1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Cazlee]

I sympathize with the mages, but I understand the concerns of the templars. The mages would have to undergo strict training and tests every year to prove that they are disciplined (in addition to the Harrowing test) before I would let some of them free. Aside of a few shining examples, the majority of mages have proven that the cage is necessary.

Modifié par Cazlee, 31 janvier 2011 - 09:45 .

[The Elder King]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Just because DG wouldn't call mages slaves (although I do think that term fits the Tranquil very well) doesn't mean mages have rights.  Prisoners don't have rights...merely priveledges the state choses to grant them that can be taken away at any time ()including their very life in many cases).

The same applies here.  Mages don't even have the right to live or defend themselves.....unless the Chantry says they can...and that's not a right at all in that case.  If a mage doesn't even have the right to defend him or herself, then mages indeed have no legal rights.  Even DG aknowledged that the circle tower was a prison after all.

-Polaris

Err...being in a prison does not a slave make.

Depending on the country, prisoners *can* have basic human rights. They are fed, clothed, housed, given necessities (mages have access to a full library, workshops and are allowed to practise their craft), aren't allowed to be abused (even if it happens at times) etc. Prisoners can have a pretty cushy lifestyle to the point they *don't want to leave*.

Prisoner /= slave. And yes, some of them like it.

Not every kind of prisoners have a lot fo rights. In USA the peopel who have a death sentence are treated in a dishuman way. Plus, the prisoner's treatment is different from each nations. In my country the convicted have a lot of right and privilegies, so much that for a very poor persone the life in prison is way better than the life outside. But I believe it depends from the penal system and its objecitves (or so my penal law professors explained me). I don't think every penal system is as kind as the system of my nation.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

@hhh89 - Yes, I said it depended on the country.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 31 janvier 2011 - 09:50 .

[The Elder King]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

@hhh89 - Yes, I said it depended on the country.

sorry, my fault. I misread

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

hhh89 wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

@hhh89 - Yes, I said it depended on the country.

sorry, my fault. I misread

Well, for all we know the Circle Towers in other nations could treat their mages differently to what we see in Ferelden.

[The Elder King]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

@hhh89 - Yes, I said it depended on the country.

sorry, my fault. I misread

Well, for all we know the Circle Towers in other nations could treat their mages differently to what we see in Ferelden.

I hope so. We certainly know that in Kirkwall the templars rule over Circle in fear, probably in a more cruel way than the Circle of Ferelden.

[IanPolaris]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Err...being in a prison does not a slave make.

Depending on the country, prisoners *can* have basic human rights. They are fed, clothed, housed, given necessities (mages have access to a full library, workshops and are allowed to practise their craft), aren't allowed to be abused (even if it happens at times) etc. Prisoners can have a pretty cushy lifestyle to the point they *don't want to leave*.

Prisoner /= slave. And yes, some of them like it.

That's only true in the 20th century forward.  Until then prisoners were essentially slaves of the state (and in Roman Times and even in Feudal Times...such as Dragon Age) they were often called that explicitly.

Even today, prisoners are only granted 'rights' that the state gives them which means they aren't actual rights...Amnesty International notwithstanding.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Cazlee wrote...

I sympathize with the mages, but I understand the concerns of the templars. The mages would have to undergo strict training and tests every year to prove that they are disciplined (in addition to the Harrowing test) before I would let some of them free. Aside of a few shining examples, the majority of mages have proven that the cage is necessary.

Based on what evidence (refering to the bolded section)?  So far I see no evidence that the circle system is actually necessary at all (for protection at any rate) and plenty that it's actively harmful.

-Polaris

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

IanPolaris wrote...

That's only true in the 20th century forward.  Until then prisoners were essentially slaves of the state (and in Roman Times and even in Feudal Times...such as Dragon Age) they were often called that explicitly.

Even today, prisoners are only granted 'rights' that the state gives them which means they aren't actual rights...Amnesty International notwithstanding.

-Polaris

I think you only need look around the pre-Broken Circle Mage Tower to see that the mages there are not kept in horrendous slave/prisoner conditions or denied civil rights. Just because they don't (often) leave the tower doesn't mean they're mistreated or denied anything they need for a comfortable, if confined lifestyle.

Edit: Am I saying it's 'right' or 'ok' to keep mages locked up? No. I'm saying that their situation (in Ferelden) isn't as horrible as you are trying to depict.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 31 janvier 2011 - 12:05 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Actually, Wynne reveals that he was labelled maleficar when you ask her why they didn't simply bring him back, which is why the templars went to kill him. It isn't an issue of running away, it's an issue of a claim of him being maleficar that even the Chantry apologist (who has no problem killing the Warden for being a blood mage in the missing scene that was disabled because it bugged the Landsmeet) doesn't believe in.

Waht Wynne belives is irrelevant. Do we know for sure he WASN'T an Melaficar? Or that the templars didn't have any proof?
Face it - we know very little..only one side of the story.

I have no doubt that Anders being brought back to the Circle alive is entirely because Greagoir permits this, especially when we see what happened to Aenirin.

Your doubts are not proof.

Except Aenirin was declared maleficar from the get go. It's not the same issue. You brought up a similiar topic some time back when you suggested a storyline where the player should have the option of helping a mage escape from the templars, and a templar gets killed by the mage escaping (one who didn't want to kill the mage).
This seems to be a repeat of that analogy. However, my problem is, what gave templars and the Chantry the right to play God with the lives of mages? It's a fair argument to make. Do templars or the Chantry have a right to control the lives of other human beings? They play God with the lives of the mages and we get the line that it's for the greater good, and every time any person brings up their lack of freedom, we get the usual "abominations are dangerous, "magic is dangerous," regardless of the fact that mages are being oppressed to the point where they will run away (and risk death) or start rebellions to emancipate themselves from the Chantry.

What gives them the right? Probably the sense of duty towards the world. Or maybe just might.
I'm willing to bet that progressive and liberal govenments of today would act exactly the same.

It's easy to talk about the evil of the Chatnry adn the plight of the mages, when you're safe, sound and well-fed.
If you were a peasant in the DA world, you'd think differently.

