1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
"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.

I told you before...It's a subjective view of a templar.
And it's blame-chain argument that NEVER works.
You say "X did Y becaue of Z".
I say "Z did A because of B." We can continue like this forever, making the chain longer and longer.

No one deinies a maleficar that is chased by templars might try to summon a demon because he's afraid. You might say templars forced his hand.
And why do hte templars chanse him? Because he's a maleficar. You might say he forced their hand.

Yes, there will be those who, unsatisied with the system, will go all abomination. But there will be malcontents in any system. The question isn't if the chantry system has a neative side - it's pretty obvoius that it has a few.
The question is, if that negative side nullifies it's advantages.

The underlaying moreal quandry is hte smae as the qarantene example - do you shoot a man trying to get out of quarantene or not? Does your quarantene force tha mans hand when he tryies to run? Isn't he only acting out of fear, trying to protect his life?
Aren't you also trying to protect your life (and that of your family), when you shoot him?

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.

And I have proven his calculations wrong and your logic wrong.

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?

Yet you CONSTANTLY keep ignoring that it's NOT THE SAME. The frequency of possesion..the danger...the conditions.
Mages are in FAR greater dangers of possesion, are FAR more dangerous when possesed and cna be posesed at ANY TIME (compared to non-mages, who can onyl get possesed if they veil is torn).
Completely and uttery different. And that completley changes everything.
Yet that very simple fact constantly escapes you.

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.

Plenty of proof.
Anyone reading your post can see that you're copy-pastin like crazy and pretty muhc spamming "chantry crimes" even when they have nothing to do with the argument.

****

It is clear to pretty much anyone (excet for you, and Ian) that the devs created a grey universe. From many posts and codex and lore, it is CLEAR that the mage sitation is meant to be grey. David Gader spacificly confirms that (and no, there is no alternate interpretation of his words)

So how can the Chantry-Mage situation be grey if what you say is true? Think about it for a second.. If Chantry is all evil, ineffective, broken, murderous....where is the grey in that? There is none.

The chantry circle systems is spacificly that. Grey. A system that is morally questionable, but seems necessary for protecting the innocents. Heck, even many mages agree with that assesment.

But that simple, basic truth just won't do it for you? Your chantry hate won't..CAN'T permit it.
I'm curious to see how you will try to defile this truth to fit your broken view ....

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 23 janvier 2011 - 11:43 .

[just a guy]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
"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.

I told you before...It's a subjective view of a templar.
And it's blame-chain argument that NEVER works.
You say "X did Y becaue of Z".
I say "Z did A because of B." We can continue like this forever, making the chain longer and longer.

No one deinies a maleficar that is chased by templars might try to summon a demon because he's afraid. You might say templars forced his hand.
And why do hte templars chanse him? Because he's a maleficar. You might say he forced their hand.

Yes, there will be those who, unsatisied with the system, will go all abomination. But there will be malcontents in any system. The question isn't if the chantry system has a neative side - it's pretty obvoius that it has a few.
The question is, if that negative side nullifies it's advantages.

The underlaying moreal quandry is hte smae as the qarantene example - do you shoot a man trying to get out of quarantene or not? Does your quarantene force tha mans hand when he tryies to run? Isn't he only acting out of fear, trying to protect his life?
Aren't you also trying to protect your life (and that of your family), when you shoot him?

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.

And I have proven his calculations wrong and your logic wrong.

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?

Yet you CONSTANTLY keep ignoring that it's NOT THE SAME. The frequency of possesion..the danger...the conditions.
Mages are in FAR greater dangers of possesion, are FAR more dangerous when possesed and cna be posesed at ANY TIME (compared to non-mages, who can onyl get possesed if they veil is torn).
Completely and uttery different. And that completley changes everything.
Yet that very simple fact constantly escapes you.

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.

Plenty of proof.
Anyone reading your post can see that you're copy-pastin like crazy and pretty muhc spamming "chantry crimes" even when they have nothing to do with the argument.

****

It is clear to pretty much anyone (excet for you, and Ian) that the devs created a grey universe. From many posts and codex and lore, it is CLEAR that the mage sitation is meant to be grey. David Gader spacificly confirms that (and no, there is no alternate interpretation of his words)

So how can the Chantry-Mage situation be grey if what you say is true? Think about it for a second.. If Chantry is all evil, ineffective, broken, murderous....where is the grey in that? There is none.

The chantry circle systems is spacificly that. Grey. A system that is morally questionable, but seems necessary for protecting the innocents. Heck, even many mages agree with that assesment.

But that simple, basic truth just won't do it for you? Your chantry hate won't..CAN'T permit it.
I'm curious to see how you will try to defile this truth to fit your broken view ....

uhh...

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

No, it's not.
Since you have no idea what happened ot those templars, or what usually goes on, that argument falls flat on it's face (and dies of brain damage)

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

ORLY?  For that to be true, you have to SHOW that there are fewer abominations outside the circle now than pre-circle and I know you can't do that.  Indeed of all the abominations we see outside the circle all but one are directly linked to the circle/chantry in some way which at least indicates that the rate of abominations outside the circle has not appreciabably changed (and indeed may have increased).  Note I am not talking about inside the circle (apparently you don't give a rat's posterior about the loss of life inside the circle which seems typical).

That being so, the deaths I am tacking on from Anullments alone PER YEAR are in ADDITION to everything else....and you say that the circle has an undeniable upper hand?  Perhaps in bizarro world they do, but not in the game world I play in.

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.

Then you should have no trouble proving this....except of course you can't.  I didn't twist anything.  I reposted DG's entire quote and looked at it sentence by sentence and it's been judged in the balance and found wanting.  Indeed as others have pointed out, DG has every reason to be deliberately coy about this because this tension is an intrinsic part of the DA universe.  If the answere were really as "obvious" as you are trying to say, there would be no debate.  Obviously that's not true.

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.

