1869 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

JamesX wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Yes.  Keli is exhibit A and Wynne is exhibit B of exactly that sort.  In fact both (esp Wynne) turn off their brains whever the subject of the chantry comes up (and especially blood magic).

I actually think Wynn makes a lot of sense when it comes to blood mage and chantry.  Why is it you consider them turning their brains off when they take an opinion you don't agree with?

This is really a topic for another thread but let's start with Wynne single-handedly condeming her own circle AND the templars to a painful death after the most powerful blood mage (your warden) just risked life and limb to SAVE the circle and even after Irving and Gregoire try to talk her down from this?!  Wynne is a complete hypocrit when it comes to bloodmagic and abominations especially since she IS one.  I note that she does NOT try to turn you in (and destroy her own circle) if you side with the Templars.

IanPolaris wrote...That wasn't why the UN was founded.  If it was, the Soviet Union never would have signed.

Soviet Signed because either they are involved or they are going to be completely cut out.  Your view of the world seems incredibly unsophesticated.  #1 rules about Countries, they exist as parasites upon each other.   Even if you claim they are symbiotic, symbiotic is just mutual parasitism.  It is true in biology and it is true in society.

I am unsophisciated?!  You have a completely skewed (and wrong) view of history my friend.  If the Soviet Union had not signed the UN Charter, then the entire UN would have been doomed from the start.  This was well known after the League of Nations debacle when the US wouldn't join.  In fact the Soviets were bribed with three votes in the General Assembly to get them to sign. 

No way Stalin would have signed if the UN was just going to be the tool of the US....and it hasn't been.  Also just how "good" the UN has acutally been is subject to a lot of dispute but that would get into RL politics and thus is a verboten topic.  The fact is that the CCCP had a stranglehold on most of Asia and Eastern Europe and could have easily given the Western Allies the middle finger with regard to the UN.  Indeed the only reason the UN intervened in Korea was because the Soviets were boycotting it because they were in a snit.

IanPolaris wrote...

Penicillin was an accident with positive results and was a physical discovery in medicine with provable and verifiable benefits.  I have yet to see anything of the sort (or evidence at all) when it comes to the circle.

-Polaris

Yet Circle is an actual physical entity.  Previously your entire argument rest in that Circle is founded (in your opinion) on Chantry lies and ONLY because of Chantry lies.  My point is that whatever chantry said is irrelevant in the scope of the world because the Circle is an entity/organization and have effects beyond its origins.

No.  The circle is a social group.  The circle tower is a physcal entity.  Please try to remember the difference.  At any rate, you don't prove that the circle is actually beneficial as it's run now.  Not once.

As for verifiable evidence

We know as facts that Circle is independent in their own governance with Supervision by the Templars in the case of Abominations.  This is fact.  You can argue that they can be killed at any time, but you cannot deny that Irwin have demonstrated considerable independence.  Circle Mages can also travel across the world with or without out Templar Escorts.  By the very fact that the Circle was in Ostagar without an Templar Army present.  And later when you recruit circle's help and have the random encounter they are not travelling with Templar Escorts.

The chantry can (and has) override any decision by the first enchanter either in the person of the Knight Commander (as evidenced in the Mage Origin) or by the Grand-Cleric/Divine (as evidenced by the Chantry dismissing the King of Fereldan's boon to mages).  That's not independance by any stretch of the imagination.

We also known as fact that it provided young mages with a sort of safe habor, where they are housed and basic necessity of living met.  They are also prepared with valuable training and guidence.  However inadequate you believe their system being, you cannot argue that a circle trained mage is not better off than some poor adolescent turned mage in the middle of some backwater village and left off to face society on his own while avoiding the pitfalls of the fade.

No one is saying that.  I note that social attitudes against mages have been largely driven by the chantry.  The Reverand Mother in Redcliff rather shame-facedly admits as much when she thanks your mage for helping the villiage and in her own way (as much as she can) admits the chantry probably doesn't deserve your help. [She mades a similiar admission to a Dalish PC as well w/r/t the Dales]

Again you are committing the logical fallacy called the false dichotomy.  No one is saying that mages shouldn't be regulated.  We are saying that:

1.  The Chantry is a terrible organization to do that because it's a religious organization that hates magic (and it does).
2.  The act of "false imprisonment" for dubious security (and really about control as the Codex Entry: History of the Circle makes clear) actually creates more problems than it solves.....and obviously isn't required for safe and stable societies (since many including Andrastian societes) existed quite well without mages being sent into imprisonment.

However, if you sincerely believe that adolescent who awakened to his mage powers in those conditions are STILL better off than a Circle Neophyte then we really have nothing to discuss is there?  

Again with the false dichotomy.  *sigh*

-Polaris

[atheelogos]

Addai67 wrote...

JamesX wrote...
As for Jail? how are they jailed?  Mages can travel - after they pass the harrowing.  They have personal property.  They are deprived of liberty only when they may be possible dangers of possession.  Is that not reasonable?  A templar is NOT suppose to harm mages that are not abominations, in fact Gregoir talked the templar in the circle tower that was tortmented by Abomination Blood Mage down.  You cannot fault the system for the abuse of a few.   Especially when those in positions of power, such as Gregoir, sets the right example.

Mages can only travel when given permission.  That's prison work release.  They might have some knickknacks, but they don't even have privacy in the toilet or bedroom.  They can't hold title or have families of their own.  That's prison.

Greagoir and Irving are not as bad as some, but they still know every private detail of all the mages' lives- Irving brags about it- and exercise the power of life and death over people even on suspicion of being a blood mage.  And yes, the Circle itself is complicit.  It's not just the templars.  That's why the mage boon is a joke.  The Circle is the Chantry and vice versa.

"over people even on suspicion of being a blood mage" See this is my main problem with legal system. You can convict  people on suspicion alone. Who here can say thats ethical?

[IanPolaris]

atheelogos wrote...

"over people even on suspicion of being a blood mage" See this is my main problem with legal system. You can convict  people on suspicion alone. Who here can say thats ethical?

Exactly.  That would never fly in Fereldan proper because even peasents (hypothetically anyway) have a right to a trial (be heard by their lord).  In Fereledan proper, accusing someone of theft or murder (for example) even if it's by a knight against a commoner is not an automatic death sentence.  Admittedly the odds are long against the commoner, but the commoner can't simply be convicted (in Fereldan anyway) just on some one's say so.

Yet that's exactly the situation the mages are in (which again proves they have no legal rights).  Gregoire gets hearsay evidence that Jowan is a bloodmage and sentences him to tranquility (which is death with slavery benefits afterwards) with no trial, no hearing, nothing.

EPIC FAIL

-Polaris

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...
 Wynne is a complete hypocrit when it comes to bloodmagic and abominations especially since she IS one.

Spirits are different things. I'm not sure there's a word for what she is. Vessel, maybe.

IanPolaris wrote...
The act of "false imprisonment" for dubious security (and really about control as the Codex Entry: History of the Circle makes clear) actually creates more problems than it solves

Indeed, it's an exchange of problems, not a true solution, but it does serve to reduce risk to the general populace, which, at the very least is the justification for the power play of controlling them.

IanPolaris wrote...
.....and obviously isn't required for safe and stable societies (since many including Andrastian societes) existed quite well without mages being sent into imprisonment.

Which ones?

[LobselVith8]

[QUOTE]James X wrote...
Yet Circle is an actual physical entity. Previously your entire argument rest in that Circle is founded (in your opinion) on Chantry lies and ONLY because of Chantry lies. My point is that whatever chantry said is irrelevant in the scope of the world because the Circle is an entity/organization and have effects beyond its origins.

