1869 réponses à ce sujet

[earl of the north]

Sir JK wrote...

earl of the north wrote...
Doesn't the circle choose who gets tranquiled, is there any mention of the Templars or the Chantry tranquiling anybody?

This is the tricky part... the Hierarchy of the circle codex entry says it is the First Enchanter who decides which apprentices that are raised to mages (through the Harrowing)... but Jowan's tranquilisation order was signed by Gregoir. But that could have been due to suspected Blood Magic...

Perhaps both First Enchanter and Knight-Commander both can choose that? The Knight-Commander have the right if "circle security is threatened" but if a mage is deemed unworthy it is the First Enchanter that chooses?

I assume it more of a council decision on which mages get tranquiled, but that the Knight Commander has to sign off the decision.

Doesn't Gregoir have the right to simply arrest Jowan if he's suspected of using Blood Magic, althrough its a tidy way of handling those suspected of dabling in blood magic without distrupting the circle.

Modifié par earl of the north, 29 janvier 2011 - 10:08 .

[IanPolaris]

earl of the north wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

earl of the north wrote...
Doesn't the circle choose who gets tranquiled, is there any mention of the Templars or the Chantry tranquiling anybody?

This is the tricky part... the Hierarchy of the circle codex entry says it is the First Enchanter who decides which apprentices that are raised to mages (through the Harrowing)... but Jowan's tranquilisation order was signed by Gregoir. But that could have been due to suspected Blood Magic...

Perhaps both First Enchanter and Knight-Commander both can choose that? The Knight-Commander have the right if "circle security is threatened" but if a mage is deemed unworthy it is the First Enchanter that chooses?

I assume it more of a council decision on which mages get tranquiled, but that the Knight Commander has to sign off the decision.

Doesn't Gregoir have the right to simply arrest Jowan if he's suspected of using Blood Magic, althrough its a tidy way of handling those suspected of dabling in blood magic without distrupting the circle.

The mage's origin story was very clear on this point.  It's Gregoire as Knight Commander that has the first and last say as to who gets tranquiled and who gets harrowed.  Gregoire signed the order not Irving and Irving said that there was nothing he could do and if it were up to him things 'might' be different.

-Polaris

[elfdwarf]

Gregoir didn't have any proof til it was too late

i bet it was first enchanter idea so it wouldn't cause any tension between mages and templar, shame on lilly.

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Mages have no freedom. They aren't semi-free by any measure. They're living in a prison with no rights to contest if they're given the Rite of Tranquility or outright murdered because they're accused of being maleficarum - and even the First Enchanter has no say in the matter or required to oversee the evidence in question (Magi Origin). Even the Magi boon is turned down not by the First Enchanter, but by the Chantry - because they control all the Circles throughout Thedas (except for Tevinter).

They have some rights though. No many, but some. Within the tower, assuming the templars don't find any evidence on them and they follow the rules, they have the right to live, the right to eat, the right of a roof over their head, the right to develop their powers, the right to choose their own field of study, the right to themselves dictate what they will do and the right to express a political opinion, even Libertarian ones.
Granted, if the templars see them as a threat they have nothing protecting them and they have no freedom to leave the tower.
But some rights they do have. Not enough, but definantely more than no rights.

No they don't.  The Templars permit them to do all this, but it's all at the sufference of the Templars.  Mages have no rights by any stretch of the imagination since one order from the Grand Cleric and the Templars can legally kill all the mages in the tower.  Ergo, mages have no rights...only privledges that the Chantry chooses to grant.

It spread because the first Orlesian Emperor started Exalted Marches and forced a particular Cult of Andraste as "the truth" all over Thedas.

Actually... Drakon just established the Andrastian Chantry as statereligion in Orlais (then including the Anderfels and Nevarra+Kirkwall-area). It was the Grey Wardens that spread the religion outside of Orlais. It took almost a hundred years after that before the first "modern" (as opposed to Andraste's namesake) Exalted March. Drakon was long dead and the Orlesian empire crumbled to little more than it's modern borders (excluding the Dales) by the time the first real Exalted March kicked off.

Drakon built the greater Orlesian empire as part of a holy crusade so Lov is basically correct here.  Also the Grey Wardens might have spread the word (although cites for this might be nice), but Grey Wardens not only predate the Chantry but have been cool at best towards them over the centuries.

There's no entry that even implies that mages were forced to live in a cathedral. The codex History of the Circle makes it clear that mages were segregated because they held a nonviolent protest in a cathedral.

It is however clear they were not allowed to do any magic beyond what the Chantry said and that they were not allowed to do anything but be the janitors of the Cathedral prior to the creation of the circles.

Also, I object the use of the word because and suggest using following instead. The entry does not say it was specifically because of their non-violent protest. Just following it.

Also... is it just me that sees the irony in that the circles were created after the mages "locked themselves up".

Actually that's not quite what that codex entry says either.  It's unclear what mages could do outside of lighting fires in the chantry, but it doesn't say the Chantry forbade any other kind of magic.  Futhermore, there is NO evidence that mages were cloistered in any way.  They may have worked at the Chantry but that doesn't mean they had to live there.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

earl of the north wrote...

Doesn't Gregoir have the right to simply arrest Jowan if he's suspected of using Blood Magic, althrough its a tidy way of handling those suspected of dabling in blood magic without distrupting the circle.

