1869 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

I have the entry for the Orlesian Warden where it clearly states that they put a bounty on Morrigan because they suspect that she's a blood mage, not because the templars know she's one.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

What things would he change then? [/quote]

I don't know, because I can't ask him that question. Maybe David Gaider can answer it.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

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

Agreed.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Suspicion isn't proof by any measure. [/quote]

Suspicion can be based on it though. [/quote]

But what prove do they have that she's a blood mage? She can transform into other animals, like the Dalish mages can. Even Wynne never comments on her magical abilities like she can with a blood mage Warden (based on the missing scene that was disabled because it bugged the Landsmeet). There's nothing to show that's a reasonable assumption to make - they make a suspicion that she's a blood mage, and put a bounty on her head, simple as that.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Better a chance of freedom than the certainty of subjegation.[/quote]

Perhaps [/quote]

Certainly for those willing to risk their lives to achieve it.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

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.  [/quote]

Connor was ignorant of the situation because Loghain exploited Isolde's anti-mage views that are based on her Chantry upbringing. I still can't see why the Chantry should be excused for their anti-mage dogma when they have a hand in what happened at Redcliffe. You can't spread fear, hatred, and intolerance toward mages, and then be absolved of all guilt when things turn bad because of it.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

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. [/quote]

You don't know that. You can't say Connor would have made a deal with a demon if he knew she wasn't simply a "bad lady."

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

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). [/quote]

Except he made the deal in ignorance of demons. Thanks to the anti-mage dogma spread by the Chantry, Connor didn't have a chance to be informed because his mother was so pious and choose a particular path of action that lead directly to the demon exploiting his ignorance. Who's to say if the demon would have even made such a deal if he was familiar with demons and their false promises?

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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

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. [/quote]

Yet if Isolde didn't fear mages because of her Chantry upbringing, she never would have hired Jowan, who never would have poisoned Eamon, and Connor wouldn't have made a deal with a demon. Would it have happened differently? It's impossible to say. Would Isolde let a complete strange so close to her family for no reason? I'm doubtful. I'm more doubtful of Connor making a deal with demons if he was properly informed about them, but it's his ignorance that was his downfall in canon.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

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? [/quote]

If the Chantry didn't spread fear and paranoia about mages? More than he had being completely ignorant of them.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

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. [/quote]

Knowledge arms us in a way that ignorance never can. I can't see why the Chantry should be absolved for it's role in what happened at Redcliffe, which happened as a result of Isolde's views on magic and mages - shaped by her Chantry upbringing.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Is Wynne infalible now?
I you asked her about Jowan being a blood mage, what do you think her response would be?
Wynne is a samrt woman, but there's still a lot she doesn't know.

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.

They aren't slaves. This was established a long time ago.

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.

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

If he resists and fights back? Yes.
Self-defence is not murder.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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.

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

Faield argument. This was already explained a dozen times before.

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.

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

You hav proof it is not?
It's pretty obvious the Chantry, templars, regualr folk and even some mages think it is.

LobselVith8 wrote...
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.

Not for those reasons.
But that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. There are plenty of reasons why a mage could become possesed.
Maybe Uldred got robed on the markeplace and lost it?
Maybe a woman said no to him.
As I said, a million potential reasons.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 01 février 2011 - 08:14 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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?

Killing people on suspicion of what? If you mean the Rite of Anulment, that's an extreme case you can't exactly use to dismiss how the mages are treated on average.

In normal day to day life, the Fereldan mage Circle does not seem to be in habit of offing their mages 'just because'. So long as they're not doing anything against the rules, they're fine. Most societies have laws and consequences, not just prisons.

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Naturally some mages see it that way, and others who do not. There are extremists on both sides, I'm sure. I am going by what we have seen in DA:O, nothing more. I'm not advocating that mages should be kept trapped in their tower or that they should be happy about it, just that the conditions look much better than they could be. There seem to be plenty of mages who consider the tower a haven rather than a prison/slave camp.

LobselVith8 wrote...
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.

I'd argue most of your points, but I get the impression it would be a waste of time.

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.

Case in point.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Raven_26 wrote...
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.

I don't know if anything can be really done.
Fact of the matter is that mundanes fear mages (and for a reason), so I see no practical way for mages to live with mundanes.
Maybe some things can be done to improve conditions in the Circle...

Personally, I'd give mages their own island..a bigger one...and a bigger Cirlce. They could use more room.
But the bigger the area, the harder to keep mages under observation. Practicality and logistical concerns always sticl their ugly heads in this matter.

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

I just dont' think it's possible on that scale. Even Tevinter has mage Circles. A country run by mages still confines mages.
As for families - DG said the policies differ from Circle to Circle, but children are taken away for practical reasons. Demons like to use children as bargaining chips. Evidently, mages were allowed to keep children in the past, and that caused neough problem for the Chantry to change their policy..

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 seem to be back then. Does that make it right?

Non-mages fear mages for a reason (and not only Chantry propaganda).
You can't just "teach" people not to fear them. We're talking a about forced re-education of entire medieval kingdoms. That's anything but practical and simple.
And when the next abomination show up, or a blood mage does something horrible...will the people believe? A man that gets burned learns to fear fire.

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.

Everyone belives they are right. Religious and non-religios alike. Nothing new there.

And no, the events that led to the fall of the Dales are murky at best. It's not clear what exactly happened, as both sides have different versions of the story.
According to Dalish, they were attacked because of their religion.
According to Orlais, the dalish were acting like dicks and started border conflicts that grew into a war, and the Dalish reached Val Royaux, prompting the Chantry to call for an Exhalted March.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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]

I asked for proof.
You didn't give me any proof.
Thats' no more proof than Jowan saying to you he's not a bloog mage in the mage origin.


[quote]
[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]

Again, no real proof in the Anders case. the templars tehre didn't seem to be doing things by the book.



[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]
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.[/quote]

Who said Irwing lies? It's just that his words can be interpreted in several ways.
You just assume he has no power. We in fact know - from the Codex - that the First Enchanter has some power in the workings of  the Circle.






[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]

Proof htat they have nothing to go from. Proof that they have no evidence.
The use of the word "belive" is not sufficient, as it is often used for factual stuff.





[quote]
[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]

It makes perfect sence. Not my fault you can't see it.



[quote]
[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.[/quote]

And 700 years of abomination and mages abusing their power would easily make that number look pitiful in comparison.
If the description of Kirkwall is anything to go by, the magisters caused deaths of hunderds daily in that city alone....

[Lotion Soronarr]

moilami wrote...
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.

There already are special forces for such an occasion..They are called templars.

However, DA:O is a medieval setting. Distances are large, transportation and communication slow.
A fast response unit simply doesn't exist in those conditions.

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I have the entry for the Orlesian Warden where it clearly states that they put a bounty on Morrigan because they suspect that she's a blood mage, not because the templars know she's one.

The first problem is that suspect is even today the legal term attributed to everyone before they have been proven guilty, so suspicion can come with any amount of evidence.
The second problem is, how do you prove someone is a blood mage? Unless you catch them redhanded in exercising it most evidence will be at most vague. But just like you don't allow a man you suspect will murder someone reach their potential victim (and sometimes even with lethal force) you don't want a blood mage to begin casting that magic...

I don't know, because I can't ask him that question. Maybe David Gaider can answer it.

This was my point precisely. He did not expand (or let us expand) on that. Maybe all he wanted was that he had given Jowan more attention and a better teacher so he would not have turned to blood magic? That do fit in his wording after all.
Or maybe he genuinely wanted to handle the whole thing differently. As you say, we don't know.

But what prove do they have that she's a blood mage? She can transform into other animals, like the Dalish mages can. Even Wynne never comments on her magical abilities like she can with a blood mage Warden (based on the missing scene that was disabled because it bugged the Landsmeet). There's nothing to show that's a reasonable assumption to make - they make a suspicion that she's a blood mage, and put a bounty on her head, simple as that.

There is a big blank space in Morrigan's background between Origins and Witchhunt though. She spent that in Orlais, right? Who knows what she is up to there?

Certainly for those willing to risk their lives to achieve it.

Indeed. Less so for those that ends up getting it worse for it though... and there will be some who do.