You can't prove the circle system is any better either.  As was pointed out a few posts ago, the devs of DA have deliberately kept us in the dark about true rates of abomination rates and abomination casualty rates.  That said, we can make some reasonable inferences and a number of us have.  If the alternatives really were as dire as you are trying to protray, then all cultures would view mages with horror and fear, and certainly would not welcome them into society (especially not if they were half trained), yet we see nothing of the sort either with the Dalish nor with Haven if you side with Kolgrim.  Indeed, mages would have been isolated and locked away long ago by the Tevinter Imperium and Arathan for public safety long before a nutty Divine Ambrosia II came up with this brilliant (sarc) plan.

In short, either the circle system is unnecessary because natural abomination rates are very low (and thus can reasonably be handed within normal society) OR other societies have brutal ways of handling the problem.  The thing is that brutal social mechanics leave a social footprint we should see, so the strong leading indicators is that the first and not second model is the correct one.

Indeed for almsot 200 years the Chantry itself did not regard the exile and exlusion of mages to be necessary and even when it was done, it wasn't done to protect anyone.

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.

You haven't provided one iota of evidence.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

No, it's not.
Since you have no idea what happened ot those templars, or what usually goes on, that argument falls flat on it's face (and dies of brain damage)

Wrong.  The point of accountability is so others can see that bad actions have bad consequences and thus object lessons canbe drawn.  Since we see none of that, we can reasonably conclude that Templars esp Templars in the field are simply not held accountable for their actions.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It is clear to pretty much anyone (excet for you, and Ian) that the devs created a grey universe. From many posts and codex and lore, it is CLEAR that the mage sitation is meant to be grey. David Gader spacificly confirms that (and no, there is no alternate interpretation of his words)

So how can the Chantry-Mage situation be grey if what you say is true? Think about it for a second.. If Chantry is all evil, ineffective, broken, murderous....where is the grey in that? There is none.

The chantry circle systems is spacificly that. Grey. A system that is morally questionable, but seems necessary for protecting the innocents. Heck, even many mages agree with that assesment.

But that simple, basic truth just won't do it for you? Your chantry hate won't..CAN'T permit it.
I'm curious to see how you will try to defile this truth to fit your broken view ....

That argument works against you just as much as it works for you...and perhaps more.  If the circle system were such an obvious panacea and best system that you've been claiming for pages, then there would be no moral doubt.  Clearly there is much room for debate given that the very foundations and fundamental (at least fundamental currently stated reason) for the circle-tower system is very much in doubt and is resting on some very shakey assumptions.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Everyone,

Here's the deal.  If you accept what the characters in the game tell you uncritically and you don't bother to dig, then yes, the circle system can easily seem to be a highly unfortunate but necessary step for public safety, and most people in Thedas (at least in Andrastian Thedas) seem to agree.  In that light, again taking things uncritcally, it's easy (and IMHO wrong) to conclude that the entire Redcliff/Circle incidendents are further proof of this...and while you might sympathize with mages, you might think they 'bring it on themselves'.

Bodahn if you talk with him, and get the rumors is a great source for this unsophisicated casual analysis.  Unfortunately many here haven't bothered to go beyond that.

The problem lies when you start to DIG a little deeper and ask some pointed questions.  How many abominations have their been?  Has the tower changed this, either in total or even simply outside the tower?  How do other socieites survive and deal with their mages?  If they have a different system, then where are the signs?  [The only non-Andarastaian race that fits Chantry expectations in this regard is ironically the Qun].

How did the circle start?  What was the reason?  Did Andraste really want mages locked away?

The point here is when you DIG and start asking reasonable questions and really looking at the supposed foundations behind the circle-tower system, the darker and frankly more self-serving and problematic it looks, and that is the real point.

-Polaris 

[LobselVith8]

Sharn01 wrote...

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? 

You can find them here and here.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

ORLY?  For that to be true, you have to SHOW that there are fewer abominations outside the circle now than pre-circle and I know you can't do that.  Indeed of all the abominations we see outside the circle all but one are directly linked to the circle/chantry in some way which at least indicates that the rate of abominations outside the circle has not appreciabably changed (and indeed may have increased).  Note I am not talking about inside the circle (apparently you don't give a rat's posterior about the loss of life inside the circle which seems typical).

Logic tells you that. If there are 100 mages, and 90 of htem are in circle, then there cannot be 30 abominations outside the circle, now can there?
Your own words defy logic.. How can the number outside the circle increase, when there's LESS mages outside?

Adn yes, I am counting the loss of life inside the circle too.

That being so, the deaths I am tacking on from Anullments alone PER YEAR are in ADDITION to everything else....and you say that the circle has an undeniable upper hand?  Perhaps in bizarro world they do, but not in the game world I play in.

The game world oyu play in ins't TheDAs then...

In short, either the circle system is unnecessary because natural abomination rates are very low (and thus can reasonably be handed within normal society) OR other societies have brutal ways of handling the problem.  The thing is that brutal social mechanics leave a social footprint we should see, so the strong leading indicators is that the first and not second model is the correct one.

No. I'm sorry, but hte world of TheDas doens't simply bow to your desires.
You make it sound like the two scenarios you posted are the only possible ones. And that's bollocks.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

No, it's not.
Since you have no idea what happened ot those templars, or what usually goes on, that argument falls flat on it's face (and dies of brain damage)

Wrong.  The point of accountability is so others can see that bad actions have bad consequences and thus object lessons canbe drawn.  Since we see none of that, we can reasonably conclude that Templars esp Templars in the field are simply not held accountable for their actions.

-Polaris

WRONG.

The game doesn't show you things it doesn't. Did it show you hwat happened to the templars that were caught misusing thier position? No, it didn't.
You cannot simply assume nothing happened.

Your "reasonable conclusions" can be called that only sarcasticly.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It is clear to pretty much anyone (excet for you, and Ian) that the devs created a grey universe. From many posts and codex and lore, it is CLEAR that the mage sitation is meant to be grey. David Gader spacificly confirms that (and no, there is no alternate interpretation of his words)

So how can the Chantry-Mage situation be grey if what you say is true? Think about it for a second.. If Chantry is all evil, ineffective, broken, murderous....where is the grey in that? There is none.

