1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

hhh89 wrote...
Are you sure? I believe that the mages have to be in the Fade to be possessed. I can be wrong though.

Hmmm...le'ts see what the codex has to say:

It is known that mages are able to walk the Fade while completely aware
of their surroundings. Demons are drawn to mages, though whether it is
because of this awareness or simply by virtue of their magical power in
our world is unknown. Regardless of the reason, a demon always attempts
to possess a mage when it encounters one—by force or by making some kind
of deal depending on the strength of the mage. Should the demon get the
upper hand, the result is an unholy union known as an abomination.

Magic originates from the Fade, the realm where Spirits
dwell and humans and elves visit when they dream. As such, using it can
draw the attention of the beings on the other side of the Veil,
leading to an increased risk of demonic possession. A possessed mage
becomes a distortion of their former self, a twisted monster known as an
Abomination.



Since magic originates from the Fade, a mage has to have a connection to cast any spell. In fact, casting spells attracts the attention of demons.

We've aslo seen Uldred becoming possesed in the middle of a mage meeting/fight, so it looks like a mage doesn't have to be in the Fade.

[Sir JK]

The blogentry on templars is a very interesting one I think. Saying both a lot and not very much at the same time. In a way I recognice this discussion we have had here in it .



There's some interesting tidbits which I think adds to this discussion

Bioware blog wrote...

Most people don’t remember the Templar Order as it once was. In the days when the Chantry was still young, templars were known as the “Inquisition” and combed the land in search of all dangers to humanity—whether they came in the form of blood mages, abominations, cultists or heretics. It was a dark and terrifying time in the history of Thedas...

This is completely contrary to what has previously been said, that the early Chantry was tolerant to mages. The way I interpret it is that it was even less tolerant than it is now. Which sort of figures... with the still mage controlled Tevinter imperium existing. This is between 985 or 940 years ago (the time between the creation of the Chanto of Light and the crowning of the first Divine) and until, at the latest, when the circles were formed... which must be at least 2 divines later (There must be at least a Ambrosia I between Justinia I and Ambrosia II after all) I presume. So at least two generations. Probably longer, but probably not later than 835 years ago.

The name of their order changed, and their purpose because that of guardian and warden rather than hunter.

Here, since their creation the templars have thus been about guarding and protecting. Which points out that there is indeed more purpose to the circles than controlling mages (since Templars are as much part of what makes up the circle as mages are). Also reinforces my interpretation that the early Chantry was intolerant due to the word "hunter".

As they see it, they protect the innocents of the outside world from magic… but they also protect mages from the outside world...

And again; the Chantry's and Templars official view of it. As far as they see it, they are protectors.

...a world that fears them for very good reasons.

Now this is an interesting little tidbit. For very good reasons. The way I interpret this is that Chantry dogma contains truth in it. Perhaps not only truth, but some truth. That it is not entirely unjustified in trying to control mages.

Granted, it's difficult to tell if the text is biased or not.

...those societies are, arguably, no worse off.

Perhaps one of the most important parts of the text. It does indeed show us that there are people in the universe coming to the same conclusion as the pro-mage side of this discussion.



However... it also says "arguably". Which means even in the setting, it is not unambigous. It is not entirely clear wether these societies are "no worse off". Something I read into this is that while rare, abominations and mage "criminals" happen among these groups as well. Because if they didn't... the phrase would be "better off" rather than "no worse off". That both with circle and non-circle mages, the dangers of magic is on a relatable level.

By the common folk they are seen as self-sacrificing men and women, vigilant warriors that form the first line of defense between humanity and the chaos that once ruled the land during the old Imperium.

Also an interesting thing. The templars are rather popular, mages are not.

...even well-meaning ones...

The way I interpret this is that even the mages see the purpose and benefit of the system, even if they don't like other parts of it. Whatever it is, there are mages believing it is for the right purpose if pulled off the wrong way.

- From the Chant of Light

I pulled this since it is the only source notation listed under it. The text is clearly not from the Chant since that is written in verse and predates both templars and circle by at least 40 years and the White Spire by at least 160 years (since the Dalish razed Val Royeux).

Instead I think it refers to the little text snippet from the Chant of Andraste. With no source listed for the Templar text. Thus bias is impossible to determine.

[Lotion Soronarr]

If it was an expert from some book, wouldn't it have been written down in the footnote, like everywhere else?

[earl of the north]

I doubt the chantric nations have any other experience but the circles to draw on, most mages have dwelt apart from the masses of the chantric nations for as long as the have existed....the chantry comes across as highly hostile to mages, but that hostility is enshrined in the history of its people, even without the threat of possession the locals has lots of accepted history of the evils of magery

The mages are described as dwelling within chantries before the creation of the circles, before that they were probably controlled in some way by the Tevinter Imperium (I doubt all mages held power)....either as noble followers of the rulers, military muscle or a valuable power source (is blood magic more powerful if the sacrifice is a mage?).

After the war against the Imperium, the locals are going to be automatically hostile to all magic (and magic users), the mages probably dwelled with the chantries as much to protect them as to confine them.....maybe that's why the cult of andraste started, as cover for the mages fighting the Imperium so the locals would trust them?

So its not that the circles are the perfect system, they are the only system that the chantric nations know......replacing that with something else would be hugely difficult to achieve, nor would all mages automatically support such a total break. In DA:O the majority of mages support the circles, they are probably more likely to support reforming the system rather than tearing it down to replace it with something totally different.

Modifié par earl of the north, 28 janvier 2011 - 01:39 .

[earl of the north]

Templars

Most people don’t remember the Templar Order as it once was. In the days when the Chantry was still young, templars were known as the “Inquisition” and combed the land in search of all dangers to humanity—whether they came in the form of blood mages, abominations, cultists or heretics. It was a dark and terrifying time in the history of Thedas, and one that only ended when the Chantry convinced the Inquisition to unite under the banner of their common faith. The name of their order changed, and their purpose because that of guardian and warden rather than hunter. As they see it, they protect the innocents of the outside world from magic… but they also protect mages from the outside world, a world that fears them for very good reasons. It is a templar’s place to watch their charges for signs of weakness or corruption, and should they find it to act without hesitation for the good of all. That this occasionally leads to charges of tyranny and abuse is, according to the Chantry, a price that must be paid for the security the templars offer.

Some are saying, however, that this needs to change. They remind the world that mages are not controlled by templars everywhere in Thedas: not among the Rivaini witches, the Dalish keepers or the Tevinter magisters… and those societies are, arguably, no worse off. The Templar Order, however, is nothing if not certain of its role. From the glittering White Spire in Val Royeaux the Knight-Vigilant commands the templars to serve the Maker’s will and keep the peace. By the common folk they are seen as self-sacrificing men and women, vigilant warriors that form the first line of defense between humanity and the chaos that once ruled the land during the old Imperium. To the mages they are often seen as oppressors, even well-meaning ones, and the gap between them is growing larger with each passing year.

“Magic exists to serve mankind, and never to rule over him.”

- From the Chant of Light

Modifié par earl of the north, 28 janvier 2011 - 01:47 .

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
I don't think any of are saying that the Chantry is the only reason mages get possessed, but it does seem to make the chance and opportunity a lot greater.  The real question is this:  Is the greater incident of abominations with thc circle system offset sufficient by a percentage of mages (those that are found) being sent to the circle and imprisoned such that the rate of abominations in society proper is in fact lower than it was without the circle system.  Then you have to ask the followup question:  IF that is true, is the difference sufficient enough to justify the inherently immoral and regressive nature of the circle system.