Connor was ignorant of the situation because Loghain exploited Isolde's anti-mage views that are based on her Chantry upbringing. I still can't see why the Chantry should be excused for their anti-mage dogma when they have a hand in what happened at Redcliffe. You can't spread fear, hatred, and intolerance toward mages, and then be absolved of all guilt when things turn bad because of it.

Loghain exploited her need for a mage to tutor her son because she did not want to send him away. If she had not needed Jowan he would have sent someone else. Jowan was not the only one that knew how to drop some powder or a few drops of something in a cup (or whatever he did).
Regardless of the view towards magic... Eamon would still have been poisoned on Loghain's order. Not necessarily by Jowan, but by someone. Eamon got poisoned because he was an obstacle to Loghain, Jowan got to do it because they could easily get him in.

You don't know that. You can't say Connor would have made a deal with a demon if he knew she wasn't simply a "bad lady."

But really nothing has changed in the situation. Connor would still be there. Eamon would still be unhealable even by mages. Connor would still be young. He still would not have had much training.

Unless Isolde would have trusted the mages and sent her son away for schooling (like a boarding school) nothing is different.

Except he made the deal in ignorance of demons. Thanks to the anti-mage dogma spread by the Chantry, Connor didn't have a chance to be informed because his mother was so pious and choose a particular path of action that lead directly to the demon exploiting his ignorance. Who's to say if the demon would have even made such a deal if he was familiar with demons and their false promises?

So you say. But his training would not have been much longer. There would not have been more chance to inform him the dangers of demons. Maybe his teacher could have been better, but he would not have recieved much more training.

Yet if Isolde didn't fear mages because of her Chantry upbringing, she never would have hired Jowan, who never would have poisoned Eamon, and Connor wouldn't have made a deal with a demon. Would it have happened differently? It's impossible to say. Would Isolde let a complete strange so close to her family for no reason? I'm doubtful. I'm more doubtful of Connor making a deal with demons if he was properly informed about them, but it's his ignorance that was his downfall in canon.

Unless she sent him away, she still would have hired a tutor. That may or may not have been Jowan. But someone would have poisoned Eamon. Jowan was only chosen because Isolde looked for a mage and Loghain's men found one.
As I said. Even fully trained mages fail the harrowing. Connor would in either case have been in the very beginning of his training.

If the Chantry didn't spread fear and paranoia about mages? More than he had being completely ignorant of them.

So if the Chantry did not spread such wicked lies such as that mages are dangerous because they might get possessed by demons then... oh... wait...
If there is one thing Chantry dogma does spread... it is the danger of demons.

Knowledge arms us in a way that ignorance never can. I can't see why the Chantry should be absolved for it's role in what happened at Redcliffe, which happened as a result of Isolde's views on magic and mages - shaped by her Chantry upbringing.

But let us play with the idea that she was raised like that mages are normal people (or close enough). What would have changed in Recliffe?
Connor would still have been there. So that changes nothing
A mage tutor would still have been hired. Again, nothing changes.
He would have recieved about the same amount of training. Based on that Alistair had no idea of Connor being a mage (and he has met the boy) and that Isolde took Jowan in between mage origin and Lothering (she can't have been looking long). Again, no change.
Eamon would still have been poisoned by someone. Same there as well
Mundane and mage healers both would still have been unable to cure Eamon. Again, no change
Eamon would have seemed to be getting worse. Same there
Desire demons would still be desire demons. Obviously

So my friend, what would have changed? If you have reason to believe Connor would have recieved longer training. Please point it out and source it. But apart from that people would be more positive to mages... the situation remains the same. I see no logical reason to blame the chantry... because nothing would change.

Unless of course Isolde sends Connor away for schooling. That would work.

Modifié par Sir JK, 01 février 2011 - 08:59 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sir JK wrote...
But let us play with the idea that she was raised like that mages are normal people (or close enough). What would have changed in Recliffe?
Connor would still have been there. So that changes nothing
A mage tutor would still have been hired. Again, nothing changes.
He would have recieved about the same amount of training. Based on that Alistair had no idea of Connor being a mage (and he has met the boy) and that Isolde took Jowan in between mage origin and Lothering (she can't have been looking long). Again, no change.
Eamon would still have been poisoned by someone. Same there as well
Mundane and mage healers both would still have been unable to cure Eamon. Again, no change
Eamon would have seemed to be getting worse. Same there
Desire demons would still be desire demons. Obviously

So my friend, what would have changed? If you have reason to believe Connor would have recieved longer training. Please point it out and source it. But apart from that people would be more positive to mages... the situation remains the same. I see no logical reason to blame the chantry... because nothing would change.

Unless of course Isolde sends Connor away for schooling. That would work.

Not necesarily.
Some mages mantain contact with their families (we know Eamon does).

So word of Eamons illnes would still reach Connor, even in the Tower. Would he have beome an abomination? Impossible to tell.

It is telling however, that the only way to be sure Redcliffe isn't destroyed is to not have Connor there in the first place...

*****

I see several different oppinions on these forums, in this range:

- all mages should be purged
- Qunari have the right idea
- Chantry system is good as it is
- Keep the Circle system basics, make some improvements
- Circles should be compeltely independant
- all mages should be free to live with mundanes
- mages should rule the world and destroy the Chatnry

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 01 février 2011 - 09:30 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
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.

Interestingly enough, murder is defiend as "unlawfull killing".

Since the chatnry is effictively the law, the only way a templar can murder mages is if he isn't following Chantry law...in other words, we are talking about dirty cops...loose cannons.


The latest blurb on the templars in Kirkwall mentions CHARGES, and from other poitns of the game, it does indeed seem the templars have both a set of laws and procedures, and are held reposnsible for not following them. That looks like oversight to me.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 01 février 2011 - 09:45 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Depending on the country, prisoners *can* have basic human rights. [/quote]

I'm guessing killing people on suspicion alone isn't one of them?[/quote]

Killing people on suspicion of what? If you mean the Rite of Anulment, that's an extreme case you can't exactly use to dismiss how the mages are treated on average.

In normal day to day life, the Fereldan mage Circle does not seem to be in habit of offing their mages 'just because'. So long as they're not doing anything against the rules, they're fine. Most societies have laws and consequences, not just prisons. [/quote]

Actually, no. I referrenced the fact that templars can, and have, killed people who they thought were mages, or even blood mages. Case in point, in Witch Hunt, the templars placed a bounty on Morrigan because they suspect she's a blood mage:




As you can see, the templars believe Morrigan to be a blood mage, and without any evidence at all, they are offering a reward for her demise. No different than when they murdered the Magnificent D'Sims because they falsely assumed he was a mage who healed people, and proceeded to cut off his head. [/quote]

[quote]Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

Naturally some mages see it that way, and others who do not. There are extremists on both sides, I'm sure. I am going by what we have seen in DA:O, nothing more. I'm not advocating that mages should be kept trapped in their tower or that they should be happy about it, just that the conditions look much better than they could be. There seem to be plenty of mages who consider the tower a haven rather than a prison/slave camp. [/quote]

Like Wynne and Keili, but there are mages who see it as a prison and worse. Even the elven mage in The Calling, Fiona, saw the Circle as no better than her prior life as victim of sexual assault. Clearly, not every mage shares the views that Keili and Wynne hold for the Circle, especially those willing to risk their lives leaving it for a life of freedom outside it.

[quote]Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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.[/quote]

I'd argue most of your points, but I get the impression it would be a waste of time.

[quote]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]

Case in point. [/quote]

You'd argue my points because you disagree, or because you're not able to dismiss the claims that the Circle is a prison? Because the VO for the Magi Origin specifically refers to it as a prison. I don't see why people want to say otherwise.

