1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

moilami wrote...

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

Except that the devlopers specificy say you're wrong on that.

[moilami]

DKJaigen wrote...

@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.

Anyone being ignorant enough to slay people or inprison them for life before any crime has happened is corrupt, twisted, and sick, and no amount of pretending to look good and do good doesn't change the fact.

The only question is can Chantry be helped to become uncorrupt. I very much believe it wont be possible. Fanatics are difficult to change to make some sense.

(However my toons will steal Chantry's money without hesitations.)

[moilami]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

moilami wrote...

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

Except that the devlopers specificy say you're wrong on that.

Where? I am very interested to see how they keep justifying slaying or inprisoning innocent people. This Chanty stuff and "new world order" is just broken,* and big changes is needed to fix it.

Other than that, what devs say doesn't change logic. Killing is killing even if 1000 devs would say killing is just helping people to get to heaven.



Edit: Not actually broken but very interesting and sick social phenomenon. Interesting in a way how it could happen, how it can keep happening, and what could be done to stop the madness. Interesting as seen real people seriously arguing pro chantry.

Modifié par moilami, 24 janvier 2011 - 03:13 .

[IanPolaris]

DKJaigen wrote...

@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.

Actually I think the Chantry is both corrupt and ignorant (not a good combination I think you'd agree).  I think that most lower echelon people in the chantry (templar foot soldiers, lay brothers and sisters, and bothers and sisters that have taken vows, and perhaps even some Rev Mothers in small, isolated communities) are by and large sincere and mean well...but terribly ignorant even of the Chantry's own history.  I think Templars (even high ranking ones) are kept deliberately ignorant of chantry history.

When you get to high ranking Reverend mothers, Grand Clerics, and the like, I think they know perfectly well what the Chants used to say, and just how off kilter they've become and for the most part don't care.  The Divines in particular that we read about seem primarily concerned with their own temporal power and not the proper interpretation of the chant (except in so far as it can be made to enhance said power).  Remember that the codex: "History of the Circle" was written by a notable Chantry Scholar and thus the high ranking clergy are almost certainly aware of it.  Bros Genetivi also seems to have run-ins with high ranking clergy who accept his work as valid but accuse him of blasmphemy anyways (he says as much during the Urn of Sacred Ashes).

I see the chantry (even though it's roots are much different) in very much the same light as the Late Midaeval Roman Catholic Church.

-Polaris

P.S.  I strongly suspect that Andraste actually had a fairly favorable impression of mages and might have even been one (perhaps even a blood mage).  Certainly there is nothing in the chant that specifically forbids bloodmagic (the Imperial Chantry has this one correct) only mind-control magic (which is not at all the same thing).

Modifié par IanPolaris, 24 janvier 2011 - 03:10 .

[Beerfish]

Wynne should be executed by the free the mages society because last night in the game I was playing she said that mages by their nature were dangerous even with all the best intentions.

[IanPolaris]

moilami wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

moilami wrote...

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

Except that the devlopers specificy say you're wrong on that.

Where? I am very interested to see how they keep justifying slaying or inprisoning innocent people. This Chanty stuff and "new world order" is just broken, and big changes is needed to fix it.

Other than that, what devs say doesn't change logic. Killing is killing even if 1000 devs would say killing is just helping people to get to heaven.

There is a DG quote a few pages back that says overall the Chantry is not evil because it has good people in it.  I don't disagree except to note that good people do horrific things all the time if they can be convinced it's the "right" thing to do (and social authority plays a huge role in this).  However, I do think that the senior clergy of the chantry if not evil, can certainly see evil from where they are sitting and I'll leave it at that.  It's not just the mages either.  What the Chantry did with the Dales (and rewriting the chant of light itself to justify it ex-post facto) certainly seems evil to me.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Beerfish wrote...

Wynne should be executed by the free the mages society because last night in the game I was playing she said that mages by their nature were dangerous even with all the best intentions.

Wynne should be executed for a lot of reasons, most notably for being stupid enough to take on the most powerful bloodmage in that part of Thedas after he (or she) risked his (or her) neck to save her precious tower.  Then there is her rank hypocrisy about all things magical and chantry.....then there is her willful attack of Morrigan when children are present when she discovers that Morrigan is an apostate...oh I could go on and on.

Wynne will go aggro on your Grey Wardne (at least potentially) more than any other character in DAO.

-Polaris

[moilami]

Beerfish wrote...

Wynne should be executed by the free the mages society because last night in the game I was playing she said that mages by their nature were dangerous even with all the best intentions.

Certainly. A change must come, and it wont come if those beyond help are let to rule and corrupt people.

Edit: Wynne should actually do Seppuku. Or be forced to do. (If she talks like that, she should start living by her words too). I am very glad my Dwarven warrior killed her. He doesn't tolerate any ****. From this on all my toons who have Morrigan with them and who have brains will just slay Wynne like they slay any other monster.

