1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Aldandil]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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

Actually, he didn't.

[IanPolaris]

Aldandil wrote...

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.

It doesn't have to mean that.  Here is the Webster's definition of "abject":


Definition of ABJECT[/i]

1
:[/b] sunk to or existing in a low state or condition <to lowest pitch of abject fortune thou [/i]art fallen — John Milton>

2
a :[/b] cast down in spirit :[/b] [/i]servile, spiritless <a man made abject by suffering> b[/i] :[/b] showing hopelessness or [/i]resignation <abject surrender> [/i]

3
:[/b] expressing or offered in a humble and often ingratiating spirit <abject flattery> <an abject[/i] apology>

[/i]The first definition fits just fine with what Lobos is saying.

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.

This is a nonsequitor.  The first statement is one that no one reasonable has any issues with.  Mages and magic should be regulated.  I expect even most mages would agree with that.  However, you then make the error of the false dichotomy by saying that a world with no circle means a world with no control.  This is a logical error on your part.  In fact nothing is further from the truth, and Templars preceded the existance of the Circles so obviously the Chantry was regulating/controlling magic long before the circle.

The FACT is (and it is a provable game fact) the circle was not implemented to protect society from mages.  It was implemented to further Chantry control over mages (see Codex: History of the 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.

Given that 17 Circles have been Annulled in 700 years, I'd give that answer a big no (since each rite requires the total destruction of all living beings in those towers) and especially not when abominations get out to harrass the countryside anyway.  This is also a fact that can be verified in the codecies.

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.

Except you refuse to address in game evidence that the circle is not necessary and not even the chantry thought so until a nutty Divine wanted to break up a magical worker's strike.  The FACT is (provable within the game lore) is that the circle system has nothing to do with protecting mundanes and was never implemented for that purpose.  Claiming otherwise is a bald faced lie by the Chantry.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Beerfish wrote...

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.   

From what I've seen, there weren't any abominations among the Dalish or in Haven. There was an outbreak of abominations in Kinloch Hold, and given the prior Rites that the templars have enacted, they obviously haven't been able to stop mages from becoming abominations - in fact, the reason that the Rites were enacted was because the mages were responding to the murder of a mage at the hands of a templar, and the situation at the Circle Tower transpired because mages were fighting to be free from the templars and the Chantry. It makes sense to me that giving mages some basic human rights and a say in their lives would prevent these type of situations from transpiring - mages aren't going to be turning to dark arts to be free of their oppressors if they aren't being oppressed, after all.

Aldandil wrote...

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.

Maybe in place of being condescending, you could try formulating some comments of substance yourself?

Beerfish wrote...

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. 

How is imprisoning and dehumanizing mages the actions of a good man, much less a good organization? All I've seen from DA:O and the expansion Awakening is that, after hundreds of years of being under the thumb of the Chantry, mages want their freedom. The mages will never stop trying to emancipate themselves from the Chantry. Inevitably, it's going to lead to a war between the two. There could be some mage in the form of Toussaint Louverture who decides to lead his people to emancipate themselves from the Chantry.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 20 janvier 2011 - 09:42 .

[IanPolaris]

Beerfish wrote...

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. 

Yes which is precisely what you are doing if you permit the Chantry to continue the circle system for it's own power (it was never about protecting others).  Why do some of you persist in ignoring your own game lore?

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Aldandil wrote...

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.

Proof of this speculation might be nice.  We here no evidence that the Chantry ever changed their mind about the circle.

-Polaris

P.S.  It also shouldn't be hard for the Chantry to provide such proof if what you say was actually true (and the evidence at least implies that it isn't).  After all, records have been kept since the earliest days, all the Chantry would have to say is "We had X abomination incidents before the circles per year and Y afterwords" and that would be more than enough.  We don't hear anything remotely like this....just the unsupported assertions of Chantry apologists like Wynne and Keli (and whatever she calls herself, I consider Wynne to be a chantry apologist).

Modifié par IanPolaris, 20 janvier 2011 - 09:23 .

