1869 réponses à ce sujet

[The Elder King]

someone knows where is that DG quote or post? I'd like to see it.

[earl of the north]

IanPolaris wrote...

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!)

We have no idea when the codex entry was supposed to be written.

The rest is true up to a point, unfortunately the codex would have to be pure propoganda rather than simply biased to come up with your version where it is meant to help the Chantry "party line".........nor does it hurt the Mages desire for freedom in anyway, indeed it shows them getting partial freedom from the Chantry, surely thats a good thing (they did it once, they can do it again).  Indeed it read to me as more pro-mage than Chantry. 

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

So exactly where did I either claim that "mages weren't permitted to live alongside mundanes or even preactice magic alongside them."   

It was made illegal for mages to use any magic except under the 'direct auspices of the Chantry', which means that at some point you need to round them up, catalogue them and either employ them as Chantry Mages or ensure that they never use magic again, either by threat or direct action.

Since they are mentioned using magic in the Chantries, it makes sense that they also lived there in the same way many other Chantry members lived within the Chantries......personally I think that is why there was little anti-mage feeling from the Chantry at this point.

Modifié par earl of the north, 28 janvier 2011 - 06:48 .

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[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]

Since when?  You haven't provided a scintilla of evidence that says or even suggests that circles are doing any better than non-circle societies are doing without the circle tower system.

[quote]
[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]

If it's rubbish then you should have little difficulty in showing this.  You might want to try.


[QUOTE]
[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]

Who can guess?  In the first place what little information we have on pre-possession arrogance suggests he was arrogant, and as such may well have completely underestimated the dangers.  In the second place, I think it's very reasonable to assume that Uldred would want to win quickly and demons would aid this.  Finally don't forget he's fighting the loyalist mages AND the Templars, and Demons don't have to worry about the Templar's anti-magic abilities.

Was it a stupid thing to do?  Yes.  Was it a sign of desperation?  We can only speculate, but it can be argued the other way.

[quote][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]

That depends.  Some abominations can mask themselves to look perfectly human (Abomination Uldred and Abomination Conner to name two).  In addition, there is no evidence that harrowed mage is any less likely to be possessed than one who hasn't been (but is well educated).  Again see Dales, Haven, Rivain, Chasind, etc.

[quote]
[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]

I suggest that everyone read the thread from it's beginning and judge for yourself (it's a long read but worthwhile).  I think you'll find that Lotion did in fact change his position (and more than once).

[quote]
[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]

I did see the quote where you do seem to say that the Mages Collective is run by Maleficar and Abominations, Lotion.  Again, I invite everyone to read the thread in it's entirety and be the judge.


[quote][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]

Except you fail to show that this imprisonment is necessary.  Repeatedly.

[quote]
[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.
[/quote]

Logic and the DG quote do no such thing.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
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.

I read rthis blog and correctly and honestly point out to you that it actually said nothing.

It confirms nothing.

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!

I don't know where the templars were. Neither do you.
Did they even have a outpost there? Is that area even within their jurisdiction?

Dunno. I cannot call it a faliure without knowing the specifics.

[moilami]

hhh89 wrote...

someone knows where is that DG quote or post? I'd like to see it.

blog.bioware.com/2011/01/27/on-templars-raiders-city-guards-and-the-coterie/

[IanPolaris]

[quote]earl of the north wrote...

We have no idea when the codex entry was supposed to be written.

The rest is true up to a point, unfortunately the codex would have to be pure propoganda rather than simply biased to come up with your version where it is meant to help the Chantry "party line".........nor does it hurt the Mages desire for freedom in anyway, indeed it shows them getting partial freedom from the Chantry, surely thats a good thing (they did it once, they can do it again).  Indeed it read to me as more pro-mage than Chantry. 
[/quote]

Actually I believe the codex entry is dated (and it's fairly old) but I might be mistaken on that piont.  As for the mages getting freedom, no they didn't (unless you thought that East Germany was "free" of the Soviet Union after 1953).  The mages were allowed to be puppets of the chantry and permitted to run their own affairs in prison as long as the chantry agreed.  That's not freedom. It's imprisonment.  Even the game Devs call it that.  Sure the mages got part of what they wanted.  They weren't slaughtered which is what Divine Ambrosia II wanted!

