1869 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion, instead of making false claims against me, feel free to provide any evidence or link to support your accusations, because the name-calling and the incessant lying is getting very tired.

As I said, your posts are all the proof.

Mages are taken from their families, denied basic human rights, outright blamed for the Blights, can be killed with no evidence and mere heresay, and they are forced to live in a prison their entire lives, but you don't think that's dehumanizing?

Imprisoning mages isn't the right way to do things, it's the easy way.

Denied SOME rights..you can't prove the blight is not the doing of mages, and nowhere are all amges specificly blamed.

I don't see myself calling you a Chantry fanboy there, Lotion. Nice attempt at misdirection, though. Try again.

Furthermore, there's no reason all mages should be blamed for the alleged actions of the Tevinter Imperium. Since you can't prove the Chantry's  version is the truth by any measure, why are you even arguing this point?

As for rights, people have argued here and in the Merrill thread that what the Chantry does to the mages is actually slavery.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 23 janvier 2011 - 07:00 .

[DKJaigen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Letting the mages roam free, which would result in hunderds of villagers killed every year

That is an assumption mate. And magi can even safe hundreds of live because they are the only one that can use magic to heal people

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Even if the abomination rate has gone up, the "free" abomination rate has gone down, and that is all that matters.

Not when the mages running away from the templars have to resort to becoming abominations in order to survive or because they're trying to emancipate themselves. That would indicate that the Chantry is causing it rather than preventing it.

[Aldandil]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[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]
In that case, I'm sorry. I read through the thread and looked through the four following pages twice looking for an answer, but didn't see one.
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
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]
That's what I'm saying. You think I should be able to prove something, while I don't. The cruelty of the system apart from the imprisonment is not in dispute either, and could very well be revised.
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[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]
Can you present me with some evidence when it comes to abomination rates in any other culture? We know for a fact that it happens. Since we haven't seen one, I'm guessing that you are arguing that they are rare, since there is an absence of evidence proving that they happen at all.

[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]
So what you're saying is that DG was trying to mislead everyone, and make it seem as if he's implying something when he really isn't. It's nice to hear that you are able to understand exactly how he's trying to fool us into believeing something, when the situation is actually the exact opposite. Alternatively, it means what it "seems" to say. You have definitely not disproven these quotes as something indicating that abominations were something that troubled the pre-circle world.

[quote]
[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]
Only in the same way all other sources that doesn't agree with you lose credibility. It's written in a light tone, actually not conveying anything but the actions themselves. No reasoning was mentioned for any of the sides. No background information was given either, and while you can believe that the only mages did before the Circle was lighting candles and dusting, it's certainly possible to interpret that into doing simpler tasks, both magic and menial. I would imagine that it would be harder to limit mages to only do those two things than it is keeping them in the Circle. You are using this text to exclude the possibility of there being a concern about abominations, even when it clearly isn't trying to paint a big picture.
Would you like to see some footprints of nationalism in Europe around 1914? A man gets shot in Sarajevo and the world goes to war. It could seem like an overreaction, that the leaders were nutty, but there was tension enough that one event could trigger something bigger.

[quote]
[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]
You have said that many people in this thread have set up a false dichotomy when saying that mages has to be regulated, and that's why the Circle is better than letting them go free. There are enough indications to the fact that keeping mages in one place is necessary. There is no evidence going either way.
[quote]
[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]
As been said a thousand times before, we don't know anything about how they deal with the risk of abominations. The Dalish are the culture that I think conveys your point the best. Clearly, they love and respect mages. We do know that they practice magic differently than humans (DG mentioned it on the boards somewhere, I'm not going to find the quote for you. If you don't believe me, we'll just stop debating), and if that lowers the risk of turning into an abomination, then everyone should practice magic like that. However, we don't know what the Dalish do. Maybe they just have to deal with half a clan disappearing every now and then, and view this as the wrath of the gods or something. There's no evidence of anything.
That mages can live outside the tower, like Eirik in Haven, isn't really proof. Mages are part of the ruling class in Tevinter, and they keep the Circles in place. The situation in Haven could very well be very similar. No evidence there.
Of Rivain, we know next to nothing.

Do you see the trend here? Now, you're interested in reasonably concluding. There's no proof that other cultures are doing fine without it, except for possibly the Dalish, and there's no information about how they train their mages. There are no facts on which to reasonably conclude anything. except for possibly that Dalish like mages.
[quote]
[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. [/quote]
No, that's why I said that it was what I thought. Evidence would be nice for your positions as well, but when judged by your standards, the evidence you present is about as founded in wishful reading between the lines of texts and reasonable concluding as what the other side has presented.
[quote]
[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]And I wouldn't. That the Circle saves lives seems reasonable, and to change the status quo requires evidence.

