1869 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

earl of the north wrote...

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.

Considering that the entry was written by a Chantry Priestess, I think we need to take it as a given that it's baised in favor of the Chantry.  I think it's quite clear that the Mages are cheerfully going into exile because the Divine was going to slaughter them to a man if they didn't (calling an exalted march against non-violent strikers is extreme indeed but just like a lot of the nutty divines).

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).

Except it doesn't even do that.  We have not only our in-game experience but at least one Codex entry (by an unnamed templar) that shows abominations still wreck havok in villages (in in the case listed by the codex, the abomiantion was caused BECAUSE of the Templars hunting him!)

-Polaris

[earl of the north]

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.

Considering that the entry was written by a Chantry Priestess, I think we need to take it as a given that it's baised in favor of the Chantry.  I think it's quite clear that the Mages are cheerfully going into exile because the Divine was going to slaughter them to a man if they didn't (calling an exalted march against non-violent strikers is extreme indeed but just like a lot of the nutty divines).-Polaris

Not really, unless you unwilling to accept anything written by a chantry member.....which given that the majority of the history is written by Brother Geniviti (spelling?) would wipe out the majority of the background.

Its not really biased, indeed it pokes fun at the chantry, instead of simply saying that Divine 'Whatjamacallit' ordered the formation of the circle in 'random date' for the purpose of control the evil of magic etc, it tells an amusing story about what an idiot a leader of chantry was made off by the mages who got to move out of the chantry and into the new circle.

[earl of the north]

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).

Except it doesn't even do that.  We have not only our in-game experience but at least one Codex entry (by an unnamed templar) that shows abominations still wreck havok in villages (in in the case listed by the codex, the abomiantion was caused BECAUSE of the Templars hunting him!)

-Polaris

Which can only happen if they are outside the circle.....if the circle had not been created the mage would still have been hunted, by the Inquistion and before that the Tevinter Imperium probably had rogue mage hunters of the own.

[IanPolaris]

earl of the north wrote...

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.

Considering that the entry was written by a Chantry Priestess, I think we need to take it as a given that it's baised in favor of the Chantry.  I think it's quite clear that the Mages are cheerfully going into exile because the Divine was going to slaughter them to a man if they didn't (calling an exalted march against non-violent strikers is extreme indeed but just like a lot of the nutty divines).-Polaris

Not really, unless you unwilling to accept anything written by a chantry member.....which given that the majority of the history is written by Brother Geniviti (spelling?) would wipe out the majority of the background.

Hold onto your horses there.  No one said anything about being unwilling to accept anything.  I do accept this Codex entry and I do accept things written by Bros Genitivi, but I do so knowing that they are writing from a pro-Chantry point of view.  That's not at saying that the material has to be rejected, only that it's slanted and should be recognized as being slanted.

Its not really biased, indeed it pokes fun at the chantry, instead of simply saying that Divine 'Whatjamacallit' ordered the formation of the circle in 'random date' for the purpose of control the evil of magic etc, it tells an amusing story about what an idiot a leader of chantry was made off by the mages who got to move out of the chantry and into the new circle.

That is a complete non-sequitor.  You can be quite biased in favor of the Chantry and still poke fun at a Divine you don't think is especially worthy.  In real life, many notable and highly influential Catholics in the middle ages and Rennaissance were quite slanted in favor of the Church but were merciless in their depictions of some of the Popes (including at least one famous case where the Pope's face was used as a model for Lucifer).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

earl of the north wrote...

Which can only happen if they are outside the circle.....if the circle had not been created the mage would still have been hunted, by the Inquistion and before that the Tevinter Imperium probably had rogue mage hunters of the own.

This is yet another non-sequitor.  Until Ambrosia II, it was not illegal to live outside the circle tower.  Until then, such a mage was not considered an Apostate (i.e. Heretic) and the Templars would not have the unquestioned right of high justice in such a case (whereas now a Templar can simply call any escaped mage a 'Maleficar' whether it's true or not and kill him or her on the spot...possibly after having some playtime first if it's a 'her').  It's quite reasonable to think that without the pressure of being chased like this, the abomination doesn't happen at all (in indeed in the case listed by the Codex we are told explicity by the Templar himself that this was in fact the case).