I would have lost respect for him, considering he never saw the evidence in question. I always stand by the decision to help Jowan, even to Wynne. And why are we dealing in hypothetical "what ifs" when Irving openly admits that he could do nothing? Because it would paint the Chantry in a negative light that Irving really has no say over the matter?

You're the one to ask that question?
Interpretations of the meaning of a text or sentance and parading it like undeinable proof seems to be all you do.

That people can be killed merely on suspicion alone is something I find monstorous.

Happens sometimes in RL too.
We dont' know how muhc the Chantry knows of Morrigan, so their decision doesn't seem that off...especially since we KNOW Morrigan knows Blood Magic (the Dark Ritual).


But practicly all the cases so far about templar brutality are field cases...which isnt' surprising.
Overisight doesn't work everywhere the same and at the same level.

Imagine 3 angry cops cornering a criminal in a dark alley with no witnesses.
Now immagine 3 templars conrenring a mage in a dark alley with no witnesses.
Whats the operational difference?

There isn't one.
If the 3 are dicks, they can kill/beat up the guy and claim it was self-defense.
On field assigments, there can be no direct overight.

If you hear about a case or two about police officers doing something like that, do you automaticly scream "Cops are murdering bastards! Death to all cops!!!" ?  No, no you don't.
Yet replace the word cop with templar, and you'll have part of hte forum out for blood.....<_<

I'm certain the family members of people who died on suspicion alone of being illegal mages at the hands of the templars feel the same way.

Do they? And if they do...numbers give prioritites.
1000 angry villagers beat 10 angry mage parents.

[Raven_26]

Sir JK wrote...

moilami wrote...
So you say that just because something is morally wrong it can be done because there is no correct and incorrect option. Just concequences. In other words you still keep saying that is alright if my rogue stabs you several times very hard in your arse, leave you to bleed for one day, and then stabs you again untill you die. Fine.

No, I am saying that no matter what you chose or choose it was or is what you chose or choose. No matter what you do that situation will never come again.

Wether it was the morally wrong choice at the time do not matter now... because it is what was chosen and all that is now is a result of that. That the mages would rise up against the restrictions was inevtiable. Had the chantry chosen something else then another situation would be inevitable.

Just like freeing the mages will have a consequence. That consequence is what the Chantry fears.

Why you don't ever think where slaying and inprisonment of mages can
lead to? You only picture the worst of mages and suppose that is what is
going to happen while imagining slaying and inprisoning of mages would
only end good? Why is that? Explain both why slaying mages end good and
freeing mages end bad.

I suppose my point is: It isn't easy. You can't just take a decision at this scale it know how it will turn out.

Maybe the Chantry is wrong. Maybe the circles does not help at all. But what if they are right? If they try to give mages more freedom they can never undo that decision... and if that leads to absolute disaster then they can never take it back.

Basically. It boils down to a single question:
How many innocent lives is the freedom of mages worth?

Wait wait, you said "How many inocent lives is freedom of mages worth"?
Are you saying mages aren't inocent? Or because mages can be dangerous it is ok that the templars kill them, just because they "may" be blood mages?

Keep in mind that Wynne tells you what happens when people think you are
a mage, a mage child or adult doesn't matter: "No child, not even a
mage child, is a match for an angry mob trying to
place blame for a failed crop, a hard winter, a baby born dead."

Everyone can be dangerouse, not just mages. Forceing them to live sepret from non-mages will only breed more ignorance. You can't say the chantry is doing anything to let non mages see that mages aren't all evil.

And in no way are they free, for heavens sake, if they have children, they are taken way at birth!

[Lotion Soronarr]

Raven_26 wrote...
Wait wait, you said "How many inocent lives is freedom of mages worth"?
Are you saying mages aren't inocent? Or because mages can be dangerous it is ok that the templars kill them, just because they "may" be blood mages?

Keep in mind that Wynne tells you what happens when people think you are
a mage, a mage child or adult doesn't matter: "No child, not even a
mage child, is a match for an angry mob trying to
place blame for a failed crop, a hard winter, a baby born dead."

Everyone can be dangerouse, not just mages. Forceing them to live sepret from non-mages will only breed more ignorance. You can't say the chantry is doing anything to let non mages see that mages aren't all evil.

Innocent or not, just ask "how many lives".
Do mages (and abominations) casue more deaths each year than templars do by keeping the mages in he circle? It certanly looks so.

How many mages there are in Ferleden? 100? 200?
And how many common folk there are? Without the Chantry, would the king take matter into his own hands when the common folk demadn vengacne for a town raised?

You seem to think tat letting the mages go free and live among the mundanes would fix problems. That people will stop fearing mages and will accept them among them...
What if it has the opposite effect? Even more resentment and violence towards the mages? Even mroe death?

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

Proof that Aenirin didn't resist would be nice.... [/quote]

I see you didn't bother to read what I wrote. I said he was killed because the templars claimed he was maleficar (which is clear when the Warden asks why he wasn't brought back), yet the story clearly indicates that he wasn't based on Wynne's interaction with him.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

I don't think the police has any right to imprison me if I rob a bank. [/quote]

I don't think mages should be enslaved to the Chantry. If you have an intelligent retort to make or a comparison that remotely makes any sense, feel free to make one.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

Doesn't matter if he wasn't a real mage. If a man attacks you, wiht a knife or a fireball, you will strike back. [/quote]

In other words, it's OK for the templars to murder someone for being a suspected mage, even though they have no evidence?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

An abomination with a mind of a serial killer could kill a LOT more.
A serial killer hides and picks his targets, trying to avoid beging detected. He kills in secreat. That is the "power" of a serial killer.
An abomination usually doesn't give a damn about staying hidden. [/quote]

Templars and the Chantry have killed more people in their Exalted Marches than any abominations we've read about.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Mages are segregated because the mages are FAR more dangerous and FAR more likely to become possesed.
Risk/befetif/safety...the ratios are not equal. [/quote]

You have proof this is necessary? Because there's none in the novels, comics, or games to indicate this is true.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

It was contained in the tower, so not really that bad.
Now if Uldred tore the wail in the middle of a crowded marketplace.....possesion and carnage galore.
[/quote]

It happened because of the Chantry and the templars, so it never would have happened in a crowded marketplace - they were fighting to be free.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 31 janvier 2011 - 03:26 .