He does and he wanted to.  He let Irving talk him out of it so he could see "who else" Jowan would smoke out.  Gregoire rips Irving a new one for that as well in the Mages' Origin.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

earl of the north wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

earl of the north wrote...

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.

It really is but if you want to retract it then feel free....

Feel free to be produce any dictionary that agrees with you that the word confinement means "not permitted to live with mundanes"......you took my words and span an totally different meaning that was actually the opposite of what was written. I said that "it was the beginning of their confinement" (by the Chantry).

Oh please give it up.  You claimed that the mages were CONFINED.  Confined means not able to mix with others.

Prove it.  I asked you five pages to show ANY citation that proves this.  I am still waiting.

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".

Again the non-sequitor. Just because some orders and lay orders live in the Chantry (now we don't know how long historically), doesn't mean that mages did. Please show me where mages HAD to live in the chantry? Cite or retract please. [Yes mages at one time had to WORK in the Chantry, but that's not the same thing.]

-Polaris

The majority of Chantry members appear to live in Chantry or government buildings do they not?

But mages apparently, (despite being later confined to the tower.....where they actually live with mudanes, Templars and Clerics) when they were being put under control of the Chantry were allowed to live free, running and skipping through the trees after getting one of your "Chantry Mage Magic Licenses", after promising not to use magic.

Please Cite anything that says that mages were free pre-circle......they could only work MAGIC within the Chantry, nowhere else within Orlais legally and the Chantry had that force of newly minted Templars (ex-Inquisitors) to enforce the new rule. Does it say anywhere in lore that the Chantry had to pay them for this work, if so please cite that as well.

Weirdly I find myself fighting the pro-mage side to prove the mages were oppressed by the Chantry even before the existence of the circles.

The History of the Circle says this.  There is NOTHING in there that says that mages were confined to the Chantry.  None.  The only thing it says is that mages worked in the Chantry and that the Chantry regulated magic.

Please stop reading stuff into the entries that simply isn't there.  Again please show the codex entry (NOT wiki because wiki is frequently wrong) or other game lore source that proves that mages were confined in the chantry.

Please stop dodging this.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  I note that the HIstory of the Circle Codex notes that this was the first time in history that mages had been seperated from society which directrly contradicts what you are trying to claim.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 29 janvier 2011 - 10:41 .

[elfdwarf]

chantry give some right to mage

templar have some restriction

templar follows chantry rules unless templar go rouge

my motto is good templar is dead templar

[earl of the north]

Oh please give it up.  You claimed that the mages were CONFINED.  Confined means not able to mix with others.

Prove it.  I asked you five pages to show ANY citation that proves this.  I am still waiting.

Try to read this without editing it your head, my specific words were that "this was the beginning of their confinement".

I'm still waiting for you to produce anything that says they weren't confined to the Chantry in the same way almost EVERBODY else involved with the Chantry is confined, they live and work as part of the same organisation separate from the outside world unless they are detached to serve nobles or government buildings.

The Chantries members live confined lives, the Templars live confined lives and so do the Mages.

The History of the Circle says this.  There is NOTHING in there that says that mages were confined to the Chantry.  None.  The only thing it says is that mages worked in the Chantry and that the Chantry regulated magic.

The History of the Circle does not say they were free until the creation of the circle, there are two codex entries both of which say that mages (in Orlais originally) were only allowed to practice magic under Chantry control.....how do you think they exercised that control without having physical control of the mages.

Please stop reading stuff into the entries that simply isn't there.  Again please show the codex entry (NOT wiki because wiki is frequently wrong) or other game lore source that proves that mages were confined in the chantry.

Please stop dodging this.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  I note that the HIstory of the Circle Codex notes that this was the first time in history that mages had been seperated from society which directrly contradicts what you are trying to claim.

Or to quote it in full

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.

I NEVER claimed that pre-circle that they were totally separated from the rest of society, you claimed that I did and have been spinning away with that line ever since, I said it was the start of their confinement by the Chanity, as in within the Chantry structure they were beginning to be confined.

Maker!

I'm freaking agreeing with you.....the Chantry took control of the mages because they wanted to control them, there isn't any need to confine mages to protect society from abominations, a system of monitoring  mages and control for those that are possessed (ie death) or harming innocents is needed, but the actual confinement of innocent mages is counter productive..........damn your hard to agree with.

Would it help if I just write pro-mage chants and churn out anti-chantry retoric from now on.

Templars......BOO BOO!
Mages............YEAH!
Chantry..........BOO BOO!
Mages............YEAH!

Modifié par earl of the north, 29 janvier 2011 - 11:27 .

[elfdwarf]

mage reminded me of xmen

[elfdwarf]

sorry about double post
ps3 browser screw up

Modifié par elfdwarf, 29 janvier 2011 - 11:36 .

[moilami]

elfdwarf wrote...

chantry give some right to mage
templar have some restriction
templar follows chantry rules unless templar go rouge
my motto is good templar is dead templar

I would so very much enjoy to take that motto.


(For the time being mages are treated as they are.)

Modifié par moilami, 29 janvier 2011 - 11:40 .

