their very lives for the slim chance to be free, despite having nothing but the clothes on their backs.[/quote]
I agree actually. Mages risk their lives for the slim chance to be free. It's kind of like a peasant uprising under a cruel lord.... except with mages.... and an international practically omnipotent organisation.

[quote]Yet there are people who risk everything for the chance to be free, regardless of what they're going to lose in the process. Freedom means more than currency or security for many people. People are willing to risk their lives merely for the opportunity to be free. Just because the mages have some comforts in their prison, doesn't change the fact that Uldred's rebellion would never have happened if mages didn't want to be free from the Chantry, it doesn't change how Anders kept running away, and it doesn't change how a victim of rape like Fiona didn't think the Circle was any better than her previous life.[/quote]
You don't have to be a slave to fight for freedom, do you? You can still rise up to a cruel overlord... even if you're a free man, right?
I never said they deserved what they got and rising up/fleeing is only natural.

Also... I think Uldred would have done something similar even if it wasn't so bad. He never struck me as the benevolent sort of person. But that is opinion. No need to debate that

[quote]

[quote]Considering that the Circles were established because Divine Ambrosia II wanted to declare an Exalted March on her own cathedral, because the mages barricaded themselves in, doesn't seem like a genuine reason to keep mages and non-mages segregated.[/quote]
It was almost 800 years ago though. The circles, mages and templars have changed a lot since then. History is important yes. But things change and people make decisions based on the now, that is equally important.

[quote]I didn't realize the mage Father Eirik presiding over the Haven Chantry was a speculation. Or that Haven mages fighting alongside non-mages was a speculation, either. Or how mages seem to lead the Dalish clans given the magical talents of Zathrian and Lanaya.[/quote]

The reason he objects is that we don't know anything besides that. What if Eirik is a brutal despot that kills all other mages (but his chosen) slowly? What if the Dalish butcher all non-apprentice magelings? We don't know... hence why we should not speculate. All we can toss at each others is opinion.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The reason why something is created, does not define its purpose through the ages. The Circles' purpsoe are now to train the mages of the land and to contain the abominations. You can argue all you want about how the Circles were created, but that is irrelevant.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

The Chantry controls the Circles, that's why the Chantry says no to the royal boon asked by a Magi Warden, according to DG.[/quote]

Yep, and kings control kingdoms and would say no if anyone asked them to give it up. Still doesn't mean they control the lives of every individual subject.
Circles as organisations are under Chantry control. Individual mages are not... besides the rules and confines. That is a form of control I admit. But the Chantry cannot tell a mage what to do specifically (only what not to do). [/quote]

The tranquil don't seem like they have any say in their lives. They're servants with a lobotomy. They craft magical items and handle manual labor. As for telling them what to do - it's an interesting inquiry. The apprentices don't get a say to stop the templars from putting them through the Rite of Tranquility, which means they'll inevitably have a servant for life.

From what we see, mages are kept in the Circle Tower. They don't really have an opportunity to do anything.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

And yet a sexually abused Fiona (an elven mage, at that) didn't seem to think that the Circle was any better than her previous life...[/quote]

True. She doesn't. Nor did Aneirin. That does not mean that mages do not have it better than elves. [/quote]

When a victim of rape doesn't think that life in the Circle is any better than her life of being the sexual victim of a noble, that speaks pretty highly to me of what kind of place the Circle really is.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

But not for being soldiers.[/quote]

Not that it matter much. If mages try to leave without permission they get at worst killed. If soldiers try to leave without permission they get killed. It's technically not a prison for soldiers... but they don't have the freedom to leave. [/quote]

Except a soldier can choose to be a soldier, a mage can't. A soldier isn't murdered simply for being a soldier, while mages are. A soldier like Loghain can become Teyrn of Gwaren, while a mage is typically relegated to being a pawn of the Chantry despite their accomplishments in the Blights and against the Qunari.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

They're not automatically tossed into prison for being nobles, though, so I fail to see how the comparison even matches the mages, who are always thrown into Chantry controlled prisons.[/quote]

They are tossed into the dungeons for being noble. Not as international policy perhaps, but it happens often enough to be common. [/quote]

It doesn't always happen simply for being noble, though, so I don't see how it's a fair comparison to mages always being imprisoned in the Circles for being mages.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

A soldier typically joins the army. A noble can refuse to accept his inheritance and leave. A peasant can leave for a better life elsewhere. A commoner can try to find opportunity elsewhere. A priest can choose to become a priest. How do any of those comparisons even match mages, who don't choose to be mages and are dehumanized by the same Chantry that imprisons them for having magical ability?[/quote]

Uh Lobsel... volounteer army is a 20th century thing. Soldiers are "conscripted" (actually levied but the difference is hair-fine). [/quote]

There's absolutely no evidence given in DA that every single soldier is forcibly conscripted into service. Some noble bastards willingly enter service, as Sergeant Kylon mentions. "If I send my boys in, someone might get - Maker forbid - hurt. And I'll have to explain to their noble fathers that being a guard is actually dangerous."

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

As for nobles refusing their title... yes. They can choose to become beggars instead.
Commoners can choose to leave. In the same sense that mages can. They'll probably both die... but  the choice is there . [/quote]

I'm assuming you're making that face because they actually have a choice, unlike mages?

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

A choice between death or obedience is not a right and not a freedom. I think you agree. [/quote]

Of course, but that's all mages are afforded in the Circle - obey or die.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Priests are something you get educated to. Like craftsmen they are put in training at age 5-7, and then when it comes to take a vow there's no other life viable. It's about as chosen as a harrowing. Like the nobles they can technically decide to leave their life behind them. They¨ll have nowhere to go and probably end up in poverty. But the freedom to give up their life is there... Again... it's not really a choice. [/quote]

Wrong: it is a choice. They can choose their path in life; mages can't. Simply because it might not be a desired path doesn't negate the fact that they have the right to choose what they'll do for the rest of their lives.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

But those people have a choice. Mages don't.[/quote]

No... they don't. Noone does. Nobles are born to be noble. Priests and templars are put in training as children. Craftsmen take their apprentices at age 5. Soldiers are called to duty.  [/quote]

You realize you provided examples of people who do choose what they want to do with their lives, right? You merely argue that it wouldn't be desirable to do so, which is still a choice nevertheless.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I think it's a fair description of the relationship between the Chantry and the mages. Mages are denied rights and forced to live in a prison where they can be given a lobotomy, with no say in the matter, or they can fight wars for the same Chantry that dehumanizes them.[/quote]

Then it is a fair name to anyone in the entire world and when the mages leave the chantry... they'll still be slaves... or worse... slaveowners. That's my point.

It's not the modern humanistic world... this is a harsh world that knows and demand duty. You are put in your social position by your birth and have no rights but those you earn or those luck grants you. This is true of everyone. Mage and non-mage alike. [/quote]

Except mages are taken and tossed into a Chantry controlled prison, with the Chantry having final say over their lives. If they could do as they please, why did Greagoir need to authorize mages to be used in the battle against darkspawn at Ostagar? If mages have the freedom to leave the Circle Tower, why does Senior Enchanter Wynne need permission to aid the Warden against the Blight?

