1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...
True surface dwarves lose their resistance to magic, but that doesn't mean that you need lyrium to be resistant to magic.  I cite Alistair himself who says that Templars don't need lyrium to use their anti-magical talents and he then even questions whether it even makes them more effective (which is the chantry claim).  The point here is there is more to it than simple exposure to lyrium.

I'm sorry Polaris, but I think I need more to accept that there are alternate ways to develop maic-resistance. If you can cite a lore-source I'll accept it but when the writers themselves have admitted that some things are bent for player convenience (I'll back that statement up if you'd like) I'm not going to accept that there are alternatives ways to resistance.
As for Alistair... his entire argument falls flat on one very crucial detail: He has never actually taken lyrium. He is not sure it changes anything no. But he was a recruit so he was neither privy to secret information nor has he taken lyrium... so if it did matter, how would he know? Now if a grand cleric or a knight commander said it... then I'd accept it. But Alistair is a dubious source.

Show me one...just ONE....case where a Templar has been held accountable for his actions against mages other then Cullen (and then only in a small subset of possible endings).  You can't.  Doesn't sound like accountability to me especially when the Tempars have been so spectacularly wrong on a number of occassions (including the murder of at least one non-mage!)

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And besides, if a templar refused to kill a potential maleficar he'd be held accountable for that, no? So some accountability they must have. The things you raise above are specifically that which I covered with my last statement... just because they are not punished for what they do to mages does not mean they are not accountable (just not for that).
Even so... it could be accountable for them, they just aren't punished (because their knight-commander protects them).
But I agree... we have not seen any examples of this.

It's pretty shabby.  The Chantry explicitly looks after it's own power and it's own interests including rewriting history and destroying entire Kingdoms to do so.  Ask the Dalish how "not shabby" the Chantry is!  Calling the Chantry "the UN of Thedas" is a gross insult to the UN...and that's saying something given my own attitude towards the UN!   We know for a fact (because the Chantry's own history tells us this) that the Chantry only started the circles so they and only they would control the magical workforce. 

I used UN as an example of a world-spanning organisation. The Chantry is just that. It exist virtually everywhere and have a huge network. That alone lets it keep all the circles in contact with each others. My point was that the chantry is one of the few organisations that could keep this up and make sure all circles are treated... "equally" (depending on local knight-commanders/grand clerics of course).

Protection had zip to do with it.

Speaking of which, I found this:
"It is the innocent folk of Ferelden who matter. I would lay down my life, and the life of any mage, to protect them."
- Gregoir

Thought you'd be interested in that.

Far better than the Chantry.  Under Crown control, the state would have strong incentive to treat it's mages well for all the reasons you mention.  Even now, I will bet you 100:1 odds that every king has a shadow mage force (likely bloodmages) that the Chantry doesn't know anything about.  Magic is too useful NOT to do this.  At least with the circle under state control, this can be done openly.

Thing is though... all mages would be constantly in the middle of the powerstruggle. Someone trying to take power? Get the mages on your side or kill them. King is unsure about mage alligiance? Send in his personal henchmen to "keep an eye on them" and "motivate them to choose the right side". Mages start to become a powerfactor? Make the more useful teachers "vanish" and alter the study-program to suit your interests. Someone invades? The circle will be among the first targets.

If mages come under the personal influence of kings they will become weapons. More so than now. As you say, most monarchs already have mage agents... but they have no control over the training facilities. SO they have to treat their agents nice. But if they control the circles... they have many many more mages.
So they'll be used as weapons. Because as you also said... magic is too useful not to do it.

Putting mages under the whims of kings (and remember... the only faction strong enough to challenge kings is... the Chantry) means mages will truly be pawns in every powerstruggle in the nations. Besides... imagine what would happen if a mad king that absolutely hates mages come to power? Every mage killed (or tortured) and all the mage material in the circle destroyed. Which will make it difficult for all future mages.

Manaclash is better than anything the templars have at dealing with abominations....and mages are best equipped to understand and spot abominations as soon as they happen.  I will agree that mages shouldn't be SOLELY in charge of magical education and control, but they should have a large (perhaps even majority) say since magic is best fought by other magic.

Again though... it seems to be the mages which have the greatest trouble fighting the demons in the broken circle (just count the number of abominations). While the warden have plot-armour so he/she cannot ever lose a struggle against a demon or be attacked directly from the fade (because that would mean the end of the game). Are mages truly the best at dealing with abominations? I don't think we'll ever know. A prepared mage will probably trump a unprepared templar yes.
And even so... who is the best at fighting abominations is not as important as who peop,le trust the most. Unfortunantely for the mages... it is not them.

Allthough I'm curious... who should together with mages be in charge of magical education and control?

Do it like we do in the real world for people with important skills (such as those that handle classified information that could LITERALLY cause cities to go up in smoke if revealed):  Make it some combination with checks and balances.  Other societies manage this quite well after all. 

Hmm... no. We don't have enough data. The only society in Thedas in which we have an adequate level of information on mage management is Andrastian Thedas. We don't know how the others handle it. So we don't know how well they manage.

Talk to the Reverand Mother in Redcliff.  She is ashamed and admits that the Chantry has provfoked mobs against mages and promises she won't do it since you are helping her.  Talk to Keli about her chantry-based beliefs.  Heck talk to Duncan and he flat out states that the Chantry only barely tolerates magic (because they have to).  I could go on and on, but the chantry does indeed spout a highly anti-mage dogma that doesn't help the situation in the slightest.

-Polaris

Keli... she's a young girl with serious self-loathing issues. And Duncan... well... he's not wrong. But despite what he says... of all the canticles we have. All the sermons. All preachings in the game. None of them ever mentions that mages should be hated/feared/pities/isolated or anything thereof. The closest is the text my signature is based on... but it only speaks of Tevinter magisters... not mages as a whole. There's an distinct lack of anti-mage dogma. Despite that some mages make you think it's all the Chantry preaches.
The Revered Mother in Recliffe I did not know of though. Thanks.

Huntress wrote...
Oh my dalish assasin did punish the templars in DAA, for wanting   to
take Anders away, even tho  King Alistar already said was good to go, as
you can see the templars neither care that a Warden-Commander and a
King wanted Anders to become a Warden, sadly the templars didnt survive
the punishment. Yes they do need someone to punish them, sadly won't be a
Warden commander.
The seeker is more intrigue/worried about who is
going to be in charge that actually punishing templars, their job is on
the line of fire.

Thing is... all we see is Rylock with a friend. There is no indication she has not gone rogue at that point. Because after all... if the templars officially the kings and warden-commanders authority in the matter... why did she not try to take Anders at once? Why set a trap for him? Why go through all that effort to kill Anders where noone knows of it? It's just... odd. As if she's trying to keep it all hidden. But she's a templar... noone but the Chantry can touch her. So why is she hiding?
And then... have you noticed... after Rylock dies. No other templars come... despite that they have his phylactery.

If she had been carrying official orders then I'd have accepted your argument without question. There's just something about Rylock as the situation is presented that simply does not add up.

Modifié par Sir JK, 22 janvier 2011 - 08:40 .

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
"Probably" is not evidence.

Neither is claiming that the Chantry is the best option when you say that we know of no others. Considering that the mages were living among non-mages and the policy of segregation happened as a direct result of mages protesting against the Chantry to placate a Divine willing to declare an Exalted March on her own cathedral, there is no evidence that the current system of imprisoning mages (or enslaving them, depending on who you ask) is necessary.

Necessary? No. If people are willing to accept higher mortality rates that will come wiht mages being free, then it's theirt perogative.

Of course, that depends on weather you consider safety and protecting your life necessary.

I thought about responding to your prior posts, but I don't have the time and this one will do.  You claim that the Circle System is necessary because it's the best system for regulating mages.

Proof of this would be nice.

In the game every instance of abominations and abominations killing others can be directly linked to the Chantry's own policy against mages except one.  That one is a mission given to you by the Mages Collective to police their own and it works with only one casualty (which is unfortunately but a smashing sucess when you set it next to the record of the templars).