Fortunately we have several activie societies with mages that lie outside the Chantry's influence, and we have historical records for at least 3-4 more.  When this data is examined we see no social signs that abominations are a sufficient problem to leave what I am calling a "social footprint" (stories about abominations, fear or at least misgivings towards magic in general and mages in particular, etc).  Indeed, whenever mages are accepted into soceity as respected memebers, there seem to be NO fear of abominations and no abominations "footprint" and where they are suppressed, distrusted, and hated (Chantry and Qun) we do see this.

That is a strong leading indicator that the Chantry Circle system may not be as needed as the Templars would like you to believe.

There is a whole LOT you don't see in the game.
At the end of the day it is irrelevant what you expect to see. You will see what the developers had time enough to implement.

There is no hard proof of your claims.

Funny because neither you nor the chantry have provided any hard proof of yours, not that you will ever admit this.  Indeed the lateset Bioware blog comes this short of admitting this. If they went any further, the Devs would be giving the whole game away.  The very strong indications are that I was in fact right all along.  The Circle system is not necessary for it's currently stated purpose.

Didn't Connor became possessed in a desperate bid to make his father better? I know that Isolde didn't want to give him up to the Circle, but I thought the bargain was to make his father well again?

If you talk with a lucid Conner just before you kill him (and he accepts that you have to), you find it was a bargin made in treachery and ignorance.  Conner didn't know what a demon was or why making a deal with one was a bad thing to do.  By the time he figured it out, it was far, far too late.  Why didn't Conner know?  Because Jowan was incompetant and it was Jowan that triggered this disaster to begin with (and sure you are going to trust your father's murder on something like this).  Without the circle system, Conner would have been educated from an early age what a demon was and would have realized that 'nice ladies in dreams bearing gifts' are not to be trusted...and the possession would have likely never happened.

And if Isolde did the smart thing, Connor would be in the circle to learn all about being a mage.
Would that prevent Connor from being possesed? Maybe..mabye not
There's no way to tell really.

Hisotricly, "Don't do X" hasn't really proved to be an effective way of stopping people from doing stupid things, no matter how reasonable it was, so saying that Connor wouldn't be possed wihout the cirlce system is bollocks.

And for another thing - how many mages live because templars come to take them to the Circle, before some angry villager takes matter into his own hands (and no, you can't put the mage hate on the Chantry).
How many mages didn't become abominations becase their parents willingly gave them over to the Circle?

Actually for little children, telling them "Don't Do X" is actually suprisingly effective!  The classic "Don't Talk to Strangers", "Don't Cross the Street without looking", etc works quite well and are staples in raising children.  Don't talk to strange women in dreams is an emphatic extension of "Don't Talk to Strangers".  Conner makes it very plain that he didn't even understand the danger he was in until he was already possessed and that is simply criminal.  Without the circle system, Isolde would not have had the horribly negative attitude towards magic that prompted her to hide her sun AND he would have had access to competant tutalage (and Loghain would not have had this opening to insert an assassin) which could have told him about the dangers of demons in dreams from a very young age.

Remember that these lessoons would stick for Conner in dreams since Conner like all mages is a lucid dreamer.

Soldiers can also stop abominations.  I point out that in the Blackmarshes, untrained Villagers were able to take down one of Thedas' most powerful bloodmages.  Add in a magical police force with both mages and templar-like warriors (and Tevinter uses a system much like this) and you're golden.  As for extra bureaucracy, it is really more expensive than hosting the Chantry on your tab?  I really don't think so.

You mean the Baroness?
Didn't those villagers have the help from the Spirit of Justice AND the Warden? And they still drop like flies?
Or are you reffering to the pre-fade rebellion? The same one in which the ENTIRE VILLAGE was destroyed?

I was referring to the latter where Villagers without any support at all were able to kill the bloodmage and it was the bloodmage's final spell that brought the rest of the villages into the fade with her.  I also remind you that those same villages without any support at all effectively contained the situation.  Now imagine if there were an actual contingent of magical police nearby!  You know....someone that could counter the Bloodmage's magic. 

-POlaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

hhh89 wrote...
Are you sure? I believe that the mages have to be in the Fade to be possessed. I can be wrong though.

Hmmm...le'ts see what the codex has to say:

It is known that mages are able to walk the Fade while completely aware
of their surroundings. Demons are drawn to mages, though whether it is
because of this awareness or simply by virtue of their magical power in
our world is unknown. Regardless of the reason, a demon always attempts
to possess a mage when it encounters one—by force or by making some kind
of deal depending on the strength of the mage. Should the demon get the
upper hand, the result is an unholy union known as an abomination.

Magic originates from the Fade, the realm where Spirits
dwell and humans and elves visit when they dream. As such, using it can
draw the attention of the beings on the other side of the Veil,
leading to an increased risk of demonic possession. A possessed mage
becomes a distortion of their former self, a twisted monster known as an
Abomination.



Since magic originates from the Fade, a mage has to have a connection to cast any spell. In fact, casting spells attracts the attention of demons.

We've aslo seen Uldred becoming possesed in the middle of a mage meeting/fight, so it looks like a mage doesn't have to be in the Fade.

Actually that isn't true.  Jowan makes it perfectly clear (and it's good with lore if not with magic).  A Demon when it possesses a mage contacts that mage in the fade and controls the mage from there.  When you summon a demon (which is what Uldred was doing when he got possessed) you are contacting a demon in the fade and trying to force it to your will (in essence fade combat of wills).  If you lose that combat, you can get possessed.  Also when Wynne got possessed, it was because she was dying and thus was already partially in the fade.

So yes, it's basically true.  A mage can't normally be possessed just anywhere and anytime.  Now if the veil is thin, the rules change, but living in a place where the veil is thin is like living in a toxic waste dump.

-Polaris

[Raven_26]

IanPolaris wrote...

Raven_26 wrote...

Despite what Mouse turned out to be, I never thought he was wrong about his assessment of the Circle and the Chantry (although his red colors seemed to indicate a higher rank of mage than he was pretending to be). This does make me wonder what the independent Circle of Orzammar will be like, who will indeed be "free."

Sadly the circle in Orzammar, isn't popular with the Chantry. If I
remember correctly the Chantry is either threatening (or there are
rumors) that the Chantry is planing a new exalted march.

Yeah sure.  Please tell me another one because this one is hillarious.  In fact a potential Exalted March is being discussed in the DAO forums and the concensus is (and I think it's right) is the Chantry would be sticking it's member in a sausage grinder if they even tried.  The Dwarves of Orzammar (assuming King Bhelen) have an open military alliance with Ferelden and most of the troops of an exalted march would be Orlesian...which means that Fereldan would either be openly or passively hostile.  Then you have to beseige an entire mountain that can not be starved out and where the Dwarves hold ALL of the defensive advantages...and this time the Dwarves will be backed by Golems and likely bloodmagic.

Let's hope for the Chantry's sake the Wardens and Tevinter sit this one out because both are ancient Dwarven allies as well.

It wouldn't suprise me in the slightest if the battly old biddy of a Divine got her panties in a twist and wanted to do an Exalted March on Orzammar, but I think her Knight-Vigalent of the Templars would quickly talk her out of it (especially given that all the precious Lyrium the templars need comes only from Orzmmar and only Orzammar dwarves know how to mine and process it!)

-Polaris

Oh I agree that the Chantry wouldn't have much hope in that fight, just pointing out that when so many mages flock to a free Cricle (as they do if you help Dagna) the Chantry isn't happy about it.

[Herr Uhl]

IanPolaris wrote...

Let's hope for the Chantry's sake the Wardens and Tevinter sit this one out because both are ancient Dwarven allies as well.