If you have a codex entry or some evidence that proves that mages are living the good life, then feel free to provide it, because all I see is the History of the Circle codex stating that mages were segregated because of a nonviolent protest held at a cathedral in Orlais, which means that when societies like Rivain and the Dalish don't segregate their mages, I don't see why the Andrastian societies couldn't do the same. I also see the habit of codex entries showing how abominations keep happening as a direct result of the templars and the Chantry, where mages are struggling to survive - which I find problematic since templars can kill mages merely suspected (i.e. no actual evidence) of being a maleficar. That's why I take the position that I do, Shadow.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

Is Wynne infalible now?
I you asked her about Jowan being a blood mage, what do you think her response would be?
Wynne is a samrt woman, but there's still a lot she doesn't know. [/quote]

In other words, let's ignore how the story pretty much has Aenirin has a healer who shows no signs of blood magic or any other dark magic, and pretend that the Chantry was correct in its decision to try to murder a fourteen year old boy? If you're correct, why doesn't Aenirin admit to doing dark magic? Why doesn't he dismiss outright coming back to the Circle? Clearly, the writers didn't intend for anyone to assume that the claim that he was a maleficar was correct if both Wynne and Aenirin act like he could return - which would be an issue if he was really maleficar.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

They aren't slaves. This was established a long time ago. [/quote]

No, it wasn't. Both Ian and myself even used dictionary definitions to show you could make an argument for mages being slaves of the Chantry, and this debate even transpired on the Merrill thread. The only thing that previously was established was that you disagreed.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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]

If he resists and fights back? Yes.
Self-defence is not murder. [/quote]

So it's OK to murder D'Sims because mages suspect he's a healing mage? It's OK to put a bounty on Morrigan's head because they suspect she's a blood mage? I'm starting to see a lot of suspicion here in place of any actual proof, Lotion. Doesn't seem like the Chantry cares very much about keeping innocent people out of harm's way when they can murder people on suspicion alone.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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]

Faield argument. This was already explained a dozen times before. [/quote]

It's not a failed argument. You keep mentioning that mages can be dangerous, but so can institiutions and people of those institutions. Considering how questionable the Exalted March against the Dales was, and how templars can murder people on suspicion alone, it's arguable that the Chantry has murdered much more people than any mage or abomination ever has.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[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]

You hav proof it is not?
It's pretty obvious the Chantry, templars, regualr folk and even some mages think it is. [/quote]

Considering that they were segregated because of a nonviolent protest held, and not because of blood mages or abominations, there's really no validity to your argument. History of the Circle codex already explains why mages are isolated from society, and it had nothing to do with safety. Considering the alternative societies like Rivain, Haven, and the Dalish clans who have it no worse off, I don't see any proof that the segregation of mages and their imprisonment under drug addicted soldiers is necessary.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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.[/quote]

Not for those reasons.
But that doesn't mean it wouldn't happen. There are plenty of reasons why a mage could become possesed.
Maybe Uldred got robed on the markeplace and lost it?
Maybe a woman said no to him.
As I said, a million potential reasons. [/quote]

Are you serious? Are you really trying to cite the most ridiculous examples in the history of humanity to make your point? Are you really equating getting robbed in the market or being spurned by a lover with trying to free your people from an oppressor who has enslaved them for centuries?

Modifié par LobselVith8, 01 février 2011 - 10:49 .

[The Elder King]

Only one thing. While I agree that most of the mages who joined the revolution in the Circle of Ferelden wanted only to be free from the Chantry (a sentiment to which I agree), we have no proof of what was Uldred's plan. It could be that he only wanted to be free, but from what Wynne said it didn't seem to me a good person. (other than the fact that he was a fool for summoning a demon.) We don't know anything of Uldred's intention. Mind that he was ready to kill innocent mages for his purpose.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

moilami wrote...

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.

There already are special forces for such an occasion..They are called templars.

However, DA:O is a medieval setting. Distances are large, transportation and communication slow.
A fast response unit simply doesn't exist in those conditions.

Templars? You mean the religious order of drug addicted soldiers who can murder people on suspicion alone? Maybe it's time for an alternative special forces who aren't forced to take an addictive substance and actually require some basis of evidence before murdering people merely because they might be a mage.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

But let us play with the idea that she was raised like that mages are normal people (or close enough). What would have changed in Recliffe?
Connor would still have been there. So that changes nothing
A mage tutor would still have been hired. Again, nothing changes.
He would have recieved about the same amount of training. Based on that Alistair had no idea of Connor being a mage (and he has met the boy) and that Isolde took Jowan in between mage origin and Lothering (she can't have been looking long). Again, no change.
Eamon would still have been poisoned by someone. Same there as well
Mundane and mage healers both would still have been unable to cure Eamon. Again, no change
Eamon would have seemed to be getting worse. Same there
Desire demons would still be desire demons. Obviously

So my friend, what would have changed? If you have reason to believe Connor would have recieved longer training. Please point it out and source it. But apart from that people would be more positive to mages... the situation remains the same. I see no logical reason to blame the chantry... because nothing would change.

Unless of course Isolde sends Connor away for schooling. That would work.

Not necesarily.
Some mages mantain contact with their families (we know Eamon does).

So word of Eamons illnes would still reach Connor, even in the Tower. Would he have beome an abomination? Impossible to tell.

It is telling however, that the only way to be sure Redcliffe isn't destroyed is to not have Connor there in the first place...

Always injecting your assumptions as facts again, Lotion? Let's ignore how the Chantry's dogma against mages resulted in the Redcliffe incident in the first place so we can gleefully point out how bad things happen with the mages? I guess we should simply ignore how it happened precisely because Connor was ignorant of the situation since his pious mother was shaped by her Chantry teachings.

If mages are as dangerous as you claim, Lotion, why are Rivain and the Dalish still in existance, given that they don't imprison innocent people merely because of who they are?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

*****

I see several different oppinions on these forums, in this range:

- all mages should be purged
- Qunari have the right idea
- Chantry system is good as it is
- Keep the Circle system basics, make some improvements
- Circles should be compeltely independant
- all mages should be free to live with mundanes
- mages should rule the world and destroy the Chatnry

Given how Rivain and the Dalish clans have mages living with non-mages, as well as Haven, it's certainly an argument to be made in its support (including how even pre-segregation Andrastian societies had mages with non-mages in the same way).

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Interestingly enough, murder is defiend as "unlawfull killing".

Since the chatnry is effictively the law, the only way a templar can murder mages is if he isn't following Chantry law...in other words, we are talking about dirty cops...loose cannons.  

Murdering people on suspicion is murder. I don't abide by Chantry law when it comes to templars killing people on suspicion alone.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The latest blurb on the templars in Kirkwall mentions CHARGES, and from other poitns of the game, it does indeed seem the templars have both a set of laws and procedures, and are held reposnsible for not following them. That looks like oversight to me.

Murdering people based on suspicion doesn't seem to be illegal since they put a bounty for all to see on Morrigan's life because they suspect she's a blood mage, so I'm guessing they aren't as strict about where they plunge that sword of mercy as you seem to think they are.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]hhh89 wrote...

Only one thing. While I agree that most of the mages who joined the revolution in the Circle of Ferelden wanted only to be free from the Chantry (a sentiment to which I agree), we have no proof of what was Uldred's plan. It could be that he only wanted to be free, but from what Wynne said it didn't seem to me a good person. (other than the fact that he was a fool for summoning a demon.) We don't know anything of Uldred's intention. Mind that he was ready to kill innocent mages for his purpose.
[/quote]

Uldred's deal with Loghain was to grant the Circle freedom from the Chantry. That's what he proposed to the other members of the Circle, as Wynne reveals they were going to ally with Loghain until she revealed to Irving what happened at Ostagar. There's actually no evidence for Wynne's "assumptions" about why Uldred did what he did, since we never get to speak to him prior to his change into an abomination.


[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I have the entry for the Orlesian Warden where it clearly states that they put a bounty on Morrigan because they suspect that she's a blood mage, not because the templars know she's one.[/quote]

The first problem is that suspect is even today the legal term attributed to everyone before they have been proven guilty, so suspicion can come with any amount of evidence.
The second problem is, how do you prove someone is a blood mage? Unless you catch them redhanded in exercising it most evidence will be at most vague. But just like you don't allow a man you suspect will murder someone reach their potential victim (and sometimes even with lethal force) you don't want a blood mage to begin casting that magic... [/quote]

So let's murder people on suspicion alone? Yeah, I take issue with that, especially when it's done to someone who helped stop the Blight and save the nation from darkspawn.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't know, because I can't ask him that question. Maybe David Gaider can answer it.[/quote]

This was my point precisely. He did not expand (or let us expand) on that. Maybe all he wanted was that he had given Jowan more attention and a better teacher so he would not have turned to blood magic? That do fit in his wording after all.
Or maybe he genuinely wanted to handle the whole thing differently. As you say, we don't know. [/quote]

His wording applies to Jowan's Rite, though. He didn't sign it, Greagoir did. He didn't see the evidence, since Greagoir apparently didn't think it was worth bringing to his attention. He openly admits to the Warden that if he was in charge, things would be different... so clearly, he isn't in charge. Greagoir is.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

But what prove do they have that she's a blood mage? She can transform into other animals, like the Dalish mages can. Even Wynne never comments on her magical abilities like she can with a blood mage Warden (based on the missing scene that was disabled because it bugged the Landsmeet). There's nothing to show that's a reasonable assumption to make - they make a suspicion that she's a blood mage, and put a bounty on her head, simple as that. [/quote]

There is a big blank space in Morrigan's background between Origins and Witchhunt though. She spent that in Orlais, right? Who knows what she is up to there? [/quote]

How about: let's not murder people merely because we suspect they might be doing something wrong?