Let's see those deaths due to abomination precircle and postcircle.  Come on, PUT SOME NUMBERS ON IT.  Prove this extraordinary claim of yours.  The numbers do exist in Chantry records because both the Chantry and Templars as continuous organizions pre-date the circle by almost two hundred years!

You can't and that's your fundamental problem.

We know that the Dalish Elves through all history have lived just fine with magic and don't have any particular fear of mages.  That would be quite remarkable if abominations were as common and dangerous as you say.  The same applies to the Chasind, Haven, Rivvian, and pretty much any society past or present not under the yoke of the modern chantry.

A couple more points:  Yes demons teach bloodmagic, but that does not mean that all demons know bloodmagic.  A few do but not all.  There is NO case where an abomination has been shown with the ability to tear the veil at will.  Indeed the only creature able to do this was the Baroness but she was already a (unque!) fully manifested Pride Demon when she did so and no longer an abomination (per Justice).  Hint:  Just because all dogs have four legs doesn't mean that all animales with four legs are dogs.

Finally, abominations seem to be rare either the mage becomes one voluntarily OR the mage willfully engages the demon in a struggle of wills in the fade (this is what summoning is) and loses.  Note that both are entirely within the mage's control which is why demons for the most part have to TRICK a mage into becoming an abomination....or find desperate mages.  Gee, Ya think the circle system might make mages desperate?  Nahh.....never happen.....

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Huntress wrote...

You can't ignore the story because it contradicts your argument. Game mechanics are Zathrian being labelled a blood mage or why the companions don't get sick with the darkspawn blood covering them. You can't re-write the story because it contradicts your argument completely. You're ignoring how abominations haven't devastated Thedas in the past and how they were dealt with effectively because it runs counter to your pro-Chantry proclamations.[/quote]
[/quote]

I'm not ignoring anything, nor am I re-writing the story.
You however, are only reading the story bits that you like and ignoring others.

I won't repeat myself any more on the "abominations runing thedas" issue. I explained it several times with clear logic and examples from world history.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Becaue you obviously dont' read..The queation you asked was already answred.

Dont'? Queation? Maybe you should learn to spell before you attack people's ability to read, Lotion.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Isn't it obvious? Of all the known models we have information on, it is the safest one.

And lacking knowledge of any method to prevent abominations, by all logic (mages = abomination, mages under lock = abominations uder lock) is is the safest one...aside from the mass tranqulization. That one is even safer.

That outline you provide ignores how, in the codex entries and in the Broken Circle quest, the abominations happened as a direct result of the mages being imprisoned by the templars and the Chantry. Mistreatment and imprisonment = abominations. Coupled with what appears to be a brewing war between Templars and Mages in DA2, and it looks like all the Chantry has done is force mages into an all-out war to fight for their survival and their freedom.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You being impressed is irrleveant.
Not that I've been impresed with any "argument" you presented so far....

The difference is that I don't need to resort to name-calling and a condescending attitude simply because someone disagrees with me. As for your arguments, let's see... you provided no proof that Thedas is any safer with the Chantry controlled Circles than they were without them, you misrepresented quotes by David Gaider as IanPolaris pointed out, you provided no proof that the Circles act as a deterrant for abominations given how many abominations have transpired as a direct result of the templars, you provided absolutely no proof that the Chantry's treatment and imprisonment of mages is the safest option, and it looks like the mages are going to fight back against their oppressors in DA2 so the Circles may very well be abolished as a result. All I'm seeing here is that the Chantry has supressed mages in their prisons and it's coming to bite them.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Already adressed. You're a broken record.

Because you continue to ignore how absolutely anyone and anything can be possessed (from regular people to trees) and make flippant claims in your attempts to make mages seem like monsters who will destroy the world unless they're dehumanized and imprisoned. Clearly, if the Circle wasn't created as a means of protection from mages (as provided in the History of the Circle codex) then there's no excuse for the Chantry's treatment of them.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I'm realist.
You're the one charged with hatered towards a group, not me. As your obsessive need to repeat yourself (and list all "crimes" of the chantry, even when it's irrelevant to the discussion) a zillion times proves.

You're the one that ignores the grey reality of TheDas, by painitng the Chantry completley black.

Imprisoning people because they're mages is wrong and giving a flimpsy excuse as justification (even when their own scholars can provide otherwise - see: History of the Circle codex) and you ignoring it doesn't make you a realist. You clearly hate mages and love the Chantry, it's the reason why for several months you'll always defend them and supported characters the pro-Chantry views of Cullen, Wynne, and Greagoir.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Blight. Tevinter Imperium.

Not according to the dwarves, Lotion.

[Sir JK]

I'd also like to adress the history of the Circle codex entry that is thrown around a lot.

'

It does not say that the circle was formed due to the orders of the Divine because of the non-violent protest (by the way, I find a non-violent protest evry admirable). It says the circle was formed due to negotiations held for the 21 days of the protest.

Which means something was negotiated. The Chantry and Mages were discussing something, This led to the creation of the circles.



Furthermore... the entry also says that mages were regulated (and templars existed) even prior to the circles. Specicially that the only thing they were allowed to do was maintain the everlasting fires and similar.



Thirdly... it says that the Divine was trying to order an exalted march but was talked out of that idea (by among others, the templars). Which means there where more people and interest involved.



The only link between the protest and the creation was that it made Chantry and Mages talk to each others. The codex mentions nothing about the underlying reasons, rationales, purposes, functions, quirks, personalities, goals and interests that were behind it.



In a way it is like the statement "Rome fell because of the barbarian invasions". Yes, it did but there was more to it than that. All it takes is a bit of digging and you'll start finding them. Same thing with the circle, it was formed following the non-violent protest. But there was more to it than that. Unfortunantely, we have nothing to dig in yet.



Basically... the same old argument: Not enough data.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Necessary? No. If people are willing to accept higher mortality rates that will come wiht mages being free, then it's theirt perogative.

Of course, that depends on weather you consider safety and protecting your life necessary.

I thought about responding to your prior posts, but I don't have the time and this one will do.  You claim that the Circle System is necessary because it's the best system for regulating mages.

Proof of this would be nice.

I already shown how simple statistics show it would be safer.

Now you prove the opposite.

In the game every instance of abominations and abominations killing others can be directly linked to the Chantry's own policy against mages except one.  That one is a mission given to you by the Mages Collective to police their own and it works with only one casualty (which is unfortunately but a smashing sucess when you set it next to the record of the templars).

As I said before - blame chain. You say "directly likend to the chantry", I say bulls***.

the MAges Collective quest is irrelevant - fuirst of all, they depends on outside contractors (and if you call that effective you're dellusioanl), secondly the abominations was a  weak one, and thirdly, anyonething involving hte player is automaticly void as an argument. The player is immortal and he will ALWAYS win.

Let's see those deaths due to abomination precircle and postcircle.  Come on, PUT SOME NUMBERS ON IT.  Prove this extraordinary claim of yours.  The numbers do exist in Chantry records because both the Chantry and Templars as continuous organizions pre-date the circle by almost two hundred years!

You can't and that's your fundamental problem.

No numbers were provided in the codex.

Altough extrapoliating (like what you tried) epicly backfired on you, but it's best to forget that, no?


Given that I already adressed this same issue SEVERAL times, and you you seem to just gloss over it an ignore it, I'm ignoring any of your posts that fail to adress it. Just a heads-up.

A couple more points:  Yes demons teach bloodmagic, but that does not mean that all demons know bloodmagic.  A few do but not all.

Proof?

There is NO case where an abomination has been shown with the ability to tear the veil at will.  Indeed the only creature able to do this was the Baroness but she was already a (unque!) fully manifested Pride Demon when she did so and no longer an abomination (per Justice).

Yet anywhere a powerfull abomination shows up, the veil is torn. Redcliffe, the Circle, an the baroness isse...
Coincidence much?

You earlier clamed that veil is only torn when there's a lot of death, and furhter claimed Redcliff has only 50 or so vitizens....and yet there's corpses galore and the veil is clearly torn.


Now, you can say that that only happens when a mage is possesed and hte abomination itself cannot tear the veail (no proof of that), but in that case it still doesn't matter, sicne the veil was torn either way (abomination willing or not), and the virus model then still applies, since demons WILL pour trough an you'll have more abominations/possesions.