Modifié par moilami, 24 janvier 2011 - 03:27 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

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

Normal human behavior is expect from normal humans. That is all.


[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]

And I have pointed out, over several pages, how you're making assumptions based on too little data. Waht you expect to see is irrelvant.

You're also a massive hypcrite, saying that I shouldn't trust behavioral science because it's a game and it does not apply..and yet here you are, claiming behavioral footprints as some sort of proof???
It goes both ways - if I cna't use behavioral science and psychology, THEN NEITHER CAN YOU.


[quote]
[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]

What you do isn't science, it's bollocks.
It doesn't work because it ignores the fact aht we know jack s*** about all of the other cultures, it ignores hte finer details whihc make ALL the difference..

And it also ingores the fact that casuality does not imply causality. You are making the very same mistake many people make in gun control debates, when they look at the numebrs and say "X must be because of Y"...when it's not really.
Human behavior is not influenced by one factor alone.



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

You didn't?
Like you didn't ignroe codex entries on abominations? Or the one that sates than an abomination can take out a squad of templars (which as trained warriors are eqal to berserkers, yet you still clamed a single berserker is as powerfull as a abomination)
Or the entries about templars (which you hand-waved as being opinion)



[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]

Where is your evidence that the proces is slow? Tehre isn't one.

And you forget that witness in the broken Cirlce speak of Uldren loosing control during the battle and becoming possesed. Does that sound like something that was taking hours? He was in the middle of a battle with other mages!



[quote]
[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.[/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]

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]

You are wrong. It is you who defies logic and reason to defend his cruimbling view.
And you are the one who doesn't even want to consider other posibilties, not me.


[qutoe]
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]

Given your criteria for what is disputable, EVERYTHING is subject to dispute.




[quote]
[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]

Acting in criminal manner is irrelevant. Heck, mages that run know they are acting in criminal manner.

Hazel eyes that can explode at any time and kill people in a large radius.
sucks to be them.



[quote]
[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]

It's not wrong.
And yes, govenrm,ent would quaranteene and lock up people. Even mroeso if the populace didn't object.



[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![/quote]

Lies. I never said that.





[quote]
[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]

That is no moral dillema. your full of BS.
Teh thing with the Orzama choise is that there WASN'T a better choice that one could say was superior.

Behlen is a tyrant (killing any opposition), but he improves the lot for the dwarves.
Harrowmont is the honourable one, but the dwarves stagnate under him.

tehre's greyness, because there's a negative to both choices (tyrant that kills, but also saves)
[b]By your own words EVERYTHING is better in the other systems. They are more fair, more effective, mroe everything.
WHERE IS HTE DOWNSIDE????
There is none.  That's not grey You fail.



[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.[/quote]

I sad effective choice. Obvious from an practical/effective standpoint. Not moraly.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 24 janvier 2011 - 03:36 .

[moilami]

IanPolaris wrote...

moilami wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

moilami wrote...

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

Except that the devlopers specificy say you're wrong on that.

Where? I am very interested to see how they keep justifying slaying or inprisoning innocent people. This Chanty stuff and "new world order" is just broken, and big changes is needed to fix it.

Other than that, what devs say doesn't change logic. Killing is killing even if 1000 devs would say killing is just helping people to get to heaven.

There is a DG quote a few pages back that says overall the Chantry is not evil because it has good people in it.  I don't disagree except to note that good people do horrific things all the time if they can be convinced it's the "right" thing to do (and social authority plays a huge role in this).  However, I do think that the senior clergy of the chantry if not evil, can certainly see evil from where they are sitting and I'll leave it at that.  It's not just the mages either.  What the Chantry did with the Dales (and rewriting the chant of light itself to justify it ex-post facto) certainly seems evil to me.

-Polaris

Chantry as organization is very evil and corrupt. There is however "poor souls" who has just been misled and who can be helped. Like Leliana and for sure many other Sisters. Therefore Chantry can't be stormed, and if stormed it would cause unrest and chaos in the society. A change must come by identifying and eliminating those who would refuse to accept changes to current policy, that is, help the Chantry to change itself.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion,



I am not going to reply point by point to that monstrosity. Rather I will give you a couple of nuggets to think about:



1. You talk about human nature as though it were obvious, but it's not, and you tried to slant the discussion by claiming the 'science' was on your side while only citing radical behaviorists. You got slapped down for that and deservedly so. It's not given that it's 'obvious' human behavior.



2. I take umbrage at the charge of hypocrisy. I am not using behavioral psychology. I am making the pointed and correct observation that if abominations were the problem you claim, then we should see the footprint of that in all societies and we don't. That's not at all the same thing as what you were trying to do.



It's a fact that the Black Death created a huge social footprint in all societies in Europe. You can dispute the nature and extent, but the footprint is an observed fact. We should see the same for a magical natural disaster of the scope you are claiming but we don't. Thus we can reasonably conclude that either such a disaster never happened, OR it was grossly inflated.



