1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually Zathrien led his tribe without serious incident for over SIX HUNDRED YEARS.

He used blood magic to curse a bunch of dudes, resulting in the death and transformation of people over the course of centuries, so it's kind of been one long incident.

[Lotion Soronarr]

atheelogos wrote...

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.

Differ how? What?

The issue is simple.
How do you know the trust you have for that person with mind-controling powers is real trust, and not his mind-control working on you?
How do you know he doesn't do you from behind every night and simply makes you forget it?
How do you know he's not using mind control on your right now, or has been using it subtely for years?
How do you evne know what's youre seeing is real, with him around?

Mind control..unltimate power..ultimte threat.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 21 janvier 2011 - 05:57 .

[DKJaigen]

Mages should self-regulate themselves and the circle is a needed institution to make sure new mages are able to control their power. As soon as their able to harness this power they should be free to do whatever they are willing to do.

The chantry and Templar's however should be removed from this entire structure as their ignorance does more harm then good.

[Johnny Shepard]

How about some Dev quotes?

David Gaider wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...
I am getting kind of tired of the overstated dangers of magic. At some point in Thedas's history the first mages came about, they had no one to teach them and no organization to keep them in check and yet somehow the world didnt end, somehow these mages learned their magic and taught it to new mages.

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.

You cant punish people for what they can possibly do, you have to punish people based on what they actually do.

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. {smilie}

David Gaider wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...
Should I be locked up because I know how to do this, or should law enforcement at least wait until I have posed some threat before arresting me?

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

David Gaider wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...
Forcing people into a life of imprisonment and slavery is punishment. I am sure back when slavery was common in the real world there where a lot of slaves who where happy with their lot in life, as I am sure there where as many nice and pleasant masters as there where brutal and abusive ones, that doesnt mean that it wasnt a life forced on them with no choice of their own.

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

Not to mention the fact that the mages are not even allowed to love or have families, they are denied that right, if a relationship is discovered the mages are separated, and if a child is born in is taken from them.

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

Modifié par Johnny Shepard, 21 janvier 2011 - 02:10 .

[Ziggeh]

Johnny Shepard wrote...

How about some Dev quotes?

We do indeed seem to be arguing points that have already been concisely covered.

[Sir JK]

I think the problem is that while we all discuss and present our logical conclusions and interpretations, we have different premises. For one I start to get the impression that on average the pro-libertarian side thinks that mages are a whole lot less dangerous than the pro-circle side. We seem to read the same things, but interpret them differently and then build our logical reasonings on that. Resulting in a conclusion that works for one's own side, but not for the other.

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

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

There aqre probably more than 17 Circles. So some of them most have a 700 years record without incident. I doubt Zathrian's 200 years are that impressive. Especially when you count in the fact that the Clan only ever have two mages, while a Circle have hundreds at a time.

[Naitaka]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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

There aqre probably more than 17 Circles. So some of them most have a 700 years record without incident. I doubt Zathrian's 200 years are that impressive. Especially when you count in the fact that the Clan only ever have two mages, while a Circle have hundreds at a time.

But every Dalish clan have mages. And from what Lanaya and Valenna have said, it's pretty safe to assume that a Keeper would have more than one apprentice within the clan. So technically Dalish already have unregulated blood mages running amok among the clan for hundreds of years now. And where did you get the fact Circle didn't have incident anyway? From the bits we've seen in The Calling and DA:O the Circle already have plenty of incidents within the span of a decade, I'm sure the Rite of Anullment isn't all that uncommon that it only happened once in 700 years.

Modifié par Naitaka, 21 janvier 2011 - 03:22 .

[expanding panic]

I am thinking that it depends on the endings you chose. If you chose to free the mages from the chantry then they'll be free.

[LobselVith8]

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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're trivializing the situation with the mages. Imprisoning people for having magical ability isn't social change - it was originally done because mages lead a non-violent protest, and now it's done to mages across Thedas in all Andrastian nations, and now the Chantry is trying to claim it's done for the greater good when mages and non-mages were living together with the Order of Templars around. Segregating people because they're different is wrong - you're free to support this perspective, of course, but it's one I'll ever agree with.

Social change would be the Chantry stopping its hateful propaganda against mages and their incessant need to imprison mages and deny them the opportunities that ordinary people across Thedas have to choose the road they'll take in their lives.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And there are many more (Libertanians aren't a majority) who are quite happy with their life there. [/quote]
I assume you have proof of this, or is this another assumption of yours you're presenting as indisputable fact? Because Wynne was concerned that the meeting in Cumberland would end up with mages agreeing to try to cecede from the Chantry, which is also brought up in a convo in the Magi Origin that the Libertarians are getting more support to defect from the Chantry.

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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]
That comment makes absolutely no sense. How is a form of government akin to an administration that imprisons you for how you're born?
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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]
DG actually said that he didn't personally see it that way, he never said it was the absolute, indisputable truth of the DA world. Considering the Architect, there's clearly more than one cook in the pot. His POV may not be the POV of another dev. I pointed out to you that the definition for "slave," did fit what the Chantry was doing to the mages. I'm sorry that you find knowledge so offensive, though.