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...
No they don't.  The Templars permit them to do all this, but it's all at the sufference of the Templars.  Mages have no rights by any stretch of the imagination since one order from the Grand Cleric and the Templars can legally kill all the mages in the tower.  Ergo, mages have no rights...only privledges that the Chantry chooses to grant.

And yet the Templars are not allowed by Irving to kill Anders because they could not prove he was Maleficar (according to David Gaider, I'll see if I can dig up the quote), hence why he was brought back 7 times. Until Rylcok decides to take matter into her own hands (mind she does that only after a templar has been killed with no witnesses).
The order to tranquil Jowan had to be signed and duly processed (so he was not randomly snatched in the night on a whim). If the templars can do what they please with the mages... why must it be signed and processed? Why not just take him, do it and then note it in a log? Or for that matter... why bother telling Irving?
The Rite of Annulment have to be approved by the Grand Cleric (according to Gregoir).

I do wonder though... technically our "rights" are just privileges our goverments have chosen to grant us. So what is the difference to you between a granted privilege and a right?

Drakon built the greater Orlesian empire as part of a holy crusade so Lov is basically correct here.  Also the Grey Wardens might have spread the word (although cites for this might be nice), but Grey Wardens not only predate the Chantry but have been cool at best towards them over the centuries.

He built his empire prior to accepting the Andrastian Chantry as state religion though.

The source is the timeline on the wiki. Both For Drakon building the empire, Grey wardens spreading the word and when the Chantry was established.

Actually that's not quite what that codex entry says either.  It's unclear what mages could do outside of lighting fires in the chantry, but it doesn't say the Chantry forbade any other kind of magic.  Futhermore, there is NO evidence that mages were cloistered in any way.  They may have worked at the Chantry but that doesn't mean they had to live there.

-Polaris

The history of the circle says they were limited to lighting the eternal fires and other janitorial duties. The timeline says Drakon I forbade all magic except under Chantry auspices.

But no, there is no evidence they wer cloistered

[earl of the north]

Sir JK wrote...

Actually that's not quite what that codex entry says either.  It's unclear what mages could do outside of lighting fires in the chantry, but it doesn't say the Chantry forbade any other kind of magic.  Futhermore, there is NO evidence that mages were cloistered in any way.  They may have worked at the Chantry but that doesn't mean they had to live there.

-Polaris

The history of the circle says they were limited to lighting the eternal fires and other janitorial duties. The timeline says Drakon I forbade all magic except under Chantry auspices.

But no, there is no evidence they wer cloistered

There is of course no evidence that they were not either, nor that they were free and were given "Mage Licenses" by the Chantry......its just highly unlikely that mages were being forcibly put under Chantry control without them
psychically taking control of the mages.

Modifié par earl of the north, 29 janvier 2011 - 12:05 .

[moilami]

earl of the north wrote...


The History of the Circle does not say they were free until the creation of the circle, there are two codex entries both of which say that mages (in Orlais originally) were only allowed to practice magic under Chantry control.....how do you think they exercised that control without having physical control of the mages.

In the same way as government controls you now. By making a law which says "you can't do that".

[earl of the north]

moilami wrote...

earl of the north wrote...


The History of the Circle does not say they were free until the creation of the circle, there are two codex entries both of which say that mages (in Orlais originally) were only allowed to practice magic under Chantry control.....how do you think they exercised that control without having physical control of the mages.

In the same way as government controls you now. By making a law which says "you can't do that".

They have to then enforce the new law, against all mages (who they WANT to control)......they were not allowed to practice any magic of any sort outside of the control of the Chantry. So if you don't have physical control of the mages, the Chantry needs to.......

Form a police force that can detect mages and capture mages breaking the new rules. The Templars/Inquistion (not sure when they made the switch) could do that, but considering how bad they are supposed to be now how much worse would it have been then?

Also there is canon from the blog that says the Templars formed to guard and protect the Mages. So if the mages weren't confined in anyway, who were the Templars guarding?

Form a judicial system for prosecution of suspected mages and build prisons to house the mages.

Form a department to track those mages who agree to only work magic under the power of the Chantry, in case they dont keep there promise and employ those mages to light things and sweep rafters.

or

Add them to the existing system, which is probably the whole point.......the Chantry wants control of the mages so why wouldn't they handle them the same way they handle everybody else within the Chantries?

PS Seems like the Templars are the key, when did they form since there is no need for them (Inquistion is already acting as hunters) until there is a number of mage that need guarding and protecting.

Modifié par earl of the north, 29 janvier 2011 - 03:22 .

[moilami]

Sir JK wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
No they don't.  The Templars permit them to do all this, but it's all at the sufference of the Templars.  Mages have no rights by any stretch of the imagination since one order from the Grand Cleric and the Templars can legally kill all the mages in the tower.  Ergo, mages have no rights...only privledges that the Chantry chooses to grant.

And yet the Templars are not allowed by Irving to kill Anders because they could not prove he was Maleficar (according to David Gaider, I'll see if I can dig up the quote), hence why he was brought back 7 times. Until Rylcok decides to take matter into her own hands (mind she does that only after a templar has been killed with no witnesses).
The order to tranquil Jowan had to be signed and duly processed (so he was not randomly snatched in the night on a whim). If the templars can do what they please with the mages... why must it be signed and processed? Why not just take him, do it and then note it in a log? Or for that matter... why bother telling Irving?
The Rite of Annulment have to be approved by the Grand Cleric (according to Gregoir).