[IanPolaris]

Aldandil wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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

Actually, he didn't.

Actually I did.

-Polaris

[Aldandil]

IanPolaris wrote...
stuff

We can keep repeating our arguments over and over again, sure. Your arguments doesn't adress why I think the mages should be contained in the Circle.

Once again:
1. Mages are dangerous.
2. The Circles contains that danger.

The Circle is bad for the mages but it works. There is no mention of any other system that works better. Within the boundary of the game world, the Circle is the only thing that seems to be safe enough for the major population and stable enough to work. If this changes, then things might be better for the mages, but the way Thedas looks, I have a hard time seeing a better solution on the horizon. Mage/Templar war doesn't seem like a good thing.

Is there an optimal solution? I'll do a Tommy Lee Jones here, and simply state "I don't care". The setting doesn't seem to allow an optimal solution. Things probably weren't all fun and games back before the Circles, they're probably not perfect with the Dalish or the Rivaini either. We don't know that, but that is the nature of the setting.

I'll go pages back and get something I've already posted with regards to the pointlessness of determining the perfect solution a fictional setting:

Aldandil wrote...

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".

We could save our breath by saying everyone should be happy.

Finally, what difference does it make why the Circles were created? What those rites of annulment shows is that mages blow up no matter what. I'm sure they did before, and they do so afterwards too. Remember though, that each rite of annulment is not the same as one mage turning into an Abomination, it's something that's corrupting an entire Circle. However, it should be granted that quite a few of those rites are cases Circles where blood magic was, or was believed to have been practiced. Mages turning into abominations probably happen more often, and as it is, within a confined area, filled with Templars and other mages to bring the abomination down.

[Aldandil]

IanPolaris wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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

Actually, he didn't.

Actually I did.

-Polaris

My mistake, you did adress it. You didn't answer it, however.

[Sir JK]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
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]
It is not a false dicotomy, Polaris. We are simply approaching it from different premises. To you it might be, but not to me.
As horrid as the harrowing is... a mage will be tempted. Sooner or later there will be a demon. Sooner or later it will be a true dilemma. They will come when you are afraid, desperate, angry... when you cannot make a rational decision. That better not be their first encounter of that kind. Because the demons are not going to fight fair, so to speak.
That's why I see the harrowing as a neccessity and tranquility as the alternative. Because the thought of letting magelings loose in the world untested against the demons that can come to them whenever is worse.
Perhaps apostates, Dalish, qunari, rivaini and others indeed have alternatives. But I don't know them. So I don't debate them.

[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]

Indeed. Allthough I disagree strongly that Wynne and Keli are idiots. Keli is just a girl scared out of her wits by the power in her fingertips and to be honest, if I had the power to destroy people at whim... so would I be. Wynne however, is an old woman who have learned to accept her place and find joy in her life. Might be the reason she preaches it so often is that she feels she needs to hear it as well, to convince herself her life was not wasted?

Or alternatively, she preaches it because she honestly believes it. That the presence of Aequitarians and Loyalists is indeed proof that mages have it better on average than most of us think they do. That they're not crazy/cowards... but just people with a different view on life.
Sten says that a people cannot be summarised in a short and simple sentences. Perhaps the same is true of mages and their life?

[quote]
Wilhelm never earned his freedom.   That was a special case if there ever was one. [/quote]
Indeed. But it was there. Which is a step up from impossible.

[quote]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]
Of course. We have Gaider saying that inside the tower the mages' lives are theirs. The Chantry cannot and do not tell them what to do outside of obeying the rules (which includes don't get kids, stay indoors, don't steal the knight-commanders slippers, no blood magic and some other things). But what the mages do in there. That's their choice. Noone elses.
Assuming no Rite of Tranquility/annulment. Maleficar hunt or similar. That is special cases though.

That said... there's probably plenty of templars overstepping their authority and not getting punished (even if caught). That would not surprise me one bit.