-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

[QUOTE]Sir JK wrote...

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]

As scary as magic can be, it doesn't necessarily mean that people will hate mages for it. The Andrastian Chantry promotes that kind of attitude, but we see and read about alternatives to it. The Dalish clans model themselves after the Dales and Arlathan, and the people of Rivain don't hate their seers despite the power that mages wield. Just because magic is dangerous doesn't mean it's right to preach hatred and intolerance. Look at how Haven, the Dalish, and Rivain treat their mages, and compare that to how the Andrastian Chantry treats theirs. There's a clear difference, no matter how much anyone wants to say that we don't know enough about them. What we do know shows all the difference in the world. The practice of imprisoning and dehumanizing people is only causing a rift and an inevitable war between the two.
[quote]Sir JK wrote...

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.
Mind however. This is not neccessarily because of the Chantry solely. It might be. But need not be, [/quote]
It's made clear that it's because of the Chantry in DA:O. Keili is very devout and thinks that all magic is evil, and makes it clear that mages aren't permitted to be members of the Chantry. Lily talks about Greagoir with some distain in the Magi Origin as she's discussing how he thinks he's "doing the Maker's work." A member of the Chantry in Lothering talks about mages with distain when he references that mages offered to help light the fire, and makes a veiled comment that makes it clear that he blames them for the Blight, as Greagoir does in the opening scene of the Magi Origin. The Reverand Mother and Alistair also make it known in Ostagar that she doesn't like mages or trust their spells. How much more do we need?
[QUOTE]Sir JK wrote...

Law works for blood magic I think, allthough bringing an 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. [/quote]

A police force that can protect ordinary people from mages would be effective to deal with abominations. No reason that ordinary people and mages couldn't deal with the threat of the abominations. If mages have a say in their lives and help promote the peace, I think that it would go a long way. Ian's make a detailed proposal for such a plan, in fact. I do admit that I don't really think that it's going to be a factor in DA2 - it seems to be a mages vs. templars scenerio, and I'll freely admit that I intend on promoting the emancipation of the mages if it's actually presented to me.
 
[QUOTE]Sir JK wrote...

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.
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]
I think it would minimize the risk to have a task force intended to protect people here and now, but you're in your rights to disagree with me. Imprisoning mages is certainly one way, but it's an easy way, and prone to rebellions and creating more abominations than there normally would otherwise (see: A Broken Circle). A task force would keep the peace and protect everyone, with mages and non-mages protecting people now and keeping the peace. Law and order would be a good step. I don't think anyone here is arguing against mages being properly instructed or that there shouldn't be a task force to regulate the misuse of magic, but we're arguing against an inhumane system enforced by the Andrastian Chantry.
[QUOTE]Sir JK wrote...

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]
I admit that it was stupid of Uldred to do that. My Magi Warden tells Averus the same thing at Warden's Keep. Using demonology and summoning so many demons is dangerous and risky. Regarding the abomination from the Mages Collective, I'll point out that the collective is a self-regulating guild that made the right decision to ask the Grey Warden (of the order known for saving the world four times over, prior to the Fifth Blight) to deal with the missing mage.
[QUOTE]Sir JK wrote...

Uhm... I have quotes from two Knight-Commanders saying the purpose of the tower is to protect people outside.
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.
How do we prevent a random abomination from destroying a few villages before it is destroyed?
How do we regulate access to the insanely dangerous (to others) blood magic?
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?
Those seem the questions behind most complaints against the chantry. [/QUOTE]
Let's be honest here, I don't the current situation is doing any good; if people on a thread can debate whether the mages are slaves or the morality of what the Chantry is doing, wouldn't the mages themselves debate these very issues? Wouldn't some mages feel like slaves? Wouldn't other mages be willing to fight for their freedom, like Uldred did? Seems to be that the current situation is only causing a war between the mages and the templars, from what little I've seen of DA2. I could be wrong, but the revolt in DA:O and the meeting at Cumberland do support this.
[QUOTE]Sir JK wrote...

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]
Fair enough, but plenty of mages in the Circle were willing to fight to be emancipated from the Chantry. Even Fiona didn't find the Circle much better than her previous life, where she was repeatedly raped, after all.

[QUOTE]Sir JK wrote...

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]

Fair enough. You're right, and I'm sorry. I was very hasty, and I should have read the quote more carefully. DG said that it's an organization of people that mean well - I can certainly see that. I'm certain that there are people who think that magic is evil and that they're doing the world a favor when they outright murder them, deny them basic human rights, or imprison them simply for being mages. They're looking to help and protect mages when they turn them into inhuman, emotionless drones who craft runes and do manual labor, and when they sent templars to hunt down and possibly kill runaway mages who only want to be free from an oppressive system. I don't doubt they're doing what they think is right (and agree with Gaider that they're acting out what they believe to be the best course of action), and that they think they're doing the right thing - DG is absolutely correct with that assessment. He's also correct in saying that they would be killed by a frightened mob, but he leaves out that the frightened mob would kill them because of the anti-mage propaganda that the Andrastian Chantry espouses, the same kind of rhetoric that Kolgrim rallies against when you speak to him for the first time. There's nothing in that quote that actually says that the Chantry is doing the right thing or going by the correct course of action - it's actually saying that the people of the Chantry mean well and would protect people from lynch mobs (comprised of Chantry followers).