[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[/quote]My point was poorly made. It was in response to the argument that it would be impossible for other societies and cultures to exist if mages was a serious threat, or the Circle effective. What I meant to say was that it's possible for a country to go through terrible things and still survive. The everyday life can be terrible, and you can still survive.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

1.  You said that that notion that the rate of abominations outside the circle was lower, "was the only logical conclusion".  I showed you that it was not.

No, you didn't. You failed to show that.

Actually, Ian did. You simply claimed it wasn't true, and Ian pointed out it was a hypothetical outline to illustrate how your claim wasn't the only possibility. So far, Lotion, you fail to prove that imprisoning mages is necessary.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Before you post, you should read what others post first.  I never claimed that my numbers were anything other than a theoretical exercise.  I used reasonable (but hypothetical) numbers to show that you COULD lock away mages and still have an increase in the abomonation incident rate outside the tower.

Your numbers weren't reasonable.

I could claim that a single abomination can kill millions and call it reasonable. That doesn't make it so.

If you used a double - heck, even TRIPPLE - the reate, I'd say that number was reasonable.

But you oncreased the abomomination ratio in your "reasonable" example by 6000%. That's not reasonable. That's bull****.

There was nothing unreasonable about Ian's outline. It clearly took more time to formulate and articulate than your little outburst here. Even Ian pointed out it was hypothetical:

IanPolaris wrote...

Why not?  If you get to make assumptions about the abomination rate to fit your theory then I can as well!  However mine is an expressesly stated hypothetical rate...based on game reality but not one that I make any hard claim to.  It's an example (a counter example) of why your logic is wrong.  As for the rate going up by orders of magnitude, that actually seems very likely when you consider that the Chantry actually FORCES demons into mages in the Harrowing ritual, and given the highly emotional and negative atmosphere in the tower (as in any prison).

You've continually failed to provide any proof that the Chantry's treatment of mages is necessary or vital for security, Lotion.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

2.  The Templars would know?  You mean the same templars that are drugged into obedience by the chantry?  Those templars?   Consider this:  The Templars predate the circle and they certainly would have helped handle any abomination problems pre and post circle.  I can agree with you that far.  That would mean that the Templars would have indicent rates (because they surely keep records) of both periods of time.

The tamplars know basic math.
Gregoir, who puts so much emphaiss on protecting the innocent folk of Ferelden, is fully convinced that the Circels protect that folk..and even some mages.
As you said - the templars would know.

In other words, you have no proof, you're using speculation as fact, and you can't actually prove that the Chantry's actions against mages are necessary.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

So where ARE those records?  Why don't the Templar's proclaim both sets of numbers and end all doubt.....unless the real numbers don't say what they want them to say....

for all you know poeple of Thedas may know those numbers. We dont' have them in the coidex, but that's a LOT we don't have in the codex. The Dev's created a massive world and didn't put everythnig in the game.

So your lack of evidence is proof, while the History of the Circle codex should be ignored because it runs counter to your argument?

[LobselVith8]

DKJaigen wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Letting the mages roam free, which would result in hunderds of villagers killed every year

That is an assumption mate. And magi can even safe hundreds of live because they are the only one that can use magic to heal people

That's precisely why Duncan wants to recruit the Warden from the Circle of Magi (in the Magi Origin) and why he wants a greater commitment from the Circle (against the darkspawn armies at Ostagar). Mages are uniquely equipped to handle the darkspawn, and the Genitivi written codex about the New Exalted Marches points out how mages were instrumental in the victory against the invading Qunari armies.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Define "exceedingly common".  If they aren't common, then there is no justification for the circle system at all.  If they are, then we find that the circle has exacerbated the problem.  Make up your mind.

Neither. I reject your conclusions.
If abomination kill a lot of peopel each year, that's reason enough for the Circles. And guess what - they do.

Both the codex and the game show us how dangerous abominations are - killing 70 villagers is not uncommon for an abomination. And we've seen how many in Ferleden?
3-4.Within a year.
I'd say common enough.

How many did we see that had nothing to do with the Chantry? One. How many that were the direct result of the Chantry imprisoning and dehumanizing mages, with the mages struggling to emancipate themselves from subjegation? Many.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And you didn't adress the bolded part. Even if 99% of mages in the circle turn to abominations, it STILL keeps the countryside safe.

It doesn't if the Chantry is the direct cause of most modern abominations.

DarthCaine wrote...

Don't you people get tired of writing such long posts?

Isn't the point of a thread to post?

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Abominations in the circle tower was a direct result of Uldred. Uldred's rebellion was adirect result of teh Chantry, but that makes the Abominations there an indirect result of the Chantry. All the Abominations there can be blamed on Uldred alone.

[Addai]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Even if the abomination rate has gone up, the "free" abomination rate has gone down, and that is all that matters.