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

That must explain why there are mages who would risk their lives just to be free.[/quote]

Heh... I think Libertarians are so busy hating the Chantry they forget to actually look at the world they want out to. That is rather human though. The grass is always greener on the other side. They're up for a nasty surprise if they succeed. [/quote]

They just want to be free, I don't see anything wrong with that. Nobody wants to be a prisoner because of how they're born. It's entirely human not want to be imprisoned simply for being different. Again, mages have power, so properly instruct mages, don't preach hatred towards them and then imprison them for having power.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Yet there are people who risk everything for the chance to be free, regardless of what they're going to lose in the process. Freedom means more than currency or security for many people. People are willing to risk their lives merely for the opportunity to be free. Just because the mages have some comforts in their prison, doesn't change the fact that Uldred's rebellion would never have happened if mages didn't want to be free from the Chantry, it doesn't change how Anders kept running away, and it doesn't change how a victim of rape like Fiona didn't think the Circle was any better than her previous life.[/quote]

You don't have to be a slave to fight for freedom, do you? You can still rise up to a cruel overlord... even if you're a free man, right?
I never said they deserved what they got and rising up/fleeing is only natural.

Also... I think Uldred would have done something similar even if it wasn't so bad. He never struck me as the benevolent sort of person. But that is opinion. No need to debate that  [/quote]

I wouldn't claim that Uldred didn't have his own ambitions - I doubt he was acting altruistically. However, the mages allied with him only wanted to be freed from the Chantry. Even the blood mage you speak to compares living under the Chantry with Andraste fighting against the slave-masters of the Tevinter Imperium.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Considering that the Circles were established because Divine Ambrosia II wanted to declare an Exalted March on her own cathedral, because the mages barricaded themselves in, doesn't seem like a genuine reason to keep mages and non-mages segregated.[/quote]

It was almost 800 years ago though. The circles, mages and templars have changed a lot since then. History is important yes. But things change and people make decisions based on the now, that is equally important. [/quote]

Except that the Circles weren't formed to protect people, as the codex/history acknowledges.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I didn't realize the mage Father Eirik presiding over the Haven Chantry was a speculation. Or that Haven mages fighting alongside non-mages was a speculation, either. Or how mages seem to lead the Dalish clans given the magical talents of Zathrian and Lanaya.[/quote]

The reason he objects is that we don't know anything besides that. What if Eirik is a brutal despot that kills all other mages (but his chosen) slowly? What if the Dalish butcher all non-apprentice magelings? We don't know... hence why we should not speculate. All we can toss at each others is opinion.
[/quote]

If he killed all other mages, why are there mages fighting alongside non-mages?

If the Dalish murdered all non-apprentice mages, why are there two other mages who aren't the First or the Keeper? Why was Aenirin allowed to join them as an outsider with magical ability?

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

Mages have different levels of power, true, but either your mind is linked to the Fade so that you can draw power from it, or it isn't. [/quote]

Technically, everyone is linked to the Fade, even dwarves (that's why Ogren and Sigrun can be brought into the Fade).

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

I would take Haven as a particularly weak case when it comes to Mage co-existance, considering that it was a militaristic cult and might very well have dealt with mages that didn't seem to make the cut when it came to resisting possession harshly. We don't know, however. That they are lead by a mage isn't that strange, they seem to take after the Imperial Chantry a lot. Male priests and all. [/quote]

Reverand Father Eirik presided over the Haven Chantry, and he was a mage (he wore Reaper Vestments and carried a staff, as well as using heal and anti-magic ward). Kolgrim can be inferred to be a mage from his ability to know the fate of the Ashes, and he presides over all the Disciples of Andraste - regardless, he also makes it clear that the Disciples accept magic, including blood magic, if the Warden mentions that blood magic is forbidden. Kolgrim defends this because the Disciples don't believe in the anti-magic practices of the Andrastian Chantry.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

We know nothing about Dalish magic practice either. Apparently, they don't like Blood Magic either, considering the spoilerific things we've heard from DA2. They seem to be kinder to mages than the Circle. They also seem to care more about the community than humans, so they might also deal with weak minds brutally. We don't know that either, [/quote]

We know that, besides Zathrian and Lanaya, there are two mages among them, not to mention Aenirin.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

The Rivain situation is vaguely referenced in a Codex, so we know next to nothing about that. Very hard to say.
No one appears to know anything about Arlathan and the Dales. [/quote]

And the codex by Genitivi mentions that the mages are respected by the people of Rivain, and have been for centuries.



[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Nope.  You are reading impaired.  DG does NOT say that there were more abominations before the circle.  Your quote doesn't say that either.  He says that the countryside was more dangerous but carefully does NOT SAY this is because there were more abominations.  You are reading into that statement what you want to believe...and this is why you keep getting PWNED.  If DG had wanted to say that Abominations were more frequent, he was given more than enough rope to do so with....but he very carefully made no such claim.

You are grossly overstating and misrepresenting what DG actually said.  He is saying that in old times the countryside was more dangerous (duh...there was a general lack of centralized military authority in old times outside of Tevinter!) and thus there would be more 'tolerance' for a rogue abomination then as opposed to now, but that does NOT mean that:

1.  They don't occure now (because they do and your warden has to fight at least one)
2.  They were more common before the circle.

Please try reading what you post to save yourself further embarassment.[/quote]

Dear Lord Allmighty...grant me strength.

Is there any word meaning or law of logic you will NOT defile and rape to death?

It's funny that you accuse me of reading into things and interpreting thing as I like WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THE CONTEXT DG WAS POSTING IN. Those DG quotes were from anotehr thread. And answer to a question you obviously do not know the wording off. [/quote]

Except there's nothing wrong with IanPolaris' analysis of DG's quote. If you disagree, why not say why you disagree?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No man, it's not me who should be worried about embarrasment...
Don't get me wrong - it's fun to see you digging yourself in ever deeper - but it's slowly also becoming cringeworthy. [/quote]

Because IanPolaris has the audacity to disagree with you?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You are very conviniently ingoring a whole lot of established facts..liek for example, a noble being a tyrant or not  depend on his personality and intentions. A mage becoming an abomination,...not really.
The best mage with the best intentions cna still end up turning an entier vilalge into walking corpses and assault another vilalge.

Not to mention that there are checks and balances even for nobles. At least in Ferelden. [/quote]

A mage becomes an abomination by making a deal with a demon, like Connor, or summong too many demons at once, like Uldred. Mages aren't alone in having the capacity to misuse power.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I have proved it. Several times. But you choose to ingore or dismiss it. [/quote]

Considering how the Chantry's practices have conditioned runaway mages to resort to forbidden magic, I'd say the Chantry and templars have done more harm than good. The incident at Redcliffe and at the Circle Tower would never have happened had it not been for the Chantry.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Mages running free being a disaster waiting to happen is not debatable. It is a fact. Mages being confined or mass tranquilization are the only logical ways to deal with it. [/quote]

Your opinion isn't fact no matter how many times you try to claim otherwise. Considering how the Circles were basically formulated because the mages had the audacity to blocade a cathedral (and the Divine Ambrosia II wanted to declare an Exalted March on her own church), it doesn't speak too highly for the actual need to segregate mages from society.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

From a relaistic, logistical, psychological and scientific standpoint. Other solutions are nothing more than wishfull thinking that are not based on any concrete facts. [/quote]

You mean the actual precedents in Thedas lore that disprove this comment entirely?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So can someone with a sword? Are you serious? Are you even TRYING anymore. Did you even read what you where quoting before coming up with an answer that is so OBVIOUSLY flawed that it made me gape in amazement.

You're serioulsy comparing a sword with turning into an abomination? You seriously give them the same level of danger? You are seriously stating, that a good man with a sword, with good intentions, can suddenly destroy whole villages, control minds and raise corpses?