Again, the VO for the Magi Origin terms it a "prison," so prisoners are what mages end up as because of the Chantry.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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]
And Irving still had no evidence on what Jowan was allegedly doing, though, so it doesn't disprove how powerless the First Enchanters really are.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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. [/quote]
You're arguing Wynne's POV, correct? Because we only get one brief scene with Uldred at Ostagar, and there's no canon evidence for what kind of person he was. You can argue for Wynne's POV about Uldred, but that's all it is - a POV. There's absolutely no evidence that anything Wynne said about Uldred was accurate, especially given how she treats the Warden.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

@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) [/quote]
In other words, I disagreed with you, so I'm wrong? In addition, it's not my definition, it's the definition you can find in the dictionary. IanPolaris pointed this out. Maybe you can try not to be condescending and try to formulate an argument that supports your view without coming off as childish? I have no issue with people who disagree with me (like Sr JK, who I enjoy conversing with a great deal even though we disagree quite a bit) as long as it's not dragged into childish schoolyard antics.

As for your argument, considering how templars have murdered innocent people (like D'Sims and the attempt on Aenirin and Anders), doesn't that make them monsters as well?
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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. [/quote]
No, I'm pointing out that your analogy of mages carrying a disease because they wield magic is completely false, that's all. It's not a fair or accurate representation of the situation that's being discussed.

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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? [/quote]
That's not true, and you know it. Greagoir said he sent word to Denerim - he doesn't have any way of knowing if reinforcements would come. There's a civil war and the Regent made a deal with Uldred, so why would Loghain allow any message from the Tower to go through when it could blow back hard on him? Yes, he sent word to get reinforcements, but he also mulls over the possibility that the civil war might mean that no reinforcements or response about the Rite could be the reason why there's been no response.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Funny how you always use the devs as an argument when it suits yo, but attack them when it doesn't. [/quote]
I pointed out the definition to you of slave, compared it to the Chantry and mages, and even IanPolaris further discussed the issue a few pages ago. I didn't realize you'd take it so personally.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Dwarves re-take thaigs with Bhelen? Gess what, templars kill abomniationand anull tower...tehy did it 17 times so far, according to the codex. [/quote]
I don't honestly see the focus of this argument, since I don't dispute that the templars can and will anul the Circle if Irving isn't saved or if the Warden supports Cullen.

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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. [/quote]
I never discussed battle tactics, so how can it be horrible? Oh, because I disagree with you? Of course, that's what it always boils down to, doesn't it? I disagree with you, anyone disagrees with you, and they're always wrong. You could try having a discourse with me about why you assume I'm wrong without trivializing my views or making yourself look like an adolescent who can't regulate his emotions, but I digress. As for your point, if they failed? It seems like they would have failed without the Warden, since there's no indication that reinforcements ever would have come from Denerim.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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? [/quote]
Doesn't change that Greagoir and the templars weren't capable of dealing with Uldred and the abominations. I don't see why they're so necessary to imprison mages if they couldn't resolve this crisis without the aid of an outsider who had no ties to the templars and could have even been a mage.

Is Zathrian an abomination? No? Then your point that mages can't help becoming abominations doesn't fit the reality of Zathrian, a mage over centuries, never becoming an abomination.
[QUOTE]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. [/quote]
I'm saying they wouldn't come because they never did.

Loghain knows about his own deal with Uldred, and even Greagoir admits the civil war is likely the reason no reinforcements have arrived.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IRC, 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]
That still doesn't excuse murdering someone on hearsay that they're a mage, Lotion. If it happened once (like D'Sims) and nearly happened with Aenirin and Anders, then it's likely happened multiple times.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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]
Comparing magic to a disease is a bad analogy, it doesn't work to examine the role of the Chantry and the mages in Thedas, and I don't see why you keep insisting on using it.

Let me guess - anyone who doesn't agree with your particular viewpoint is stupid? I guess some of us aren't going to be swayed that imprisoning people for having magical ability is wrong merely because you're going to write us off as stupid for it.

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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]
Because I don't agree with you about the role mages play with the Chantry? Why don't you take a page from Sir JK and try to formulate an actual argument supporting your viewpoint rather than making bad analogies and even worse puns? I certainly don't agree with JK on this issue, but JK puts a lot into posts, rather than dismiss anyone who disagrees by saying they're irrational.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sez who? Not to mention that that is a short statement that tells very little. You have no details. [/quote]
Ruling it in fear, and alternatively going on a murder rampage, speaks volumes to me for the kind of person Cullen is. You're free to disagree, of course, but feel free to provide evidence to support your claim.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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]
You've consistently supported the Chantry and even pro-Chantry characters like Wynne (in the Winnie the Poo thread several months back, supporting her pro-Chantry POV) so I don't how you're going to claim you're not a pro-Chantry supporter.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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]
IanPolaris already addressed the quote, which means your interpretation of it isn't the one, single, indisputable truth you try to make it out to be.