Pure speculation.  Anyway the templars are not the only ones who can oppose and restrain abominations.  Mages themselves can.  So arguably by locking up the mages, you are cutting down your defensive forces considerably.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Even if the abomination rate has gone up, the "free" abomination rate has gone down, and that is all that matters.

And your evidence for this is what again?

-Polaris

[Sir JK]

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

IanPolaris, the problem is not that we do not dig. It's that we interpret the texts differently and work logically from different premises.
For instance. Some of you seem convinced that becoming an abomination is something volountary or semi-volountary. I am convinced it can be both volountary and forced upon you. Since we are working for different premises there we reach different but equally logical conclusions. That's where the crux lies.

Another example is how we treat different sources and what we read into them. Both David Gaider's post about abominations before the circles and the history of the circles codex entry.

Let's make an example of that:
My avatar here, a city elf rogue warden, arrives at the tower to seek a method to save Connor only to find the templars having sealed the entrance and having declared it lost. The Knight-Commander explains the tower has been overrrun by abominations and demon and that it is very unlikely anyone is left alive. My warden decides to enter the tower and fight any demons and try to find and save any survivors therein.

Why did my warden save the tower?

The answer is seemingly already there. She saved the tower to save Connor. This is the same sort of conclusion you derived from the History of the Circle codex entry.

However... my warden had so many more reasons to save the tower. That story snippet did not tell you the full truth but a shortened and simplified version. The truth of the matter is that my warden had many many reasons to save the mages. Not just because Connor needed mages to be saved. The story tells us more how my warden saved the circle, than why.

I argue that the same applies to the history of the circle codex entry. It tells us one of many reasons. I'd bet that if put in the real world, the entire thing is thesis material for any historian. That you can write books consisting of hundreds of reasons why the circle was formed that year in Val Royeuax. But since this is a short and easy little text and not a major history work, not all those reasons are explored and discussed. Why? Because if written properly that text would be larger than the rest of the codex put together and multiplied by two.

Let's look at our own world. Is there any political movement or shift that can be summarized in five paragraphs amounting to at most 200 words while still managing to analyse every detail and reason?

To reinforce this claim I put forward this codex entry:
The official Chantry stance on circle hierarchy
This is a knight-commander explaining to his successor how the circles work. It is sadly not dated so it could be modern or the very first one. Difficult to say.

Some of the key phrases:
"The first enchanter is the heart of any tower. He will determine the course his Circle will take, he will choose which apprentices may be tested and made full mages, and you will work most closely with him."
"Each Circle tower must have some measure of self-government"
If the only reason is chantry control of the mages. Why are they self-regulating?

It also mentions what Serain thinks is the purpose:
"It is no simple matter, safeguarding ordinary men from mages, and mages from themselves. "
So clearly protecting mages and common people have become purpose at some point if it was not from the start. Why is this a purpose?

We also have this:
"but they more often pose threats to themselves, due to their lack of training, than to anyone else."
So the chantry clearly think untrained mages are very dangerous to themselves and that mages should be trained. Oh by the way... the group refered to are those that do have completed their harrowing. So the templars consider mages who have taken their harrowing and succeeded to be dangerous to themselves. Hmmm... why is this?

Something to ponder. I found it a very thought-provoking codex entry and one of the more useful.

Modifié par Sir JK, 23 janvier 2011 - 08:07 .

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
1.  You said that that notion that the rate of abominations outside the circle was lower, "was the only logical conclusion".  I showed you that it was not.[/quote]

No, you didn't. You failed to show that.
[/quote]

Yes I did.  I showed by using very plausable hypothetical numbers (and I never claimed they were anything other than hypothetical), you could in fact have a higher abomination rate (even much higher abomination rate outside the tower post-circle even IF 90% of the abominations are caught and killed in the circle.

You claimed that this was logically impossible.  I proved by counterexample that it was not.

[quote][quote]
Before you post, you should read what others post first.  I never claimed that my numbers were anything other than a theoretical exercise.  I used reasonable (but hypothetical) numbers to show that you COULD lock away mages and still have an increase in the abomonation incident rate outside the tower.[/quote]

Your numbers weren't reasonable.

I could claim that a single abomination can kill millions and call it reasonable. That doesn't make it so.

If you used a double - heck, even TRIPPLE - the reate, I'd say that number was reasonable.

But you oncreased the abomomination ratio in your "reasonable" example by 6000%. That's not reasonable. That's bull****.
[/quote]

Not it's not B.S.  It's quite plausibly really.  Why do mages become abominations?  That is generally known.  Essentailly while it's not possibly to precisely predict which make will become an abomination precisely when, you CAN predict risk factors (and certainly being IMPLANTED WITH A DEMON) is a huge risk factor doncha think?