As for verifiable evidence

We know as facts that Circle is independent in their own governance with Supervision by the Templars in the case of Abominations. This is fact. You can argue that they can be killed at any time, but you cannot deny that Irwin have demonstrated considerable independence. Circle Mages can also travel across the world with or without out Templar Escorts. By the very fact that the Circle was in Ostagar without an Templar Army present. And later when you recruit circle's help and have the random encounter they are not travelling with Templar Escorts. [/quote]
Allow me to address these points in order:
So the Circle is independent? That's funny, I could've sworn my elven mage Hero of Ferelden specifically asked the ruler of Ferelden for the Circle of Magi to be given it's independence. I don't see how I could've asked for that royal boon if the Circle was independent. Considering that David Gaider has already revealed that the Chantry said no (because they control all of the Circles across Thedas in the Andrastian nations) it doesn't seem like they're independent by any measure.
You mean First Enchanter Irving, right? He didn't have any independence. He openly admits to the Warden (if challenged about Jowan's Rite of Tranquility) that things would be different if it was up to him, but that it isn't - Greagoir has decided Jowan's fate, and there's nothing that he can do. Irving even admits that he's not aware of what evidence Greagoir has on Jowan, which is why the PC can claim that Greagoir is making it all up.
As for your example about the mages in Ostagar, you realize that there were only seven of them (all of them Senior Enchanters - per the Magi Origin, according to Duncan), and they did have templars watching them - that's why the Warden can't speak to them directly (only Wynne) because they're in the Fade.
The templars are busy dealing with the mess the abominations left in their wake in the Circle Tower. The Circle aids the Warden because the treaties compel them to aid against a Blight, and the Knight-Commander acknowledges this issue - it's actually possible to bring up (at least for a Warden from the Circle of Magi) what they'll do if the Chantry tries to stop the mages from aiding them against the Blight when you're in Lothering.
[QUOTE]James X wrote...

We also known as fact that it provided young mages with a sort of safe habor, where they are housed and basic necessity of living met. They are also prepared with valuable training and guidence. However inadequate you believe their system being, you cannot argue that a circle trained mage is not better off than some poor adolescent turned mage in the middle of some backwater village and left off to face society on his own while avoiding the pitfalls of the fade. [/quote]
Nobody is arguing against properly training mages. People are arguing against imprisoning people for having magical ability. As for the threat mages are under, you do realize that it's the Chantry who spreads anti-mage propaganda about them? Greagoir calls magic a curse and places blame for the Blights on "mages" - not the Tevinter, but mages overall - in the opening scene of the Magi Origin. Mages can't inherit a title, can't raise children, can't marry or have relationships in some Circles, and they can be killed or turned tranquil by the claim that they're a maleficar: even though there may be absolutely no evidence to support this (see: Aenirin).
[QUOTE]James X wrote...

However, if you sincerely believe that adolescent who awakened to his mage powers in those conditions are STILL better off than a Circle Neophyte then we really have nothing to discuss is there?

Because your view of the world absolute makes no sense to someone like me. So any rational point I can come up will be nonsensical to you. [/quote]
The viewpoint is that mages shouldn't be imprisoned for having magical ability. You clearly have no issue with the Chantry imprisoning mages for their entire lives, so why argue the point and then pretend that if IanPolaris disagrees, it's because Ian refuses to accept rational arguments? Honestly, I find the Chantry's treatment of the mages monsterous and horrific.

[QUOTE]James X wrote...
Greagoir is actually not a mage. I was saying the other posted seems to believe Chantry made up how abominations are formed and the Circle Mage just decided to prepetulate that falsehood. [/quote]
I never claimed Greagoir was a mage. I said that he blamed mages for bringing the world to the edge of ruin, which he does (see: Magi Origin).
[QUOTE]James X wrote...

As for whether the Mages really did bring the world to the brink of ruin... no one can say they didn't. No have real concret proof they did. But the Greagoir still have faith and respect for Irwin should reflect greatly that the relationship between Templars and Mage isn't as black and white as some of you seem to believe. [/quote]
No one can say they did, either. The dwarves certainly don't believe it, and they always have to deal with the darkspawn. As for the relationship between Irving and Greagoir, considering that a mage-hating Cullen can become his replacement (if the Circle is culled and the Warden doesn't ask for the Circle to be given it's independence) and who is willing to rule the Circle in fear (see: the Epilogue) it's not always a guarentee that you'll end up with a Knight-Commander like Greagoir who is willing to discuss the issue.
[QUOTE]James X wrote...
Is it demonizing if it is true? As for the Circle under the sole authority of the Chantry we already know the system is not as clear cut as such. As I have pointed out above. Not everything is all or nothing. Gregoir even withheld the Extermination of Mages at Irwin's assurance. If the structure is truly autocratic, and truly Anti-magic, why would Gregoir (who was picked to be the commander in chief of the Templer at the Circle, entrusted with the responsibility to call extermination) be put in that post? So it is not unreasonable to believe that Chantry as an organization actually do NOT want to merely exterminate the mages. That those in power may in fact be sympathetic to the mages plight and is doing what they believe is necessary with what their understanding of the world.

Is it perfect? no. But it is hardly the black and white view of all or nothing that was painted by some. [/quote]

Actually, the Circle is under the sole authority of the Chantry. That's the reason DG explained for why the Magi boon never happens - the Chantry says no to the ruler of Ferelden.
If you're correct about it not being that bad for mages, then why can a mage-hating Cullen end up as the new Knight-Commander of the Ferelden Circle and rule the Circle in fear? Why is a sexually abused Fiona (an elven mage from The Calling) finding the Circle no better than her previous life as a victim of rape by a noble?
If the Chantry actually cared about mages like you claim, then why do Anders and Wynne both acknowledge that the Chantry would murder the mages if the Circles ever tried to emancipate themselves from the Chantry (see: Awakening)?
[QUOTE]James X wrote...
So you are essentially saying the Chantry is to blame for the weakness of character? How many mages were good and did not resort to black magic to achieve success? How many seems to live free lives? How is the Chantry that condition these people to the dark arts? Isn't it a weakness of their own personality? The inability to accept personal responsibility. The lack of will power to resist temptation? or even just power hungry? Are some mages abused by Templars? Certainly. Are all Templars evil? Certain not? Are all mages evil? Nope, but are some mages evil? Certainly. It is easy to point fingers but you have to point fingers at both sides. [/quote]
First and foremost, I said that the Chantry should also be blamed for their part in the crisis at Redcliffe, not solely.
In regards to blood magic, even Duncan admits that Grey Wardens have resorted to blood magic to combat the darkspawn.
Regarding templars, I never said all templars were evil - according to Alistair, the Chantry makes them addicted to lyrium to control them. He even doubts that lyrium enchances their ability to combat magic.
[QUOTE]James X wrote...

Regardless to say "I wanted freedom from oppression so I resorted to mind control and made pact with demons" doesn't that percisely the danger mages purpose? Are you saying if Mages were in the wild there will not simply do those things anyways? Some definitely will. Probably not as many, but is it going to be enough? Do you want to find out? If Connar, who is not even a child, was not stopped, the Plight would have won. Devastation would have sweept over all of Feralden. Are you saying the theoretical "freedom" of those who resort to dark powers is more important than 1000x their number in normal people? [/quote]

Maybe you can explain to me why Thedas is still standing, since there were no templars or Circles in Arlathan, the Dales, the Tevinter Imperium, among the nation-states that were soon conquered by the Orlesian Emperor, or among the dragon cults. In your scenerio, the world is gone because of the absense of the Chantry controlled Circles, yet the Circles are relatively new and the world was never destroyed despite the absense of the Order of Templars or the Circles of Magi. Again, allow me to repeat myself: no one is arguing against mages being properly taught how to use magic; the argument is over imprisoning mages for having magical ability.
[QUOTE]James X wrote...
It doesn't matter does it? NO system is perfect. Are you saying that more lives would ahve been saved if the Circle didn't exist? Are you saying that mages would not have become abominations, blood mages, practice any and all sorts of power for personal gain? Have you seen what the Tavinter Empire does? That is your forshadowing of what *can* happen. Are you saying it is a good thing? [/quote]
It didn't happen with Arlathan or the Dales, so let's not pretend that Tevinter is always the end result of mages not being enslaved to a religious organization.
Mages being treated like actual people and having rights is indeed a good thing. Being trained and not enslaved is a good thing. Not giving mages cause to fight for their freedom is going to avert an inevitable war between the mages and the templars that's been forshadowed in both DA:O and the expansion Awakening.
[QUOTE]James X wrote...