Man..please..qutoe while you still have some dignity left. [/quote]

Comparing how a mage can abuse his power with a noble who abuses his authority or a warrior who can abuse his weapon, in every scenerio this misuse of power or a weapon (however you'd like to picture it) leads to innocent people getting hurt. It seems like a fair comparison to make.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Again, wishful lthinking on your part.
You don't know how those societies handle mages. For all you know, the Dalish might kill all other mages excet the Keepr and the first. You know practicly nothing, and yet assist they are valid alternatives, [/quote]

Except IanPolaris already pointed out there are currently two mages besides Zathrian and Lanaya in the camp, not to mention Aeneirin.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And if you did know that those system work better (for which you have NO proof) you still naively belive that such a system can be simply applied everyhere, dispite the vast differences in scale and culture. A specific system cannot simpel be directly transplanted. What works for a small Dalish clan might break up completely when up-scaled to cover a whole kingdom. [/quote]

Men, women, and children aren't enslaved, so that's a start. I think most people would argue that freedom is far more preferable to subjegation. As for the system working in the Andrastian nations, it would be a problem since the Chantry preaches hatred and intolerance towards mages.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Again...waht part of MIND CONTROL and TRUST are you failign to see? The connection escapes you.

It is impossible to trust ANYONE with mind control. I wouldn't trust myself with it, let alone any stranger.
It's sheer folly. [/quote]

Isn't that why Adralla (of the Tevinter Imperium) provided the Litany, as a defense against mind control? Considering how invaluable the mages were to defending the Andrastian nations against the Qunari in the New Exalted Marches, as well as all Five Blights, why dismiss them? According to Genitivi:

"The greatest advantage that the Chantry-led forces had against the qunari was, in fact, the Circle of Magi. For all their technology, the qunari appeared to harbor a great hatred for all things magical. They possessed mages, but these were little better than animals kept on leashes… and none of the qunari mages possessed anywhere near the skill that the Circle’s mages had. Faced with cannons, the Chantry responded with lightning and balls of fire and it proved effective indeed. "

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

This has been repeated more than once: That things have been a certain way in a certain place or culture doesn't mean they worked well. With no evidence (or even an indication) of how they worked in that place, there's no proof that they were perfectly happy.[/quote]

I don't think the Dalish clans would be trying to reclaim their past if things didn't work well. Seems to work pretty well for them now since they're still trying to reclaim their past and rebuild their culture.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 20 janvier 2011 - 07:13 .

[SgtElias]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

SgtElias wrote...

Seagloom wrote...

 I also think that there is no other viable alternative to policing mages. An organization with a few bad eggs keeping order is better than no order at all. If David Gaider's quotes in the previous page are any indication, life before mage circles was far from idyllic for either enchanters or mundanes.

I disagree, but that's one of the reasons I'm so excited for Dragon Age 2; I wonder what sort of choices we'll have to make about this very subject?

How can you disagree with Word of God?
If DG sez Circles are necessary, then they are.
If he sez that the world was worse off before the Circles, then it is so.


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.

I didn't say I disagreed that Circles are necessary. I disagreed that the Chantry was the best one to police mages.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
The reason why something is created, does not define its purpose through the ages. The Circles' purpsoe are now to train the mages of the land and to contain the abominations. You can argue all you want about how the Circles were created, but that is irrelevant.

It does in this case.  It's not like magic and being a mage instrinscially became more dangerous now than 700 years ago or that intrinsically the mechanics of abomination changed.  The Codex: History of the Circle should demolish once and for all the bald faced lie that the circles are intended to protect mages and mundanes from each other.

No, the codex entry makes it very clear (and the purpose hasn't changed since).  The purpose of the Circle is to permit the Chantry total control of magic, period.  It always has been.

I once again point out that DG never says that abominations still don't get out and create havok (and indeed as a GW you are hired to kill one....strong evidence since this was from the Mage's collective that mages can indeed police themselves and do so very well).  He simply says that in the past they did and the countryside in the past was a more dangerous place.  A lot of Chantry apologists are reading far, far more into DG's quote than is even remotely warrented.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

The problem is DG never says the circles are necessary as WoG. He says at most that the chantry believes (or claims) this, but the History of the Circle Codex entry explodes even that myth.



-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

SgtElias wrote...

I didn't say I disagreed that Circles are necessary. I disagreed that the Chantry was the best one to police mages.

I question whether circles are necessary as a specific location and method for regulating mages, but I agree with you that mages and magic do need to be regulated.  I expect even the vast majority of mages (including most libertarians) would agree.  However mages should have a direct hand in that regulation and be permitted to have a stake in society like everyone else....and yes, I fully agree that this means Chantry oversight has to go.  Honestly as a first step, the mage's circles should be turned over to the state in each country and take it from there.

As for the first enchanter, the first enchanter only has the power that the KC is willing to give him (as the whole Jowan incident makes clear).  Remember that KC Gregoire is a radical liberal when it comes to mages and magic and (normally) takes a supporting co-leader role with Irving, but that's hardly the normal case (and certainly is not the case under KC Cullen).

-Polaris

[SgtElias]

IanPolaris wrote...

The problem is DG never says the circles are necessary as WoG. He says at most that the chantry believes (or claims) this, but the History of the Circle Codex entry explodes even that myth.

-Polaris

I think a place should be set aside for mages to learn and live. I just don't think living there should necessarilly be mandatory, at least not after the Harrowing. The general population hates and fears mages; I think that most people would leave, realize what it's like, and choose to come back, anyway.

IanPolaris wrote...

I question whether circles are necessary as a specific location and method for regulating mages, but I agree with you that mages and magic do need to be regulated.  I expect even the vast majority of mages (including most libertarians) would agree.  However mages should have a direct hand in that regulation and be permitted to have a stake in society like everyone else....and yes, Ifully agree that this means Chantry oversight has to go.  Honestly as a first step, the mage's circles should be turned over to the state in each country and take it from there.

As for the first enchanter, the first enchanter only has the power that the KC is willing to give him (as the whole Jowan incident makes clear).  Remember that KC Gregoire is a radical liberal when it comes to mages and magic and (normally) takes a supporting co-leader role with Irving, but that's hardly the normal case (and certainly is not the case under KC Cullen).

-Polaris

Agreed entirely.

Modifié par SgtElias, 20 janvier 2011 - 07:43 .

[IanPolaris]

SgtElias wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The problem is DG never says the circles are necessary as WoG. He says at most that the chantry believes (or claims) this, but the History of the Circle Codex entry explodes even that myth.

-Polaris

I think a place should be set aside for mages to learn and live. I just don't think living there should necessarilly be mandatory, at least not after the Harrowing. The general population hates and fears mages; I think that most people would leave, realize what it's like, and choose to come back, anyway.

i think the Chantry bears much (if not all) of the blame for the general hatred towards mages (since we don't see it in non-Andrastian cultures save the Qun which are a special case if there ever was one).  That said, I wouldn't be opposed to such an idea provided that mages (proven, respected senior mages of good character) had a say in how such a system operated and how it was regulated.

Honestly, the details are things that can be worked at as long as Chantry finally gets that mages should be permitted to be a part of society with a stake IN that society.  Does that mean there will never be magical crime, abominations, etc?  Of course not, but I guarantee you that trusted bonded mages with Manaclash working WITH bonded warriors with Templar like training (minus the Lyrium addiction) is a far, far better defense against such than the current system.....and you don't cause the emotional strife that is an open invitation for demons in the first place!