The chantry circle systems is spacificly that. Grey. A system that is morally questionable, but seems necessary for protecting the innocents. Heck, even many mages agree with that assesment.

But that simple, basic truth just won't do it for you? Your chantry hate won't..CAN'T permit it.
I'm curious to see how you will try to defile this truth to fit your broken view ....

That argument works against you just as much as it works for you...and perhaps more.  If the circle system were such an obvious panacea and best system that you've been claiming for pages, then there would be no moral doubt.  Clearly there is much room for debate given that the very foundations and fundamental (at least fundamental currently stated reason) for the circle-tower system is very much in doubt and is resting on some very shakey assumptions.

No, it doesn't work against me. You are the ones who claim Chantry is evil and the system is horrible and other systems are far better (with ZERO proof I might add).

the word "best" is being thrown around, but it's obvious it doens't mean the same to everyone, so le'ts avoid using it, shall we?

If the circle system didn't have the advantage of security, then there would be no greyness about it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Everyone,

Here's the deal.  If you accept what the characters in the game tell you uncritically and you don't bother to dig, then yes, the circle system can easily seem to be a highly unfortunate but necessary step for public safety, and most people in Thedas (at least in Andrastian Thedas) seem to agree.  In that light, again taking things uncritcally, it's easy (and IMHO wrong) to conclude that the entire Redcliff/Circle incidendents are further proof of this...and while you might sympathize with mages, you might think they 'bring it on themselves'.

Everyone who doesn't agree wiht you is not thinking things troue an is not critical enough?

The problem lies when you start to DIG a little deeper and ask some pointed questions.  How many abominations have their been?  Has the tower changed this, either in total or even simply outside the tower?  How do other socieites survive and deal with their mages?  If they have a different system, then where are the signs?  [The only non-Andarastaian race that fits Chantry expectations in this regard is ironically the Qun].

How did the circle start?  What was the reason?  Did Andraste really want mages locked away?

The point here is when you DIG and start asking reasonable questions and really looking at the supposed foundations behind the circle-tower system, the darker and frankly more self-serving and problematic it looks, and that is the real point.

No problem exists.
I dig and get to the same position before diging. Because there really isn't enough to come to your conclusion.

You read into things, turn speculations that support your view into facts and then claim"Chantry evil, Circles bad".

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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

Hard choices. Grey areas. That's what the situation is all about. (and mages are not slaves) [/quote]

Imprisoning mages is the easy choice, actually. Segregating people is always the easy choice. As for it being slavery, the fact that people have even perceived it on the Merrill thread as slavery proves otherwise. I'm certain the mages themselves would debate this issue.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I never said the circle system is morally the best choice. I said it was the best choice from a practical standpoint. [/quote]　

Considering that it looks to be the reason behind the war between templars and mages in DA2, I don't see how it's practical. An effective system wouldn't make people feel that they're being oppressed and need to fight for their freedom.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[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]

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

Did I say raw lyrium? No, I didn't. Again, you intentionally misdirect the discussion. As for the Guardian, maybe you can provide some proof that the Guardian isn't really human? Because I see nothing to support this claim.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

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. [/quote]

It isn't debatable when the Warden is the one who resolves the crisis, not them. It isn't debatable that they couldn't defeat Uldred or his abominations. You're welcome to argue otherwise, but the storyline speaks for itself. Since it didn't take templars to defeat the threat of abominations (and this is canon, not game mechanics), I don't see how you can argue they're a necessity at the Circle Tower.

If templars weren't necessary to defeat the abominations, then it makes it clear that others can handle issue. It means that mages don't need to have their rights stripped from them and to be thrown into prisons for the rest of their lives. It means that the Chantry's method isn't the only method. The codex History of the Circle points out how mages weren't even isolated from society for issues of safety, but because of a non-violent protest. No one is arguing against mages being properly taught on how to use their powers wisely or against the idea of a taskforce to keep the peace, but people are arguing against imprisoning mages and dehumanizing them.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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. [/quote]

You seem to be confusing the Harrowing, where a demon is placed inside a mage (as Alistair refers to it when he described the Harrowing he witnessed) with the mages who become abominations to survive against the templars hunting them down. Do you have any actual figures showing that the Circle has decreased the number of abominations? Because the codex entries seem to indicate that the abominations encountered tend to be the direct result of the Chantry.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

From a mathematical standpoint, the Circle system has a undeniable upper hand. [/quote]

Do you have proof of this claim?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

In other words, David Gaider was agreeing with you and disagreeing with everyone else who doesn't hold the same viewpoint as you?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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. [/quote]

You say this, but you also say that the Chantry system is the safest. If you think we don't know enough about the other systems used in Rivain and the Dalish clans to properly gauge their effectiveness, then I don't see how you can seriously back the claim that the Chantry system is the most effective when it could be the most ineffective system implemented. Certainly a system that dehumanizes people and imprisons them automatically isn't the kind of system that's going to do anything but cause resentment and anger among a great deal of mages, and it's shown to do just that with every mage who would rather risk death than subjegation or the mages who are looking to be free even if it means a war with the Chantry (Uldred's rebellion and the meeting in Cumberland).

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

"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.[/quote]

I told you before...It's a subjective view of a templar.
And it's blame-chain argument that NEVER works.
You say "X did Y becaue of Z".
I say "Z did A because of B." We can continue like this forever, making the chain longer and longer. [/quote]

If the codex entries provide examples of templars being the direct reason behind mages becoming abominations then it doesn't help your argument that the Chantry has made things safer or contained the threat. I don't see how it's subjective - we have absolutely no proof that things are safer because of the Chantry or that they've managed to do anything effective about the threat of abominations when almost every one we encounter happened as a direct result of the Chantry's actions against mages. Compare that to the Dalish camp or Haven where we see no abominations but we do see mages. There's no evidence that the Chantry is doing anything but causing mages to resort to forbidden magic to survive against them.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No one deinies a maleficar that is chased by templars might try to summon a demon because he's afraid. You might say templars forced his hand.
And why do hte templars chanse him? Because he's a maleficar. You might say he forced their hand. [/quote]

Like Aenirin? Or Anders? Or D'Sims? Because the first two weren't maleficar, the first one was nearly killed as a child, and the last wasn't even a mage but killed because templars thought he was one.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yes, there will be those who, unsatisied with the system, will go all abomination. But there will be malcontents in any system. The question isn't if the chantry system has a neative side - it's pretty obvoius that it has a few.
The question is, if that negative side nullifies it's advantages. [/quote]

It's an issue of whether you think the system is effective or right. I personally don't think that imprisoning people and denying them the basic rights afforded to ordinary people in virtually every nation of Thedas is appropriate. Mages have been instrumental against the Blights and were the main reason behind the victory against the Qunari. Given how they're needed, why imprison and dehumanize them?