[LobselVith8]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Err...being in a prison does not a slave make.

The issue's a little more complicated than that. Several pages were devoted to this very issue and there wasn't a consensus.

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Depending on the country, prisoners *can* have basic human rights.

I'm guessing killing people on suspicion alone isn't one of them?

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

They are fed, clothed, housed, given necessities (mages have access to a full library, workshops and are allowed to practise their craft), aren't allowed to be abused (even if it happens at times) etc. Prisoners can have a pretty cushy lifestyle to the point they *don't want to leave*.

Prisoner /= slave. And yes, some of them like it.

Clearly, if people are making the debates over whether mages are slaves of the Chantry or not in other threads, including the Merrill thread, then it's safe to assume even mages are making such debates. It's clear that there are mages who see templars and the Chantry as oppressors, and want their freedom.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Here is the Orlesian Warden note from Witch Hunt:




Basically, they believe Morrigan to be a blood mage, and without any evidence, are offering a reward for her demise.[/quote]

Uhm... it does not actually say that it is not supported by evidence. It says they believe she's a blood mage, nothing at all says they don't have good reasons to do so. [/quote]

Did you fail to read "the templars believe she is a blood mage" as opposed to having proof she is one?

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Except Irving said it in reference to Jowan's Rite and how things would be different if it were up to him, when the mage protagonist asks him if it's true, and even when he makes the offer to get Lily caught in the act because he can't change Jowan's fate, he notes that it's all an issue of survival. That doesn't speak to me of simply choosing not to do anything. In fact, his comment is the same quote that's used in the codex entry for his character.[/quote]

I know. I have just heard "if it was up to me" used to excuse behaviour were someone did not want to intervene. In this case the phrase could as well mean: if I could have prevented Jowan from taking up blood magic. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree though. [/quote]

Except we're ignoring what he actually said (that he could do nothing about it) to speculate that he might have more rights than we've seen? He's a prisoner under the Chantry, the same as any other mage.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

The Chantry controls the Circles - that's why they can outright the Magi boon for the Circle of Ferelden, which Irving is happy about during the ceremony (although it's bugged - I understand that the devs are looking into the bugged epilogues for the Magi boon and the elven Bann epilogues). I see no reason to even suspect that the Circles are in possession of any degree of independence from the Chantry. Even Morrigan scoffed when Alistair made the comment that the Circles are "technically independent" but didn't deny Morrigan's criticism of that statement.[/quote]

The reason I protest is that we have a number of references to it in the codex in clear wording. Technically independent is perhaps the key phrase, independent in all but the really big decisions and a few other? [/quote]

If the Circles were free, then mages wouldn't be fighting with Uldred because Loghain promised them freedom from the Chantry. If the Circles were independent, then the Hero of Ferelden wouldn't be able to ask Ferelden's new ruler for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its independence. I see no reason to argue against the mages being under the heel of the Chantry when all the evidence points that they are indeed oppressed by the templars and the Chantry.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Knight-Commander Serain seems like a nice person from the letter he writes to his successor, but they're under Chantry control. It's like saying that just because prisoners can read, write, and form gangs in prison that they're free to some degree, when it doesn't change the fact that they're living in a prison system and all of them have to obey the rules. [/quote]

See my answer below [/quote]

All right.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

]The same reason that Greagoir comments that Irving makes the decisions regarding the Circle when A Broken Circle comes to a conclusion, when we can tell from his denial of the additional troops to Ostagar and how he decided Jowan's fate that it's far from the truth.

Seems farfetched to me to say that people forced to live in a prison are really the ones in charge.[/quote]

It's not a black and white though. They could have independence in many matters but not all. We just happen to encounter one or two of those situations where they don't. Perhaps Gregoir can stop them from leaving, but not order them to leave (hence why Irving is the one who must make the decision to help against the Archdemon but Gregoir overrules him in the number of mages to Ostagar)? [/quote]

Clearly, if the Circles had any measure of independence, they wouldn't be under the control of the Chantry. Since Gaider already pointed out that it's the Chantry who says no to the Magi boon, why are you debating that they have any measure of independence from the templars or the Chantry? The only free mages are Grey Wardens who aren't subject to the Chantry.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Suspicion alone isn't sufficient reason to murder anyone.[/quote]

No. But what if what is needed to be suspected in the first place is very damning? Something that makes blood magic very probable?
I'm not saying it is right, just that what if they generally do have really good reasons for it? They probably don't I admit. [/quote]

So let's murder D'Sims because he allegedly healed people? Let's murder Morrigan because she helped stop the Blight? Those don't sound like good reasons to me.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

True, but I'd prefer freedom over subjegation.[/quote]

Whoever said freedom is the consequence? [/quote]

Freedom is the goal for mages who desire independence from the Chantry.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Which he could have been warned against if his mother wasn't raised in an enviornment to see mages as evil people. I don't deny Loghain's hand in getting Eamon poisoned, but I also find the Chantry guilty for their role in demonizing mages.[/quote]

And what would warning about them have achieved (also, since most dangers of magic dogma discusses demons and blood magic you'd think they had ample warning)? It is not enough to know of the dangers. You must be able to resists... or for that matter realise you're dealing with a demon.

Let's take our own Harrowing as an example. Who is the real test there, Mouse, Lazy Bear, Valour or Rage? Rage and Lazy Bear are the demons you're warned about, Mouse is the really dangerous one. If the other spirits even know he's a demon, they keep it to themselves. [/quote]

Except Connor didn't realize who he was dealing with, and that's entirely on the Chantry and its anti-mage dogma as well as spreading fear and intolerance against mages. Isolde is a product of her upbringing and religious views, which are clearly to see mages as evil because she's an Andrastian.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 31 janvier 2011 - 03:53 .

[moilami]

Sir JK wrote...

moilami wrote...
So you say that just because something is morally wrong it can be done because there is no correct and incorrect option. Just concequences. In other words you still keep saying that is alright if my rogue stabs you several times very hard in your arse, leave you to bleed for one day, and then stabs you again untill you die. Fine.

No, I am saying that no matter what you chose or choose it was or is what you chose or choose. No matter what you do that situation will never come again.

