1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Eclipse_9990]

I find it hilarious that the people against Mages being free happen to have Mage avatars, and people against it(bastards) have Templar avatars. Quite amusing.

Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 26 janvier 2011 - 11:12 .

[The Elder King]

In the matter of magic, I believe that all Thedas nations treat the mages in a hard way (some can even say cruel and dishuman). Mages are obviously more powerful than common men. But they can't been punished only because they are born with magic. I howewer think that they need proper training, in order to resist the danger of the Fade. An untrained mage has higher chances to be possessed by a demon than a trained mage.
I think that the idea of a Circle-school isn't that bad. A place where the families could send their children to train, in order to learn how to use magic and defend theirselve from the Fade. Without of course isolating the mages from the rest of the world.
In the case of a mage that abuses of his power, I believe that a good idea is to send a group of mages mixed by templars. I called them templard, but I mean some warrior with their abilities. I believe that the templars can be useful, although not in the way of an army that have to isolate the mages from the rest of the world. An order of warriors with the abilities of nullify magics, that cooperate with the mages, is for me a good idea.

Edit: I want to clarify that I don't support no parts. Andraste didn't want to reclude the mages. Her follower were and are a bit prevented against mages for the Tevinter history. But I'm not contrary on the idea of a Chantry, if the Chantry changes its methods.
Plus, we have to remind that Tevinter has the Circle, and isn't a lot different from the others, and that qunari treat mages in a crueler way than the Chantry.

Modifié par hhh89, 26 janvier 2011 - 11:16 .

[LobselVith8]

hhh89 wrote...

@Ian-Polaris: where in the codex is stated that Orlais was going to lose against the Dales?

You get bits and pieces about the war from the codex entries. The Dalish claim templars were sent into the Dales, Orlais claimed it started with the attack against the town of Red Crossing. The elves were winning the battles before the other nations got involved. The elves of the Dales stood their ground and made strides into Orlais until they neared Val Royeaux, when an Exalted March was declared against them and the other Andrastian nations joined Orlais against the Dales.

[LobselVith8]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...



I find it hilarious that the people against Mages being free happen to have Mage avatars, and people against it(bastards) have Templar avatars. Quite amusing.

You're kidding, right?

hhh89 wrote...



In the case of a mage that abuses of his power, I believe that a good idea is to send a group of mages mixed by templars. I called them templard, but I mean some warrior with their abilities. I believe that the templars can be useful, although not in the way of an army that have to isolate the mages from the rest of the world. An order of warriors with the abilities of nullify magics, that cooperate with the mages, is for me a good idea.

That's pretty much what people (like Ian) have been suggesting - a taskforce consisting of mages and non-mages to act as the police. The arguments have been made against the treatment of the mages as sub-human and imprisoning them for life, when we see alternatives socieities like the Dalish, Haven, and Rivain where mages and non-mages live together. Even the Chantry's history had mages living with non-mages until a non-violent protest had mages secluded from the rest of society (see: History of the Circle codex).

[moilami]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It's not a matter of morality or some sort of racism, but simple security.

And that security treats a segment of the population unfairly.

Do you value security more than equality and freedom?  If so, then your position is obvious.

But others can reasonably disagree.  And there's no middle ground.

There is nothing but bull**** arguments regarding mages. And with their arguments any minority could be chased down, imprisoned or killed. And he who argues in such a way and makes his best to be part of that kind of system, even after shown the facts, should be treated in the way his system says.

Obviously this "magic" makes it hard for people to understand things since we don't have magic in real life. And since some have hard time doing abstractions, they don't get it that firearms and bombs are real world equivalent to magic. In real world everyone is a "mage" if they just want to be. And in real world, only crazy lunatics begin to use firearms or bombs. People here can't go IC to some regular mage in DA. They have this crazy adventurer role on all the time when they perceive mages. They can't do abstractions either and thus never understand.