The wardens aren't an ally of anyone, Tevinter is busy fighting Qunari and would have to carve a way through Orlais. I don't think they'd care too much, as they don't even deliver Lyrium to Tevinter anymore.

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK,

This post was so full of spin on your part that I think I am dizzy.  I will state specific objections below and try to impart my counter-spin.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

The blogentry on templars is a very interesting one I think. Saying both a lot and not very much at the same time. In a way I recognice this discussion we have had here in it .

There's some interesting tidbits which I think adds to this discussion

[quote]Bioware blog wrote...
Most people don’t remember the Templar Order as it once was. In the days when the Chantry was still young, templars were known as the “Inquisition” and combed the land in search of all dangers to humanity—whether they came in the form of blood mages, abominations, cultists or heretics. It was a dark and terrifying time in the history of Thedas...[/quote]
This is completely contrary to what has previously been said, that the early Chantry was tolerant to mages. The way I interpret it is that it was even less tolerant than it is now. Which sort of figures... with the still mage controlled Tevinter imperium existing. This is between 985 or 940 years ago (the time between the creation of the Chanto of Light and the crowning of the first Divine) and until, at the latest, when the circles were formed... which must be at least 2 divines later (There must be at least a Ambrosia I between Justinia I and Ambrosia II after all) I presume. So at least two generations. Probably longer, but probably not later than 835 years ago.
[/quote]

This is not contrary to the early Chantry being more tolerant towards mages.  Remember that the biggest enemy fo the early Chantry is still the Tevinter Imperium and it's works, and Andraste very much was opposed to them.  Also remember that this is being written from the PoV of the Templars and to them (and probably particularly to the early Templars and even early Andrastians of most sorts) this probably meant they fought Tevinter Magisters (and the Chantry these days tends to equate Magisters and bloodmages).  There is no mention that the Chantry or templars are anti-mage.  It says they fought and hunted "bloodmages" (read Tevinter Magisters), abominations (this should be obvious police work for such an order), cultists (societies that opposedthe chantry), and heretics (such as Haven...Haven would be considered a nest of heretics).  In fact other than bloodmages and abominations, mages aren't specifically listed here, and the fact remains that during this period of time mages lived alongside non-mages without qualm, and even the Chantry Written "History of the Circle" Codex does NOT indicate that mages were seperated to protect anyone (and indeed the issue of protection NEVER comes up!)

[quote]

[quote]The name of their order changed, and their purpose because that of guardian and warden rather than hunter. [/quote]
Here, since their creation the templars have thus been about guarding and protecting. Which points out that there is indeed more purpose to the circles than controlling mages (since Templars are as much part of what makes up the circle as mages are). Also reinforces my interpretation that the early Chantry was intolerant due to the word "hunter".
[/quote]

This is a non-sequitor.  We don't know when the Templars changed their focus.  They could easily have changed it before Ambrosia II.  Also just because the early Templars were hunters it does not follow that the early chantry was intollerant.  I'm sorry but that's really bad logic on your part.  You are reading stuff into the text that simply is not there.

[quote]

[quote]As they see it, they protect the innocents of the outside world from magic… but they also protect mages from the outside world...[/quote]
And again; the Chantry's and Templars official view of it. As far as they see it, they are protectors.
[/quote]

I have never doubted they believed it today.  I simply think (and with good reason) they are badly mistaken.  I DO think that senior members of the Chantry are much more aware of whether or not the circle is really needed, and keep it to themselves because they want to control all magic.


[quote]

[quote]...a world that fears them for very good reasons.[/quote]
Now this is an interesting little tidbit. For very good reasons. The way I interpret this is that Chantry dogma contains truth in it. Perhaps not only truth, but some truth. That it is not entirely unjustified in trying to control mages.
Granted, it's difficult to tell if the text is biased or not.
[/quote]

You know snipping an end from that, and drawing this sort of sweeping conclusion is a refuge of the scoundral.  This entire first paragraph is the Templar's justification as they see it.  If you believe abomiantions are the risk that the Templars do, then the world should fear them for very good reason.  Except as the same blog entry notes, the world as a whole does NOT fear mages.  Only Chantry nations do and the Qun.


[quote]

[quote]...those societies are, arguably, no worse off.[/quote]
Perhaps one of the most important parts of the text. It does indeed show us that there are people in the universe coming to the same conclusion as the pro-mage side of this discussion.

However... it also says "arguably". Which means even in the setting, it is not unambigous. It is not entirely clear wether these societies are "no worse off". Something I read into this is that while rare, abominations and mage "criminals" happen among these groups as well. Because if they didn't... the phrase would be "better off" rather than "no worse off". That both with circle and non-circle mages, the dangers of magic is on a relatable level.
[/quote]

If the Devs did not throw in the world "arguably" they would be giving the game away.  In addition to that, you can always "argue" if a society is better off or not if no hard data is provided.  The point here is the Devs are openly aknowledging what I and many others have been saying for a long time.  There is strongly leading indications that the circle system is not necessary (and may even be harmful).

[quote]

[quote]By the common folk they are seen as self-sacrificing men and women, vigilant warriors that form the first line of defense between humanity and the chaos that once ruled the land during the old Imperium.[/quote]
Also an interesting thing. The templars are rather popular, mages are not.
[/quote]

When you preach hatred of magic for 700 years as the sole legal religion, yes, that tends to happen.  In fact it's much like RCC Jew-baiting which had horrific consequences this last century.


[quote]

[quote]...even well-meaning ones...[/quote]
The way I interpret this is that even the mages see the purpose and benefit of the system, even if they don't like other parts of it. Whatever it is, there are mages believing it is for the right purpose if pulled off the wrong way.
[/quote]

Again selective quoting.  No one is saying that magical regulation isn't necessary, but a well meaning thug is still a thug.


[quote]

[quote]- From the Chant of Light[/quote]
I pulled this since it is the only source notation listed under it. The text is clearly not from the Chant since that is written in verse and predates both templars and circle by at least 40 years and the White Spire by at least 160 years (since the Dalish razed Val Royeux).
Instead I think it refers to the little text snippet from the Chant of Andraste. With no source listed for the Templar text. Thus bias is impossible to determine.[/quote]

Since the entry is on the Templars, I think it's a very safe bet it's written from the PoV of the Templars.

Look, I respect your posts for the most part, but that respect took a serious hit here.  You are reading far, far too much and making huge leaps of logic and sweeping conclusions that go far beyond what the text says and much of it isn't even supported by a careful reading of the text.  Do try to be more careful.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Herr Uhl wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Let's hope for the Chantry's sake the Wardens and Tevinter sit this one out because both are ancient Dwarven allies as well.

The wardens aren't an ally of anyone, Tevinter is busy fighting Qunari and would have to carve a way through Orlais. I don't think they'd care too much, as they don't even deliver Lyrium to Tevinter anymore.

Not true.  The Wardens have been allies of Orzammar for over a thousand years and because of that and their mutual fight against the Darkspawn, any Grey Warden is considered to be honorary noble-caste.  If you play the DC, your sister Rica points that out when she hopes she will be able to "greet you as an equal" when she finds out that Prince Bhelen is interested in her.

As for trade with Tevinter, who says?  The Dwarves can (and do) keep some routes in the deep roads open, and who says they don't trade lyrium to Tevinter that way from time to time.  I doubt Tevinter could send much help, but a few Magister advisors to the Orzammar circles of magi would be a very small investment with a potentially very large payoff.

I am not saying either would ally with Orzammar in the case of a Chantry Exalted march, but they might and even if they stay neutral (neither will side with the Chantry) the Chantry would still lose.