Finally, abominations seem to be rare either the mage becomes one voluntarily OR the mage willfully engages the demon in a struggle of wills in the fade (this is what summoning is) and loses.  Note that both are entirely within the mage's control which is why demons for the most part have to TRICK a mage into becoming an abomination....or find desperate mages.  Gee, Ya think the circle system might make mages desperate?  Nahh.....never happen.....

Or..you know..Greed...Lust...Jeloausy or any maryad of other thing for which humans have been selling hteir souls since time begun. Frak, even a very bad day may be all it takes.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
True surface dwarves lose their resistance to magic, but that doesn't mean that you need lyrium to be resistant to magic.  I cite Alistair himself who says that Templars don't need lyrium to use their anti-magical talents and he then even questions whether it even makes them more effective (which is the chantry claim).  The point here is there is more to it than simple exposure to lyrium.[/quote]
I'm sorry Polaris, but I think I need more to accept that there are alternate ways to develop maic-resistance. If you can cite a lore-source I'll accept it but when the writers themselves have admitted that some things are bent for player convenience (I'll back that statement up if you'd like) I'm not going to accept that there are alternatives ways to resistance.
As for Alistair... his entire argument falls flat on one very crucial detail: He has never actually taken lyrium. He is not sure it changes anything no. But he was a recruit so he was neither privy to secret information nor has he taken lyrium... so if it did matter, how would he know? Now if a grand cleric or a knight commander said it... then I'd accept it. But Alistair is a dubious source.
[/quote]

I'll give you one that's already been mentioned.  Runes of Dweomer and it's a tool that any person can use (even mages).  As for Alistair he's very definate that lyrium is NOT required to use a Templar's talents.  Whether the lyrium makes them better or not is something he's unsure about.  Certainly Alistiar without any lyrium does have templar abilities both in game and in the game lore, so the game evidence says that Alistair is right.

[quote]
[quote]
Show me one...just ONE....case where a Templar has been held accountable for his actions against mages other then Cullen (and then only in a small subset of possible endings).  You can't.  Doesn't sound like accountability to me especially when the Tempars have been so spectacularly wrong on a number of occassions (including the murder of at least one non-mage!)[/quote]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And besides, if a templar refused to kill a potential maleficar he'd be held accountable for that, no? So some accountability they must have. The things you raise above are specifically that which I covered with my last statement... just because they are not punished for what they do to mages does not mean they are not accountable (just not for that).
Even so... it could be accountable for them, they just aren't punished (because their knight-commander protects them).
But I agree... we have not seen any examples of this.
[/quote]

Accountabily that is unseen is not accountability.  You hold people accountable so OTHERS can learn object lessons.  We see none of that with the Templars and in this case absence of evidence is it's own evidence.

[quote]
[quote]
It's pretty shabby.  The Chantry explicitly looks after it's own power and it's own interests including rewriting history and destroying entire Kingdoms to do so.  Ask the Dalish how "not shabby" the Chantry is!  Calling the Chantry "the UN of Thedas" is a gross insult to the UN...and that's saying something given my own attitude towards the UN!   We know for a fact (because the Chantry's own history tells us this) that the Chantry only started the circles so they and only they would control the magical workforce.  [/quote]
I used UN as an example of a world-spanning organisation. The Chantry is just that. It exist virtually everywhere and have a huge network. That alone lets it keep all the circles in contact with each others. My point was that the chantry is one of the few organisations that could keep this up and make sure all circles are treated... "equally" (depending on local knight-commanders/grand clerics of course).
[/quote]

The circles aren't equal though.  Really a better example would be the RL Roman Catholic Church and orders of Knights such as the Knights Templar.  Ultimately that didn't work very well either.

[quote]

[quote]Protection had zip to do with it.[/quote]
Speaking of which, I found this:
"It is the innocent folk of Ferelden who matter. I would lay down my life, and the life of any mage, to protect them."
- Gregoir
[/quote]

That doesn't mean the circles were established to protect anyone, and the Chantry's own history backs me not you.  I respect Gregoire.  I believe that Gregoire is by and large sincere.  I also think Gregoire by templar standards is a radical liberal.  Talk to Cullen in the Mage Origen and you get a much darker view of templars including many talking about killing mages with glee.
Thought you'd be interested in that.

[quote]
[quote]
Far better than the Chantry.  Under Crown control, the state would have strong incentive to treat it's mages well for all the reasons you mention.  Even now, I will bet you 100:1 odds that every king has a shadow mage force (likely bloodmages) that the Chantry doesn't know anything about.  Magic is too useful NOT to do this.  At least with the circle under state control, this can be done openly.[/quote]
Thing is though... all mages would be constantly in the middle of the powerstruggle. Someone trying to take power? Get the mages on your side or kill them. King is unsure about mage alligiance? Send in his personal henchmen to "keep an eye on them" and "motivate them to choose the right side". Mages start to become a powerfactor? Make the more useful teachers "vanish" and alter the study-program to suit your interests. Someone invades? The circle will be among the first targets.
[/quote]

How is that different from powerful people that aren't mages?  None really.  In fact putting the circle under state control would be an important step towards the Rennaissance because it give the king an ultimate trump card against nobles.  Also when a kingdom is invaded or dealing with disasters, no state wants to ask the church, "pretty please" when asking for it's most impotant tools to defend itself.  I present Ostagar as exhibit A as to why that is problematic.

All and all, you seem to be trying to find reasons why such a system wouldn't work (when we know historically and from other societies that it does).

[quote[
If mages come under the personal influence of kings they will become weapons. More so than now. As you say, most monarchs already have mage agents... but they have no control over the training facilities. SO they have to treat their agents nice. But if they control the circles... they have many many more mages.
So they'll be used as weapons. Because as you also said... magic is too useful not to do it.
[/quote]

Why is this a bad thing?  Mages are useful.  Do you treat useful servents well or do you abuse them?  There might be a few idiots that take the later approach but they wouldn't last long.  Subordinat lords would coopt the mages to make sure of that!

[quote]
Putting mages under the whims of kings (and remember... the only faction strong enough to challenge kings is... the Chantry) means mages will truly be pawns in every powerstruggle in the nations. Besides... imagine what would happen if a mad king that absolutely hates mages come to power? Every mage killed (or tortured) and all the mage material in the circle destroyed. Which will make it difficult for all future mages.

[/quote]

You are assuming that the King would be able to enforce such an order.  That is far from the case in the Thedas I know.  As it is, every objection you cite also applies to (gasp) every other subject and most especially the knights already under the king's control (or that of their leige lord).  It's a pretty weak argument when you look at it that way.

[quote]

[quote]Manaclash is better than anything the templars have at dealing with abominations....and mages are best equipped to understand and spot abominations as soon as they happen.  I will agree that mages shouldn't be SOLELY in charge of magical education and control, but they should have a large (perhaps even majority) say since magic is best fought by other magic.[/quote]
Again though... it seems to be the mages which have the greatest trouble fighting the demons in the broken circle (just count the number of abominations). While the warden have plot-armour so he/she cannot ever lose a struggle against a demon or be attacked directly from the fade (because that would mean the end of the game). Are mages truly the best at dealing with abominations? I don't think we'll ever know. A prepared mage will probably trump a unprepared templar yes.
[/quote]

Mages outside the circle don't seem to have trouble fighting and controlling abominations.  Mage Willhelm of Honnelth explains it best when he complains to FIrst Enchanter Arlen, "How are we supposed to learn to fight possession if the Chantry forbids us to research it!"  Truer words were never spoken.  The Warden Mage is outside chantry control and can thus learn to use battlemagic effectively.  Those in the circle....Loghain has terse and very unflattering words to use about the battlemagic prowess of the circle and I'll leave it at that. 

[quote]
And even so... who is the best at fighting abominations is not as important as who peop,le trust the most. Unfortunantely for the mages... it is not them.
[/quote]

Because of the Chantry.  The Chantry has preached unreasonable fear of magic for centuries.  Get outside of chantry control and attitudes towards mages are very different even in very different societies. (It's positive with the one specific exception of the Qun).