I am only interested how it was in BioWare. Was it like this

- lol, mages by the way are freaking dangerous. Can kill peeps
- y
- we should do it realistic
- lol peeps would not like if mages are killed
- hmm, what if we make mages to appear even more dangerous than before
- lol sounds good. and then just invent some perverse fate for them
- pisses me anyway to get pwnt in wow by mages and warlocks. man, how i hate that fear spam!!!
- talk about it. makes me very angry
- mages can't be free
- y
- freaking dangerous


Edit: But I like very much this setting in DA. Just make more options to butcher chantry people in DA2 and in the end make a choise to reform the chantry.

Modifié par moilami, 27 janvier 2011 - 12:43 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

moilami wrote...

There is nothing but bull**** arguments regarding mages. And with their arguments any minority could be chased down, imprisoned or killed.

Yes.  I had thought that was obvious.

Lotion's position is that the natural behaviour of mages is sufficiently dangerous that it cannot be permitted without oversight.  This is much like how modern societies deal with some mentally ill people, or habitual criminals.

The difference of opinion here is whether that's an acceptable thing to do to people who haven't done anything wrong.  So really, the mentally ill example works better.

[IanPolaris]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

moilami wrote...

There is nothing but bull**** arguments regarding mages. And with their arguments any minority could be chased down, imprisoned or killed.

Yes.  I had thought that was obvious.

Lotion's position is that the natural behaviour of mages is sufficiently dangerous that it cannot be permitted without oversight.  This is much like how modern societies deal with some mentally ill people, or habitual criminals.

Except that really isn't true either even with mental illness.  Locking away the mentally ill in asylums is now regarded (and rightly so!) as a highly regressive solution that potentially causes more problems than it solves.  That isn't to say that mental health hospitals don't exist (they do of course) and that some of the so-called criminally insane aren't admitted (they are), but only after careful evaluation and only after it's been determined that no other reasonable solution is possible.  Wherever possible, even with severely mentally ill people, every attempt is made not to cut them off from social contact and social support networks and whereover possible out-patient or highly supervervised living-arrangements are tried instead.

So even the mental illness picture fails since people aren't locked away for being mentally ill unless no other reasonable alternative exists (at least not in modern western societies anyway). 

The difference of opinion here is whether that's an acceptable thing to do to people who haven't done anything wrong.  So really, the mentally ill example works better.

Except when I point out it doesn't.  Those that get locked away anyway tend to be those that commit a crime but either can't be found guilty or the crime is mitigated by mental illness.....in which case they have "done something" to merit being locked away for public safety.

-Polaris

[moilami]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

moilami wrote...

There is nothing but bull**** arguments regarding mages. And with their arguments any minority could be chased down, imprisoned or killed.

Yes.  I had thought that was obvious.

Lotion's position is that the natural behaviour of mages is sufficiently dangerous that it cannot be permitted without oversight.  This is much like how modern societies deal with some mentally ill people, or habitual criminals.

Well I think mages are actually underrated in DA, except by Dalish Elves. In real world primitive tribes had shamans, who did not even have any mage powers, yet they were greatly respected and honoured and in Africa could be feared big time. To a point that if a shaman looked at you with "bad eye" you could get physical and mental issues.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The difference of opinion here is whether that's an acceptable thing to do to people who haven't done anything wrong.  So really, the mentally ill example works better.

Yeah. Very good analogy. Mages haven't done anything wrong, they just have inherit abilities, so they are mentally challenged or how it is said. An excellent analogy. So badly mentally challenged that in real world they would be locked in a hospital before they would had even done anything.*


* Is there any examples of people being put into mental hospital before they have even done anything? (And political opinions & unability to survive on own doesn't count.)

Modifié par moilami, 27 janvier 2011 - 01:33 .

[Mordechaisiz]

I enjoy playing templar..But im the owner of a group for people who think mages should be free..hrum. im obviously confused.

[Johnny Shepard]

Wow. My little thread got looong!

[IanPolaris]

moilami wrote...