-Polaris

[earl of the north]

It is a truth universally acknowledged that nothing is more successful at inspiring a person to mischief as being told not to do something. Unfortunately, the Chantry of the Divine Age had some trouble with obvious truths. Although it did not outlaw magic-quite the contrary, as the Chantry relied upon magic to kindle the eternal flame which burns in every brazier in every chantry-it relegated mages to lighting candles and lamps. Perhaps occasional dusting of rafters and eaves.


I will give my readers a moment to contemplate how well such a role satisfied the mages of the time.


It surprised absolutely no one when the mages of Val Royeaux, in protest, snuffed the sacred flames of the cathedral and barricaded themselves inside the choir loft. No one, that is, but Divine Ambrosia II, who was outraged and attempted to order an Exalted March upon her own cathedral. Even her most devout Templars discouraged that idea. For 21 days, the fires remained unlit while negotiations were conducted, legend tells us, by shouting back and forth from the loft.


The mages went cheerily into exile in a remote fortress outside of the capital, where they would be kept under the watchful eye of the Templars and a council of their own elder magi. Outside of normal society, and outside of the Chantry, the mages would form their own closed society, the Circle, separated for the first time in human history.

--From Of Fires, Circles, and Templars: A History of Magic in the Chantry, by Sister Petrine, Chantry scholar.

Its from the POV of a Chantry member (who pokes fun a Divine), but it seems the mages at least at first welcomed the circle insitution.

Modifié par earl of the north, 28 janvier 2011 - 02:20 .

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Morroian wrote...
The argument about Connor is that if mages had more rights and freedoms that Isolde wouldn't have felt compelled to hide Connor being a mage and wouldn't have hired someone manifestly unsuited to tutoring him and would have sent him to the Tower (or its equivalent in a new order) for education.

She tought Jowan was suitable. How do you know she would have hired someone suitable?
How do you know Connor still wouldn't be possesed?

The what-if scenarios are ammusing, but pointless. We don't know what would have happen.

And harping ona single incident, thinking that it's the default is also wrong. Even if the Redcliffe thing was 1000% Chantry fault.....ever consider similar incidents there were prevented exactly becase of the Chantry?

Isolde didn't know how to judge a mage from a hole in the wall.  She took Jowan on Loghain's recommendation sight unseen.  No credentials were available because hiring apostates is illegal and so she only had the Teryn's word.  In a rational system where magic is regulated humanly, Jowan would be required to show credentials that showed he was magically capable of handling the job of being an instructor (and we all know that he wasn't).

Given that Isolde simply wanted a tutor for her son, no expense spared, then certified instructors would not be an issue if such were available and she would not have to rely on someone's unsupported word...one who it turns out did not have her best interests at heart.  Furthermore a certified and trained instructor could have helped Conner through the situation while explaining the nature of demons.  A HUGE reason Conner got possessed (as we find out) is because the poor kid was emotionally distraught and completely ignorant of the dangers of the fade.  You may as well light a flare that says, "Eat at Joes" to the demons out there.  Whose fault was that?  Frankly in an ulimate sense: The Chantry.

-Polaris

[Herr Uhl]

IanPolaris wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Let's hope for the Chantry's sake the Wardens and Tevinter sit this one out because both are ancient Dwarven allies as well.

The wardens aren't an ally of anyone, Tevinter is busy fighting Qunari and would have to carve a way through Orlais. I don't think they'd care too much, as they don't even deliver Lyrium to Tevinter anymore.

Not true.  The Wardens have been allies of Orzammar for over a thousand years and because of that and their mutual fight against the Darkspawn, any Grey Warden is considered to be honorary noble-caste.  If you play the DC, your sister Rica points that out when she hopes she will be able to "greet you as an equal" when she finds out that Prince Bhelen is interested in her.

They're an ally against darkspawn. If they were to be torched by humans their hands would be tied. The fact that they didn't lift a finger when the Qunari conquered half of Thedas should be telling.

As for trade with Tevinter, who says?

The developers. And the codex. I can't find the exact quote as I don't remember which thread it was. But it is a pretty big thing in the game that the chantry controls the lyrium trade, as this very subject presupposes to begin with.

The Dwarves can (and do) keep some routes in the deep roads open, and who says they don't trade lyrium to Tevinter that way from time to time.  I doubt Tevinter could send much help, but a few Magister advisors to the Orzammar circles of magi would be a very small investment with a potentially very large payoff.

They don't, and that is an awfully long way in the deep roads when Orzammar is just at the border of darkspawn domination. Maybe a single squad of legionaires would be able to make it, if they didn't get lost, the tunnels had collapsed or they ran into darkspawn, but a merchant train? No way.

[IanPolaris]

Herr Uhl wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Let's hope for the Chantry's sake the Wardens and Tevinter sit this one out because both are ancient Dwarven allies as well.

The wardens aren't an ally of anyone, Tevinter is busy fighting Qunari and would have to carve a way through Orlais. I don't think they'd care too much, as they don't even deliver Lyrium to Tevinter anymore.

Not true.  The Wardens have been allies of Orzammar for over a thousand years and because of that and their mutual fight against the Darkspawn, any Grey Warden is considered to be honorary noble-caste.  If you play the DC, your sister Rica points that out when she hopes she will be able to "greet you as an equal" when she finds out that Prince Bhelen is interested in her.

They're an ally against darkspawn. If they were to be torched by humans their hands would be tied. The fact that they didn't lift a finger when the Qunari conquered half of Thedas should be telling.

Again that isn't necessarily so.  The Qunari respect the Grey Wardens and the Qunari are as opposed to the darkspawn as any other thinking peoples.  That being so, the Qun don't threaten the Grey Warden's fight against the darkspawn or the blight.  However, Orzammar and the Deep Dwarves are the first and best line of defense that the entire world has against the Darkspawn, and they (the Dwarves) provide easy access and good intelligence to current darkspawn activities......and greatly aid the Wardens in maintaining vigilance.  That means that removing the Dwarves from the board would be a direct attack against the Warden's ability to fight the Darkspawn and the blights, while the Qun invasions were nothing of the sort.

As for trade with Tevinter, who says?

The developers. And the codex. I can't find the exact quote as I don't remember which thread it was. But it is a pretty big thing in the game that the chantry controls the lyrium trade, as this very subject presupposes to begin with.

The Chantry controls the known lyrium trade, and the Dwarves only allow a very small portion of their lyrium to be officially traded to the Chantry.  The Dwarves and Tevinter have ancient ties.  It's unlikely but not impossible for at least unofficial ties to be continued.

The Dwarves can (and do) keep some routes in the deep roads open, and who says they don't trade lyrium to Tevinter that way from time to time.  I doubt Tevinter could send much help, but a few Magister advisors to the Orzammar circles of magi would be a very small investment with a potentially very large payoff.

They don't, and that is an awfully long way in the deep roads when Orzammar is just at the border of darkspawn domination. Maybe a single squad of legionaires would be able to make it, if they didn't get lost, the tunnels had collapsed or they ran into darkspawn, but a merchant train? No way.

I think that depends on how much Lyrium we are talking about.  Amanthine is nowhere close to Orzmmar either, but the LotD had no trouble making it to Kal Hirol.  That being so, I don't see why occassional forays (emphasis on occassional) couldn't be made to Tevinter still....and Tevinter wouldn't need to send very much (perhaps a half-dozen people would do) to have an impact all out of porportion to the raw numbers.

Again, However, it's all a moot point.  Even if the Wardens and Tevinter stay out of it, the Chantry would still lose.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[dp]

[Herr Uhl]

IanPolaris wrote...