-Polaris

[EmperorSahlertz]

Uhm.. Before the Circle a mage wasn't allowed to cast any magic at all. The only magic they were allowed to cast was to keep teh eternal flame going. So if a Templar caught a mage casting magic before the Circle, he would be allowed to slay him.



And would you stop the rape thing you got going? No where does it say that Templars are allowed to rape mages. NO WHERE. It happens, yes. But soldiers also rape occasionally, they aren't allowed either. You don't know wether or not Templars suffer reprecussions for a rape against a mage. So stop making it sound like they don't.

[The Elder King]

I agree with you, Ian, on the matter that templars have too much power (howewer I believe that not every templare takes advantage of their power). IMO they have to to track the mage and bring him to the Circle or Aenor to see if he was a maleficare or merely an apostate (obviously in regard of the Circle system as it is now. IMO this system has to be at least "humanized")

[IanPolaris]

hhh89 wrote...

I agree with you, Ian, on the matter that templars have too much power (howewer I believe that not every templare takes advantage of their power). IMO they have to to track the mage and bring him to the Circle or Aenor to see if he was a maleficare or merely an apostate (obviously in regard of the Circle system as it is now. IMO this system has to be at least "humanized")

From talking with Anders, and from talking with Wynne about Anerin, that doesn't seem to be the case.  The Templars in the field seem to have the ability to call a mage a "malificar" true or not and "do justice" on the spot.  If you have information that it's supposed to work different than this, I'd be interested in hearing it.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Uhm.. Before the Circle a mage wasn't allowed to cast any magic at all. The only magic they were allowed to cast was to keep teh eternal flame going. So if a Templar caught a mage casting magic before the Circle, he would be allowed to slay him.

The codex entry doesn't say that.  It says their only official duties were to light the flame, but it doesn't say what mages were or were not allowed to do outside their official duties.  Indeed, what you say seems most unlikely since the Andrastians did fight Tevinter Magisters and the like and it seems most unlikely that they could have won had Andrastian mages not been permited to cast magic at all.

And would you stop the rape thing you got going? No where does it say that Templars are allowed to rape mages. NO WHERE. It happens, yes. But soldiers also rape occasionally, they aren't allowed either. You don't know wether or not Templars suffer reprecussions for a rape against a mage. So stop making it sound like they don't.

Who is going to tell?  The dead mage?  I bring up the rape thing because it happens when field soldiers are given essentially unlimited authority AND the subject is considered sub-human.  Both apply here.

-Polaris

[Sir JK]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
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]
Fair enough, but then this should also be kept in mind when reading entries about mages by mages.

[quote]
Except mages were not seperated from mundanes with protection in mind.  See Circle of the History Codex.[/quote]
Thing is Polaris. We have two codex entries written by or about knight commanders stating they are primarily dedicated to protect and protect against mages. One mention of it in the blog. And one mention of something related to the creation not mentioned at all in "History of the Circle". And it does not contradict the entry itself (since it never says that is the only reason the circle was formed).

I am not saying the "History of the Circle" is incorrect, I am saying it does not tell us the full truth. Only one of many reasons. It is essentally... incomplete information.

[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]
Which would make it their purpose, no? Maybe it is based on a lie, but a purpose based on a lie can still be a purpose.