[quote]
Allthough I'm curious... who should together with mages be in charge of magical education and control?
[/quote]

It should be a state/royal organization or perhaps even it's own indepedanat order of 'knighthood' with both mage and mundane members and organized as such.  I would have no issues with Templar-like warriors being the backbone of such an organization as long as mages had significant and perhaps even controlling say in how mages are policed.  The relationship between Irving and Gregoire (permitted by Gregoire) is how such an organation should be structered...mutual respect.

[quote]
[quote]
Do it like we do in the real world for people with important skills (such as those that handle classified information that could LITERALLY cause cities to go up in smoke if revealed):  Make it some combination with checks and balances.  Other societies manage this quite well after all.  [/quote]

Hmm... no. We don't have enough data. The only society in Thedas in which we have an adequate level of information on mage management is Andrastian Thedas. We don't know how the others handle it. So we don't know how well they manage.
[/quote]

Been through this.  Yes we do.  At least we do about Haven and the Dales to name two.  We know it works.  We also know the circle system wasn't designed to protect anyone so presumbaly even the chantry has another way that they don't want to use because mages won't be under the direct power of the Divine any more.


[quote]
[quote]
Talk to the Reverand Mother in Redcliff.  She is ashamed and admits that the Chantry has provfoked mobs against mages and promises she won't do it since you are helping her.  Talk to Keli about her chantry-based beliefs.  Heck talk to Duncan and he flat out states that the Chantry only barely tolerates magic (because they have to).  I could go on and on, but the chantry does indeed spout a highly anti-mage dogma that doesn't help the situation in the slightest.

-Polaris[/quote]
Keli... she's a young girl with serious self-loathing issues. And Duncan... well... he's not wrong. But despite what he says... of all the canticles we have. All the sermons. All preachings in the game. None of them ever mentions that mages should be hated/feared/pities/isolated or anything thereof. The closest is the text my signature is based on... but it only speaks of Tevinter magisters... not mages as a whole. There's an distinct lack of anti-mage dogma. Despite that some mages make you think it's all the Chantry preaches.
The Revered Mother in Recliffe I did not know of though. Thanks.
[/quote]

That's because Andraste did not hate mages (and there is at least some compelling evidence she WAS a mage and perhaps even a bloodmage).  She wrote the original chant of light and the chantry hasn't (yet) had the stones to change some of her original canticles towards magic, but talk with the people, talk with Isolde, talk with the sisters and Reverand Mothers, and the Chantry's hatred of magic comes through loud and clear.

[quote]
Thing is... all we see is Rylock with a friend. There is no indication she has not gone rogue at that point. Because after all... if the templars officially the kings and warden-commanders authority in the matter... why did she not try to take Anders at once? Why set a trap for him? Why go through all that effort to kill Anders where noone knows of it? It's just... odd. As if she's trying to keep it all hidden. But she's a templar... noone but the Chantry can touch her. So why is she hiding?
And then... have you noticed... after Rylock dies. No other templars come... despite that they have his phylactery.

If she had been carrying official orders then I'd have accepted your argument without question. There's just something about Rylock as the situation is presented that simply does not add up.
[/quote]

We see Rylock with a team of templars (more than just a friend) and she demands in her official capacity that Anders be handed over...something COMPLETELY beyond her rights.  She is clearly a loose canon and unless the Grey Warden Commander puts her down like the rabid dog she is, no one else will.  That doesn't sound like accountability to me (except via Grey Warden).

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Becaue you obviously dont' read..The queation you asked was already answred.
[/QUOTE]
Dont'? Queation? Maybe you should learn to spell before you attack people's ability to read, Lotion.[/quote]

Speed types. Har har.
Doesn't change the fact you ain't reading an are worse than a broken record.


[quote]
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Isn't it obvious? Of all the known models we have information on, it is the safest one.

And lacking knowledge of any method to prevent abominations, by all logic (mages = abomination, mages under lock = abominations uder lock) is is the safest one...aside from the mass tranqulization. That one is even safer.[/QUOTE]

That outline you provide ignores how, in the codex entries and in the Broken Circle quest, the abominations happened as a direct result of the mages being imprisoned by the templars and the Chantry. Mistreatment and imprisonment = abominations. Coupled with what appears to be a brewing war between Templars and Mages in DA2, and it looks like all the Chantry has done is force mages into an all-out war to fight for their survival and their freedom.[/quote]

You say abominations wouldnt' have happened? Direct result? Har har.

Sure, some mages might feel more pressured, but the choice is always theirs. Blame-chain arguments don't really work, remember?



[quote]
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You being impressed is irrleveant.
Not that I've been impresed with any "argument" you presented so far....[/QUOTE]
The difference is that I don't need to resort to name-calling and a condescending attitude simply because someone disagrees with me.[/quote]

No, you resort to endless copy-pasting, posting things that have nothingto do with the discussion and flat-out not reading or ignoring the other sides arguments.



[quote]
As for your arguments, let's see... you provided no proof that Thedas is any safer with the Chantry controlled Circles than they were without them, you misrepresented quotes by David Gaider as IanPolaris pointed out, you provided no proof that the Circles act as a deterrant for abominations given how many abominations have transpired as a direct result of the templars, you provided absolutely no proof that the Chantry's treatment and imprisonment of mages is the safest option, and it looks like the mages are going to fight back against their oppressors in DA2 so the Circles may very well be abolished as a result. All I'm seeing here is that the Chantry has supressed mages in their prisons and it's coming to bite them.[/quote]

Wrong on all accounts. And in a single paragraph. That must be a new record for you.
I showed (using Ians own calculations) that hte death toll is heavily in favor of Circles.
It's Ian who misinterpreted DG, not me.
Simple logic showed how Circles act to reduce abominations ramapaing across villages.
Which also shows it's a safer option.
and a possible magi-chantry war is realyl irrelevant.

You provided no proof of the contrary.


[quote]
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Already adressed. You're a broken record. [/QUOTE]
Because you continue to ignore how absolutely anyone and anything can be possessed (from regular people to trees) and make flippant claims in your attempts to make mages seem like monsters who will destroy the world unless they're dehumanized and imprisoned. Clearly, if the Circle wasn't created as a means of protection from mages (as provided in the History of the Circle codex) then there's no excuse for the Chantry's treatment of them.[/quote]

ALREADY ADRESSED. You keep ignoring basic DA lore about possesion.




[QUOTE]
*SNIP*
[/quote]
Already adressed. For the n(th) time.

PLEASE, STOP COPY-PASINTG YOUR OWN POSTS.


[quote]
You clearly hate mages and love the Chantry, it's the reason why for several months you'll always defend them and supported characters the pro-Chantry views of Cullen, Wynne, and Greagoir.[/quote]

I like mages.
I always have 2 playtroughs in all RPG's - warrior and mage (human and elf)
You're paranoid.

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK,



Something was negotiated. The Divine Ambrosia II wanted to slaughter all mages by declaring an exalted march on her own cathedral. She got "negotiated down" to letting them live in exile as long as she got to control them. Even that took 21 days......



The circles were founded to insure Chantry control over mages as a powerplay, NOT as part of a plan to protect anyone.



-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[

As for your arguments, let's see... you provided no proof that Thedas is any safer with the Chantry controlled Circles than they were without them, you misrepresented quotes by David Gaider as IanPolaris pointed out, you provided no proof that the Circles act as a deterrant for abominations given how many abominations have transpired as a direct result of the templars, you provided absolutely no proof that the Chantry's treatment and imprisonment of mages is the safest option, and it looks like the mages are going to fight back against their oppressors in DA2 so the Circles may very well be abolished as a result. All I'm seeing here is that the Chantry has supressed mages in their prisons and it's coming to bite them.

Wrong on all accounts. And in a single paragraph. That must be a new record for you.
I showed (using Ians own calculations) that hte death toll is heavily in favor of Circles.
It's Ian who misinterpreted DG, not me.
Simple logic showed how Circles act to reduce abominations ramapaing across villages.
Which also shows it's a safer option.
and a possible magi-chantry war is realyl irrelevant.

You provided no proof of the contrary.

You are the one wrong on all accounts.