We don't see the advantages in the storyline - we get the Chantry "heresay" that it's to protect people, but their own history contradicts this claim. (History of the Circle). We see mages being confined to prisons, blamed for the actions of the Tevinter Imperium. And given their lack of rights, it's continually lead to hostilities between mages and templars, which seem to be erupting in DA2 into an all-out war.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The underlaying moreal quandry is hte smae as the qarantene example - do you shoot a man trying to get out of quarantene or not? Does your quarantene force tha mans hand when he tryies to run? Isn't he only acting out of fear, trying to protect his life?
Aren't you also trying to protect your life (and that of your family), when you shoot him? [/quote]

Quarantine victims aren't necessary to stop invading armies or the occassinal apocalypse.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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?[/quote]

Yet you CONSTANTLY keep ignoring that it's NOT THE SAME. The frequency of possesion..the danger...the conditions.
Mages are in FAR greater dangers of possesion, are FAR more dangerous when possesed and cna be posesed at ANY TIME (compared to non-mages, who can onyl get possesed if they veil is torn).
Completely and uttery different. And that completley changes everything.
Yet that very simple fact constantly escapes you. [/quote]

You keep making it sound like the Chantry is the only thing keeping the world from being destroyed by the abominations, but given how relatively new it is, and how the world didn't fall prior to their existance, I see no reason to buy into your "fear the mages" campaign. Given that Haven, Rivain, and all the Dalish camps aren't overrun with abominations, imprisoning and dehumanizing mages clearly isn't warranted - especially when it's likely to cause a war for freedom.

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Plenty of proof.
Anyone reading your post can see that you're copy-pastin like crazy and pretty muhc spamming "chantry crimes" even when they have nothing to do with the argument. [/quote]

In other words, you lie again, and provide no proof... again.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

****

It is clear to pretty much anyone (excet for you, and Ian) that the devs created a grey universe. From many posts and codex and lore, it is CLEAR that the mage sitation is meant to be grey. David Gader spacificly confirms that (and no, there is no alternate interpretation of his words)

So how can the Chantry-Mage situation be grey if what you say is true? Think about it for a second.. If Chantry is all evil, ineffective, broken, murderous....where is the grey in that? There is none.

The chantry circle systems is spacificly that. Grey. A system that is morally questionable, but seems necessary for protecting the innocents. Heck, even many mages agree with that assesment. [/quote]

The History of the Circle codex proves that it wasn't necessary to protect innocents, because it wasn't formed to protect innocents.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

But that simple, basic truth just won't do it for you? Your chantry hate won't..CAN'T permit it.
I'm curious to see how you will try to defile this truth to fit your broken view ....
[/quote]

You clearly favor the Chantry, Lotion, but none of your arguments have swayed me to find their imprisonment of mages and their dehumanizing treatment of them excusable.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 23 janvier 2011 - 03:50 .

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

ORLY?  For that to be true, you have to SHOW that there are fewer abominations outside the circle now than pre-circle and I know you can't do that.  Indeed of all the abominations we see outside the circle all but one are directly linked to the circle/chantry in some way which at least indicates that the rate of abominations outside the circle has not appreciabably changed (and indeed may have increased).  Note I am not talking about inside the circle (apparently you don't give a rat's posterior about the loss of life inside the circle which seems typical).

Logic tells you that. If there are 100 mages, and 90 of htem are in circle, then there cannot be 30 abominations outside the circle, now can there?
Your own words defy logic.. How can the number outside the circle increase, when there's LESS mages outside?

Adn yes, I am counting the loss of life inside the circle too.

I will explain how.  Let's say before the circle was founded, you would get an abomination once every thirty years.  Naturally (by definition) that would be an abomination outside the circle that would have to be dealt with.

Now let's assume under the circle system we get 2 abominations per year (which with harrowings and the like is probably a low number but go with me here).  That would be 60 abominations in the same thirty years.  Now let's take your number and assume that 9 out of 10 occured within the tower and were thus (again to use your term) "quarantined".  That's still 6 abomination incidents outside the circle or six times as many.

It's pretty clear from an honest reading of the game material that the rate of abominations within the circle system is higher than outside...perhaps much higher (especially when the Chantry itself causes many of them with harrowings).  The question is this:  Is the overall rate so much greater that the rate of abominations outside the circle is actually the same or has even gone up, and the strong implication of the game lore is YES IT HAS!

That is the point you are missing.  You can not assume that the overall abomination rate for all mages is a constant number.  That is not at all a given.  It's well known that if you put a mage into a desperate situation under negative emotions, then the odds of abomination go way up....and guess what the circle system does......

That being so, the deaths I am tacking on from Anullments alone PER YEAR are in ADDITION to everything else....and you say that the circle has an undeniable upper hand?  Perhaps in bizarro world they do, but not in the game world I play in.

The game world oyu play in ins't TheDAs then...

Sure it is.  The admittedly indirect evidence strongly indicates that the chantry rate of abominations is much, much higher than outside it AND that the overall abomination incident rate pre and post circle don't seem to be much different (again see Rivvain, Haven, Dales, and more).

In short, either the circle system is unnecessary because natural abomination rates are very low (and thus can reasonably be handed within normal society) OR other societies have brutal ways of handling the problem.  The thing is that brutal social mechanics leave a social footprint we should see, so the strong leading indicators is that the first and not second model is the correct one.