As for Jail? how are they jailed? Mages can travel - after they pass the harrowing. They have personal property. They are deprived of liberty only when they may be possible dangers of possession. Is that not reasonable? A templar is NOT suppose to harm mages that are not abominations, in fact Gregoir talked the templar in the circle tower that was tortmented by Abomination Blood Mage down. You cannot fault the system for the abuse of a few. Especially when those in positions of power, such as Gregoir, sets the right example. [/quote]

You mean, besides the VO for the Magi Origin that specifically labels the Circle Tower a prison?
They have no liberty - they're in prison, remember?
You mean Cullen? That must explain how Cullen can either rule the Circle in fear as the new Knight-Commander, or become a raving mad-man who kills mages on sight.
[QUOTE]Huntress wrote...
Second: Some mages are allow to get married but they have to be very good and work for the chantry, you can find more info of one of them while looking for the Golem Shale, her master was a mage and he was married, chantry allow him to work on a demon that almost possed the child. [/quote]

That mage was a war hero of the Orlesian occupation because he and Shale fought alongside the Rebel Queen and Prince Maric the Savior, and likely got a royal boon to live in the village with his wife and children - which is 100% impossible for any mages in the Circles, since no mage is permitted raise a child (except Grey Wardens, who are exempt from the Chantry, per the words of David Gaider and Wynne in a convo with Alistair about her son).
[QUOTE]JamesX wrote...
You are offended that you cannot access an off-limit area? I can't get into the King's tent either. I don't feel like I am oppressed by the guards. Or do you mean there are Templars in Ostagar? I don't remember seeing a templar army. And the rason the templar did not let you pass because it is dangerous to anyone to enter the area. [/quote]
There are seven mages at Ostagar - almost all Senior Enchanters. Why would there be need for a templar army?

[QUOTE]JamesX wrote...
... you never had the random encounter of the 2 apprentices + the mage elder combining spells did you? That has nothing to do with the Warden going to save the child. It happens even if you killing the child straight off the bat - without asking for the Circle's help. [/quote]

Irving and his mages come if the Warden asks him to help save Connor from the Desire Demon. As for the elder mage and his three apprentices, they head to Redcliffe because of the treaty compelling the Circle to aid against the Blight. Had there been another Knight-Commander in charge who outright refused to permit mages to aid against the Blight, then it would've been a problem.
[QUOTE]JamesX wrote...

There is no perfect system. Every law designed to protect the masses keeps someone down. Are you allowed to drive 100mph on the local streets? no. Because it is "unsafe" do you feel oppressed? There are reasonable laws and unreasonable laws.

You are saying that the Chantry keeping the mage down is unreasonable. Which I can understand why. But you are forgetting that being a mage is inherently dangerous. Even if you argue that Chantry made up the lies that only mages can be abominations. Thus far the examples of the most powerful abomations we have seen in the game are both mages. In fact even the warden would have been killed if the abomation that put him to sleep actually bothered to kill his physical form. It is LUCK that the warden survived at all. [/quote]
So, since magic is dangerous, let's imprison mages and deny them the opportunities that virtually everyone else in Thedas has? That sounds like a brilliant idea. I'm sure none of the mages will ever revolt against this system and try to gain their freedom by any means necessary. After all, it's not like some would rather die on their feet than live on their knees.
Ander's cat was possessed and killed four templars. Yes, four templars.
No, not luck - the Sloth Demon needed to feed off of his essence, and killing him would eliminate that possibility. That's what happened to Niall - that's why he perished.
[QUOTE]JamesX wrote...

The extend of non-mage abomation is the little girl being possessed by cat. It is not even known if that is possible because she is a unawakened mage (her bloodline is a mage bloodline) or that she is normal is not known. [/quote]

People can get possessed, but only mages can become abominations (and hopefully, someone will correct this on the DA Wiki that says otherwise, because DG already pointed this issue out and it was noted in the Talk Page that the actual page is incorrect in saying anyone can become an abomination).

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
 Wynne is a complete hypocrit when it comes to bloodmagic and abominations especially since she IS one.

Spirits are different things. I'm not sure there's a word for what she is. Vessel, maybe.

Is Wynne's body being inhabited by a Spirit from the fade?  Check
Did wynne permit this voluntarily?  Check
Did the Fade Spirit voluntarily and of it's own volution seek Wynne out?  Check

Ergo Wynne is an abomination since only demons willingly seek out human hosts to inhabit and it does give Wynne access to power she didn't have before, can control her actions, and does keep her alive.

By any Chantry definition (which is what counts here), Wynne IS an abomination.  Demons after all are just spirits with glowing and vibrant personalities (to paraphrase Anders...who ought to know being an expert on the Fade himself!)

IanPolaris wrote...
The act of "false imprisonment" for dubious security (and really about control as the Codex Entry: History of the Circle makes clear) actually creates more problems than it solves

Indeed, it's an exchange of problems, not a true solution, but it does serve to reduce risk to the general populace, which, at the very least is the justification for the power play of controlling them.

Evidence for this might be nice.  The only evidence I've seen from the chantry goes against this.  That is the only reason the circle was established to being with was to gain power over mages (allowing a nutty Divine the ability to break up what amounted to a magical worker's strike). 

IanPolaris wrote...
.....and obviously isn't required for safe and stable societies (since many including Andrastian societes) existed quite well without mages being sent into imprisonment.

Which ones?

You can start with all Chantry societies for the first two centuries after the death of Andraste.  You can add Rivvain, the Kdm of the Dales, the current Dalish, Haven (and other Dragon Cultists), Chasind, and much much more.

-Polaris

[Huntress]

JamesX wrote...

Huntress wrote...
Whoaw your horses, the first thing you see when you hit Ostagar and start to look/find Alistar is mages+ templars. This templars WON'T let you pass.

  You are offended that you cannot access an off-limit area?  I can't get into the King's tent either.  I don't feel like I am oppressed by the guards.  Or do you mean there are Templars in Ostagar?  I don't remember seeing a templar army.  And the rason the templar did not let you pass because it is dangerous to anyone to enter the area.  

Huntress wrote...
The mages at the encounters had a Job, to help Redcliff child,  the warden was going the same direction so no need for  templars.

... you never had the random encounter of the 2 apprentices + the mage elder combining spells did you?  That has nothing to do with the Warden going to save the child.  It happens even if you killing the child straight off the bat - without asking for the Circle's help.

Huntress wrote...
Second: Some mages are allow to get married but they have to be very good and work for the chantry, you can find more info of one of them while looking for the Golem Shale, her master was a mage and he was married, chantry allow him to work on a demon that almost possed the child.

IIRC No one knows the demon was there.  It was left long long ago.  I forgot aobut that mage.  So they can even live relatively normal lives even as member of the Circle/Chantry.

Huntress wrote...
Is the chantry keeping mages down? yes, and I don't like it a bit, mages in DA are living/breathing people, they deserve respect as anyone. The chantry is following one doctrine, put down anyone who do NOT workship the maker, I pity the dwarves:crying:

There is no perfect system. Every law designed to protect the masses keeps someone down.  Are you allowed to drive 100mph on the local streets?  no.  Because it is "unsafe" do you feel oppressed?  There are reasonable laws and unreasonable laws.

You are saying that the Chantry keeping the mage down is unreasonable.  Which I can understand why.  But you are forgetting that being a mage is inherently dangerous.  Even if you argue that Chantry made up the lies that only mages can be abominations.  Thus far the examples of the most powerful abomations we have seen in the game are both mages.  In fact even the warden would have been killed if the abomation that put him to sleep actually bothered to kill his physical form.  It is LUCK that the warden survived at all.