Wether it was the morally wrong choice at the time do not matter now... because it is what was chosen and all that is now is a result of that. That the mages would rise up against the restrictions was inevtiable. Had the chantry chosen something else then another situation would be inevitable.

Just like freeing the mages will have a consequence. That consequence is what the Chantry fears.

Why you don't ever think where slaying and inprisonment of mages can
lead to? You only picture the worst of mages and suppose that is what is
going to happen while imagining slaying and inprisoning of mages would
only end good? Why is that? Explain both why slaying mages end good and
freeing mages end bad.

I suppose my point is: It isn't easy. You can't just take a decision at this scale it know how it will turn out.

Maybe the Chantry is wrong. Maybe the circles does not help at all. But what if they are right? If they try to give mages more freedom they can never undo that decision... and if that leads to absolute disaster then they can never take it back.

Basically. It boils down to a single question:
How many innocent lives is the freedom of mages worth?

The answer the chantry gives is none. So that's why they don't want to risk it. And in the process they spill lives in their desperation to protect lives (if it's sounds completely illogical it's because it is).

So, Moilami. I suppose my point is not that the Chantry does good. But that neither they, nor the mages, nor us know what the future will bring and that they are absolutely convinced that if they let the mages go... people will die.
Tell me... if you are absolutely convinced people will die if you let someone go. Would you?

There was two tables and three apples. Now take a look what happens.

*picks up a heavy dwarven war maul*
*smashes with one single blow the table with two apples*

Now there is one apple left. It is for the people. It is for chantry and mages, which are all people. Mages get their share of it, and if you try to deny part of the apple from them, you lose the rights to get your share.

*offers a knife to you*

Now take your share for the chantry. After that I take my share for the people.

If you try to take the whole apple, I will kill you.

You will either surrender and give mages their share of the apple, or I will force you on your knees and take the whole apple away from you.

In either case in the future for each priest in the chantry there will be one mage in the chantry, and templars protecting mages from priests and priests from mages. Think about it how many priests you want to see in the future and make your choise.

[Raven_26]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Raven_26 wrote...
Wait wait, you said "How many inocent lives is freedom of mages worth"?
Are you saying mages aren't inocent? Or because mages can be dangerous it is ok that the templars kill them, just because they "may" be blood mages?

Keep in mind that Wynne tells you what happens when people think you are
a mage, a mage child or adult doesn't matter: "No child, not even a
mage child, is a match for an angry mob trying to
place blame for a failed crop, a hard winter, a baby born dead."

Everyone can be dangerouse, not just mages. Forceing them to live sepret from non-mages will only breed more ignorance. You can't say the chantry is doing anything to let non mages see that mages aren't all evil.

Innocent or not, just ask "how many lives".
Do mages (and abominations) casue more deaths each year than templars do by keeping the mages in he circle? It certanly looks so.

How many mages there are in Ferleden? 100? 200?
And how many common folk there are? Without the Chantry, would the king take matter into his own hands when the common folk demadn vengacne for a town raised?

You seem to think tat letting the mages go free and live among the mundanes would fix problems. That people will stop fearing mages and will accept them among them...
What if it has the opposite effect? Even more resentment and violence towards the mages? Even mroe death?

No I never said, let all the mages go. Read it again, as I have said
before. The Circle servers a purpose, but atm it isn't run right. You
can't take people and force them to live in more or less captivity, with
a treat "take one miss step or one to many and we will kill you or
make you tranquil". It is wrong and it is inhumane. If you claim that
mages are a threat just because they are mages, then why shouldn't they
rebel against their chain, nothing no mater how much effort they put
forward will be accepted, that they can help.



In order to have a debate, you need to see both
sides or your logic will be biases. As it seams yours is, so far all I
have seen of your posts seam to hold to Chantry rule. If I am wrong I am
sorry, and please post what you seam think can help "both" sides - mage and
none mage alike.



Education for mages without imprisonment, and let them live their lives, have family's ect. Where would that be wrong?

None mages would also need to learn not to out rite fear mages, and that IS the Chantry doing.
Sure the Tevinter didn't set a steller example, hey if you want to look really close..the mages are now, where the none mages seam to be back then. Does that make it right?



The Chantry isn't as "nice" as many seam to believe, not saying that
they are "evil" or anything but look at what they are doing.

They believe that only their religion is right, they need to spread the
chant of light to the four corners of the world. The Dalish didn't
believe in the maker, so they where attacked.

They are also trying to convert the dwarfs, because they are wrong and the chant is right.

They are addicting Templars to Lyrium, they don't seam to need it,
Alistair seams to do fine without it. But as long as the templars are
addicted, they can be controlled.

[Sir JK]

Raven_26 wrote...
Wait wait, you said "How many inocent lives is freedom of mages worth"?
Are you saying mages aren't inocent? Or because mages can be dangerous it is ok that the templars kill them, just because they "may" be blood mages?
Keep in mind that Wynne tells you what happens when people think you are
a mage, a mage child or adult doesn't matter: "No child, not even a
mage child, is a match for an angry mob trying to
place blame for a failed crop, a hard winter, a baby born dead."
Everyone can be dangerouse, not just mages. Forceing them to live sepret from non-mages will only breed more ignorance. You can't say the chantry is doing anything to let non mages see that mages aren't all evil.
And in no way are they free, for heavens sake, if they have children, they are taken way at birth!

I used innocent so that noone would twist the question and say silly stuff like infinite dead templars or something like that. Mages can indeed be innocent and most are. They are still dangerous, but that does not make them any less of human beings.

[Sir JK]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Did you fail to read "the templars believe she is a blood mage" as opposed to having proof she is one?[/quote]
Yes, but belief does not have to be unfounded. Does it? I believe that if I toss a rock out of my window it will fal to the ground.

[quote]Except we're ignoring what he actually said (that he could do nothing about it) to speculate that he might have more rights than we've seen? He's a prisoner under the Chantry, the same as any other mage.[/quote]
No, Lobsel. If he refuses to aid because he believed Jowan was a blood mage... he could still wish and say that if it was up to him it would have gone another way (but then refering to jowan not taking up blood magic at all).

I mean. Sure, he could genuinely say that he has no power. But his wording is very ambigous. It's the kind of thing a politician could say.