In other words templars made a huge witch hunt and did their best to prove Andraste is witch, and therefore should be slaughtered by burning. In other words in order for Andraste to not be slain by templars Andraste would had to be not witch. This is total control by templars over Andraste's rights to define herself what she is. Templars said "you are like we want or we kill you". That same control is practised today by Templars over mages, and it has gone worse. Now templars/chantry say to mages "you are like we want or we kill you, you live where we want or we kill you, and you do what we want or we kill you."

To Jowan they said those same things with the addition "you don't marry anyone and you don't have sexual relationships with anyone", which partly to completely caused Jowan wanting to escape the chantry with the woman she was in love (the woman lost her love when she saw Jowan was a bloodmage, an example how strong the brainwashing done by chantry is). These facts doesn't change even if some could had managed to make the killing process a little bit more difficult by adding bureaucracy and third parties to say a word.

Sir JK, I want you realize you are inheritly capable to kill people and spread information of bloodmagic, and as such you deserve to be locked in the damned tower with the mages even though you are not a mage. And don't begin to be hypocrit by trying to say "only mages can kill people, I can't kill people." You can kill people, and you can do it very easily. It is as easy for you as it is for mages. Only your will to do it is limiting you, as is mage's will limiting them.

Modifié par moilami, 29 janvier 2011 - 03:40 .

[The Elder King]

edit: sorry, you meant Andraste. that's explain why I didn't understand what you were saying

Modifié par hhh89, 29 janvier 2011 - 03:58 .

[Sir JK]

moilami wrote...
In other words templars made a huge witch hunt and did their best to prove Andraste is witch, and therefore should be slaughtered by burning. In other words in order for Andraste to not be slain by templars Andraste would had to be not witch. This is total control by templars over Andraste's rights to define herself what she is. Templars said "you are like we want or we kill you". That same control is practised today by Templars over mages, and it has gone worse. Now templars/chantry say to mages "you are like we want or we kill you, you live where we want or we kill you, and you do what we want or we kill you."

I talked about Anders, the awakening companion. Not Andraste

To Jowan they said those same things with the addition "you don't marry anyone and you don't have sexual relationships with anyone", which partly to completely caused Jowan wanting to escape the chantry with the woman she was in love (the woman lost her love when she saw Jowan was a bloodmage, an example how strong the brainwashing done by chantry is). These facts doesn't change even if some could had managed to make the killing process a little bit more difficult by adding bureaucracy and third parties to say a word.

Making the killing process a bit difficult is also a step to prevent it happening wantonly or on a whim. If they have to go through the process for every tranquilisation/killing in the tower, then it is a step that on some level protects mages. Even if just barely.

Sir JK, I want you realize you are inheritly capable to kill people and spread information of bloodmagic, and as such you deserve to be locked in the damned tower with the mages even though you are not a mage. And don't begin to be hypocrit by trying to say "only mages can kill people, I can't kill people." You can kill people, and you can do it very easily. It is as easy for you as it is for mages. Only your will to do it is limiting you, as is mage's will limiting them.

The problem has never been that "some mages might kill someome" the problem has always been that abominations are extremely powerful and completey merciless and that mages can become them against their will (or by being tricked) and that some mages can learn to do stuff that is so much worse than killing people or become so hopelessly powerful.
A single man can kill yes. But sole humans are also very limited in their ability to kill. A sword can indeed kill in a single stroke, but if four people swarm the swordsman and restrain his arms then he is defeated.
A bow can kill yes, but a bow can only kill that which it can hit by trajectory and if it is stringed. By throwing yourself into cover, attacking them before they string the bow or by rushing them before they can loose a second arrow you can defeat them.

But a mage? A mage can put you on fire as long as he can see you. A mage can freeze your limbs so they'll have to be amputated. A mage cannot be disarmed. Restraining their arms does nothing. They don't have to unseath or string their bow, they are always ready to fight. A mage can summon barriers against arrows and swords. They can heal their wounds. They can animate weapons and dead bodies to fight for them. Afflict you with magical plague. Summon a huge rock flying straight at you. Imprison you in thin air that crushes you. Transform into bears, giant spiders or insect swarms. Animate roots to grab hold of you.
All this... and you can't do a thing to stop them except knock them unconcious.

And that's just the legal stuff

As long as a bloodmage breathes, he can draw his own blood to empower his spells tenfolds or hundredfolds
A Blood mage can control the minds of his enemies. So the guys you bring as backup can become your enemies.
A Blood mage can drain the life of allies, enemies and innocents to fuel their spells against you.

An abomination. Will never flinch. It will never listen to pleas of mercy unless it feels like it. Never hesitate before it kills a child unless it feels like it. And the mage inside? They are gone. They will never get their body back as long as the demon holds it.
Combine that ruthlessness, with a body that do not feel pain... and all the powers above. It won't hit like a single madman with a knife. It will hit like a full company of soldiers. Like a localised natural disaster.

I am by no means that powerful.