The extend of non-mage abomation is the little girl being possessed by cat.  It is not even known if that is possible because she is a unawakened mage (her bloodline is a mage bloodline) or that she is normal is not known.

You select the quote in a way that make me lol!

I didn't find anything offencive in Ostagar, just pointed to YOU that the mages ARE NEVER ALONE.

Talk to the mages in that encounter, they WILL always tell you there going to Redcliff ( you need to play the game.. again.) And just because you killed the child doesn't mean the game is smart and put mages to say, kill dark spawn to help you out. no the mages are meant to go to redcliff with child or not, you going to the tower first or last, won't matter the mages are going to redcliff.

When you enter the cellar, select TAB and read everyhting you find. The chantry new about the demon, the mage thought the demon was making shale Unstable and got killed. I will ask you again to play the game.

I am dangereous and I am no mage. My grandma is very dangerous too and she is NO mage.

What am trying to say anyone can be dangerous, your warden probably was a manic killer and probably was not a mage. shouldn't we all be put in a tower? Demons posses everything even dead corpses, yes they too can shoot fire, they tap nether/ether/energy, even a cat can be posses by demons in Dragon age Universe.

At the cellar tell the (demon/CAT) she can have the child but it has to be "worthy" or something similar. There you will see that in dragon age anything is possible.

I dont care about cars running around outside dragon age, I am not disscussing about that crap, get your mind in the game. What you think is fair is NOT, just think for a minute would you?

Do you want to be put in a tower just because you can run faster/ more sexy/ more taller/ more smart than  any (normal/ commun)person?
If you answer is NO, then answer me why not? shouldn't  someone put you in a place where not one also can see how better you are? Shouldn't us normal/ commun people see that everyone should fit in our misserable little world? If you can make something for free for us, you are better off the street, we could use you for competitions, make you work on cheap labour, and do not allow you to have any type of relations. No sex, no love that is not what we want from you. We normal/commun people will always remind you of how wrong is to be better than anyone also, that is the mage life and the templars life as jailers.

The abomination couldn't kill you because was working on 3 more characters, he probably was on a trance, and waiting that way until the bodies died or everyone actually belive the lies of the dream. If he loses the trance evryone will wake UP, he worked hard to keep everyone confuse, thats why your warden have the chance on saving everyone.

Was no luck was guts, Your warden knew that he wasn't in a real world and fought for his/her life and made friends that helped out.

Modifié par Huntress, 21 janvier 2011 - 04:58 .

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Maybe you can explain to me why Thedas is still standing, since there were no templars or Circles in Arlathan, the Dales, the Tevinter Imperium, among the nation-states that were soon conquered by the Orlesian Emperor, or among the dragon cults. In your scenerio, the world is gone because of the absense of the Chantry controlled Circles, yet the Circles are relatively new and the world was never destroyed despite the absense of the Order of Templars or the Circles of Magi.

There are in Tevinter, they're just not chantry ones, and I presume everywhere else copes with it by dealing the occasional catastrophy. Not sure it follows that the presence of disasters equals the end of a society.

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...
Demons after all are just spirits with glowing and vibrant personalities (to paraphrase Anders...who ought to know being an expert on the Fade himself!)

Mr Gaider from a recent thread about desire demons, underlining is mine:

David Gaider wrote...
Except that it is a demon. It's not a question of polite phrasing but of terminology-- a demon is any spirit that feeds off of/attempts to manipulate living beings through their baser emotions. The desire demons do so by definition.

David Gaider wrote...
Actually, I'd have nothing against having a Desire Demon as a party member. That could be quite cool. But they'd either need to be a manifest demon or be possessing a host-- theycouldn't be melded a la Wynne. That's what a spirit does, and the two are very different things.

IanPolaris wrote...

Indeed, it's an exchange of problems, not a true solution, but it does serve to reduce risk to the general populace, which, at the very least is the justification for the power play of controlling them.

Evidence for this might be nice.  The only evidence I've seen from the chantry goes against this.  That is the only reason the circle was established to being with was to gain power over mages (allowing a nutty Divine the ability to break up what amounted to a magical worker's strike).

Evidence that they're a threat to the general populace? I'm not sure what you mean.

IanPolaris wrote...
You can start with all Chantry societies for the first two centuries after the death of Andraste.  You can add Rivvain, the Kdm of the Dales, the current Dalish, Haven (and other Dragon Cultists), Chasind, and much much more.

How do we know they're safe from abominations?

Modifié par Ziggeh, 21 janvier 2011 - 04:56 .

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Demons after all are just spirits with glowing and vibrant personalities (to paraphrase Anders...who ought to know being an expert on the Fade himself!)

Mr Gaider from a recent thread about desire demons, underlining is mine:

David Gaider wrote...
Except that it is a demon. It's not a question of polite phrasing but of terminology-- a demon is any spirit that feeds off of/attempts to manipulate living beings through their baser emotions. The desire demons do so by definition.

David Gaider wrote...
Actually, I'd have nothing against having a Desire Demon as a party member. That could be quite cool. But they'd either need to be a manifest demon or be possessing a host-- theycouldn't be melded a la Wynne. That's what a spirit does, and the two are very different things.

Try telling that to the Templars and Grand Cleric.  The Chantry is well known for parsing the fine definitions of spirit possession.  Sure.......

IanPolaris wrote...

Indeed, it's an exchange of problems, not a true solution, but it does serve to reduce risk to the general populace, which, at the very least is the justification for the power play of controlling them.

Evidence for this might be nice.  The only evidence I've seen from the chantry goes against this.  That is the only reason the circle was established to being with was to gain power over mages (allowing a nutty Divine the ability to break up what amounted to a magical worker's strike).

Evidence that they're a threat to the general populace? I'm not sure what you mean.

Evidence that the circle does what you claim and does so better than before the circle existed.  Let's see some abomination rates pre and post circle!

IanPolaris wrote...
You can start with all Chantry societies for the first two centuries after the death of Andraste.  You can add Rivvain, the Kdm of the Dales, the current Dalish, Haven (and other Dragon Cultists), Chasind, and much much more.

How do we know they're safe from abominations?

We know that they handled them without coming apart at the seems which is contrary to what the Templars and Chantry would have you believe.  That's safe in a relative sense.

In short (as proven by the History of the Circle Codex written by the Chantry no less), the idea that the circle exists to protect mages from mundanes and mundanes from abominations is nothing but a bald faced lie.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Maybe you can explain to me why Thedas is still standing, since there were no templars or Circles in Arlathan, the Dales, the Tevinter Imperium, among the nation-states that were soon conquered by the Orlesian Emperor, or among the dragon cults. In your scenerio, the world is gone because of the absense of the Chantry controlled Circles, yet the Circles are relatively new and the world was never destroyed despite the absense of the Order of Templars or the Circles of Magi.

There are in Tevinter, they're just not chantry ones, and I presume everywhere else copes with it by dealing the occasional catastrophy. Not sure it follows that the presence of disasters equals the end of a society.

But the Circles in Tevinter transpired as a result of the Andrastian Chantry and remained when Tevinter turned to the "Black Divine" as their religious leader; they weren't always there.

I referenced Tevinter Imperium and the pre-Chantry nations in response to the claim that devastation would sweep over Ferelden without the Circle, and considering that hasn't been the case for countless centuries because Thedas is still in one piece, I disagreed. If the Circles weren't formed to combat apostates or abominations, then the need did not seem to be that urgent for mages to be segregated from society.

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...
Try telling that to the Templars and Grand Cleric.  The Chantry is well known for parsing the fine definitions of spirit possession.  Sure.......

True enough, doubt they'd be happy with the situation at all, doesn't actually make her one though.

IanPolaris wrote...
Evidence that the circle does what you claim and does so better than before the circle existed.  Let's see some abomination rates pre and post circle!

Oh, I see. Well, I would imagine it's gone up, what with the Harrowing and all, but it keeps them contained. It's not so much the number of abominations that would be the problem, but the problems presented by however many there happen to be. The problems for the population outside the towers are almost certainly going to be fewer.