* Is there any examples of people being put into mental hospital before they have even done anything? (And political opinions & unability to survive on own doesn't count.)

You can check yourself into a mental health hosipital if you genuinely feel you can not deal with society (a friend of mine did that a few years ago....and she was right too...she could not handle herself in stressful day to day life).  Even then the professionals there do everything possible to reintegrated you back into society as rapidly and painlessly as possible and (with very, very few exceptions) not only allow but encourage social contact with the outside even while under in-house treatment.  Likewise parents can check their children into such but again, there had best be good reason to do so.  Occassionally Child Welfare can do so with children in particularly troubling cases, but agin, there had best be damn good justification.

That didn't used to be the case of course.  It used to be a lot easier to be tossed into the Nut Farm and forgotten (and it's how mental health asylums got their bad name).  Basically mental heath care has advance a lot since "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest", and a large reason why was BECAUSE of the same moral issues that we are discussing now with Mages and the advance of Clinical Psychology that showed that it wasn't good mental health practice nor did it serve society to lock up mental health patients in this manner.

-Polaris

[Erani]

IanPolaris wrote...

Except when I point out it doesn't.  Those that get locked away anyway tend to be those that commit a crime but either can't be found guilty or the crime is mitigated by mental illness.....in which case they have "done something" to merit being locked away for public safety.

-Polaris

Exactly. "Locking up" mentally ill people regardless of their specific condition is completely barbaric and not how things are done (maybe there are countries that do this, but I don't know of any). Only very extreme cases merit permanent living in mental facilities. Nowadays, there's a lot of focus on day treatment (the partial hospitalization treatment), the Clubhouse treatment, and other community oriented rehabilitation. 

The mage/mental ill person being locked up for the safety of the community and their own just fails:?

[moilami]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

moilami wrote...

There is nothing but bull**** arguments regarding mages. And with their arguments any minority could be chased down, imprisoned or killed.

Yes.  I had thought that was obvious.

Lotion's position is that the natural behaviour of mages is sufficiently dangerous that it cannot be permitted without oversight.  This is much like how modern societies deal with some mentally ill people, or habitual criminals.

Except that really isn't true either even with mental illness.  Locking away the mentally ill in asylums is now regarded (and rightly so!) as a highly regressive solution that potentially causes more problems than it solves.  That isn't to say that mental health hospitals don't exist (they do of course) and that some of the so-called criminally insane aren't admitted (they are), but only after careful evaluation and only after it's been determined that no other reasonable solution is possible.  Wherever possible, even with severely mentally ill people, every attempt is made not to cut them off from social contact and social support networks and whereover possible out-patient or highly supervervised living-arrangements are tried instead.

So even the mental illness picture fails since people aren't locked away for being mentally ill unless no other reasonable alternative exists (at least not in modern western societies anyway). 

The difference of opinion here is whether that's an acceptable thing to do to people who haven't done anything wrong.  So really, the mentally ill example works better.

Except when I point out it doesn't.  Those that get locked away anyway tend to be those that commit a crime but either can't be found guilty or the crime is mitigated by mental illness.....in which case they have "done something" to merit being locked away for public safety.

-Polaris

I believe he meant mages as mentally ill as an analogy between real world and DA. In DA mages are treated even worse than in real world mentally ill are treated, but mages as beings are closest to mentally ill people in real world. With of course with the difference that mages are not mentally ill.

There is no one on one comparison from real world to mages which would cover both them as beings and their default treatment. Not even shamans because shamans could not do magic in real world primitive tribes.

[IanPolaris]

moilami wrote...

I believe he meant mages as mentally ill as an analogy between real world and DA. In DA mages are treated even worse than in real world mentally ill are treated, but mages as beings are closest to mentally ill people in real world. With of course with the difference that mages are not mentally ill.