Mind... I am not saying that protection for and against them is the only reason behind the creation of the circle. Just one of many (including, as you say, a greater control of the mages). That we need more than one codex entry/story to figure it out. Just like more than one codex entry is needed to figure out what led to the fall of the dales. Or more than one entry is needed to figure out why the qunari signed the Llomerellyn accords. Or more than one entry to explain why the Wardens were thrown out of Ferelden. Or why Maric won over the Orlesians. Or why the Grey Warden managed to rally a ferelden torn by civil war together and defeat the Blight

[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]
But at least one Knight-Commander is still saying it. And nowhere does it say they have ceased to do so. Granted... they do a bit more that "protect" mages these days. But that does not mean the purpose is not still there

[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]
Indeed. The reason I pointed it out specifically was to use it as an argument against the position that the Rivaini, Dalish, Chasind and Haven is better because they treat their mages better and thus suffer no danger of magic. This indicate that the truth is far less unambigous but that non-chantry mage tradition too suffer from blood mages and abominations. They do treat their mages better and are possibly "no worse off" for it. But they are not clearly "better" (in this context: fewer/no abominations/blood mages). They might be a little better. Or their fewer numbers make it look like they have it a little better. Which make people question the Chantry (as is only natural). But they could also be a little worse,  but not enough to make it very noticeable.
Whatever the case may be, it is not clear.

[quote]Rather they won't draw this conclusion because they have a vested interest not to (read senior members of the Chantry).[/quote]
Indeed, but the opposite is also true. That some pro-split mages also have a vested interest in drawing the opposite conclusion.


[quote]Indeed which is why I think the Devs went as far as they could without giving away the game completely.[/quote]
I am sorry Polaris, I'm not sure what you're saying here. It seems to me that you're saying that discovering that the Chantry is not "achieving anything" would be the primary point of the game. Would you mind clarifying what you meant?

[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]
You need not look at modern politics. You can look at it's entire span of history. Amusingly... it contains cases of where both approaches (gradual and sudden change) led to absolute disaster.

Maybe we're just so very fond of disasters?
[quote]Sure.  Keli and Wynne come to mind.[/quote]
I'd say Irving and Tommen as well... and just about every loyalist ever.

[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]
Fair enough.

[quote]
That tends to happen with difficult issues.

-Polaris[/quote]

Hah, Indeed.

[IanPolaris]

Ser JK,



What do I mean when I said (w/r/t the Blog entry) that the Devs went about as far as they could without giving the game away? Essentially though his argument is bogus, Lotion does have a kernel of a point. The choice between the Chantry and the Mages should never be blindingly obvious. There should be some abiguity.



If the Devs had not put in that qualifier (arguably) into the entry, then it probably would have been one step too far, and it would be obvious which side was factually correct (or at least more correct).



It's in the Devs interest to keep as much canonical doubt as possible for as long as possible. This is what I meant, and this is why I believe the entry was written the way it was.



-Polaris

[The Elder King]

IanPolaris wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

I agree with you, Ian, on the matter that templars have too much power (howewer I believe that not every templare takes advantage of their power). IMO they have to to track the mage and bring him to the Circle or Aenor to see if he was a maleficare or merely an apostate (obviously in regard of the Circle system as it is now. IMO this system has to be at least "humanized")

From talking with Anders, and from talking with Wynne about Anerin, that doesn't seem to be the case.  The Templars in the field seem to have the ability to call a mage a "malificar" true or not and "do justice" on the spot.  If you have information that it's supposed to work different than this, I'd be interested in hearing it.

-Polaris

If you are referring about the fact of bring the mages back to the Circle, this was simply my opinion about how the templare should act. I have no information about that. I howewer don't believe that every templars abuse of their power. The female templars in DAA thought that Anders killed the templars, and she abuse her power when she made that trap in Amaranthine. But she was even going against the Rights of Conscription, which generally the Chantry respects. We don't know if what she done in Amaranthine was approved by the Chantry.

[earl of the north]

Not really, unless you unwilling to accept anything written by a chantry member.....which given that the majority of the history is written by Brother Geniviti (spelling?) would wipe out the majority of the background.

Hold onto your horses there.  No one said anything about being unwilling to accept anything.  I do accept this Codex entry and I do accept things written by Bros Genitivi, but I do so knowing that they are writing from a pro-Chantry point of view.  That's not at saying that the material has to be rejected, only that it's slanted and should be recognized as being slanted -Polaris

That's apparently the problem, written by a member of the Chantry and writing from a pro-Chantry point of view.

