1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

s0meguy6665 wrote...

There are always risk groups. Does that mean that everyone in that risk group should be locked up without doing anything wrong?

Depends on how big a risk they are, how big the group is and so on...
There are plenty of precedents for this in real life.

Remember, there is no parallel to mages in RL.
We've seen what a single abomination can do. Common, a child with good intentions, nearly wiped out it's whole vilalge. Where it not for the warden, it would have a whole army of corpses under it's command.
The destructive potential is horrendus. And hte more it kills, the more the veil is torn, so it can bring in more demons.

A serial killer that kills pople in secret in the night is scary. This is far scarier..an abomination can OPENLY kill hunderds before it is stopped.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Protecting them from people who have been indocturinated by the Chantry to see magic as evil, you mean?

Basic human nature. No indoctrination necessary.

You keep repeating ad nauseum that people are scared of magic - but it's because of the Chantry that this is so.

NO.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Yes, I thought I saw your handle on the post that DG was responding to.  That was exactly my point.  Canonically DG has said nothing.  The only thing he's done is present the Chantry's PoV as the Chantry's PoV without editorial.  I find it appalling that many posters are reading far, far more into those quotes than is really there.

-Polaris

You know what I I find appaling? Your posts.

In the thread wgere Gaider made those quotes, there was no debate about what he meant. Everyone pretty much agreed that he was saying what it looked like he was saying.

You and Lob are the only two people who see differently. So what are we supposed to assume from that?
That everyone else aside the two of you is stupid and can't figure out a single post by a dev?
That DG enjoys messing with us so much, that he writes his reponses so crypticly that only you and Lob can decypher his true meaning?


It is pretty clear to anyone what DG was saying. Basic logic and math furhter cement that.
But you refuse to listen and continue to push your own agenda trough some shoddy reasoning.

You have, several times, tried using gameplay and balance elements as proof (example: berserker as dangerous as an abomination)  - despite multiple lore and codex entries and dev statements that contradict you completely.

Lotion, I can read english.  If you analyize those DG quotes carefully including the one you insist on trotting out, he said absolutely nothing and did so in a way that you failed to notice it.  Simply put, the quote you cite doesn't say what you think it does and you don't get to read DG's mind any more than I do.  For your sake, I'd drop DG's quote entirely because it's not helping your case at this point.

-Polaris

You can read english...but apprently nobody else but you can?<_<
You're either calling everonye else on these forums stupid for not seeing it, or basicly saiyng that David is incapable of writing a post that cane be easily understood.

A dozen peopel involved in that thread and this one here.. and only you deny that quote.

Let's use Occams Razor here - what is more likely:
- that everyone else here got it wrong. OR that you got it wrong
- that David is incapable of getting his point across OR that you got it wrong


HEhe...helping my case? Every time you post some broken argument you're helping my case. All I have to do is point.

You did it with the danger of an abomination discussion, power of a single warrior, abomination rates, fear of mages, other system, and naturally, the DG quote.

[Balitant]

Consider that fear of mages is found in the very culture of Thedas, through the history of Andraste and you will likely find that the fear is not "natural" as it is constructed. Furthermore, consider the fact that it is the chantry that tells this history of their prophet (not the Imperial chantry) and you will find that their is a centralized institution that makes people fear mages. In doing so they justify their control and power in the form of the Templars, an orginization that is kept in check through the use addictive lyruim.

Modifié par RiskyRannis, 24 janvier 2011 - 09:50 .

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Protecting them from people who have been indocturinated by the Chantry to see magic as evil, you mean? Because mages have protected the Andrastian nations from the Qunari armies and the darkspawn, and they're still dehumanized and imprisoned for life under the guard of armored and armed drug addicts.[/quote]
So you say. I am not convinced the Chantry is solely to blame here (because as you can gather I'm firmly convinced magic is scary and dangerous)
[/quote]

Scary is a subjective and emotionally loaded term, and honestly it's that sort of language by the Chantry that's a large part of the problem.  As for magic being potentially dangerous, sure.  Nobody argues that.  Then again, carrying a weapon is dangerous too.  The only difference is that dangers of a trained warrior are more familiar than the dangers of a trained mage (and disarming a trained warrior only makes him marginally safer in non-martial company....it's attitude as much as weaponry).

I think the Chantry does bear a large part of the current blame, but I will admit that the antimage stance came about because of the Tevinter Imperium and the abuses of the Magocracy there.  It's not fair to blame all mages for the actions of a few ruling magisters, but I can easily understand why people can easily do so.

Now will there be rogue/criminal mages that resist even the most reasonable attempts at regulation?  Sure.  Mages are human beings (or elves but same same for this discussion) with the usual human failings which means you'll always get a few bad apples, but to suggest that the majority of mages are bad apples is beyond the pale (and right now a majority of mages....the Libertarians and Aequartians are united in their view that the circle system has to radically change...by force if necessary...and that's a majority).

[quote][quote]
You keep repeating ad nauseum that people are scared of magic - but it's because of the Chantry that this is so. The problem is that we already see from other cultures that mages aren't always demonized - Kolgrim openly distains the anti-magic practices of the Andrastian Chantry, the Dalish openly use magic, and the mages are revered in Rivain. We may not know every little detail about their cultures, but we do know that they don't share the anti-mage propaganda that the Andrastian Chantry preaches.[/quote]
[quote]
I never claimed their system was better, I pointed out that they don't share the anti-mage bias of the Andrastian Chantry.[/quote]
Answer to both quotes. Hmmm... fair enough. I can concede to this. As far as we have seen they do not have the same attitude to mages.
So we have Dalish, Haven and possibly Rivaini that have a positive attitude towards magic
Tevinter who have a regulated but semi-tolerated stance
And Theodosian and Qunari who is heavily regulating barely tolerating it. I'd like to put Chasind here, but it might jus be Flemeth they fear so I won't.
[/quote]

The chasind also openly practice magic and have mages alongside mundanes.  Their legends say that Flemeth's Daughters originally taught them, but regardless while the Chasind aren't as positive towards magic as the Dalish, they certainly do view it with tolerance at the very least (while openly fearing Flemeth...and rightly so!)  So really the Chasind fall in with the Dalish, Rivvain and the rest.

See a pattern here?  I don't count the Qun because the Qun hate all magic regardless of source and are the most inhuman not just physically, but socially and psychologically as well.  Basically the commonality between human/elven cultures that distrust magic and accept magic is....drumroll please....the Chantry.

[quote]
Mind however. This is not neccessarily because of the Chantry solely. It might be. But need not be,
[QUOTE]
You're confusing the issue of individual viewpoints with policy. I'm not claiming they're better than the Andrastian Chantry, but they certainly don't share the anti-mage bias, and I don't see how you can claim otherwise when the evidence supports me. It's not Haven policy to imprison mages and treat them like they're sub-human garbage, especially when their leader - Kolgrim - openly detests the anti-magic views of the Chantry and the society openly accepts blood magic and magic in general. It's not Dalish policy to imprison mages if they possess magical ability, since their leaders and followers tend to know magic. The people of Rivain revere their mages, so they clearly don't share the anti-mage bias of the Andrasian nations. I don't see what's wrong with pointing out that other cultures don't share the Andrastian Chantry's views on mages.[/quote]
Thank you Lobsel, we're on the same page now. Yes, they don't share the view.
[/quote]

And that's the point.  The common factor in the very different societies that accept magic (and apparenlty handle it well) and those that don't is the Chantry.  As the quip goes, wake up and smell the napalm.

[quote]
[QUOTE]
In other words, let's have law and order when it comes to magic? Nobody is arguing against that. Nobody is disputing that there should be safeguards in place if people break the law. People are arguing against a system that dehumanizes and imprisons people with nothing to support these actions but conjecture and speculation.[/quote]
Law works for blood magic I think, allthough brining a experienced blood mage would be tricky. However... how do you apply the law to an abomination? They're just mindless beasts of destruction and torment. They don't fear or respect the law. They aren't afraid of doing something because of punishment.
So what would a law help against them? All it does is that you have to come to the scene and clean up afterwards. After the victims are already dead.
[/quote]

You can use laws and regulations to reduce the rate of abominations to an acceptable rate AND you can have methods in place to deal with magical emergencies (which include abominations...but also normal possession as well) when they fail (as even the best regulatory system will from time to time).  This clearly works for non-Andrasian societies and apparently even worked under the Chantry for almost two hundred years.  While you might not be able to predict an abomination incident with absolute certainty, you also can't predict a warror having a stroke and going nutty and slaughting everyone around him either.  What you can do is reduce the chances of this to reasonable levels.

[quote]
The entire point is to not let it come to that. That's the key question. If a abomination can slaughter dozens of humans with little effort. How do we prevent it from killing innocent non-mages? How do we minimize the risk?
[QUOTE]
And yet most of the mages we hear about or encounter become abominations as a direct result of the Chantry practices against mages.[/quote]
That is one intepretation yes.
However, the veil was also torn. The first abomination was caused by Uldred summoning a demon he lost control of. There's also the fact that one of our last remaining abomination in the game, the mages collective one, had nothing to do with the Chantry.
[/quote]

That last one is the ONLY one that wasn't connected to the chantry.  The Mage's Collective saw a problem, and used self-enforcement (deputizing crack mercs...the warden) to deal with it.  Total casualties (aside from the abomination):  One.  That's something that the Templars can't seem to manage.

Also when the Veil is torn, the rules change.  At that point ANYONE is subject to possession...so should we lock up everyone where the veil is torn, or do we do the logical thing and avoid (if possible) areas where the Veil is torn at least for long periods of time?  Living in a place where the Veil is torn is as responsible as living in a Toxic Waste Dump.

[quote]
[QUOTE]
So let's put them in a system that treats them less than human and deny them basic rights? You keep mentioning how dangerous abominations are, but you also ignore the pitfalls of the system that mages are imprisoned in. Most cases of abominations we run across or read about in the codex entries happen as a direct result of the Chantry imprisoning mages. Why do you continue to ignore this? We have absolutely no proof that the Chantry locking up mages and treating all of them as though they were less than human is doing anything but stirring up people and causing some mages to feel that they need to be willing to fight to be free.[/quote]
Uhm... I have quotes from two Knight-Commanders saying the purpose of the tower is to protect people outside.
[/quote]

That's the PoV of the two knight commanders.  The Chantry's own history debunks it.