[moilami]

Sir JK wrote...

moilami wrote...
In other words templars made a huge witch hunt and did their best to prove Andraste is witch, and therefore should be slaughtered by burning. In other words in order for Andraste to not be slain by templars Andraste would had to be not witch. This is total control by templars over Andraste's rights to define herself what she is. Templars said "you are like we want or we kill you". That same control is practised today by Templars over mages, and it has gone worse. Now templars/chantry say to mages "you are like we want or we kill you, you live where we want or we kill you, and you do what we want or we kill you."

I talked about Anders, the awakening companion. Not Andraste

To Jowan they said those same things with the addition "you don't marry anyone and you don't have sexual relationships with anyone", which partly to completely caused Jowan wanting to escape the chantry with the woman she was in love (the woman lost her love when she saw Jowan was a bloodmage, an example how strong the brainwashing done by chantry is). These facts doesn't change even if some could had managed to make the killing process a little bit more difficult by adding bureaucracy and third parties to say a word.

Making the killing process a bit difficult is also a step to prevent it happening wantonly or on a whim. If they have to go through the process for every tranquilisation/killing in the tower, then it is a step that on some level protects mages. Even if just barely.

Sir JK, I want you realize you are inheritly capable to kill people and spread information of bloodmagic, and as such you deserve to be locked in the damned tower with the mages even though you are not a mage. And don't begin to be hypocrit by trying to say "only mages can kill people, I can't kill people." You can kill people, and you can do it very easily. It is as easy for you as it is for mages. Only your will to do it is limiting you, as is mage's will limiting them.

The problem has never been that "some mages might kill someome" the problem has always been that abominations are extremely powerful and completey merciless and that mages can become them against their will (or by being tricked) and that some mages can learn to do stuff that is so much worse than killing people or become so hopelessly powerful.
A single man can kill yes. But sole humans are also very limited in their ability to kill. A sword can indeed kill in a single stroke, but if four people swarm the swordsman and restrain his arms then he is defeated.
A bow can kill yes, but a bow can only kill that which it can hit by trajectory and if it is stringed. By throwing yourself into cover, attacking them before they string the bow or by rushing them before they can loose a second arrow you can defeat them.

But a mage? A mage can put you on fire as long as he can see you. A mage can freeze your limbs so they'll have to be amputated. A mage cannot be disarmed. Restraining their arms does nothing. They don't have to unseath or string their bow, they are always ready to fight. A mage can summon barriers against arrows and swords. They can heal their wounds. They can animate weapons and dead bodies to fight for them. Afflict you with magical plague. Summon a huge rock flying straight at you. Imprison you in thin air that crushes you. Transform into bears, giant spiders or insect swarms. Animate roots to grab hold of you.
All this... and you can't do a thing to stop them except knock them unconcious.

And that's just the legal stuff

As long as a bloodmage breathes, he can draw his own blood to empower his spells tenfolds or hundredfolds
A Blood mage can control the minds of his enemies. So the guys you bring as backup can become your enemies.
A Blood mage can drain the life of allies, enemies and innocents to fuel their spells against you.

An abomination. Will never flinch. It will never listen to pleas of mercy unless it feels like it. Never hesitate before it kills a child unless it feels like it. And the mage inside? They are gone. They will never get their body back as long as the demon holds it.
Combine that ruthlessness, with a body that do not feel pain... and all the powers above. It won't hit like a single madman with a knife. It will hit like a full company of soldiers. Like a localised natural disaster.

I am by no means that powerful.

*closes the browser and goes to make tea*

[Raven_26]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

moilami wrote...

That would very much suppose you understand everything - I can say it is not true.

If your understanding of the concept is so absolute you should have no problem at all restating the same argument in a different way.  

Big Blue Car wrote...

The Chantry are dicks that use military force to oppress innocent people in pursuit of their own vision of a perfect society, that is fascistic as balls. Now it makes sense.

And the medieval Roman Catholic Church did not?  They persecuted heretical groups within their own borders, launched crusades to conquer infidels outside of them, sent missionaries to convert aboriginal populations, managed and regulated scientific and artistic pursuits... 

You're talking about axles and wheels again.  Ignoring the truck bed.

Be it chantry or Chorch, wrong is still wrong. Saying that you can look at things from diffrent angels and see both sides of an issue doesn't make it ok.

In the crusades, knight killed as many cilivens (men, women and children) as they did soldiers. Does that make it ok, because pristes told them "God will forgive you"? Honestly?

Modifié par Raven_26, 29 janvier 2011 - 06:50 .

[Zevais]

My profile image mage had so much disdain for mage circle that he came from, that he betrayed mages at every opportunity... no matter what side they were on. That included Dalish Keepers. If Marrow had the choice, all mages would be as the Qunari... with their mouths sewn shut and tongues removed.

EDIT: Forgot to mention Marrow even sacrificed himself at the end to defeat the archdemon only to be betrayed and ressurrected by Morrigan for the time of Awakening... and he killed her in the witch hunt.

Modifié par Zevais, 29 janvier 2011 - 06:18 .

[LobselVith8]

Sir JK wrote...
And yet the Templars are not allowed by Irving to kill Anders because they could not prove he was Maleficar (according to David Gaider, I'll see if I can dig up the quote), hence why he was brought back 7 times.

　
Which likely has to do with the relationship between Greagoir and Irving, because Aenirin was nearly killed because they claimed he was maleficar, yet there's absolutely nothing to indicate that this is true (and even Wynne acts like it's not true when she invites him back to the Circle). It's extremely unlikely this would be the scenerio in a Ferelden Circle under the rule of Cullen, who rules the Circle in fear...