[quote]

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





[quote]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. [/quote]
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.[/quote]

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
[/quote]

So exactly where did I either claim that "mages weren't permitted to live alongside mundanes or even preactice magic alongside them."   
[/quote]

You said (and it's printed above), "I assume this means the start of confinment for the mages pre-circle"  Confinement means "not permitting to live along side mundanes", so you did say it.

[quote]
It was made illegal for mages to use any magic except under the 'direct auspices of the Chantry', which means that at some point you need to round them up, catalogue them and either employ them as Chantry Mages or ensure that they never use magic again, either by threat or direct action.
[/quote]

No.  It means you have the right to regulate magic.  It's the same language that's used to regulate driving.  You are not permitted to drive except under the direct auspicious of the state.  How to you show you have the auspicious of the state?  A driver's license, that's how.  The only thing your quote shows is that the Chantry in Orlais (it says nothing about other Andrastian nations!) was given the sole right to regulate mage.  That's ALL.

[quote]
Since they are mentioned using magic in the Chantries, it makes sense that they also lived there in the same way many other Chantry members lived within the Chantries......personally I think that is why there was little anti-mage feel from the Chantry at this point.[/quote]

Facts not in evidence.  You can't assume any of that.  Edit:  At best you have shown that mages worked alongside mudanes in the Chantries which would have the same effect (muting any anti-mage tendencies).

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 28 janvier 2011 - 06:55 .

[The Elder King]

moilami wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

someone knows where is that DG quote or post? I'd like to see it.

blog.bioware.com/2011/01/27/on-templars-raiders-city-guards-and-the-coterie/

I was talking about the post of David Gaider. Both Ian and Lotion are talking about it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Survival, is in essence selfish.

Any desire is in essence selfish.

Arne't mages aloso being selfish, wanting to trut around the coutnryside fully knowing that they might loose it and kill poeple?

Sure.  But that selfishness doesn't involve wilfully imprisoning other people.

The desire of the mages, here, is to allow all people to live freely and act in accordance with their natural abilities.  That's the most equitable solution I can imagine.

The desire of the segregationists is to lock up a subset of the population because some of them will probably, as some unknown point in the future, become dangerous.

Which one do you think an impartial observer would choose?

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
Since when?  You haven't provided a scintilla of evidence that says or even suggests that circles are doing any better than non-circle societies are doing without the circle tower system.

You haven't provided a scintilla of evidence that says or even suggests
that non-circle societies are doing any better than circle societies.

If it's rubbish then you should have little difficulty in showing this.  You might want to try.

I have.
A blind man can't see colors unfortunately.

Who can guess?  In the first place what little information we have on pre-possession arrogance suggests he was arrogant, and as such may well have completely underestimated the dangers.  In the second place, I think it's very reasonable to assume that Uldred would want to win quickly and demons would aid this.  Finally don't forget he's fighting the loyalist mages AND the Templars, and Demons don't have to worry about the Templar's anti-magic abilities.

Was it a stupid thing to do?  Yes.  Was it a sign of desperation?  We can only speculate, but it can be argued the other way.

From what I gathered, templars didn't get involved at that stage yet.

I suggest that everyone read the thread from it's beginning and judge for yourself (it's a long read but worthwhile).  I think you'll find that Lotion did in fact change his position (and more than once).

You're full of BS.
I never changed my position. That is a undesputable, provable FACT.

I did see the quote where you do seem to say that the Mages Collective is run by Maleficar and Abominations, Lotion.  Again, I invite everyone to read the thread in it's entirety and be the judge.

Sarcasm escapes you.

Except you fail to show that this imprisonment is necessary.  Repeatedly.

And what have you shown so far? A big fat nothing.

[earl of the north]

Actually I believe the codex entry is dated (and it's fairly old) but I might be mistaken on that piont.  As for the mages getting freedom, no they didn't (unless you thought that East Germany was "free" of the Soviet Union after 1953).  The mages were allowed to be puppets of the chantry and permitted to run their own affairs in prison as long as the chantry agreed.  That's not freedom. It's imprisonment.  Even the game Devs call it that.  Sure the mages got part of what they wanted.  They weren't slaughtered which is what Divine Ambrosia II wanted!

They went from confinement in the Chantry (which I know I read somewhere) where they totally controlled to semi-controlled under their own leadership, which is a step up......total freedom? Not even close but they got the freedom to live outside of direct Chantry control and to be more than fire lighters and rafter sweepers.