[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]
Well it happens to you because of your nobility and due to the political climate. Commoners usually get let off scot free... or killed.
But yes, it is considered bad form to put nobles in dungeons. But look at Mehgren and Howe for instance. There are very ruthless people among the nobility too.
This happened IRL too, here in Sweden we have had two kings who died in tower cells (one out of starvation) and have had every noble in Stockholm (and seeing they were there to swear fealty... they represented a greater part of the realm) executed on merit of guilt by association (okay... some where actually "guilty").

[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]

For levies yes. Retainers served for life (the permanent household guard). But yes, volounteers were used as well. Those too are special cases though.


[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]

As I said. Not all those are limited time. Templars serve for life. Priests are priests for life (and hey... they don't get families either). Retainers and knights also serve for life.
However, I do admit they have much better life than mages. No problem.

[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]
Fair enough. I did pull it to it's extreme. And indeed, it does seem like Thedas is approaching it's renaissance. Still, I feel that the choices of common people are not leagues better than those available for mages.
Nothing kills choice more than poverty (because even if allowed them, you have no means to take them) and the mages are not poor.
I'd even go so far to say... there's probably lots of people who would want to trade up for what mages have.

[quote]You still don't HAVE to take the vows.[/quote]
What is the alternative then? You're a grown person so noone will take you as apprentice. You don't have any money. Your family will probably not take you back. Sure... if you manage to find a grey warden maybe you could convince them to take you in. Or like Leliana become a lay-sister.
But again... that is special cases (and technically a mage could find a grey warden and convince them to conscript them as well. Better hope the templars listens though )

[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]
However... who would hire a man who ran away when he was about to take his first test of loyalty?

[quote]Actually they didn't.  Duncan conscripted Alistair.  Alistair even says as much.[/quote]
Hence the "but they would probably have taken him anyways". Alistair chose to become a Grey Warden fully. Duncan took him yes, but he happily consented.
[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]
My point exactly

[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]
Still. They are prisoners. Not slaves. Prisoners by because of birth perhaps, but prisoners nonetheless.


[quote]Probably, but it's better to starve on your feet than be well fed on your knees.[/quote]
Usually said by people standing on their feet while being well fed. People who have always starved tend to look at it as a slightly more difficult question.

If you are free to leave a place but forced to work so hard to feed yourself (and your family) that you cannot leave. Is there a difference? For others looking at them, certainly. But for them?

[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]
There is a great deal of difference between fighting an opressor and fighting someone who just does not want to get involved though. I'd have thought it was freedom for all mages that was what mattered... not simply just those who agreed.

[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.[/quote]
I did. The entry seem to hint that it was the mages idea. But to be honest... it was so long ago and looks so odd I'd be happy to call that myth.
However, what the circle was originally does not matter as much as what is has changed into. Does it not?

[Beerfish]

IanPolaris wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

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. 

Yes which is precisely what you are doing if you permit the Chantry to continue the circle system for it's own power (it was never about protecting others).  Why do some of you persist in ignoring your own game lore?

-Polaris

Abomination slaughters hoards of innocents kind of evil trumps, we are hard done by even though we have a fairly comfortable kind of lifestyle every time in my book and probably in the books of the common man, nobles and such.

It's obvious that this discussion could go on forever and no concensus reached.  I'll leave it at this for my point of view.  The people that have been in full support of mages having total freedom to do what they wish have totally failed to convince me that mages left to their own devices are no threat at all to society in general (whether it is their own choice or not).

Looking at it from the eyes of the Chantry, Templars and by far the most important of all the common people of the world, peasants, banns, nobles and some mages, a danger exists with mages and will always be there as long as possession of them can take place.  They will be dealt with in a manner outside of the normal person no matter if they are contained and looked at by the Templars or not.

[Aldandil]

I'll throw this in here, just for fun. From the Codex:



Abominations have been responsible for some of the worst cataclysms in history, and the notion that some mage in a remote tower could turn into such a creature unbeknownst to any was the driving force behind the creation of the Circle of Magi.

[IanPolaris]

Beerfish wrote...

It's obvious that this discussion could go on forever and no concensus reached.  I'll leave it at this for my point of view.  The people that have been in full support of mages having total freedom to do what they wish have totally failed to convince me that mages left to their own devices are no threat at all to society in general (whether it is their own choice or not).