IanPolaris wrote...
We know that they handled them without coming apart at the seems which is contrary to what the Templars and Chantry would have you believe.  That's safe in a relative sense.

Ok, but mages still present a problem that needs to be managed in some fashion, no matter how vitriolic the chantry are about it.

IanPolaris wrote...
the idea that the circle exists to protect mages from mundanes and mundanes from abominations is nothing but a bald faced lie.

That might not be why they set it up, but that's the purpose it serves. We're not talking about a real institution here, it was created with the moral dilemma in mind.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 21 janvier 2011 - 05:14 .

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I referenced Tevinter Imperium and the pre-Chantry nations in response to the claim that devastation would sweep over Ferelden without the Circle, and considering that hasn't been the case for countless centuries because Thedas is still in one piece, I disagreed.

Ah, apologies then, I read that quote as "there would be some devastation" rather than "apocalypse now".

[Huntress]

The only way to stop demons from possesing anyone is by killing everyone who can feel: Pride, Rage, Lust, envy, jealousy and any other emotion that any demon can feed from.



Yes! thats right, everyone need to die to be saved from themself!!



In Dragon Age mages should be left alone to teach each other, but with alot more freedom , so they can feel welcome, understood, wanted, need it, love it, not to make them feel as something bad, ugly, unwanted, cursed.

There will always be a bad apple, but the mages will find it and kill it, because not one want to be put away for someone also. Slaving a person is not the way to progress and I do not believe the Maker want to see one of His creation put in a cage. Just saying.

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Try telling that to the Templars and Grand Cleric.  The Chantry is well known for parsing the fine definitions of spirit possession.  Sure.......

True enough, doubt they'd be happy with the situation at all, doesn't actually make her one though.

Perhaps or perhaps not in the strictest meta-PoV Game sense, but I would be very surprised if the Chantry wouldn't call her one based on precisely the same logic I outlined earlier.  Fade Spirit of it's own volition occupies a mage.  That mage let it in.  That spirit gives mage extra powerz.  Boom.  Abomination time.  Templars do your duty.....

IanPolaris wrote...
Evidence that the circle does what you claim and does so better than before the circle existed.  Let's see some abomination rates pre and post circle!

Oh, I see. Well, I would imagine it's gone up, what with the Harrowing and all, but it keeps them contained. It's not so much the number of abominations that would be the problem, but the problems presented by however many there happen to be. The problems for the population outside the towers are almost certainly going to be fewer.

OK fair enough.  Where is the evidence for even that?  What are the pre- and post- circle rates for abominations and abomination incidents even outside the tower?  The Chantry won't say. (Gee there's a shocker....)

IanPolaris wrote...
We know that they handled them without coming apart at the seems which is contrary to what the Templars and Chantry would have you believe.  That's safe in a relative sense.

Ok, but mages still present a problem that needs to be managed in some fashion, no matter how vitriolic the chantry are about it.

Again false dichotomy.  No one has ever suggested that mages and magic shouldn't be regulated.

IanPolaris wrote...
the idea that the circle exists to protect mages from mundanes and mundanes from abominations is nothing but a bald faced lie.

That might not be why they set it up, but that's the purpose it serves. We're not talking about a real institution here, it was created with the moral dilemma in mind.

We know why the circle was set up in-game using in-game sources and that rational has not changed.  Thus I stand by my statement.  The suggestion that the circle exists to protect mundanes is a bald faced lie.

-Polaris

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...
We know why the circle was set up in-game using in-game sources and that rational has not changed.  Thus I stand by my statement.  The suggestion that the circle exists to protect mundanes is a bald faced lie.

Do note Polaris, that was 800 years ago. Anyone who was involved is long dead and the situation has changed millions upon millions of times since then. What the circle was is not necessarily what it is. And while history can be used to tell us where something is going... looking at what was does never tell us what is.

Also... by the way the codex entry is written it says that "The mages went cheerily into exile in a remote fortress outside of the capital."(emphasis mine). Should we take that as evidence that mages love the tower and the Libertarians are just small-minded extremists? Of course not.

However... this here is also an interesting wording: "the mages would form their own closed society, the Circle" (again emphasis mine). So according to that it was in fact the mages, and not the Chantry that formed the circles.

Some people would say that is enough information. But it really isn't. Why were mages relegated to only janitorial duties in the Cathedral? Why did they protest? What was the reason they chose to separate themselves? What were the templars roles back then? Why did the divine and Chantry leadership (allthough only the divine seem to have taken the matter seriously and been outraged) accept that compromise?
That is the question that remains unanswered and behind those we can discern the true purpose of the circle back then. But even then... that does not tell us what the circles are today.

That said... I am sceptical that the circle was the mages idea and initiative as the article says, hence why I doubted it last time we discussed it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

How is it reaching when it transpired as a direct result of the social conditions brought on by the Chantry? The fact that it never would have happened if the Chantry didn't preach intolerance towards mages makes it clear that blaming the Chantry isn't reaching in the slightest. Nobody is denying that there were other factors here (like Isolde, Jowan, ect.) but the Chantry also played a significant role in these events happening in the first place.[/quote]

Social changes always have both positive and negative consequences. Mages being taken to the Cricle - yes, that some mothers would ty to hide their children is a consequence one can predict. But so what? That's not conditioning. That would imply willfully forcing someone to do something. You think the Chantry wanted Isolde to hide Connor? No.
But being overly sentimental and egoistical can put a spanner in the best laid plans.

By your logic, no social changes should be allowed at all, because all of them will have unfortunate consequences. And the Isolde case had nothing to do with "preching intolerance (which does not happen)", ti had to do with Isolde not bein able to let go of her little boy.



[QUOTE]
I never said that all mages do. I said the fact that mages are willing to risk death to be free is an indicator of how life there is. [/qutoe]

And there are many more (Libertanians aren't a majority)  who are quite happy with their life there.



[quote]
They aren't free because the Circles are controlled by the Chantry, [/quote]

and hte kingdom is controlled by hte king. So by that logic, even wihout the chantry and the cricles, the mages would still not be free.... By your logic, mages would only be free if they controled the world.



[QUOTE]
Actually, the VO for the Magi Origin called it a prison. You're welcome to argue that point with the developers of the game.[/quote]

Weren't you the one who a post ago argued the developers don't know the meanings of the words they used. That when Gaider said "mages are not slaves" that he was wrong?

Could it be that they are wrong now?
Because it seems to me that mages are confined.

[QUOTE]

All I've seen is IanPolaris proving his point and you blatantly ignoring the fact and what can be inferred from that fact. Mages are turned tranquil if they are considered weak. If someone is willing to make more mages tranquil, there aren't any safeguards to prevent that because the apprentices have no say on the issue - just like Jowan couldn't defend himself against Greagoir, and Irving wasn't even aware of what evidence Greagoir allegedly had. The fact that a mage-hating Cullen can rule the Circle of Ferelden in fear is a good example of how badly things can go for the mages.[/quote]

Ian didn't prove anything.
Jowan was 100% guilty. Gregoir didn't act before he had evidence. In fact, did we ever saw any mage killed inside the tower wihout any evidence whatsoever?

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
We know why the circle was set up in-game using in-game sources and that rational has not changed.  Thus I stand by my statement.  The suggestion that the circle exists to protect mundanes is a bald faced lie.

Do note Polaris, that was 800 years ago. Anyone who was involved is long dead and the situation has changed millions upon millions of times since then. What the circle was is not necessarily what it is. And while history can be used to tell us where something is going... looking at what was does never tell us what is.

The mechanics of possession haven't changed one iota.  If the circle were formed to protect mundanes, the codex would have said so especially given that it was written by the chantry.  That makes the Chantry's claims today nothing short of a bald faced LIE.