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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]
You're saying Gaider is the final word, but he isn't. He's one cook among other cooks. He's one writer writing with other writers. If another writer disagrees and sees the mages as being slaves then it's really a moot point, isn't it? Gaider admitted his view on the Chantry was his opinion and not the absolute truth, like when he discussed why the Magi boon doesn't happen (which was fact). Why do you keep harping on this issue?
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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]

Kolgrim has no hatred towards magic and attacks the Andrastian Chantry for its anti-magic views, and Father Eirik presides over the Haven Chantry.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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]
It's evidence that the mages of Haven aren't discriminated against when you couple it with Kolgrim's words about their view on magic.
Is Zathrian an abomination? No? So it doesn't always happen, then, despite your argument that mages can't control if a demon possesses them?
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Is there a point to this? I fai lto see what this has to do with my post. AT ALL. [/quote]
You said mages cause disaster. I responded that mages have helped save the world. Clearly, mages have keep the world from falling to the darkspawn, so I don't see the point in denying them basic human rights and a say in their lives.

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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]
I'm not certain why you're mentioning this, because I wasn't contesting that the codex entries are written from a particular point of view, I was actually mentioning that to another poster. Do you bother reading what I write or simply make assumptions and veer off the deep end from there?
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You do that with every word you type. [/quote]
You're welcome to your opinion, Lotion. As always.

[Lotion Soronarr]

DKJaigen wrote...

Mages should self-regulate themselves and the circle is a needed institution to make sure new mages are able to control their power. As soon as their able to harness this power they should be free to do whatever they are willing to do.

That is simply not feasable..or smart.

A mage being able to harness his powers has nothing to do with him turning into an abomination or not. Mages certanly can have some freedoms and priviliges (they arelady do), but for any mage that passes the Harrowing to be free to run around hte kingom and come and go as they please?
Nah ah...that's just asking for trouble.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

Everyone is a different kind of dangerous. The dwarves are dangerous. Humans are dangerous. Elves are dangerous. That's why the Grey Wardens have no issue calling so many distinct people to fight against the darkspawn threatening all of Thedas. Even the Chantry is dangerous - Divine Ambrosia II nearly declared an Exalted March on her own cathedral because of a non-violent protest!

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Indeed. Restriction.
That's what it is.

And yet the VO for the Magi Origin calls it a prison.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Nope. I'm dismissing this that are wrong. Not to mention that you are focusing on wrong things, out of context. 

How is IanPolaris wrong by quoting the codex entries and the storyline in DA:O? IanPolaris pointed out that the History of the Circle codex illustrates how the Circles being formed had nothing to do with protecting people from mages - so how is this inaccurate?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Perfectly as slaves of the Chantry, you mean.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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? 

Calling people stupid tends to be the actions of a troll, Lotion. Try to control yourself. There's no reason to lose your temper just because you couldn't win an argument with IanPolaris who pointed out the flaws of your argument.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.....

So if abominations were such a dilemma, why is Thedas still standing? Why didn't abominations ravage Thedas when there were no templars or Circles? Why are the elves still alive since they were great wielders of magic and walked across Thedas long before the humans ever arrived?

Again, nobody is arguing against properly instructing mages to wield magic - people are arguing against what the Chantry does to mages. If you'd read IanPolaris' posts on the issue, this is made perfectly clear time and time again.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

You mean how the History of the Circle codex disproves your argument about mages and non-mages not being able to live side by side?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Again, Lotion, please try to control yourself. It's just a thread, it's a fictional universe we're discussing, no reason to lose your cool just because someone disagrees with you.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 21 janvier 2011 - 04:24 .

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Actually, Lotion, IanPolaris already addressed the DG quotes a few pages back. You didn't like it. So why are you pretending that Ian never addressed the quotes? In fact, you also misconstrued what DG said about mages and slavery:

David Gaider wrote...

Imprisonment, sure, but I'm not sure you can equate the mages to being slaves.

How is "I'm not sure" the definitive word on the issue, Lotion? Because it doesn't seem to be the same as "they aren't" or "they never were" to me.

As for the establishment of the Circle, the fact that it was created because of a non-violent protest and not because of blood mages of abominations speaks volumes for how it wasn't impossible for mages and non-mages to live side by side, despite the presence of templars and the existance of the Chantry. The fact that the Chantry is now pretending it's purpose was always something entirely different rings false when there's no historical evidence to support this and it's contradicted by a codex written by a Chantry scholar. In fact, the conclusion of the codex (that you so kindly provided) describes the bias in who wrote it.

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.

Let him use a lightning bolt while the potential rapist is holding an elven woman? I think there would be some issues with that, Lotion.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

17 Circles anulled is an entire Circle of men, women, and children being brutally murdered with a sword of mercy every time - hardly nothing.

How many of those Anulments were justified? Was there a valid reason for the Rites in every case, or were we dealing with Knight-Commanders as paranoid as a Cullen who can rule the Ferelden Circle in fear?

You can side on the unknown and say that villages were saved by murdering mages, but how many villages could those mages have saved if they weren't being villified by the Andrastian Chantry? Would we even have had to deal with the Blights if the mages were used to combat darkspawn in the Deep Roads and destroy them?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

You can re-read the codex History of the Circle for proof:


It is a truth universally acknowledged that nothing is more successful at inspiring a person to mischief as being told not to do something. Unfortunately, the Chantry of the Divine Age had some trouble with obvious truths. Although it did not outlaw magic-quite the contrary, as the Chantry relied upon magic to kindle the eternal flame which burns in every brazier in every chantry-it relegated mages to lighting candles and lamps. Perhaps occasional dusting of rafters and eaves.