No. I'm sorry, but hte world of TheDas doens't simply bow to your desires.
You make it sound like the two scenarios you posted are the only possible ones. And that's bollocks.

Not my desire.  Simply an honest interpretation and reasonable interpretation of the data given to me by the game and it's lore.  If anything it's you who are making unwarrented assumptions without really stopping to really question if the circle system is really necessary.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Everyone,

Here's the deal.  If you accept what the characters in the game tell you uncritically and you don't bother to dig, then yes, the circle system can easily seem to be a highly unfortunate but necessary step for public safety, and most people in Thedas (at least in Andrastian Thedas) seem to agree.  In that light, again taking things uncritcally, it's easy (and IMHO wrong) to conclude that the entire Redcliff/Circle incidendents are further proof of this...and while you might sympathize with mages, you might think they 'bring it on themselves'.

Everyone who doesn't agree wiht you is not thinking things troue an is not critical enough?

Nope.  I didn't lay that charge against SK.  I disagree with some of her conclusions but at least SK is honest enough to admit a valid point when it's made which quite frankly is something I have failed to see from you.  Since you ask, no, I really don't think you've engaged your critical reasoning skills here.

The problem lies when you start to DIG a little deeper and ask some pointed questions.  How many abominations have their been?  Has the tower changed this, either in total or even simply outside the tower?  How do other socieites survive and deal with their mages?  If they have a different system, then where are the signs?  [The only non-Andarastaian race that fits Chantry expectations in this regard is ironically the Qun].

How did the circle start?  What was the reason?  Did Andraste really want mages locked away?

The point here is when you DIG and start asking reasonable questions and really looking at the supposed foundations behind the circle-tower system, the darker and frankly more self-serving and problematic it looks, and that is the real point.

No problem exists.
I dig and get to the same position before diging. Because there really isn't enough to come to your conclusion.

You read into things, turn speculations that support your view into facts and then claim"Chantry evil, Circles bad".

No.  You haven't bothered to dig at all.  You start with the conclusion you want from the Chantry and then force all information to adhere to it.  I am not the only one that has called you out on this.  As for "circles bad", they ARE bad.  I don't think any reasonable person can call the circles good.  They are clearly a regressive system that breeds hatred and rebellion.  What you need to show is that the alternative is worse and so far you haven't even come close to showing that.  As for "Chantry evil", I don't believe I've ever said that....and in fact I am sure I haven't.  I have even said nice things about some Chantry members and even at least one Templar (KC Gregoire).  That said, "Chantry Evil" is actually a fairly reasonable argument that could be made given what it's done and it's unflattering resemblance to the RCC of the later middleages (which is not something you want to be compared with) and especially when you consider how far it's fallen (when you talk with the Guardian and the various disciples in the guantlet) from it's highly positive and idealistic roots.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Logic tells you that. If there are 100 mages, and 90 of htem are in circle, then there cannot be 30 abominations outside the circle, now can there?
Your own words defy logic.. How can the number outside the circle increase, when there's LESS mages outside?

Adn yes, I am counting the loss of life inside the circle too.

Logic? Logic tells me to read the codex entries, which tell me that often mages have resorted to becoming abominations as a direct result of surviving the templars hunting them down. If mages are turning into abominations because of the Chantry, how have they made things safer?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The game world oyu play in ins't TheDAs then...

No, it's Thedas.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No. I'm sorry, but hte world of TheDas doens't simply bow to your desires.
You make it sound like the two scenarios you posted are the only possible ones. And that's bollocks.

I find that comment odd coming from someone who claims that his scenerios are the only valid ones, and intentionally dismisses everyone else's. You provided speculation as proof again to back up your claims. You have yet to provide any actual evidence that the Chantry is doing anything but consolidating their power over the mages.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Wrong.  The point of accountability is so others can see that bad actions have bad consequences and thus object lessons canbe drawn.  Since we see none of that, we can reasonably conclude that Templars esp Templars in the field are simply not held accountable for their actions.

-Polaris

WRONG.

The game doesn't show you things it doesn't. Did it show you hwat happened to the templars that were caught misusing thier position? No, it didn't.
You cannot simply assume nothing happened.

Your "reasonable conclusions" can be called that only sarcasticly.

There's no evidence that the templars were misusing their positions - the Chantry makes it's position on the mages perfectly clear. Considering how Divine Ambrosia II had to be talked down from declaring an Exalted March on her own cathedral because the mages initiated a non-violent protest shows that the Chantry has had a tenuous relationship with the mages for centuries. DA makes it clear that mages are thralls of the Chantry, and with the exception of becoming Grey Wardens, their life in prison is going to be the only thing they'll ever have. At Ostagar in DA:O, the Reverand Mother intentionally has Alistair (who was going to be a templar and even refers to himself as a "former templar" when you first meet him) because she wants the mages to feel unwelcome (as Alistair admits). She doesn't trust the mages (and makes this clear in the meeting that no lives will be trusted to their spells, which is why only seven mages were permitted to fight with the army). Aenirin was nearly killed by templars because they claimed that he was maeficar, but there's absolutely no evidence supporting this (and the dialogue with Wynne strongly suggests it's completely untrue). First Enchanter Irving wasn't even privy to the evidence against Jowan, but the Rite of Tranquility was already signed and his fate sealed. Templars don't answer to the nobility (as Alistair points out in Arl Howe's dungeon) and Rylock's attempt to murder the Warden-Commander has no reprecussions at all for the Order of Templars or the Chantry. There's absolutely nothing to indicate that the templars murder of the elven D'Sims for their suspicion of him being a mage because he claimed to heal people was ever punishable.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No, it doesn't work against me. You are the ones who claim Chantry is evil and the system is horrible and other systems are far better (with ZERO proof I might add).

Why do you resort to saying that people are calling the Chantry "evil" when they disagree with the deplorable way that mages are treated? Are you trying to intentionally make people think that instead of being a debate over human rights and the ridiculous lack of rights mages have, it's an attack on religion?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

the word "best" is being thrown around, but it's obvious it doens't mean the same to everyone, so le'ts avoid using it, shall we?