Anyway....mages become abominations because they want or need something, and want it so badly that they are willing to let a demon in to make this happen (or tries to fight a demon in the fade by summoning it and failing but that is a much, much rarer case).  So who do you think is at higher risk?  The imprisoned, unhappy mage with no rights and constantly being reminded of how vile and evil he is every day, or the generally happy and well adjusted mage in society with friends, perhaps even love interests, and certainly social outlets in society?

I think the answer is clear.  I wouldn't be suprised if the actual abomination rate post circle wasn't as much as 10,000%  or more.  I was deliberately shooting for a low increase, seriously.

[quote]
[quote]
2.  The Templars would know?  You mean the same templars that are drugged into obedience by the chantry?  Those templars?   Consider this:  The Templars predate the circle and they certainly would have helped handle any abomination problems pre and post circle.  I can agree with you that far.  That would mean that the Templars would have indicent rates (because they surely keep records) of both periods of time.[/quote]

The tamplars know basic math.
Gregoir, who puts so much emphaiss on protecting the innocent folk of Ferelden, is fully convinced that the Circels protect that folk..and even some mages.
As you said - the templars would know.
[/quote]

I know basic math too, and I showed by basic math how you could be logically wrong.  If the Templars do know, then why don't they share the pre-circle records?  Unless they have something to hide.......  (which I think they do actually....or the Chantry had the Templars destroy their pre-Circle records which wouldn't suprise me one bit).

[quote]
[quote]
So where ARE those records?  Why don't the Templar's proclaim both sets of numbers and end all doubt.....unless the real numbers don't say what they want them to say....[/quote]

for all you know poeple of Thedas may know those numbers. We dont' have them in the coidex, but that's a LOT we don't have in the codex. The Dev's created a massive world and didn't put everythnig in the game.

But those numbers aren't really necessary, as basic logic dictates the numbes should be smaller.
[/quote]

No it doesn't.  Without those numbers you don't have a case and you know it.

[quote]
[quote]
Why not?  If you get to make assumptions about the abomination rate to fit your theory then I can as well!  However mine is an expressesly stated hypothetical rate...based on game reality but not one that I make any hard claim to.  It's an example (a counter example) of why your logic is wrong.  As for the rate going up by orders of magnitude, that actually seems very likely when you consider that the Chantry actually FORCES demons into mages in the Harrowing ritual, and given the highly emotional and negative atmosphere in the tower (as in any prison).[/quote]

There is no indication that abominations are exceedingly common within the circle

Heck, evne if there is an overall rise in the number of abomination incidents, there is no indication is hte bigger by such a huge margin.
And most importantly, even if there is a increase of abomination incidents, almost all of them would still happen wihtin the circle, thus STILL making the coutnryside safer.

Ergo, your argument falls flat on it's face.
[/quote]

Actually there is evidence that abominations are much more common post circle than precircle but admittedly it's indirect and implied evidence, but just for example, just how many mages fail their harrowing?  each one is an abomination incident that likely would not have happened pre-circle....and that's completely excluding the hugely important emotional factor of wrongful imprisonment.

[quote]
Define "exceedingly common".  If they aren't common, then there is no justification for th circle system at all.  If they are, then we find that the circle has exacerbated the problem.  Make up your mind.[/quote]

Neither. I reject your conclusions.
If abomination kill a lot of peopel each year, that's reason enough for the Circles. And guess what - they do.

Both the codex and the game show us how dangerous abominations are - killing 70 villagers is not uncommon for an abomination. And we've seen how many in Ferleden?
3-4.Within a year.
I'd say common enough.
[/quote]

All but one were directly caused by the circle and happened AFTER the circle was formed.  Doesn't sound like the circle is working very well does it?

[quote]
And you didn't adress the bolded part. Even if 99% of mages in the circle turn to abominations, it STILL keeps the countryside safe.
[/quote]

Proof of that would be nice.  Right now I see absolutely no evidence that the countryside is safer from abominations now than it was pre-circle and perhaps less so given the number of abomination incidents you cited.

Btw, the one abominatin incident that was not directly related to the circle has a casualty count of one (besides itself).  Much better than the Templars managed by a long chalk.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 23 janvier 2011 - 08:14 .

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK,



Instead of replying to your entire point, let me address your criticism of the History of the Circle Codex. You say that we are not getting the whole story. That is almost certainly true. However, again, look for the social footprint.



If the security of mundanes for abominations were so important and such a burning issue as the Chanty claims now, then why wasn't this listed as a central reason for the exile in that Codex entry? It could have been. It was expressly written from the chantry's PoV after all, but it was not.



That means then, that security and protection of the mundanes wasn't important enough to mention which means again that the idea the circles were established to protect anyone is a bald faced lie.