There is nothing in there that is pro-chantry, if it was written by anybody else would you immediately consider it biased?
 
Okay we expect history to be biased (or we should),  since the losing side rarely writes the history books.

The codex basically says.....mages strike and stage sit in, Divine is an idiot, templars tell her not to be silly and give in, mages cheerily form circle, winning more freedom from the Chantry. 

There not a lot of pro-chantry bias on show there, not least because apparently it missed a golden opportunity to tell us how evil mages are, how they need to be confined and watched at all times for the greater good....unless it was a way to hide the mages all loosing their freedom and being confined to the circles.

edit: Can anybody point me towards any codexs about mages pre-circle, I thought I read they were confined to Chantries pre-circle but I cannot find anything in game (replaying from scratch at the moment) or the wiki.

Modifié par earl of the north, 28 janvier 2011 - 05:06 .

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...

Ser JK,

What do I mean when I said (w/r/t the Blog entry) that the Devs went about as far as they could without giving the game away? Essentially though his argument is bogus, Lotion does have a kernel of a point. The choice between the Chantry and the Mages should never be blindingly obvious. There should be some abiguity.

If the Devs had not put in that qualifier (arguably) into the entry, then it probably would have been one step too far, and it would be obvious which side was factually correct (or at least more correct).

It's in the Devs interest to keep as much canonical doubt as possible for as long as possible. This is what I meant, and this is why I believe the entry was written the way it was.

-Polaris

Ah, with that I agree completely.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]earl of the north wrote...

That's apparently the problem, written by a member of the Chantry and writing from a pro-Chantry point of view.
[/quote]

That's usually a safe assumption.  If you read a newpaper article written by a Democrat (or Republican), you can generally assume it's written with is party's point of view.  It's a very reasonble position actually.

[quote]
There is nothing in there that is pro-chantry, if it was written by anybody else would you immediately consider it biased?
[/quote]

We don't know what is being left out.  As for being pro-chantry, only the Divine Ambrosia II is being painted as a lunatic.  The rest of the Chantry is being painted in a very positive light (and the mages are painted as being childish as well) even though the policy the mages were striking against predated the Divine (something that is glossed over). 

[quote]
Okay we expect history to be biased (or we should),  since the losing side rarely writes the history books.
[/quote]

We expect it, and it is.  History is extremely biased towards the winners.  Always has been.

[quote]
The codex basically says.....mages strike and stage sit in, Divine is an idiot, templars tell her not to be silly and give in, mages cheerily form circle, winning more freedom from the Chantry. 

There not a lot of pro-chantry bias on show there, not least because apparently it missed a golden opportunity to tell us how evil mages are, how they need to be confined and watched at all times for the greater good.
[/quote]

Sure there is.  She glosses over the fact that 'exalted march' means slaughtering all mages to a man.  She glosses over the fact that it's not exile but imprisonment....when the alternative is death.

There's a lot of pro-chantry bias there, which is not suprising since it's written by a chantry priestess.

-Polaris


[/quote]

[IanPolaris]

hhh89 wrote...

If you are referring about the fact of bring the mages back to the Circle, this was simply my opinion about how the templare should act. I have no information about that. I howewer don't believe that every templars abuse of their power. The female templars in DAA thought that Anders killed the templars, and she abuse her power when she made that trap in Amaranthine. But she was even going against the Rights of Conscription, which generally the Chantry respects. We don't know if what she done in Amaranthine was approved by the Chantry.

My apololgies, I thought you were saying that was how they were supposed to act (rather than should).  I agree that this would be an invaluable first step.  Accountability that isn't seen (complete with "object lessons" as necessary) isn't Accountability.  The Templars at bare minimum (and IMO as a necessary first step) need to be held visibily and publically accoutable for their actions in the field.

-Polaris

[earl of the north]

Why would the Chantry care?