[quote]
But fair enough... the problem is how do we adress the problems of the mages while still retaining their rights. Let's for the sake of the discussion assume here that the Chantry is reasonably correct in it's analysis of the dangers.
[/quote]

I don't accept the Chantry is reasonably corrrect in it's analysis of the dangers.  If the Chantry were right, we should see an "abomination footprint" in all societies across Thedas leading to mistrust (at best) of all mages.  We do not as you concede earlier.  I think we should conclude that the Chantry for it's own political reasons (control of magic) is deliberately overstating the danger (viewing with alarm).  We may disagree to what degree they are doing so, however.

[quote]
How do we prevent a random abomination from destroying a few villages before it is destroyed?
[/quote]

Early education and training with an emphasis on social acceptance and responsibility.  Apprentices should learn very early what a demon is and how they will trick you in the Fade.  Knowledge of possession seems to be the very best defense against it.  Also mentors should keep track of mages (in a human system, phylacteries aren't so bad and probably should be used), so if an emergency (which by any reasonable projection of non-circle societies would seem to be rare...even DG admitted that a mage can go his entire life without a single possession attempt), early action and triangulation can occure.  This is how we respond to natural disasters after all.

[quote]
How do we regulate access to the insanely dangerous (to others) blood magic?
[/quote]

The best defense against bloodmagic is bloodmagic as much as it galls the Chantry (the Imperial Chantry knows this perfectly well, however).  Bloodmagic should be restricted to only those of proven ability, willpower, and loyalty and likely would have to agree to be bonded for a term of service (like locksmiths are) perhaps in a Magical Order of Knighthood that would include both Mages and Templar-like Warriors.

If someone uses bloodmagic illegally, bring the boot down, hard just as if IRL someone used an Assault Rifle or other military grade weapon in civilian crimes.

[quote]
How do we keep mages safe from demons manipulating them? From using a sick child to manipulate them?
How do we deal with mages that refuse to accomply?
[/quote]

Education and training from an early age seems to be the best prevention.  If someone refuses to comply, then charge them for violating the law.  As long as mages have a reasonable say in writing such laws and restrictions, most mages will help you corrall the offenders.

[quote]
Those seem the questions behind most complaints against the chantry.
[QUOTE]
We don't get more before we can say that - we can evaluate what we do know from DA:O and DA:A. People are being imprisoned by a religious institution that is preaching intolerance and hatred towards all mages. This is completely different than the pro-mage societies of Haven, Rivain, and the Dalish. Yes, the Dalish don't hate mages - they take them in (Aenirin and the references in WH of former Circle mages being accepted by the Dalish). Clearly, not everyone believes in the anti-mage propaganda spit forth by the Chantry.[/quote]
However... in this vein. I'd like to add that Anaeirin who we all know have seen the absolutely worst of the circle, is also... hesitantly, considering to return to the circle. The mere fact that he admits that he will consider it tells us just as much as a blanket no would.
[/quote]

I interpreted it differently. I don't think Anerin has any intention of returning to the circle.  I do think he knows Wynne well enough that the best way to shut her up and to smile and nod and promise as little as possible, which is just what he did.  Consideration means nothing in this regard.

[quote]
[QUOTE]
It was an opinion, pure and simple. It was DG's opinion about the Chantry. You're welcome to love the Chantry and support what they do to mages. I'm certain it's not shared by the Dalish or the people in Haven, but I don't see what it has to do with a discussion about mages and whether they should be free or not.[/quote]
Well, I don't love the Chantry or what they do. I just argue in their favour But my point is... I dig up a dev quote, and they have provided us with a lot of lore (we wouldn't know half as much about qunari without those after all), and it is dismissed outhand because, seemingly, it seems not to fit with your view. It just feels like shoddy rethorics and that you're not willing to discuss this properly with me at all
[/quote]

I am willing to discuss it, and if DG or any other dev has a quote that is clearly a "WoG" type quote, I'd love to hear it, but opionions are like bodily orifices.  Everyone has a couple.

[quote]
Until we have something contradicting it let's use it as a source. The Chantry means well and tries to, what it thinks of it as, help the mages. Yes, it can go about it very harshly and ruthlessly and it deals with people breaking the rules mercilessly.
Why however, is still open to interpetation. Is the Chantry trying the "benevolent" dictator approach (which suits anti-Chantry views) or is perhaps there more justification behind the mage treatment. That we can debate to death and back
[/quote]

I'm, sorry but an opinion is not a source except as an opinion.  DG's opinions carry no more weight than anyone else's.

[quote]
Just don't brush it aside because it doesn't fit your views. If you have a legitimate reason to distrust that specific post. Then give me the source for that and I'll consider it. If not let's just add it onto our big pile of stuff we discuss.
[/quote]

Simple. Opinions are not game facts.  If DG wants to reissue the opnion here himself, he of course can.  That said, I don't think that any Dev is going to touch this thread with a 10 foot pole because of the risk of giving too much away on the eve of DA2 coming out.

[quote]
[quote]Sharn01 wrote...
You are reading to much into the first quote, David Gaider gives us a
fact, that not all mages, even mages never educated in any manner,
become abominations.  He then turns the conversation to the viewpoint of
the average commoner.  What we know about possessions is that a mage
has to either willingly let a demon in or be tricked into it, and while
there is no absolute evidence, its strongly believed that a mage
summoning a demon can be possessed if he does not have the strength of
will to bring it out of the fade.[/quote]
Except Fiona gets force possessed by the demon in the Old Roads. Luckily the rest of the gang manage to save her before she is completely lost. So there is some, but no absolute, evidence that demons can indeed strongarm their way in.
I think a lot of the arguments we have here differ on this fact. If you believe demons can force-possess then the circle measures seem a step toward the more reasonable than if you don't believe it.
[/quote]

As I seem to recall, in that part of the Deep Roads, dwarven corpses were also being possessed.  The Veil was clearly torn in that section and the rules change when the Veil is torn.  Sure Fiona had to fight off being possessed, but that Demon might have tried to possess anyone.  When the Veil is torn, everyone is subject to possession.  We see a variation of this when you fight the Camp Shade in the Brecillian Forest.  Unless you have the will to try to walk away, the Shade tries to do nasty things incuding force-deathing most of your party.  It's a very similiar sort of situation.

[quote]
[quote]The scond quote is all fact,
and also holds true to many real world religions, most religious people
have good intentions, but I think its important to remember that some of
the most evil acts performed in the history of the world where done
with the very best of intentions. [/quote]
Oh absolutely.
[/quote]

Moving on....

[quote]
[quote]This doesnt mean I think the
chantry need to be destroyed or anything, but if people who know that
something is wrong and allow it to continue, there will never be a
better solution.  I think thats the key, I dont doubt that the circle
serves a purpose, but I do think there are better ways to do it, and if
you just accept the current system as the best you can get and never try
to make it better, then it never will get better.  [/quote]
I don't deny there might be better ways to deal with it. I'm mostly just protesting that we've seen any of them yet.
[/quote]

The admittedly annecdotal evidence strongly suggests otherwise.

[quote]
[quote]
I also
think there is a lot of truth in the claims that the circle creates
abominations, at the very least during the harrowing when the mage may
not yet be ready for such a confrontation.  I am not going to look for
the quote because its buried on the Origins boards somewhere, but I know
DG has stated that many mages can live their entire lives and never
encounter a possession attempt, so I think saying they attract demons
like flies to honey is a large exaggeration.  [/quote]
Thing is though... I can't imagine what possess (well... except a demon) a mage to make them get the idea that going abomination would be a good idea for their fellow mages. The things will eat your soul and go on a rampage. Probably summon more demons which will attack your friends first. What benefit will it ever lead to? All it will do is cause great damage to the tower. Help you or your friends, it won't.
[/quote]

That depends.  If the choice is gruesome "Death by Templar" and quite possibly after the Templars have some fun if you are a female mage, over posssession, possession starts to look pretty good.  Also some demons might well help your friends and might even be willing to work with others depending on it's own agenda.  Pride demons seem the most likely to fall in this category.  Demons don't always go on mindless killing sprees when they possess a body.  Most do, but most is not all.

[quote]
[quote]The debate really
comes down to how much you value freedom.  I live by the idea that if
you are willing to give up your freedom for security then you deserve
neither, but not everyone thinks that way.  Until we are given actual
numbers we will never be able to make an educated analysis of the
abomination threat, but we never will get these numbers, because that
would take away the vast majority of differing opinions about what needs
to be done about mages and we will lose a lot of opprotunities to
roleplay in the game.[/quote]
A number analysis would give us something to gauge though and while it would be simpler to value each system then. It would also remove ambiguity. I think at some level writers enjoy seeing us discuss this like this.
[/quote]

I am certain the writers won't touch any numbers with a 10 foot pole for that very reason at least not until DA2 is out which will go a long way to resolving this issue in the world.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion,



Please...drop your harping of the DG quote. You are embarrassing yourself. MULTIPLE PEOPLE including the poster that generated the original DG response have agreed with me in saying that is far, far less to that DG quote than meets the eye.



That's not denying the quote. It's an honest appraisal of what DG is really saying which when you boil away the dribble and goo is not much. Basically Magic is dangerous (not a contested point) and that the countryside used to be a more dangerous place than it is now (also not a contested point given the rise of centralized nation-states). He doesn't even say whether the abomination rate outside the circle has even changed!



-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
Scary is a subjective and emotionally loaded term, and honestly it's that sort of language by the Chantry that's a large part of the problem.  As for magic being potentially dangerous, sure.  Nobody argues that.  Then again, carrying a weapon is dangerous too.  The only difference is that dangers of a trained warrior are more familiar than the dangers of a trained mage (and disarming a trained warrior only makes him marginally safer in non-martial company....it's attitude as much as weaponry).

I think the Chantry does bear a large part of the current blame, but I will admit that the antimage stance came about because of the Tevinter Imperium and the abuses of the Magocracy there.  It's not fair to blame all mages for the actions of a few ruling magisters, but I can easily understand why people can easily do so.