-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

As for mages being a threat to themselves, no one disputes that. NO ONE



All we are disputing (strongly) is the need to properly train and educate mages is best done by treating them as sub-human prisoners.



-Polaris

[Addai]

Sir JK wrote...

Some of the key phrases:
"The first enchanter is the heart of any tower. He will determine the course his Circle will take, he will choose which apprentices may be tested and made full mages, and you will work most closely with him."
"Each Circle tower must have some measure of self-government"
If the only reason is chantry control of the mages. Why are they self-regulating?

And who chooses the First Enchanter?  Do you think someone who is not totally with the program is going to be put into that position?  It's much like a few RL examples I could name, where the totalitarian leadership props up puppets to look like there is democracy and self-governance when in reality they are completely pulling the strings.

We also have this:
"but they more often pose threats to themselves, due to their lack of training, than to anyone else."
So the chantry clearly think untrained mages are very dangerous to themselves and that mages should be trained. Oh by the way... the group refered to are those that do have completed their harrowing. So the templars consider mages who have taken their harrowing and succeeded to be dangerous to themselves. Hmmm... why is this?

Something to ponder. I found it a very thought-provoking codex entry and one of the more useful.

Part of demonizing mages is to infantilize them, to convince mages themselves that the Chantry system is for their own good.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't see myself calling you a Chantry fanboy there, Lotion. Nice attempt at misdirection, though. Try again.

What? The 70 instances before that don't count?

Furthermore, there's no reason all mages should be blamed for the alleged actions of the Tevinter Imperium. Since you can't prove the Chantry's  version is the truth by any measure, why are you even arguing this point?

All mages are not blamed. But ALL mages ARE dangerous and could potentialy caus another such incident.

And lastly, you can't prove tehy didn't do it.
Not to mention that 99% of population of TheDas thinks they are to blame for the Blight.

As for rights, people have argued here and in the Merrill thread that what the Chantry does to the mages is actually slavery.

And what do I care that SOME people think it's slavery? Some disagree with that definition, the LEAD WRITER of Dragon Age being one of them.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 23 janvier 2011 - 08:30 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

DKJaigen wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Letting the mages roam free, which would result in hunderds of villagers killed every year

That is an assumption mate. And magi can even safe hundreds of live because they are the only one that can use magic to heal people

And nobody is stopping mages for heling people.

High death tolls from abominations are not assumptions. We've SEEN jsut how deadly they are. The codex further confirms that.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Even if the abomination rate has gone up, the "free" abomination rate has gone down, and that is all that matters.

Not when the mages running away from the templars have to resort to becoming abominations in order to survive or because they're trying to emancipate themselves. That would indicate that the Chantry is causing it rather than preventing it.

And how many run? How many resort to it? Clearly not all (case in point: Anders...7 times hunted, didn't go all abomination)

With almsot all the mages in the kingdom in the Tower, pretty muhc every mage outside the tower would have to become an abomination to unbalance that.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

1.  You said that that notion that the rate of abominations outside the circle was lower, "was the only logical conclusion".  I showed you that it was not.

No, you didn't. You failed to show that.

Actually, Ian did. You simply claimed it wasn't true, and Ian pointed out it was a hypothetical outline to illustrate how your claim wasn't the only possibility. So far, Lotion, you fail to prove that imprisoning mages is necessary.

No. You can repat it a zillion time, it won't make it any truer.

Earlier I would have repeated exactly why, but after a dozen attempts at explaining, that you utterly ingore, a simple no will suffice as an answer...so...

NO.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Before you post, you should read what others post first.  I never claimed that my numbers were anything other than a theoretical exercise.  I used reasonable (but hypothetical) numbers to show that you COULD lock away mages and still have an increase in the abomonation incident rate outside the tower.

Your numbers weren't reasonable.

I could claim that a single abomination can kill millions and call it reasonable. That doesn't make it so.

If you used a double - heck, even TRIPPLE - the reate, I'd say that number was reasonable.

But you oncreased the abomomination ratio in your "reasonable" example by 6000%. That's not reasonable. That's bull****.

There was nothing unreasonable about Ian's outline. It clearly took more time to formulate and articulate than your little outburst here. Even Ian pointed out it was hypothetical:

6000% increase is not reasonable in any way, shape or form.
Hypothetical examples are only worth something is the numbers use are reasonable.

In other words, you have no proof, you're using speculation as fact, and you can't actually prove that the Chantry's actions against mages are necessary.

Logic dictates they are necessary.

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sir JK,

Instead of replying to your entire point, let me address your criticism of the History of the Circle Codex. You say that we are not getting the whole story. That is almost certainly true. However, again, look for the social footprint.

If the security of mundanes for abominations were so important and such a burning issue as the Chanty claims now, then why wasn't this listed as a central reason for the exile in that Codex entry? It could have been. It was expressly written from the chantry's PoV after all, but it was not.