Also... by the way the codex entry is written it says that "The mages went cheerily into exile in a remote fortress outside of the capital."(emphasis mine). Should we take that as evidence that mages love the tower and the Libertarians are just small-minded extremists? Of course not.

Considering that the alternative was an exalted march to slaughter all mages, I'd go cheerily into exile too.  Read the entire entry.  The Divine was seriously considering declaring an exalted march on all mages then and there...and her templars (barely) talked her out of it.

However... this here is also an interesting wording: "the mages would form their own closed society, the Circle" (again emphasis mine). So according to that it was in fact the mages, and not the Chantry that formed the circles.

The Chantry demanded the circles and told the mages to organize it.  Again we've shown countless other pieces of evidence that the circle is wholely subserviant to the chantry and controlled by them (and by design no less).

Some people would say that is enough information. But it really isn't. Why were mages relegated to only janitorial duties in the Cathedral? Why did they protest? What was the reason they chose to separate themselves? What were the templars roles back then? Why did the divine and Chantry leadership (allthough only the divine seem to have taken the matter seriously and been outraged) accept that compromise?

The Divine accepted the compromise because even the Templars thought that slaughering all mages was an incredibly stupid thing to do especially since the protest was entirely non-violent and no outrage against the Maker was present.  That tells me that the attitudes against magic (at least in the Templars) had not hardened into the hatred we see today.  I would even reasonably speculate that the reason you say much more reasonable positions and TOLERANCE from the Templars was because many of those mages were their own friends and neighbors.  Seperating out a small segment of society even for good reasons is a recipie for disaster,and this was NOT a good reason.

That is the question that remains unanswered and behind those we can discern the true purpose of the circle back then. But even then... that does not tell us what the circles are today.

Sure it does.  It completely explodes the myth that the circles were established to protect mundanes.  NO, they were established because an insecure and nutty Divine wanted total control over all mages.

That said... I am sceptical that the circle was the mages idea and initiative as the article says, hence why I doubted it last time we discussed it.

This Codex IS written from the PoV of the Chantry remember.  Even so, it completely explodes the "Circles are there to protect us" balderdash.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Uldred wanted mages to be freed from the Chantry. How is that corrupt? His stupidity was in turning to demonology.

Because he didn't give a rats ass about mages that didn't agree with him, or the populace of Ferelden.
Life sometimes sucks, and his confinment was for hte great good.
He didn't want to accept that, emo ****** that he was.



****

@Aynthing regarding slavery and LobselVith8:
You're wrong. 10000000000% wrong. You're a wrongulartiy from which no right can escape. A broken record that sings the same tune over and over, long after the tune has become unpopular.

Maybe by your definition of the word mages are slaves. But noboy on this planet cares about your definition. By any logical outlook on the situation mages are NOT slaves. The devs said as much.
But you will continue to oppose that till you die, rather than admit you are wrong.

Fine..I'll step down to your level of logic. Mages are murdering monsters. By my definition of "monsters" and "murdering" of course. Prove me wrong! I dare you! (HINT: you never will, because my definitions are superior to yours)

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Say, if a highly contagius and deadly
desease started spreading trough the town, and the miniltary started a
quarantene...and you and your faimily are in the middel of it.
Would you say the military is conditioning you to try and break out of hte quranatene by force?

Considering the abominations happened because Uldred wanted the
mages to be freed from Chantry control, and mages are basically slaves
of the Chantry, it's a slightly different scenerio. Regarding the attack
against the abominations, there are templars cowering in fear because
of the abominations they encountered. This doesn't seem to be the kind
of force that should be watching over mages at all. You're welcome to
disagree, of course.

No, it's not that a different scenario. In it's core, the basics are the same.

You're avoiding answering the question and giving answers to questions I didn't ask.
Answer the question. Just the question I asked, nothing more.

Considering that it's done by a Grey Warden and not the actual templars?
You're welcome to call it whatever you like - it doesn't change that a
Warden is doing what the templars aren't capable of doing. For a Warden
from the Circle of Ferelden, what would you call that?

We know the reinforcement were coming. We know templars did this before.
Prove the reinforcments wouldn't have anulled the tower wihout the Warden.....you can't, can you?

Regarding the dwarves, you're mistaken. They retake the thaigs with Bhelen as King, not because of the Warden.
You
mean abominations, not mages. You don't like the story? Take it up with
the writers of DA:O, because I didn't write it. Pretending it didn't
happen that way because you're pro-Chantry doesn't change that it
happened that way - the templars hid behind a large door and the Warden
cleaned up their mess.
Regarding the Dalish, they're pretty much
alive. Zathrian forbid anyone else from heading out because of the
wounded. No, their camp isn't decimated unless the Warden sides with the
Lady of the Forest and convinces her to destroy the Dalish elves.

Funny how you always use the devs as an argument when it suits yo, but attack them when it doesn't.

Dwarves re-take thaigs with Bhelen? Gess what, templars kill abomniationand anull tower...tehy did it 17 times so far, according to the codex.

Also, your understanding of battle tactics and logistics is horrible. Real life isn't a rambo movie where you charge in gunz blazing. Holding a position and containing the enemy untill reinforcements arrive is a sound military strategy. Yes, the templars athte tower could have charged...but what if they failed? The abominations would escape the tower, since there would be non one left to guard the exist.
No, charging in would be stupid, hot-headed and irresponsible. The templars did the tacticly smart thing.

And the Dalish? all those wounded, all that talk from Zathrian how thair attempts to kill Whiterfiag failed? Those are nothing according to you?

You're assuming reinforcements would come, but there's not a guarentee

And you're assuming they wouldn't come. Uldred didn't plan to start a revolt yet. His plan backfired, as evident by the fact that his side was loosing and he was forced to summon a demon.
You're assuming Loghian would even know what's going on, or could prevent it. Or do you think he'll capture every templar coming into Denerim? Not even he could get away with that. Nor could he stop a templar army.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

How is it reaching when it transpired as a direct result of the social conditions brought on by the Chantry? The fact that it never would have happened if the Chantry didn't preach intolerance towards mages makes it clear that blaming the Chantry isn't reaching in the slightest. Nobody is denying that there were other factors here (like Isolde, Jowan, ect.) but the Chantry also played a significant role in these events happening in the first place.[/quote]

Social changes always have both positive and negative consequences. Mages being taken to the Cricle - yes, that some mothers would ty to hide their children is a consequence one can predict. But so what? That's not conditioning. That would imply willfully forcing someone to do something. You think the Chantry wanted Isolde to hide Connor? No.
But being overly sentimental and egoistical can put a spanner in the best laid plans.

By your logic, no social changes should be allowed at all, because all of them will have unfortunate consequences. And the Isolde case had nothing to do with "preching intolerance (which does not happen)", ti had to do with Isolde not bein able to let go of her little boy.
[/quote]

You are blind to matters of degree.  If the Chantry didn't preach hatred towards magic and teach that magic was inherently evil and vile (talk to Keli sometime...it's a real eye-opener that!) then far fewer mothers would try to hide their children.  Futhermore if the magical regulatory system were (shocker!) HUMANE, there would be even fewer magically gifted children hidden and thus far less chance of disaster.

That would require treating mages like human beings.  Can't have that!

[quote]
[QUOTE]
I never said that all mages do. I said the fact that mages are willing to risk death to be free is an indicator of how life there is. [/quote]

And there are many more (Libertanians aren't a majority)  who are quite happy with their life there.
[/quote]

Actually the Libertarians + Aequetarians are a majority and they aren't happy with their life there overall.  Only the Loyalists are completely happy (because it's what they feel they deserve).  Read the Codex entry on the Mage's Collective and you'll discover that this collective was formed by both fraternaties IN RESPONSE to how life is unsatisfactory in the tower.

[quote]
[quote]
They aren't free because the Circles are controlled by the Chantry, [/quote]

and hte kingdom is controlled by hte king. So by that logic, even wihout the chantry and the cricles, the mages would still not be free.... By your logic, mages would only be free if they controled the world.
[/quote]

No one is saying that magic shouldn't be regulated, but under the King, Mages would have rights like other subjects.  No one is saying that magic shouldn't be regulated but mages should have a stake in such discussions....but the Chantry says, "No" and thus the Chantry is in the long term sealing their own doom.