I undestand that, but the comparison completely fails and indeed if you do make the comparison, it shows just how rotten the circle system really is.  We (at least in the US) used to treat the Mentally Ill (esp those with disassociative disorders and those that tended to lash out) like the Chantry treats mages.  That was how the insane Asylums got the horrific reputations that they did....."problematic and potentially dangerous" people were locked away and essentially forgotten...completely at the mercy of the doctors, nurses and orderlies that 'treated' them....often with morally problematic results (to put it mildly).

So yes, the mental health comparison is an apt one....if you are talking about the mentally ill thirty to fifty years ago.

That has completely changed in the last two generations because modern Clinical Psychology has determined that doing this does far more harm than good ultimately, and it's a needless expense, and quite frankly it doesn't actually protect society (the old system) when the statistical evidence was ruthlessly examined.

These days, the idea that you'd take a tempremental child...even a dangerously violent one...and toss them in an asylum and throw away the key is something that would be regarded as horrible and unnecessary by the same mental health community that used to sanction it.

-Polaris

Edit:  Basically Forced confinment of the mentally ill just for being mentally ill has gone the way of the Lobotomy and Dodo....and thankfully so.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 27 janvier 2011 - 02:03 .

[moilami]

Erani wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Except when I point out it doesn't.  Those that get locked away anyway tend to be those that commit a crime but either can't be found guilty or the crime is mitigated by mental illness.....in which case they have "done something" to merit being locked away for public safety.

-Polaris

Exactly. "Locking up" mentally ill people regardless of their specific condition is completely barbaric and not how things are done (maybe there are countries that do this, but I don't know of any). Only very extreme cases merit permanent living in mental facilities. Nowadays, there's a lot of focus on day treatment (the partial hospitalization treatment), the Clubhouse treatment, and other community oriented rehabilitation. 

The mage/mental ill person being locked up for the safety of the community and their own just fails:?

Ok, so it can be argued that mentally ill people of some sort are a bigger threat to the society and still society tries to not lock them on hospitals and prohibit their coms outside. And this even though mentally ill in modern society can't contribute even close to what a mage can contribute in DA to the society.


Edit: While of course keeping in mind the fact that mages are not mentally ill.

Modifié par moilami, 27 janvier 2011 - 02:03 .

[Beerfish]

"Yes. I had thought that was obvious.



Lotion's position is that the natural behaviour of mages is sufficiently dangerous that it cannot be permitted without oversight. This is much like how modern societies deal with some mentally ill people, or habitual criminals."



What sheer and utter nonsense.



Mages, good or bad, ambitious or not, benevloent or malevolent, young or old can turn into an wvil abomination totally beyond their control. Many mages see this, wynne sees it 3 out of the 5 sects of mages see this.



You can complain all you wish about whether the present system is good or bad or terrible but mages watching themsleves is still 'slavery' according to the definitons presented by the pro mage force.



I'm still waiting for a credible alernative to the situation. I really don't care if the mean old chantry made the mages seek automony, or the mean old chantry made Isolde hide Connor. In the end mages can turn into abominations, have turned into abominations, resulting in many many deaths, tears in the veil and all sorts of calamitys.



Mage are dangerous simple fact and it doesn't matter if they are a vetaran long time mage like Ulred or a young kid like Connor. There is a constant threat of them turning whether people want to admit it or not.



I'm not content to let the mages do whatever they want and chance more deaths and disaster just to make them feel better.

[Beerfish]

"These days, the idea that you'd take a tempremental child...even a dangerously violent one...and toss them in an asylum and throw away the key is something that would be regarded as horrible and unnecessary by the same mental health community that used to sanction it."



Comparing real world situations like this with the fantasy world where a being can throw fireballs, turn people to ice and essetentially be possessed by a very evil spirit doesn't wash.

[IanPolaris]

Beerfish,



Evidence would be nice, and don't quote Wynne. Wynne is more often wrong than correct, and she's totally sold on the Chantry PoV of things (perhaps to justify to herself her own mistreatments). There is no evidence that mages "spontaneously" become abominations at anything like the rate that begins to justify the circle system with all it's faults.