[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Seriously? You're using Andraste Desciples, poeple who shown up in only 1 quest, for a very short while, and had 3 lines of text. How do you know they don't fear their mages? [/QUOTE]
A mage presides over the Haven Chantry, Kolgrim attacks the Andrastian Chantry's views on magic, they use blood magic, they have mages fighting alongside non-mages... do you really need me to go on here?

[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And hte Dlish..the group we know so little about and prefer not to speak of themselves to anyone. They could be afraid of hte mages too for all you know, they just don't show it openly. [/QUOTE]
That must be why they revere Zathrian as much as they do... are you even trying?
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Nah..f*** the Chantry, it has practicly nothing to do with fear of mages. MAges are to be feared by their very nature. [/QUOTE]
Which explains why the Maker-fearing folks of the Chantry fear them while the people of Haven, the Dalish, and Rivain don't...
[QUOTE] Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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. [/QUOTE]
I didn't realize Gaider said "Lotion is always right, and everyone else is always wrong. Did he include an Andre the Giant poster saying 'OBEY' ?"

[EmperorSahlertz]

Abominations are not threatening a nation per say (yet anyway), but they are a threat to the commoners in a land. But even Abominations aren't the only problem with letting mages be "free". All the rotten appels amongst the mages would suddenly be free among the populace, instead of contained in the Circle, and possibly even molded by the Circle into a proper person. A psychopathic mage can take years to discover, and the amount of devastation he can cause rivals (if not actually eclipse) Abominations.

We can all agree that magic by its nature is very dangerous in the wrong hands. Sadly we got no way of deciding who's hands it winds up in. We can however gather everyone who gets the gift/curse, and mold them to be "right hands".
Yes we are confining them for who they are, but they are different. They are not like you and me. They got an awesome power at their very fingertips, and the very notion that they should be allowed to run wild across Thedas is folly.
All the good "free" mages could possibly do, is outweighed (or equal) by the amount of wrong they can do. Luckily they can still do the exact same amount of good, while confined, but tehy will have a hard time doing wrongs.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 24 janvier 2011 - 04:27 .

[Sir JK]

[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).[/quote]

Mind however, that carrying a weapon is a social signal. It means I am armed and prepared to use it. Just like a bared blade means you have hostile intent. An unarmed man is a social signal that he intends not to fight (this is why people left their weapons in the antechamber of churches in the middle ages).
A mage is always armed however. They cannot disarm themselves.

[quote]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]
That I agree with.

[quote]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]
Only Libertarians wants to violently split from the Chantry (in fact, only Libertarians have that as their official policy). Aequtarians (most mages) and Loyalists are currently political allies in fact (allthough it is mentioned the libertarians and the Aequtarians are talking).
Let's look at the Fereldan tower.
We know of 7 Senior enchanters in the Feraldan tower
Uldred - Libertarian
Irving - Aequtarian and First Enchanter
Wynne - Aequitarian
Tommen - Aequitarian
Leorah - Unknown
Niall - Isolationist
Sweeney - Uknown

Then Ines, the botanist from DA:A and form the way Wynne speaks about her I guess she is an Aequtarian

This is the group Uldred decides to attack when they refuse him. Between 40 and 50 % of them Aequitarians. Remember... Tommen almost spits at Libertarians, Wynne is as far from chantry-split as one can get and Irving... Irving is a true politician. He says a lot about what he thinks but somehow you never know where he stands.

[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.[/quote]
Can I have your source for this? 

[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]
Hey, no cheating with the statistics.  Count the qunari as well. All cultures views that we know of must be taken into account, no matter what they think. Especially since the qunari is one of the larger of them. People that hate mages as just as important as people who praise them, because it helps us see the larger picture better.

Heh... on a tangent. Rivain must be one messed-up country. It boasts 4 mage traditions. classic Rivaini. Andrastian, Tevinter and Qunari.

[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]

There's more common factors I'd say. The Dalish and the disciples are also comparatively few (disciples by being isolated, the dalish by separating themselves into clans). They are also isolationist, and have to rely on their own resources.
So know we have three common factors.
And again... don't count out the Qunari. Like it or not they do have a mage tradition (a horrible one).

[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]
First of all... an acceptable rate? It sounds like we must determine how many abominations that's acceptable every year... decade... whatever.
Secondly... becoming an abomination is practically a suicide. Why would they care about laws? The demon won't ever let their host go (if they for some reason don't eat the soul... or whatever it is they do to it). Laws only work if people believe they work. Abominations care for nothing about laws... so trying to control them with laws are pointless.