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Certainly for those willing to risk their lives to achieve it.[/quote]

Indeed. Less so for those that ends up getting it worse for it though... and there will be some who do. [/quote]

Better than doing nothing and leaving things as they are. If people being nothing against their oppressors, then Haiti never would been free from its slave masters when it was Saint Dominique. Better to risk your lives for the benefit of the oppressed then allow even more centuries of oppression.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Connor was ignorant of the situation because Loghain exploited Isolde's anti-mage views that are based on her Chantry upbringing. I still can't see why the Chantry should be excused for their anti-mage dogma when they have a hand in what happened at Redcliffe. You can't spread fear, hatred, and intolerance toward mages, and then be absolved of all guilt when things turn bad because of it.[/quote]

Loghain exploited her need for a mage to tutor her son because she did not want to send him away. If she had not needed Jowan he would have sent someone else. Jowan was not the only one that knew how to drop some powder or a few drops of something in a cup (or whatever he did).
Regardless of the view towards magic... Eamon would still have been poisoned on Loghain's order. Not necessarily by Jowan, but by someone. Eamon got poisoned because he was an obstacle to Loghain, Jowan got to do it because they could easily get him in. [/quote]

And it happened directly because of the dogma and social order brought forth by the Chantry, so again: Chantry should take blame for the hateful views of mages they put in the world. You can't preach intolerance and hatred against a specific people, and then be absolved of all guilt when it leads to the murder of innocent people.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

You don't know that. You can't say Connor would have made a deal with a demon if he knew she wasn't simply a "bad lady."[/quote]

But really nothing has changed in the situation. Connor would still be there. Eamon would still be unhealable even by mages. Connor would still be young. He still would not have had much training.

Unless Isolde would have trusted the mages and sent her son away for schooling (like a boarding school) nothing is different. [/quote]

Except if he's armed with knowledge and knows about demons in this possibility, then you can't say he would have made the same choice with certainty. You can't even say Isolde would have had an issue in a world where the Chantry didn't preach all it's bile of hatred about mages and instigate the murder of mages with its fear mongering. There are other contributing factors here, not the least of which is the likelihood of Loghain even getting someone else close enough to Eamon without being noticed - Connor was apparently the weak link. However, if he weren't avaliable, would Loghain have even been able to get him poisoned at all?

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Except he made the deal in ignorance of demons. Thanks to the anti-mage dogma spread by the Chantry, Connor didn't have a chance to be informed because his mother was so pious and choose a particular path of action that lead directly to the demon exploiting his ignorance. Who's to say if the demon would have even made such a deal if he was familiar with demons and their false promises?[/quote]

So you say. But his training would not have been much longer. There would not have been more chance to inform him the dangers of demons. Maybe his teacher could have been better, but he would not have recieved much more training. [/quote]

A competent teacher likely would have tackled the important issues that Jowan lacked as an apprentice. Being armed with knowledge against demons and the dangers of the Fade likely would have been issues discussed with Connor if, say, the Warden was his tutor, rather than Jowan.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Yet if Isolde didn't fear mages because of her Chantry upbringing, she never would have hired Jowan, who never would have poisoned Eamon, and Connor wouldn't have made a deal with a demon. Would it have happened differently? It's impossible to say. Would Isolde let a complete strange so close to her family for no reason? I'm doubtful. I'm more doubtful of Connor making a deal with demons if he was properly informed about them, but it's his ignorance that was his downfall in canon.[/quote]

Unless she sent him away, she still would have hired a tutor. That may or may not have been Jowan. But someone would have poisoned Eamon. Jowan was only chosen because Isolde looked for a mage and Loghain's men found one.
As I said. Even fully trained mages fail the harrowing. Connor would in either case have been in the very beginning of his training. [/quote]

Except I think a competent tutor would have warned Connor against the dangers of the Fade, against breaking the Veil. You don't leave important lessons for last.

As a side note, it is interesting how the powerful families living in Ferelden seem to have been decimated: the Couslands were slaughtered save Fergus, Connor is a mage and even Rowan (if she comes to be born even with a living Connor) will also be a mage, Anora and Alistair could likely be impotent and presently have no heirs. It makes me wonder what the landscape will be like in DA2.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

If the Chantry didn't spread fear and paranoia about mages? More than he had being completely ignorant of them.[/quote]

So if the Chantry did not spread such wicked lies such as that mages are dangerous because they might get possessed by demons then... oh... wait...
If there is one thing Chantry dogma does spread... it is the danger of demons. [/quote]

I was thinking more along the lines of them being cursed and bringing the world to the brink of ruin...

So are you planning on helping the Chantry as Hawke? Do you have any plans on what you'd like to do? Save the world from the dangers of demons, perhaps?

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Knowledge arms us in a way that ignorance never can. I can't see why the Chantry should be absolved for it's role in what happened at Redcliffe, which happened as a result of Isolde's views on magic and mages - shaped by her Chantry upbringing.[/quote]

But let us play with the idea that she was raised like that mages are normal people (or close enough). What would have changed in Recliffe?
Connor would still have been there. So that changes nothing
A mage tutor would still have been hired. Again, nothing changes.
He would have recieved about the same amount of training. Based on that Alistair had no idea of Connor being a mage (and he has met the boy) and that Isolde took Jowan in between mage origin and Lothering (she can't have been looking long). Again, no change.
Eamon would still have been poisoned by someone. Same there as well
Mundane and mage healers both would still have been unable to cure Eamon. Again, no change
Eamon would have seemed to be getting worse. Same there
Desire demons would still be desire demons. Obviously

So my friend, what would have changed? If you have reason to believe Connor would have recieved longer training. Please point it out and source it. But apart from that people would be more positive to mages... the situation remains the same. I see no logical reason to blame the chantry... because nothing would change.

Unless of course Isolde sends Connor away for schooling. That would work.
[/quote]

If he was aware of the dangers of demons, we can't say Connor would have made the same choice, though. It's a possibility he would have acted differently. Certainly his ignorance aided his decision to save his father, and I'm of the mind that situation is due to the Chantry's dogma against mages and how it's shaped Isolde's view of mages. Even the Knights of Redcliffe discuss Connor's magical ability as though it were an impairment: "I guess you can't blame the boy for having magic." That's the attitude even Murdock has when it's brought to his attention that the Warden is a female mage.

[The Elder King]

@Lobsel, is what I said. We don't have any ideas of Uldred's plan. He can be good or bad, I only said that in my opinion he wasn't a good person, but it's only an opinion, it could be wrong as well it could be true. If we don't know nothingabout a person we can only make speculation.

The only pro I gave to Uldred is that he didn't want at first to cause a civil war in the Circle, as you said. Howewer siding with Loghain was imho a bad thing, especially because he can't end the Blight. And after the mages find that Loghain was a traitor, he chose the wrong option. He decided to kill or control with blood magic innocent mages. He did a wrong thing, as the templars who killed mages without any proof ot their maleficar status and without a process.

[Sir JK]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
So let's murder people on suspicion alone? Yeah, I take issue with that, especially when it's done to someone who helped stop the Blight and save the nation from darkspawn.[/quote]
My point is: You don't know they don't have any evidence. You don't know what Morrigan did.

[quote]
His wording applies to Jowan's Rite, though. He didn't sign it, Greagoir did. He didn't see the evidence, since Greagoir apparently didn't think it was worth bringing to his attention. He openly admits to the Warden that if he was in charge, things would be different... so clearly, he isn't in charge. Greagoir is.[/quote]
That's not his exact wording though. He says that if it was up to him, not that if he was in charge. While they can mean the same thing... they don't have to.

[quote]How about: let's not murder people merely because we suspect they might be doing something wrong?[/quote]
And if she did do something wrong? What if she did something that is so very similar to blood magic noone could tell the difference?