[quote]
[QUOTE]
Actually, the VO for the Magi Origin called it a prison. You're welcome to argue that point with the developers of the game.[/quote]

Weren't you the one who a post ago argued the developers don't know the meanings of the words they used. That when Gaider said "mages are not slaves" that he was wrong?
[/quote]

The Circle Tower is a prison and mages are treated as prisoners by any reasonable definition of the term.  In fact most prisoners are treated better than mages.....


[quote]
Could it be that they are wrong now?
Because it seems to me that mages are confined.
[/quote]

Look up the word inprisonment and get back to us.  Mages are in fact prisoners...and those you see outside are on what amounts to parole (or are Apostates which amounts to being escaped convicts).

[quote]
[QUOTE]
All I've seen is IanPolaris proving his point and you blatantly ignoring the fact and what can be inferred from that fact. Mages are turned tranquil if they are considered weak. If someone is willing to make more mages tranquil, there aren't any safeguards to prevent that because the apprentices have no say on the issue - just like Jowan couldn't defend himself against Greagoir, and Irving wasn't even aware of what evidence Greagoir allegedly had. The fact that a mage-hating Cullen can rule the Circle of Ferelden in fear is a good example of how badly things can go for the mages.[/quote]

Ian didn't prove anything.
Jowan was 100% guilty. Gregoir didn't act before he had evidence. In fact, did we ever saw any mage killed inside the tower wihout any evidence whatsoever?
[/quote]

Anerin wasn't guilty of being a maleficar, but that didn't stop the Templars from charging him as one and executing sentence on the spot.  Also Gregoire did NOT have proof that Jowan was a bloodmage.  He had hearsay evidence which isn't enough to convict EVEN in mediaeval Fereldan....unless you are a mage.  A person can be made tranquil just because....no hearing, no trial, just "because"....and Gregoire is a radical liberal as Templars go which tells you quite a lot about the system (none of it good).

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 21 janvier 2011 - 08:22 .

[IanPolaris]

Actually if you talk with Irving at the top of the tower, it's very clear that Abomination Uldred had nearly completed his army and was going to destroy the Templars long before reinforcements would be able to arrive.  In fact Greguire openly worried that the civil war had fractured the Chantry (as indeed proved to be the case).   So without the Warden, it would have been a total disaster by any imagination.

As for Uldred not caring about his fellow mages or people of Fereldan, I am going to flag you for facts not in evidence.  The only person you hear expounding on these topics is a PRIDE ABOMINATION who clearly doesn't care (being a demon and all), but that in no way reflects Uldred's position.  Was Uldred interested in power and being a First Enchanter free of the chantry?  Probably yes.  Did his revolutionaries attack mages and templars that resisted?  Of course.  Then again, revolutions are written in blood pretty much always (Andraste herself did NOT write the Imperium a strongly worded letter!)  That does not mean the revolutionaries don't care.  It just as easily can mean that they felt the same as RL Irish Revolutionaries, i.e. you can't make an omlette without cracking a few eggs. 

Why use bloodmage and demonology?  Because it was powerful, available, and they knew (because of brain-dead chantry policies) that the templars and circle mages had no answers to that (but the warden esp as a bloodmage DOES).  Also based on what we see in Ostagar, most circle mages are hopeless in combat (but the shadowcircle bloodmages would do combat magic training....and we see hints of that when you liberate the circle).

In short the entire Fereldan tower situation happened BECAUSE of (not in spite of) the Chantry's frankly idiotic stance towards magic (and Morrigan says as much).

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]
There is a big difference. Plachyatries are used to track down mages. They do not syphon power from other people or control minds.
It is in essence a small vial of blood taken from a mage, to track that mage down if he/she escapes. [/quote]

So wouldn't that be a tool to find out if someone is actually a mage? Maybe it would've prevented D'Sims from getting killed by templars, given that he wasn't a real mage and all.[/quote]

IIRC, phachytry does not explicitly track a amge, but hte person woh's blood is in it.
As such, it's not a "mage detector" it's a "person with this blood is in this direction" device.
So its would be useless in the role.




[quote]
I love your bad analogies. I think it'd work better if this was a discussion about sparing the Messanger or the Architect in Awakening, if you want my honest opinion. Considering darkspawn spread disease and all... it's honestly a much better comparison. Look, you're very pro-Chantry. We all know that.[/quote]

I love the broken, sensless thing you like to call your logic.
The analogies work wonderfully. and I explaned precisely why in detail. Things you continiously ingore.

And you know I'm pro-chantry? Hehe...you know nothing.
I'm not pro-chantry. I'm anti-stupid people.



[quote]
There is IanPolaris' mention of how mages and non-mages lived together until the incident at the Chantry, and how the Circles were formed as a result of that - not because the Chantry wanted to protect people from mages.[/quote]

Intentions is not something you can claim as facts. Not to mentiont hat you kept mentionign the dales and other societies, and my post was directed at that.
But you keep forgetting - it was the mages that wanted to live among their own kind..if oyu bother to read that Codex that is.
And whos' to say that there is always only 1 reason to do something?
Can you argue that the countryside isn't safer with the mages in the circle? You can't.


[quote]
If the definition of slave fits the relationship between the Chantry and the mages, I can't dispute it. I can't change the English language or actual definition of words just because of the word of one person.[/quote]

Irrational. That's a word from the english language used to describe you. I'm sorry, I can't dispute it or change it. The definition fits.



[quote]
[quote]
Strictness is not an indication of madness. So no, it's not evident. [/quote]

Ruling the Circle in fear isn't being strict.[/quote]

Sez who? Not to mention that that is a short statement that tells very little. You have no details.



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

I feel the same way every time you wax poetic about the Chantry.[/quote]

err..hwat?
I have no idea what you said or what you're referring to, given that I'm not the one to repeat an argument (that has been PROVEN incoreect) a thousand times..



[quote]
We can use IanPolaris' example of mages and non-mages living together before the incident at the Chantry, and how the Circles weren't created to protect anyone, if that's what you'd prefer.[/quote]

OR we cna use DG statement that the countryside was more dangeroud before the circles.
At the end of the day its' irrelevant - Ciricles make the world safer.

they are a necessary lesser evil (confinment of a few) to prevent a great evil (death of many)




[quote]
It is slavery - feel free to read the definition. And Word of God didn't do much to keep the Architect looking the same way he did in the book, or to stop him from having only one hand.[/quote]

I now hte definition and you're wrong. It's as simple as that.
Besides, when ti comes to lore ...book >> game. It's a simple as that (why? because books dont' have to make concession for the sake of gameplay and balance. They are pure fluff).
Not to mention that character design is not really a big lore issue. Ever heard of Retcon?

[quote]
Mages aren't feared and mistrusted among the Dalish or in Haven despite the lack of the Andrastian Chantry and the lack of templars, so no...[/quote]

Are you so sure about that? You know nothing about haven..other that a mage was in charge. but so what, so where the mages in tevinter..and thry arne't beloved even among their pown people.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And you're assuming they wouldn't come. Uldred didn't plan to start a revolt yet. His plan backfired, as evident by the fact that his side was loosing and he was forced to summon a demon.
You're assuming Loghian would even know what's going on, or could prevent it. Or do you think he'll capture every templar coming into Denerim? Not even he could get away with that. Nor could he stop a templar army.