Unless you meant reducing the factors why people would volountarily take in demons. But here we come down to the problems that it will be things like children/siblings/parents/husbands/wives dying from disease. Enemy armies threatening your home. Or just situations that goes way out of hand.
I really don't see how laws would help.

Also the "this clearly works for non-andrastian societies" this is supposition. We don't know how they handle it or how well this works. Just that they have a different attititude to magic. Anything else is supposition.
I'd also like to point one thing out: templars existed before the circles did and our favourite history codex does mention magical regulation prior to the circles.

But point in. I can accept the argument that non-andrastian societies accept mages. Sure. But saying that they are better is supposition and baseless. You may hold the opinion that this is the case, but then say so. If you want to convince me otherwise I'll have to ask you to directly source it for me

[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.[/quote]

Actually... there's two connected cases unrelated to the chantry. Connor became one because his father was poisoned and he wanted to save him (and so he made a literal devil's deal).

Also... the Mages collective is not sending us to police themselves. They are just sending us to find a missing member who happened to have the foresight to actually write a note. If he had been killed outright before going after his apprentice or we'd have failed to find the abomination... it would still be out there and the mages collective wouldn't have a clue.
Heck... you don't even report it to them. The quest finishes when you kill the abomination.

[quote]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]
I agree completely here.

[quote]
That's the PoV of the two knight commanders.  The Chantry's own history debunks it.[/quote]
I think we have to agree to disagree at this point. Or would you like another lap in the merry-go-round?

[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]
Fair enough.

[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]
We also build hurricane/earthquake safe buildings mind.

I'm still not sure how responsibility would help against possession though. It's not like the persons can stand trial (and in most cases, it's not really their fault. Is there?). Unless you mean for others.

[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]
The modern Tevinter also prohibits blood magic. Or claims to anyways (which probably means that if you know a magister... or know a guy that knows a guy that knows a magister... the templars will look another way).
The problem with blood magic is that it uses life force to power itself and well... it allows the control minds. Like say... the judge. The jailor. The man coming after you. Your witnesses.
Ultimately it boils down to a escalation on which side has the most powerful blood mage. and well... the world has already seen that. Even the Dalish and the Dwarves confirm that.

[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]
Hilariously... this is actually what they are doing currently. Well... wether they have a reasonable say I suppose is up for debate: it's not entirely clear how much influence is wielded in the cumberland meeting and which decisions lie with mages and which ones do not. But they do have some say, that is clear (I admit it may not be enough though).

[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]

I had not thought of it that way. It's an interesting take on it I admit.

[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]
You do know he's the person who decides what is put in the codex and what is true and what is not, though? If anyone knows more about the setting than we do, it's him. For all we know that could have been how they are intending the whole thing.
After all... technically all the codices, all the dialogue and everything we see in the game is his opinion as well. Since it has to pass his approval.

[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]
I was just using it as an example that force-possession does indeed exist. And the demon chose her... because she was the mage. Even demons themselves admits as much.

[quote]
The admittedly annecdotal evidence strongly suggests otherwise.[/quote]
But it is at most anecdotes. Was it not you who told me how unreliable hearsay can be based on Bodahn's rumour mill? Until we have seen them to be better we cannot safely say they are.

[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]
Have you an example of one that didn't? Uldred-pride was converting enchanters. Sloth was draining Niall's life. Baroness was draining her people. Virtually every abomination in the tower was standing over corpses, as was the mage collective one. Connor-desire was butchering Redcliffe (and keeping Eamon alive but locked in a coma). Dwarven King was locked in a chamber. Is there any example of a abomination that didn't?

[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[/quote]

You're optimistic. I think they'll never provide them because then we could reach a consensus on which method is better. Which is why we'll never get them. It's supposed to be ambigous and impossible to tell.

Modifié par Sir JK, 24 janvier 2011 - 04:57 .

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...
As scary as magic can be, it doesn't necessarily mean that people will hate mages for it. The Andrastian Chantry promotes that kind of attitude, but we see and read about alternatives to it. The Dalish clans model themselves after the Dales and Arlathan, and the people of Rivain don't hate their seers despite the power that mages wield. Just because magic is dangerous doesn't mean it's right to preach hatred and intolerance. Look at how Haven, the Dalish, and Rivain treat their mages, and compare that to how the Andrastian Chantry treats theirs. There's a clear difference, no matter how much anyone wants to say that we don't know enough about them. What we do know shows all the difference in the world. The practice of imprisoning and dehumanizing people is only causing a rift and an inevitable war between the two.

I agree with all of this except the usual part. I still can't look at how Haven, the Dalish and Rivain treats their mages because that information is not available (yet). I can however look at their acceptance of mages, but that does not tell me as much as I'd like.