1.  You never show that the deaths due to abominations even outside the tower are less now than they were before the circle, and you don't get a pass on this because the chantry and templars existed BEFORE the circle and have records of both periods of time.  We DO know that the Chantry's own policies have tacked on 5 extra deaths per year on top of the existing deaths.  Hardly a death toll rate in favor of the circles.

2.  I quoted DG and look at his post one sentence at a time using proper english.  DG doesn't SAY what you want him to say.  That sucks for you, but there it is.

3.  "Simple Logic"  You've done nothing of the sort.  I'd like to see some evidence for your assertions the circle is the best system since we know that many societies past and current function just fine without it and they DON'T fear mages (except the Qun) and thus clearly haven't suffered the way you claim they had to have suffered.

4.  Evidence for this point (safer option) would be nice, and the upcoming Mage-Chantry war is extremely relevant since it has the potential to be a continent wide disaster all because of this regressive system.  You need to show that the security is worth this price and you haven't even come close to that.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Necessary? No. If people are willing to accept higher mortality rates that will come wiht mages being free, then it's theirt perogative.

Of course, that depends on weather you consider safety and protecting your life necessary.[/QUOTE]
You mean if people have no issue with imprisoning people because they're mages, something that others here have accused of being slavery?　
[QUOTE]Sir JK wrote...
I'm sorry Polaris, but I think I need more to accept that there are alternate ways to develop maic-resistance. If you can cite a lore-source I'll accept it but when the writers themselves have admitted that some things are bent for player convenience (I'll back that statement up if you'd like) I'm not going to accept that there are alternatives ways to resistance. [/quote]
The Guardian was exposed to a thick wall of lyrium, and it seems to be the reason for his longevity and the special properties of the Urn of Sacred Ashes. I'd wager that there's a lot we don't know about lyrium.
[QUOTE]Sir JK wrote...

As for Alistair... his entire argument falls flat on one very crucial detail: He has never actually taken lyrium. He is not sure it changes anything no. But he was a recruit so he was neither privy to secret information nor has he taken lyrium... so if it did matter, how would he know? Now if a grand cleric or a knight commander said it... then I'd accept it. But Alistair is a dubious source. [/QUOTE]
Alistair's ability to perform the same feats as templars does imply that he's likely correct, though. Given how addictive lyrium is, and how some templars are clearly not in their right minds when they're on it (like Caroll or the unnamed templar guarding the front door of Denerim) I think that Alistair's observations are correct, rather than dubious.
[QUOTE]Sir JK wrote...
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. [/quote]
And yet this charge is never brought up against Lotion, who uses it to explain why he supports the Chantry system and dismisses all others.
[QUOTE] Sir JK wrote...
And besides, if a templar refused to kill a potential maleficar he'd be held accountable for that, no? [/quote]
The problem is whether mages should be imprisoned to the Chantry in the first place. As for templars murdering mages, we have cases of innocent people getting killed because the word 'maleficar' is thrown around a lot. Aneirin wasn't a maleficar from the information that we're provided (and it's never brought up as a reason why he couldn't go back to the Circle when Wynne brings up the topic, so it's highly likely the charge against him was bogus), D'Sims was a suspected mage and he was murdered with no proof or evidence, and Rylock tries to murder Anders and the Warden-Commander.
[quote]Sir JK wrote...
So some accountability they must have. The things you raise above are specifically that which I covered with my last statement... just because they are not punished for what they do to mages does not mean they are not accountable (just not for that).
Even so... it could be accountable for them, they just aren't punished (because their knight-commander protects them).
But I agree... we have not seen any examples of this. [/quote]
That must explain how Knight-Commander Rylock and her men could try to murder the Warden-Commander, and there are no reprecussions with the templars or the Chantry...
[quote]Sir JK wrote...
I used UN as an example of a world-spanning organisation. The Chantry is just that. It exist virtually everywhere and have a huge network. That alone lets it keep all the circles in contact with each others. My point was that the chantry is one of the few organisations that could keep this up and make sure all circles are treated... "equally" (depending on local knight-commanders/grand clerics of course). [/quote]

Treating all mages as though they aren't human and forbidding them from having any place in society by imprisoning them under armed guard, you mean? Yeah, reminds me of another organization of people in the rl that was trying to expand its boundaries.
[QUOTE]Sir JK wrote...
Speaking of which, I found this:
"It is the innocent folk of Ferelden who matter. I would lay down my life, and the life of any mage, to protect them."
- Gregoir

Thought you'd be interested in that. [/quote]
Cullen had an interesting quote, too, about how templars are supposed to stand against everything mages represent. You can find the quote on the prior page if you'd like.
[quote]Sir JK wrote...
Again though... it seems to be the mages which have the greatest trouble fighting the demons in the broken circle (just count the number of abominations). While the warden have plot-armour so he/she cannot ever lose a struggle against a demon or be attacked directly from the fade (because that would mean the end of the game). Are mages truly the best at dealing with abominations? I don't think we'll ever know. A prepared mage will probably trump a unprepared templar yes.
And even so... who is the best at fighting abominations is not as important as who peop,le trust the most. Unfortunantely for the mages... it is not them.

Allthough I'm curious... who should together with mages be in charge of magical education and control? [/quote]
I see no reason to deny mages a chance at liberty and to have real, meaningful lives because a fanatical religious organization wants sole control over them. All the current system has done is breed a generation looking to emancipate themselves from bondage - we've seen that clearly in Uldred's rebellion and the meeting in Cumberland. All I saw in Broken Circle was a group of templars completely incapable of dealing with the abominations, and say "plot-armour" all you want but it's how the story went down - because it's the Warden who resolves the problem they can't.
[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Keli... she's a young girl with serious self-loathing issues. And Duncan... well... he's not wrong. But despite what he says... of all the canticles we have. All the sermons. All preachings in the game. None of them ever mentions that mages should be hated/feared/pities/isolated or anything thereof. The closest is the text my signature is based on... but it only speaks of Tevinter magisters... not mages as a whole. There's an distinct lack of anti-mage dogma. Despite that some mages make you think it's all the Chantry preaches. [/quote]
Greagoir blames mages as a whole in the Magi Origin in the Harrowing scene. Cullen actually says that they're supposed to stand against everything mages represent. Almost everyone the Warden speaks to will talk about magic with distain in the Andrastian nation of Ferelden.
[quote]Sir JK wrote...
Thing is... all we see is Rylock with a friend. There is no indication she has not gone rogue at that point. [/quote]
There's no evidence that she's gone rogue at all, though.
[quote]Sir JK wrote...
Because after all... if the templars officially the kings and warden-commanders authority in the matter... why did she not try to take Anders at once? [/quote]
She was clearly outnumbered in Vigil's Keep, in Amaranthine, where the Warden is the de facto Arl of Amaranthine.
[quote] Sir JK wrote...
Why set a trap for him? Why go through all that effort to kill Anders where noone knows of it? It's just... odd. As if she's trying to keep it all hidden. But she's a templar... noone but the Chantry can touch her. So why is she hiding? [/quote]
She wants surprise on her side because she's outnumbered. She uses the trap as proof that Anders hasn't changed, and makes this clear to the Warden-Commander.
[quote] Sir JK wrote...

And then... have you noticed... after Rylock dies. No other templars come... despite that they have his phylactery. [/quote]

Like the guy who jumped off a cliff rather than face the Warden-Commander, I'm going to wager they aren't stupid. And Rylock's murder attempt can't be used against the Order of Templars or the Chantry, either.

[Sir JK]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
I'll give you one that's already been mentioned.  Runes of Dweomer and it's a tool that any person can use (even mages). [/quote]
Runes is enchanting though. Which requires raw lyrium and can only be done by tranquil or dwarves. My source for this is the tranquil in Ostagar.

[quote]As for Alistair he's very definate that lyrium is NOT required to use a Templar's talents.  Whether the lyrium makes them better or not is something he's unsure about.  Certainly Alistiar without any lyrium does have templar abilities both in game and in the game lore, so the game evidence says that Alistair is right.[/quote]
I suppose what we need to settle this discussion is something confirming wether lyrium has a noticeable effect or not. I agree that you seem to be able to learn the basics tricks though. The question is how much the lyrium effect them.