I will give my readers a moment to contemplate how well such a role satisfied the mages of the time.

It surprised absolutely no one when the mages of Val Royeaux, in protest, snuffed the sacred flames of the cathedral and barricaded themselves inside the choir loft. No one, that is, but Divine Ambrosia II, who was outraged and attempted to order an Exalted March upon her own cathedral. Even her most devout Templars discouraged that idea. For 21 days, the fires remained unlit while negotiations were conducted, legend tells us, by shouting back and forth from the loft.

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. Outside of normal society, and outside of the Chantry, the mages would form their own closed society, the Circle, separated for the first time in human history.

From "Of Fires, Circles, and Templars: A History of Magic in the Chantry," written by Sister Petrine, Chantry scholar.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Yet the great wielders of magic - the elves - are still alive after all these centuries without the Chantry and their templars, and the History of the Circle codex reveals that there was no urgency to isolate mages from the general populace for reasons of blood magic or abominations.

I have a counter question to propose: if mages were utilized to combat the darkspawn in the Deep Roads instead of being imprisoned, would we even be battling darkspawns and Archdemons with the Blights? As Duncan admits, mages are greatly equipped to deal with the darkspawn, who have magic of their own. How many hundreds, thousands, or even millions of lives could have been saved if mages were utilized to combat darkspawn with their powers instead of being imprisoned?

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.

Jowan clearly disagreed.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

That's not an accurate analogy, Lotion. I think there's a better word to describe here. Hmmm... what do you call a person running away from an organization of people who enslaved him for who he is, rather than what he does? Perhaps there's a word from our own history we can use here that would better fit the description.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
You're trivializing the situation with the mages. Imprisoning people for having magical ability isn't social change - it was originally done because mages lead a non-violent protest, and now it's done to mages across Thedas in all Andrastian nations, and now the Chantry is trying to claim it's done for the greater good when mages and non-mages were living together with the Order of Templars around. Segregating people because they're different is wrong - you're free to support this perspective, of course, but it's one I'll ever agree with.[/quote]

It's you the one whos' been trivilizing the danger mages posses and just how complicated their issue is.
The circles ultimitavely being a good thing is not debetable - less abominations running amok, the lands being safer.

Thisk of it as segragation if oyu wll - but in essence it is more similar to a quarantene.
And if there was a quarantene near your town, you'd be singing a different tune. We all know it.

[quote]
Social change would be the Chantry stopping its hateful propaganda against mages and their incessant need to imprison mages and deny them the opportunities that ordinary people across Thedas have to choose the road they'll take in their lives.[/quote]

What hatefull propaganda?

Tevinter imperium being a ****ty place with rampart slavery and attrocities is no propaganda.
"Magic is ment to serve man, not rule over him" is not hatefull propaganda.



[quote]
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And there are many more (Libertanians aren't a majority) who are quite happy with their life there. [/quote]
I assume you have proof of this, or is this another assumption of yours you're presenting as indisputable fact?[/quote]

Codex entries...There are 5 mage fraternities. Libertarians are one of them. 1 of 5.
That isn't a majority.


[quote]
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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]
That comment makes absolutely no sense. How is a form of government akin to an administration that imprisons you for how you're born?[/quote]

You do what the king sez or it's OFF WITH YOUR HEAD...Would you not describe that as slavery?




[QUOTE]
And Irving still had no evidence on what Jowan was allegedly doing, though, so it doesn't disprove how powerless the First Enchanters really are.[/quote]

Who said that Gregoir didn't (or wouldn't) show him? After all, Jowan wasn't supposed to be tranquilised right away.
And yes...Gregoir was right.




[quote]
In other words, I disagreed with you, so I'm wrong? In addition, it's not my definition, it's the definition you can find in the dictionary. IanPolaris pointed this out. Maybe you can try not to be condescending and try to formulate an argument that supports your view without coming off as childish? I have no issue with people who disagree with me (like Sr JK, who I enjoy conversing with a great deal even though we disagree quite a bit) as long as it's not dragged into childish schoolyard antics. [/quote]

I have no problem with people disagreein with me. I have problems with people who disagree with reality.
You used the broadest definition in the dictionary..and other people on this forum already showed that by that broadest definition, almost anyone is a slave.




[quote]
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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. [/quote]
No, I'm pointing out that your analogy of mages carrying a disease because they wield magic is completely false, that's all. It's not a fair or accurate representation of the situation that's being discussed.[/quote]

You fail to provide why it is false. While I proved why it is not. And frankly I don't care if you think it's false, you're wrong.

Now... ANSWER...THE...FRIGGIN...QUESTION. Stop stalling and evading it.




[QUOTE]
I don't honestly see the focus of this argument, since I don't dispute that the templars can and will anul the Circle if Irving isn't saved or if the Warden supports Cullen.[/quote]

Focus? Quite simply. Annuling the tower is a not a faliue for hte templars. Hence, the Broken Circle is not a faliure.


[quote]
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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. [/quote]
I never discussed battle tactics, so how can it be horrible? Oh, because I disagree with you? [/quote]

No, because you said the templars failed because they didn't immediately
kill all of hte abominiiotns, but rahter "hid behind the gates".