If the circle system didn't have the advantage of security, then there would be no greyness about it.

There's no proof that the Chantry provides any advantage at all, except having all the mages in Thedas in their collective pocket.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Everyone,

Here's the deal.  If you accept what the characters in the game tell you uncritically and you don't bother to dig, then yes, the circle system can easily seem to be a highly unfortunate but necessary step for public safety, and most people in Thedas (at least in Andrastian Thedas) seem to agree.  In that light, again taking things uncritcally, it's easy (and IMHO wrong) to conclude that the entire Redcliff/Circle incidendents are further proof of this...and while you might sympathize with mages, you might think they 'bring it on themselves'.

Everyone who doesn't agree wiht you is not thinking things troue an is not critical enough?

Coming from the person who claims that anyone who doesn't support the Chantry thinks they're evil?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The problem lies when you start to DIG a little deeper and ask some pointed questions.  How many abominations have their been?  Has the tower changed this, either in total or even simply outside the tower?  How do other socieites survive and deal with their mages?  If they have a different system, then where are the signs?  [The only non-Andarastaian race that fits Chantry expectations in this regard is ironically the Qun].

How did the circle start?  What was the reason?  Did Andraste really want mages locked away?

The point here is when you DIG and start asking reasonable questions and really looking at the supposed foundations behind the circle-tower system, the darker and frankly more self-serving and problematic it looks, and that is the real point.

No problem exists.
I dig and get to the same position before diging. Because there really isn't enough to come to your conclusion.

You read into things, turn speculations that support your view into facts and then claim"Chantry evil, Circles bad".

No one is saying they're evil, people are saying it's wrong that they imprison mages for their entire lives and dehumanize them.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 23 janvier 2011 - 04:46 .

[Aldandil]

I'll chime in with this post again, because it has not yet been adressed.

Aldandil wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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

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

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

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

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

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

IanPolaris wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll go out with a final DG quote

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

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

I'd also like to add that saying that since Have, the Dalish and Rivain are still around, their mages apparently don't turn into abomination is silly. The bubonic plague killed half the population of Europe, and we're still here. Something can be very dangerous and still not end the world.

[LobselVith8]

Aldandil wrote...

I'd also like to add that saying that since Have, the Dalish and Rivain are still around, their mages apparently don't turn into abomination is silly. The bubonic plague killed half the population of Europe, and we're still here. Something can be very dangerous and still not end the world.

Maybe you can enlighten me on who said this, because I didn't read anyone making the claim that Rivain, the Dalish, and Haven have never had an abomination. I did see how people dismantled Lotion's arguments that  imprisoning mages is necessary by pointing out the alternative lifestyles of such places, pointing out how the Chantry has supressed mages from having any lives outside of their prisons (Magi Origin), how templars can execute mages without any evidence (D'Sims, Aenirin, Anders and the Warden), and has inspired a multitude of mages to seek their freedom even if it means a war with the Chantry (Broken Circle, Wynne in Awakening). Given the likely war between Mages and Templars in DA2, and the kind of bloodshed that's likely to cause in Andrastian nations across Thedas, it doesn't seem like imprisoning and dehumanizing mages is the correct course of action. In fact, in examining the History of the Circle codex entry, one can see how mages were isolated from the rest of society because of their non-violent protest in an Orlesian cathedral.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

I'll chime in with this post again, because it has not yet been adressed.
[/quote]

Yes it has actually but I apparently I need to address it again.

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

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

1. It's up to you to prove that it is.  Burden of proof is on you since you are defending an extraordinary system.
2. 
Given this was written BY THE CHANTRY, if protection were the reason
for establishing the circle, it certainly would have said so given that
this is the chantry party line today.
[/quote]
Your statement no. 1 is rather important for this discussion. I don't think the burden of proof is on the pro-circle side. Quite the contrary. If you are arguing that something needs to be changed, you should be able to prove that it won't lead to a drop in security. You are saying that we can't prove that it will. Well, you can't prove that it won't. This is what Beerfish said a few pages back, and I'm starting to agree with him about the futility of this discussion.
[/quote]

I strongly disagree.  Why?  We know that the circle system is a badly regressive system that creates strife, rebellion, and hatred on both sides.  We know that it's generally bad to deny an entire group of people civil rights simply becasue of what they are (rather than what they have done).  These points should not be in dispute especially not when we know in game lore, that this system is about to create an incredibly messy revolt with quite possibly a horrific loss of life.

GIVEN THAT, you need to show me that the circle system is enough better than the atlernatives to make this price worth paying and so far nobody on the Pro-Chantry side has even come close to doing so.

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

Facts not in evidence.  In fact in both the game and lore, all but one abomination incidents can be laid directly at the feet of the chantry'templar/circle system (the one excepting being the abomination apprentice in the Mage's collective quest...but that is a prime example of sucessful self-policiing!)  I have just explained using very reasonable numbers how it is possible (perhaps even likely) that under the circle system, the abomination incident rate outside the circle can actually GO UP!



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

Again David is saying no such thing.  Abominations are still dealt with reactively.  As an aside, while it's true you can't unerring predict who will become an abomination, it IS known that certain conditions (like stress, negative emotions, etc) greatly increase the odds...and the circle system actually increases all those risk factors.  Back to the quote, DG's quote as I've anlyzed before simply doesn't say what you think it does.  Abominations are still dealt with reactively.  DG doesn't even claim that the rate of abomination incidnets outside the tower(s) has even changed!  He concludes that magic is dangerous which is a point that no one disputes.  That is not arguing from lack of evidence.  It's simply pointing out that DG very carefully and IMHO was very deliberately coy about this.  He clearly WANTS many of you to read his quote as you have, but when you actually parse his words, his quote says almost nothing at all...and he did it in such a way that you didn't notice.