Sir JK wrote...
It's made clear that it's because of the Chantry in DA:O. Keili is very devout and thinks that all magic is evil, and makes it clear that mages aren't permitted to be members of the Chantry. Lily talks about Greagoir with some distain in the Magi Origin as she's discussing how he thinks he's "doing the Maker's work." A member of the Chantry in Lothering talks about mages with distain when he references that mages offered to help light the fire, and makes a veiled comment that makes it clear that he blames them for the Blight, as Greagoir does in the opening scene of the Magi Origin. The Reverand Mother and Alistair also make it known in Ostagar that she doesn't like mages or trust their spells. How much more do we need?

Oh... I readily admit the Chantry does not have much warm words for magic. I wouldn't go so far to say hate-dogma (since that tends to be very fire and brimstone and well... proactive) but I admit it's rather cold rethoric. But for all their words and supposed hate. Consider this: The chantry is making an effort in allowing the mages to live. And compared to some alternatives (force-tranquilisation of everyone but a handful chosen, killing them all or going about the qunari approach) the Chantry can seem... for lack of a better word... mild.

A police force that can protect ordinary people from mages would be effective to deal with abominations. No reason that ordinary people and mages couldn't deal with the threat of the abominations. If mages have a say in their lives and help promote the peace, I think that it would go a long way. Ian's make a detailed proposal for such a plan, in fact. I do admit that I don't really think that it's going to be a factor in DA2 - it seems to be a mages vs. templars scenerio, and I'll freely admit that I intend on promoting the emancipation of the mages if it's actually presented to me.

Agreed. Well... except for the last part. I am not convinced that will be the core theme.
 

I think it would minimize the risk to have a task force intended to protect people here and now, but you're in your rights to disagree with me. Imprisoning mages is certainly one way, but it's an easy way, and prone to rebellions and creating more abominations than there normally would otherwise (see: A Broken Circle). A task force would keep the peace and protect everyone, with mages and non-mages protecting people now and keeping the peace. Law and order would be a good step. I don't think anyone here is arguing against mages being properly instructed or that there shouldn't be a task force to regulate the misuse of magic, but we're arguing against an inhumane system enforced by the Andrastian Chantry.

You know. I think this is what the Chantry is aiming for with the templars... on some level anyways. It just isn't that easy.

I suppose the old phrase: Easier said than done.

But overall I agree with the analysis.

I admit that it was stupid of Uldred to do that. My Magi Warden tells Averus the same thing at Warden's Keep. Using demonology and summoning so many demons is dangerous and risky. Regarding the abomination from the Mages Collective, I'll point out that the collective is a self-regulating guild that made the right decision to ask the Grey Warden (of the order known for saving the world four times over, prior to the Fifth Blight) to deal with the missing mage.

Yes. But they had no idea there was a abomination involved... that's the scary part.

and you know... they don't actually mention that the apprentice is missing either... and that's scarier.

Let's be honest here, I don't the current situation is doing any good; if people on a thread can debate whether the mages are slaves or the morality of what the Chantry is doing, wouldn't the mages themselves debate these very issues? Wouldn't some mages feel like slaves? Wouldn't other mages be willing to fight for their freedom, like Uldred did? Seems to be that the current situation is only causing a war between the mages and the templars, from what little I've seen of DA2. I could be wrong, but the revolt in DA:O and the meeting at Cumberland do support this.

Heh. Spot on Lobsel. I agree completely.

Fair enough, but plenty of mages in the Circle were willing to fight to be emancipated from the Chantry. Even Fiona didn't find the Circle much better than her previous life, where she was repeatedly raped, after all.

Indeed.

Fair enough. You're right, and I'm sorry. I was very hasty, and I should have read the quote more carefully. DG said that it's an organization of people that mean well - I can certainly see that. I'm certain that there are people who think that magic is evil and that they're doing the world a favor when they outright murder them, deny them basic human rights, or imprison them simply for being mages. They're looking to help and protect mages when they turn them into inhuman, emotionless drones who craft runes and do manual labor, and when they sent templars to hunt down and possibly kill runaway mages who only want to be free from an oppressive system. I don't doubt they're doing what they think is right (and agree with Gaider that they're acting out what they believe to be the best course of action), and that they think they're doing the right thing - DG is absolutely correct with that assessment. He's also correct in saying that they would be killed by a frightened mob, but he leaves out that the frightened mob would kill them because of the anti-mage propaganda that the Andrastian Chantry espouses, the same kind of rhetoric that Kolgrim rallies against when you speak to him for the first time. There's nothing in that quote that actually says that the Chantry is doing the right thing or going by the correct course of action - it's actually saying that the people of the Chantry mean well and would protect people from lynch mobs (comprised of Chantry followers).

Sums it up nicely I think. The road to hell is paved with good intentions as they say.

[moilami]

LobselVith8 wrote...


