1869 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Actually Zathrien led his tribe without serious incident for over SIX HUNDRED YEARS. The Circle would kill for that sort of record when it comes to magical incidents.



-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

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

Everyone is dangerous, that's why there's law and order - to keep people safe. You don't imprison people and deny them basic human rights merely because they may prove dangerous.[/quote]

The mages are both a different kind of dangerous and a different level of dangerous.
This is a fact. Undesputable. Undebatable.



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
A noble in power is not equal to a mage. In any way, shape or form.

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

We can ask the elves of the alienage who they're more scared of - a mage, or a noble like Vaughan.

As for the comment about mages, I don't see how you're serious about that. Restricting freedom? You mean enslaving mages. Let's call it what it is. [/quote]

Indeed. Restriction.
That's what it is.




[quote]

Except there's nothing invalid about IanPolaris' arguments. He's citing the codex, the storyline, two different memebrs of the Dalish clan using magic, and pointing out DG's own words. You're dismissing IanPolaris' comments because they differ from your own.[/quote]

Nope. I'm dismissing this that are wrong. Not to mention that you are focusing on wrong things, out of context.
It's you who dismisses everything that doesn't confor to his nice little mental image of mages.



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

And who becomes a Tranquil? Those who ask for it, those who are too weak to undergo the Harrowing or those who are caught practicing blood magic in the Circle.
Not to mention that the tranquil are perfectly content with their position.


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

What? Are you really that stupid or are you just trolling now?
Did you even bother to read?
Analyzing a quote wihtout knowing the context and then then sticking to the conviction your analysis is correct, despite being faced wiht evidence of hte contrary.....ther'es nothing wrong wiht that to you? Y SRS?


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

Possible. Or they might have happened anyway, but for different reasons. What we do know is that there would be MORE abominations.. more slaughters like Redcliffe. We ouldn't have to deal with 1 Connor..we would have to deal with 10.
Now if that's an improvements for you.....


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

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

You mean the actual precedents in Thedas lore that disprove this comment entirely?[/quote]

If you ever bothered to look at the bigger picture, you'd perhaps realise that the lore doesn't disprove this.


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

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

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

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

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

Waht the hell are you reading man? Does your brain process my posts in such a way that al lthe words are changed in your mind? Plaase, read the UNDERSCORED part again...
If you can rub 2 brain cells together, you'd notice that 's not about abuse of power. Here, I'll additionaly bold a few parts for you.
And even wihout that, the difference in situation in some of hte basics are large neough to make the comparison moot.

[Harid]

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually Zathrien led his tribe without serious incident for over SIX HUNDRED YEARS. The Circle would kill for that sort of record when it comes to magical incidents.

-Polaris

I thought it was closer to 200 years.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

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

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

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

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

And once again I'll poitn out that you check that thread I mentioned for hte actuayl DG discussion.. But I see you're avoiding that, because you know you'll be proven wrong, and you'll rather live in denail, avoid that thread like a plague.

Sharletz is right. The specific of how a institution is created doesn't define what it's present role. Nor does it mean it has to have just ONE role.

Let's also not forget that just because someone didn't do anything about a large problem for a while, doesn't mean the problem wasn't there. Jsut because the Chantry didn't immediately create a Circle, doesn't mean the rampaging abominations weren't a problem Or that the Chantry wasn't trying to do somethnig about it.

and lastly, a interesting quote fro mthat precious codex entry to you mention so much:

The mages went cheerily into exile in a remote fortress outside of the
capital, where they would be kept under the watchful eye of the Templars
and a council of their own elder magi.

[IanPolaris]

Tanquil lose all emotions and so lose the ability to be unhappy with their lot in life. It's basically a death sentence.



-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Harid wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually Zathrien led his tribe without serious incident for over SIX HUNDRED YEARS. The Circle would kill for that sort of record when it comes to magical incidents.

-Polaris

I thought it was closer to 200 years.

 
I had heard 600 somewhere.  Regardless of which it is, my point stands.  Zathrian has a record that would be the envy of any circle (given 17 rites of annulment in 700 years by comparison).

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
In other words, if a blood mage had a chance to save the life of an innocent person by using mind control to stop the perpetrator from harming the potential victim (say, stopping Vaughan from kidnapping the women to rape them in the Alienage), the blood mage shouldn't use such power because it shouldn't be used "by anyone... anywhere... at all... never?" Even if it stops a potential rape?

Let him use a lighting bolt instead. Stun. Lord knows that the mages have plenty of tools that can be used .