People fear mages because it's a normal reaction.
People fear what can hurt them.
People fear what they don't understand.
People fear what they can't predict.

Mages all 3.
Anyone who ever learned even basic human behavioral psychology could tell you that if mages existed in RL, they would be just as mistrusted and feared.

See a pattern here?  I don't count the Qun because the Qun hate all magic regardless of source and are the most inhuman not just physically, but socially and psychologically as well.  Basically the commonality between human/elven cultures that distrust magic and accept magic is....drumroll please....the Chantry.

We don't know enough about other cultures to say anything. It certanly APPEARS a few cultures have a  different stance towards mages, but if that is really so, and more importantly WHY is that so is something we don't know yet.

That's the PoV of the two knight commanders.  The Chantry's own history debunks it.

It doesn't.

Early education and training with an emphasis on social acceptance and responsibility.  Apprentices should learn very early what a demon is and how they will trick you in the Fade.  Knowledge of possession seems to be the very best defense against it.  Also mentors should keep track of mages (in a human system, phylacteries aren't so bad and probably should be used), so if an emergency (which by any reasonable projection of non-circle societies would seem to be rare...even DG admitted that a mage can go his entire life without a single possession attempt), early action and triangulation can occure.  This is how we respond to natural disasters after all.

Mages get training in the circle.
Keeping track of mages won't stop the abomiantion from tearing a village apart.

Your solutions aren't feasable to implement.

We don't get more before we can say that - we can evaluate what we do know from DA:O and DA:A. People are being imprisoned by a religious institution that is preaching intolerance and hatred towards all mages.

Bull****.

I'm, sorry but an opinion is not a source except as an opinion.  DG's opinions carry no more weight than anyone else's.

The oppinion of a developer and LEAD writer means nothing to you?
Yup...very.. "reasonable" of you.

That depends.  If the choice is gruesome "Death by Templar" and quite possibly after the Templars have some fun if you are a female mage, over posssession, possession starts to look pretty good.  Also some demons might well help your friends and might even be willing to work with others depending on it's own agenda.  Pride demons seem the most likely to fall in this category.  Demons don't always go on mindless killing sprees when they possess a body.  Most do, but most is not all.

Possesion is worse than death. Better to die by a sword, rather then bring more danger into this world.
And yeah..pride demons..like hte one the possesed Uldred? IT worked WONDERFULLY for him and his freinds..

The debate really
comes down to how much you value freedom.  I live by the idea that if
you are willing to give up your freedom for security then you deserve
neither,

A stance that is always easy to hold, when you are safe and cozy.
When everytihing one holds dear is burning around him, it tends to change his perspective.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion,

Please...drop your harping of the DG quote.

Only if you drop the redicolous "berserker is just as dangeroud as an abomination" argument.. and most of everything else.

You are embarrassing yourself. MULTIPLE PEOPLE including the poster that generated the original DG response have agreed with me in saying that is far, far less to that DG quote than meets the eye.

Oh? That must have happend over PM or something, cause I don't see that.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 24 janvier 2011 - 10:16 .

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Scary is a subjective and emotionally loaded term, and honestly it's that sort of language by the Chantry that's a large part of the problem.  As for magic being potentially dangerous, sure.  Nobody argues that.  Then again, carrying a weapon is dangerous too.  The only difference is that dangers of a trained warrior are more familiar than the dangers of a trained mage (and disarming a trained warrior only makes him marginally safer in non-martial company....it's attitude as much as weaponry).

I think the Chantry does bear a large part of the current blame, but I will admit that the antimage stance came about because of the Tevinter Imperium and the abuses of the Magocracy there.  It's not fair to blame all mages for the actions of a few ruling magisters, but I can easily understand why people can easily do so.[/quote]

People fear mages because it's a normal reaction.
People fear what can hurt them.
People fear what they don't understand.
People fear what they can't predict.

Mages all 3.
Anyone who ever learned even basic human behavioral psychology could tell you that if mages existed in RL, they would be just as mistrusted and feared.
[/quote]

Except we see absolutely NO evidence of that in the game.   It's only where the Chantry dominate (or the Qun) where magic is hated and distrusted.  The key is understanding.  If the Jones had lived next to your family for generations, and they did things like produce healing herb, help call rain for your crops, and perhaps Grandma Jones even helped your mother with healing magic when giving birth to you, then I promise you, you'd have a lot different attitude towards magic, then someone that is completely isolated from all magic and every week on Sunday is told how vile and dangerous it is.

We've seen both in DAO and DAA, and it's clear what the common factor towards magic intolerance is (read Chantry).


[quote]
[quote]
See a pattern here?  I don't count the Qun because the Qun hate all magic regardless of source and are the most inhuman not just physically, but socially and psychologically as well.  Basically the commonality between human/elven cultures that distrust magic and accept magic is....drumroll please....the Chantry.[/quote]

We don't know enough about other cultures to say anything. It certanly APPEARS a few cultures have a  different stance towards mages, but if that is really so, and more importantly WHY is that so is something we don't know yet.
[/quote]

We know enough to make a cross comparison.  Of all the non-circle cultures including Andrastian culture for it's first two hundred years, not ONE of them shows the distrust or problems with abominations that circle cultures do, and these are wildly different cultures!  That does permit us to draw the reasonable conclusion that the common factor is the Chantry circle system!

[quote]
[quote]
That's the PoV of the two knight commanders.  The Chantry's own history debunks it.[/quote]

It doesn't.
[/quote]

It does.  The Circle history details exactly why the circle was established.  It was established to ensure that Divine Ambrosia II had total control over the magical workforce.  Protection had zip to do with it.

[quote]
[quote]
Early education and training with an emphasis on social acceptance and responsibility.  Apprentices should learn very early what a demon is and how they will trick you in the Fade.  Knowledge of possession seems to be the very best defense against it.  Also mentors should keep track of mages (in a human system, phylacteries aren't so bad and probably should be used), so if an emergency (which by any reasonable projection of non-circle societies would seem to be rare...even DG admitted that a mage can go his entire life without a single possession attempt), early action and triangulation can occure.  This is how we respond to natural disasters after all.[/quote]

Mages get training in the circle.
Keeping track of mages won't stop the abomiantion from tearing a village apart.
[/quote]

They really don't.  Loghain has pungent words to say about the magical training and effectiveness of the circle, and Mage Wilhelm of Honneth decries that the Chantry won't even permit mages to research and learn about possession and very reasonably asks how mages are to protect themselves from it, if they aren't allowed to reserach it.

As for keeping track, I disagree.  An abomination stopped early can be short-stopped.  It took a long time (several days minimum) for Conner to do what he did just as one example.  The situation spun out of control because of a conflux of ABNORMAL situations that prevented timely help from arriving.

[quote]
Your solutions aren't feasable to implement.
[/quote]

The Dalish would disagree (and that's just one).  The Chantry since Ambrosia II hasn't even considered the issue which is criminal considering that the circle system IS going to end.  The only question now is how much blood is going to be spilt in the process.

[quote]
[quote]
We don't get more before we can say that - we can evaluate what we do know from DA:O and DA:A. People are being imprisoned by a religious institution that is preaching intolerance and hatred towards all mages.[/quote]

Bull****.
[/quote]

The Reverend Mother of Redcliff admits as much and promises you if you are mage that she will not rally a mob against you.


[quote]
[quote]
I'm, sorry but an opinion is not a source except as an opinion.  DG's opinions carry no more weight than anyone else's.[/quote]

The oppinion of a developer and LEAD writer means nothing to you?
Yup...very.. "reasonable" of you.
[/quote]

Yes it is.  DG's opinions are interesting but they don't intrinsically mean any more than anyone else's opinions.  They aren't canon.  DG acting as Dev/WoG is a different matter of course.

[quote]
[quote]
That depends.  If the choice is gruesome "Death by Templar" and quite possibly after the Templars have some fun if you are a female mage, over posssession, possession starts to look pretty good.  Also some demons might well help your friends and might even be willing to work with others depending on it's own agenda.  Pride demons seem the most likely to fall in this category.  Demons don't always go on mindless killing sprees when they possess a body.  Most do, but most is not all.[/quote]

Possesion is worse than death. Better to die by a sword, rather then bring more danger into this world.
And yeah..pride demons..like hte one the possesed Uldred? IT worked WONDERFULLY for him and his freinds..
[/quote]

Death is uber-scary and dying is never nice or pleasent.  Given that, I can easily believe that some mages would prefer possession under such circumstances, and it's not an unreasonable view under such stark conditions.  It the chantry's/templar's fault that the choice is that stark.

[quote]
[quote]The debate really
comes down to how much you value freedom.  I live by the idea that if
you are willing to give up your freedom for security then you deserve
neither, [/quote]

A stance that is always easy to hold, when you are safe and cozy.
When everytihing one holds dear is burning around him, it tends to change his perspective.
[/quote]

Which doesn't make the statement any less true.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion,

Please...drop your harping of the DG quote.

Only if you drop the redicolous "berserker is just as dangeroud as an abomination" argument.. and most of everything else.

I never said they were equal.  I said both were dangerous and both could cause multiple casualties if they went bonkers.  This is true.  I note in passing that IRL (with no magic), spree killers have killed dozens at a time (I think the record is near 60) which sounds very much like your abomination....but no magicf was required.  Should we lock up everyone then?

You are embarrassing yourself. MULTIPLE PEOPLE including the poster that generated the original DG response have agreed with me in saying that is far, far less to that DG quote than meets the eye.

Oh? That must have happend over PM or something, cause I don't see that.

Try reading Sharn01's post.  He was the one that engageded DG in the original conversation and thus knows exactly what the context was, and he agrees with me.  Your quote doesn't say anything close to what you are claiming for it.  Don't take my word, read his own posts a page or so back.

Edit:  I don't want to speak for Sharn01 or say that he agrees with me on all points necessarily, only that he pointed out (as did I) that DG isn't saying what Lotion is claiming.  That's what I mean by "he agrees with me" and nothing more.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 24 janvier 2011 - 10:34 .