Looking at it from the eyes of the Chantry, Templars and by far the most important of all the common people of the world, peasants, banns, nobles and some mages, a danger exists with mages and will always be there as long as possession of them can take place.  They will be dealt with in a manner outside of the normal person no matter if they are contained and looked at by the Templars or not.[/b]

Strawman.  Fifteen yard penalty.  NO ONE is saying that mages shouldn't be regulated or that mages should be able to do whatever they want.  This is a strawman argument on your part.  Likewise no one is saying that abominations aren't bad and that steps should be taken to address it.

What is conspiciously lacking is any evidence that the Chantry should be the one to do this or that the circle system is even necessary....and I have pulled from the Chantry's own history (Codex History of the Circle) that not even the Chantry believes the Circle is there for the protection of others.  The Circle exists first, last, and always to protect mages.  Always has.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Aldandil wrote...

I'll throw this in here, just for fun. From the Codex:

Abominations have been responsible for some of the worst cataclysms in history, and the notion that some mage in a remote tower could turn into such a creature unbeknownst to any was the driving force behind the creation of the Circle of Magi.

Which Codex and written by whom.  I have shown Codex entries that say the opposite.  Again cite the specific codex or step down.

-Poalris

[LobselVith8]

Aldandil wrote...

Once again:
1. Mages are dangerous.
2. The Circles contains that danger.

The Circle is bad for the mages but it works. There is no mention of any other system that works better.

Probably because Arlathan was destroyed by Tevinter, the Chantry sacked the Dales, and the Dalish are now homeless. The Andrastian Chantry has spread throughout most human lands, so they're pretty much the only information we're really given much information about since Ferelden is an Andrastian nation. However, if the Circles weren't established to protect ordinary people from mages, then it clearly wasn't enough of a threat to warrant their immediate arrest and imprisonment. Claiming that it's necessary now ignores that historically, mages and non-mages have lived side by side in human history.

Again, no one is saying that magic isn't dangerous, nobody is arguing that mages shouldn't be properly instructed to handle their power responsibly; the argument that some people here are making is against imprisoning these mages simply for being mages. There's no danger in treating mages like real people, with the same rights as anyone else in Ferelden, especially when you consider how mages have helped battle darkspawn and beat back the invading Qunari.

Aldandil wrote...

Within the boundary of the game world, the Circle is the only thing that seems to be safe enough for the major population and stable enough to work. If this changes, then things might be better for the mages, but the way Thedas looks, I have a hard time seeing a better solution on the horizon. Mage/Templar war doesn't seem like a good thing.

Mage/Templar war seems inevitable since mages want to be emancipated from the Chantry.

Aldandil wrote...

Is there an optimal solution? I'll do a Tommy Lee Jones here, and simply state "I don't care". The setting doesn't seem to allow an optimal solution. Things probably weren't all fun and games back before the Circles, they're probably not perfect with the Dalish or the Rivaini either. We don't know that, but that is the nature of the setting.

Considering that the codex for the History of the Circle illustrates that they weren't segregated in the past, how is that no longer an optimal solution? How is allowing an organization that preaches intolerance and fear against mages to have full authority and control over mages across the continent going to lead to anything but disaster?

Aldandil wrote...

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.

These points are actually addressed with the royal boons the Warden is afforded, at the end of DA:O. The City Elf can become the new elven Bann of the Alienage and will bring prosperity to the sector (in the bugged epilogue that doesn't show), the Dalish get the Hinterlands (up to and including Ostagar), and Bhelen provides freedoms to the casteless. In fact, the Magi boon concerns the Warden asking the ruler of Ferelden for the mages to be given their independence, and the ruler agrees before an assembly of people, including a member of the Chantry.

Aldandil wrote...

Finally, what difference does it make why the Circles were created? 

Because it explains the purpose behind the Circles in the first place.

Aldandil wrote...