[quote]
Of course, that's what it always boils down to, doesn't it? I disagree with you, anyone disagrees with you, and they're always wrong. You could try having a discourse with me about why you assume I'm wrong without trivializing my views or making yourself look like an adolescent who can't regulate his emotions, but I digress. As for your point, if they failed? It seems like they would have failed without the Warden, since there's no indication that reinforcements ever would have come from Denerim.[/quote]

Cry me a river...Would have, might have...that is not proof. By your own admission you do not know if reainforcments would come (not that Loghian could prevent htem, unless he wanted a war agaisnt the Chantry).
Hence, you cannot claim that the templars failed.


[quote]
Doesn't change that Greagoir and the templars weren't capable of dealing with Uldred and the abominations. I don't see why they're so necessary to imprison mages if they couldn't resolve this crisis without the aid of an outsider who had no ties to the templars and could have even been a mage.[/quote]

Again..where's the proof that they couldn't resolve it?



[quote]
Is Zathrian an abomination? No? Then your point that mages can't help becoming abominations doesn't fit the reality of Zathrian, a mage over centuries, never becoming an abomination.[/quote]

Considering the damage he did, it's not a big difference either way. But I fail to see your point. What are you trying to say here? That Zethiran was immune to possession? Because that is bollcoks.



[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I'm saying they wouldn't come because they never did.[/quote]

Hello? Game time?
I can postpone coming to Redclife for eons at it will still be there. Deosn't mean that they never come.
Not to mention that the tower gets annuled if you side with Cullen. Looks to me reinforcements came.





[quote]
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
IRC, 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]
That still doesn't excuse murdering someone on hearsay that they're a mage, Lotion. If it happened once (like D'Sims) and nearly happened with Aenirin and Anders, then it's likely happened multiple times.[/quote]

s*** happens. Your point? That without the templars mages will never get killed? Becasue we already know that isn't true.




[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Comparing magic to a disease is a bad analogy, it doesn't work to examine the role of the Chantry and the mages in Thedas, and I don't see why you keep insisting on using it.




[QUOTE]
You've consistently supported the Chantry and even pro-Chantry characters like Wynne (in the Winnie the Poo thread several months back, supporting her pro-Chantry POV) so I don't how you're going to claim you're not a pro-Chantry supporter.[/quote]

I'm a realist. Nothing more, nothing less.




[QUOTE]

You're saying Gaider is the final word, but he isn't. He's one cook among other cooks. He's one writer writing with other writers. If another writer disagrees and sees the mages as being slaves then it's really a moot point, isn't it? Gaider admitted his view on the Chantry was his opinion and not the absolute truth, like when he discussed why the Magi boon doesn't happen (which was fact). Why do you keep harping on this issue?[/quote]

I'm not talking about oppinions, I'm talking about fluff facts.

More abominations running around, tearing the coutnryside apart - that's not oppinion. That's a fact.



[QUOTE]
It's evidence that the mages of Haven aren't discriminated against when you couple it with Kolgrim's words about their view on magic.[/quote]

Words of one man we know nothing about are harldy evidence of anything. Like I said - too little information.

[quote]
Is Zathrian an abomination? No? So it doesn't always happen, then, despite your argument that mages can't control if a demon possesses them?[/quote]

What are you talking about? When have I claimed Zethiran was an abomination?





[QUOTE]
You said mages cause disaster. I responded that mages have helped save the world. Clearly, mages have keep the world from falling to the darkspawn, so I don't see the point in denying them basic human rights and a say in their lives.[/quote]

You mean the same mages that allegedly caused the Blight in the first place? The same mages that are a constant danger to everyone around themselves 24/7? The same mages that HAVE quite a few rights and a say?




[QUOTE]
I'm not certain why you're mentioning this, because I wasn't contesting that the codex entries are written from a particular point of view, I was actually mentioning that to another poster. Do you bother reading what I write or simply make assumptions and veer off the deep end from there?[/quote]

I'm mentioning this becaus you have a habbit of using non-chantry codexes as facts.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

Greagoir claimed he had evidence, but Irving was never privy to it - he makes that clear when the mage speaks with him about Jowan's Rite of Tranquility, and how Irving would do things differently but that he doesn't have a say in the matter.

Where are you getting that claim from, Lotion? Because Greagoir clearly shut down Duncan's request for more troops to fight the darkspawn despite Irving clearly disagreeing with him about the issue.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

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

Wrong [/quote]

That must be why the Chantry imprisons mages to Circles, permits them no rights to have lives as ordinary citizens, can have their templars (who are outside the bounds of the nobility) kill people on the mere suspicion of being a mage (like the fake made the Magnificent D'Sims), and blames them all (and not Tevinter solely) for the Blights.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

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.[/quote]

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) [/quote]

You mean the original quote from DG that IanPolaris addressed before a few pages back, where you became irate because IanPolaris re-quoted and pointed out that it doesn't mean what you claimed it does?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]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[/quote]

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. [/quote]

That must be why Duncan admitted that Grey Wardens have had to resort to blood magic to deal with the darkspawn.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

<snip>
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.
[/quote]

You mean IanPolaris providing the codex which shows the History of the Circle to be the result of a "workers strike" (in Ian's terms) rather than your insinuation that it was due to abominations is garbage?