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The reason why something is created, does not define its purpose through the ages. The Circles' purpsoe are now to train the mages of the land and to contain the abominations. You can argue all you want about how the Circles were created, but that is irrelevant.[/quote]

It seems like their purpose is to imprison mages. Given what happened in the Circle of Ferelden and how the Rites began in the first place, they don't seem to do too well stopping abominations from happening.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

There was no need for it, since what DG was saying was obvious enough. But if you want to check it, be my guest. It's in the Meridith thread.

Hopefully this will prompt you to turn your brain on, given that you're STILL stating the quote doesn't mean what it means, even after admiting you haven't read the original thread and question.
Self-dellusion much? [/quote]

Why is IanPolaris addressing the content of what was said delusional?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You have no numebrs to work with, now have you?
During the game we ran into 3 abominations outside, and all have been killing and causing vast damage. the number of abomintions in other lands is an unknown.

And what you fail to realsie is that the point of the circle IS to have abominations happen there, where they can be contained. Templars may die in the process..some mages too. But it's better than loosing whole vilalges. There's no way (except forced tranqulisation) to prevent abominations from happeneing anyway..so better to have it happen in controled envirement when it's unavoidable. [/quote]

According to the codex, the point of the Circles was that the mages didn't like how their magic was used, and so they barricaded themselves in the cathedral. The Divine Ambrosia II wanted to declare an Exalted March on her own church. Then the mages were sent to an isolated location to be watched over by templars. Why pretend that it's otherwise? If they weren't isolated at this point in time, then mages and non-mages lived together, and there were templars around. Claiming that the Circles are necessary seems like retroactive continuity to me.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

As for the Cricle. It was OFFICIALY formed then. Was there arenother form of contol before that that just didn't work? Did they spend 200 years discussingwhat to do with mages? I really can't tell. [/quote]

Well, mages and non-mages were living together since mages were isolated from society after the incident at the cathedral. The fact that the Circle wasn't established as a means of protecting people from mages illustrates that it's merely them re-writing history so they can pretend otherwise.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You really need to learn the difference between fast and speculation.
FACT - the Cirlce officialy formed at time X.
SPECULATION - its was formed only then because of Y. [/quote]

If it was formed as a direct result of mages closing themselves off in the cathedral, and this is addressed in a codex written by Chantry scholar Sister Petrine, why assume it's a lie?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I have. Which you again choose to ignore. You ignore the dangers of abominations. You trivilize teh issues and problems caused.
You ignore the fact that modern, liberal govenrments would act in the exactly same way (as evident by quarantene procedures that practicyl everyone accepts)
You ingore basic human psychology and mentality.
You igore the logicisital, pratical and organizational problems.

In other words, you ingore everything that douesn't suit you, you fail to provide VIABLE alternatives (not wisfull thinking). [/quote]

If there are foreign cultures that have mages and non-mages living there, and there's a precedence in Orlesian history (and likely across Thedas) of mages and non-mages living together, why assume it's out of the realm of possibility? The Circles weren't formed to combat blood mages or abominations, they were formed because the mages were unhappy with their lot in life and had a non-violent protest. Considering how valuable mages are in the Blights and against the Qunari, why are you acting like the world would end if mages and non-mages actually integrated together?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

.... You really living in your own little work, aren't you?

A single trained warrior can destroy a whole vilalge? Where do you get that from? Gamplay mechanics?
Lore-wise a mage is more potent and dangerous than a warrior. Lore-wise an abomination is far more potent than a mage.
abomination >>>>>> mage >>>>>> warrior. [/quote]

And lore-wise, the Chantry is more dangerous than any mage or abomination, given their power to declare an Exalted March and how most nations accept their faith as the one, true faith. As for the example, IanPolaris mentioned an undefended village being attacked by a trained warrior. Essentially, people die. The point was about how anyone can harm others, not simply mages - consider how the Divine Ambrosia II wanted to declare an Exalted March on her own cathedral merely because the mages blocked off entrance to it.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And you're completely ingoring the "will/intentiosn" part of hte argument.

Stop embarrasing yourself. I know my plea falls on deaf ears, but it's painfull to watch. I am seriously not kidding or goading you here. [/quote]

The will of mages wanting to be free from Chantry subjegation, you mean?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No, it's not.
Lore-wise, mages are rare. Yet in the game they are everywhere. you know why? Because it makes for challaneging battels. [/quote]

Everywhere? That's not true at all. Are there mages among the dwarves in Orzammar? Among the people in the village of Redcliffe? There are mages in the Circle Tower and in front of the Wonders of Thedas, but it's hardly an issue of being everywhere.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

At some point you have to learn that not everything you see in a game is direct lore. [/quote]

In other words, IanPolaris disproving your assumption about the Dalish not permitting more than two mages per clan should be ignored because it makes you look bad? Game mechanics is the game listing Zathrian as a blood mage or why the companions don't get ill from getting darkspawn blood on them, not re-writing events or character abilities because they don't suit your version of events.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So no, you DON'T know what the Dalish do with their mages. You just don't.
[/quote]

They don't kill them, as we KNOW from Wynne's apprentice, Aneirin, who has rescued by the Dalish, has Dalish markings on his face and is known among the clan. Clearly, the Dalish don't have an issue with mages, even the mages who run away from the Circle Tower.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IIRC, the Litany itself is not blood magic.

And, only mages can preform the litany. It's used to disrupt blood magic. It doesn't stop it. And it has to be used again and again. Do you plan to spend your whole life chanting the Litany?

And how do you protect yourself if you're not a mage?

Mind control is a power that shouldn't be used by ANYONE..ANYWHERE...AT ALL...NEVER. [/quote]

In other words, if a blood mage had a chance to save the life of an innocent person by using mind control to stop the perpetrator from harming the potential victim (say, stopping Vaughan from kidnapping the women to rape them in the Alienage), the blood mage shouldn't use such power because it shouldn't be used "by anyone... anywhere... at all... never?" Even if it stops a potential rape?

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

In other words, if a blood mage had a chance to save the life of an innocent person by using mind control to stop the perpetrator from harming the potential victim (say, stopping Vaughan from kidnapping the women to rape them in the Alienage), the blood mage shouldn't use such power because it shouldn't be used "by anyone... anywhere... at all... never?" Even if it stops a potential rape?

And right there you point out the big problem with a lot of Chantry apologists.  Get too big a dose of the Chantry "kool aide" and you stop thinking.  Even Wynne indicates as much when during a banter she says that Alistair got away from the Chantry just in time.  What you are seeing is classic Chantry programming (see Keli and Wynne).

-Polaris

[Aldandil]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

Your definition of Slave is a metaphoric extension of it's prototypical meaning.

This isn't a new interpretation of an old meaning, since the interpretation is correct - the mages are indeed slaves of the Chantry. Mages have no rights, the Chantry controls them. Has the tranquil make money for them, uses mages to fight against their enemies (like the Qunari), denies them from having any rights outside of being part of the Circles they exclusively control.

Aldandil wrote...

Slave in it's prototypical meaning is a person that is considered property, that can be bought and sold, and that is forced to work for her/his "owner".

Slaves were treated differently in different places. If we're trying to consider if mages would be the equivalent of slaves in modern Thedas, we only need to see that mages have no rights. The Chantry spreads fear and propaganda against mages, then corrals them into their prisons, and has exclusive rights over them. They have the first and final say over the mages and their fates. That seems to fit the notion that they're slaves of the Chantry.