[quote]
Accountabily that is unseen is not accountability.  You hold people accountable so OTHERS can learn object lessons.  We see none of that with the Templars and in this case absence of evidence is it's own evidence.[/quote]
But we are not privy to the entire world lore yet, Polaris. You're asking me if the people just met have skeletons in their closit. All I am saying is: "I don't know, I just met them"
We have seen so very little of Thedas and even if the mage-chantry relation is one of the more developed... we're still just scratching the surface.

[quote]
The circles aren't equal though.  Really a better example would be the RL Roman Catholic Church and orders of Knights such as the Knights Templar.  Ultimately that didn't work very well either.[/quote]
Fair enough. I admit those works as analogies as well.

[quote]
That doesn't mean the circles were established to protect anyone, and the Chantry's own history backs me not you.  I respect Gregoire.  I believe that Gregoire is by and large sincere.  I also think Gregoire by templar standards is a radical liberal.  Talk to Cullen in the Mage Origen and you get a much darker view of templars including many talking about killing mages with glee.[/quote]
To be honest... I think we find the absolutely worst templars among the maleficar hunters (not without reason mind, there's probably a high casuality rate and such breeds hatred).
Also: Awesome, we seem to have the same opinion about Gregoir

[quote]
How is that different from powerful people that aren't mages?  None really.  In fact putting the circle under state control would be an important step towards the Rennaissance because it give the king an ultimate trump card against nobles.  Also when a kingdom is invaded or dealing with disasters, no state wants to ask the church, "pretty please" when asking for it's most impotant tools to defend itself.  I present Ostagar as exhibit A as to why that is problematic.

All and all, you seem to be trying to find reasons why such a system wouldn't work (when we know historically and from other societies that it does).[/quote]
I'm just saying... statecontrol is only better if you have a state interested in making it better. I will in no way deny that the circles in chantry control has it's problem. But states can abuse it just as much as the chantry does. Don't just assume it will be better.

[quote[
Why is this a bad thing?  Mages are useful.  Do you treat useful servents well or do you abuse them?  There might be a few idiots that take the later approach but they wouldn't last long.  Subordinat lords would coopt the mages to make sure of that![/quote]
It's not the idiots I fear. It's the ruthless and effective ones.
Also... in the stolen throne. We see Orlesian mages (okay... just one) being used like this. As a weapon of terror against the fereldan.

[quote]
You are assuming that the King would be able to enforce such an order.  That is far from the case in the Thedas I know.  As it is, every objection you cite also applies to (gasp) every other subject and most especially the knights already under the king's control (or that of their leige lord).  It's a pretty weak argument when you look at it that way[/quote]
Not at all. Since kings do and have done that. Mehgren, the orlesian puppet in ferelden waged a war of terror on his own subjects as an example. Mages just happen to be a much smaller, more easily attacked social group (though I admit they can put up one mean defence if given the chance)

[quote]
Mages outside the circle don't seem to have trouble fighting and controlling abominations.[/quote]
Not enough data. We don't know this.
[quote]Mage Willhelm of Honnelth explains it best when he complains to FIrst Enchanter Arlen, "How are we supposed to learn to fight possession if the Chantry forbids us to research it!"  Truer words were never spoken.[/quote]
Agreed. Allthough such research is best done carefully. But still. I agree.
[quote]The Warden Mage is outside chantry control and can thus learn to use battlemagic effectively.  Those in the circle....Loghain has terse and very unflattering words to use about the battlemagic prowess of the circle and I'll leave it at that. [/quote]
True, true.

[quote]
Because of the Chantry.  The Chantry has preached unreasonable fear of magic for centuries.  Get outside of chantry control and attitudes towards mages are very different even in very different societies. (It's positive with the one specific exception of the Qun).[/quote]
Is it though? Neither of us can prove that the chantry is or is not to blame. I have no doubts that it helps give them a poor reputation. But people like the blood mage cult in Denerim, Caladrius, Uldred and (unintentionally) Connor is not doing much to better the name of mages. Since I am of the "magic is dangerous"-crowd, I see magic frightening people as a very plausible (but not only) cause.
As for other societies. We have little more than confirmation that they have mages, not how they handle or what they think of them. We need more information to discuss this properly.

[quote]
It should be a state/royal organization or perhaps even it's own indepedanat order of 'knighthood' with both mage and mundane members and organized as such.  I would have no issues with Templar-like warriors being the backbone of such an organization as long as mages had significant and perhaps even controlling say in how mages are policed.  The relationship between Irving and Gregoire (permitted by Gregoire) is how such an organation should be structered...mutual respect.[/quote]
Okay, interesting. Thanks.

[quote]
Been through this.  Yes we do.  At least we do about Haven and the Dales to name two.  We know it works.  We also know the circle system wasn't designed to protect anyone so presumbaly even the chantry has another way that they don't want to use because mages won't be under the direct power of the Divine any more.[/quote]

Thing is. We only know of one prominent mage in Haven,Father Eirik, and a handful of redshirt npc. This does not tell us anything on how they handled it. Just that they had them
The Dales mention that mages existed there and had an important, and perhaps controlling, position. But nothing else.
We don't know how it works. Just that it did.

[quote]
(and there is at least some compelling evidence she WAS a mage and perhaps even a bloodmage).[/quote]
Warning... the book is written by a mage. It is not unbiased. I'm not saying it is not true. I am saying it is as reliable as any Chantry source.
If you think the scorch-marks is evidence think of it this way: A book saying Andraste was a prostitute would probably have been burned as well. Does that mean she was one?

[quote]She wrote the original chant of light and the chantry hasn't (yet) had the stones to change some of her original canticles towards magic, but talk with the people, talk with Isolde, talk with the sisters and Reverand Mothers, and the Chantry's hatred of magic comes through loud and clear.[/quote]
The question is though... is it chantry "propaganda" or history that the chantry has passed along (since it houses the scholars of the world) from the time of the Tevinter magisters' opression? Is the fear only because of dogma or because magic is actually rather scary?
We don't know.

[quote] We see Rylock with a team of templars (more than just a friend) and she demands in her official capacity that Anders be handed over...something COMPLETELY beyond her rights.  She is clearly a loose canon and unless the Grey Warden Commander puts her down like the rabid dog she is, no one else will.  That doesn't sound like accountability to me (except via Grey Warden).

-Polaris[/quote]
I was adressing the fact that she might have gone outside of her authority. That she had gone rogue and going beyond what was allowed.
Besides... Rylock was killed in the process. How can she be held accountable for something the Templars/Chantry will never hear of? They're not omniscient you know.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You say abominations wouldnt' have happened? Direct result? Har har.

Sure, some mages might feel more pressured, but the choice is always theirs. Blame-chain arguments don't really work, remember?

"Har har," Lotion? What are you, a supervillain? And to address your point, I noted how the codex entires and even the main story have the common theme of abominations happening as a direct result of the templars. The abomination mentioned in the Rite happened when a templar murdered a mage, the abomination in the abomination codex turned to survive against the templars hunting him down, and Uldred's transformation happened when he was trying to emancipate the mages of the Circle Tower from templar and Chantry control. Seems like the Chantry is the direct source of these problems rather than the solution.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No, you resort to endless copy-pasting, posting things that have nothingto do with the discussion and flat-out not reading or ignoring the other sides arguments.

Try not to lie, Lotion, it's as boring as when you were name-calling.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Wrong on all accounts. And in a single paragraph. That must be a new record for you.
I showed (using Ians own calculations) that hte death toll is heavily in favor of Circles.
It's Ian who misinterpreted DG, not me.
Simple logic showed how Circles act to reduce abominations ramapaing across villages.
Which also shows it's a safer option.
and a possible magi-chantry war is realyl irrelevant.

You provided no proof of the contrary.

Ian's calculations proved you wrong, actually. It was sad to see, really.
Ian pointed out how you misrepresented DG's quotes to support your arguments and how they didn't say what you think they did.
No logic was presented by you to show any reduction of abominations as a result of the Chantry's imprisonment of mages.
No proof was provided that it's a safe option by you - only your proof-free speculation.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
ALREADY ADRESSED. You keep ignoring basic DA lore about possesion.