[quote]
If the Circles were free, then mages wouldn't be fighting with Uldred because Loghain promised them freedom from the Chantry. If the Circles were independent, then the Hero of Ferelden wouldn't be able to ask Ferelden's new ruler for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its independence. I see no reason to argue against the mages being under the heel of the Chantry when all the evidence points that they are indeed oppressed by the templars and the Chantry.[/quote]
I never said they were free. Just that they had measures of self control. Not enough self-control for libertarians and some Aequitarians. There is opression in the circles. Some mages do genuinely have it bad, real bad. There are crucial rights missing.
And yet they can still have both have rights and self-controll measures.

Wether one is opressed or not is not a zero-sum game. You can have it horrendous on one front and paradisal on another. It's the former you'll care about. Which is what the mages are.

[quote]Clearly, if the Circles had any measure of independence, they wouldn't be under the control of the Chantry. Since Gaider already pointed out that it's the Chantry who says no to the Magi boon, why are you debating that they have any measure of independence from the templars or the Chantry? The only free mages are Grey Wardens who aren't subject to the Chantry.[/quote]
A measure of independence is not the same as full indepedence. And seldom enough. What matters it if mages can decide what to do with themselves if the templars take their children?
You can both have opression and some self-governance at the same time.

[quote]So let's murder D'Sims because he allegedly healed people? Let's murder Morrigan because she helped stop the Blight? Those don't sound like good reasons to me.[/quote]
Again... you missed my point. How do you know there is not a very good reason behind Morrigan's bounty. How do you know Magnificent D'sims did not stab at the templars? How do you know they weren't provoked?

[quote]Freedom is the goal for mages who desire independence from the Chantry.[/quote]
Yes. Freedom is always the goal of uprisings and revolutions. They tend to be followed by more wanting the same thing even if they succeeded.

And if the mages fail... they're lives will turn for the worse.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]Except Connor didn't realize who he was dealing with, and that's entirely on the Chantry and its anti-mage dogma as well as spreading fear and intolerance against mages. Isolde is a product of her upbringing and religious views, which are clearly to see mages as evil because she's an Andrastian.[/quote]
And given that if all things are equal (as things should be in comparisons)... he still would not neccesarily know it was a demon. Or know that taking her offer would not lead to disaster. The demon would not give him time to dwell on it or ask for advice. It would onyl appear when he was most desperate.  There are fully trained mages who don't know what they deal with... how would you expect a child before his teens that just developed magic to do it?
I mean let's face it... to give a modern analogy. You're expecting a boy that's in elementary school to be able to understand and resist the full manipulation of something that has the experience of most politicians.... oh... and speaks directly to your mind.

Why would a positive attitude to mages change anything?

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

That's only true in the 20th century forward.  Until then prisoners were essentially slaves of the state (and in Roman Times and even in Feudal Times...such as Dragon Age) they were often called that explicitly.

Even today, prisoners are only granted 'rights' that the state gives them which means they aren't actual rights...Amnesty International notwithstanding.

-Polaris[/quote]

I think you only need look around the pre-Broken Circle Mage Tower to see that the mages there are not kept in horrendous slave/prisoner conditions or denied civil rights. Just because they don't (often) leave the tower doesn't mean they're mistreated or denied anything they need for a comfortable, if confined lifestyle.

Edit: Am I saying it's 'right' or 'ok' to keep mages locked up? No. I'm saying that their situation (in Ferelden) isn't as horrible as you are trying to depict.

[/quote]

Denied civil rights? They have no rights. The Knight-Commander is in charge, and even the First Enchanter can't overrule his decisions. I don't see why people are pretending that mages are living the good life when they have no agency and are basically permitted to eat, drink, and sleep. Getting killed because of an accusation or turned into an emotionless drone without having the right to defend yourself against the charge is hardly ideal or even reasonable. As for their living conditions, it doesn't alter the fact that they're living in prisons under the guard of armored and armed drug addicts who answer only to an anti-mage religious order. Living under tyranny and oppression, no matter how fancy the prisons are dressed to be, doesn't change that mages are prisons for life simply because they're mages.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Actually, Wynne reveals that he was labelled maleficar when you ask her why they didn't simply bring him back, which is why the templars went to kill him. It isn't an issue of running away, it's an issue of a claim of him being maleficar that even the Chantry apologist (who has no problem killing the Warden for being a blood mage in the missing scene that was disabled because it bugged the Landsmeet) doesn't believe in.[/quote]

Waht Wynne belives is irrelevant. Do we know for sure he WASN'T an Melaficar? Or that the templars didn't have any proof?
Face it - we know very little..only one side of the story. [/quote]

In other words, let's once again ignore what the story tells us because it paints the Chantry in a bad light? She revealed that Aenirin was declared to be a maleficar, and the interaction between Wynne and Aenirin when they reunite indicates that he isn't one - he's a healer. Just like D'Sims and Morrigan in Witch Hunt, templars can simply kill someone without proof. Sorry to disappoint you.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I have no doubt that Anders being brought back to the Circle alive is entirely because Greagoir permits this, especially when we see what happened to Aenirin.[/quote]

Your doubts are not proof. [/quote]

Merely the cases where templars murder - and can pay for the murder of people they think are illegal mages or blood mages - based on suspicion alone.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Except Aenirin was declared maleficar from the get go. It's not the same issue. You brought up a similiar topic some time back when you suggested a storyline where the player should have the option of helping a mage escape from the templars, and a templar gets killed by the mage escaping (one who didn't want to kill the mage).
This seems to be a repeat of that analogy. However, my problem is, what gave templars and the Chantry the right to play God with the lives of mages? It's a fair argument to make. Do templars or the Chantry have a right to control the lives of other human beings? They play God with the lives of the mages and we get the line that it's for the greater good, and every time any person brings up their lack of freedom, we get the usual "abominations are dangerous, "magic is dangerous," regardless of the fact that mages are being oppressed to the point where they will run away (and risk death) or start rebellions to emancipate themselves from the Chantry.[/quote]

What gives them the right? Probably the sense of duty towards the world. Or maybe just might.
I'm willing to bet that progressive and liberal govenments of today would act exactly the same. [/quote]