-Polaris

[Beerfish]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

I find it hilarious that the people against Mages being free happen to have Mage avatars, and people against it(bastards) have Templar avatars. Quite amusing.

Many people stating a side of the arguement are not against mages.  I play mages as often as any other class if not more.  I certainly don't hate mages by any means, however they are a danger whether they like it or not.

[IanPolaris]

Beerfish wrote...

"These days, the idea that you'd take a tempremental child...even a dangerously violent one...and toss them in an asylum and throw away the key is something that would be regarded as horrible and unnecessary by the same mental health community that used to sanction it."

Comparing real world situations like this with the fantasy world where a being can throw fireballs, turn people to ice and essetentially be possessed by a very evil spirit doesn't wash.

A mentally ill person can easily pick up an Assault Rifle or even a bucket full of gasoline and easily match the carnage that a fantasy mage can and indeed such things have happened.  It's still considered reprehensible to lock away mentally ill people just because they are mentally ill until all other avenues have been exhausted.  This is from a society that USED to lock away "dangerously insane" people and found that it isn't worth the cost socially, economically, or morally.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Beerfish wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

I find it hilarious that the people against Mages being free happen to have Mage avatars, and people against it(bastards) have Templar avatars. Quite amusing.

Many people stating a side of the arguement are not against mages.  I play mages as often as any other class if not more.  I certainly don't hate mages by any means, however they are a danger whether they like it or not.

The danger mages pose has been greatly overstated by the Chantry for their own political ends.  Not even the Chantry believes it started the circles to protect anyone (see History of the Circle)

--Polaris

[Beerfish]

IanPolaris wrote...

Beerfish,

Evidence would be nice, and don't quote Wynne. Wynne is more often wrong than correct, and she's totally sold on the Chantry PoV of things (perhaps to justify to herself her own mistreatments). There is no evidence that mages "spontaneously" become abominations at anything like the rate that begins to justify the circle system with all it's faults.

-Polaris

Connor became possessed for all the nice benevolent reasons.  He wanted to save his father.  Result?  RedCliffe, tons of innocent people killed.

Ulread became possessed and in turn many mages where turned into abominations, many templars and innocent mages were killed.  Abominations up the ying yang all over the mage tower.

Avernus in the wardens keep, on the behest of the wardens summoned demons, tons of people killed, a tear in the veil demons all over the place.

The wardens group runs into a mage turned abomination just in their normal travels in DA1.

All of these are just in the year or less that the warden is trucking around fereldan. 

Abominations and possessions from all sorts of situations.  Ambition, desperation and a benevolent act of love.

[moilami]

Beerfish wrote...

"Yes. I had thought that was obvious.

Lotion's position is that the natural behaviour of mages is sufficiently dangerous that it cannot be permitted without oversight. This is much like how modern societies deal with some mentally ill people, or habitual criminals."

What sheer and utter nonsense.

Mages, good or bad, ambitious or not, benevloent or malevolent, young or old can turn into an wvil abomination totally beyond their control. Many mages see this, wynne sees it 3 out of the 5 sects of mages see this.

You can complain all you wish about whether the present system is good or bad or terrible but mages watching themsleves is still 'slavery' according to the definitons presented by the pro mage force.

I'm still waiting for a credible alernative to the situation. I really don't care if the mean old chantry made the mages seek automony, or the mean old chantry made Isolde hide Connor. In the end mages can turn into abominations, have turned into abominations, resulting in many many deaths, tears in the veil and all sorts of calamitys.

Mage are dangerous simple fact and it doesn't matter if they are a vetaran long time mage like Ulred or a young kid like Connor. There is a constant threat of them turning whether people want to admit it or not.

I'm not content to let the mages do whatever they want and chance more deaths and disaster just to make them feel better.

Your logic fails big time. That is hypocrite "logic". You see mages like they would be some kind of static *evil* mass. Why you don't look at warriors and rogues with the shame shades and begin to claim warriors and rogues should be put in the circle?