That means then, that security and protection of the mundanes wasn't important enough to mention which means again that the idea the circles were established to protect anyone is a bald faced lie.

-Polaris

Maybe it was not an attempt to explain why the circles were formed and just a how? If you describe a how in short (and that was in short) then you usually omitt reasons because if the reasons need to be explained. And explanations take time.
Let's take protection. If you need to list protection as a reason then you need to discuss why protection is needed. Then you need to discuss why mages would be dangerous. And then suddenly the text describes more about the dangers of magic than it's purpose.
Trust me... I study biomedicine. And if I am asked to summarize something important in 200 words then reasons is the first things that go unless they are absolutely crucial. Because reasons always have to be explained. Always. Otherwise mentioning them is worthless.

Also... one thing I just noticed. Notice what the entry is taken from. A book. It's an entire book about the relationship between mages, circles and templars. I'd like to read it. I think every reason is described there. Probably in the chapters following our codex entry

And who chooses the First Enchanter?  Do you think someone who is not
totally with the program is going to be put into that position?  It's
much like a few RL examples I could name, where the totalitarian
leadership props up puppets to look like there is democracy and
self-governance when in reality they are completely pulling the strings.

Ummm... the codex entry does say who chooses the First Enchanter: The Senior Enchanters. And remember... Uldred was a vocal libertarian... and a senior enchanter. So blatant self-proclaimed enemies of the chantry are allowed to take part and choose first enchanters.

Part of demonizing mages is to infantilize them, to convince mages themselves that the Chantry system is for their own good.

This is a letter of a introduction to the chief of security of a tower though. It is not the attempt to convince an outsider or a mage of it's neccessity but to inform a senior officer that has years of experience dealing with mages. This is a man who have succeeded in the political climb to become a high ranking member of Chantry hierarchy. If there is one case where the Chantry would not overstate it's importance... it's here. Because let's face it... his successor would already know that.

Maybe the Chantry is wrong, but if so it is dead convinced they are right.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Aldandil wrote...

That's what I'm saying. You think I should be able to prove something, while I don't. The cruelty of the system apart from the imprisonment is not in dispute either, and could very well be revised.
[/quote]

Given that societies (including Andrastian societies) have functioned quite well without the circle system (which does NOT mean mages and magic won't be regulated), and given the agreed upon cruelty of the system and the fact it's going to end very shortly one way or the other (and one way is going to be very, very bloody), I do think the burden of proof is on the Chantry side to show that this moral and blood cost is justified.  So far no one has come close to doing it.

[quote]
[Can you present me with some evidence when it comes to abomination rates in any other culture? We know for a fact that it happens. Since we haven't seen one, I'm guessing that you are arguing that they are rare, since there is an absence of evidence proving that they happen at all.
[/quote]

Actually if you don't see footprints of bigfoot even after you look hard for it, that is evidence against the existance of bigfoot.  It is absolutely conclusive evidence?  No.  But it is valid evidence to the contary.  Negative evidence is used and considered logically valid all the time.  In this case, given the horrors that even a single abomination can cause, and given that the Dalish are ultra-committed to finding any records they can of their ancestors and keeping all records (good and bad) of their own people though the keepers, we should see a strong and present social footprint if abominations were as common as you think.  Such a footprint would include fear and distrust of mages most especially untrained ones, but we see nothing of the sort.  The same pattern occures with the much different Chasind, Haven Cultists, Rivvain, and every other non-circle culture save the Qun which for their own religious reasons hate and loathe all things magical and always have.

See a pattern here.  One case might not be convincing, but taken in aggregate it's a pretty damning picture against the Chantry....and that's even before you consider that Andrastian nations themselves (and even Andraste!) had no issues with mages living alongside other mages.

[quote]
[quote]
[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]
So what you're saying is that DG was trying to mislead everyone, and make it seem as if he's implying something when he really isn't. It's nice to hear that you are able to understand exactly how he's trying to fool us into believeing something, when the situation is actually the exact opposite. Alternatively, it means what it "seems" to say. You have definitely not disproven these quotes as something indicating that abominations were something that troubled the pre-circle world.
[/quote]

No.  I am saying that DG said nothing at all.  READ WHAT HE SAID and not what you want him to say.  He said nothing about abominations making the countryside unsafe pre-circle.  He said nothing about if the circle made things better...but he very cleverly got you to think he did.  As for why he'd be this coy, the mage vs mudane issue is a central theme in DA esp DA2 and he wants his game to sell, and arguments like this one help sell it.