[quote]
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

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

The mechanics of
possession haven't changed one iota.  If the circle were formed to
protect mundanes, the codex would have said so especially given that it was written by the chantry.  That makes the Chantry's claims today nothing short of a bald faced LIE.
[/quote]
For starters, you're making another absence of evidence argument. "If there was more to the truth, the text would have said so". If we ignore the fact that other texts say so, we still get back to the fact that the text doesn't say "Contrary to popular belief, the Circle wasn't founded to increase public safety". By your line of reasoning, your text isn't evidence of anything either. Personally, I think that the "History of the Circle" loses some credibility based on the humorous nature that it's written in. I don't doubt that it's an accurate account for the events that took place, but to base people's motivation on such a story isn't basis of evidence. It can definitely be held in doubt. If we also consider that other texts - neutral ones at that, that does not have any in game writer - who does not even contradict your text, but instead adds to it, it's clear that the absence of evidence is not proof of anything in this case. Finally I'd like to say that it's a bit cheap to set yourself in a position where the only knowledge we have access to is Chantry knowledge, and you can accept texts you like as truth and condemn it for being propaganda if it doesn't agree with you. It's an ugly way of discussing. You haven't provided any proof of that the texts not written by an in-world person are Chantry propaganda. They don't change depending on origin.
[/quote]
 
Sounds to me like the "History of the Circle" loses credibilty in your eyes because it doesn't way what you want it to day.  Frankly there is no reason why good solid history can't be written in a humorous style so please enough of that!  As for absence of evidence is not proof....I am not claiming that it is.  However, if you propose a theory and that theory has a predicted result and you fail to see evidence of this predicted result, it does constitute evidence (and strong evidence at that!) that the theory is wrong or at best incomplete.  This is such a case.  IF abominations and abomination rates were as severe as the Chantry is trying to say, then we should see footprints of that in societies around Thedas, and we should see evidence for this concern when the mages staged their strike.  We should see fear and misgivings in ALL societies when it comes to mages since abominations can occure in any mage.  We don't.  This is all evidence against the circle system because the logical predicted social footprint is simply not there.

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

I don't think it's a false dichotomy.  No one is saying that mages shouldn't be policed.  What we are saying is that a system that treats mages as subhuman without CLEAR and PRESENT evidence that it is necessary (and no one has supplied anything close to that) needs to go....or it will be ended on it's own.  The difference is only in how many lives are lost when it goes away.

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

False.  It is very meaningful.  Demons don't care what culture you are from.  That means that all cultures need to handle abominations.  Given that no other culture (save the Qun....a special case if there ever was one) shows any fear or even misgivings about mages living alongside mundanes as neighbors, we can reasonably conclude that their system works and does so in a nonregressive way.  Otherwise we'd see the social footprint (as we DO see with the Qun and their treatment of mages).  Lack of evidence for a predicted outcome IS evidence against a model or theory.

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

You don't know that.  Again evidence would be nice.  Of course I am not advocating that all mages be released outside the circle at once.  Given the hostility (much of which is Chantry generated btw), that probably would be a complete mess.  I am a fan of gradualism.  That said, if a revolt takes place (which now seems as certain as the next sunrise), then you will have a sudden change that likely will go too far with far, far too much and unnecessary bloodshed.

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

Given the regressive and dehumanizing nature of the circle system AND the fact that other places deal just fine without it (both present and in history) and given that it is going to cause a Thedas wide revolt with horrific loss of life, I'd say the burden lies with those that say the circle is necessary.


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

I think it's going to happen anyway.  The only question is how many people are going to die to get there.

[quote]
I'd also like to add that saying that since Have, the Dalish and Rivain are still around, their mages apparently don't turn into abomination is silly. The bubonic plague killed half the population of Europe, and we're still here. Something can be very dangerous and still not end the world.
[/quote]

Again you are missing the point.  The bubonic plague left a deep social footprint that lasted for CENTURIES (even today the plague infects our nursery rhymes, "ring around the rosies, pocket full of posies, ashes, ashes, we all fall down".  Given how horrific abominations are supposed to be outside the circle tower, we should be seeing the same kind of social footprint in non-circle cultures but we don't.  That is strong evidence that the Chantry is wrong about how dangerous abominations really are in the greater scheme of things (ie. they are rare enough that they aren't really considered an issue).

-Polaris

[FurousJoe]

Wow that's a pretty intense discussion.



My own stance is that mages shouldn't be free, in fact they're too dangerous to keep around.

I'd execute everyone of them on the bonfire if I were in charge. They are simply too powerful and could easily enslave the rest of the free world.

[IanPolaris]

FurousJoe wrote...

Wow that's a pretty intense discussion.

My own stance is that mages shouldn't be free, in fact they're too dangerous to keep around.
I'd execute everyone of them on the bonfire if I were in charge. They are simply too powerful and could easily enslave the rest of the free world.

Ah, the Qun PoV.  Two problems:

1.  How much blood are you willing to spill to get rid of all mages?  Remember that mages are quite powerful as a group and they will have at least some non-magical allies.

2.  Suppose you do.  What happens when the enemy kingdom next door not only doesn't kill all of it's mages, but indeed accepts your mage refugees and incorporates the lot into an unstoppable army?  At this point you lose.

That's not idle speculation.  That's largely what happened with the Qun during the Second Exalted Marches.

Ergo, elminating all mages (setting aside the moral issues) is simply not practical (as even the Qun now admit and they HATE and LOATHE all magic!)

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Hard choices. Grey areas. That's what the situation is all about. (and mages are not slaves) [/quote]

Imprisoning mages is the easy choice, actually. Segregating people is always the easy choice. As for it being slavery, the fact that people have even perceived it on the Merrill thread as slavery proves otherwise. I'm certain the mages themselves would debate this issue.[/quote]

Irrelevant. And it's not the "easy choice". Not in the least.
If it was the easy choice, there would be no debate, no greyness.

[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I never said the circle system is morally the best choice. I said it was the best choice from a practical standpoint. [/quote]　

Considering that it looks to be the reason behind the war between templars and mages in DA2, I don't see how it's practical. An effective system wouldn't make people feel that they're being oppressed and need to fight for their freedom.[/quote]

Practicality has nothing to do with riots.
I refer to you thge prisons and prison uprising that always happen periodicly. Yet no one would argue that prisons aren't an effective system to keep security.