Again that isn't necessarily so.  The Qunari respect the Grey Wardens and the Qunari are as opposed to the darkspawn as any other thinking peoples.  That being so, the Qun don't threaten the Grey Warden's fight against the darkspawn or the blight.  However, Orzammar and the Deep Dwarves are the first and best line of defense that the entire world has against the Darkspawn, and they (the Dwarves) provide easy access and good intelligence to current darkspawn activities......and greatly aid the Wardens in maintaining vigilance.  That means that removing the Dwarves from the board would be a direct attack against the Warden's ability to fight the Darkspawn and the blights, while the Qun invasions were nothing of the sort.

Mary Kirby wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

This also makes me wonder. Did the Wardens participate in the Exalted marches against the Qunari? On one hand, the Qunari invaded nations in Thedas where the Grey Wardens were present, so I can imagine them fighting the invaders. On the otherhand, the Wardens are only (or mostly) interested in the Blight. So how much were they involved in the wars against the Qunari?

Wardens don't participate in Exalted Marches.  They don't care if the country they're in gets invaded.   They are politically neutral -- they don't go to war unless it is against darkspawn.  This is crucial for them: They can't count on the support of the nations of Thedas in the event of a Blight if they start picking sides in territorial or religious wars.  They'd be in danger of losing the Right of Conscription as well. 

The Qunari have been in Thedas for 4 centuries. And their power adn technology is impressive. Did the Grey Wardens attempt to negotiate with the Qunari? Seeing that the Qun do not know much, or anything, about the Blight (Sten was sent to gather info about this), the answer is probably no. But did the Wardens at least try to make contact and explain their purpose? Or did they not see that the Qunari can be powerful allies against future blights?

EDIT: By Qunari, I do not mean individual rebel Qunaris (it is poissible that some were recruited). But rather the Qunari as a nation and Empire. 

The Qunari of Par Vollen would probably allow at least some talks with the Wardens, but if there is anything the Qunari are incapable of, it's political neutrality.  They wouldn't even try to pretend to be doing that.  Would they be willing to put aside their own interests in order to fight the common enemy that the Blight represents?  Maybe, but a) They don't currently know what Blights are, so persuading them to do that would have been really tricky.  Even if they understood the danger, and agreed to help fight and not conquer anybody afterward, you'd never in a million years persuade any country where a Blight was starting to let them in.  Nobody (except maybe Rivain) is filled with joy by the sight of the antaam massing on their doorstep.

Link to the topic

As for trade with Tevinter, who says?

The developers. And the codex. I can't find the exact quote as I don't remember which thread it was. But it is a pretty big thing in the game that the chantry controls the lyrium trade, as this very subject presupposes to begin with.

The Chantry controls the known lyrium trade, and the Dwarves only allow a very small portion of their lyrium to be officially traded to the Chantry.  The Dwarves and Tevinter have ancient ties.  It's unlikely but not impossible for at least unofficial ties to be continued.

That the chantry ponders a march on Orzammar for smuggling would suggest that there is no connection between the two that has lasted a long time, unless they actually have an underground route. Smuggling there does exist, but it isn't any large quantities. If the chantry were to get a whiff of a rumor of the dwarves delivering to Tevinter, there'd be big trouble for them and the dwarves would be caught up in a needless war as well as loosing their main buyer. It would just be foolish.

Modifié par Herr Uhl, 28 janvier 2011 - 02:54 .

[Sir JK]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
This is not contrary to the early Chantry being more tolerant towards mages.  Remember that the biggest enemy fo the early Chantry is still the Tevinter Imperium and it's works, and Andraste very much was opposed to them.[/quote]
Hmm... I suppose you're right here. Reading it again it does not say that other mages are being hunted.

[quote]Also remember that this is being written from the PoV of the Templars and to them (and probably particularly to the early Templars and even early Andrastians of most sorts) this probably meant they fought Tevinter Magisters (and the Chantry these days tends to equate Magisters and bloodmages).[/quote]
This however, I object to. It is not clear from who's perspective it is written. While I admit it does put Chantry and templars in a positive light and it does seem to have slight bias in their direction... it does not have a source listing (apart from the quote at the end). It looks like a text dealing with the matter, but who wrote it is rather impossible to tell.

[quote]In fact other than bloodmages and abominations, mages aren't specifically listed here, and the fact remains that during this period of time mages lived alongside non-mages without qualm, and even the Chantry Written "History of the Circle" Codex does NOT indicate that mages were seperated to protect anyone (and indeed the issue of protection NEVER comes up!)[/quote]
Except it says when the Templars became the Templars they were charged with watching over the mages. Then again... if this had happened prior to the creation of the circles (and the history of the Circles says that mages were being regulated prior to the circles) then the circles were only a continuation of that (meaning that no, they were not created for that purpose. But that it already existed and were brought into the circles). It does say however that when the templars were formed their pupose was to be the shield between mages and commoners and we have two knight commanders (one undated and one modern) supporting that position.

Also... interesting thing I found just now: "Drakon, by then Emperor Drakon I, created the Circle of Magi, the Order of Templars and the holy office of the Divine.".
So it was not Ambrosia II that created the Circle, but the emperor (and indeed, the history of the circle does not say she created it). Since the emperor is not even mentioned in the History of the Circle entry, I hold this as yet another indication that there is more pieces to the puzzle behind the creation.

[quote]This is a non-sequitor.  We don't know when the Templars changed their focus.  They could easily have changed it before Ambrosia II.  Also just because the early Templars were hunters it does not follow that the early chantry was intollerant.  I'm sorry but that's really bad logic on your part.  You are reading stuff into the text that simply is not there.[/quote]
I concede on the intolerance, you are right there. However, I return the favour by saying that you are reading into the texts that the Templars changed their purpose. There is no indication that the Chantry ever stopped thinking it was for protection.

[quote]
I have never doubted they believed it today.  I simply think (and with good reason) they are badly mistaken.  I DO think that senior members of the Chantry are much more aware of whether or not the circle is really needed, and keep it to themselves because they want to control all magic.[/quote]
Fair enough.

[quote]You know snipping an end from that, and drawing this sort of sweeping conclusion is a refuge of the scoundral.  This entire first paragraph is the Templar's justification as they see it.  If you believe abomiantions are the risk that the Templars do, then the world should fear them for very good reason.  Except as the same blog entry notes, the world as a whole does NOT fear mages.  Only Chantry nations do and the Qun.[/quote]
I'm not entirely convinced the second part of that sentence is part of the justification. I'm also unwilling to give this codex entry a bias because I don't know from what perspective it is written. It is unsourced after all. Unlike texts coming straight from the Chantry or from mages, where a bias is expected, here I cannot see it. Is it possible it is? Yes. Can we be sure it is not a objective description of the world? No.

[quote]
If the Devs did not throw in the world "arguably" they would be giving the game away.  In addition to that, you can always "argue" if a society is better off or not if no hard data is provided.  The point here is the Devs are openly aknowledging what I and many others have been saying for a long time.  There is strongly leading indications that the circle system is not necessary (and may even be harmful).[/quote]
Yes, indications. I agree there. But indications are not proof. Indications is a reason to study it further to find proof. It is ambigous, meaning not everyone do draw the same conclusion... with evidence in hand.

But above all I reacted to the "no worse off". So they might be rather similar. Which I admit is a very good reason to reform circle policy (since in that case it's clearly not making things any better). However... the point I was aiming for is that they are clearly not better. Because then the expression would not be "no worse off" but "better off". Meaning that these problems do happen outside of the Chantry, and often enough to make it comparable.

This is sort of what I have been "looking for", an indication (but as I like to say, not proof ) that the non-circles are also troubled by the same problems.