[quote]Better than doing nothing and leaving things as they are. If people being nothing against their oppressors, then Haiti never would been free from its slave masters when it was Saint Dominique. Better to risk your lives for the benefit of the oppressed then allow even more centuries of oppression.[/quote]
But there is also a lot to lose. Fighting for more freedom only to end up in hopeless poverty is a step down, because even if legally free you cannot exercise that freedom. Fighting for the right to love a fellow mage falls flat if your loved one dies in the process. If your family hate what you are, fighting for the right to see them is not so attractive in hindsight.

And then there's the revolutionaries that come to the conclusion that the people they just "freed" aren't living up to their standards and takes measures to fix that. For every Ghandi, there's a Robespierre.

[quote]And it happened directly because of the dogma and social order brought forth by the Chantry, so again: Chantry should take blame for the hateful views of mages they put in the world. You can't preach intolerance and hatred against a specific people, and then be absolved of all guilt when it leads to the murder of innocent people.[/quote]
Regardless of Chantry dogma, Isolde would have sought a tutor to her son. She did not want to send him away. That was something Loghain used to get an agent in. But as I said, it could as easily been someone else. Jowan was practical for him, not crucial. A maid could have done it. A knight could have done it. A ministrel could have done it. He was a pawn. Nothing more.
[quote]Except if he's armed with knowledge and knows about demons in this possibility, then you can't say he would have made the same choice with certainty. You can't even say Isolde would have had an issue in a world where the Chantry didn't preach all it's bile of hatred about mages and instigate the murder of mages with its fear mongering. There are other contributing factors here, not the least of which is the likelihood of Loghain even getting someone else close enough to Eamon without being noticed - Connor was apparently the weak link. However, if he weren't avaliable, would Loghain have even been able to get him poisoned at all?[/quote]
Loghain would have found a way to get rid of Eamon. He had plenty of supporters and getting someone into a friendly castle is not that difficult. At worst he'd actually have sent someone to kill, rather than incapacitate Eamon.

[quote]A competent teacher likely would have tackled the important issues that Jowan lacked as an apprentice. Being armed with knowledge against demons and the dangers of the Fade likely would have been issues discussed with Connor if, say, the Warden was his tutor, rather than Jowan.[/quote]
But even in the circles, where they have competent tutors, does adult, fully trained, mages fail the harrowing. There they have the knowledge. There they have a friendly attitude (between mages). There they have experienced and capable instructors (even better than the warden). There they study the dangers of their fade for every day of their youth.

... and people still fail. And have a lot less to lose than Connor (thought he) did.
[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]Except I think a competent tutor would have warned Connor against the dangers of the Fade, against breaking the Veil. You don't leave important lessons for last. [/quote]
Nor do you finish them in the first month but keep building them for all your education. You don't learn to read in a single day. You don't learn to count the first time you open the book. You don't learn the nuances of society in a single course.
And you don't learn to deal with manipulation in a single session.

What you're essentially saying is that Connor would, in the course of a few months, learn to handle demons as effectively as a mage who studied for years under competent teachers.
Have you perhaps not noticed that all mages are adults, despite there being plenty of children in the circle? The only test of the harrowing is to resist demons. And if someone trained for such short time as Connor should be able to resist why not get it over with as soon as possible?

[quote]As a side note, it is interesting how the powerful families living in Ferelden seem to have been decimated: the Couslands were slaughtered save Fergus, Connor is a mage and even Rowan (if she comes to be born even with a living Connor) will also be a mage, Anora and Alistair could likely be impotent and presently have no heirs. It makes me wonder what the landscape will be like in DA2.[/quote]
Well... they'll all be still alive so there's no panic. But one thing to consider about noble families is that they tend to have as many children as everyone else. So there's probably more Guerrins than Eamon and Teagan. Most just Banns or freeholders. But they could potentionally inherit.
A good example is House Habsburg IRL... who at it's height had about 1 350 living members.

[quote]I was thinking more along the lines of them being cursed and bringing the world to the brink of ruin... [/quote]
To be honest, the most common justification in chantry dogma is that of demons and blood magic. I don't think anyone can miss it . So the warning is not just there... it's more or less broadcasted.

[quote]So are you planning on helping the Chantry as Hawke? Do you have any plans on what you'd like to do? Save the world from the dangers of demons, perhaps? [/quote]
My characters grow as I play them. React to the choices in front of them. We'll see what my Hawke will do

[quote]If he was aware of the dangers of demons, we can't say Connor would have made the same choice, though. It's a possibility he would have acted differently. Certainly his ignorance aided his decision to save his father, and I'm of the mind that situation is due to the Chantry's dogma against mages and how it's shaped Isolde's view of mages. Even the Knights of Redcliffe discuss Connor's magical ability as though it were an impairment: "I guess you can't blame the boy for having magic." That's the attitude even Murdock has when it's brought to his attention that the Warden is a female mage.[/quote]

I agree that it is ignorance that is the cause of making the choice and giving in to the demon. I just disagree that a more positive attitude would have changed anything. Sure, Jowan is incompetent. But the primary limitation is not the competence of the teacher but the time available to learn in.

Remember... noone but Isolde and a handful others knew. Redcliffe was unawares, not even rumours or gossip and the servant's families live there. Alistair was unaware. Teagan, his uncle, was unaware. Some knights were unawares (and these are the guys that guard the family day out and day in). Even Eamon was unaware.
Connor cannot have been showing signs of being a mage for very long.

So even with a positive Chantry. The time available to teach in would have been very very limited.

[Felene]

Any knife in the wrong hands can be use to kill, I don't see any knife ban by the Chantry.

Mages are fear because people has limit knowledge to them.

And fear is much more powerful than "sword of mercy" or the Maker.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Is Wynne infalible now?
I you asked her about Jowan being a blood mage, what do you think her response would be?
Wynne is a samrt woman, but there's still a lot she doesn't know.

In other words, let's ignore how the story pretty much has Aenirin has a healer who shows no signs of blood magic or any other dark magic, and pretend that the Chantry was correct in its decision to try to murder a fourteen year old boy? If you're correct, why doesn't Aenirin admit to doing dark magic? Why doesn't he dismiss outright coming back to the Circle? Clearly, the writers didn't intend for anyone to assume that the claim that he was a maleficar was correct if both Wynne and Aenirin act like he could return - which would be an issue if he was really maleficar.

Why would he admit anything? Especially if he knows how Wynne thinks of blood magic? And people in general...
I have no idea what the wroters "intended". Nor do you.

I'm only statng the obvious. We don't if Aenirin was a blood mage. I personally don't think he was. He might have just had the misfortune of running into a buck of d*** templars.

But thats' the point. PROOF. We have none.

LobselVith8 wrote...
No, it wasn't. Both Ian and myself even used dictionary definitions to show you could make an argument for mages being slaves of the Chantry, and this debate even transpired on the Merrill thread. The only thing that previously was established was that you disagreed.

As the Lead Writer, Davids oppinion outwiegs yours by a thousand fold.

If he resists and fights back? Yes.
Self-defence is not murder.

So it's OK to murder D'Sims because mages suspect he's a healing mage? It's OK to put a bounty on Morrigan's head because they suspect she's a blood mage? I'm starting to see a lot of suspicion here in place of any actual proof, Lotion. Doesn't seem like the Chantry cares very much about keeping innocent people out of harm's way when they can murder people on suspicion alone.

I want to see some actual proof for your side, not catch-prises and newspaper headlines.

We know templars kileld D'Sims. We know he wasn't a amge. ..That's the extent of our knowledge. What exactly happened - did he resist, try to fight, or were the templarws just massive d***...we do not know.

Same wiht Morrigan. You fixate on the word "suspect", even tough we clearly shown one can suspect someoeone over something with evidence.

We have disjointed facts and words, but the picture you put together depends how you choose to interpret them. As such, those are NOT considered hard proof.

You look at the fact that D'Sims was killed, and you immediately assume the worst possible scenario.
Try to look at what we REALLY know...not what you WANT it to be.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Faield argument. This was already explained a dozen times before.

It's not a failed argument. You keep mentioning that mages can be dangerous, but so can institiutions and people of those institutions. Considering how questionable the Exalted March against the Dales was, and how templars can murder people on suspicion alone, it's arguable that the Chantry has murdered much more people than any mage or abomination ever has.