You clearly have no conception of politics and how armies move.  Loghain wouldn't have to stop an army.  He'd simply have to instill doubt in the Grand Cleric of Denerim that such extreme measures are necessary (and possibly off a few high ranking templars).  Loghain has proven that he's more than willing to break chantry law if it gets him an advantage (see Jowan and how he snatched Jowan from Templar custody putting the arresting Templar in the dungeon against all Chantry law).  Assuming the Grand Cleric doesn't want to run afoul the acting Regent of Fereldan (a reasonable assumption given the disparity of military forces) and given she might not know how dire the situation is (nor for that matter would Loghain even realize just how dire the situation was), it's easy to imagine that Loghain would "backstop" Uldred to give his ally the best possible chance to take over the tower.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I'm going to ignore all mention of Dales, Rivian or Haven fomr reasons or not knowing enough about them. I list them under "pure speculation and not facts". [/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]

Mages fighting alongside non-mages is proof of what exaclty? Cicrle mages fight alongside the kings army.

Adn yes...Zathrians leading the Dalish ended up jsut peachy fine with all that cursing and deaths. Completly harmelss....





[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

Like the Blight, where mages have helped stop the darkspawn from overrunning the world.[/quote]

Is there a point to this? I fai lto see what this has to do with my post. AT ALL.




[quote]
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
It's not unconfirmed speculation - it's in the codex in the Dalish Origin. According to the Dalish, that's what happened. You're welcome to believe the Orlesian version of events, of course.[/quote]

Which is exactly why it's uncofirmed. Codexes are al lwritten from a in-game point of view of someone. Dalish codexes from the perspective of the dalish. Chantry from the Chantry perspective.

Ievery time a codex is mentioned that is written by the Chantry, you argue that it's subjective and "chantry propaganda".
Unless you apply the saem standards to dalish codexes (subjective, dalish propaganda) then you're a hypocrite of the highest caliber.



[quote]
So your bad analogy means that I lack logic and reason? I don't twist reality to suit my vision of the Chantry like you do.[/quote]

You do that with every word you type.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]
There is a big difference. Plachyatries are used to track down mages. They do not syphon power from other people or control minds.
It is in essence a small vial of blood taken from a mage, to track that mage down if he/she escapes. [/quote]

So wouldn't that be a tool to find out if someone is actually a mage? Maybe it would've prevented D'Sims from getting killed by templars, given that he wasn't a real mage and all.[/quote]

IIRC, phachytry does not explicitly track a amge, but hte person woh's blood is in it.
As such, it's not a "mage detector" it's a "person with this blood is in this direction" device.
So its would be useless in the role.
[/quote]

So the templars have the right to kill anyone and claim they were a mage (and perhaps even a malificar) later?  Nice.  I am amazed you are still defending this POS.

[quote]
[quote]
I love your bad analogies. I think it'd work better if this was a discussion about sparing the Messanger or the Architect in Awakening, if you want my honest opinion. Considering darkspawn spread disease and all... it's honestly a much better comparison. Look, you're very pro-Chantry. We all know that.[/quote]

I love the broken, sensless thing you like to call your logic.
The analogies work wonderfully. and I explaned precisely why in detail. Things you continiously ingore.

And you know I'm pro-chantry? Hehe...you know nothing.
I'm not pro-chantry. I'm anti-stupid people.
[/quote]

I might claim then that you are clearly self-hating then, but that wouldn't be nice.  You are clearly a chantry apologist.  That rings through with every post you have made.

[quote]
[quote]
There is IanPolaris' mention of how mages and non-mages lived together until the incident at the Chantry, and how the Circles were formed as a result of that - not because the Chantry wanted to protect people from mages.[/quote]

Intentions is not something you can claim as facts. Not to mentiont hat you kept mentionign the dales and other societies, and my post was directed at that.
But you keep forgetting - it was the mages that wanted to live among their own kind..if oyu bother to read that Codex that is.
[/quote]

I've answered that.  It was accept exile or be slaughtered.  That nutty Divine wanted to declare an exalted march on her own cathedral against all mages in response to a nonviolent protest.  Given the alternative, I'd be happy and releived only to be exiled too.

[quote]
And whos' to say that there is always only 1 reason to do something?
Can you argue that the countryside isn't safer with the mages in the circle? You can't.
[/quote]

1. It's up to you to prove that it is.  Burden of proof is on you since you are defending an extraordinary system.
2.  Given this was written BY THE CHANTRY, if protection were the reason for establishing the circle, it certainly would have said so given that this is the chantry party line today.

[quote]
[quote]
If the definition of slave fits the relationship between the Chantry and the mages, I can't dispute it. I can't change the English language or actual definition of words just because of the word of one person.[/quote]

Irrational. That's a word from the english language used to describe you. I'm sorry, I can't dispute it or change it. The definition fits.
[/quote]

It's not irrational.  That's just rude.  In fact on a highly technical level, the word slavery does fit.  That said, only the Tranquil are really slaves at least in my book, but the mages are certainly prisoners and the DAO equivalent of political prisoners at that!


[quote]
[quote]
Strictness is not an indication of madness. So no, it's not evident. [/quote]

Ruling the Circle in fear isn't being strict.[/quote]

Sez who? Not to mention that that is a short statement that tells very little. You have no details.
[/quote]

Given that Cullen tries to kill mages for being mages and has to be restrained by other templars if he doesn't become KC, it's easy to guess what "ruling the circle with fear" means with KC Cullen.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

I feel the same way every time you wax poetic about the Chantry.[/quote]

err..hwat?
I have no idea what you said or what you're referring to, given that I'm not the one to repeat an argument (that has been PROVEN incoreect) a thousand times..
[/quote]

I'd settle for once personally.

[quote]
[quote]
We can use IanPolaris' example of mages and non-mages living together before the incident at the Chantry, and how the Circles weren't created to protect anyone, if that's what you'd prefer.[/quote]

OR we cna use DG statement that the countryside was more dangeroud before the circles.
At the end of the day its' irrelevant - Ciricles make the world safer.

they are a necessary lesser evil (confinment of a few) to prevent a great evil (death of many)
[/quote]

DG does NOT say that the circle made the countryside safer.  DG does NOT say that the countryside in old days was more dangerous because of abominations.  YOU are reading that stuff into DG's statements.  DG merely said that the countryside was more dangers in the old days....well Gee Sherlock, that was ALSO before the rise of large centralized kingdoms (aside from Tevinter) with large standing armies.  Think that MIGHT have something to do with it???? You think?????

[quote]
[quote]
It is slavery - feel free to read the definition. And Word of God didn't do much to keep the Architect looking the same way he did in the book, or to stop him from having only one hand.[/quote]

I now hte definition and you're wrong. It's as simple as that.
Besides, when ti comes to lore ...book >> game. It's a simple as that (why? because books dont' have to make concession for the sake of gameplay and balance. They are pure fluff).
Not to mention that character design is not really a big lore issue. Ever heard of Retcon?
[/quote]

And I show book and game info that shows you are wrong.


[quote]
[quote]
Mages aren't feared and mistrusted among the Dalish or in Haven despite the lack of the Andrastian Chantry and the lack of templars, so no...[/quote]

Are you so sure about that? You know nothing about haven..other that a mage was in charge. but so what, so where the mages in tevinter..and thry arne't beloved even among their pown people.
[/quote]

Mages clearly aren't feared within the Dalish.  Play a Dalish PC and you see that for yourself.   As for Haven, we see Mages living and even cohabiting bunks with non-mages and they all work well together.  For that matter, mages lived alongside non-mages even in Adrastian nations and for most of human history in ALL cultures (except perhaps the Qun...a special case if there ever was one).  Also Father Kolgrim was in charge of the Disciples of Andraste and he didn't seem like a mage to me (a high level Reaver yes, but not a mage).  The Village Priest was (Elrick) but that's not the same thing.

-Polaris

Edit PS: Actually Circle mages DON'T fight alongside the King's army.  They are segregated and very few in number.  The idiot chantry didn't even trust Senior Enchanter Uldred with a simple fire spell to light the beacon.  That tells you everything you need to know about how well the circle mages are integrated into the King's army (and Loghain further explodes it in RtO if you do that DLC along with Wynne...and Loghain rips Wynne and the Circle mages a new one).

Modifié par IanPolaris, 21 janvier 2011 - 08:52 .