In other words, they're a tyrannical order that gave themselves the right to play life and death with innocent lives all over Thedas.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

It's easy to talk about the evil of the Chatnry adn the plight of the mages, when you're safe, sound and well-fed.
If you were a peasant in the DA world, you'd think differently. [/quote]

It's just as easy to dismiss the plight of the mages and how they can be killed based on heresay alone when you're at the other end of a computer.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I would have lost respect for him, considering he never saw the evidence in question. I always stand by the decision to help Jowan, even to Wynne. And why are we dealing in hypothetical "what ifs" when Irving openly admits that he could do nothing? Because it would paint the Chantry in a negative light that Irving really has no say over the matter?[/quote]

You're the one to ask that question?
Interpretations of the meaning of a text or sentance and parading it like undeinable proof seems to be all you do. [/quote]

I'm certain you meant that as an insult, but once again you fail to prove a point, Lotion. I see no reason why Irving would lie about his inability to do anything when we see from other examples that Greagoir is making all of the decisions. Who decided to deny more mages into Ostagar? Greagoir. Who decides whether the mages will be spared or not? Greagoir. Who decided the fate of Jowan? Greagoir. Was Irving even privy to the evidence placed against Jowan? No, he wasn't. I don't see the point in trying to clean up the powerlessness of the mages merely because some people want to justify their actions against the mages. You think what they do is fine? That's certainly your right, Lotion, but I see no point in pretending that it's anything but imprisonment (or enslavement) of mages who have no rights under the Chantry.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

That people can be killed merely on suspicion alone is something I find monstorous.[/quote]

Happens sometimes in RL too.
We dont' know how muhc the Chantry knows of Morrigan, so their decision doesn't seem that off...especially since we KNOW Morrigan knows Blood Magic (the Dark Ritual). [/quote]

She said some would consider it blood magic, Lotion, but that it was ancient magic. That doesn't make her a blood mage. Since the Chantry didn't state they had proof and only suspicions, they placed a bounty on her head merely on suspicion alone. Like when they murdered D'Sims. Like when they tried to kill Aenirin.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

But practicly all the cases so far about templar brutality are field cases...which isnt' surprising.
Overisight doesn't work everywhere the same and at the same level.

Imagine 3 angry cops cornering a criminal in a dark alley with no witnesses.
Now immagine 3 templars conrenring a mage in a dark alley with no witnesses.
Whats the operational difference?

There isn't one.
If the 3 are dicks, they can kill/beat up the guy and claim it was self-defense.
On field assigments, there can be no direct overight. [/quote]

Or when the templars place a bounty on someone based on suspicion alone?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If you hear about a case or two about police officers doing something like that, do you automaticly scream "Cops are murdering bastards! Death to all cops!!!" ?  No, no you don't.
Yet replace the word cop with templar, and you'll have part of hte forum out for blood..... [/quote]

Only you would keep applying bad analogies that don't even fit the circumstances of the scenerios you're tackling, Lotion. Comparing how some police officers go rogue or bad with an arcane system that can murder based on mere suspicions makes no sense.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I'm certain the family members of people who died on suspicion alone of being illegal mages at the hands of the templars feel the same way.[/quote]

Do they? And if they do...numbers give prioritites.
1000 angry villagers beat 10 angry mage parents.
[/quote]

I think the rate of parents of murdered mages during the Rites would make that number of parents far more than you're stating. 700 years of Rites, not to mention mages murdered during the Harrowing, runaways, and people falsely accused of being maleficars, would make that more than 1000.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Raven_26 wrote...

Wait wait, you said "How many inocent lives is freedom of mages worth"?
Are you saying mages aren't inocent? Or because mages can be dangerous it is ok that the templars kill them, just because they "may" be blood mages?

Keep in mind that Wynne tells you what happens when people think you are a mage, a mage child or adult doesn't matter: "No child, not even a mage child, is a match for an angry mob trying to place blame for a failed crop, a hard winter, a baby born dead."

Everyone can be dangerouse, not just mages. Forceing them to live sepret from non-mages will only breed more ignorance. You can't say the chantry is doing anything to let non mages see that mages aren't all evil.

Innocent or not, just ask "how many lives".
Do mages (and abominations) casue more deaths each year than templars do by keeping the mages in he circle? It certanly looks so.

Actually, it looks like templars kill mages all the time, even without valid proof they did anything wrong, and have murdered innocent people they suspected of being mages (D'Sims). They even put out a bounty on someone they think is a blood mage (Morrigan).

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

How many mages there are in Ferleden? 100? 200?
And how many common folk there are? Without the Chantry, would the king take matter into his own hands when the common folk demadn vengacne for a town raised?

You mean how the Andrastian Chantry preaches hatred and intolerance against mages, which is why they have such negative attitudes while Haven, Rivain, and the Dalish have more tolerant views of mages, and actually have mages living alongside non-mages?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You seem to think tat letting the mages go free and live among the mundanes would fix problems. That people will stop fearing mages and will accept them among them...
What if it has the opposite effect? Even more resentment and violence towards the mages? Even mroe death?

You mean if the Chantry declares an Exalted March and murders people because a nation tried to liberate its local Circle of Magi like the Divine contemplates against Orzammar for its independent Circle of Magi?

[moilami]

Sir JK wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Did you fail to read "the templars believe she is a blood mage" as opposed to having proof she is one?

Yes, but belief does not have to be unfounded. Does it? I believe that if I toss a rock out of my window it will fal to the ground.

Except we're ignoring what he actually said (that he could do nothing about it) to speculate that he might have more rights than we've seen? He's a prisoner under the Chantry, the same as any other mage.

No, Lobsel. If he refuses to aid because he believed Jowan was a blood mage... he could still wish and say that if it was up to him it would have gone another way (but then refering to jowan not taking up blood magic at all).

I mean. Sure, he could genuinely say that he has no power. But his wording is very ambigous. It's the kind of thing a politician could say.

If the Circles were free, then mages wouldn't be fighting with Uldred because Loghain promised them freedom from the Chantry. If the Circles were independent, then the Hero of Ferelden wouldn't be able to ask Ferelden's new ruler for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its independence. I see no reason to argue against the mages being under the heel of the Chantry when all the evidence points that they are indeed oppressed by the templars and the Chantry.