The vast majority of the population appears to have no problem with mages being confined or killed when necessary so no need to gloss over anything.......indeed the news that some mages had been imprisoned under threat of being slaughtered to a man would probably be cause for a celebration rather than something that need to be glossed over. No need to slap around a leader of your religion for no apparent gain.



All I can find so far on pre-Circle mages is this....

1195 TE or 1:1 Divine (1st year of the 1st Divine Age): The first Divine of the Chantry, Justinia I, is instated at Val Royeaux. The free use of magic is declared illegal in Orlais except by those mages operating under the direct auspices of the Chantry.

I assume this means the start of confinment for the mages pre-circle, since that would the only way to directly control the use of magic by the Chantry.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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.

Oh yeah.....riiiiight. Because THIS little blurb is completely unbigious and means EXACTLY what you want it to mean..riiight.

This blog confirms nothing. You see what you want to see, like you did with that Gader quote.

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.

All assumptions from you.
We don't know what would have happened if X was different and I don't want to guess.

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. 

Loosing an entire large village is not what I would call effective.
Being trapped in the fade for hunderds of years is a fate worse than death.

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...
My apololgies, I thought you were saying that was how they were supposed to act (rather than should).  I agree that this would be an invaluable first step.  Accountability that isn't seen (complete with "object lessons" as necessary) isn't Accountability.  The Templars at bare minimum (and IMO as a necessary first step) need to be held visibily and publically accoutable for their actions in the field.

-Polaris

Mind, just because we are not shown any accountability does not mean they don't have any. Accountability that isn't seen is indeed not accountability. But they are not accountable to us, the playerbase of DA, either. So the accountability might be there and just haven't been shown to us. Unless seeing a Templar whipped for abusing their powers is integral to the story, it is unlikely we'll see it. Just like we're unlikely to see how pick-pocketing is punished unless that is integral to our story.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
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

I disagree. Simple as that.

[IanPolaris]

earl of the north wrote...
Why would the Chantry care?

The vast majority of the population appears to have no problem with mages being confined or killed when necessary so no need to gloss over anything.......indeed the news that some mages had been imprisoned under threat of being slaughtered to a man would probably be cause for a celebration rather than something that need to be glossed over. No need to slap around a leader of your religion for no apparent gain.

The majority of the population believes that mages should be confined now at least in Andrastian nations, but this wasn't always so nor is it so in other lands and cultures such as Rivain to name one....lands and cultures in which the Chanty wants to gain acceptance or at least influence in.  In addiiton, don't underestimate the power of conscious.  The Chantry "party line" is they are doing the best they can for everyone's benefit.  Slaughtering mages for a non-violent strike would harm the Chantry's self-imposed self-image.  What's the real difference between the Chantry and the Qun regarding magic. Both actually agree about the controlling of magic, but the Qunari don't care about appearences and the Chantry does (and there is the ever-so-inconvenient truth that Andraste herself apparently did not hate mages at all and might have even been one!)

All I can find so far on pre-Circle mages is this....

1195 TE or 1:1 Divine (1st year of the 1st Divine Age): The first Divine of the Chantry, Justinia I, is instated at Val Royeaux. The free use of magic is declared illegal in Orlais except by those mages operating under the direct auspices of the Chantry.

I assume this means the start of confinment for the mages pre-circle, since that would the only way to directly control the use of magic by the Chantry.

Once again you commit the fallacy of the non-sequitor.  There is nothing in that statement that says or even implies that mages weren't permitted to live alongside mundanes or even practice magic alongside them.  It simply states that the Chantry was from that point on responsible for the regulation of magic.  That's pretty much all (at least w/r/t magic).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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.

Oh yeah.....riiiiight. Because THIS little blurb is completely unbigious and means EXACTLY what you want it to mean..riiight.

This blog confirms nothing. You see what you want to see, like you did with that Gader quote.