What those rites of annulment shows is that mages blow up no matter what. I'm sure they did before, and they do so afterwards too. Remember though, that each rite of annulment is not the same as one mage turning into an Abomination, it's something that's corrupting an entire Circle. However, it should be granted that quite a few of those rites are cases Circles where blood magic was, or was believed to have been practiced.

We're only provided information on the incident that caused the creation of the Rite of Anulment in the first place. Where are you getting this information about blood magic being used in the prior Rites?

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

I did. The entry seem to hint that it was the mages idea. But to be honest... it was so long ago and looks so odd I'd be happy to call that myth.
However, what the circle was originally does not matter as much as what is has changed into. Does it not?

Evidence for this would be nice even something of the order of the circle system aided the abomination problem.  You won't find such evidence, however.  I've looked.  It's not there.  There is no evidence that the circle system was ever intended to protect anyone, and no evidence that it does.  You hear a lot of assertions that it does especially from Chantry apologists, but no real evidence.

-Polaris

[Aldandil]

IanPolaris wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

I'll throw this in here, just for fun. From the Codex:

Abominations have been responsible for some of the worst cataclysms in history, and the notion that some mage in a remote tower could turn into such a creature unbeknownst to any was the driving force behind the creation of the Circle of Magi.

Which Codex and written by whom.  I have shown Codex entries that say the opposite.  Again cite the specific codex or step down.

-Poalris

The codex entry about abominations. Written by the writers, not part of an in-game scroll.

[Morroian]

Aldandil wrote...

We can keep repeating our arguments over and over again, sure. Your arguments doesn't adress why I think the mages should be contained in the Circle.

Once again:
1. Mages are dangerous.
2. The Circles contains that danger.

Proposed alternatives address these points.

Aldandil wrote...

The Circle is bad for the mages but it works.

Uldred and Connor would imply ortherwise.

Aldandil wrote...

There is no mention of any other system that works better.

There are other systems implied that work at least just as well and provide mages with more freedom. I don't see why the more modern progressive systems proposed wouldn't work better and indeed allow society to function better since mages would be more productive. The reason they ahven't been tried within teh game world is that its a backward medieval world.

Aldandil wrote...
Within the boundary of the game world, the Circle is the only thing that seems to be safe enough for the major population and stable enough to work. If this changes, then things might be better for the mages, but the way Thedas looks, I have a hard time seeing a better solution on the horizon. Mage/Templar war doesn't seem like a good thing.

So use a system that doesn't inflame mages to rebellion.

Aldandil wrote...
Is there an optimal solution? I'll do a Tommy Lee Jones here, and simply state "I don't care". The setting doesn't seem to allow an optimal solution.

I don't think there is an optimal solution. But the alternatives proposed if they contain abominations can only be better.

[IanPolaris]

Aldandil wrote...

The codex entry about abominations. Written by the writers, not part of an in-game scroll.

Nope that codex entry was "written" from the point of view of a templar and I will post the full text here:

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

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

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

We shouted prayers to the Maker and deflected what magic we could, but as we fought, the creature fought harder. I saw my comrades fall, burned by the flaming sky or crushed by debris. The monstrous creature, looking as if a demon were wearing a man like a twisted suit of skin, spotted me and grinned. We had forced it to this, I realized; the mage had made this pact, given himself over to the demon to survive our assault."

--Transcribed from a tale told by a former templar in Cumberland, 8:84 Blessed.[/i]

Not only was it written by a templar but the codex entry doesn't say what you claimed.  The Wiki entry does, but that ain't official and frequently wrong.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  Not only that, but when you read the very codex entry you cite, you find it was the templars themselves that caused this abomination by forcing the mage into a situation where he had to make a deal with a demon or die.  This is what we are talking about when we say the Chantry's system doesn't work.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 20 janvier 2011 - 10:27 .

[Aldandil]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Probably because Arlathan was destroyed by Tevinter, the Chantry sacked the Dales, and the Dalish are now homeless. The Andrastian Chantry has spread throughout most human lands, so they're pretty much the only information we're really given much information about since Ferelden is an Andrastian nation. However, if the Circles weren't established to protect ordinary people from mages, then it clearly wasn't enough of a threat to warrant their immediate arrest and imprisonment. Claiming that it's necessary now ignores that historically, mages and non-mages have lived side by side in human history.