Nobody is saying that abominations aren't a problem - but they happen even with the Circle, and most of the cases we've encountered are directly because of the Chantry's treatment of the mages.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]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[/quote]


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. [/quote]

There are some incidents we do know of about the templars. There is their murder of the Magnificent D'Sims because the templars thought he was a mage (and he wasn't), their attempted murder of the child Aenirin, and their attempt to murder the Warden-Commander and the Grey Warden Anders. Clearly, mages aren't the only ones who can cross the line.

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Segregating people because they're different is wrong - you're free to support this perspective, of course, but it's one I'll ever agree with.

That's a bit thin. The reverse, that it's simply a question of whether you favour the prevention of disasters is equally ridiculous.

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

[EmperorSahlertz]

Naitaka wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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

There aqre probably more than 17 Circles. So some of them most have a 700 years record without incident. I doubt Zathrian's 200 years are that impressive. Especially when you count in the fact that the Clan only ever have two mages, while a Circle have hundreds at a time.

But every Dalish clan have mages. And from what Lanaya and Valenna have said, it's pretty safe to assume that a Keeper would have more than one apprentice within the clan. So technically Dalish already have unregulated blood mages running amok among the clan for hundreds of years now. And where did you get the fact Circle didn't have incident anyway? From the bits we've seen in The Calling and DA:O the Circle already have plenty of incidents within the span of a decade, I'm sure the Rite of Anullment isn't all that uncommon that it only happened once in 700 years.

It has happened 17 times in 700 years. But since there are more than 17 Circles (probably) some of the Circles have had no major (public anyway) incident for more than 700 years, which beats Zathrian's score. And while there are several apprentices to a Dalish Keeper, the other candidates "disappear" apparently once a Second is picked.
I'm also willing to bet that when an Abomination happen in a Dalish community it is far more devastating than in the Circle.

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Segregating people because they're different is wrong - you're free to support this perspective, of course, but it's one I'll ever agree with.

That's a bit thin. The reverse, that it's simply a question of whether you favour the prevention of disasters is equally ridiculous.

So is calling someone stupid because you disagree with them, Ziggeh, but I notice you didn't bother to call Lotion out on that.

[LobselVith8]

[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It's you the one whos' been trivilizing the danger mages posses and just how complicated their issue is.

The circles ultimitavely being a good thing is not debetable - less abominations running amok, the lands being safer.

Thisk of it as segragation if oyu wll - but in essence it is more similar to a quarantene.
And if there was a quarantene near your town, you'd be singing a different tune. We all know it. [/quote]

This thread wouldn't exist if the Chantry's treatment of mages wasn't debatable, Lotion, nor would the several other threads with similiar issues about mages and templars. The relationship between the Chantry and the mages has even been considered everything from imprisonment to enslavement. You debate that things are safe because the mages are locked up, but is that true? How much safer would things be if the mages were allowed to use their powers against the darkspawn in the Deep Roads? Consider how many mages could be combating the darkspawn from multiple points, and there might have never been four more Blights after the first.

[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What hatefull propaganda?

Tevinter imperium being a ****ty place with rampart slavery and attrocities is no propaganda.
"Magic is ment to serve man, not rule over him" is not hatefull propaganda. [/quote]

Condemning all mages for the actions of one empire, Lotion. Just listen to Greagoir - he never blames the Tevinters for the Blights, he blames mages in general.
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Codex entries...There are 5 mage fraternities. Libertarians are one of them. 1 of 5.
That isn't a majority. [/quote]

I think you misread what I wrote. I pointed out that they're getting support - in the Magi Origin and in Awakening in the conversation with Wynne, who said mages might try to defect from the Chantry and that it'll likely lead to a war between the two.
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You do what the king sez or it's OFF WITH YOUR HEAD...Would you not describe that as slavery? [/quote]


How is being thrown into prison because of who you are comparable to living under a form of government, again?
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Who said that Gregoir didn't (or wouldn't) show him? After all, Jowan wasn't supposed to be tranquilised right away.
And yes...Gregoir was right. [/quote]

Irving makes it clear he has no idea what evidence Greagoir has on Jowan. Just listen to him. Watch the YT videos by entering "Magi Origin" and you'll see it.
Considering the murder of the Magnificent D'Sims because templars (wrongly) thought he was a mage, it's clearly not always the case, Lotion.
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I have no problem with people disagreein with me. I have problems with people who disagree with reality.
You used the broadest definition in the dictionary..and other people on this forum already showed that by that broadest definition, almost anyone is a slave. [/quote]

So people who disagree with you are really disagree with reality? Feel free to re-read IanPolaris analysis and use of the dictionary definition of the word, then.
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You fail to provide why it is false. While I proved why it is not. And frankly I don't care if you think it's false, you're wrong.