[connorthedragonslayer]

Whenever I play a mage I tend to agree with Morrigan with regards to her opinions on the Circle and the Chantry. I remember being outraged when I found out about the tranquil.

But then if I play as a Rogue or a Warrior I understand why people fear mages.

So basically my mind changes depending on playthrough. I imagine if mages were real that would be my same thought process.

Modifié par connorthedragonslayer, 24 janvier 2011 - 10:33 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
People fear mages because it's a normal reaction.
People fear what can hurt them.
People fear what they don't understand.
People fear what they can't predict.

Mages all 3.
Anyone who ever learned even basic human behavioral psychology could tell you that if mages existed in RL, they would be just as mistrusted and feared.
[/quote]

Except we see absolutely NO evidence of that in the game.   It's only where the Chantry dominate (or the Qun) where magic is hated and distrusted.  The key is understanding.  If the Jones had lived next to your family for generations, and they did things like produce healing herb, help call rain for your crops, and perhaps Grandma Jones even helped your mother with healing magic when giving birth to you, then I promise you, you'd have a lot different attitude towards magic, then someone that is completely isolated from all magic and every week on Sunday is told how vile and dangerous it is.[/quote]

I'm talking the realities of human behavior. The word of rouge mages and abominations will spread around. People will fear.
That kind healer of your might turn into an abomination tomorrow and butcher your whole family.


There is too little info on other cultures to say WITH CERTANTY that their attitude is really that different.
Not that I'd use elves as an example..tehy're not human, so human behavioral psychology doesn't really apply to them.



[quote]
[quote]
See a pattern here?  I don't count the Qun because the Qun hate all magic regardless of source and are the most inhuman not just physically, but socially and psychologically as well.  Basically the commonality between human/elven cultures that distrust magic and accept magic is....drumroll please....the Chantry.[/quote]


[quote]
We don't know enough about other cultures to say anything. It certanly APPEARS a few cultures have a  different stance towards mages, but if that is really so, and more importantly WHY is that so is something we don't know yet.
[/quote]

We know enough to make a cross comparison.  Of all the non-circle cultures including Andrastian culture for it's first two hundred years, not ONE of them shows the distrust or problems with abominations that circle cultures do, and these are wildly different cultures!  That does permit us to draw the reasonable conclusion that the common factor is the Chantry circle system![/qutoe]

You don't know enough. You only think you do.


[quote]
[quote]
It doesn't.
[/quote]

It does.  The Circle history details exactly why the circle was established.  It was established to ensure that Divine Ambrosia II had total control over the magical workforce.  Protection had zip to do with it.[/quote]

It doesn't.
You're reading into it and extrapolating what isn't there...you know? teh same thing you're assumign me of doing with DG's quote..



[quote]
As for keeping track, I disagree.  An abomination stopped early can be short-stopped.  It took a long time (several days minimum) for Conner to do what he did just as one example.  The situation spun out of control because of a conflux of ABNORMAL situations that prevented timely help from arriving.[/quote]

I disagree. I don't recall we have a hard time-table, but let's not forget the abomination was playing around. It was in no hurry.


[quote]
The Reverend Mother of Redcliff admits as much and promises you if you are mage that she will not rally a mob against you.[/quote]

That proves nothing.
Using a single person as evidence of a trend in a logical falalcy.




[quote]
[quote]
Possesion is worse than death. Better to die by a sword, rather then bring more danger into this world.
And yeah..pride demons..like hte one the possesed Uldred? IT worked WONDERFULLY for him and his freinds..
[/quote]

Death is uber-scary and dying is never nice or pleasent.  Given that, I can easily believe that some mages would prefer possession under such circumstances, and it's not an unreasonable view under such stark conditions.  It the chantry's/templar's fault that the choice is that stark.[/quote]

It's the mages fault for getting into that position in the first palce.


[quote]
[quote]
[quote]The debate really
comes down to how much you value freedom.  I live by the idea that if
you are willing to give up your freedom for security then you deserve
neither, [/quote]

A stance that is always easy to hold, when you are safe and cozy.
When everytihing one holds dear is burning around him, it tends to change his perspective.
[/quote]

Which doesn't make the statement any less true.

-Polaris[/quote]

It's an oppinion.
It's not true or false.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion,

Please...drop your harping of the DG quote.

Only if you drop the redicolous "berserker is just as dangeroud as an abomination" argument.. and most of everything else.

I never said they were equal.  I said both were dangerous and both could cause multiple casualties if they went bonkers.  This is true.  I note in passing that IRL (with no magic), spree killers have killed dozens at a time (I think the record is near 60) which sounds very much like your abomination....but no magicf was required.  Should we lock up everyone then?

Vastly different. Not to meniton that locking up everyone is not feasable. Locking up a few mages however, is.

You are embarrassing yourself. MULTIPLE PEOPLE including the poster that generated the original DG response have agreed with me in saying that is far, far less to that DG quote than meets the eye.

Oh? That must have happend over PM or something, cause I don't see that.

Try reading Sharn01's post.  He was the one that engageded DG in the original conversation and thus knows exactly what the context was, and he agrees with me.  Your quote doesn't say anything close to what you are claiming for it.  Don't take my word, read his own posts a page or so back.

Hardly changes anything. 3 people.

The number of people that agree with the original meaning is still in a VAST majority.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion,

Please...drop your harping of the DG quote.
[/quote]

Only if you drop the redicolous "berserker is just as dangeroud as an abomination" argument.. and most of everything else.
[/quote]

I never said they were equal.  I said both were dangerous and both could cause multiple casualties if they went bonkers.  This is true.  I note in passing that IRL (with no magic), spree killers have killed dozens at a time (I think the record is near 60) which sounds very much like your abomination....but no magicf was required.  Should we lock up everyone then?[/quote]

Vastly different. Not to meniton that locking up everyone is not feasable. Locking up a few mages however, is.
[/quote]

I think you may well change your mind after a war destroyes huge chunks of Thedas BECAUSE the mages were imprisoned.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
You are embarrassing yourself. MULTIPLE PEOPLE including the poster that generated the original DG response have agreed with me in saying that is far, far less to that DG quote than meets the eye.[/quote]

Oh? That must have happend over PM or something, cause I don't see that.
[/quote]

Try reading Sharn01's post.  He was the one that engageded DG in the original conversation and thus knows exactly what the context was, and he agrees with me.  Your quote doesn't say anything close to what you are claiming for it.  Don't take my word, read his own posts a page or so back.
[/quote]

Hardly changes anything. 3 people.

The number of people that agree with the original meaning is still in a VAST majority.

[/quote]

First of all, you said no one but me, so that is disproven right there.  In the second place judging by the recent post, three different people seems to be a plurality of those that regularly post on this thread at least of late.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
People fear mages because it's a normal reaction.
People fear what can hurt them.
People fear what they don't understand.
People fear what they can't predict.

Mages all 3.
Anyone who ever learned even basic human behavioral psychology could tell you that if mages existed in RL, they would be just as mistrusted and feared.
[/quote]

Except we see absolutely NO evidence of that in the game.   It's only where the Chantry dominate (or the Qun) where magic is hated and distrusted.  The key is understanding.  If the Jones had lived next to your family for generations, and they did things like produce healing herb, help call rain for your crops, and perhaps Grandma Jones even helped your mother with healing magic when giving birth to you, then I promise you, you'd have a lot different attitude towards magic, then someone that is completely isolated from all magic and every week on Sunday is told how vile and dangerous it is.[/quote]

I'm talking the realities of human behavior. The word of rouge mages and abominations will spread around. People will fear.
That kind healer of your might turn into an abomination tomorrow and butcher your whole family.
[/quote]

Facts not in evidence.  We are not talking about your unsupported 'realities of human behavior' with no attempt to reconcil it with game lore, now? 

[quote]
There is too little info on other cultures to say WITH CERTANTY that their attitude is really that different.
Not that I'd use elves as an example..tehy're not human, so human behavioral psychology doesn't really apply to them.
[/quote]

Elves in DA have human psychology.  So do Dwarves.  (The Qun might not but that's the only example of a nonhuman race I've seen that might not have a human type psychology).  As for certainty, we DO know with certainty that mages in all these societies are far more accepted than in Chantry-dominated societies.  Must we quote the game lore to you AGAIN?!  We might not know the individual specifics, but for this we don't have to.  We have a common thread among multiple cultures that are very different and that's enough to draw at least a reasonable inferred conclusion.  You just don't like what that conclusion is.


[quote]
[quote]
See a pattern here?  I don't count the Qun because the Qun hate all magic regardless of source and are the most inhuman not just physically, but socially and psychologically as well.  Basically the commonality between human/elven cultures that distrust magic and accept magic is....drumroll please....the Chantry.[/quote]


[quote]
We don't know enough about other cultures to say anything. It certanly APPEARS a few cultures have a  different stance towards mages, but if that is really so, and more importantly WHY is that so is something we don't know yet.
[/quote]

We know enough to make a cross comparison.  Of all the non-circle cultures including Andrastian culture for it's first two hundred years, not ONE of them shows the distrust or problems with abominations that circle cultures do, and these are wildly different cultures!  That does permit us to draw the reasonable conclusion that the common factor is the Chantry circle system![/qutoe]

You don't know enough. You only think you do.
[/quote]

Been through this.  We do know quite a bit more than you are willing to admit.  Perfect knowledge is not needed to make a multi-cultural cross comparison.  In fact that's sort of the point of a wide scale  crosscultural comparison.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
It doesn't.
[/quote]

It does.  The Circle history details exactly why the circle was established.  It was established to ensure that Divine Ambrosia II had total control over the magical workforce.  Protection had zip to do with it.[/quote]

It doesn't.
You're reading into it and extrapolating what isn't there...you know? teh same thing you're assumign me of doing with DG's quote..
[/quote]

Reread History of the Circle.  At no time is protection from mages even raised as an issue by either side, and lest you forget this was written from the PoV of a Chantry Scholar!  If protection of mundanes was such an important issue, it would have been at least mentioned, and it never was.  Control of mages was the central theme, and that is most telling.