I mentioned anyone can get possessed, which is true. Demons possess trees in DA:O and DA:A, animals, and ordinary people. Why are you pretending otherwise? Because it hurts your argument supporting mage imprisonment?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Already adressed. For the n(th) time.

PLEASE, STOP COPY-PASINTG YOUR OWN POSTS.

First, try to control yourself, Lotion. It's a discussion over a fictional universe, after all. Second, feel free to provide proof of this claim, Lotion, because this lie, your name-calling, and your lack of any actual evidence supporting mage imprisonement as your cause are beginning to bore me.

[Sir JK]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
The Guardian was exposed to a thick wall of lyrium, and it seems to be the reason for his longevity and the special properties of the Urn of Sacred Ashes. I'd wager that there's a lot we don't know about lyrium.[/quote]
Agreed
[QUOTE]
Alistair's ability to perform the same feats as templars does imply that he's likely correct, though. Given how addictive lyrium is, and how some templars are clearly not in their right minds when they're on it (like Caroll or the unnamed templar guarding the front door of Denerim) I think that Alistair's observations are correct, rather than dubious.[/quote]
He might be correct yes. But he had not even been initiated. If Lyrium has an effect, he would not have learned it.
[QUOTE]Sir JK wrote...
And yet this charge is never brought up against Lotion, who uses it to explain why he supports the Chantry system and dismisses all others.[/quote]
To be honest, this topic moves so fast I only have time to read yours and Polaris' posts. If you think he dismisses things based on lack of evidence, then tell him so. However... mind that you cannot prove anything without evididence. Not presence, not absence. It is completely inconclusive.
[QUOTE] Sir JK wrote...
The problem is whether mages should be imprisoned to the Chantry in the first place. As for templars murdering mages, we have cases of innocent people getting killed because the word 'maleficar' is thrown around a lot. Aneirin wasn't a maleficar from the information that we're provided (and it's never brought up as a reason why he couldn't go back to the Circle when Wynne brings up the topic, so it's highly likely the charge against him was bogus), D'Sims was a suspected mage and he was murdered with no proof or evidence, and Rylock tries to murder Anders and the Warden-Commander.[/quote]
That does not mean there's no accountability. Just that people got killed/left to die/attacked.

[quote]
That must explain how Knight-Commander Rylock and her men could try to murder the Warden-Commander, and there are no reprecussions with the templars or the Chantry...[/quote]
Rylock is not a knight-commander. And she died... what repercussions are you expecting? For all we know she and her companions acted alone. Should we punish other templars without evidence?

[quote]Sir JK wrote...
Treating all mages as though they aren't human and forbidding them from having any place in society by imprisoning them under armed guard, you mean? Yeah, reminds me of another organization of people in the rl that was trying to expand its boundaries.[/quote]
Which of them? There's been thousands upon thousands of organisations, nations, creeds, groups and such that have done this throughout history. Or done worse. As horrible as it is... it is human.

And yes, I know which one you refer to. No need to actually answer which one you meant.

[QUOTE]
Cullen had an interesting quote, too, about how templars are supposed to stand against everything mages represent. You can find the quote on the prior page if you'd like.[/quote]
I did. The two quotes certainly shows us how different views templars can have. It's almost like the organisation consists of different people with different views.
[quote]
I see no reason to deny mages a chance at liberty and to have real, meaningful lives because a fanatical religious organization wants sole control over them. All the current system has done is breed a generation looking to emancipate themselves from bondage - we've seen that clearly in Uldred's rebellion and the meeting in Cumberland.[/quote] As Gaider mentioned... even if mages were controlling mages. We'd still likely have mages saying they were opressed.

[quote]All I saw in Broken Circle was a group of templars completely incapable of dealing with the abominations, and say "plot-armour" all you want but it's how the story went down - because it's the Warden who resolves the problem they can't.[/quote]
Templars and mages. Not every mage rose up after all. Quite a few of them got caught in the crossfire (like every senior enchanter but one).
Also, the warden is quite frankly immortal. He or she cannot fail at anything unless plot dictates they will. Why? Because you can reload. So let's not use the warden as an argument? Please?
[quote]
Greagoir blames mages as a whole in the Magi Origin in the Harrowing scene.[/quote]
He does no such thing. He says you are at risk of demonic possession and that you should do it yourself. He only explains why the harrowing exists. He even begins with saying it's a gift.
[quote]Cullen actually says that they're supposed to stand against everything mages represent. Almost everyone the Warden speaks to will talk about magic with distain in the Andrastian nation of Ferelden.[/quote]
Indeed.
[quote]
There's no evidence that she's gone rogue at all, though.[/quote]
Nor that she was ordered to. All we know is that there is no other templars coming after Anders (yet they still have his phylactery).
[quote]
She was clearly outnumbered in Vigil's Keep, in Amaranthine, where the Warden is the de facto Arl of Amaranthine.[/quote]
So? If she believed she had the law on her side why would that stop her? If she had the full authority of the Chantry, not even the kind would be able to refuse her. No?
[quote]
She wants surprise on her side because she's outnumbered. She uses the trap as proof that Anders hasn't changed, and makes this clear to the Warden-Commander.[/quote]
But if she was outnumbered, but had the chantry on her side. Could she not have returned with half a hundred templars?
[quote] Like the guy who jumped off a cliff rather than face the Warden-Commander, I'm going to wager they aren't stupid. And Rylock's murder attempt can't be used against the Order of Templars or the Chantry, either.[/quote]
Perhaps. In this we cannot tell. If you want to believe Rylock was acting in her official capacity. Be my guest. But neither of us can prove anything here. Only speculate.

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sir JK,

Something was negotiated. The Divine Ambrosia II wanted to slaughter all mages by declaring an exalted march on her own cathedral. She got "negotiated down" to letting them live in exile as long as she got to control them. Even that took 21 days......

The circles were founded to insure Chantry control over mages as a powerplay, NOT as part of a plan to protect anyone.

-Polaris

As I said. It is a half truth. There's more to it than just one annoyed Divine. Rome did not fall because of barbarian invasions alone. The circles (which must be the most expensive organisation in history) was not just formed because of they locked themselves in a over-glorified loft.

The codex entry tells us how the circles were formed. Not why. There is a very curcual difference.

[LobselVith8]

Sir JK wrote...
He does no such thing. He says you are at risk of demonic possession and that you should do it yourself. He only explains why the harrowing exists. He even begins with saying it's a gift.

He also refers to it as a curse, and Greagoir says mages (not Tevinters, but mages) brought the world to the edge of ruin in, so yes he does blame mages overall for the Blights, but I think you misunderstood me (I admit I should have been more specific).
Look, I know it's an organization, and I don't deny it's full of good and bad people, but I find their actions deplorable overall. Imprisoning mages hasn't accomplished anything but start the foundation for a Mage and Templar War from the looks of DA2.

[Huntress]

SK:


"Mages outside the circle don't seem to have trouble fighting and controlling abominations.


Not enough data. We don't know this."

Is this a joke? Anaerin? the dalish clans Mages? Morrigan? The Mage collective? They are no part of the circle and yet, they can survive without been consume by a demon or actually ever ever seen one.

Something that is coming very clear of all the demons possession that we have seen are any dalish mage involve? I don't know why but, it seems that Humans-Mages get controlled/possed at a faster rate.
Oh and don't come with maybe one of demons in the circle was an actually elf, well good news, that will be one of the City elves I suppose. Dalish mages are never found because they are on the move all the time.

My dalish assasin doesn't hate all the humans, only the one that are use as a tool by the chantry.

Modifié par Huntress, 22 janvier 2011 - 11:04 .

[Huntress]

About the templar Rylock, she was nuts the moment she said: she didn't give a danm what a king had said, that was punishment time!

[Riona45]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Becaue you obviously dont' read..The queation you asked was already answred.

Dont'? Queation? Maybe you should learn to spell before you attack people's ability to read, Lotion.

It's the Dunning-Kruger effect in action!

Modifié par Riona45, 23 janvier 2011 - 02:27 .