I never said they were free. Just that they had measures of self control. Not enough self-control for libertarians and some Aequitarians. There is opression in the circles. Some mages do genuinely have it bad, real bad. There are crucial rights missing.
And yet they can still have both have rights and self-controll measures.

Wether one is opressed or not is not a zero-sum game. You can have it horrendous on one front and paradisal on another. It's the former you'll care about. Which is what the mages are.

Clearly, if the Circles had any measure of independence, they wouldn't be under the control of the Chantry. Since Gaider already pointed out that it's the Chantry who says no to the Magi boon, why are you debating that they have any measure of independence from the templars or the Chantry? The only free mages are Grey Wardens who aren't subject to the Chantry.

A measure of independence is not the same as full indepedence. And seldom enough. What matters it if mages can decide what to do with themselves if the templars take their children?
You can both have opression and some self-governance at the same time.

So let's murder D'Sims because he allegedly healed people? Let's murder Morrigan because she helped stop the Blight? Those don't sound like good reasons to me.

Again... you missed my point. How do you know there is not a very good reason behind Morrigan's bounty. How do you know Magnificent D'sims did not stab at the templars? How do you know they weren't provoked?

Freedom is the goal for mages who desire independence from the Chantry.

Yes. Freedom is always the goal of uprisings and revolutions. They tend to be followed by more wanting the same thing even if they succeeded.

And if the mages fail... they're lives will turn for the worse.

Sir JK wrote...

Except Connor didn't realize who he was dealing with, and that's entirely on the Chantry and its anti-mage dogma as well as spreading fear and intolerance against mages. Isolde is a product of her upbringing and religious views, which are clearly to see mages as evil because she's an Andrastian.

And given that if all things are equal (as things should be in comparisons)... he still would not neccesarily know it was a demon. Or know that taking her offer would not lead to disaster. The demon would not give him time to dwell on it or ask for advice. It would onyl appear when he was most desperate.  There are fully trained mages who don't know what they deal with... how would you expect a child before his teens that just developed magic to do it?
I mean let's face it... to give a modern analogy. You're expecting a boy that's in elementary school to be able to understand and resist the full manipulation of something that has the experience of most politicians.... oh... and speaks directly to your mind.

Why would a positive attitude to mages change anything?

You tried to keep the apple. *executes*

Modifié par moilami, 31 janvier 2011 - 09:10 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Did you fail to read "the templars believe she is a blood mage" as opposed to having proof she is one?[/quote]

Yes, but belief does not have to be unfounded. Does it? I believe that if I toss a rock out of my window it will fal to the ground. [/quote]

In other words, they might be right, so it's okay that they put a bounty on someone's head despite lacking any proof or evidence? Yeah, we're going to have to disagree with that, because I find it monsterous and vile that the Chantry can murder people and put bounties on people based on mere suspicion alone.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Except we're ignoring what he actually said (that he could do nothing about it) to speculate that he might have more rights than we've seen? He's a prisoner under the Chantry, the same as any other mage.[/quote]

No, Lobsel. If he refuses to aid because he believed Jowan was a blood mage... he could still wish and say that if it was up to him it would have gone another way (but then refering to jowan not taking up blood magic at all).

I mean. Sure, he could genuinely say that he has no power. But his wording is very ambigous. It's the kind of thing a politician could say. [/quote]

His wording isn't ambigous. He says he would change things if were up to him. He says Greagoir has evidence and makes it clear he doesn't even know what this evidence is. That isn't ambiguous at all. He's also the one to thank the Warden for asking for the Circle to be given it's independence.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

If the Circles were free, then mages wouldn't be fighting with Uldred because Loghain promised them freedom from the Chantry. If the Circles were independent, then the Hero of Ferelden wouldn't be able to ask Ferelden's new ruler for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its independence. I see no reason to argue against the mages being under the heel of the Chantry when all the evidence points that they are indeed oppressed by the templars and the Chantry.[/quote]

I never said they were free. Just that they had measures of self control. Not enough self-control for libertarians and some Aequitarians. There is opression in the circles. Some mages do genuinely have it bad, real bad. There are crucial rights missing.
And yet they can still have both have rights and self-controll measures.

Wether one is opressed or not is not a zero-sum game. You can have it horrendous on one front and paradisal on another. It's the former you'll care about. Which is what the mages are. [/quote]

Having a leash around your neck and being given some wiggle room isn't a measure of self-control or rights. It's a prison. Mages are prisoners of the Chantry because they're mages. Templars are the ones who are in charge, while the mages have as much wiggle room as the Knight-Commander permits.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Clearly, if the Circles had any measure of independence, they wouldn't be under the control of the Chantry. Since Gaider already pointed out that it's the Chantry who says no to the Magi boon, why are you debating that they have any measure of independence from the templars or the Chantry? The only free mages are Grey Wardens who aren't subject to the Chantry.[/quote]

A measure of independence is not the same as full indepedence. And seldom enough. What matters it if mages can decide what to do with themselves if the templars take their children?
You can both have opression and some self-governance at the same time.[/quote]

A lack of independence because they're prisoners of the Chantry, and have no rights. Having the ability to eat and drink because mages are necessary against the darkspawn and the Qunari doesn't mean mages have some degree of independence or rights. Mages are living in prisons across Thedas. I see no reason to dress up their oppression by saying they have degress of independence because the powerless mages can make decisions that really have no consequence because all the power really lies with the Knight-Commander.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

So let's murder D'Sims because he allegedly healed people? Let's murder Morrigan because she helped stop the Blight? Those don't sound like good reasons to me.[/quote]

Again... you missed my point. How do you know there is not a very good reason behind Morrigan's bounty. How do you know Magnificent D'sims did not stab at the templars? How do you know they weren't provoked? [/quote]

Suspicion isn't proof by any measure.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Freedom is the goal for mages who desire independence from the Chantry.[/quote]

Yes. Freedom is always the goal of uprisings and revolutions. They tend to be followed by more wanting the same thing even if they succeeded.