Sir JK wrote...
Until Rylcok decides to take matter into her own hands (mind she does that only after a templar has been killed with no witnesses).

Or the Magnificent D'Sims, killed by templars who thought he was a mage.

Sir JK wrote...

The order to tranquil Jowan had to be signed and duly processed (so he was not randomly snatched in the night on a whim). If the templars can do what they please with the mages... why must it be signed and processed? Why not just take him, do it and then note it in a log? Or for that matter... why bother telling Irving?

That matters little when Irving is powerless to contest it.

Sir JK wrote...

The Rite of Annulment have to be approved by the Grand Cleric (according to Gregoir).

Considering the negative views on magic and mages by the members of the Chantry, including the Grand Cleric (based on what Alistair says at Ostagar and how she behaves with Uldred), that doesn't inspire much confidence in me.

Sir JK wrote...
The problem has never been that "some mages might kill someome" the problem has always been that abominations are extremely powerful and completey merciless and that mages can become them against their will (or by being tricked) and that some mages can learn to do stuff that is so much worse than killing people or become so hopelessly powerful.

Everyone is powerful when possessed. Even Anders possessed cat killed three trained templars. And almost anything can be possessed - even dead trees. As for dealing with the threat of abominations, I don't think imprisoning mages and denying them rights, then asking for their help during Blights and the occassional Qunari invasion, only to openly demonize them to the public despite the fact that they helped save all of civilization time and time again, is doing any good. If it weren't for the mages, Thedas would have been overrun by the Qunari and women would be denied the right to be warriors.

Sir JK wrote...

A single man can kill yes. But sole humans are also very limited in their ability to kill. A sword can indeed kill in a single stroke, but if four people swarm the swordsman and restrain his arms then he is defeated.
A bow can kill yes, but a bow can only kill that which it can hit by trajectory and if it is stringed. By throwing yourself into cover, attacking them before they string the bow or by rushing them before they can loose a second arrow you can defeat them.

So let's imprison all mages and hope they all suddenly decide that they don't want to be treated like people or have the same rights as everyone else?

Sir JK wrote...
As long as a bloodmage breathes, he can draw his own blood to empower his spells tenfolds or hundredfolds
A Blood mage can control the minds of his enemies. So the guys you bring as backup can become your enemies.
A Blood mage can drain the life of allies, enemies and innocents to fuel their spells against you.

Yet Andraste and Shartan were able to defeat the Tevinter Imperium, and some blood mages also happen to be Grey Warden who use their powers to defeat the darkspawn.

Sir JK wrote...
An abomination. Will never flinch. It will never listen to pleas of mercy unless it feels like it. Never hesitate before it kills a child unless it feels like it. And the mage inside? They are gone. They will never get their body back as long as the demon holds it

Neither will the templars when ordered to murder every man, woman, and child during a Rite of Anulment.

Sir JK wrote...
Combine that ruthlessness, with a body that do not feel pain... and all the powers above. It won't hit like a single madman with a knife. It will hit like a full company of soldiers. Like a localised natural disaster.

Since anyone and almost anything can be possessed, mages aren't the only ones who can be possessed by a spirit or demon. IanPolaris has already pointed out how the Chantry's imprisonment and dehumanization of mages likely contributes to the factors that lead to a person being possessed, and the story of DA:O and the codex entries have this habit of showing us how abominations keep happening as a direct result of the Chantry.

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Which likely has to do with the relationship between Greagoir and Irving, because Aenirin was nearly killed because they claimed he was maleficar, yet there's absolutely nothing to indicate that this is true (and even Wynne acts like it's not true when she invites him back to the Circle). It's extremely unlikely this would be the scenerio in a Ferelden Circle under the rule of Cullen, who rules the Circle in fear...

I agree that under Cullen, things wouls probably take a turn for the much worse. And I condede it might be because Gregoir and Irving see the benfit of working with each other rather than against each other.
However... if I am allowed to make a guess, I'm inclined to say that the reason Anders got recaptured but Aneirin didn't was that the former gave himself willingly if they took him while Anaeirin tried to run. Thus Anders did not resist while Aneirin did.

That is perhaps a very important thing to ask regarding mage captures. If we argue that the templars somehow have to capture the mages (for the purpose of this question only): What should they do if the mage runs or worse attacks them? If a mage is accidentally killed in the process of capture, what is a reasonable response to that? If a mage attacks the templars, what is a reasonable response to that? If a mag that did not resist was killed, how do you prove it if the templars says that he did?

Or the Magnificent D'Sims, killed by templars who thought he was a mage.

Indeed. I am by no means saying that the apostate hunters are any saints. They're probably very brutal.

But let me put it like this... what if this Magnificent D'Sims genuinely tried to kill the templars sent after him? What then?

No... there is no evidence of that. Then again there's practically no information about the incident at all either.

That matters little when Irving is powerless to contest it.

Indeed. The question is if he is just powerless or powerless and unwilling (... to help Jowan because he broke the rules).

Considering the negative views on magic and mages by the members of the Chantry, including the Grand Cleric (based on what Alistair says at Ostagar and how she behaves with Uldred), that doesn't inspire much confidence in me.