However, as you say, an important point is that, while ambigously (meaning not everyone agrees), the fact that they are "no worse off" is a indication that the Circles are not as effective as Chantry and Templars make them out to be. This I agree with completely.
[quote]When you preach hatred of magic for 700 years as the sole legal religion, yes, that tends to happen.  In fact it's much like RCC Jew-baiting which had horrific consequences this last century.[/quote]
Indeed. I agree.

Which also sort of raises a concern. If people trust the Templars and distrusts the mages... what would happen between normal people and mages if the mages push the templars away. Just food for thought.
[quote]Again selective quoting.  No one is saying that magical regulation isn't necessary, but a well meaning thug is still a thug.[/quote]
Indeed, I agree. My point was that even among mages, that sentiment exists. That's not saying that the circles are not needing reforms mind. That I think they do.

[quote]
Since the entry is on the Templars, I think it's a very safe bet it's written from the PoV of the Templars.[/quote]
Mind... most texts on mages are also written by Chantry officials. Just because discusses the templars does not mean it is written form their point of view. It might be yes. But it need not be. That's sort of what I was aiming for... since the source is not listed the bias is not shown. Guessing there might be a bias just because it favours templars is a bit unfair.

[quote]Look, I respect your posts for the most part, but that respect took a serious hit here.  You are reading far, far too much and making huge leaps of logic and sweeping conclusions that go far beyond what the text says and much of it isn't even supported by a careful reading of the text.  Do try to be more careful.

-Polaris[/quote]

I admit I was a bit too quick on the intolerance part, but other than that I don't see my interpretations as unreasonable.

But it does seem we cannot read the same text and come to the same conclusion, does it?

[LobselVith8]

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
In your dreams only.
You failed to provide proof that the Circle system is worse than the "alternatives" (on which you have practicly no information whatsoever).
You ignore codex entreies that go contrary to you.

In other words, I cna easy accuse you for everything you accuse me off ( and have a far better case while at it). [/QUOTE]


Very mature response, Lotion. Let's see: you said the Chantry system of imprisoning mages was the best, but failed to provide any proof to support this view. I pointed out examples of how abominations have resulted from this sytem, how other societies have mages living with non-mages, and a recent posting from the devs shows that even in the canon world of DA others are making this same argument. You have done nothing to demonstrate that the Chantry controlled Circles are necessary.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
It's an accurate observation. Heck, there isn't a single post of your where you don't preach agaisnt the chantry.
And I notices just now that you so like to use the word "Chantry"...even whan I'm talkign about the "Circle system"...but to you that is the same thing I gather. [/QUOTE]

Try to behave like an adult, Lotion. It'll help your arguments. Stop calling people names, stop trolling people who disagree with you. Simply make an argument or don't.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Uldred was losing to mages. If he had numerical superiority, that would hardly happen. [/QUOTE]

No, he wasn't. He attacked the Senior Enchanters because Wynne told Irving about what Loghain did, and they confronted him over it. The blood mages came in, and Uldred went ahead with demonology. No evidence that he was losing or that he was outnumbered.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Would he? What kind of idealistic world do you live in anyway?
To simply assume that a person would no be possesed simply because of a different system. HA!
You say "he would know better"...Whos' to say Jowan didn't tell him. Who's to say it would change anything?
Uldred new better. A different system wouldn't hcange Connors desire to heal his dad. [/QUOTE]
You mean a society where mages aren't villified? The nation of the Dales and the ancient civilization of Arlathan existed centuries ago, but more recently we have Rivain, Haven, and the Dalish clans...

As for Connor, it's the Warden who tells him that he was dealing with a demon, not Jowan...
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Paraphrase. Learn what it means.
Altough you did call me exactly that in one place [/QUOTE]
Let's translate this: you're a liar.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
The systems weeds out the weak mages. Abominations never get out.
I fail to see the problem. [/QUOTE]

We have no evidence it's effective or that abominations never get out. Putting a demon in a mage (as Alistair called it) and killing them is hardly keeping things in line.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I didn't.
I never changed my stance. You lie. [/QUOTE]

Considering others have called you out for saying that the Chantry system was the most effective and then going into how we can't disagree with you because it's morally grey, you did. Lying doesn't work in your favor, Lotion.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And where exactly am I saying that the Mages Collective is run by abominations? I said there are abomination within them...in a sarcastc, overblown tone. [/QUOTE]

According to you, blood mages and abominations were handing out assignments to the Wardens - you inferred that they were running things by handing assignments to the Grey Warden. You clearly fan fic'd abominations into the Mages Collective when there's no proof that there are any abominations who are in the Mages Collective.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Theorethicly, that could work too, but it's logisticly impossible.

Too many non-mages, so it woudl require far too much infrastructure. Not to mention that regular folk work to produce most anything (food, cloting, etc..), so they can't be locked up [/QUOTE]
Imprisoning people because of who they are is wrong, Lotion. Nobody here is saying that the Chantry is evil incarnate or that the templars are the embodiment of evil (the only person accusing us of that is you) but we're pointing out that it's an inhumane system that should be replaced.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Arne't mages aloso being selfish, wanting to trut around the coutnryside fully knowing that they might loose it and kill poeple? [/QUOTE]
You lack evidence that this would be the result of mages not being imprisoned under the Chantry.

[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And if Isolde did the smart thing, Connor would be in the circle to learn all about being a mage.
Would that prevent Connor from being possesed? Maybe..mabye not
There's no way to tell really. [/QUOTE]
Connor having a proper education would have stopped it - because he would have known better than to trust a demon. Considering he didn't even know what she was - as he kept referring to her as a "bad lady" until the Warden explains that she was a demon - than this never would have happened.
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Hisotricly, "Don't do X" hasn't really proved to be an effective way of stopping people from doing stupid things, no matter how reasonable it was, so saying that Connor wouldn't be possed wihout the cirlce system is bollocks. [/QUOTE]
So let's ignore how the Chantry created the situation in the first place because they villifiy mages and imprison them under armed guard, with mages being in the mercy of armed soldiers who can kill them based on heresay alone?
[QUOTE]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And for another thing - how many mages live because templars come to take them to the Circle, before some angry villager takes matter into his own hands (and no, you can't put the mage hate on the Chantry).
How many mages didn't become abominations becase their parents willingly gave them over to the Circle? [/QUOTE]
Let's ask the people of Rivain, Haven, and the Dalish clans, because clearly they seem to have a system in place that isn't any worse than imprisoning innocent people in prisons under the guard of armed drug addicts.

[IanPolaris]

Herr Uhl,



You do realize the point is moot? The Chantry would lose anyway? (So why the big fuss?)



As for the Exalted March bit, you:



1. Did not show that the Qun were a direct threat to the Warden's ability to fight the blight.

2..No other exalted march in history would have threatened the ability of the Wardens to fight the blight as much as an Exalted March on Orzammar would. The blight changes everything for Grey Wardens, and if being politically neutral risks losing the Wardens' front line against the blight, I doubt the Wardens would remain neutral. I can easily see the First Warden making Dark Noises towards the Divine on exactly that topic.

3. If the Chantry starts an Exalted March, the Dwarve's main buyer for Lyrium is gone anyway. Your economic argument is a good reason why the Dwarves won't cut off ties preemtively, but if the Chantry does it, I don't see why they wouldn't ask Tevinter for some minor help. Honestly don't you?



-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
This is not contrary to the early Chantry being more tolerant towards mages.  Remember that the biggest enemy fo the early Chantry is still the Tevinter Imperium and it's works, and Andraste very much was opposed to them.[/quote]
Hmm... I suppose you're right here. Reading it again it does not say that other mages are being hunted.
[/quote]

Fair enough.