Not to mention that there even shouldn't be a blood mage anywhere in the first place.
Some things are just better off never exosting in the first place.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And once again I'll poitn out that you check that thread I mentioned for hte actuayl DG discussion.. But I see you're avoiding that, because you know you'll be proven wrong, and you'll rather live in denail, avoid that thread like a plague.

No one is going to look in over 130 pages for a particular quote.  Either link it or drop it.  It's YOUR responsibility to bring up extra context since we've already demonstrated that as a fact of the matter, the quote you cite doesn't say what you think it does.  It doesn't come close.

Sharletz is right. The specific of how a institution is created doesn't define what it's present role. Nor does it mean it has to have just ONE role.

ORLY?  Given that this codex was written BY the chantry from the Chantry PoV, and given the current Chantry party line, you'd think that protection would get a mention if that were really the reason.  Futhermore, there is NO informtion or evidence that shows that the reasons have dhanged at all.

In short, the History of the Circle Codex entry explodes the myth that the circles are there to protect anyone and exposes it for the LIE that it is.

Let's also not forget that just because someone didn't do anything about a large problem for a while, doesn't mean the problem wasn't there. Jsut because the Chantry didn't immediately create a Circle, doesn't mean the rampaging abominations weren't a problem Or that the Chantry wasn't trying to do somethnig about it.

You have yet to show any evidence of this.  We're still waiting.  I and others have shown plenty of evidence that at least strongly indicates the contrary.

and lastly, a interesting quote fro mthat precious codex entry to you mention so much:

The mages went cheerily into exile in a remote fortress outside of the
capital, where they would be kept under the watchful eye of the Templars
and a council of their own elder magi.

Sure.  The alternative was to have a clearly nutcase Divine start an exalted march on her own Cathedral to kill off all mages.  Next to extermination, exile looks pretty good.  Given that alternative I'd cheerfully go into exile as well.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
In other words, if a blood mage had a chance to save the life of an innocent person by using mind control to stop the perpetrator from harming the potential victim (say, stopping Vaughan from kidnapping the women to rape them in the Alienage), the blood mage shouldn't use such power because it shouldn't be used "by anyone... anywhere... at all... never?" Even if it stops a potential rape?

Let him use a lighting bolt instead. Stun. Lord knows that the mages have plenty of tools that can be used .

Not to mention that there even shouldn't be a blood mage anywhere in the first place.
Some things are just better off never exosting in the first place.

You can't unring a bell.  Given that bloodmagic exists (and has existed for most of human history in one form or another), you have to deal with it, and the best way to deal with bloodmagic is bloodmagic of your own.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

Wrong.

17 circels anulled in 700 years is NOTHING. Not to mention we're talking about the ammount of innocents killed. How many villages were saved? How many thousands?

Assume 1 Connor every 10 years (low estimate)...how many villages full fo people are that? 70?

Id' say the Circle does a SPLENDIND job.

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

That is not a fact. Spelling it all in caps will not change that.
The FACT (Ican do that too) is that the Cirlce system makse the coutnrysdie significantly safer.

[Lotion Soronarr]

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

This.
One doesn't even need a DG quote to see this. It's self-evident.

Group A(mages) is source of B(abominations)
B in open cause damage
Circles keep most of the A out of the open
--
Therefore, since A is source of B, there is less B in the open.

Hence, less abomination runnign around. The most basic logic at work people.

[Ulicus]

IanPolaris wrote...

Tanquil lose all emotions and so lose the ability to be unhappy with their lot in life. It's basically a death sentence.

-Polaris

No, it isn't. It's certainly undesirable and, I'd argue, a horrible practice that renders them disabled... but it is in no way a death sentence.

[Morroian]

Ulicus wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Tanquil lose all emotions and so lose the ability to be unhappy with their lot in life. It's basically a death sentence.

-Polaris

No, it isn't. It's certainly undesirable and, I'd argue, a horrible practice that renders them disabled... but it is in no way a death sentence.

Its basically a lobotomy what would you call that?

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

Nope.
It's like a saying it's the policemans fault if a criminal starts thorwing bombs around, to avoid capture.

It's the mage himself that's to blame, becase he used blood magic and escaped from the law. And he Ultimatively made the decision to try and summon a demon.

[Ulicus]

Morroian wrote...

Ulicus wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Tanquil lose all emotions and so lose the ability to be unhappy with their lot in life. It's basically a death sentence.

-Polaris

No, it isn't. It's certainly undesirable and, I'd argue, a horrible practice that renders them disabled... but it is in no way a death sentence.

Its basically a lobotomy what would you call that?

An abhorrent practice. I certainly wouldn't advocate the murder of any and all who survived the procedure, though.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

What about the Origin? What proof you got there?