It is a failed argumnet. For many, many reasons. Which were all covered before.
A natural organization cannot be compared to single individuals. Not to mention the social, logistical, conceptual and practical differences. If you want to dismantle the Chantry, youd' have to dismantle every religious or political institution to boot...and that is simply not possible, because people naturally want to organize and gather.

EVEN IF you could use that comparuison, you have no actual numbers to work with, now have you?
Nor cna you call Exhalted Marchers murders.. Weren't they used to fend off qunari invasions? And to save Val Royaux from Dalish attack? It is war, not murder.

You hav proof it is not?
It's pretty obvious the Chantry, templars, regualr folk and even some mages think it is.

Considering that they were segregated because of a nonviolent protest held, and not because of blood mages or abominations, there's really no validity to your argument. History of the Circle codex already explains why mages are isolated from society, and it had nothing to do with safety. Considering the alternative societies like Rivain, Haven, and the Dalish clans who have it no worse off, I don't see any proof that the segregation of mages and their imprisonment under drug addicted soldiers is necessary.

Again, pretty lines. No actual proof. HARD EVIDENCE..not thing you infer our read out of context, or fabricate in your mind becasue of lack of information..

So le'ts me ask you this:
SOCIAL FOOTPRINT
Why aren't we seeing one in the Dalish? Or Haven?

- We spent a total of 1 hour in haven and have no real infor on it.

- The devs might have just missed adding it or didn't pay attention to it.

-
Cultural bias may have influnece there. For an example, let's say that
any time a dalish/rivain mage turns into an abomination, the other
inhabitants consider it divine punishment for their sins. As such if is
beyond their ability to influence, and even more important, they belive
it won't happen if they don' anger the gods.
As such, they feel safe
even tough they aren't. This is a good example of how one can have
abominations disasters, and still have no anti-mage sentiments.


LESS ABOMINATIONS

While
many have stated (wihout any logical proof) that other systems have
less abomination incidents than the Chantry one, no one has bothered to
ask (assuming it was true) - why?
If the Dalish are so resilient against posseseion, why is that? What is their secret?

What
if they sacrifce  their firstborns in a blood magic ritual to that
cause? Or something even more devious. Would anyone argue that this is a
better and more moral system?

Point is, we know so little that it's impossible to say.

Are you serious? Are you really trying to cite the most ridiculous examples in the history of humanity to make your point? Are you really equating getting robbed in the market or being spurned by a lover with trying to free your people from an oppressor who has enslaved them for centuries?

As long as desire and motivation are there, it's irrelevant.
Maybe Uldred wants to create a new mage empire? A goal worth risks, no?
Either out of sheer impulse, or belief in a worthy goal, people do stupid things.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 01 février 2011 - 12:52 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
There already are special forces for such an occasion..They are called templars.

However, DA:O is a medieval setting. Distances are large, transportation and communication slow.
A fast response unit simply doesn't exist in those conditions.

Templars? You mean the religious order of drug addicted soldiers who can murder people on suspicion alone? Maybe it's time for an alternative special forces who aren't forced to take an addictive substance and actually require some basis of evidence before murdering people merely because they might be a mage.

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you talk like that?
The hate is oooozing out of your posts...also ignorance, as that "no evidence" point was adressed already.

Always injecting your assumptions as facts again, Lotion? Let's ignore how the Chantry's dogma against mages resulted in the Redcliffe incident in the first place so we can gleefully point out how bad things happen with the mages? I guess we should simply ignore how it happened precisely because Connor was ignorant of the situation since his pious mother was shaped by her Chantry teachings.

If mages are as dangerous as you claim, Lotion, why are Rivain and the Dalish still in existance, given that they don't imprison innocent people merely because of who they are?

Uldrded was anything but ignorant and still gets possesed. In other words, you can't claim that Connor wouldn't have been possesed if he had a different tutor...

AS for the rest...see my previous post.

Interestingly enough, murder is defiend as "unlawfull killing".

Since the chatnry is effictively the law, the only way a templar can murder mages is if he isn't following Chantry law...in other words, we are talking about dirty cops...loose cannons.  

Murdering people on suspicion is murder. I don't abide by Chantry law when it comes to templars killing people on suspicion alone.

Well, if you want to rely on YOUR definition of words, we're never going to get anywhere.
Not to mention you havn't actually proven the templars guilt in the D'Sims case.

LobselVith8 wrote...
You can't even say Isolde would have had
an issue in a world where the Chantry didn't preach all it's bile of
hatred about mages and instigate the murder of mages with its fear
mongering.

The only bile and hatered I see comes from you.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 01 février 2011 - 12:51 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

So let's murder people on suspicion alone? Yeah, I take issue with that, especially when it's done to someone who helped stop the Blight and save the nation from darkspawn.[/quote]

My point is: You don't know they don't have any evidence. You don't know what Morrigan did. [/quote]

Neither does the Chantry. They suspect she's a blood mage, and will kill her for suspicion alone.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

His wording applies to Jowan's Rite, though. He didn't sign it, Greagoir did. He didn't see the evidence, since Greagoir apparently didn't think it was worth bringing to his attention. He openly admits to the Warden that if he was in charge, things would be different... so clearly, he isn't in charge. Greagoir is.[/quote]

That's not his exact wording though. He says that if it was up to him, not that if he was in charge. While they can mean the same thing... they don't have to. [/quote]

But if it's not up to him, then he's not in charge, despite being First Enchanter.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

How about: let's not murder people merely because we suspect they might be doing something wrong?[/quote]

And if she did do something wrong? What if she did something that is so very similar to blood magic noone could tell the difference? [/quote]

Which leads back to killing her because they suspect she's a blood mage, just like they actually did with D'Sims. Don't you see the problem when templars can murder based merely on suspicions?

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Better than doing nothing and leaving things as they are. If people being nothing against their oppressors, then Haiti never would been free from its slave masters when it was Saint Dominique. Better to risk your lives for the benefit of the oppressed then allow even more centuries of oppression.[/quote]

But there is also a lot to lose. Fighting for more freedom only to end up in hopeless poverty is a step down, because even if legally free you cannot exercise that freedom. Fighting for the right to love a fellow mage falls flat if your loved one dies in the process. If your family hate what you are, fighting for the right to see them is not so attractive in hindsight.

And then there's the revolutionaries that come to the conclusion that the people they just "freed" aren't living up to their standards and takes measures to fix that. For every Ghandi, there's a Robespierre. [/quote]

And the alternative is to do nothing while injustice prevails. A society where people are feared, segregated, and imprisoned because of a nonviolent protest centuries ago, by an order that can murder people based on heresay and rumor alone, should be challenged.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

And it happened directly because of the dogma and social order brought forth by the Chantry, so again: Chantry should take blame for the hateful views of mages they put in the world. You can't preach intolerance and hatred against a specific people, and then be absolved of all guilt when it leads to the murder of innocent people.[/quote]

Regardless of Chantry dogma, Isolde would have sought a tutor to her son. She did not want to send him away. That was something Loghain used to get an agent in. But as I said, it could as easily been someone else. Jowan was practical for him, not crucial. A maid could have done it. A knight could have done it. A ministrel could have done it. He was a pawn. Nothing more.[/quote]

Because of the Chantry dogma, she didn't. We can speculate on the possibilities about how things might have been different until we turn blue in the face, but it doesn't change that the Chantry's policies and instituting fear against mages played a role in the tragic events of Redcliffe.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Except if he's armed with knowledge and knows about demons in this possibility, then you can't say he would have made the same choice with certainty. You can't even say Isolde would have had an issue in a world where the Chantry didn't preach all it's bile of hatred about mages and instigate the murder of mages with its fear mongering. There are other contributing factors here, not the least of which is the likelihood of Loghain even getting someone else close enough to Eamon without being noticed - Connor was apparently the weak link. However, if he weren't avaliable, would Loghain have even been able to get him poisoned at all?[/quote]

Loghain would have found a way to get rid of Eamon. He had plenty of supporters and getting someone into a friendly castle is not that difficult. At worst he'd actually have sent someone to kill, rather than incapacitate Eamon. [/quote]

Getting someone new into a castle with a relatively small population is very different, though. And we can't say for certain an assassin would be sent - he didn't seem comfortable with Zevran, after all, and conceded the offer that Howe made to deal with the threat.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

A competent teacher likely would have tackled the important issues that Jowan lacked as an apprentice. Being armed with knowledge against demons and the dangers of the Fade likely would have been issues discussed with Connor if, say, the Warden was his tutor, rather than Jowan.[/quote]

But even in the circles, where they have competent tutors, does adult, fully trained, mages fail the harrowing. There they have the knowledge. There they have a friendly attitude (between mages). There they have experienced and capable instructors (even better than the warden). There they study the dangers of their fade for every day of their youth.