[quote]

[quote]Also remember that this is being written from the PoV of the Templars and to them (and probably particularly to the early Templars and even early Andrastians of most sorts) this probably meant they fought Tevinter Magisters (and the Chantry these days tends to equate Magisters and bloodmages).[/quote]
This however, I object to. It is not clear from who's perspective it is written. While I admit it does put Chantry and templars in a positive light and it does seem to have slight bias in their direction... it does not have a source listing (apart from the quote at the end). It looks like a text dealing with the matter, but who wrote it is rather impossible to tell.
[/quote]

I think it's pretty clear that all the entries of organizations, races, etc are written from their own PoV unless we specifically learn otherwise.   Certainly that's been the pattern thus far.  Certainly the Templar one seems to be given the spin in their direction (a spin you accentuated).

[quote]

[quote]In fact other than bloodmages and abominations, mages aren't specifically listed here, and the fact remains that during this period of time mages lived alongside non-mages without qualm, and even the Chantry Written "History of the Circle" Codex does NOT indicate that mages were seperated to protect anyone (and indeed the issue of protection NEVER comes up!)[/quote]
Except it says when the Templars became the Templars they were charged with watching over the mages. Then again... if this had happened prior to the creation of the circles (and the history of the Circles says that mages were being regulated prior to the circles) then the circles were only a continuation of that (meaning that no, they were not created for that purpose. But that it already existed and were brought into the circles). It does say however that when the templars were formed their pupose was to be the shield between mages and commoners and we have two knight commanders (one undated and one modern) supporting that position.
[/quote]

Except mages were not seperated from mundanes with protection in mind.  See Circle of the History Codex.

[quote]
Also... interesting thing I found just now: "Drakon, by then Emperor Drakon I, created the Circle of Magi, the Order of Templars and the holy office of the Divine.".
So it was not Ambrosia II that created the Circle, but the emperor (and indeed, the history of the circle does not say she created it). Since the emperor is not even mentioned in the History of the Circle entry, I hold this as yet another indication that there is more pieces to the puzzle behind the creation.
[/quote]

Fair enough and I think we have to now distinquish between "circle" meaning "Society of Andrastian Mages" and "Circle Tower System" meaning the isolation of mages away from society (for the first time in history!) and hypothetically away from the Chantry (although we both know that isn't actually true).  If you want to say that the Templars were formed to protect mages and mundanes when they were living together, I won't quibble.  It seems like they were originally intended to act much as the magical police I have talked about earlier (and since then this has been corrupted).  If, however, you want to continue this argument to saying that mages were seperated in order to protect them, the evidence says that you are badly mistaken on this point.

I will agree that the Templars today believe that guarding mages and enforcing the imprisonment of mages is for mutual protection, but that doesn't make it true.

[quote]

[quote]This is a non-sequitor.  We don't know when the Templars changed their focus.  They could easily have changed it before Ambrosia II.  Also just because the early Templars were hunters it does not follow that the early chantry was intollerant.  I'm sorry but that's really bad logic on your part.  You are reading stuff into the text that simply is not there.[/quote]
I concede on the intolerance, you are right there. However, I return the favour by saying that you are reading into the texts that the Templars changed their purpose. There is no indication that the Chantry ever stopped thinking it was for protection.
[/quote]

See above.  Protecting mages as part of society is one thing. That's not what the Templars are saying today, and I'm sorry but the evidence is still on my side on this one.  Mages weren't seperated to protect anyone and this blog entry doesn't change that one iota.

[quote]

[quote]You know snipping an end from that, and drawing this sort of sweeping conclusion is a refuge of the scoundral.  This entire first paragraph is the Templar's justification as they see it.  If you believe abomiantions are the risk that the Templars do, then the world should fear them for very good reason.  Except as the same blog entry notes, the world as a whole does NOT fear mages.  Only Chantry nations do and the Qun.[/quote]
I'm not entirely convinced the second part of that sentence is part of the justification. I'm also unwilling to give this codex entry a bias because I don't know from what perspective it is written. It is unsourced after all. Unlike texts coming straight from the Chantry or from mages, where a bias is expected, here I cannot see it. Is it possible it is? Yes. Can we be sure it is not a objective description of the world? No.
[/quote]

We do know from Codex Entries, about the Rivain, Dalish, and many others (like the Chasind) and so this blog entry merely summarizes what we've learned there.


[quote]
[quote]
If the Devs did not throw in the world "arguably" they would be giving the game away.  In addition to that, you can always "argue" if a society is better off or not if no hard data is provided.  The point here is the Devs are openly aknowledging what I and many others have been saying for a long time.  There is strongly leading indications that the circle system is not necessary (and may even be harmful).[/quote]
Yes, indications. I agree there. But indications are not proof. Indications is a reason to study it further to find proof. It is ambigous, meaning not everyone do draw the same conclusion... with evidence in hand.
[/quote]

Rather they won't draw this conclusion because they have a vested interest not to (read senior members of the Chantry).


[quote]
But above all I reacted to the "no worse off". So they might be rather similar. Which I admit is a very good reason to reform circle policy (since in that case it's clearly not making things any better). However... the point I was aiming for is that they are clearly not better. Because then the expression would not be "no worse off" but "better off". Meaning that these problems do happen outside of the Chantry, and often enough to make it comparable.

This is sort of what I have been "looking for", an indication (but as I like to say, not proof ) that the non-circles are also troubled by the same problems.

However, as you say, an important point is that, while ambigously (meaning not everyone agrees), the fact that they are "no worse off" is a indication that the Circles are not as effective as Chantry and Templars make them out to be. This I agree with completely.
[/quote]

Indeed which is why I think the Devs went as far as they could without giving away the game completely.

[quote]

[quote]When you preach hatred of magic for 700 years as the sole legal religion, yes, that tends to happen.  In fact it's much like RCC Jew-baiting which had horrific consequences this last century.[/quote]
Indeed. I agree.

Which also sort of raises a concern. If people trust the Templars and distrusts the mages... what would happen between normal people and mages if the mages push the templars away. Just food for thought.
[/quote]

If you read some of my prior posts in response to Lotion, you find that I actually agree with you here.  I am a big fan of gradualism for exactly this reason!  People need to be deprogammed and that takes time and patience.  I think one of the worst things that could happen would be to simply close the towers and send the mages straight into society cold....and this is where part of the greyness comes in.  Knowing that transitions are painful and dangerous, do you stick with what "works' (no matter how badly) preventing short term pain but courting long term disaster, or do you actually try to fix the system courting short term pain and strife for the benefit of a long term stable solution that everyone can live with?  Judging by RL politics today, it's very much a grey issue.

[quote]

[quote]Again selective quoting.  No one is saying that magical regulation isn't necessary, but a well meaning thug is still a thug.[/quote]
Indeed, I agree. My point was that even among mages, that sentiment exists. That's not saying that the circles are not needing reforms mind. That I think they do.
[/quote]

Sure.  Keli and Wynne come to mind.


[quote]
[quote]
Since the entry is on the Templars, I think it's a very safe bet it's written from the PoV of the Templars.[/quote]
Mind... most texts on mages are also written by Chantry officials. Just because discusses the templars does not mean it is written form their point of view. It might be yes. But it need not be. That's sort of what I was aiming for... since the source is not listed the bias is not shown. Guessing there might be a bias just because it favours templars is a bit unfair.
[/quote]

I am assuming a Templar bias in a blog entry about Templar which I think is very fair unless I am given specific reasons (such as a listed in-game source) that gives me more specific information about a possible bias.


[quote]
[quote]Look, I respect your posts for the most part, but that respect took a serious hit here.  You are reading far, far too much and making huge leaps of logic and sweeping conclusions that go far beyond what the text says and much of it isn't even supported by a careful reading of the text.  Do try to be more careful.