You said (and it's printed above), "I assume this means the start of confinment for the mages pre-circle"  Confinement means "not permitting to live along side mundanes", so you did say it.

You originally claimed that I wrote that...

mages weren't permitted to live alongside mundanes or even preactice magic alongside them.

 

But anyway.......No, it means "I assume this means the start of confinement for the mages pre-circle" , nothing about that even suggests that I meant that or indeed the word confinement means that.....Mages were intially apparently only allowed to work magic within Chantries amongst the "mudanes" so where you pulled that out of I've no idea.

I'm glad you just decided not to defend the second part since it was total nonsense.

No.  It means you have the right to regulate magic.  It's the same language that's used to regulate driving.  You are not permitted to drive except under the direct auspicious of the state.  How to you show you have the auspicious of the state?  A driver's license, that's how.  The only thing your quote shows is that the Chantry in Orlais (it says nothing about other Andrastian nations!) was given the sole right to regulate mage.  That's ALL.

The Chantry in Orlais is the head of the Chantry, so we can assume it spread quickly, in the same way that later the circles started with Orlais.....as for the drivers license , last time I checked templar didn't come round to kill you for driving without a license.

Modifié par earl of the north, 28 janvier 2011 - 07:18 .

[IanPolaris]

Here is the DG quote from about 40 pages back:

David Gaider wrote...
That is, of course, ignoring the fact that the world back then was a
much more dangerous place. An abomination tearing up the countryside was
simply something that happened and needed to be dealt with. You also
had an empire ruled by mages that oppressed everyone else, and (if Chantry dogma is to be believed) started the Blight.
I think an argument can definitely be made that magic is inherently dangerous, yes.

If you actually deconstruct the sentence, it's easy to see that it doesn't even come close to what Lotion is claiming and indeed says almost nothing at all. 

The first sentence says that the world back then was a much more dangerous place.  Given the lack of central governments, collapse of the border areas of the Ancient Tevinter Imperium, and general chaos, that falls under the category of DUH!

The second sentence states a fact that an abomiantion tearing up the countryside was simply somthing that happened and had to be dealt with.  Guess what?  It still happens and it still has to be dealt with.  There is nothing that says that rate of abominations in the countryside has changed (and it might have even gone up).  In short the second sentence really says ntohing.

The third sentence explains that mages and magic was often hated because of what the Tevinter Imperium did which is obvious enough but still doesn't address the factual issue of how often abominations happen pre and post circle towers.

The last sentence is someone that no one disagrees with (not even other mages).  However it doesn't show anything else (ie. magic is dangerous and should be regulated).  Again, DUH!

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

earl of the north wrote...

Actually I believe the codex entry is dated (and it's fairly old) but I might be mistaken on that piont.  As for the mages getting freedom, no they didn't (unless you thought that East Germany was "free" of the Soviet Union after 1953).  The mages were allowed to be puppets of the chantry and permitted to run their own affairs in prison as long as the chantry agreed.  That's not freedom. It's imprisonment.  Even the game Devs call it that.  Sure the mages got part of what they wanted.  They weren't slaughtered which is what Divine Ambrosia II wanted!

They went from confinement in the Chantry (which I know I read somewhere) where they totally controlled to semi-controlled under their own leadership, which is a step up......total freedom? Not even close but they got the freedom to live outside of direct Chantry control and to be more than fire lighters and rafter sweepers.

Cite it or retract this please.  Wiki doesn't count either since Wiki is often wrong. 

You said (and it's printed above), "I assume this means the start of confinment for the mages pre-circle"  Confinement means "not permitting to live along side mundanes", so you did say it.

No, it means "I assume this means the start of confinement for the mages pre-circle" , nothing about that even suggests that I meant that or indeed the word confinement means that.....Mages were intially apparently only allowed to work magic within Chantries amongst the "mudanes" so where you pulled that out of I've no idea.

Yes it does.  This is what CONFINEMENT means!  Confine means to hold in an area.  That does in fact mean they are not permitted to live along side their fellows which again is in direct condraction with available game lore.

No.  It means you have the right to regulate magic.  It's the same language that's used to regulate driving.  You are not permitted to drive except under the direct auspicious of the state.  How to you show you have the auspicious of the state?  A driver's license, that's how.  The only thing your quote shows is that the Chantry in Orlais (it says nothing about other Andrastian nations!) was given the sole right to regulate mage.  That's ALL.