Now... ANSWER...THE...FRIGGIN...QUESTION. Stop stalling and evading it. [/QUOTE]

Mages aren't diseased, so it's not an accurate analogy. There's no question to answer. If you were discussing the Architect's Disciples, the Messenger, or the Architect (because all of them can infect normal people with darkspawn disease) than you'd have a point, but mages aren't diseased. Ergo, it's not a proper analogy. Please, refrain from using it.
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Focus? Quite simply. Annuling the tower is a not a faliue for hte templars. Hence, the Broken Circle is not a faliure. [/quote]

Yet it's only able to happen because of the Grey Warden, not the templars. If the Warden never showed up, then it's possible Uldred would have defeated Greagoir and his relatively small contingent of templars, especially since there was no word back or reinforcements from Denerim.
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No, because you said the templars failed because they didn't immediately
kill all of hte abominiiotns, but rahter "hid behind the gates". [/quote]
In other words, I never discussed battle tactics, but I did point out that the templars were overwhelmed and couldn't deal with the abominations, so how does your attack of me and claiming I don't understand battle tactics work again?
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Cry me a river...Would have, might have...that is not proof. By your own admission you do not know if reainforcments would come (not that Loghian could prevent htem, unless he wanted a war agaisnt the Chantry).
Hence, you cannot claim that the templars failed. [/quote]
No, reinforcements never came. By my own admission, Greagoir admits there are no reinforcements, and suspects the civil war may have something to do with it.
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Again..where's the proof that they couldn't resolve it? [/quote]
Besides the Warden resolving it because they're not capable of resolving it themselves?
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Considering the damage he did, it's not a big difference either way. But I fail to see your point. What are you trying to say here? That Zethiran was immune to possession? Because that is bollcoks. [/quote]

I never said Zathrian was immune to possession - I pointed out that, counter to your claim that mages will inevitably become abominations, Zathrian lived for centuries as a Dalish mage and didn't become one, so it isn't inevitable.
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Hello? Game time?
I can postpone coming to Redclife for eons at it will still be there. Deosn't mean that they never come.
Not to mention that the tower gets annuled if you side with Cullen. Looks to me reinforcements came. [/quote]
You mean besides the fact that the templars are hiding behind a massive door and keeping everyone else in, like the mages who would be culled?
As for the reinforcements, they're clearly there by the time the armies match to Denerim if the Warden sided with Cullen, but how many days, weeks, or months is that from when the Circle was dealing with Uldred and the abominations? Uldred's army was almost complete and we only see a contingent of templars at the end, after the civil war has been resolved, so there's no evidence that reinforcements are coming before or anywhere close to when Uldred would've completed his army and marched against the templar force.
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
s*** happens. Your point? That without the templars mages will never get killed? Becasue we already know that isn't true. [/quote]

I pointed out that under the current system, people are killed by templars on the suspicion of being a mage, including people who aren't mages - like the Magnificent D'Sims.
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I'm a realist. Nothing more, nothing less. [/quote]

But despite your claim otherwise, you've consistently sided with the Chantry and pro-Chantry characters (Wynne in Winnie the Poo thread) for several months. I have no issue with it, but I see no reason why you claim otherwise.
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I'm not talking about oppinions, I'm talking about fluff facts.

More abominations running around, tearing the coutnryside apart - that's not oppinion. That's a fact. [/quote]

So why not address IanPolaris' examination of DG's quote instead of claiming that Ian never read it or addressed it?

[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You mean the same mages that allegedly caused the Blight in the first place? The same mages that are a constant danger to everyone around themselves 24/7? The same mages that HAVE quite a few rights and a say? [/quote]
You mean the Tevinters. The mages in the Circles are under Chantry authority.
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I'm mentioning this becaus you have a habbit of using non-chantry codexes as facts. [/quote]

I didn't do that, and anyone can clearly see that in reading my posts a few pages back - I was describing to someone that the codex entries are written from particular POVs, like the two Dalish codex entries.

[Naitaka]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It has happened 17 times in 700 years. But since there are more than 17 Circles (probably) some of the Circles have had no major (public anyway) incident for more than 700 years, which beats Zathrian's score. And while there are several apprentices to a Dalish Keeper, the other candidates "disappear" apparently once a Second is picked.
I'm also willing to bet that when an Abomination happen in a Dalish community it is far more devastating than in the Circle.

I was under the impression that each country in thedas has 1 Circle, is there even 17 countries on the countient? Where does it say that the other Keeper candidates "disappears" I've never seen that mentioned anywhere in game. In fact, Lanaya and Velenna discuss their fellow apprentices quite openingly to an outsider, I always just assume they work in a more support role for the Keeper him/herself.

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

So is calling someone stupid because you disagree with them, Ziggeh, but I notice you didn't bother to call Lotion out on that.

I "didn't bother" to respond to a lot of things on this forum. I don't have that sort of time in my day.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Naitaka wrote...

[quote]EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It has happened 17 times in 700 years. But since there are more than 17 Circles (probably) some of the Circles have had no major (public anyway) incident for more than 700 years, which beats Zathrian's score. And while there are several apprentices to a Dalish Keeper, the other candidates "disappear" apparently once a Second is picked.
I'm also willing to bet that when an Abomination happen in a Dalish community it is far more devastating than in the Circle.[/quote]

I was under the impression that each country in thedas has 1 Circle, is there even 17 countries on the countient? Where does it say that the other Keeper candidates "disappears" I've never seen that mentioned anywhere in game. In fact, Lanaya and Velenna discuss their fellow apprentices quite openingly to an outsider, I always just assume they work in a more support role for the Keeper him/herself. [/quote]

EmperorSalertz's comments ignore the fact that there are two mages in Zathrian's camp who use magic to attack the Warden if he or she sides with the werewolves, and Aenirin was a Circle mage who was rescued by the Dalish, given Dalish markings, and welcomed into the camp despite not being Dalish. Mages don't "mysteriously disappear" among the Dalish. There's no evidence to even support this in lore or the storyline. Clearly, Velanna's reference to someone else taking up the role of First to her Keeper indicates as much.