-Polaris[/quote]

I admit I was a bit too quick on the intolerance part, but other than that I don't see my interpretations as unreasonable.

But it does seem we cannot read the same text and come to the same conclusion, does it?
[/quote]

That tends to happen with difficult issues.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

earl of the north wrote...

It is a truth universally acknowledged that nothing is more successful at inspiring a person to mischief as being told not to do something. Unfortunately, the Chantry of the Divine Age had some trouble with obvious truths. Although it did not outlaw magic-quite the contrary, as the Chantry relied upon magic to kindle the eternal flame which burns in every brazier in every chantry-it relegated mages to lighting candles and lamps. Perhaps occasional dusting of rafters and eaves.


I will give my readers a moment to contemplate how well such a role satisfied the mages of the time.


It surprised absolutely no one when the mages of Val Royeaux, in protest, snuffed the sacred flames of the cathedral and barricaded themselves inside the choir loft. No one, that is, but Divine Ambrosia II, who was outraged and attempted to order an Exalted March upon her own cathedral. Even her most devout Templars discouraged that idea. For 21 days, the fires remained unlit while negotiations were conducted, legend tells us, by shouting back and forth from the loft.


The mages went cheerily into exile in a remote fortress outside of the capital, where they would be kept under the watchful eye of the Templars and a council of their own elder magi. Outside of normal society, and outside of the Chantry, the mages would form their own closed society, the Circle, separated for the first time in human history.

--From Of Fires, Circles, and Templars: A History of Magic in the Chantry, by Sister Petrine, Chantry scholar.

Its from the POV of a Chantry member (who pokes fun a Divine), but it seems the mages at least at first welcomed the circle insitution.

That sounds a little biased in favor of the Chantry, to be perfectly honest. However, it's interesting to note that, even written from the Chantry POV, there's absolutely no reference to blood mages or abominarions playing any role in the decision to segregate mages from society.

Sir JK wrote...

Also an interesting thing. The templars are rather popular, mages are not.

That tends to happen when the Chantry is busy painting mages as the villains who brought the Blight and who should be feared and mistrusted. Despite how the mages helped save the world from the Blights and their instrumental role in saving the Andrastian nations from the invading Qunari armies, they're still imprisoned to an anti-mage institution.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

We've aslo seen Uldred becoming possesed in the middle of a mage meeting/fight, so it looks like a mage doesn't have to be in the Fade.

He was possessed because of his use of demonology, as Niall explains.

[Herr Uhl]

IanPolaris wrote...

Herr Uhl,

You do realize the point is moot? The Chantry would lose anyway? (So why the big fuss?)

As for the Exalted March bit, you:

1. Did not show that the Qun were a direct threat to the Warden's ability to fight the blight.
2..No other exalted march in history would have threatened the ability of the Wardens to fight the blight as much as an Exalted March on Orzammar would. The blight changes everything for Grey Wardens, and if being politically neutral risks losing the Wardens' front line against the blight, I doubt the Wardens would remain neutral. I can easily see the First Warden making Dark Noises towards the Divine on exactly that topic.
3. If the Chantry starts an Exalted March, the Dwarve's main buyer for Lyrium is gone anyway. Your economic argument is a good reason why the Dwarves won't cut off ties preemtively, but if the Chantry does it, I don't see why they wouldn't ask Tevinter for some minor help. Honestly don't you?
-Polaris

I couldn't care if they'd win your hypothetical march (as it is on the level of saying, my dad is stronger than your dad in the playground) of not, but don't pull things out of nowhere to support your claims.

The wardens have a greater ally in the chantry than Orzammar too. He might mutter all he wants, but if he turns against the chantry he is bound to loose the main part of his potential recruits and probably a fair amount of wardens. Something that you seem to fail considering. The wardens have never taken part in a war unrelated to a blight, apart from the events that are told at wardens keep, and you think they'd go to war with the better part of Thedas for a city that has the relative strength and numbers of a small nation. It just seems preposterous.

Tevinter isn't the same as old Tevinter despite the name. That these ancient ties still exist is an assumption. Tevinter has enough problems with the Qunari as it is anyways, strong as they may be, to take on every other nation apart from Rivain in an offensive war.

Anyways, this is offtopic as 1. DAO related and 2. Not related to mages.

[IanPolaris]

Herr Uhl wrote...

I couldn't care if they'd win your hypothetical march (as it is on the level of saying, my dad is stronger than your dad in the playground) of not, but don't pull things out of nowhere to support your claims.

I take umbrage at that.  I might be mistaken and you might disagree, but I am NOT pulling things out of nowhere and that was just rude...and you don't get to be rude and then say, "I won't say any more because it's not topical".

I gave very valid in-game reasons for the positions I stated.  You disagreed and had valid reasons of your own, but don't belittle. It's beneath you.

-Polaris

Edit:  The First Warden would likely lose a lot less than you think.  The Chantry already dislikes and distrusts the Wardens, and the agreements the Wardens have do not include the Chantry anyway.  After a failed exalted march on Orzammar against an apostate circle, the Chantry's political power would likely be broken anyway....and everyone knows the Dwarves form the front line against the Darkspawn, and having the First Warden say that would really make it almost impossible for most nations to support the Chantry in an Exalted March against Orzammar...and all that without lifting a single weapon by the Wardens.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 28 janvier 2011 - 03:59 .

[earl of the north]

LobselVith8 wrote...

earl of the north wrote...

It is a truth universally acknowledged that nothing is more successful at inspiring a person to mischief as being told not to do something. Unfortunately, the Chantry of the Divine Age had some trouble with obvious truths. Although it did not outlaw magic-quite the contrary, as the Chantry relied upon magic to kindle the eternal flame which burns in every brazier in every chantry-it relegated mages to lighting candles and lamps. Perhaps occasional dusting of rafters and eaves.


I will give my readers a moment to contemplate how well such a role satisfied the mages of the time.


It surprised absolutely no one when the mages of Val Royeaux, in protest, snuffed the sacred flames of the cathedral and barricaded themselves inside the choir loft. No one, that is, but Divine Ambrosia II, who was outraged and attempted to order an Exalted March upon her own cathedral. Even her most devout Templars discouraged that idea. For 21 days, the fires remained unlit while negotiations were conducted, legend tells us, by shouting back and forth from the loft.


The mages went cheerily into exile in a remote fortress outside of the capital, where they would be kept under the watchful eye of the Templars and a council of their own elder magi. Outside of normal society, and outside of the Chantry, the mages would form their own closed society, the Circle, separated for the first time in human history.

--From Of Fires, Circles, and Templars: A History of Magic in the Chantry, by Sister Petrine, Chantry scholar.

Its from the POV of a Chantry member (who pokes fun a Divine), but it seems the mages at least at first welcomed the circle insitution.

That sounds a little biased in favor of the Chantry, to be perfectly honest. However, it's interesting to note that, even written from the Chantry POV, there's absolutely no reference to blood mages or abominarions playing any role in the decision to segregate mages from society.

I do not find it biased myself, not least because of the joking about a Divine and the chantry comes off looking a little silly. The circle seems to been at least partially the mages idea, maybe because it was a much better life than what they had to look forward to up to that point.....which was apparently to be a portable lighter.

I don't personally think there is any link between the creation of the circle and blood mages or abominations, the circles would however make containing abominations away from the public eye easier....since only Mages, Templars and Chantry personnel would have been killed rather than whole villages......which would have been magnified in the tales told about it (if a goat died, within a month villagers would be taliking about massacres).

Modifié par earl of the north, 28 janvier 2011 - 03:58 .