[quote]
[quote]
[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]
Only in the same way all other sources that doesn't agree with you lose credibility. It's written in a light tone, actually not conveying anything but the actions themselves. No reasoning was mentioned for any of the sides. No background information was given either, and while you can believe that the only mages did before the Circle was lighting candles and dusting, it's certainly possible to interpret that into doing simpler tasks, both magic and menial. I would imagine that it would be harder to limit mages to only do those two things than it is keeping them in the Circle. You are using this text to exclude the possibility of there being a concern about abominations, even when it clearly isn't trying to paint a big picture.
[/quote]

There is nothing that says that history can't be written in a light or even wry tone, and it loses no credibility by doing so.  It would be best if you moved on from that.  The central point is this:  If the protection of mundanes from mages were the problem you claim and abominations were as common and serious as the chantry wants to believe, then it would have been mentioned because dealing with this would be a cornerstone of any agreement with mages.  However, the entire issue of abominations isn't mentioned once.  It's not even alluded to.  That tells me that NEITHER SIDE thought it was an important issue when the circle was formed which neatly backs my overal point.

[quote]
Would you like to see some footprints of nationalism in Europe around 1914? A man gets shot in Sarajevo and the world goes to war. It could seem like an overreaction, that the leaders were nutty, but there was tension enough that one event could trigger something bigger.
[/quote]

Yes, but that tension was recorded and obvious even with a cursery glance of late 19th century Europe.  Just look at the Franco-Prussian war to name but one of many examples!  In short, nationalism left a huge and obvious social footprint that the historian could easily see.  If abominations were the ongoing and serious issues you claim without the circle, then we should be seeing the footprint of that in the historical records and in societies without circles but we do not.

[quote]
[quote]
[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]
You have said that many people in this thread have set up a false dichotomy when saying that mages has to be regulated, and that's why the Circle is better than letting them go free. There are enough indications to the fact that keeping mages in one place is necessary. There is no evidence going either way.
[/quote]

I see no indications that keeping them in one place is absolutely necessary and certainly no justification for how mages are currently treated.

[quote]
[quote]
[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]
As been said a thousand times before, we don't know anything about how they deal with the risk of abominations. The Dalish are the culture that I think conveys your point the best. Clearly, they love and respect mages. We do know that they practice magic differently than humans (DG mentioned it on the boards somewhere, I'm not going to find the quote for you. If you don't believe me, we'll just stop debating), and if that lowers the risk of turning into an abomination, then everyone should practice magic like that. However, we don't know what the Dalish do. Maybe they just have to deal with half a clan disappearing every now and then, and view this as the wrath of the gods or something. There's no evidence of anything.
[/quote]

It can't be that different since humans can learn (and the chantry is working on it per DAA Living Wood quests) Dalish magic.  Even so, there is no indication that abominations work different for the Dalish than anyone else, and even if that were so, the mages of Haven use magic the same way, as to the Chasind, as to the Witches of Rivvain and as did the Andrastian Mages 700 years ago!  All are human and their relationship with mages in society is (from the evidence we do have) is very much like the Dalish one which is remarkable given that these are all very different cultures. 

[quote]
That mages can live outside the tower, like Eirik in Haven, isn't really proof. Mages are part of the ruling class in Tevinter, and they keep the Circles in place. The situation in Haven could very well be very similar. No evidence there.
Of Rivain, we know next to nothing.
[/quote]

Actually Father Kolgrim is in charge and if you side with him and talk with him about Magic and the Chantry, he's rather contemptous of the Chantry's attitude towards mages.

[quote]
Do you see the trend here? Now, you're interested in reasonably concluding. There's no proof that other cultures are doing fine without it, except for possibly the Dalish, and there's no information about how they train their mages. There are no facts on which to reasonably conclude anything. except for possibly that Dalish like mages.
[/quote]

Even the Dalish would be a valid counterexample, but again, lack of social footprints of abominations elsewhere IS evidence against the Chantry's system.


[quote]
[quote]
[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. [/quote]
No, that's why I said that it was what I thought. Evidence would be nice for your positions as well, but when judged by your standards, the evidence you present is about as founded in wishful reading between the lines of texts and reasonable concluding as what the other side has presented.
[/quote]

Actually the King/Queen of Fereldan does want mages let out of the circle (see Mage's boon) or at the very least mages put in charge of themselves.  It's the chantry that says "No".  As for evidence, you are arguing in favor of a regressive, and dehumanizing system that will come to an end, and if it's not dismantled voluntarily, it will be dismantled by force and cost a lot of blood.  Given that, you need to prove that the Chantry's system is worth all of this.

(rest snipped because it's a rehash of the above points just done differently)

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Define "exceedingly common".  If they aren't common, then there is no justification for the circle system at all.  If they are, then we find that the circle has exacerbated the problem.  Make up your mind.

Neither. I reject your conclusions.
If abomination kill a lot of peopel each year, that's reason enough for the Circles. And guess what - they do.