That Irwing didn't save Jowan? How could he, Gregoir had evidence...Irwing couldn't argue against that..and he certanly couldn't put a veto on sucha  decision wihout causing massive strife.

Note that a KC cannot overide ANY decision made by the First Enchanter. Only those that have to do with the security of the tower.

1.  The Chantry is a terrible organization to do that because it's a religious organization that hates magic (and it does).

Wrong

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.

Wrong again. Given that yo udon't know how safe and stable other societeis are or were. Actually, DG said that the land is safer with the circle. (yes, he did. do not even attempt to argue this wihout reading the original thread, to which I pointed you numerous times)

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
You can't unring a bell.  Given that bloodmagic exists (and has existed for most of human history in one form or another), you have to deal with it, and the best way to deal with bloodmagic is bloodmagic of your own.

-Polaris

No, the best way to deal with it is to kill anyone who uses it.

Only a fool would trust a mage with mind control to protect him. Only a fool woudl trust anyone with mind control powers at all.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

No one is going to look in over 130 pages for a particular quote.  Either link it or drop it.  It's YOUR responsibility to bring up extra context since we've already demonstrated that as a fact of the matter, the quote you cite doesn't say what you think it does.  It doesn't come close.[/qutoe]

That thread doesn't even have 130 pages..not even close (more like 20).
My responsibility? Yeah right.
I pointed you in the right direction. You know hte name of hte thread and that it's roughly in the middle of it. Either you too lazy to find it or you deliberately want to avoid it.

And becoause of that I DELIBERATELY refuse to link it to you now. You think I'm gonan waste my time just to accomodate you? If you want to make arguments, you better have something to back them up. At least I was present in that thread and read it and posted there. At least I know what the hell I'm friggin talking about. It's YOUR responsiblity to inform yourself o na subject before talking smack.

You demonstrated nothing. NOTHING.. Less than nothing,




[quote]
[quote]
Sharletz is right. The specific of how a institution is created doesn't define what it's present role. Nor does it mean it has to have just ONE role.
[/quote]

ORLY?  Given that this codex was written BY the chantry from the Chantry PoV, and given the current Chantry party line, you'd think that protection would get a mention if that were really the reason.  Futhermore, there is NO informtion or evidence that shows that the reasons have dhanged at all.

In short, the History of the Circle Codex entry explodes the myth that the circles are there to protect anyone and exposes it for the LIE that it is.[/quote]

No it doesn't. But I get it by the glee with wich you always capitalize the lie part, that you really hate the Cahtnry.



[quote]
[quote]
Let's also not forget that just because someone didn't do anything about a large problem for a while, doesn't mean the problem wasn't there. Jsut because the Chantry didn't immediately create a Circle, doesn't mean the rampaging abominations weren't a problem Or that the Chantry wasn't trying to do somethnig about it.
[/quote]

You have yet to show any evidence of this.  We're still waiting.  I and others have shown plenty of evidence that at least strongly indicates the contrary.[/quote]

Srongly indicated contrary? Puh-lease. That's not evidence..that's garbage.

Fact of the matter is, that you cannot prove that abominations weren't a problem (DG basicly destroys this LIE of yours) or that no one was trying to do anything about it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually Zathrien led his tribe without serious incident for over SIX HUNDRED YEARS. The Circle would kill for that sort of record when it comes to magical incidents.

-Polaris

No incident THAT WE KNOW OFF.
Not that we get much information of hte history of that particular clan..

Oh wait..that curse that caused a lof of people todie and suffer over the course of years...Yeah..let's not call that an incident, shall we?


Oh yes..let's not forget that a Cirlce holds all the mages in a kingdom. The number of mages involved compared to a dalic hcamp is WAAY higher.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 21 janvier 2011 - 10:52 .

[atheelogos]

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually Zathrien led his tribe without serious incident for over SIX HUNDRED YEARS. The Circle would kill for that sort of record when it comes to magical incidents.

-Polaris

You know that is a very good point.

[atheelogos]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
You can't unring a bell.  Given that bloodmagic exists (and has existed for most of human history in one form or another), you have to deal with it, and the best way to deal with bloodmagic is bloodmagic of your own.

-Polaris

No, the best way to deal with it is to kill anyone who uses it.

Only a fool would trust a mage with mind control to protect him. Only a fool woudl trust anyone with mind control powers at all.

Really? Your actually saying every blood mage should be murdered just for knowing how to use a certain power?

[Aldandil]

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

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.