[quote]
[quote]
As for keeping track, I disagree.  An abomination stopped early can be short-stopped.  It took a long time (several days minimum) for Conner to do what he did just as one example.  The situation spun out of control because of a conflux of ABNORMAL situations that prevented timely help from arriving.[/quote]

I disagree. I don't recall we have a hard time-table, but let's not forget the abomination was playing around. It was in no hurry.
[/quote]

How was the abomination supposed to know that it had time to play with it's prey?  It didn't!  That tells me that as a general rule, that early intervention is possible to shortstop an abomination problem before it gets out of hand.  Indeed we have an example of precisely this with the Mage's Collective.
[quote]
[quote]
The Reverend Mother of Redcliff admits as much and promises you if you are mage that she will not rally a mob against you.[/quote]

That proves nothing.
Using a single person as evidence of a trend in a logical falalcy.
[/quote]

When combined with anti-magic sentiments from Chantry Sisters, Clerics, and devout Andrastians (the more devout the more anti-mage) INCLUDING Wynne and Kelli (who are self-loathing mages...Kelli in particular), the pattern is depressingly clear.  Duncan tells you what's what in the Mage's origin.  The Chantry tolerates magic because it feels it has to (in order to have a monopoly on magical power) and absolutely not one milimeter more.

When you combine all, the Rev Mother of Redcliff is yet more damning testimony against the Chantry.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
Possesion is worse than death. Better to die by a sword, rather then bring more danger into this world.
And yeah..pride demons..like hte one the possesed Uldred? IT worked WONDERFULLY for him and his freinds..
[/quote]

Death is uber-scary and dying is never nice or pleasent.  Given that, I can easily believe that some mages would prefer possession under such circumstances, and it's not an unreasonable view under such stark conditions.  It the chantry's/templar's fault that the choice is that stark.[/quote]

It's the mages fault for getting into that position in the first palce.
[/quote]

That's right.  Blame the victim.


[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
[quote]The debate really
comes down to how much you value freedom.  I live by the idea that if
you are willing to give up your freedom for security then you deserve
neither, [/quote]

A stance that is always easy to hold, when you are safe and cozy.
When everytihing one holds dear is burning around him, it tends to change his perspective.
[/quote]

Which doesn't make the statement any less true.

-Polaris[/quote]

It's an oppinion.
It's not true or false.

[/quote]

It's a statement that the US Justice System is founded on. It why we would rather let a guilty man walk free than risk imprisoning an innocent.  I refuse to abandon that, and you shouldn't either.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 24 janvier 2011 - 11:38 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Vastly different. Not to meniton that locking up everyone is not feasable. Locking up a few mages however, is.

I think you may well change your mind after a war destroyes huge chunks of Thedas BECAUSE the mages were imprisoned.

Nope.
War is hell, war happens. If there is only one major mage/non-magewar every 1000 years, then that's a decent record.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Facts not in evidence.  We are not talking about your unsupported 'realities of human behavior' with no attempt to reconcil it with game lore, now?  [/quote]

Realities of human behavior? You want proof? Pick up a book. There's plenty to choose from.

The Selfish Gene (R. Dawkins) a Three-diomensional model fo human behavior (M.Pak), Evolutionary Psychology (or practicly everything by Skinner), etc..

We know mages are feared and mistrusted. And some of the people in the game even tell us why. Of course, you denenouce that as beeing merely their oppinion, or them being indocritanted.

So if you can't accept neither scientific knowldge of human behavior OR anything said by any villager/templar in-game...then what DO you accept?



[quote]
Elves in DA have human psychology.  So do Dwarves.  (The Qun might not but that's the only example of a nonhuman race I've seen that might not have a human type psychology).  As for certainty, we DO know with certainty that mages in all these societies are far more accepted than in Chantry-dominated societies.  Must we quote the game lore to you AGAIN?!  We might not know the individual specifics, but for this we don't have to.  We have a common thread among multiple cultures that are very different and that's enough to draw at least a reasonable inferred conclusion.  You just don't like what that conclusion is.[/quote]

Yes, you have to know the specifics. The Devil is in the details.





[quote]
[quote]
It doesn't.
You're reading into it and extrapolating what isn't there...you know? teh same thing you're assumign me of doing with DG's quote..
[/quote]

Reread History of the Circle.  At no time is protection from mages even raised as an issue by either side, and lest you forget this was written from the PoV of a Chantry Scholar!  If protection of mundanes was such an important issue, it would have been at least mentioned, and it never was.  Control of mages was the central theme, and that is most telling.[/qutoe]

I have read it. And it doesn't support your claim as much as you think it does.
 a short footnoe wihout any details, from which you infer far too much.


[quote]
How was the abomination supposed to know that it had time to play with it's prey?  It didn't!  That tells me that as a general rule, that early intervention is possible to shortstop an abomination problem before it gets out of hand.  Indeed we have an example of precisely this with the Mage's Collective.[/quote]

It tells you the general rule? That's a laugh.
The Connor-abomination treated everything like a game. He played around with the corpses like toys. He made Teegan dance for it's amusement. It was taking it's sweet time, and even with that, the village barely held on. Had it truly lashed out with everything, the village would have been gone the very first night.

From observing Uldred-abomination, that tells me that as a general rule abominations want to bring in more of their own kind...making them even more dangerous.



[quote]
When combined with anti-magic sentiments from Chantry Sisters, Clerics, and devout Andrastians (the more devout the more anti-mage) INCLUDING Wynne and Kelli (who are self-loathing mages...Kelli in particular), the pattern is depressingly clear.

When you combine all, the Rev Mother of Redcliff is yet more damning testimony against the Chantry.[/quote]

That's not damning evidence. Practicly everyone you meet is andrastian. And some of them hate mages.
You cannot simply infer from that that they hate mages becasue tehy are andrastians.

Not to mention that Wynne isn't self-loathing.


[quote]
[quote]
It's the mages fault for getting into that position in the first palce.
[/quote]

That's right.  Blame the victim.[/quote]

From your perspective only. They knew what would happen if they run from the templars. They knew what would happen if they practice blood magic. They brough it on themselves.

I can blame the mage just as muhc as I can blame a bank robber for shooting at a police officer when he's caught.



[quote]
It's a statement that the US Justice System is founded on. It why we would rather let a guilty man walk free than risk imprisoning an innocent.  I refuse to abandon that, and you shouldn't either.
[/quote]

Why sould I care about the US justice system. and b.t.w. - it's "innocent untill proven gulty", and not "those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither". The latter has nothing to do with the US jsutie system.

Not to mention that the US government would still imprison innocents if it thought it had to.
The olde quarantene example. The peopel in the sticken town are innocent. Would hte government still imprison them? Yes.

[Balitant]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Realities of human behavior? You want proof? Pick up a book. There's plenty to choose from.

The Selfish Gene (R. Dawkins) a Three-diomensional model fo human behavior (M.Pak), Evolutionary Psychology (or practicly everything by Skinner), etc..

We know mages are feared and mistrusted. And some of the people in the game even tell us why. Of course, you denenouce that as beeing merely their oppinion, or them being indocritanted.

So if you can't accept neither scientific knowldge of human behavior OR anything said by any villager/templar in-game...then what DO you accept?

Science is not on your side simply because you say it is, if you wish to make a point while citing these books then you can't assume that your audience is going to be aware of them.

Furthermore, the realites of human culture have a tremendous influence on the development of human culture within a paticular society. I have already said this and I'll say it again, since the chantry relates the tales of how horrifying magic is (birth of darkspawn, the maker shunning his creation, etc) then they garuntee that the people of Thedas abhor the thought of magic because it is simply magic. Not the abominations, something mages would most likely fear than the common folk, but magic itself.

When you hear it said in game "I know mages bring it on themselves" or "mages pick a fine time to go turning into demons", it shows a more uninformed opinion of mages which is complete ignorance as to what mages are.  Hell, Isolde found the notion of her son haveing magic to be humiliating. You are assuming more of a "natural" fear that the people of Thedas must, according you, possess.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Vastly different. Not to meniton that locking up everyone is not feasable. Locking up a few mages however, is.

I think you may well change your mind after a war destroyes huge chunks of Thedas BECAUSE the mages were imprisoned.

Nope.
War is hell, war happens. If there is only one major mage/non-magewar every 1000 years, then that's a decent record.

I wouldn't be too sure about that.  One nuclear war in a 1000 year period seems pretty good until you factor in the very real possibility that said was could easily destroy the human race.  While I am not going to say that a mage war will be of the same order of destruction, it very well might be.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Facts not in evidence.  We are not talking about your unsupported 'realities of human behavior' with no attempt to reconcil it with game lore, now?  [/quote]

Realities of human behavior? You want proof? Pick up a book. There's plenty to choose from.

The Selfish Gene (R. Dawkins) a Three-diomensional model fo human behavior (M.Pak), Evolutionary Psychology (or practicly everything by Skinner), etc..

We know mages are feared and mistrusted. And some of the people in the game even tell us why. Of course, you denenouce that as beeing merely their oppinion, or them being indocritanted.

So if you can't accept neither scientific knowldge of human behavior OR anything said by any villager/templar in-game...then what DO you accept?
[/quote]

Dawkins, Pak, and Skinner aren't end-all and be-all of the study of human psychology and indeed much of their work is hightly disputed.  You can't simply drop names like that and expect it go unchallenged.  ESPECIALLY since this is a game, you can't assume that these theories about human psychology hold in the way you are claiming.  In fact I know all three would be appaled to cite their works when analysing a game where authorial diktat supercedes any 'social psychology'.

Even then as was pointed out above, socialization has a tremendous impact on all of this (and all three gravely underestimate the impact of socialization on human psychology...it's one of those points of stiff dispute I alluded to).  Indeed the game lore shows that socialization is HUGELY important for the acceptace of mages and magic and overrides any 'natural' misgivings that may exist....or it highly magnifies them (in the case of the Qun and Chantry).

So please don't drop these names and just blithly assume that the science is on your side and especially not in a game.