The Chantry in Orlais is the head of the Chantry, so we can assume it spread quickly, in the same way that later the circles started with Orlais.....as for the drivers license , last time I checked templar didn't come round to kill you for driving without a license.

No but a state trooper will certainly give you a hefty fine (and may even impound your car) if you are driving without one.  The situation may be less extreme for driver's licenses, but the concept is exactly the same.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Since when?  You haven't provided a scintilla of evidence that says or even suggests that circles are doing any better than non-circle societies are doing without the circle tower system.[/quote]

You haven't provided a scintilla of evidence that says or even suggests
that non-circle societies are doing any better than circle societies.
[/quote]

Given that the circle system is clearly dehumanizing, degrading, regressive, and creates antagonisms on both sides (all really are givens here), it's up to you to show that the system is sufficiently better than the alternatives to justify it.  You have not.  You haven't come close to that.

[quote]
[quote]
If it's rubbish then you should have little difficulty in showing this.  You might want to try.[/quote]

I have.
A blind man can't see colors unfortunately.
[/quote]

Lots of blind men here apparently, hmmm?

[quote]
[QUOTE]
Who can guess?  In the first place what little information we have on pre-possession arrogance suggests he was arrogant, and as such may well have completely underestimated the dangers.  In the second place, I think it's very reasonable to assume that Uldred would want to win quickly and demons would aid this.  Finally don't forget he's fighting the loyalist mages AND the Templars, and Demons don't have to worry about the Templar's anti-magic abilities.

Was it a stupid thing to do?  Yes.  Was it a sign of desperation?  We can only speculate, but it can be argued the other way.[/quote]

From what I gathered, templars didn't get involved at that stage yet.
[/quote]

Mages fight with each other in the tower and the Templars aren't going to get involved especially when one side is openly and forcibly trying to kick them out?  Really?

[quote][quote]
I suggest that everyone read the thread from it's beginning and judge for yourself (it's a long read but worthwhile).  I think you'll find that Lotion did in fact change his position (and more than once).[/quote]

You're full of BS.
I never changed my position. That is a undesputable, provable FACT.
[/quote]

If that's the case then you have nothing to worry about if people do read this thread from the beginning....

[quote]
[quote]
I did see the quote where you do seem to say that the Mages Collective is run by Maleficar and Abominations, Lotion.  Again, I invite everyone to read the thread in it's entirety and be the judge.[/quote]

Sarcasm escapes you.
[/quote]

This is the internet.  If you are being sacrastic, you need to say so.  You never did.

[quote]
[quote]
Except you fail to show that this imprisonment is necessary.  Repeatedly.[/quote]

And what have you shown so far? A big fat nothing.
[/quote]

It's up to you to show the circle tower system is justified given it's undeniable moral and social costs.

-Polaris

[The Elder King]

IanPolaris wrote...

Here is the DG quote from about 40 pages back:

David Gaider wrote...
That is, of course, ignoring the fact that the world back then was a
much more dangerous place. An abomination tearing up the countryside was
simply something that happened and needed to be dealt with. You also
had an empire ruled by mages that oppressed everyone else, and (if Chantry dogma is to be believed) started the Blight.
I think an argument can definitely be made that magic is inherently dangerous, yes.

If you actually deconstruct the sentence, it's easy to see that it doesn't even come close to what Lotion is claiming and indeed says almost nothing at all. 

The first sentence says that the world back then was a much more dangerous place.  Given the lack of central governments, collapse of the border areas of the Ancient Tevinter Imperium, and general chaos, that falls under the category of DUH!

The second sentence states a fact that an abomiantion tearing up the countryside was simply somthing that happened and had to be dealt with.  Guess what?  It still happens and it still has to be dealt with.  There is nothing that says that rate of abominations in the countryside has changed (and it might have even gone up).  In short the second sentence really says ntohing.

The third sentence explains that mages and magic was often hated because of what the Tevinter Imperium did which is obvious enough but still doesn't address the factual issue of how often abominations happen pre and post circle towers.

The last sentence is someone that no one disagrees with (not even other mages).  However it doesn't show anything else (ie. magic is dangerous and should be regulated).  Again, DUH!

-Polaris

Thank your for finding the post. Indeed from this post we don't know if the number of abomination had increased or decreased. It could be both. Probably the only difference is that templars are best suited to fight abominations than common men, but I believe that properly trained mages could fight an abominations. The third and fourth response are something I already know (though they are not good reason to imprison mages; they are good reason to proper training mages and show the young ones how to use magic).