I think it would minimize the risk to have a task force intended to protect people here and now, but you're in your rights to disagree with me. Imprisoning mages is certainly one way, but it's an easy way, and prone to rebellions and creating more abominations than there normally would otherwise (see: A Broken Circle). A task force would keep the peace and protect everyone, with mages and non-mages protecting people now and keeping the peace. Law and order would be a good step. I don't think anyone here is arguing against mages being properly instructed or that there shouldn't be a task force to regulate the misuse of magic, but we're arguing against an inhumane system enforced by the Andrastian Chantry.

Broken Circle and Connor Incident. The latter would had never happened if there would not had been sick, twisted, and evil Chantry. And as long as the Chantry exists, there will be new "Connor Incidents". The Chantry/circle experiment was a fail. Big time Fail. Its purpose was to protect, yet there is much bigger threat of mages because of Chantry. It is the time to realize this and do another experiment.

Modifié par moilami, 24 janvier 2011 - 05:37 .

[moilami]

Sir JK wrote...


Only Libertarians wants to violently split from the Chantry (in fact, only Libertarians have that as their official policy). Aequtarians (most mages) and Loyalists are currently political allies in fact (allthough it is mentioned the libertarians and the Aequtarians are talking).
Let's look at the Fereldan tower.
We know of 7 Senior enchanters in the Feraldan tower
Uldred - Libertarian
Irving - Aequtarian and First Enchanter
Wynne - Aequitarian
Tommen - Aequitarian
Leorah - Unknown
Niall - Isolationist
Sweeney - Uknown

Opportunists never fight for what is right if they can fight for what is wrong and benefit of it themselves more. Combine that with brainwashed fools as those who got some brains were lobotomized and what you get is fools and opportunists who, honestly, deserve to live in the tower on welfare while imagining they are the top mages.

It would be the best for all mages to move on some other country where they can live free and contribute to the society with their gift as intended. This is what my mage would probably do, he though would also be part of underground movement helping mages move to a country who is not ruled by sick chantry fanatics.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Abominations are not threatening a nation per say (yet anyway), but they are a threat to the commoners in a land. But even Abominations aren't the only problem with letting mages be "free". All the rotten appels amongst the mages would suddenly be free among the populace, instead of contained in the Circle, and possibly even molded by the Circle into a proper person.

They aren't contained, they're imprisoned, denied basic rights, and dehumanized. How is that doing anything other than promoting the rebellions that took place in DA:O by Uldred and the evident Templar/Mage war that we've been glimpsing in DA2?

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

A psychopathic mage can take years to discover, and the amount of devastation he can cause rivals (if not actually eclipse) Abominations.

Anyone can murder - absolutely anyone. It doesn't take a mage to kill, and someone already pointed out on the prior page that a real life serial killer has killed more people than the largest recorded killings done by an abomination. Given that mages do exist, why not have a task force to protect everyone? Ian has proposed this multiple times.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

We can all agree that magic by its nature is very dangerous in the wrong hands. Sadly we got no way of deciding who's hands it winds up in. We can however gather everyone who gets the gift/curse, and mold them to be "right hands".
Yes we are confining them for who they are, but they are different. They are not like you and me. They got an awesome power at their very fingertips, and the very notion that they should be allowed to run wild across Thedas is folly.
All the good "free" mages could possibly do, is outweighed (or equal) by the amount of wrong they can do. Luckily they can still do the exact same amount of good, while confined, but tehy will have a hard time doing wrongs.

They're being imprisoned and dehumanized to the point that even a rape victim like Fiona saw no improvement with her new life in the Circle and her former life. Pretending otherwise is why mages keep running away or starting their rebellions for freedom - because some people would rather die on their feet than live on their knees.

[EmperorSahlertz]

A task force intended to protect people from Abominations and rogue mages?... Hmm where have I heard that before? Oh, the Templars.

What you are proposing would have to be a respond team, which just isn't acceptable. How many lives would be lost in the days/week/months(/years, god forbid) it would take for the respond team to even get knowledge of the Abomination or rogue mage? There is no instant messaging in Thedas, and if there is no witnesses left alive, the crime will go unanswered for a very long time indeed.

In conclusion: A respond team is not acceptable.

[moilami]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

A task force intended to protect people from Abominations and rogue mages?... Hmm where have I heard that before? Oh, the Templars.
What you are proposing would have to be a respond team, which just isn't acceptable. How many lives would be lost in the days/week/months(/years, god forbid) it would take for the respond team to even get knowledge of the Abomination or rogue mage? There is no instant messaging in Thedas, and if there is no witnesses left alive, the crime will go unanswered for a very long time indeed.
In conclusion: A respond team is not acceptable.

*whispers and points* Just kill him.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Abominations are not threatening a nation per say (yet anyway), but they are a threat to the commoners in a land. But even Abominations aren't the only problem with letting mages be "free". All the rotten appels amongst the mages would suddenly be free among the populace, instead of contained in the Circle, and possibly even molded by the Circle into a proper person.

They aren't contained, they're imprisoned, denied basic rights, and dehumanized. How is that doing anything other than promoting the rebellions that took place in DA:O by Uldred and the evident Templar/Mage war that we've been glimpsing in DA2?