And if the mages fail... they're lives will turn for the worse. [/quote]

Better a chance of freedom than the certainty of subjegation.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Except Connor didn't realize who he was dealing with, and that's entirely on the Chantry and its anti-mage dogma as well as spreading fear and intolerance against mages. Isolde is a product of her upbringing and religious views, which are clearly to see mages as evil because she's an Andrastian.[/quote]

And given that if all things are equal (as things should be in comparisons)... he still would not neccesarily know it was a demon. Or know that taking her offer would not lead to disaster. The demon would not give him time to dwell on it or ask for advice. It would onyl appear when he was most desperate.  There are fully trained mages who don't know what they deal with... how would you expect a child before his teens that just developed magic to do it? [/quote]

He would know if he had proper education. He would know if his mother wasn't a pious woman who was deeply ashamed and frightened that her son was a mage. Why deny the social conditions put forth by the rhetoric of the Chantry against mages when its the backdrop for the entire bloodbath that transpired with Redcliffe?

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

I mean let's face it... to give a modern analogy. You're expecting a boy that's in elementary school to be able to understand and resist the full manipulation of something that has the experience of most politicians.... oh... and speaks directly to your mind. [/quote]

You're expecting ignorance to be the same as informative. I honestly don't see why.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Why would a positive attitude to mages change anything?
[/quote]

I genuinely believe so.

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...
In other words, they might be right, so it's okay that they put a bounty on someone's head despite lacking any proof or evidence? Yeah, we're going to have to disagree with that, because I find it monsterous and vile that the Chantry can murder people and put bounties on people based on mere suspicion alone.

You do on the other hand not have anything more than suspicion alone that they are acting solely on suspicion. Just because you do not know anything about evidence does not mean they don't have it.

His wording isn't ambigous. He says he would change things if were up to him. He says Greagoir has evidence and makes it clear he doesn't even know what this evidence is. That isn't ambiguous at all. He's also the one to thank the Warden for asking for the Circle to be given it's independence.

What things would he change then?

Having a leash around your neck and being given some wiggle room isn't a measure of self-control or rights. It's a prison. Mages are prisoners of the Chantry because they're mages. Templars are the ones who are in charge, while the mages have as much wiggle room as the Knight-Commander permits.

I'm still not convinced. But this is getting nowehere so let's just agree to disagree?

Suspicion isn't proof by any measure.

Suspicion can be based on it though.

Better a chance of freedom than the certainty of subjegation.

Perhaps

He would know if he had proper education. He would know if his mother wasn't a pious woman who was deeply ashamed and frightened that her son was a mage. Why deny the social conditions put forth by the rhetoric of the Chantry against mages when its the backdrop for the entire bloodbath that transpired with Redcliffe?

But then all things are not being equal. You're saying that Connor should have a proper years long education -and- a more positive Chantry. Remember... Magic shows itself in the teens. Connor is even unusually young for a mage. Most likely... he started showing the signs of magic just a few months beforethe incident itself.

No matter what the attitude of the Circle was... Connor would have recieved the same amount of time in training and schooling. 

But even if he had a better tutor. He'd still think his father was dying. Magic still could not do anything to cure him (they tried remember). Isolde would still be half panicked. And the demon still would have been there to make the effort.
And let's face it. Even Jowan could have told Connor not to listen to a demon.
But rule number one in manipulation: Never ever let someone ask someone for advice. Force the decision upon them, don't let them think rationally and don't let them seek other opinions.  And especially don't leave them room to go to someone wiser and ask if they should listen to you.
In the demon's case she would have outlined that Eamon would die. Noone but her could do anything. She'd do it in the dead of night. When all hope was lost. And she'd give him less than 30 seconds to decide.
Save your father or watch him die (yes... she lied. But when not even mages can do anything about the poison, who is a small boy to know the difference).

That's what I would do if I wanted to manipulate someone. And demon's have much more experience than I do in that I think.

You're expecting ignorance to be the same as informative. I honestly don't see why.

No. I am not doing that. I am questioning the assumption that the templars had no evidence. In this case however, I am pointing out that Connor is as fresh in training as any apprentice and a child. Let's face it... magic stands out and mages too. Servants talk. How long do you think Connor had been a mage? Gaider has said most mages become them in their mid or late teens, with only a handful as early as Connor or Wynne. Remember that even Alistair had no idea that Connor was a mage.

Remember... at most 6 months pass between mage origin and the Redcliffe incident. Probably far fewer. That's the maximum amount of training could have recieved in either case. No matter how positive attitude the cirle would have Connor would still have minimum amount of training. Even if they publically trained people in what a demon is in case some would become mages, Connor would still have been in the equalient of 5th grade... at most.

Even mages who have spent 10 years at the circle, training their entire lives to resist demons, find themselves unprepared for the Harrowing and fail. That's in a enviroment that emphasises the importance of resisting them.
What chance would Connor have had?

A positive attitude does not mean the training will be better. And if you assume that Connors trainign would have been better then you are not asking:
"Would Redcliffe have been better off if the chantry did not mistreat mages" but "Would Redcliffe have been better off if the chantry did not mistreat mages and Connor was fully prepared and ready for it."
Which is a flawed way of looking at it.

[moilami]

A positive attitude does not mean the training will be better. And if you assume that Connors trainign would have been better then you are not asking:
"Would Redcliffe have been better off if the chantry did not mistreat mages" but "Would Redcliffe have been better off if the chantry did not mistreat mages and Connor was fully prepared and ready for it."
Which is a flawed way of looking at it.

It is you who you can't think out of the box in that. Of course the question "would Redcliffe have been better off if the chantry did not mistreat mages" supposes that "Connor was fully prepared and ready for it". His parents noticed some time ago he was a mage. So he would had been getting training in a fair system, and there would had been task force to call by her parents (consisting of mages among other people) who would had put an end to the Redcliffe asap before things go out of hand. Just like police special forces do when things are about to go out of hand. No need for Connor's mother to hide anything but co-operate with the required people.


Edit: Special forces would had just put snus between their teeths and lips and grinned "lets pwn some demons". Everyone is not a coward.

Edit: And lol there would had been kids celebrating the special forces and other people who would had to been pushed back.

Edit: And the kids would had asked templars and mages "will you save Connor? Really? Please save him yay!"

Modifié par moilami, 31 janvier 2011 - 10:11 .