Aldandil wrote...

In the modern world, there are hardly any such cases, but there are however many cases where people are forced to work against there will. In the modern world, we use the word "slave" to describe those people, considering that their situation is similar to that of the slaves who were bought and sold. The distinction between the two is unimportant, since there are no slaves in the prototypical sense of the word.

Slavery is still an issue in the modern world.

Aldandil wrote...

In Thedas, the prototypical slave exist. To use your definition would mean that everyone that is not a noble in most kingdoms around Thedas are slaves. That makes your definition rather useless and inaccurate.
To use your definition of slavery in real world history would make most europeans from the 18th century and earlier into slaves. They were forced to work, could not marry who they wanted and were forbidden to leave their land. Yet there were people who were slaves back then too. There was a difference.

Useless and inaccurate? Tossing words around like metaphoric extensiuon and prototypical doesn't change the lack of substance to your argument. You gloss over the dehumanizing way that mages are treated, how the only organization that has a say in their lives is the same organization that rips them from their families to toss them in a prison they exclusively control, and can lobomize them to serve as tranquil or use them as footsoldiers in their wars. As for the latter example you provided, those people weren't forced into a prison to serve one master exclusively, i.e. the Chantry.

Aldandil wrote...

Using a metaphorical meaning of a word does not work in this case. It becomes inaccurate and pointless. Furthermore, since you or I don't know the exact relationships between the mages and the templars, we would do well to accept the devs definition of the mages situation. After all, they know facts that we don't.

It's not inaccurate or pointless if the definition fits. Mages have no rights, and the Chantry has rights over all mages in Thedas except for Grey Warden mages. Overall, mages have no rights. Templars watch over them on orders from the Chantry because they're the military arm of the Chantry, who have the only say over mages across Thedas (with exception of Tevinter and possibly Rivain). I see no reason to deny the fact that mages are slaves of the Chantry.

Mages are slaves because they have no rights? That's not what any definition said.

Throughout history, the word slave has meant a person forced to do labour for someone else against his will, often being considered property. This does not apply to mages. They are free to pursue scholarly interests.
Your definition includes people who have some rights mages don't have such as city elves, peasants or upper class twits from P.G. Wodehouse stories. It the definition fits there as well, and that is what makes it pointless. It fits everywhere.

[IanPolaris]

Aldandil wrote...

Mages are slaves because they have no rights? That's not what any definition said.

Mages are slaves by one (proper) definition because they exist solely on the sufference of another (in this case the chantry).

Throughout history, the word slave has meant a person forced to do labour for someone else against his will, often being considered property. This does not apply to mages. They are free to pursue scholarly interests.
Your definition includes people who have some rights mages don't have such as city elves, peasants or upper class twits from P.G. Wodehouse stories. It the definition fits there as well, and that is what makes it pointless. It fits everywhere.

No.  A slave is someone who is cosidered property and under the total control of another (Lob has the precise definitions I am sure) and in a very real sense, it does fit the mages in dragon age especially the tranquil.

A Mage can pursue scholary interests but only if the Templars/Chantry permit it.  True in most circles such day to day decisions are delated to the First Enchanters, but if the chantry says so, then at any time for any or NO reason, a mage that hasn't done anything wrong, can be put into solitary or even thrown into battle against a bunch of Qunari and told "fight".  Worse, they can (until harrowed anyway) at any time be lobomized and then forced to make items to enrich the chantry.

Seems like slavery to me.  Some historical slaves lived very well indeed, but were still slaves.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

Mages are slaves because they have no rights? That's not what any definition said. [/quote]

Nor is that what I said.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

Throughout history, the word slave has meant a person forced to do labour for someone else against his will, often being considered property. This does not apply to mages. They are free to pursue scholarly interests. [/quote]

So do many prisoners in correctional facilities.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

Your definition includes people who have some rights mages don't have such as city elves, peasants or upper class twits from P.G. Wodehouse stories. It the definition fits there as well, and that is what makes it pointless. It fits everywhere. [/quote]

Mages being thralls of the Chantry fits everywhere?

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

No, if the repeated mentioning of the risk of possession throughout code entries and discussions with mages, as well as being mentioned as a risk by developers doesn't qualify as evidence with you, I suppose I can't. [/quote]

You mean if I don't bend knee and acknowledge your particular viewpoint on the issue, you mean? Because the actual story provides alternatives to the Chantry's present situation of imprisoning people for having magical ability, including the Chantry's own history.
 
[quote]Aldandil wrote...

I'd like to remind you that we're not arguing human rights, but the factual state in a fictional universe. [/quote]

Actually, I'm arguing about the mages lack of human rights, and their inability to have a say in having a life outside of being under the thumb of the Chantry.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

It's not as if you can argue reasonable doubt or innocent until proven guilty. What seems more likely is proof enough. If we were to enter the world, though, the burden of evidence would lie on you considering that you want to change the status quo, and should be able to prove that the circle does not prevent abominations.[/quote]

If the Chantry was so effective at preventing abominations, why have they had to murder so many mages during their Rites?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
The selected quote does NOT state that abominations were more common or more of a problem before the circle.  Read your own damn quote.  If you want to supply further information or *gasp* supply us with a link then feel free to do so.  Otherwise, you are not meeting your burden of proof, and no amount of insult will change that.[/quote]

Burden of proof? Given that you never even came close to it, I wonder if you even know what it is.

And I told you where to find that quote.

And yes, the quote DOES say that. Your insistance that you cannot be wrong despite self-confessed ignorance sez everything. [/quote]

IanPolaris already addressed the quote that was provided. You simply didn't like IanPolaris' response because it didn't match yours.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

As a matter of fact I do have numbers.  The Rite of Annulment has been invoked 17 times in 700 years.  That's the total destruction of a circle about once every forty years and that's a huge number..[/quote]

A huge number? Sez who? [/quote]

It's the murder of every man, woman, and child in the Circle. That seems pretty significant to me.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

That is not the point of the circle.  The point of the circle was to control mages by putting them in one place.  See Codex Entry: History of the Circle.  I also note that abominations happen outside the circle anyway....and the system is about to break down explosively.  In short, the circle system doesn't work.[/quote]

what part of "abomination happenign cannot be stopped" escapes you?
As long as mages exist, abomination will exist.
The point of the Circle is NOT to completey stop abominations from happening. It never was.

It was to contain and control. Yes. To minimize damage. To stop abominations from rampagin in the countryside (worst case scenario they rampage in the tower instead). To keep mages in one place. [/quote]

That's not why the Circles were formed, though. As IanPolaris pointed out, the codex about their formation had nothing to do with stopping blood mages or abominations.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

The codex entry is clear.  The circle was formed because the Divine wanted to control mages and it was the only way short of destroying all mages that she could break what amounted to a magical strike.  The Divine wanted to slaughter all mages for their presumption but her templars talked her out of it.  Read the codex entry.  These are facts.[/quote]

Except it wasn't the only the divine who wanted mages under control. Pertty much everyone wants to have mages under control not runnin around.
The Quaniri, Orlais, Ferelden...even Tevinter [/quote]

Except the Circle was formed because of the non-violent protest that the mages had in Orlais by barricading a cathedral.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

I am doing none of that.  I am pointing out that by your own standards and the standard of the chantry itself, the circle is not needed (it's not like suddenly mages became different after 200 years).  The circle was formed as part of an explicit powerplay by the Divine.  Period.[/quote]

Yes, you are doign that.