In this case no. But given that it have to be sent means there is a safety mechanism in place. Wether it works is another discussion.

Everyone is powerful when possessed. Even Anders possessed cat killed three trained templars. And almost anything can be possessed - even dead trees. As for dealing with the threat of abominations, I don't think imprisoning mages and denying them rights, then asking for their help during Blights and the occassional Qunari invasion, only to openly demonize them to the public despite the fact that they helped save all of civilization time and time again, is doing any good. If it weren't for the mages, Thedas would have been overrun by the Qunari and women would be denied the right to be warriors.

Indeed. Everyone is powerful when possessed. Only difference there is that mages are powerful normally in addition to the power of a demon.
We do have a codex entry of a single abomination taking out 70 people before stopped after all.

And indeed. Mages are useful. Probably why they are not tranquilised/killed outright. But let me put it like this... if all mages are indeed kept in one location and only let out when permitted... then you'll always know where they are. So you can swiftly set in measures to stop it.
If mages are allowed to go whereever they please. It could happen in a market. In a chantry. In a court. In a remote village weeks away from the closest templar, allowing the abomination to ravage an entire region without templars ever hearing of it.

Of course... the fact that mages hate the system so much that they flee it presents a problem to that plan.

So let's imprison all mages and hope they all suddenly decide that they don't want to be treated like people or have the same rights as everyone else?

I was trying to explain the reasoning behind why specifically mages were taken in and not just anyone. They are more dangerous than anyone else (individually).

I am not saying however, that it is right that mages are treated the way they are. It is not. Not even close.

Yet Andraste and Shartan were able to defeat the Tevinter Imperium, and some blood mages also happen to be Grey Warden who use their powers to defeat the darkspawn.

To the former: And ultimately... they are only human. They can get overwhelmed. They cannot be everywhere at once. They can be distracted. They can be stopped. It just is a whole lot more difficult than other mages (who in turn are several magnitudes above mundanes).

To the latter. That's the tricky part isn't it? You can do good with it. It may be necessary at times. Is that a argument for tolerating something so dangerous to people and society though? Is it worth trusting the good nature of individual mages with that power?
Historically in Thedas...

Neither will the templars when ordered to murder every man, woman, and child during a Rite of Anulment.

I think they'll flinch and hesitate but do it anyways. Peer pressure is a horrible thing. The point is... from a individual templar, any templar, there is a chance they'll show some mercy. However unlikely. They are just human after all.

From an abomination, there is none.

Since anyone and almost anything can be possessed, mages aren't the only ones who can be possessed by a spirit or demon. IanPolaris has already pointed out how the Chantry's imprisonment and dehumanization of mages likely contributes to the factors that lead to a person being possessed, and the story of DA:O and the codex entries have this habit of showing us how abominations keep happening as a direct result of the Chantry.

To the former. Yes. Anyone can get possessed. Mages are just at higher risk and much more devestating if they do. Kind of like the difference between a hungering dead (corpse possessed by hunger demon) and a arcane horror (corpse possessed by pride demon). A possessed being is a horrible horrible thing, but an abomination is that and a mage combined.
Let me put it like this... the cat Anders talks about kills 3 templars. Imagine what the tally would have been if it was able to cast spells.

To the latter. We have three abominations unrelated to the Chantry (one tangentially, Connor, and then the mage's collective apprentice and the Baroness). Then we have confirmations that abominations existed before the chantry did and ravaged the countryside (wether it happens more often or less often remains unsaid).
But perhaps the way the Chantry treats mages do contribute yes. Fair enough. It might on some level.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

I agree that under Cullen, things wouls probably take a turn for the much worse. And I condede it might be because Gregoir and Irving see the benfit of working with each other rather than against each other.
However... if I am allowed to make a guess, I'm inclined to say that the reason Anders got recaptured but Aneirin didn't was that the former gave himself willingly if they took him while Anaeirin tried to run. Thus Anders did not resist while Aneirin did. [/quote]

No, it wasn't because Aenirin resisted - they claimed he was maleficar when Wynne explains what happened to him (which even Chantry apologist Wynne took to be a total crock since she invites him back to the Circle), while Irving said that there was no proof that Anders did anything more than run away (and I think Greagoir played a role in Irving having as much say as he does to accomplish that).

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

That is perhaps a very important thing to ask regarding mage captures. If we argue that the templars somehow have to capture the mages (for the purpose of this question only): What should they do if the mage runs or worse attacks them? If a mage is accidentally killed in the process of capture, what is a reasonable response to that? If a mage attacks the templars, what is a reasonable response to that? If a mag that did not resist was killed, how do you prove it if the templars says that he did? [/quote]

Another case would be whether templars and the Chantry have any right to imprison mages in the first place. Personally, I don't think they do.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Indeed. I am by no means saying that the apostate hunters are any saints. They're probably very brutal.