[earl of the north]

[quote]
[quote]




[quote]You said (and it's printed above), "I assume this means the start of confinment for the mages pre-circle"  Confinement means "not permitting to live along side mundanes", so you did say it.[/quote]

No, it means "I assume this means the start of confinement for the mages pre-circle" , nothing about that even suggests that I meant that or indeed the word confinement means that.....Mages were intially apparently only allowed to work magic within Chantries amongst the "mudanes" so where you pulled that out of I've no idea.
[/quote]

Yes it does.  This is what CONFINEMENT means!  Confine means to hold in an area.  That does in fact mean they are not permitted to live along side their fellows which again is in direct condraction with available game lore.

[/quote]
[/quote]

edit: I removed snarky comment.

We know from game lore that most chantry members seem to live in Chantries much like monasteries and cloisters and that both the Chantry,Templars and Mages seem to follow this system.  Its simple logic that when Mages were brought under Chantry control, that they were actually brought into the Chantries, where the power of the Chantry actually is and we KNOW that the were only allowed to practice magic in the Chantries. So this was the beginning of their confinement, which would be cemented when they traded away their personal freedoms for the communal rights they gained as part of the circle of magi.

As for the rest, you seem to have no problem coming up with lots of ideas and suggestions.....such as the Orlais Chantry Mage license while demanding only game lore from everybody else.....so I'll leave you to continue your endless argument with lotion.

I'll keep looking on the pre-chantry mages.......i'm freaking sure I read that somewhere, of course if I didn't where did the Templar put rogue mages pre-circle?

Modifié par earl of the north, 28 janvier 2011 - 07:40 .

[IanPolaris]

[quote]earl of the north wrote...

[quote]



[quote]You said (and it's printed above), "I assume this means the start of confinment for the mages pre-circle"  Confinement means "not permitting to live along side mundanes", so you did say it.[/quote]

No, it means "I assume this means the start of confinement for the mages pre-circle" , nothing about that even suggests that I meant that or indeed the word confinement means that.....Mages were intially apparently only allowed to work magic within Chantries amongst the "mudanes" so where you pulled that out of I've no idea.
[/quote]

Yes it does.  This is what CONFINEMENT means!  Confine means to hold in an area.  That does in fact mean they are not permitted to live along side their fellows which again is in direct condraction with available game lore.

[/quote]

So confinement means..."not permitting to live along side mundanes" now, hang on and I'll alert the media.
[/quote]

If mages are confined to an area and mundanes are not then in fact mages are NOT permitted to live alongside mundanes are are being segregated and that is in direct contradition with game lore (see ghettos).  Furthermore you haven't proven that mages WERE confined to the chantry at all.  I am still waiting for that citation.

[quote]
We know from game lore that most chantry members seem to live in Chantries much like monasteries and cloisters and that both the Chantry,Templars and Mages seem to follow this system.  Its simple logic that when Mages were brought under Chantry control, that they were actually brought into the Chantries, where the power of the Chantry actually is and we KNOW that the were only allowed to practice magic in the Chantries. So this was the beginning of their confinement, which would be cemented when they traded away their personal freedoms for the communal rights they gained as part of the circle of magi.
[/quote]

False.  Game lore says no such thing.  We only know that prior to Ambrosia II that mages WORKED in the Chantries which is a far cry from saying they had to live there.  Again I am waiting for a citation from you that says otherwise.

-Polaris

[earl of the north]

I will nip back once more to point out.......

If mages are confined to an area and mundanes are not then in fact mages are NOT permitted to live alongside mundanes are are being segregated and that is in direct contradition with game lore (see ghettos).  Furthermore you haven't proven that mages WERE confined to the chantry at all.  I am still waiting for that citation.

Still utter nonsense, and still not what I wrote.

False.  Game lore says no such thing.  We only know that prior to Ambrosia II that mages WORKED in the Chantries which is a far cry from saying they had to live there.  Again I am waiting for a citation from you that says otherwise.

-Polaris

We know from Leliana (lay sister of the chantry) that she lived at the Chantry cloister within the Lothering Chantry, we know from Alstair (Templar in training)  that he lived in a monastery, so its not a huge leap that mages pre-circle either ended up in the Chantry cloister or monasteries when they were brought under Chantry control......its more of a leap that they were instead allowed total freedom as long as they worked in the Chantries after getting "Chantry Mage Magic Licenses".