While the specific Cirlce itself is not needed, a similar form of control is.

No matter how you spin it, mages have to be kept under control. [/quote]

Except there are other cultures where they aren't, so it isn't a universal truth. Even in the past of the Chantry, there were mages and non-mages living together. As for being freed from the Chantry, even the ruler of Ferelden will say that the mages have earned the right to govern themselves.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

Dead is dead.  You are the one that's embarrassing to read honestly.[/quote]

Your logic is flawless. Someone with the capcity to kill off whole villages at any time, regardless if he wants it or not, is CLEARLY an equal danger to a guy with a sword. [/quote]

It makes sense. Let's look at the Qunari codex pertaining to the New Exalted Marches:

"As each year passed, the Chantry pushed further and further into the qunari lines. Dealing with those of the local populace which had converted to the qunari religion proved difficult, especially as some of these had lived under the qun now for generations, and the response by many armies was simply to exterminate all those who had converted. Officially the Chantry denies this, claiming most converts fled north into Rivain and Par Vollen, but the mass graves at Nocen Fields and Marnus Pell attest otherwise. Indeed, so many were slain at Marnus Pell that the Veil is said to be permanently sundered, the ruins still plagued by restless corpses to this day."

Seems like someone carrying a weapon can cause a lot of damage - and the massacre of Nocen Fields and Marnus Pell sounds far more horrific than the actions committed by Connor against Redcliffe.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

I know they live side by side with mundanes just as every culture in Thedas has (the Qun come from elsewhere) prior to the Chantry...and even during the first two hundred years of the Chantry.  That's all I need to show.
[/quote]

You know nothing. You shown nothing. [/quote]

Except for that codex... which explains the History of the Circle... and how they weren't created to combat blood mages or abominations.

[Sir JK]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
The tranquil don't seem like they have any say in their lives. They're servants with a lobotomy. They craft magical items and handle manual labor. As for telling them what to do - it's an interesting inquiry. The apprentices don't get a say to stop the templars from putting them through the Rite of Tranquility, which means they'll inevitably have a servant for life.

From what we see, mages are kept in the Circle Tower. They don't really have an opportunity to do anything.[/quote] Nor are they forced to. Which is sort of my point.
But as for the Rite of Tranquility and having no say? I must ask... would anyone consent? Is it better to let them fail their harrowing and/or develop forbidden magic to the point of danger?
[quote]When a victim of rape doesn't think that life in the Circle is any better than her life of being the sexual victim of a noble, that speaks pretty highly to me of what kind of place the Circle really is.[/quote]
One she feels unwelcome in, yes. While I don't doubt the templars had the greater part of the blame for that. I wonder... how did the other mages there treat her?

[quote]Except a soldier can choose to be a soldier, a mage can't. A soldier isn't murdered simply for being a soldier, while mages are. A soldier like Loghain can become Teyrn of Gwaren, while a mage is typically relegated to being a pawn of the Chantry despite their accomplishments in the Blights and against the Qunari.[/quote]

Again, Lobsel... there is no such thing as a volounteer army. They get called to service. A noble points them out and and decides they are now one of his men. A soldier gets two choices... serve or desert.
And need I point out Willem again? Warhero with own family, own home and no templar looking over his shoulder again. Like Loghain earned a title, Willem earned his freedom.

[quote]It doesn't always happen simply for being noble, though, so I don't see how it's a fair comparison to mages always being imprisoned in the Circles for being mages.[/quote]
It happens because they simply are related or in the way. No... they are not tossed into a prison by merit of birth. Unless they are at their enemies hands. At which point they are. A noble's lot in life essentially depends on wether he is surrounded by friends or enemies. If they are surrounded by friends, then no. If surrounded by enemies... they'd wish they were mages.

[quote]There's absolutely no evidence given in DA that every single soldier is forcibly conscripted into service. Some noble bastards willingly enter service, as Sergeant Kylon mentions. "If I send my boys in, someone might get - Maker forbid - hurt. And I'll have to explain to their noble fathers that being a guard is actually dangerous."[/quote]
It is a feudal world though, is it not? That's how it worked. Just like you drag the definition of slavery in I could drag the definition of feudalism in, can I not? That means serfs, levies and warrior-nobility.

[quote]I'm assuming you're making that face because they actually have a choice, unlike mages? [/quote]
Death or accept your fate? Mages got that choice too.

[quote]Of course, but that's all mages are afforded in the Circle - obey or die.[/quote]
Exactly. My argument was that it is also all peasants are allowed. And all soldiers. And all nobles. Templars too.

Obey or die.

[quote]Wrong: it is a choice. They can choose their path in life; mages can't. Simply because it might not be a desired path doesn't negate the fact that they have the right to choose what they'll do for the rest of their lives.[/quote]
You do know novicehood and apprenticeship starts before mages manifets their powers right? Once you're old enough to take your vows, it is all the life you have ever known.
Let me put it like this... if Duncan had not conscripted him, what would have happened to Alistair? He would have become a templar. Why? There was no other life to choose. Nothing else to live of. Nothing else to go to. No other home.

That's perhaps why he loves the Grey Wardens so much. They gave him a choice (even if they would have taken him regardless). He chose them.

[quote]You realize you provided examples of people who do choose what they want to do with their lives, right? You merely argue that it wouldn't be desirable to do so, which is still a choice nevertheless.[/quote]
It is not desireable to defy the templars and thus become a hunted man either. But technically the choice is one you can make.

Giving up your life is not a choice you make.

[quote]Except mages are taken and tossed into a Chantry controlled prison, with the Chantry having final say over their lives. If they could do as they please, why did Greagoir need to authorize mages to be used in the battle against darkspawn at Ostagar? If mages have the freedom to leave the Circle Tower, why does Senior Enchanter Wynne need permission to aid the Warden against the Blight?[/quote]

I never said they were allowed to leave without permission, did I? If so I apoligize. No they don't. And indeed, Gregoir decides that (allhough it seems to me it is something he and Irving decides together).

and I abolsutely agree. It is a prison.

[quote]They just want to be free, I don't see anything wrong with that. Nobody wants to be a prisoner because of how they're born. It's entirely human not want to be imprisoned simply for being different. Again, mages have power, so properly instruct mages, don't preach hatred towards them and then imprison them for having power.[/quote]
Agreed. I'm just saying the grass seems greener than it is. Circle mages will probably find freedom a whole lot harsher and more difficult than they think it is.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]I wouldn't claim that Uldred didn't have his own ambitions - I doubt he was acting altruistically. However, the mages allied with him only wanted to be freed from the Chantry. Even the blood mage you speak to compares living under the Chantry with Andraste fighting against the slave-masters of the Tevinter Imperium.[/quote]
Of course she does. Justifications makes people warm and fuzzy inside. I don't think all of them are vil but... I think Uldred had more of his own with him. There's an awful lot of corpses in that tower, even in areas with just blood mages. They probably killed a fair few mages who did not want to fight.

[quote]Except that the Circles weren't formed to protect people, as the codex/history acknowledges.[/quote]
It seemed to be to protect mages yes. The question is... protect them from what?

[quote]If he killed all other mages, why are there mages fighting alongside non-mages?

If the Dalish murdered all non-apprentice mages, why are there two other mages who aren't the First or the Keeper? Why was Aenirin allowed to join them as an outsider with magical ability?[/quote]
Like I said. None of us knows. It is as likely to be worse or just as bad as it is to be better. We need more information to discuss it. I just picked that as examples because they were complete opposites of your position.