But let me put it like this... what if this Magnificent D'Sims genuinely tried to kill the templars sent after him? What then? [/quote]

He wasn't a real mage, though. He was a charlatan who pretended to heal people. No suspicion of blood magic or being an abomination, but the horrible crime of healing the sick! D'Sims wasn't a saint, he was a fraudulent elven scammer who pretended he was healing people, and got his head cut off. The problem is that when he was killed, the templars thought he was an illegal mage who was healing people.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Indeed. The question is if he is just powerless or powerless and unwilling (... to help Jowan because he broke the rules). [/quote]

He openly admits to the mage protagonist that he would change Jowan's fate if he could. How is that unwilling? He clearly gets into disputes with Greagoir (like the first time the mage meets Duncan and Irving is arguing with Greagoir over the King's request for more mages at Ostagar). He'll even argue against Cullen about the mages being dangerous at the end of A Broken Circle and even thank the Grey Warden from the Circle asking for the Circle to be given its independence.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

In this case no. But given that it have to be sent means there is a safety mechanism in place. Wether it works is another discussion. [/quote]

You clearly think it does, while I think it doesn't. You see it as a safety mechanism, and I see it as a prison.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Indeed. Everyone is powerful when possessed. Only difference there is that mages are powerful normally in addition to the power of a demon.
We do have a codex entry of a single abomination taking out 70 people before stopped after all. [/quote]

And a real life serial killer killed more than double that number (as was pointed out the first time you mentioned it) so I fail to see why mages should be segregated when everyone (including animals and trees) can be dangerous and powerful when they are possessed.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

And indeed. Mages are useful. Probably why they are not tranquilised/killed outright. But let me put it like this... if all mages are indeed kept in one location and only let out when permitted... then you'll always know where they are. So you can swiftly set in measures to stop it. [/quote]

Or imprisoning mages and denying them any real say over their lives will instead cause people to fight to be emancipated from their oppressors, like it did with Shartan and the Tevinter Imperium, and like it does in rl (especially given the protests going on in Cairo right now).

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

If mages are allowed to go whereever they please. It could happen in a market. In a chantry. In a court. In a remote village weeks away from the closest templar, allowing the abomination to ravage an entire region without templars ever hearing of it.

Of course... the fact that mages hate the system so much that they flee it presents a problem to that plan. [/quote]

Or we could have a repeat of the Uldred incident, where bad things happen precisely because mages are prisoners (or some would argue slaves) of the Chantry.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

I was trying to explain the reasoning behind why specifically mages were taken in and not just anyone. They are more dangerous than anyone else (individually).

I am not saying however, that it is right that mages are treated the way they are. It is not. Not even close. [/quote]

Mages have power, and it's precisely that power that has been used to save the nations of Thedas from the darkspawn and the Qunari armies.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

To the former: And ultimately... they are only human. They can get overwhelmed. They cannot be everywhere at once. They can be distracted. They can be stopped. It just is a whole lot more difficult than other mages (who in turn are several magnitudes above mundanes). [/quote]

If that were true, mages wouldn't be under the heel of the Chantry and its templars.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

To the latter. That's the tricky part isn't it? You can do good with it. It may be necessary at times. Is that a argument for tolerating something so dangerous to people and society though? Is it worth trusting the good nature of individual mages with that power? [/quote]

Is it worth practically enslaving innocent people to a system that is often inhumane and unjust when you know they're always going to fight for their freedom?

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Historically in Thedas...

I think they'll flinch and hesitate but do it anyways. Peer pressure is a horrible thing. The point is... from a individual templar, any templar, there is a chance they'll show some mercy. However unlikely. They are just human after all.

From an abomination, there is none. [/quote]

Both scenerios lead to people dying. I doubt they care when both situations end the same way.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

To the former. Yes. Anyone can get possessed. Mages are just at higher risk and much more devestating if they do. Kind of like the difference between a hungering dead (corpse possessed by hunger demon) and a arcane horror (corpse possessed by pride demon). A possessed being is a horrible horrible thing, but an abomination is that and a mage combined.
Let me put it like this... the cat Anders talks about kills 3 templars. Imagine what the tally would have been if it was able to cast spells. [/quote]

Isn't that a reason to have mages on your side, to deal with such a threat, instead of dehumanized and imprisoned?

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

To the latter. We have three abominations unrelated to the Chantry (one tangentially, Connor, and then the mage's collective apprentice and the Baroness). Then we have confirmations that abominations existed before the chantry did and ravaged the countryside (wether it happens more often or less often remains unsaid).
But perhaps the way the Chantry treats mages do contribute yes. Fair enough. It might on some level.
[/quote]

One can (and IanPolaris has) argued that Connor happened as a result of the social conditions brought forth by the Chantry's anti-mage stance, the Mages Collective handles the abomination by recruiting the Grey Warden, and IanPolaris also argued that a town of villagers were able to take on the Baroness. Nobody is denying that abominations exist or existed, but I see no proof that the Chantry's ill treatment of mages is warranted.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 29 janvier 2011 - 08:59 .

[moilami]

Zevais wrote...

My profile image mage had so much disdain for mage circle that he came from, that he betrayed mages at every opportunity... no matter what side they were on. That included Dalish Keepers. If Marrow had the choice, all mages would be as the Qunari... with their mouths sewn shut and tongues removed.

EDIT: Forgot to mention Marrow even sacrificed himself at the end to defeat the archdemon only to be betrayed and ressurrected by Morrigan for the time of Awakening... and he killed her in the witch hunt.

Lol 10+

Your mage certainly had some attitude.


Edit: Epic mage.

Modifié par moilami, 29 janvier 2011 - 09:00 .