Warriors are dangerous and the simple fact doesn't change.
Rogues are dangerous and the simple fact doesn't change.

When you start begin to be logical with your arguments?

[IanPolaris]

You are making the classic error of trying to argue the general from the specifics.  I will address each point below, but none of what you say shows at all that the circle system is better than the alternatives (one of which I've proposed for many pages now).  You need hard statistical evidnece to show the circle is merited and that doesn't seem to exist...or if it does the Templars aren't sharing it for some reason (hmmm?)

Beerfish wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Beerfish,

Evidence would be nice, and don't quote Wynne. Wynne is more often wrong than correct, and she's totally sold on the Chantry PoV of things (perhaps to justify to herself her own mistreatments). There is no evidence that mages "spontaneously" become abominations at anything like the rate that begins to justify the circle system with all it's faults.

-Polaris

Connor became possessed for all the nice benevolent reasons.  He wanted to save his father.  Result?  RedCliffe, tons of innocent people killed.

Conner was a novice mage put into an impossible situation with no social network and an incompetant magical tutor who was directly responsible for the same distress.....you might as well of sent a beacon into the fade saying "Eat At Joes".    Had Conner known the "lady of his dreams" was  demon that didn't mean anyone any good, he would not have let her in.  He makes that very clear (that he was tricked) when you talk with him just before you have to kill him,and he accepts he has to die to answer for his mistakes.

Why didn't Conner get the guidance and training he needed?  Because Isolde was trained since a little girl by the Chantry to hate magic and that all mages were eeeevilll and horrible men, and because she didn't want to lose her boy!  I am no fan of Isolde, but the Chantry System itself shares a huge part of the blame on this one.  In the system I propose, Conner would have had a sanctioned and approved tutor (and thus one that was competant) and early response teams....and so this wouldn't have happened (or nipped in the bud at the very, very worst).

Ulread became possessed and in turn many mages where turned into abominations, many templars and innocent mages were killed.  Abominations up the ying yang all over the mage tower.

Uldred did not turn mages into abominations.  The Abomination Uldred became using Uldred's knowledge did that.  Let's put blame on the correct parties.  Uldred did become an abomination because he was trying to fight for the freedom of the tower and did something incredibly stupid in doing so.  This wasn't due to a mage "suddenly losing control"  It was the action of a desperate mage trying to do too much too fast and messing it up.  I don't defend Uldred's actions, but they were caused directly by the chantry system, and there was nothing "spontaneous" about that.  The battlelines had been quietly brewing for years.

Avernus in the wardens keep, on the behest of the wardens summoned demons, tons of people killed, a tear in the veil demons all over the place.

He did so to try to protect the keep.  It's hard to fault his motives there.  Given the alternatives, while it's a horrible risk to summon so many demons, when it's that or die horribly, it's an understandable and defensible choice.

MOREOVER, Averunus using the same "forbidden" magic, was able to completely quarantine Soldier's peak far, far more effectively than templars have ever been able to do so.

The wardens group runs into a mage turned abomination just in their normal travels in DA1.

Which is quickly disposed of thanks to quick action by the Mages Collective (get this) POLICING THEMSELVES and reducing casualties to a bare minimum (one).

All of these are just in the year or less that the warden is trucking around fereldan. 

All but one both in game and in game-lore are a direct result of Chantry actions and/or policies.

Abominations and possessions from all sorts of situations.  Ambition, desperation and a benevolent act of love.

And you don't think that being locked away from society doesn't encourage those very negative emotions that might cause this.....?

-Polaris

[Eclipse_9990]

Beerfish wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

I find it hilarious that the people against Mages being free happen to have Mage avatars, and people against it(bastards) have Templar avatars. Quite amusing.

Many people stating a side of the arguement are not against mages.  I play mages as often as any other class if not more.  I certainly don't hate mages by any means, however they are a danger whether they like it or not.

I know dude. I'm just joking.