Again, no one is saying that magic isn't dangerous, nobody is arguing that mages shouldn't be properly instructed to handle their power responsibly; the argument that some people here are making is against imprisoning these mages simply for being mages. There's no danger in treating mages like real people, with the same rights as anyone else in Ferelden, especially when you consider how mages have helped battle darkspawn and beat back the invading Qunari.

Mage/Templar war seems inevitable since mages want to be emancipated from the Chantry.


Considering that the codex for the History of the Circle illustrates that they weren't segregated in the past, how is that no longer an optimal solution? How is allowing an organization that preaches intolerance and fear against mages to have full authority and control over mages across the continent going to lead to anything but disaster?


These points are actually addressed with the royal boons the Warden is afforded, at the end of DA:O. The City Elf can become the new elven Bann of the Alienage and will bring prosperity to the sector (in the bugged epilogue that doesn't show), the Dalish get the Hinterlands (up to and including Ostagar), and Bhelen provides freedoms to the casteless. In fact, the Magi boon concerns the Warden asking the ruler of Ferelden for the mages to be given their independence, and the ruler agrees before an assembly of people, including a member of the Chantry.


Because it explains the purpose behind the Circles in the first place.


We're only provided information on the incident that caused the creation of the Rite of Anulment in the first place. Where are you getting this information about blood magic being used in the prior Rites?

That mages weren't in society before probably meant that a lot of people died when an abomination showed up, because mages turn into abomination and that's dangerous for their surroundings.

What difference does the purpose behind the Circles in the first place do?

I'm guessing about the Blood Magic and the rites. Seems reasonable. Since it makes your argument stronger and mine weaker, I suppose I didn't bother to make that clear, but I should have.

[Beerfish]

IanPolaris wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

It's obvious that this discussion could go on forever and no concensus reached.  I'll leave it at this for my point of view.  The people that have been in full support of mages having total freedom to do what they wish have totally failed to convince me that mages left to their own devices are no threat at all to society in general (whether it is their own choice or not).

Looking at it from the eyes of the Chantry, Templars and by far the most important of all the common people of the world, peasants, banns, nobles and some mages, a danger exists with mages and will always be there as long as possession of them can take place.  They will be dealt with in a manner outside of the normal person no matter if they are contained and looked at by the Templars or not.[/b]

Strawman.  Fifteen yard penalty.  NO ONE is saying that mages shouldn't be regulated or that mages should be able to do whatever they want.  This is a strawman argument on your part.  Likewise no one is saying that abominations aren't bad and that steps should be taken to address it.

What is conspiciously lacking is any evidence that the Chantry should be the one to do this or that the circle system is even necessary....and I have pulled from the Chantry's own history (Codex History of the Circle) that not even the Chantry believes the Circle is there for the protection of others.  The Circle exists first, last, and always to protect mages.  Always has.

-Polaris

And despite REPEATED requests in this thread, not once has any of the pro mage people in this thread come up with any kind of realistic 'regulation plan' .  Perhaps because they have already juimped all over the 'slavery' defintion to such an extent that any restriction they apply will be considered slavery?  You can call strawman all you wish if I can call topic avoidance in regard to the pro mage people downplaying danger from abominations and coming up with zero alternative to the present situation.  It's easy to defend an alternative when you don't actually put one forth. 

[Wyndham711]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Wyndham711 wrote...

If one believes that spreading the faith to the four corners of the world and making it believed by everyone a) is the Maker's will, and will trigger the Maker's return, ensuring eternal happiness for everyone - then conversion by the sword is indeed a justified act, not to mention a logical one. I don't see any solid reason for the subjects of the Chantry to not believe that to be true.

Murdering innocent people to force your religion in the region is never justifiable.