And Orlais has six Circles, so I suppose it depends on the particular nation.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]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[/quote]

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. [/quote]

You mention that there are many mages to a kingdom in Thedas - that's a good point. So why not utilize their magic against the darkspawn in the Deep Roads to wittle away their numbers and hopefully prevent future Blights? Why keep mages imprisoned where they can do nothing to destroy the darkspawn that always threaten the surface and constantly threaten the dwarves?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

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. [/quote]

There have been Grey Wardens who have used blood magic against the darkspawn, so that clearly isn't true. Duncan certainly saw no issue with it, especially since he mentions it to counter the notion that "blood magic is evil."

[quote]Ziggeh wrote...

[quote]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....)[/quote]

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

There's certainly more darkspawn now. Why haven't the nations been using mages to fight them in the Deep Roads to try to prevent the Blights?

[quote]Ziggeh wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

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

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

Maybe the better question to answer would be, given how mages are continually resisting the Chantry's treatment of them (which has been considered everything from imprisonment to enslavement - and I can imagine that there are mages who feel the same way) and that it's likely going to lead to a war in DA2, what good has it ultimately done but instigated a war between templars and mages?

[quote]Ziggeh wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]

Why does their initial intent matter if the purpose is served? [/quote]

It matters if there's a codex that seems to be "heresay" (based on how it's written) where they're claiming that the Circles were created because of abominations, when that isn't the case.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

Everyone is a different kind of dangerous. The dwarves are dangerous. Humans are dangerous. Elves are dangerous. That's why the Grey Wardens have no issue calling so many distinct people to fight against the darkspawn threatening all of Thedas. Even the Chantry is dangerous - Divine Ambrosia II nearly declared an Exalted March on her own cathedral because of a non-violent protest![/qutoe]

You're missing the point.

Mage are more dangerous than other groups. Not only to others but to themselves. And unlike other groups, even the best among them cna cause havoc and destruction EVEN IF THEY DO NOT WANT TO.



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Indeed. Restriction.
That's what it is. [/quote]

And yet the VO for the Magi Origin calls it a prison.[/quote]

Well, if you're going to be so direct...does it call it a slave camp? No.
Then the mages aren't slaves. VO confirms it.


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Nope. I'm dismissing this that are wrong. Not to mention that you are focusing on wrong things, out of context. [/quote]

How is IanPolaris wrong by quoting the codex entries and the storyline in DA:O? IanPolaris pointed out that the History of the Circle codex illustrates how the Circles being formed had nothing to do with protecting people from mages - so how is this inaccurate?[/quote]

Ahem....


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

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]

Perfectly as slaves of the Chantry, you mean.[/quote]

Even assuming that is the truth (which is not), if that's their own choice...Remember, there are mages willing to become tranquil.




[quote]
Calling people stupid tends to be the actions of a troll, Lotion. Try to control yourself. There's no reason to lose your temper just because you couldn't win an argument with IanPolaris who pointed out the flaws of your argument.[/quote]

Heheh...funny
I pointed the flaws in yours and his arguments, not the other way around.
But if you insist to live in the little bubble of yours, go ahead.



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

So if abominations were such a dilemma, why is Thedas still standing? Why didn't abominations ravage Thedas when there were no templars or Circles? Why are the elves still alive since they were great wielders of magic and walked across Thedas long before the humans ever arrived?[/quote]

For the 10 millitonth time (sigh)...who ever said abominations end the world? Abominatiosn DID ravage thedas. They DID kill tons of people before the cricles were made. Abominatiosn were hunted before (but with a lot less efficiency and with more casualties).



[quote]
Again, nobody is arguing against properly instructing mages to wield magic - people are arguing against what the Chantry does to mages. If you'd read IanPolaris' posts on the issue, this is made perfectly clear time and time again.
[/quote]

Mages already ARE instructed to properly wield magic. What do you think is taught at the Circle? Macrame?

What the Chantry does to the mages is a product of efficiency, simplicty and practicality. For example, DG explained why mage children are taken away and put in another tower.
And it had nothing to do with the templars/chantry being evil s.o.b's.



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

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

You mean how the History of the Circle codex disproves your argument about mages and non-mages not being able to live side by side?[/quote]

No, the codex doesn't disprove anything I said.
Mages and non-mages can live side-by side. But it's not pretty. It's not better than the current sytem...Unless you consider "far more deaths" to be a better thing.



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

Again, Lotion, please try to control yourself. It's just a thread, it's a fictional universe we're discussing, no reason to lose your cool just because someone disagrees with you.[/quote]

I'm not angry for you disagreeing, I'm angry for you not reading....again and again. I repeated the above 5...FIVE friggin times. And every time you seem to not read...or you're doing it on purpose, just to troll.