[Sharn01]

I have seen you all recently in this thread pointing to statistics, and referencing David Gaider for some of them in relation to abomination threats. 

I would like to be pointed in the right direction to see these posts by him if they exsist, or are you simply loosely interpreting something he said?  I have followed his posts to the best of my ability on the subject and even bantered back and forth with him personally in regards to mages and abominations and have yet to see him ever give any hard facts in regards to the chance of possession taking place or the frequency of abominations in any time period.  I never tried to force the matter because if he doesnt want to answer the question he will not, and I am hardly surprised that he would not do so, the more facts we have on the subject, the more easily we can statistically measure a threat level and determine the appropriate action needed to police mages, and I doubt that is something the devs in general want. 

Currently the subject of mages is a hot topic for debate and draws a lot of interest and differing opinions from fans, I doubt they would want that to stop, it adds to the story and the controversy and makes it interesting.  Not to mention that since the common populace of Thedas would have no way of knowing these facts, and must form opinions on hearsay, they probably want the players to as well.

Modifié par Sharn01, 23 janvier 2011 - 04:06 .

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...
He also refers to it as a curse, and Greagoir says mages (not Tevinters, but mages) brought the world to the edge of ruin in, so yes he does blame mages overall for the Blights, but I think you misunderstood me (I admit I should have been more specific).

Ah, I looked it up. My mistake. He does indeed mention that. Allthough I interpreted it as he blamed those mages (the magisters) specifically. Using it as a example where the need to regulate mages and not allow them to rule is implied.
So I read/hear it as: "We must prevent this from happening again". Not a: "because of this we hate all mages."

Look, I know it's an organization, and I don't deny it's full of good and bad people, but I find their actions deplorable overall. Imprisoning mages hasn't accomplished anything but start the foundation for a Mage and Templar War from the looks of DA2.

I think it is fair to say it has saved some mages from being lynched (wether they know it or not is another matter), saved some mages from starving to death after abandonment, it may have stopped some abominations from going on rampages on the countryside and it will have brought a handful of truly evil mages to justice.
Maybe just by circumstance, but I am fairly sure it has happened.

That said, the system has also broken families, destroyed good persons by turning them into husk, led to the death of innocent mages and non-mages, created a atmosphere of dread and terror. and has probably motivated more than one uprising (and yes, I admit. On ocassion a mage may have taken in a demon to fight).

I will not blame you for disliking it though. It is a very reasonable attitude. I'm less "the chantry is a needed organisation" and more a "let's go with it until a better and realistic alternative presents itself" myself.

Huntress wrote...
SK:
"Mages outside the circle don't seem to have trouble fighting and controlling abominations.

I assume all this was aimed at me?

Not enough data. We don't know this."

Is
this a joke? Anaerin? the dalish clans Mages? Morrigan? The Mage
collective? They are no part of the circle and yet, they can survive
without been consume by a demon or actually ever ever seen one.

Ah... I see where our perspectives differ Huntress. The problem isn't that all and every mage will be possessed. But that any mage, at any time, anywhere may suffer the fate. Like one episode of Doctor Who mentions: "Not every shadow, but any shadow" (refering to monsters hiding in shadows).
So a mage could live to 90 and never have any problem with demons at all. Or it could happen tomorrow. And not even the mage him/herself will know which category she belongs to unless it happens.

So Aneirin has thus far been able to resist all demons trying to seduce or overpower him. We don't know how many these are. He is partially circle trained, mind. So if his success is to be attributed to something (I wouldn't) then it is not impossible that his past in the circle may have helped.

The Dalish clans... thing is... we have only seen 5 Dalish mages. Spread out on 3 clans. And nothing on how they are trained (except that it involves a long apprenticehood), , how they are prepared against demons and how they contain mages abusing their powers/becominjg abominations. So how can we say wether it is better or not? We just know they have a mage tradition... not what it entails.

Morrigan and Flemeth. Like Aneirin. All we know is that they are not abominations (well... Flemeth's status is up for debate). This means they have succeeded thus far. We don't know why however.

The mage collective however does show a case of possession of a live mage. An apprentice does take in a demon (if it is volountary the story does not tell) and his master goes after it (and fails). the Warden is then sent to locate the master and just finds a letter on his corpse.
We later find the abomination standing over a slaughtered caravan in a random encounter.

So again. None of us claims that the circle is the only way to prevent abominations. Nor are we claiming the frequency of abominations is lower in the circle. We are just saying that neither we nor you know that the other methods are better.

Something
that is coming very clear of all the demons possession that we have
seen are any dalish mage involve?

And how much have we seen of Dalish mages? Between the game and the expansion, they are given what... an hour? Two perhaps? There's not a single codex entry on Dalish elf magic tradition. The ones we meet are rather tightlipped about it (well... more like we cannot ask them). We don't know a thing about how they train and prepare their mages. So if we say theirs is the better, then it's pure opinion (or has nothing to do with the quality)

I don't know why but, it seems that
Humans-Mages get controlled/possed at a faster rate.

If we play with the idea that this is the case. Then the Dalish method would not be applicable to humans. Would it?

About the templar Rylock, she was
nuts the moment she said: she didn't give a danm what a king had said,
that was punishment time!

Indeed, I agree.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
You are the one wrong on all accounts.

1.  You never show that the deaths due to abominations even outside the tower are less now than they were before the circle, and you don't get a pass on this because the chantry and templars existed BEFORE the circle and have records of both periods of time.  We DO know that the Chantry's own policies have tacked on 5 extra deaths per year on top of the existing deaths.  Hardly a death toll rate in favor of the circles.

It seems you already forgot the abominations that kill dozens of people easily (Codex exmaple: one abomination killed 70 villagers). Several of them equals A LOT more than 5 deaths a years. Deaths that do not happen if the abomination happens inside the Circle.

From a mathematical standpoint, the Circle system has a undeniable upper hand.

2.  I quoted DG and look at his post one sentence at a time using proper english.  DG doesn't SAY what you want him to say.  That sucks for you, but there it is.

Feel free to twist and turn his words...But it's clear to anyone with half a brain what he was saying.

3.  "Simple Logic"  You've done nothing of the sort.  I'd like to see some evidence for your assertions the circle is the best system since we know that many societies past and current function just fine without it and they DON'T fear mages (except the Qun) and thus clearly haven't suffered the way you claim they had to have suffered.

You cannot prove that other system had a lower death toll. You just can't. Period.
And unless you can prove that, you cannot possibly caim those systems are safer.

4.  Evidence for this point (safer option) would be nice, and the upcoming Mage-Chantry war is extremely relevant since it has the potential to be a continent wide disaster all because of this regressive system.  You need to show that the security is worth this price and you haven't even come close to that.

I have. Several times. Which you choose to ignore and handwave away.

[Ender0412]

I think that the Mages should be free, but I think that a council needs to be put into place, similar to say like the Jedi council. They should have rule over themselves. The templars should be guarding the Chantry against anyone or anything.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Necessary? No. If people are willing to accept higher mortality rates that will come wiht mages being free, then it's theirt perogative.

Of course, that depends on weather you consider safety and protecting your life necessary.

You mean if people have no issue with imprisoning people because they're mages, something that others here have accused of being slavery?

Hard choices. Grey areas. That's what the situation is all about. (and mages are not slaves)
I never said the circle system is morally the best choice. I said it was the best choice from a practical standpoint.　

The Guardian was exposed to a thick wall of lyrium, and it seems to be the reason for his longevity and the special properties of the Urn of Sacred Ashes. I'd wager that there's a lot we don't know about lyrium.

The Guardian is not really human.
Raw lyrium kills people. That's directly lore supported in the Codex.
You're reaching...reaching very far.

All I saw in Broken Circle was a group of templars completely incapable of dealing with the abominations, and say "plot-armour" all you want but it's how the story went down - because it's the Warden who resolves the problem they can't.

Now, even assuming the templars at BC failed utterly (which is highly debatable), tihs still doesn't prove that templars as a whole are incompetent. no one has a 100% efficiency record...except hte player, but he has the save/load power and plot armor.

By your logic, if the police failed ONCE, we should abolish tehm.