If it is the Maker's will then anything is justifiable. The Maker determines what is or isn't justifiable. Even a generally immoral act becomes a moral one if it is warranted by the Maker, or one of those who speak for him. Should one believe Chantry's teachings (and for a common person living under its influence rarely is there a solid reason not to do so) one is obliged to agree that the slaughtering of innocents is acceptable if done under the Maker's mandate.

What's more, the Maker of Thedas may well exist - one of the most fascinating, exciting aspects of the setting in my opinion. Essentially, a setting that fiddles with the question 'what if there actually was a god'?

Modifié par Wyndham711, 20 janvier 2011 - 10:31 .

[Johnny Shepard]

IanPolaris wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

I'll throw this in here, just for fun. From the Codex:

Abominations have been responsible for some of the worst cataclysms in history, and the notion that some mage in a remote tower could turn into such a creature unbeknownst to any was the driving force behind the creation of the Circle of Magi.

Which Codex and written by whom.  I have shown Codex entries that say the opposite.  Again cite the specific codex or step down.

-Poalris

Main ingame codex, under creatures marked "Abomination".
In the end of the part starting with:

"Regardless of the reason, a demon always attempts to possess a mage when it encounters one--by force or by making some kind of deal, depending in the streath of the mage."

[Beerfish]

Morroian wrote...



"The Circle is bad for the mages but it works. "

Uldred and Connor would imply ortherwise.

Connor was not turned over to the Chantry as he should have been.  Thus the problem.  That tragedy was 100% due to the fact that a person did NOT follow the current mage rules but instead decided to do their own thing.  That is a pretty clear + on the side of the present rules.  Whether the rules are distasteful or not, if Connor is Circle bound as soon as he should have been Redcliffe would not have occured.

One could easily argue that if the Chantry and Templars had been more vigilant, not less vigilant they could have stopped Uldred as well. 

[Aldandil]

IanPolaris wrote...

Aldandil wrote...

The codex entry about abominations. Written by the writers, not part of an in-game scroll.

Nope that codex entry was "written" from the point of view of a templar and I will post the full text here:

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

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

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

We shouted prayers to the Maker and deflected what magic we could, but as we fought, the creature fought harder. I saw my comrades fall, burned by the flaming sky or crushed by debris. The monstrous creature, looking as if a demon were wearing a man like a twisted suit of skin, spotted me and grinned. We had forced it to this, I realized; the mage had made this pact, given himself over to the demon to survive our assault."

--Transcribed from a tale told by a former templar in Cumberland, 8:84 Blessed.[/i]

Not only was it written by a templar but the codex entry doesn't say what you claimed.  The Wiki entry does, but that ain't official and frequently wrong.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  Not only that, but when you read the very codex entry you cite, you find it was the templars themselves that caused this abomination by forcing the mage into a situation where he had to make a deal with a demon or die.  This is what we are talking about when we say the Chantry's system doesn't work.

I opened up the game, the text is in there. You need to scroll down. It says exactly what the wiki entry says, and considering that the wiki entry copies the Codex, that's hardly surprising.

[IanPolaris]

Aldandil wrote...

That mages weren't in society before probably meant that a lot of people died when an abomination showed up, because mages turn into abomination and that's dangerous for their surroundings.

Mages were in society before.  The codex: History of the Circle makes that abundantly clear.  The segretation of mages from society is only a few centuries old.

No one had an issue with it until the mages decided to go on strike...and of course they were cheerful.  The nutty Divine wanted to kill all of them and the templars talked her out of it.

As for proposing an alternative I have many times as have others:

1.  Remove Chantry oversight from mages.  Put that responsibility into hands of the individual nations.
2.  Give some trusted mages say in how mages are regulated and recruit the best of them to help you police mages.  Mages are human (or elven) like anyone else.  There are good ones and bad ones, so get the good ones to help you!
3.  With mage assisted oversight, impose standards that mages must adhere to and make penalties for misusing magic harsh.
4.  Treat mages like human beings with rights like anyone else in society and give them a stake in the society they live in.

All are quite doable (and indeed the Dales both as a kingdom and as tribes seem to do almost exactly this).

-Polaris