Allthough... the cult of Andraste have does have a Bronto fighting for them. Where they got that is beyond me. I'm half inclined to think that more than half of the fights in the game is little more than filler with no explanation behind it. That could explain you mages (mind, they might have mages too. I admit that)

[quote]We know that, besides Zathrian and Lanaya, there are two mages among them, not to mention Aenirin.[/quote]
Just one thing... Anaeirin lives as a hermit. Despite having dreamed of joining the Dalish all his life. He obviously succeeded in finding them (and is tattooed). Yet... he is not with them.

Food for thought.

---

Anyways. I enjoy this discussion a lot even if we disagree and make no headway. Thanks guys

---

Also, I'd like to reiterate my request. Can someone help me find actual Chantry anti-mage dogma? Official stuff, written down or preached or something. Not from a second- or third-hand source.

[Aldandil]

Could Lobsel please explain to me how the various cultures around make sure that mages do not become abominations The fact that they can be respected members of society doesn't enter into it. Would you kindly base it on facts from codex or dialogue in game or dev posts?



That is what I've been asking for for a few pages now, and what has been repeated is that they are respected. I know they are. It doesn't matter in this case. They might have higher rates of abomination deaths or treat there mages miserably during training. We don't know.

[Beerfish]

Aldandil wrote...

Could Lobsel please explain to me how the various cultures around make sure that mages do not become abominations The fact that they can be respected members of society doesn't enter into it. Would you kindly base it on facts from codex or dialogue in game or dev posts?

That is what I've been asking for for a few pages now, and what has been repeated is that they are respected. I know they are. It doesn't matter in this case. They might have higher rates of abomination deaths or treat there mages miserably during training. We don't know.

Good luck with that. 

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
The tranquil don't seem like they have any say in their lives. They're servants with a lobotomy. They craft magical items and handle manual labor. As for telling them what to do - it's an interesting inquiry. The apprentices don't get a say to stop the templars from putting them through the Rite of Tranquility, which means they'll inevitably have a servant for life.

From what we see, mages are kept in the Circle Tower. They don't really have an opportunity to do anything.[/quote] Nor are they forced to. Which is sort of my point.
But as for the Rite of Tranquility and having no say? I must ask... would anyone consent? Is it better to let them fail their harrowing and/or develop forbidden magic to the point of danger?
[/quote]

This is the error of the false dichotomy.  There is no intrinsic reason why a mage should be forced to take the harrowing OR be made tranquil, and no apprentices have no say in it.  They can volunteer for it, but otherwise no....and once you lose your emotions I would argue you also lose your free will (after all without emotions to drive your desires, what point is there to having "free will" and how would you even make such decisions?)  Indeed the codex entries say that the Tranquil are basically walking, talking objects....which is indeed enslavement (at best).


[quote]


[quote]When a victim of rape doesn't think that life in the Circle is any better than her life of being the sexual victim of a noble, that speaks pretty highly to me of what kind of place the Circle really is.[/quote]
One she feels unwelcome in, yes. While I don't doubt the templars had the greater part of the blame for that. I wonder... how did the other mages there treat her?
[/quote]

It depends. If the first enchanter there was an idiot like Wynne or Keli, I can only imagine (shudder).  The point is that inherently regressive systems tend to bring out the absolute worst in humanity which is why such systems should be used sparingly if at all.

[quote]


[quote]Except a soldier can choose to be a soldier, a mage can't. A soldier isn't murdered simply for being a soldier, while mages are. A soldier like Loghain can become Teyrn of Gwaren, while a mage is typically relegated to being a pawn of the Chantry despite their accomplishments in the Blights and against the Qunari.[/quote]

Again, Lobsel... there is no such thing as a volounteer army. They get called to service. A noble points them out and and decides they are now one of his men. A soldier gets two choices... serve or desert.
And need I point out Willem again? Warhero with own family, own home and no templar looking over his shoulder again. Like Loghain earned a title, Willem earned his freedom.
[/quote]

Wilhelm never earned his freedom.   That was a special case if there ever was one.  What Wilhelm earned was an especially lax parole from the Circle, but the Chantry still kept their eye on him (as his correspondance to First Enchanter Arlen proves).  As for conscripted soldiers, I would say that yes, they do fit the conventional defintion of slaves and historically were treated as such.  However, the big difference is that a conscript is "enslaved" for a limited period of time (generally the duration of hostilities during a war or for a set period of time).  Especially in Feudal Europe it was in no one's interest to extend terms of conscription into the growing season (unless you liked starving).  With mages there is no such limit.  Thus conscripted soldiers ~ indentured servants.  Key is the limitation of the term of 'slavery'.  Mages ~ slaves (no limitation on duration).

[quote]


[quote]It doesn't always happen simply for being noble, though, so I don't see how it's a fair comparison to mages always being imprisoned in the Circles for being mages.[/quote]
It happens because they simply are related or in the way. No... they are not tossed into a prison by merit of birth. Unless they are at their enemies hands. At which point they are. A noble's lot in life essentially depends on wether he is surrounded by friends or enemies. If they are surrounded by friends, then no. If surrounded by enemies... they'd wish they were mages.
[/quote]

Actually it's considered bad form to put a noble in a dungeon.  If you feel you must imprison them usually for political reasons or to demand ransom, you treat them according to their rank (The Tower of London had during it's heyday many very lavish apartments for imprisoned nobles for exactly this reason).  Failing that, it's generally wiser just to kill the noble.

However, that happens because of predictable aspects of war and politics which (at least in principle) is subject to your control...not simply because you are noble.

[quote]


[quote]There's absolutely no evidence given in DA that every single soldier is forcibly conscripted into service. Some noble bastards willingly enter service, as Sergeant Kylon mentions. "If I send my boys in, someone might get - Maker forbid - hurt. And I'll have to explain to their noble fathers that being a guard is actually dangerous."[/quote]
It is a feudal world though, is it not? That's how it worked. Just like you drag the definition of slavery in I could drag the definition of feudalism in, can I not? That means serfs, levies and warrior-nobility.
[/quote]

See above.  In Feudalism, conscription never lasted more than a growing season because otherwise you'd starve.  For more extended campaigns, even Feudal lords used volunteers (such as the crusades).


[quote]


[quote]I'm assuming you're making that face because they actually have a choice, unlike mages? [/quote]
Death or accept your fate? Mages got that choice too.
[/quote]

Except the choice is a different one. It's accept a limited period of indurement for a very specific reason (like protecting your family!) vs a lifetime of enslavement (no family permitted).  Big difference here.

[quote]


[quote]Of course, but that's all mages are afforded in the Circle - obey or die.[/quote]
Exactly. My argument was that it is also all peasants are allowed. And all soldiers. And all nobles. Templars too.

Obey or die.
[/quote]

Except it's not.  Templars and Priests aren't required to take holy vows.  I grant that the altenatives might seem unpalatable but it's hardly death.  Same applies to nobles.  In fact in some cases it's a good idea for a noble to abdicate especially if he or she has aquired a lot of wealth unrelated to their noble title (and it's how Feudalism ultimately broke down...and we see definate signs of this in Dragon Age).  So these groups DO have choices.