Your statement no. 1 is rather important for this discussion. I don't think the burden of proof is on the pro-circle side. Quite the contrary. If you are arguing that something needs to be changed, you should be able to prove that it won't lead to a drop in security. You are saying that we can't prove that it will. Well, you can't prove that it won't. This is what Beerfish said a few pages back, and I'm starting to agree with him about the futility of this discussion.

What we have going for the likely increase of deaths by abomination is the undisputed fact that mages turn into abomination in an unpredictable fashion, and if they do they kill people. It seems to be a dead certain truth that since this happens no matter what, the amounts of people killed would significantly increase if mages were spread throughout the countryside. I don't see why this can't be regarded as fact, but to further this argument we have this post by David Gaider, something that has been brought up before, which is:

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

What he says here, is that before the Circle, abominations were dealt with reactively. We know that before the Circle, Abominations were tearing up the countryside and that the world was more dangerous. Your response to this is arguing absence of evidence. Since it doesn't say "there were more abominations before the Circle", you're saying that it's not the case. If we accept that form of reasoning, your point about the purpose of the Circle also falls flat.

IanPolaris wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

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.

For starters, you're making another absence of evidence argument. "If there was more to the truth, the text would have said so". If we ignore the fact that other texts say so, we still get back to the fact that the text doesn't say "Contrary to popular belief, the Circle wasn't founded to increase public safety". By your line of reasoning, your text isn't evidence of anything either. Personally, I think that the "History of the Circle" loses some credibility based on the humorous nature that it's written in. I don't doubt that it's an accurate account for the events that took place, but to base people's motivation on such a story isn't basis of evidence. It can definitely be held in doubt. If we also consider that other texts - neutral ones at that, that does not have any in game writer - who does not even contradict your text, but instead adds to it, it's clear that the absence of evidence is not proof of anything in this case. Finally I'd like to say that it's a bit cheap to set yourself in a position where the only knowledge we have access to is Chantry knowledge, and you can accept texts you like as truth and condemn it for being propaganda if it doesn't agree with you. It's an ugly way of discussing. You haven't provided any proof of that the texts not written by an in-world person are Chantry propaganda. They don't change depending on origin.

To say that we're setting up a false dichotomy in a thread called "Mages: To be or not to be free" isn't really fair either. I certainly didn't set it up. But if we should call it "inside or outside the Circle", I'd go with "inside". This is what I'm arguing, anything else is to me beside the point. We can disagree about many things, the definition of slavery for instance, but that doesn't enter into the real subject for debate.

Arguing about other cultures is meaningless, as has been stated many times before, since they also deal with the undisputed risk of turning into Abominations, and since we don't know how they do it, we can't determine whether that system is safer or not.

We end up with the matter of where the burden of proof lies. I don't think you could prove with certainty to the King/Queen of Ferelden that mages should be let out of the Circle and not be dangerous for the population. Giving them more freedom inside the Circle is one thing, but it can't be proven that they could be let out safely.

There are pretty sound arguments saying that mages would cause deaths outside the Circle. There are arguments saying that other solutions are possible. Nowhere is it said "The Circle works" nor "the Circle is not necessary". The side who gets the burden of proof loses. I'll be gone for the weekend, so I won't continue the discussion. Hope you enjoy yourselves for the rest of it.

I'll go out with a final DG quote

I guess it depends on what you consider punishment. The Chantry looks on
the Circle as a mercy -- what is the alternative, after all? The mages
would say "let us watch ourselves", but then we're back to the specter
of the magisters. And what if there are mages who don't care for the
idea of other mages coming after them, either? Would that not place them
in the position of being oppressed, as well?
There is no easy answer, here, which is just as I like it. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/smile.png

I'm thinking that if letting the mages free would make the world safer, that would be an easy answer. That would make DG sad.

[Lotion Soronarr]

atheelogos wrote...
Really? Your actually saying every blood mage should be murdered just for knowing how to use a certain power?

If you're not prepared to do the time, don't do the crime.

No one with mind controling powers can ever be trusted. That is logical enough.

[atheelogos]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

atheelogos wrote...
Really? Your actually saying every blood mage should be murdered just for knowing how to use a certain power?

If you're not prepared to do the time, don't do the crime.

No one with mind controling powers can ever be trusted. That is logical enough.

I beg to differ, though I don't have the time to do so now. lol Gotta go to class.

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...
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....)

There are less mages about? Surely that's just maths. DG's quote about abominations roaming the land pre circle also works.

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.

How so? Management precludes regulation? Safe in a relative sense to "everybodies dead" contains a whole lot of room for unsafe.

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.

Why does their initial intent matter if the purpose is served?

Modifié par Ziggeh, 21 janvier 2011 - 12:54 .