Both the codex and the game show us how dangerous abominations are - killing 70 villagers is not uncommon for an abomination. And we've seen how many in Ferleden?
3-4.Within a year.
I'd say common enough.

How many did we see that had nothing to do with the Chantry? One. How many that were the direct result of the Chantry imprisoning and dehumanizing mages, with the mages struggling to emancipate themselves from subjegation? Many.

Given that mages and chantry are linked in Ferelden, any mage has something o do with the chantry in one way or another.

I reject your blame-chain because it's not an argument.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And you didn't adress the bolded part. Even if 99% of mages in the circle turn to abominations, it STILL keeps the countryside safe.

It doesn't if the Chantry is the direct cause of most modern abominations.

Not direct cause.
The Circle system ups the pressure on SOME mages, but how they react to that pressure is their choosing. If you still insist on the "direct cause" route, then the Circles are the direct cause of abominations (mages).

And even if it was, it STILL does. Which is exactly what I said above, but basic math failes you.

Even if the Chantry was to blame for EVERY SINGLE ABOMINATION, since 99% of them are contained in the tower, it's STILL safer.

[IanPolaris]

Addai67 wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Some of the key phrases:
"The first enchanter is the heart of any tower. He will determine the course his Circle will take, he will choose which apprentices may be tested and made full mages, and you will work most closely with him."
"Each Circle tower must have some measure of self-government"
If the only reason is chantry control of the mages. Why are they self-regulating?

And who chooses the First Enchanter?  Do you think someone who is not totally with the program is going to be put into that position?  It's much like a few RL examples I could name, where the totalitarian leadership props up puppets to look like there is democracy and self-governance when in reality they are completely pulling the strings.

South Vietnam was a case in point where the US quite literally had ARVN install a president of the US' choice more than once.  The CCCP did this in Eastern Europe (esp the DDR) regularly as well.  In both cases the superpowers went to great lengths to "seem" to grant nominal independance to their puppets, while making sure that there was no true independance.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't see myself calling you a Chantry fanboy there, Lotion. Nice attempt at misdirection, though. Try again.

What? The 70 instances before that don't count?

I have trouble taking you seriously at times like this, Lotion.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Furthermore, there's no reason all mages should be blamed for the alleged actions of the Tevinter Imperium. Since you can't prove the Chantry's  version is the truth by any measure, why are you even arguing this point?

All mages are not blamed. But ALL mages ARE dangerous and could potentialy caus another such incident.

And lastly, you can't prove tehy didn't do it.
Not to mention that 99% of population of TheDas thinks they are to blame for the Blight.

In other words, you can't prove that they did, and the only reason people in Thedas believe that is because the Chantry spreads it.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

As for rights, people have argued here and in the Merrill thread that what the Chantry does to the mages is actually slavery.

And what do I care that SOME people think it's slavery? Some disagree with that definition, the LEAD WRITER of Dragon Age being one of them.

The same writer who had a different view on Cullen than another writer of DA:O, so it's not canon when someone says it's merely their viewpoint.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And how many run? How many resort to it? Clearly not all (case in point: Anders...7 times hunted, didn't go all abomination)

With almsot all the mages in the kingdom in the Tower, pretty muhc every mage outside the tower would have to become an abomination to unbalance that.

We don't have those numbers. We do know from most of the codex entries actually show that mages have resorted to becoming abominations to survive against the templars trying to kill them and how most of the abominations we encounter in DA:O are the direct result of the Templar/Mage conflict, so I don't see the point you're trying to make here.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[Given that mages and chantry are linked in Ferelden, any mage has something o do with the chantry in one way or another.

I reject your blame-chain because it's not an argument.

I am not using the blame-game as an argument.  Indeed, the one abmonination incident that had little if anything to do with the Chantry was also in Fereldan which knocks the knees out from under your complaint.

In all other cases, the Chantry's system (including Templar actions) had a direct bearing into the creation and presence of all the abominations we encounter and read about.  That's a very stong indication that the Chantry's system is an instrinsic part of the problem.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And you didn't adress the bolded part. Even if 99% of mages in the circle turn to abominations, it STILL keeps the countryside safe.

It doesn't if the Chantry is the direct cause of most modern abominations.

Not direct cause.
The Circle system ups the pressure on SOME mages, but how they react to that pressure is their choosing. If you still insist on the "direct cause" route, then the Circles are the direct cause of abominations (mages).

And even if it was, it STILL does. Which is exactly what I said above, but basic math failes you.

Even if the Chantry was to blame for EVERY SINGLE ABOMINATION, since 99% of them are contained in the tower, it's STILL safer.

I proved using hypothetical but very reasonable numbers that this wasn't the slam-dunk obvious case that you think it is.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[dp]

Modifié par IanPolaris, 23 janvier 2011 - 08:55 .