[quote]
[quote]
Elves in DA have human psychology.  So do Dwarves.  (The Qun might not but that's the only example of a nonhuman race I've seen that might not have a human type psychology).  As for certainty, we DO know with certainty that mages in all these societies are far more accepted than in Chantry-dominated societies.  Must we quote the game lore to you AGAIN?!  We might not know the individual specifics, but for this we don't have to.  We have a common thread among multiple cultures that are very different and that's enough to draw at least a reasonable inferred conclusion.  You just don't like what that conclusion is.[/quote]

Yes, you have to know the specifics. The Devil is in the details.
[/quote]

No you don't when you do a cross comparison over multiple different cultures.  You look for the commonalities.  In this case the commonality is obvious.  For all the differences between the cultures, acceptance of magic seems extremely strongly linked to whether or not the Chantry is in political power or not.  If not, mages and magic is accepted.  If so, they are not.  This is good solid albeit implicit evidence against the circle system being necessary.


[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
It doesn't.
You're reading into it and extrapolating what isn't there...you know? teh same thing you're assumign me of doing with DG's quote..
[/quote]

Reread History of the Circle.  At no time is protection from mages even raised as an issue by either side, and lest you forget this was written from the PoV of a Chantry Scholar!  If protection of mundanes was such an important issue, it would have been at least mentioned, and it never was.  Control of mages was the central theme, and that is most telling.[/quote]

I have read it. And it doesn't support your claim as much as you think it does.
 a short footnoe wihout any details, from which you infer far too much.
[/quote]

If protection were the hugely important issue you think it is, then it would have been mentioned even in a so-called "footnote".  I also note that the codex entry isn't a footnote.  It's a concise description of how and why the circle system was set up the way it was.  Given this was a respected Chantry Scholar writing this, she would include the most important details, and the issue of protecting mundanes apparently wasn't important enough to be included!  That tells you right there that the circle was not founded to protect anyone.  The Codex entry is very clear about this point.

[quote]
[quote]
How was the abomination supposed to know that it had time to play with it's prey?  It didn't!  That tells me that as a general rule, that early intervention is possible to shortstop an abomination problem before it gets out of hand.  Indeed we have an example of precisely this with the Mage's Collective.[/quote]

It tells you the general rule? That's a laugh.
The Connor-abomination treated everything like a game. He played around with the corpses like toys. He made Teegan dance for it's amusement. It was taking it's sweet time, and even with that, the village barely held on. Had it truly lashed out with everything, the village would have been gone the very first night.
[/quote]

In all the cases we are shown both in game and in lore, the transformation to an abomination is NOT instantaneous.  It can be fought, and even after an abomination is created, it can be curtailed if swift action is taken.  If nothing else the village can be evacuated while the abomination is isolated and dealt with...just as one possible course of action.

You shrilly insist that locking away mages without regard to their human rights is the only way yet you even refuse to consider alternatives or consider that maybe there is a better way.

[quote]
From observing Uldred-abomination, that tells me that as a general rule abominations want to bring in more of their own kind...making them even more dangerous.
[/quote]

Uldred was a Pride abominations and of all the demonic types, Pride Demons show the most variation.  That means you can't reliably generalize what Abomination-Uldred wanted to other demonic types.  Clearly the Conner-Abomination didn't seem interested in making more of it's own kind (and indeed seemed rather territorial about it).  The point being is that demons are individuals (esp Pride Demons).

In the case of Abomination-Uldred, he wanted to rule a demonic kingdom, but that's not necessarily a universal case.  In fact as a counter-example, the clearly possessed Sofia Dryden is more than willing to cut off demonic access to the real world in exchange for the favor of breaking Avernus' quarantine of her personally.

[quote]
[quote]
When combined with anti-magic sentiments from Chantry Sisters, Clerics, and devout Andrastians (the more devout the more anti-mage) INCLUDING Wynne and Kelli (who are self-loathing mages...Kelli in particular), the pattern is depressingly clear.

When you combine all, the Rev Mother of Redcliff is yet more damning testimony against the Chantry.[/quote]

That's not damning evidence. Practicly everyone you meet is andrastian. And some of them hate mages.
You cannot simply infer from that that they hate mages becasue tehy are andrastians.

Not to mention that Wynne isn't self-loathing.
[/quote]

Actually she is. Wynne is a very sad sort of character that has given up improving her own lot in life and thus expects others to lie down and accept the indignities she had to.  It comes across loud and clear in virtually every conversation you have with her esp if you are a mage yourself.

As for Andrastian, that's like being "Christian" in the western world.  Most seem like Alistair, ie. "Believe in the maker well enough but....."  They are what Catholics like to call, "Christmas and Easter" christians.  Even then, you see the "mages bring it on themselves" bunk over and over.....which is the chantry line they've been hearing since childhood.  The more devout the Andrastian is, the more anti-mage they tend to be.  Lelianna is an exception but then again, Lelianna is a heretic.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
It's the mages fault for getting into that position in the first palce.
[/quote]

That's right.  Blame the victim.[/quote]

From your perspective only. They knew what would happen if they run from the templars. They knew what would happen if they practice blood magic. They brough it on themselves.
[/quote]

And the dehumanizing imprisonments with no legal rights in a system rigged against them had nothing to do with it.  Right......

[quote]
I can blame the mage just as muhc as I can blame a bank robber for shooting at a police officer when he's caught.
[/quote]

Bank robbers aren't out to free themselves from unjust conditions.  Mages generally are.   Now that's not to say that criminal mages don't exist....like any other group of humanity, you will have a few bad apples, but by and large mages run away from the tower because life really, really sucks there.

[quote]
[quote]
It's a statement that the US Justice System is founded on. It why we would rather let a guilty man walk free than risk imprisoning an innocent.  I refuse to abandon that, and you shouldn't either.
[/quote]

Why sould I care about the US justice system. and b.t.w. - it's "innocent untill proven gulty", and not "those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither". The latter has nothing to do with the US jsutie system.

Not to mention that the US government would still imprison innocents if it thought it had to.
The olde quarantene example. The peopel in the sticken town are innocent. Would hte government still imprison them? Yes.
[/quote]

The quarantine example has been roundly debunked.  As for the rest, all systems are imperfect, but you don't even want to try.  You want to lock away mages and forget about them unless the Qun attack...then they can slaughter Qun for you and then go back to being non-human ciphers.

Sorry, but that's not going to fly any more.  The circle system is going to end.  The only question is how much blood will have to be spilled first.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 24 janvier 2011 - 01:11 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Facts not in evidence.  We are not talking about your unsupported 'realities of human behavior' with no attempt to reconcil it with game lore, now?  [/quote]

Realities of human behavior? You want proof? Pick up a book. There's plenty to choose from.

The Selfish Gene (R. Dawkins) a Three-diomensional model fo human behavior (M.Pak), Evolutionary Psychology (or practicly everything by Skinner), etc..

We know mages are feared and mistrusted. And some of the people in the game even tell us why. Of course, you denenouce that as beeing merely their oppinion, or them being indocritanted.

So if you can't accept neither scientific knowldge of human behavior OR anything said by any villager/templar in-game...then what DO you accept?
[/quote]

Dawkins, Pak, and Skinner aren't end-all and be-all of the study of human psychology and indeed much of their work is hightly disputed.  You can't simply drop names like that and expect it go unchallenged.  ESPECIALLY since this is a game, you can't assume that these theories about human psychology hold in the way you are claiming.  In fact I know all three would be appaled to cite their works when analysing a game where authorial diktat supercedes any 'social psychology'.[/quote]

You can't just start claimed "tehy are disputed". I liseted books. I can list more. Where are your sources of that dispute? I bet you never even read any of the books I mentioned... It's very easy to claim "they are disputed"..
But no matter.

[quote]
Even then as was pointed out above, socialization has a tremendous impact on all of this (and all three gravely underestimate the impact of socialization on human psychology...it's one of those points of stiff dispute I alluded to).  Indeed the game lore shows that socialization is HUGELY important for the acceptace of mages and magic and overrides any 'natural' misgivings that may exist....or it highly magnifies them (in the case of the Qun and Chantry).[/quote]

If you claim all of hte 3 psychologist listed aboe underestiamte something, then please, point to some scientific article or book that backs-up your claim.

And socialization is formed from beliefs and the conditions in the world itself. Not ot mention you're overblowing the negative Cahtnry influence.

You can say that poeple fear mages only because of the Chantry, but it's utterly clear that mages/abominations ARE something to be feared.
Like with the bird flue - the fact that the alarm caused people to go overboard doesn't mean there isn't reason for the alarm. We've seen what abomintions can do.





[quote]
No you don't when you do a cross comparison over multiple different cultures.  You look for the commonalities.  In this case the commonality is obvious.  For all the differences between the cultures, acceptance of magic seems extremely strongly linked to whether or not the Chantry is in political power or not.  If not, mages and magic is accepted.  If so, they are not.  This is good solid albeit implicit evidence against the circle system being necessary.[/quote]

Yes, you do have to look at the details. You know next to nothing about the cultures.

You and I are never going to see eye to eye it seems.


[quote]
If protection were the hugely important issue you think it is, then it would have been mentioned even in a so-called "footnote".  I also note that the codex entry isn't a footnote.  It's a concise description of how and why the circle system was set up the way it was.  Given this was a respected Chantry Scholar writing this, she would include the most important details, and the issue of protecting mundanes apparently wasn't important enough to be included!  That tells you right there that the circle was not founded to protect anyone.  The Codex entry is very clear about this point.[/quote]

A lot of things don't make it into the footnotes..it dpends on what the author wants to stress and hiw views as well.
So no, that tells me NOTHING.

You cannot simply ingore codex  and lore I put out, yet accept from me to accept all the crap you dish out.



[quote]
In all the cases we are shown both in game and in lore, the transformation to an abomination is NOT instantaneous. [/quote]

Wrong. The lore doesn't support you there not even one bit. If anything, the transformation is shown to be quick.
Uldred and the mages that turn in a metter of seconds kinda my point.


[quote]
You shrilly insist that locking away mages without regard to their human rights is the only way yet you even refuse to consider alternatives or consider that maybe there is a better way.[/qutoe]

I consider alternatives...of which I am sufficiently informed.
And I'm not ready to gamble with lives...so the complete freedom of a 100 mages takes lower precedence than the lives of thousands of villagers.