[quote]


[quote]Wrong: it is a choice. They can choose their path in life; mages can't. Simply because it might not be a desired path doesn't negate the fact that they have the right to choose what they'll do for the rest of their lives.[/quote]
You do know novicehood and apprenticeship starts before mages manifets their powers right? Once you're old enough to take your vows, it is all the life you have ever known.
[/quote]

You still don't HAVE to take the vows.

[quote]
Let me put it like this... if Duncan had not conscripted him, what would have happened to Alistair? He would have become a templar. Why? There was no other life to choose. Nothing else to live of. Nothing else to go to. No other home.
[/quote]

He could have become a sword for hire.  He had the skillz.  It's highly unlikely the weak willed Alstair would have done this true, but the option was there.  Just because Alistair felt trapped doesn't in fact mean he was.

[quote]
That's perhaps why he loves the Grey Wardens so much. They gave him a choice (even if they would have taken him regardless). He chose them.
[/quote]

Actually they didn't.  Duncan conscripted Alistair.  Alistair even says as much.


[quote]


[quote]You realize you provided examples of people who do choose what they want to do with their lives, right? You merely argue that it wouldn't be desirable to do so, which is still a choice nevertheless.[/quote]
It is not desireable to defy the templars and thus become a hunted man either. But technically the choice is one you can make.
[/quote]

Only if you manage to escape from the tower and even then the Templars can hunt you down with your own blood.  It's not a choice.

[quote]
Giving up your life is not a choice you make.



[quote]Except mages are taken and tossed into a Chantry controlled prison, with the Chantry having final say over their lives. If they could do as they please, why did Greagoir need to authorize mages to be used in the battle against darkspawn at Ostagar? If mages have the freedom to leave the Circle Tower, why does Senior Enchanter Wynne need permission to aid the Warden against the Blight?[/quote][/quote]

Exactly.  All the other cases you cite have either very limited terms of servitude or options that don't involve death.  Mages don't.


[quote]
I never said they were allowed to leave without permission, did I? If so I apoligize. No they don't. And indeed, Gregoir decides that (allhough it seems to me it is something he and Irving decides together).

and I abolsutely agree. It is a prison.



[quote]They just want to be free, I don't see anything wrong with that. Nobody wants to be a prisoner because of how they're born. It's entirely human not want to be imprisoned simply for being different. Again, mages have power, so properly instruct mages, don't preach hatred towards them and then imprison them for having power.[/quote]
Agreed. I'm just saying the grass seems greener than it is. Circle mages will probably find freedom a whole lot harsher and more difficult than they think it is.
[/quote]

Probably, but it's better to starve on your feet than be well fed on your knees.



[quote]Sir JK wrote...



[quote]I wouldn't claim that Uldred didn't have his own ambitions - I doubt he was acting altruistically. However, the mages allied with him only wanted to be freed from the Chantry. Even the blood mage you speak to compares living under the Chantry with Andraste fighting against the slave-masters of the Tevinter Imperium.[/quote]
Of course she does. Justifications makes people warm and fuzzy inside. I don't think all of them are vil but... I think Uldred had more of his own with him. There's an awful lot of corpses in that tower, even in areas with just blood mages. They probably killed a fair few mages who did not want to fight.
[/quote]

Of course they did.  Revolutions are not nice and fuzzy things.  You are with the revolutionary or you are against them.  That was also true with Andraste as well.  Andraste did not change the world with a strongly worded letter to the Imperium!


[quote]


[quote]Except that the Circles weren't formed to protect people, as the codex/history acknowledges.[/quote]
It seemed to be to protect mages yes. The question is... protect them from what?
[/quote]

Read the codex entry.  The Circle was formed so a nutty Divine could better control all mages and break up what amounted to a magical worker's strike.  Protection has zero to do with it.


-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 20 janvier 2011 - 08:57 .

[IanPolaris]

Aldandil wrote...

Could Lobsel please explain to me how the various cultures around make sure that mages do not become abominations The fact that they can be respected members of society doesn't enter into it. Would you kindly base it on facts from codex or dialogue in game or dev posts?

That is what I've been asking for for a few pages now, and what has been repeated is that they are respected. I know they are. It doesn't matter in this case. They might have higher rates of abomination deaths or treat there mages miserably during training. We don't know.

Not necessary.  We know that they exist as stable societies without the need for "circle protection".

Could you please explain why suddenly the circle was needed for protection when even the Chantry didn't start the Circles for that reason?  Anyone that knows chantry history, knows that the chestnut that they are there to protect mages and mundanes from each other is a bald faced lie. Cite:  Codex:  History of the Circle.

-Polaris

[Aldandil]

LobselVith8 wrote...
snip

You really need to stop cutting posts to pieces, it takes way too much space and all your answers are a sentence long and barely holds any substance.

For starters, the definition of slave you used said : 2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence

Abjectly subservient means hanging your head and doing what you're told. Based on that, you've been going on for pages about how mages are slaves according to the dictionary. Based on that defintion, I have experienced slavery as a kid when my dad told me to do the dishes when I didn't want to.

Here is what my post, the one where you read a sentence at a time, came down to:
If there is a risk of mages turning into abominations, they should be kept under close control. Considering that the Circle controls mages closely, it would seem logical that the Circle reduces the Abominations free in the world. Based on these two assumptions, having a Circle is better than having no Circle.
What is being argued in the post you didn't read is not whether mages are treated fairly or not, but whether the risk exists or not, and whether the Circle reduces the amount of people killed by abominations. It's a question about facts, not about rights.

Someone suggested I had to present water tight proof that I was right, considering I was advocating something that was hurting mages. I answered that I wasn't, considering that there aren't any lives at stake here. We don't have a question of "Since no one can find a codex entry where it says that the Chantry is the only way out, we had better let the mages out because the current state is wrong and another mage lost is one too many", We're dealing in likelihoods here. Based on what DG says in posts, based on how all the mages act in game, there is a real and present risk of any mage turning into an abomination. I mean, Irving doesn't seem to take the whole Harrowing thing lightly, the Tevinter mages forces all other mages through Circles to keep the risk down. This is done by guys and girls who knows what it's about, since it can happen to them too.
If you disagree with that, then fine, then we can establish what has been perfectly clear from the start: That we don't have a common basis for a discussion.

[IanPolaris]

This entire discussion has prompted me to remind everyone of a famous Benjamine Franklin quote:



"He who is willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither."



-Polaris

[Aldandil]

Beerfish wrote...
Good luck with that. 

Thanks, I think I might need it;)

[LobselVith8]

Aldandil wrote...

Beerfish wrote...
Good luck with that. 

Thanks, I think I might need it;) 

IanPolaris already addressed this issue. Look above. ^^^^

[Beerfish]

IanPolaris wrote...

This entire discussion has prompted me to remind everyone of a famous Benjamine Franklin quote:

"He who is willing to sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither."

-Polaris

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that
good men do nothing."  Edmund Burke. 

[Aldandil]

IanPolaris wrote...

Not necessary.  We know that they exist as stable societies without the need for "circle protection".

Could you please explain why suddenly the circle was needed for protection when even the Chantry didn't start the Circles for that reason?  Anyone that knows chantry history, knows that the chestnut that they are there to protect mages and mundanes from each other is a bald faced lie. Cite:  Codex:  History of the Circle.

-Polaris

Maybe because back in those days, an abomination rampaging was a thing that happened and had to be dealt with, and after they introduced the Circle, they found out it didn't happen quite as often? A lot of things are done for other reasons than what they turn out to be used for. Some guy went sailing to India, but never got there. Wound up somewhere else, I hear.