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

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

Did I say raw lyrium? No, I didn't. Again, you intentionally misdirect the discussion. As for the Guardian, maybe you can provide some proof that the Guardian isn't really human? Because I see nothing to support this claim.[/quote]

Oghren said Lyrium veins. That IS raw lyrium. you're the one trying to misdirect the discussion.



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

*SNIP*[/quote]

No.


[quote]
*SNIP*
[quote]

No.


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

From a mathematical standpoint, the Circle system has a undeniable upper hand. [/quote]

Do you have proof of this claim?[/quote]

Calulcualtions by Ian, corrected by me...


[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
*SNIP*
[/quote]

No.



[quote]
*SNIP*
[quote]

No. (in case you're wondering, I'm not bother answering the same question I already answered 20 times).




[quote]
It's an issue of whether you think the system is effective or right. I personally don't think that imprisoning people and denying them the basic rights afforded to ordinary people in virtually every nation of Thedas is appropriate. Mages have been instrumental against the Blights and were the main reason behind the victory against the Qunari. Given how they're needed, why imprison and dehumanize them? [/quote]

"Appropriate" or nice is irrelveant.
like trough human history, peopel in power often have to make rahter uncomfortable choices...practicaltiy often wins against "niceness"


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

The underlaying moreal quandry is hte smae as the qarantene example - do you shoot a man trying to get out of quarantene or not? Does your quarantene force tha mans hand when he tryies to run? Isn't he only acting out of fear, trying to protect his life?
Aren't you also trying to protect your life (and that of your family), when you shoot him? [/quote]

Quarantine victims aren't necessary to stop invading armies or the occassinal apocalypse.[/quote]

Again, avoiding answering the question and misdirecting the discussion.

What you say is irrelevant to the point, but I'll answer it anyway -  in case of an invasion, the mages are still there.
Abominations that are killed would be of no help to anyone anyway.



[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Yet you CONSTANTLY keep ignoring that it's NOT THE SAME. The frequency of possesion..the danger...the conditions.
Mages are in FAR greater dangers of possesion, are FAR more dangerous when possesed and cna be posesed at ANY TIME (compared to non-mages, who can onyl get possesed if they veil is torn).
Completely and uttery different. And that completley changes everything.
Yet that very simple fact constantly escapes you. [/quote]

You keep making it sound like the Chantry is the only thing keeping the world from being destroyed by the abominations, but given how relatively new it is, and how the world didn't fall prior to their existance, I see no reason to buy into your "fear the mages" campaign.[/quote]

"End of world" argument has been debunked a thousand times already. Get some new material or drop it.




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

****
It is clear to pretty much anyone (excet for you, and Ian) that the devs created a grey universe. From many posts and codex and lore, it is CLEAR that the mage sitation is meant to be grey. David Gader spacificly confirms that (and no, there is no alternate interpretation of his words)

So how can the Chantry-Mage situation be grey if what you say is true? Think about it for a second.. If Chantry is all evil, ineffective, broken, murderous....where is the grey in that? There is none.

The chantry circle systems is spacificly that. Grey. A system that is morally questionable, but seems necessary for protecting the innocents. Heck, even many mages agree with that assesment. [/quote]


The History of the Circle codex proves that it wasn't necessary to protect innocents, because it wasn't formed to protect innocents.[/quote]

It proves nothing, because it doesn't prove nothing.
You cling to that codex like it's a holy grail that proves all your points, but it's doesn't. Other peopel have already pointed out a million times why.


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

But that simple, basic truth just won't do it for you? Your chantry hate won't..CAN'T permit it.
I'm curious to see how you will try to defile this truth to fit your broken view ....
[/quote]

You clearly favor the Chantry, Lotion, but none of your arguments have swayed me to find their imprisonment of mages and their dehumanizing treatment of them excusable.[/quote]

No argument can sway you, rememeber? You are impervious to reason...

[Naitaka]

Those who argue for the circle/templar, feel free to read the official DA comic written by Orson Scott Card and Aaron Johnston in 6 issues. It shows just how much control Templars have over the mages and the fact that they CAN just call any mage maleficar and execute them on sight if they so feel like it.

Modifié par Naitaka, 23 janvier 2011 - 05:17 .

[FurousJoe]

IanPolaris wrote...

FurousJoe wrote...

Wow that's a pretty intense discussion.

My own stance is that mages shouldn't be free, in fact they're too dangerous to keep around.
I'd execute everyone of them on the bonfire if I were in charge. They are simply too powerful and could easily enslave the rest of the free world.

Ah, the Qun PoV.  Two problems:

1.  How much blood are you willing to spill to get rid of all mages?  Remember that mages are quite powerful as a group and they will have at least some non-magical allies.

2.  Suppose you do.  What happens when the enemy kingdom next door not only doesn't kill all of it's mages, but indeed accepts your mage refugees and incorporates the lot into an unstoppable army?  At this point you lose.

That's not idle speculation.  That's largely what happened with the Qun during the Second Exalted Marches.

Ergo, elminating all mages (setting aside the moral issues) is simply not practical (as even the Qun now admit and they HATE and LOATHE all magic!)

-Polaris

Well for once you could easily get all the known mages to the authority together and kill them right there.
Ask some of the more powerful mages to help you do this in return of sparing their life, then when the deed is done gang up on the last few and put them to the torch as well.

Also you never know if neighbouring kingdoms that preserve mages it comes back to bite them in ass, with abominations and blood mages etc.

Oh and there's no such thing as too much blood spilled if it means securing your empire.

Of course every mage should be given the choice of Tranquility, but if refused dropped on the bonfire.


My sole reason for all of this is one thing really:
People get power hungry, when they can see they have advantage over others it's in peoples nature to lose control.
I don't see why mages are any different, and is in fact displayed as such in DA universe with blood mages and abominations/malificars. They can't control the urge to become more powerful and enslave others.

Modifié par FurousJoe, 23 janvier 2011 - 05:20 .