I'm not going to argue wether or not a mage vs. Templar scenario will be present in DA2. I will point out though, that we havn't been told anyhting about the plot yet really, so we can't be sure.
I didn't say that mages shouldn't be treated better. I said they should be kept in the Circles. I stand by that.

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

A psychopathic mage can take years to discover, and the amount of devastation he can cause rivals (if not actually eclipse) Abominations.

Anyone can murder - absolutely anyone. It doesn't take a mage to kill, and someone already pointed out on the prior page that a real life serial killer has killed more people than the largest recorded killings done by an abomination. Given that mages do exist, why not have a task force to protect everyone? Ian has proposed this multiple times.

And do we have any evidence, that the one recorded amount of deaths caused by an Anomination is the most ever? No. Do we have reason to believe so? No. Did you have any point then? No.
Yes, any man can kill. No, any man can't lay waste to an entire region. Any mage can kill. Any mage can (potentially) lay waste to an entire region. See the difference?

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

We can all agree that magic by its nature is very dangerous in the wrong hands. Sadly we got no way of deciding who's hands it winds up in. We can however gather everyone who gets the gift/curse, and mold them to be "right hands".
Yes we are confining them for who they are, but they are different. They are not like you and me. They got an awesome power at their very fingertips, and the very notion that they should be allowed to run wild across Thedas is folly.
All the good "free" mages could possibly do, is outweighed (or equal) by the amount of wrong they can do. Luckily they can still do the exact same amount of good, while confined, but tehy will have a hard time doing wrongs.

They're being imprisoned and dehumanized to the point that even a rape victim like Fiona saw no improvement with her new life in the Circle and her former life. Pretending otherwise is why mages keep running away or starting their rebellions for freedom - because some people would rather die on their feet than live on their knees.

Some mages don't like it in the tower. Some like it just fine. Some wants to isolate themselves even further. Some don't even care and are too busy reading their books. There will always be malcontents, no matter what.
Mages are dealt a rough hand, without a doubt. But violently trying to rebel is not exactly going to help their cause. Instead they could be a bit more savy, and stop giving commoners a reason to fear mages. No commoner is gonna care that the Mages have it rough, when they hear the story about a mage killing a Templar. The commoners idolize the Templars, as protecters.
The mages should learn to play the game, instead of trying to break out of it entirely.

[Nashiktal]

Mages can not be allowed free reign to roam around. As pointed out time, and time again mages at any moment can turn into an abomination. It can be an instant change, or it can be a gradual one.... It doesnt matter. Without holding the mages in one central location you cannot keep either the populace or the mage safe.



Now are the mages being mistreated? Yes. THAT need to change, not the current practice. The mages need to learn to accept their binds, but the jailors need to learn not to prod them with spikes. The Templars need to learn they are protecting the mages as much as they are protecting the general populace.

[moilami]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...


Yes, any man can kill. No, any man can't lay waste to an entire region. Any mage can kill. Any mage can (potentially) lay waste to an entire region. See the difference?

Any man who wants can build a bomb and kill hundreds of people. Some could build several bombs and kill thousands. Or poison the water resources. There is only imagination limiting what a man can do. Should we put everyone to the tower? Or why it is just that only mages has been put in tower? Why discriminate mages who are no different to any other people except in that they can contribute to the society more than ordinary people? Mages are a great asset to the society, and it is madness to not let them contribute to the society. And I don't even have words what it is to slay or inprison the greatest asset to the society while spreading tons of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Words "stupid" and "sick" are not enough to describe it.

[moilami]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No commoner is gonna care that the Mages have it rough, when they hear the story about a mage killing a Templar.

And that is only because of brainwashing Chantry has done. It would change quicly when in each chantry there would be a mage who would miracleously heal those who has been wounded.

[Nashiktal]

moilami wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...


Yes, any man can kill. No, any man can't lay waste to an entire region. Any mage can kill. Any mage can (potentially) lay waste to an entire region. See the difference?

Any man who wants can build a bomb and kill hundreds of people. Some could build several bombs and kill thousands. Or poison the water resources. There is only imagination limiting what a man can do. Should we put everyone to the tower? Or why it is just that only mages has been put in tower? Why discriminate mages who are no different to any other people except in that they can contribute to the society more than ordinary people? Mages are a great asset to the society, and it is madness to not let them contribute to the society. And I don't even have words what it is to slay or inprison the greatest asset to the society while spreading tons of fear, uncertainty and doubt. Words "stupid" and "sick" are not enough to describe it.

There is a slight problem with that analogy. Most of what you are talking about either requires intricate knowledge and experience with bombs and poison, or to hire someone to do so. Time, money and intent are all factors in this. (Except maybe water poisoning, you could use manure or something. Problem is you would need water as well)

A mage? A mage doesnt need knowledge, time, money, experience, or well... anything. A single mage sitting naked in the middle of a field could cause untold death and destruction.