[quote]
[quote]
From observing Uldred-abomination, that tells me that as a general rule abominations want to bring in more of their own kind...making them even more dangerous.
[/quote]

Uldred was a Pride abominations and of all the demonic types, Pride Demons show the most variation.  That means you can't reliably generalize what Abomination-Uldred wanted to other demonic types.  Clearly the Conner-Abomination didn't seem interested in making more of it's own kind (and indeed seemed rather territorial about it).  The point being is that demons are individuals (esp Pride Demons).

In the case of Abomination-Uldred, he wanted to rule a demonic kingdom, but that's not necessarily a universal case.  In fact as a counter-example, the clearly possessed Sofia Dryden is more than willing to cut off demonic access to the real world in exchange for the favor of breaking Avernus' quarantine of her personally.[/quote]

If you want me to stop generalizing, then you stop it too.

B.t.w. - Connor demon was a desire demon, not a priode demon.


[quote]
[quote]
That's not damning evidence. Practicly everyone you meet is andrastian. And some of them hate mages.
You cannot simply infer from that that they hate mages becasue tehy are andrastians.

Not to mention that Wynne isn't self-loathing.
[/quote]

Actually she is. Wynne is a very sad sort of character that has given up improving her own lot in life and thus expects others to lie down and accept the indignities she had to.  It comes across loud and clear in virtually every conversation you have with her esp if you are a mage yourself.

As for Andrastian, that's like being "Christian" in the western world.  Most seem like Alistair, ie. "Believe in the maker well enough but....."  They are what Catholics like to call, "Christmas and Easter" christians.  Even then, you see the "mages bring it on themselves" bunk over and over.....which is the chantry line they've been hearing since childhood.  The more devout the Andrastian is, the more anti-mage they tend to be.  Lelianna is an exception but then again, Lelianna is a heretic.[/qutoe]

I disagree wiht everything you have said.
And everyintg you will say.



[quote]
And the dehumanizing imprisonments with no legal rights in a system rigged against them had nothing to do with it.  Right......[/quote]

Unfortunate necessity.
Their fault for not accepting their responsibiltiy to the world.


[quote]
[quote]
I can blame the mage just as muhc as I can blame a bank robber for shooting at a police officer when he's caught.
[/quote]

Bank robbers aren't out to free themselves from unjust conditions.  Mages generally are.   Now that's not to say that criminal mages don't exist....like any other group of humanity, you will have a few bad apples, but by and large mages run away from the tower because life really, really sucks there.[/quote]

Bank robers are out to not land in a jail..or escape from one.
Since when does "justice" matter? Prison is prison, wather is just or not, you still dont' want to go there.



[quote]
[quote]
Why sould I care about the US justice system. and b.t.w. - it's "innocent untill proven gulty", and not "those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither". The latter has nothing to do with the US jsutie system.

Not to mention that the US government would still imprison innocents if it thought it had to.
The olde quarantene example. The peopel in the sticken town are innocent. Would hte government still imprison them? Yes.
[/quote]

The quarantine example has been roundly debunked.  As for the rest, all systems are imperfect, but you don't even want to try.  You want to lock away mages and forget about them unless the Qun attack...then they can slaughter Qun for you and then go back to being non-human ciphers.

Sorry, but that's not going to fly any more.  The circle system is
going to end.  The only question is how much blood will have to be
spilled first.[/quote]

The quarantene example has not been debunked. It hasn't been even phased. Only ignored by you.
And it still doesn't change the fact that even a jsut and fair and liberal government would do it.


As for me not wanting to try...hehe. My, how very invested you are. From your posts it's clear you practicly identify yourself as a mage...

I'd be happy for a better system or imprivements to this one..within the reals of reason. You have as of yet failed to provide a *better system..something that can be reasonably implemented, rather than a wishfull idea.


*Of course, for you better = free mages, regardless of consequences.
For me, it's a more complex issue that requires it to be sound logisticly, practicly, and effectively in addition to being morally superior.



And yeah..you still have failed to adress the basic issue of moral greyness. If the Circle system is as bad and ineffective, WHERE IS THE GREYNESS THERE?
If the "opression" of mages isn't balanced by security and order...where then is the moral dilema?????


The cirlce being as you claim it is completey destroy any moral dillema. There is no greyness. There is no DA universe as the devs claim.
Thus, given that your views cleary clash with what the devs EXPLICITLY said was their goal (mage-templar situation being grey), your views must be wrong.
Either that, or the devs failed. And I somehow doubt tehy did.

[DKJaigen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

If mages cannot leave their tower they cannot contribute to society in any way. also , high death tolls? a single abomination is an annoyance at best to soldiers prepared to fight it. Not to mention very few mages would ever willingly become abominations. wars and other forms of strife cause significantly more death and destruction then the odd abomination.

[moilami]

Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him.

Foul and corrupt are they

Who have taken His gift

And turned it against His children.



Is this what the Chantry says? If so, then the chantry has become so corrupted that it has even managed to contradict itself to the point of absolute ridiculousness.



"Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him." Yet chantry uses magic as an excuse to either kill all mages or inprison them for life.



"Foul and corrupt are they



Who have taken His gift



And turned it against His children."



Chantry has taken magic as weapon to slay or inprison those people with inherit abilities for magic, people who are arguably His children. The chant itself clearly say how corrupt and foul the Chantry is and why.



(From other thread. Chantry is corrupt and evil and anyone not seeing that is blind and brainwashed.)

[DKJaigen]

@moilami



its not that the chantry is corrupt. but it is sadly ignorant on a lot of subjects. also this holy text can be interpreted as either mages should Be locked up for the good of the population. Or it could mean that mages should use their power to do good but still can go about their business.



Assumptions is the mother of all **** ups . look at the text about blood magic by Justina the first. its pure speculation. and i get the feeling that blood magic wasn't banned in andraste's time but after she died. anyway the whole religion is one massive cluster **** as people have been adding chants, altering them or removing them for quite some time now.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Facts not in evidence.  We are not talking about your unsupported 'realities of human behavior' with no attempt to reconcil it with game lore, now?  [/quote]

Realities of human behavior? You want proof? Pick up a book. There's plenty to choose from.

The Selfish Gene (R. Dawkins) a Three-diomensional model fo human behavior (M.Pak), Evolutionary Psychology (or practicly everything by Skinner), etc..

We know mages are feared and mistrusted. And some of the people in the game even tell us why. Of course, you denenouce that as beeing merely their oppinion, or them being indocritanted.

So if you can't accept neither scientific knowldge of human behavior OR anything said by any villager/templar in-game...then what DO you accept?
[/quote]

Dawkins, Pak, and Skinner aren't end-all and be-all of the study of human psychology and indeed much of their work is hightly disputed.  You can't simply drop names like that and expect it go unchallenged.  ESPECIALLY since this is a game, you can't assume that these theories about human psychology hold in the way you are claiming.  In fact I know all three would be appaled to cite their works when analysing a game where authorial diktat supercedes any 'social psychology'.[/quote]

You can't just start claimed "tehy are disputed". I liseted books. I can list more. Where are your sources of that dispute? I bet you never even read any of the books I mentioned... It's very easy to claim "they are disputed"..
But no matter.
[/quote]

Yes I can say, 'They are disputed" because this is not a board devoted to applied human psychology.  To expand somewhat, you cited three behaviorist psychologists, and not all psychologists agree that pure behaviorism is the best model.  Specifically all three grossly underrate (as do you) the impact of socialization on behavioral norms.

However, this is all by the bye.  The important part to remember is that this is a game and in a game people behave as the authors want them to which may not be what clinical psychology necessarily predicts.  You simply can not trot out RL Behavior Psychology and expect it to apply to in game societal mechanics even IF your experts were undisputed which they are not.

[quote]
[quote]
Even then as was pointed out above, socialization has a tremendous impact on all of this (and all three gravely underestimate the impact of socialization on human psychology...it's one of those points of stiff dispute I alluded to).  Indeed the game lore shows that socialization is HUGELY important for the acceptace of mages and magic and overrides any 'natural' misgivings that may exist....or it highly magnifies them (in the case of the Qun and Chantry).[/quote]

If you claim all of hte 3 psychologist listed aboe underestiamte something, then please, point to some scientific article or book that backs-up your claim.

And socialization is formed from beliefs and the conditions in the world itself. Not ot mention you're overblowing the negative Cahtnry influence.

You can say that poeple fear mages only because of the Chantry, but it's utterly clear that mages/abominations ARE something to be feared.
Like with the bird flue - the fact that the alarm caused people to go overboard doesn't mean there isn't reason for the alarm. We've seen what abomintions can do.
[/quote]

I have pointed out for several pages why I think that the mage fear we see is largly (as in primarily) due to Chantry influence.  I don't get this idea "out of the blue".  As for overblowing the negative chantry influence, I'm not.  In fact it's a strong point against your position.  IF mages were as inherently susecptable to becoming abominations as you (and the Chantry) claim and if such were as disasterous as you claim, then you should see universal misgivings about mages and magic regardless of society (it's that natural disaster/abomination footprint I've been talking about). We DO see such a thing IRL (since you want to go there) with the Black Death for example in vastly different cultures across Europe and Asia.  However, we do NOT see it.

Rather, if the chantry holds sway, people distrust mages (at best) if not downright hate them.  Where the chantry does not hold sway they don't.  The conclusion is obvious.  The Chantry is the common factor that determines how mages are regarded (for Elven and Human societies).

[quote]
[quote]
No you don't when you do a cross comparison over multiple different cultures.  You look for the commonalities.  In this case the commonality is obvious.  For all the differences between the cultures, acceptance of magic seems extremely strongly linked to whether or not the Chantry is in political power or not.  If not, mages and magic is accepted.  If so, they are not.  This is good solid albeit implicit evidence against the circle system being necessary.[/quote]

Yes, you do have to look at the details. You know next to nothing about the cultures.

You and I are never going to see eye to eye it seems.
[/quote]

That is why you do a CROSS Cultural comparison over multiple cultures.  You mod out everything but the common factors.  When you do, you find nearly a 1:1 realtionship between Chantry influence and hatred of mages.