... and people still fail. And have a lot less to lose than Connor (thought he) did. [/quote]

Except nobody is warned about the Harrowings, nobody is warned against demons. It's basically throwing you to the wolves and hoping you're smart enough to figure it out on your own.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Except I think a competent tutor would have warned Connor against the dangers of the Fade, against breaking the Veil. You don't leave important lessons for last. [/quote]

Nor do you finish them in the first month but keep building them for all your education. You don't learn to read in a single day. You don't learn to count the first time you open the book. You don't learn the nuances of society in a single course.
And you don't learn to deal with manipulation in a single session. [/quote]

Warning against the deceptions and dangers of demons hardly seems like it would have a full month to learn. Regardless, Connor's ignorance played the role in his acceptance of the "bad lady's" offer.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

What you're essentially saying is that Connor would, in the course of a few months, learn to handle demons as effectively as a mage who studied for years under competent teachers.
Have you perhaps not noticed that all mages are adults, despite there being plenty of children in the circle? The only test of the harrowing is to resist demons. And if someone trained for such short time as Connor should be able to resist why not get it over with as soon as possible? [/quote]

I'm proposing that knowledge would have armed Connor against dealing with a demon, nothing more.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

As a side note, it is interesting how the powerful families living in Ferelden seem to have been decimated: the Couslands were slaughtered save Fergus, Connor is a mage and even Rowan (if she comes to be born even with a living Connor) will also be a mage, Anora and Alistair could likely be impotent and presently have no heirs. It makes me wonder what the landscape will be like in DA2.[/quote]

Well... they'll all be still alive so there's no panic. But one thing to consider about noble families is that they tend to have as many children as everyone else. So there's probably more Guerrins than Eamon and Teagan. Most just Banns or freeholders. But they could potentionally inherit.
A good example is House Habsburg IRL... who at it's height had about 1 350 living members. [/quote]

True, only 10 years into Hawke's role as "Champion." It does make me wonder about the future of Ferelden. Drydens are clearly related to the Calenhad line. Fergus might remarry and have children. Tegan could have children with his new wife. Certainly it seems like it gives the writers a clean slate in the future of DA to shape Ferelden to their liking.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I was thinking more along the lines of them being cursed and bringing the world to the brink of ruin... [/quote]

To be honest, the most common justification in chantry dogma is that of demons and blood magic. I don't think anyone can miss it . So the warning is not just there... it's more or less broadcasted. [/quote]

But there's a reason why mages are accepted among the Dalish and Rivain, and not in the Andrastian societies where mages are imprisoned.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

So are you planning on helping the Chantry as Hawke? Do you have any plans on what you'd like to do? Save the world from the dangers of demons, perhaps? [/quote]

My characters grow as I play them. React to the choices in front of them. We'll see what my Hawke will do  [/quote]

That's interesting, because my Warden was very different than how I initially planned to be. Are you planning to start off as a warrior, rogue, or mage? I think you can guess what I'll start off as.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

If he was aware of the dangers of demons, we can't say Connor would have made the same choice, though. It's a possibility he would have acted differently. Certainly his ignorance aided his decision to save his father, and I'm of the mind that situation is due to the Chantry's dogma against mages and how it's shaped Isolde's view of mages. Even the Knights of Redcliffe discuss Connor's magical ability as though it were an impairment: "I guess you can't blame the boy for having magic." That's the attitude even Murdock has when it's brought to his attention that the Warden is a female mage.[/quote]

I agree that it is ignorance that is the cause of making the choice and giving in to the demon. I just disagree that a more positive attitude would have changed anything. Sure, Jowan is incompetent. But the primary limitation is not the competence of the teacher but the time available to learn in.

Remember... noone but Isolde and a handful others knew. Redcliffe was unawares, not even rumours or gossip and the servant's families live there. Alistair was unaware. Teagan, his uncle, was unaware. Some knights were unawares (and these are the guys that guard the family day out and day in). Even Eamon was unaware.
Connor cannot have been showing signs of being a mage for very long.

So even with a positive Chantry. The time available to teach in would have been very very limited.
[/quote]

I do believe that knowledge could have armed Connor to make a different choice. It isn't a certainty, I admit, but it is a possibility. Btw, doesn't Loghain say that he believes Eamon was aware (in his opinion) of Connor being a mage?

[Creature 1]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Templars? You mean the religious order of drug addicted soldiers who can murder people on suspicion alone? Maybe it's time for an alternative special forces who aren't forced to take an addictive substance and actually require some basis of evidence before murdering people merely because they might be a mage.

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you talk like that?
The hate is oooozing out of your posts...also ignorance, as that "no evidence" point was adressed already.

Are you seriously accusing someone of "hate" for criticizing a fictional organization. 

Uldrded was anything but ignorant and still gets possesed. In other words, you can't claim that Connor wouldn't have been possesed if he had a different tutor...

I don't think Uldred got inadvertantly possessed so much as he said, "**** it, I hate my life and have no hope of ever being free, might as well go out with a bang and take as many of the bastards as I can with me." 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Creature 1 wrote...
Are you seriously accusing someone of "hate" for criticizing a fictional organization. 

People are quite capable of hating fictional characters (and organizations) with as much intensity as real people (or organizations).

I don't think Uldred got inadvertantly possessed so much as he said, "**** it, I hate my life and have no hope of ever being free, might as well go out with a bang and take as many of the bastards as I can with me." 

IIRC, when the fight between mages started, he tried to bring in a demon, but lost the control and got possesed.
Not to meniont we have other mentions of trained mages that turined into abominations.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

In other words, let's ignore how the story pretty much has Aenirin has a healer who shows no signs of blood magic or any other dark magic, and pretend that the Chantry was correct in its decision to try to murder a fourteen year old boy? If you're correct, why doesn't Aenirin admit to doing dark magic? Why doesn't he dismiss outright coming back to the Circle? Clearly, the writers didn't intend for anyone to assume that the claim that he was a maleficar was correct if both Wynne and Aenirin act like he could return - which would be an issue if he was really maleficar.[/quote]

Why would he admit anything? Especially if he knows how Wynne thinks of blood magic? And people in general...
I have no idea what the wroters "intended". Nor do you.

I'm only statng the obvious. We don't if Aenirin was a blood mage. I personally don't think he was. He might have just had the misfortune of running into a buck of d*** templars.

But thats' the point. PROOF. We have none. [/quote]

You're ignoring that Aenirin was declared maleficar from the get-go of his escape from the Circle Tower, and that's why he was killed. No proof that he was, and the scenes with Wynne indicate that he wasn't maleficar. Admitting that he'd return to the Circle supports this view. Given how the templars put a bounty on Morrigan for suspecting she's a blood mage, they clearly do kill people with little to no evidence supporting mere heresay.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

No, it wasn't. Both Ian and myself even used dictionary definitions to show you could make an argument for mages being slaves of the Chantry, and this debate even transpired on the Merrill thread. The only thing that previously was established was that you disagreed.[/quote]

As the Lead Writer, Davids oppinion outwiegs yours by a thousand fold. [/quote]

Except he made it clear he didn't think it was, not that it wasn't. He also had the opinion that Cullen was a creepy stalker, while another writer, Sheryl, disagreed. Don't use opinions as facts to support your perceptions, Lotion.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

So it's OK to murder D'Sims because mages suspect he's a healing mage? It's OK to put a bounty on Morrigan's head because they suspect she's a blood mage? I'm starting to see a lot of suspicion here in place of any actual proof, Lotion. Doesn't seem like the Chantry cares very much about keeping innocent people out of harm's way when they can murder people on suspicion alone.[/quote]

I want to see some actual proof for your side, not catch-prises and newspaper headlines.

We know templars kileld D'Sims. We know he wasn't a amge. ..That's the extent of our knowledge. What exactly happened - did he resist, try to fight, or were the templarws just massive d***...we do not know.