Modifié par earl of the north, 28 janvier 2011 - 10:11 .

[Big Blue Car]

God dammit you nerds look at all this. The mages are awesome, the Chantry are dicks, sometimes mages become superdicks and need to be put down, end of story.



Mages should be free yo, the invisible hand of the free magical market means that they should be allowed to use their abilities.

[moilami]

Big Blue Car wrote...

God dammit you nerds look at all this. The mages are awesome, the Chantry are dicks, sometimes mages become superdicks and need to be put down, end of story.

Mages should be free yo, the invisible hand of the free magical market means that they should be allowed to use their abilities.

Could not say it much better. I would just add to that freedom is not a crime, and therefore mages are not guilty for what they are. Also would be great to slay those chantry people and ruin their plans to dominate and torture innocent people. Mostly templars because those are who do the actual killing. Those who breach my less militant chars would leave be. But no mage hater templar is going to live if it depends on my char.

[The Elder King]

moilami wrote...

Big Blue Car wrote...

God dammit you nerds look at all this. The mages are awesome, the Chantry are dicks, sometimes mages become superdicks and need to be put down, end of story.

Mages should be free yo, the invisible hand of the free magical market means that they should be allowed to use their abilities.

Could not say it much better. I would just add to that freedom is not a crime, and therefore mages are not guilty for what they are. Also would be great to slay those chantry people and ruin their plans to dominate and torture innocent people. Mostly templars because those are who do the actual killing. Those who breach my less militant chars would leave be. But no mage hater templar is going to live if it depends on my char.

We don't really know how much templars hate the mages. Not that I'm saying that all the templars are ok with mages.
Plus, it's really unfair Big Blue Car to call all the chantry "dicks". It's the same thing of person naming all mages evil. Both the things are false. There are evil mages (which are a minorities) and there are bastard templars and Chantry members (altough I don't know how much of them are).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Does the rabbit hate the eagle for being an eagle? Should he?

Of course not. The rabbit should fear the eagle, yes, but it's not the eagle's fault he's an eagle.

With mages and non-mages, we basically have a society wherein different groups of people have vastly different capabilities. You can treat them all equally, and thus let the natural order of things establish itself, or you can impose restrictions on some of them.

This isn't unlike how human farmers will deploy pesticides to kill insects.

If you're okay with one group of humans treating another group like they're insects, then you can reasonably support the imprisonment of mages.

[Erani]

Big Blue Car wrote...

God dammit you nerds look at all this. The mages are awesome, the Chantry are dicks, sometimes mages become superdicks and need to be put down, end of story.

Mages should be free yo, the invisible hand of the free magical market means that they should be allowed to use their abilities.

Word. 

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Does the rabbit hate the eagle for being an eagle? Should he?
Of course not. The rabbit should fear the eagle, yes, but it's not the eagle's fault he's an eagle.
With mages and non-mages, we basically have a society wherein different groups of people have vastly different capabilities. You can treat them all equally, and thus let the natural order of things establish itself, or you can impose restrictions on some of them.
This isn't unlike how human farmers will deploy pesticides to kill insects.
If you're okay with one group of humans treating another group like they're insects, then you can reasonably support the imprisonment of mages.

[pmac_tk421]

JrayM16 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Does the rabbit hate the eagle for being an eagle? Should he?
Of course not. The rabbit should fear the eagle, yes, but it's not the eagle's fault he's an eagle.
With mages and non-mages, we basically have a society wherein different groups of people have vastly different capabilities. You can treat them all equally, and thus let the natural order of things establish itself, or you can impose restrictions on some of them.
This isn't unlike how human farmers will deploy pesticides to kill insects.
If you're okay with one group of humans treating another group like they're insects, then you can reasonably support the imprisonment of mages.

LOL, nice. A very good statement.

[Big Blue Car]

hhh89 wrote...
We don't really know how much templars hate the mages.

Who cares how the Templars feel? If I'm kicking you repeatedly in the nuts whilst saying "God I feel awful about doing this!" over and over, will you be in any less pain? Hells no you won't.

To be fair though, you can't entirely blame the Templars as they are literally kept in line with addictive substances and religious dogma in a way that is tantamount to chemical and sociological slavery (the chantry are dicks).