I read the DG quote honestly and correctly pointed out that it actually said nothing.  You are the one that was guilty of reading stuff into that quote that simply wasn't supported by the text.  The blog does confirm what the pro-mage side has been saying for pages now.  That there is reasonably doubt now about the circle-tower system because of a lack of abomination social footprints in non-chantry societies.

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.

All assumptions from you.
We don't know what would have happened if X was different and I don't want to guess.

Basic parenting since the dawn of humanity has always involved scolding children and saying "don't do X".  It works very well for small children too.  It's when children start to grow up and start questioning things (which is perfectly natural) that you see rebellions against 'authority/parent' figures, but that could easily be handled as part of the overall magical educatioin....but you'd rather lock away mages and forget about them.  Easy.....until it blows up in your face (which it will).

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. 

Loosing an entire large village is not what I would call effective.
Being trapped in the fade for hunderds of years is a fate worse than death.

I could.  The most powerful bloodmage (or at least one of them) of her time was completely contained for at least a century (possibly more) and no one was harmed outside of a small geographic area.  Was it ideal?  No, but where WERE the Chantry Templars?  Eh? If the Circle System is supposed to be so great, then where were they?  A small group of magical police AIDING the villagers could have stopped (or at least potentially stopped) that Baroness from getting one last lick in.

Don't use a Templar failure as a reason to back the Templars!

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
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]

No, I actually provided concrete examples and calculations strongy suggesting the Circles are doing a good job.




[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]

Stop posting rubbish, then we can talk.



[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]

And WHY would he try something like that if his side was wining? Why take such a stupid risk?




[quote]
[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]

A weak mage that isn't on the outside.
And how would abominations get out?



[quote]
[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]

What others? Ian? Big deal.
I do not lie.
The liar is you.



[quote]
[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]

You own quotes fail to prove that my confused little frind.
What you think I inferred is irrelevant. Free interpretaion of someones post and making fan fiction out of then - those are not facts.



[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]

Imprisioning people becaue of what they are and how dangerous they are.
In a perfect world..yeah, such systems would not be needed. But perfection doesn't exist.


[quote]
[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]

Logic and DG quote strongly suggest it.

[moilami]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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.

Oh yeah.....riiiiight. Because THIS little blurb is completely unbigious and means EXACTLY what you want it to mean..riiight.

This blog confirms nothing. You see what you want to see, like you did with that Gader quote.

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.

There is nothing unclear or contradictious in that. It explains like any GM could do the situation with a few words. Templars has been given lisence to kill mages by devs, and public and templars themselves think it is a good thing and templars are good guys.

There is nothing to discuss anymore. This thread is a major spoiler with all these detailed opinions on the subject (e.g. let the players believe everything is alright or let them see something is wrong and begin to do in-game research finally going out-of-game research to get answers they can't get in-game).

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
This is yet another non-sequitor.  Until Ambrosia II, it was not illegal to live outside the circle tower.  Until then, such a mage was not considered an Apostate (i.e. Heretic) and the Templars would not have the unquestioned right of high justice in such a case (whereas now a Templar can simply call any escaped mage a 'Maleficar' whether it's true or not and kill him or her on the spot...possibly after having some playtime first if it's a 'her').  It's quite reasonable to think that without the pressure of being chased like this, the abomination doesn't happen at all (in indeed in the case listed by the Codex we are told explicity by the Templar himself that this was in fact the case).

-Polaris

Survivors guilt. Psychological trauma.
Either way, it is irrelveant. I place the guilt on the final actor in the chain, as this is where it logicly should be.

From talking with Anders, and from talking with Wynne about Anerin, that
doesn't seem to be the case.  The Templars in the field seem to have
the ability to call a mage a "malificar" true or not and "do justice" on
the spot.  If you have information that it's supposed to work different
than this, I'd be interested in hearing it.

So why was Anders returned 7 times and not killed before?

Why does that blog mentions CHARGES of cruelty if there is no oversight for the templars?
As it is with the media, bad news travel fast and wide... So whenever a templar in the field abuses his power (something taht can happen even if far more strict and fair systems), the Chatry-haters are all over it.