Same wiht Morrigan. You fixate on the word "suspect", even tough we clearly shown one can suspect someoeone over something with evidence.

We have disjointed facts and words, but the picture you put together depends how you choose to interpret them. As such, those are NOT considered hard proof.

You look at the fact that D'Sims was killed, and you immediately assume the worst possible scenario.
Try to look at what we REALLY know...not what you WANT it to be. [/quote]

The only proof against D'Sims was that he allegedly healed people. The only proof against Morrigan is that she was a reputed witch who helped stop the Blight. You're free to think that the templars had substantial reason to severe D'Sims cut for reputedly helping the sick and for Morrigan daring to save Ferelden from the Blight, but I disagree.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

It's not a failed argument. You keep mentioning that mages can be dangerous, but so can institiutions and people of those institutions. Considering how questionable the Exalted March against the Dales was, and how templars can murder people on suspicion alone, it's arguable that the Chantry has murdered much more people than any mage or abomination ever has.[/quote]

It is a failed argumnet. For many, many reasons. Which were all covered before.
A natural organization cannot be compared to single individuals. Not to mention the social, logistical, conceptual and practical differences. If you want to dismantle the Chantry, youd' have to dismantle every religious or political institution to boot...and that is simply not possible, because people naturally want to organize and gather.

EVEN IF you could use that comparuison, you have no actual numbers to work with, now have you?
Nor cna you call Exhalted Marchers murders.. Weren't they used to fend off qunari invasions? And to save Val Royaux from Dalish attack? It is war, not murder. [/quote]

If the attack was started by Orlais, then it would be the murder of Dalish lives. Again, we can only speculate on the truth, but all we have is Orlesian claims about Red Crossing and Dalish claims about templars coming into their nation. As for the killings, the numbers we were provided for an abomination killing people pales in comparison to the massacre of an entire nation of people in the Dales, added with the killings of mages during the Rites and the Harrowings over centuries.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Considering that they were segregated because of a nonviolent protest held, and not because of blood mages or abominations, there's really no validity to your argument. History of the Circle codex already explains why mages are isolated from society, and it had nothing to do with safety. Considering the alternative societies like Rivain, Haven, and the Dalish clans who have it no worse off, I don't see any proof that the segregation of mages and their imprisonment under drug addicted soldiers is necessary.[/quote]

Again, pretty lines. No actual proof. HARD EVIDENCE..not thing you infer our read out of context, or fabricate in your mind becasue of lack of information.. [/quote]

This coming from the person who fabricated abominations handing out quests in the Mages Collective?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So le'ts me ask you this:
SOCIAL FOOTPRINT
Why aren't we seeing one in the Dalish? Or Haven?

- We spent a total of 1 hour in haven and have no real infor on it.

- The devs might have just missed adding it or didn't pay attention to it. [/quote]

Considering that we have mage tolerant societies in Rivain and the Dalish clans, as well as in Haven, why isn't that an indication that the anti-mage dogma of the Chantry isn't necessary? Dalish mages aren't feared or hated for being mages. Rivain has respect for its witches. Father Eirik presides over the Haven Chantry, mages fighting alongside non-mages, and Kolgrim dismissing the anti-mage views of the Chantry. No evidence is ever provided to support the Chantry imprisoning mages, and their segregation happened as a result of a nonviolent protest. This is a fact, no matter how much you dislike it.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

-Cultural bias may have influnece there. For an example, let's say that any time a dalish/rivain mage turns into an abomination, the other inhabitants consider it divine punishment for their sins. As such if is beyond their ability to influence, and even more important, they belive it won't happen if they don' anger the gods. As such, they feel safe even tough they aren't. This is a good example of how one can have abominations disasters, and still have no anti-mage sentiments. [/quote]

If abominations were as prevelant as you keep claiming, and so dangerous that only the templars could handle them, then Rivain, the Dalish clans, and Haven would have been destroyed long ago. Clearly, that isn't the case.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LESS ABOMINATIONS

While many have stated (wihout any logical proof) that other systems have less abomination incidents than the Chantry one, no one has bothered to ask (assuming it was true) - why? If the Dalish are so resilient against posseseion, why is that? What is their secret?

What if they sacrifce  their firstborns in a blood magic ritual to that cause? Or something even more devious. Would anyone argue that this is a better and more moral system?

Point is, we know so little that it's impossible to say. [/quote]

Maybe they're simply tolerant of mages because they aren't bigoted morons who preach intolerance on one hand and use mages to save their skins on the other?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Are you serious? Are you really trying to cite the most ridiculous examples in the history of humanity to make your point? Are you really equating getting robbed in the market or being spurned by a lover with trying to free your people from an oppressor who has enslaved them for centuries?[/quote]

As long as desire and motivation are there, it's irrelevant. Maybe Uldred wants to create a new mage empire? A goal worth risks, no? Either out of sheer impulse, or belief in a worthy goal, people do stupid things. [/quote]

Yes, people do - just look at the Chantry to see the sheer levels of stupidty it takes to murder people because of suspicions and heresay.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Templars? You mean the religious order of drug addicted soldiers who can murder people on suspicion alone? Maybe it's time for an alternative special forces who aren't forced to take an addictive substance and actually require some basis of evidence before murdering people merely because they might be a mage.

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you talk like that?
The hate is oooozing out of your posts...also ignorance, as that "no evidence" point was adressed already.

By ignorance, you must be referring to yourself, because I already cited how templars murder people merely on suspicion alone. As the case with D'Sims (who they murdered because he was a charlatan who pretended he could heal people) and Morrigan (who had the audacity to help stop the Blight and save Ferelden) in Witch Hunt for an Orlesian Warden, the templars can kill people on suspicion alone. I find it monstorous.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Always injecting your assumptions as facts again, Lotion? Let's ignore how the Chantry's dogma against mages resulted in the Redcliffe incident in the first place so we can gleefully point out how bad things happen with the mages? I guess we should simply ignore how it happened precisely because Connor was ignorant of the situation since his pious mother was shaped by her Chantry teachings.

If mages are as dangerous as you claim, Lotion, why are Rivain and the Dalish still in existance, given that they don't imprison innocent people merely because of who they are?

Uldrded was anything but ignorant and still gets possesed. In other words, you can't claim that Connor wouldn't have been possesed if he had a different tutor...

Actually, I can claim that Connor wouldn't have made a deal with a Desire Demon if he was properly armed with knowledge about them. Ignorance played a vital role in his decision to make a deal with the "bad lady," after all.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Interestingly enough, murder is defiend as "unlawfull killing".

Since the chatnry is effictively the law, the only way a templar can murder mages is if he isn't following Chantry law...in other words, we are talking about dirty cops...loose cannons.  

Murdering people on suspicion is murder. I don't abide by Chantry law when it comes to templars killing people on suspicion alone.

Well, if you want to rely on YOUR definition of words, we're never going to get anywhere.
Not to mention you havn't actually proven the templars guilt in the D'Sims case.

Actually, when you acquire the staff, it's mentioned that the templars killed him because they thought he was a mage. Sorry to burst your bubble there, Lotion. Feel free to take it up with the writers. And the bounty on Morrigan also references that the templars think she's a blood mage, not that they know she's one.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You can't even say Isolde would have had an issue in a world where the Chantry didn't preach all it's bile of
hatred about mages and instigate the murder of mages with its fear mongering.

The only bile and hatered I see comes from you.

Did it take you a long time to come up with that, Lotion, or did you have help?

[LobselVith8]

Creature 1 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Templars? You mean the religious order of drug addicted soldiers who can murder people on suspicion alone? Maybe it's time for an alternative special forces who aren't forced to take an addictive substance and actually require some basis of evidence before murdering people merely because they might be a mage.

How do you expect to be taken seriously when you talk like that?
The hate is oooozing out of your posts...also ignorance, as that "no evidence" point was adressed already.

Are you seriously accusing someone of "hate" for criticizing a fictional organization.   

Anyone who doesn't think that the Chantry isn't the best thing since sliced bread and doesn't realize that templars poop unicorns and pee rainbows hates them - just ask Lotion.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IIRC, when the fight between mages started, he tried to bring in a demon, but lost the control and got possesed.
Not to meniont we have other mentions of trained mages that turined into abominations.

Niall said Uldred tried to summon demons (demonology) and likely couldn't control them. It was a stupid thing to do IMHO.