[quote]
[quote]
If protection were the hugely important issue you think it is, then it would have been mentioned even in a so-called "footnote".  I also note that the codex entry isn't a footnote.  It's a concise description of how and why the circle system was set up the way it was.  Given this was a respected Chantry Scholar writing this, she would include the most important details, and the issue of protecting mundanes apparently wasn't important enough to be included!  That tells you right there that the circle was not founded to protect anyone.  The Codex entry is very clear about this point.[/quote]

A lot of things don't make it into the footnotes..it dpends on what the author wants to stress and hiw views as well.
So no, that tells me NOTHING.
[/quote]

This isn't a footnote.  It's a historical entry by a respected Chantry scholar.  Think of it like an Encyclopedia entry.  If protection were as important as you claim, then it WOULD have been included.  It was not.  Again, the conclusion is obvious.  Protection was not considered an important enough reason to even mention which means the driving reason for establishing the circles of magi had zip to do with protecting anyone.  It was a powerplay.  Pure and simple.

[quote]
You cannot simply ingore codex  and lore I put out, yet accept from me to accept all the crap you dish out.
[/quote]

I haven't been ignoring the codecies and lore.  I wish I could say the same in return.

[quote]
[quote]
In all the cases we are shown both in game and in lore, the transformation to an abomination is NOT instantaneous. [/quote]

Wrong. The lore doesn't support you there not even one bit. If anything, the transformation is shown to be quick.
Uldred and the mages that turn in a metter of seconds kinda my point.
[/quote]

It's stil not instantaneous, and in the case of Uldred's rituals, it was a bloodcontrol based magical ritual AND the mages had to be tortured into submission first.  That's hardly a fast process.  Moreover, baring failed summonings, demons generally approach mages in the fade when they are asleep and the sleep cycle is one of hours (not seconds). 

[quote]
[quote]
You shrilly insist that locking away mages without regard to their human rights is the only way yet you even refuse to consider alternatives or consider that maybe there is a better way.[/quote]

I consider alternatives...of which I am sufficiently informed.
And I'm not ready to gamble with lives...so the complete freedom of a 100 mages takes lower precedence than the lives of thousands of villagers.
[/quote]

You don't even try to inform yourself.  Your posts have made that perfectly clear.  You have absolutely no proof and no evidence that the circle system has made anyone safer.  You are taking the chantry's word on this...with no evidence at all.  You won't even consider the possibilty that the Chantry is deliberately 'viewing with alarm'.


[quote]
[quote]
From observing Uldred-abomination, that tells me that as a general rule abominations want to bring in more of their own kind...making them even more dangerous.
[/quote]

Uldred was a Pride abominations and of all the demonic types, Pride Demons show the most variation.  That means you can't reliably generalize what Abomination-Uldred wanted to other demonic types.  Clearly the Conner-Abomination didn't seem interested in making more of it's own kind (and indeed seemed rather territorial about it).  The point being is that demons are individuals (esp Pride Demons).

In the case of Abomination-Uldred, he wanted to rule a demonic kingdom, but that's not necessarily a universal case.  In fact as a counter-example, the clearly possessed Sofia Dryden is more than willing to cut off demonic access to the real world in exchange for the favor of breaking Avernus' quarantine of her personally.[/quote]

If you want me to stop generalizing, then you stop it too.

B.t.w. - Connor demon was a desire demon, not a priode demon.
[/quote]

I never said that the Conner demon was a pride demon.  I said that demons showed individual variation and pride demons showed the most.  Once again, sloppy reading on your part. 

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
That's not damning evidence. Practicly everyone you meet is andrastian. And some of them hate mages.
You cannot simply infer from that that they hate mages becasue tehy are andrastians.

Not to mention that Wynne isn't self-loathing.
[/quote]

Actually she is. Wynne is a very sad sort of character that has given up improving her own lot in life and thus expects others to lie down and accept the indignities she had to.  It comes across loud and clear in virtually every conversation you have with her esp if you are a mage yourself.

As for Andrastian, that's like being "Christian" in the western world.  Most seem like Alistair, ie. "Believe in the maker well enough but....."  They are what Catholics like to call, "Christmas and Easter" christians.  Even then, you see the "mages bring it on themselves" bunk over and over.....which is the chantry line they've been hearing since childhood.  The more devout the Andrastian is, the more anti-mage they tend to be.  Lelianna is an exception but then again, Lelianna is a heretic.[/quote]

I disagree wiht everything you have said.
And everyintg you will say.
[/quote]

How mature.  Honestly though, Wynne has been analyzed to death, and most Andrastians are very casual about their religion.  I really don't think that's subject to dispute, and the mage-hate comes through loud and clear many times and the Rev Mother in Redcliff DOES sheepishly apologize for it (if a mage PC).

[quote]
[quote]
And the dehumanizing imprisonments with no legal rights in a system rigged against them had nothing to do with it.  Right......[/quote]

Unfortunate necessity.
Their fault for not accepting their responsibiltiy to the world.
[/quote]

So they should wear their chains and like it, is that what you are saying?  You don't want to explore any reasonable idea that better systems are out there, that it?

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
I can blame the mage just as muhc as I can blame a bank robber for shooting at a police officer when he's caught.
[/quote]

Bank robbers aren't out to free themselves from unjust conditions.  Mages generally are.   Now that's not to say that criminal mages don't exist....like any other group of humanity, you will have a few bad apples, but by and large mages run away from the tower because life really, really sucks there.[/quote]

Bank robers are out to not land in a jail..or escape from one.
Since when does "justice" matter? Prison is prison, wather is just or not, you still dont' want to go there.
[/quote]

Sure, but bank robbers know they are acting in a criminal manner.  They might not want to wind up in prison, but that's a far cry from being locked away for being what you are.  It's like locking away people for having hazel eyes.

[quote]
[quote]
[quote]
Why sould I care about the US justice system. and b.t.w. - it's "innocent untill proven gulty", and not "those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither". The latter has nothing to do with the US jsutie system.

Not to mention that the US government would still imprison innocents if it thought it had to.
The olde quarantene example. The peopel in the sticken town are innocent. Would hte government still imprison them? Yes.
[/quote]

The quarantine example has been roundly debunked.  As for the rest, all systems are imperfect, but you don't even want to try.  You want to lock away mages and forget about them unless the Qun attack...then they can slaughter Qun for you and then go back to being non-human ciphers.

Sorry, but that's not going to fly any more.  The circle system is
going to end.  The only question is how much blood will have to be
spilled first.[/quote]

The quarantene example has not been debunked. It hasn't been even phased. Only ignored by you.
And it still doesn't change the fact that even a jsut and fair and liberal government would do it.
[/quote]

Really?  When "fair and just" governments have done similiar things IRL (such as the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII), the government has been forced to later admit that they were wrong and cease such practices.  I am fairly confident that Western European govts would look at it the same way.

Aa for the quarantine model, abomiantion is NOT a disease and the disease model fails utterly.  There are other and better example if you must (such as locking away the criminally insane).  I don't agree with those models either, but if you must trot out an analogy, pick one that isn't so obviously wrong.

[quote]
As for me not wanting to try...hehe. My, how very invested you are. From your posts it's clear you practicly identify yourself as a mage...

I'd be happy for a better system or imprivements to this one..within the reals of reason. You have as of yet failed to provide a *better system..something that can be reasonably implemented, rather than a wishfull idea.
[/quote]

Yes I have and I've based in on societies within the game that function just fine.  Even other pro-chantry posters have aknowledged my ideas as interesting.  Not saying they agree with me on all points, but at least they are willing to listen and many aknowledge that even if the circles were retained (a point I strongly disagree with them on fwiw), the management of them has to change dramically...but you won't even go that far!

As for your snide remark about me identifying myself as a mage, I've played all the PC types.  I simply know a horrible and self-defeating system when I see one.  I have to wonder if you wear Chantry robes if we are going to be snide about it.

[quote]
*Of course, for you better = free mages, regardless of consequences.
For me, it's a more complex issue that requires it to be sound logisticly, practicly, and effectively in addition to being morally superior.
[/quote]

Wrong.  I am a gradualist.  I think mages and magic should be carefully regulated but it must be done within the context of society and mages need to have a stake in that society.  That's a far cry from "free them all and hang the consequences".  If I were a mage, I'd be an Aequertarian, but I'd vote with the Libertarian bloc right now on most issues if only because a change is needed, and the Chantry won't do it unless forced to.

[quote]
And yeah..you still have failed to adress the basic issue of moral greyness. If the Circle system is as bad and ineffective, WHERE IS THE GREYNESS THERE?
If the "opression" of mages isn't balanced by security and order...where then is the moral dilema?????
[/quote]

I am seeing a thread of nearly fifty pages of "moral dilemna".  Really it's like Orzammar.  If you play 'casual' and go with casual morality, you can easily condemn Orzammar to a King Harrowmount and all that implies.  However, if you DIG beneath the surface then the better choice presents itself.  There is your moral dilemna.  I see the situation similiarly...except with the ingrained hatred on both sides, I don't see much hope that a gradual (but needed) change will happen.  I foresee a bloodbath.

[quote]
The cirlce being as you claim it is completey destroy any moral dillema. There is no greyness. There is no DA universe as the devs claim.
Thus, given that your views cleary clash with what the devs EXPLICITLY said was their goal (mage-templar situation being grey), your views must be wrong.
Either that, or the devs failed. And I somehow doubt tehy did.
[/quote]

Actually, it's you that are denying any moral dilemna.  You (not I) have been saying that the circle system is the "only obvious" choice.  If you are now going to trot out "moral greyness" as a supporting point, then I'd take a hard look at some of your prior posts.

What I am saying is that integration of mages in society seems to be the way to go, but I never said it would be easy, and while I blame the chantry for most of it, I certainly don't think that deprogramming people from mage hate is going to happen quickly.  So, do you perpetuate a flawed system in the hope you can gradually change it into something better (that is the Irving position and even Wynne's position except Wynne is much more pro-Chantry than Irving), or do you say that change is almost never peaceful and sometimes you have to force a change (Uldred's position...pre-possession, and honestly the position of a growing number of mages).  That too is a moral dilemna.

I note again that the Devs are being extremely tight lipped about abomiation rates because they don't want to tip their mathematical hand just yet (at least that's how I see it).

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 24 janvier 2011 - 03:19 .