1869 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

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.

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

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

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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]

Are you deaf or just have a massive conprehension faliure?
What part of ACTUAL PROOF you miss?

No, we have no actual proof that he isn't a blood mage. Why did he escape the Circle? Maybe because he knew they were on to him?

We only know what HE tells us and a few tidbits for Wynne. Both very biased and limited sources. Aenirin because he can very well lie, and Wynne because she really is voicing her oppinion, not facts.
After all, Jowan was concincing us again and again that he's not a blood mage.. Lily too was convinced. Was it the truth? no.
So how is this different?




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

Oppinions from the devs are way more solid than anything you throw around Lob.
And let's not forget that the Cullen bit was an aswer to a questio nabout a possible Cullen romance - as in "how woudl that roamnce be?".
Given that that romance wasn't written, David either gave his opinion onhow that romance might have been or was joking. As it is in development, ideas are passed back and forth between writers between something is agreed on.
Cullen being a creepy stalker is not part of hte game, nor it was agreed on.




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


Way to completely ignore the point and just hammer the same accusations again and again.
You repeat the magain and again, even when they're out of contex of the post...heck, even on other topics you butt in with it.
Arguing with a record stuck on loop would be more productive.....




[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]

Wrong.
First of all, the Chatnry didn't massacre the dales. The Chantry called for the March. The neighbouring nations and their own noblels and leaders led the actual marches.
While the Chantry does have an army of it's own in the templars, they have other duties and aren't numerous enough to go waging wars against large, powerfull kingoms en masse.

Secondly, the number od dead mages, given their low number in general, pales in comparison to other deaths. And killing a mage when he faisl the harrowing is hardly murder...the mage is already gone by that point.








[quote]
[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]

Because natural disasters compely destroy whole nations?
Why do you assume (again) abominatiosn would destroy everything?

Again - we went over this several times already. You don't bother reading AT ALL.


[quote]
[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]

In other words, you don't want to answer the questions becasue they drop a nuke on your theories?

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

* BROKEN RECORD SOUNDS*
*TOTAL IGNORANCE OF FACTS*

Aha...yes...I see...
Again ignoring the act that you haven't actually proved anything...again completely glossing over the content of the posts and just repeating the same old accusations.

LobselVith8 wrote...
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.

* FACEPALM*

I guess no trained mage ever faield the Harrowing then...NO WAIT! They did.

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.

Again, proof of the circumstances would be nice...
Oh wait..you don't have any, have you now?

OH  SNAP!

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

Every single post of yours is a clear indicator.
Nobody campaigns the "evil trmplar" angle on these forums as much as you.
No one uses biased and subjective infro as hard evidence as much as you.

For example, I never claimed that the "Dalish were d*** that attacked Orlais and murderd human villagers, and thus brought their fall on themselves"  (what Orlais said) is the truth. You on the other hand constantly use the Dalish codex as a holy bible.
You completely ignore any other interpretation or source of information that differs from your own.

At least I don't condemn the Dalish by default and remain quite open to both versions.
Same as D'Sims and the tempars..and practicly everything else we discussed. I want HARD evidence before I start condemning either side.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
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.

Oh he irony..THE IRONY!!!
The Hypocrisy!

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

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.

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

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

Is that face palm picture because I pointed out that the Chantry put a bounty on someone because of their suspicions, Emperor? Let's take another look at the entry:
 



Basically, the templars think she's a blood mage, and want to eliminate her. I know you and Lotion are very pro-Chantry and can't accept anyone who takes an opposing stance, but they're putting out a hit on someone merely because they believe she's a blood mage. It's no different than when the templars killed the charlatan D'Sims because they thought he was a mage who healed people. The templars clearly have no issue getting someone killed merely based on their suspicions.

As for the face palm picture of Picard, I felt just like that when you said mages were Chantry property:

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Mages of the Collective might not be abominations currently, but that does not mean tehy are safe from possession. No matter how you put it, no matter which examples you bring forth, every mage everywhere is constantly under threat of possession. There is no use denying it. The lore states as much. So it stands to reason that some mages in the collective, at some point in the past or in the future might have been or will become abominations, and once that happens, the abomination won't be contained in a tower like circle mages, but it will be free somewhere on the countryside.
The amount of mages amongst the Dalish and the Cult of Andraste is so small that they would have few troubles with abominations to begin with, add to that that they probably can't control them, so they kill them. That is the sole reason we don't see abominations in those groups. Aside from the fact that they are rare to begin with. Just because we don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist or is somehow immune to possession.

Also, the Chantry owns all the Circles. If Ferelden were to expel the Templars and "free" the mages. It would basically be theft of Chantry "property", and borderline heretical. So of course that would result in an Exalted March against Ferelden.

Not enough WTF in the world, to be quite frank.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 01 février 2011 - 04:07 .

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
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.

Oh he irony..THE IRONY!!!
The Hypocrisy!

Are you saying I'm exaggerating? Let's examine how Lotion treats people who disagree with his views on the Chantry:

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Except there's nothing wrong with IanPolaris' analysis of DG's quote. If you disagree, why not say why you disagree?

What? Are you really that stupid or are you just trolling now?
Did you even bother to read?
Analyzing a quote wihtout knowing the context and then then sticking to the conviction your analysis is correct, despite being faced wiht evidence of hte contrary.....ther'es nothing wrong wiht that to you? Y SRS? 

Furthermore, Lotion doesn't know when to stop personally attacking people who disagree with his views on the Chantry:

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Comparing how a mage can abuse his power with a noble who abuses his authority or
a warrior who can abuse his weapon, in every scenerio this misuse of
power or a weapon (however you'd like to picture it) leads to innocent
people getting hurt. It seems like a fair comparison to make.

Waht the hell are you reading man? Does your brain process my posts in such a way that al lthe words are changed in your mind? Plaase, read the UNDERSCORED part again...
If you can rub 2 brain cells together, you'd notice that 's not about abuse of power. Here, I'll additionaly bold a few parts for you.
And even wihout that, the difference in situation in some of hte basics are large neough to make the comparison moot.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 01 février 2011 - 04:13 .

[Sir JK]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Neither does the Chantry. They suspect she's a blood mage, and will kill her for suspicion alone.[/quote]
This neither of us do know. Remember... even if you have evidence, the word used is suspect/suspicion. Until someone is proven, in a court, they will never be more than suspects. Even if you know they did it.

[quote]But if it's not up to him, then he's not in charge, despite being First Enchanter.[/quote]
"It's not up to me, he made his own fate" is an acceptable use of it is not up to me. As is "if it was up to me, things would be different, I would make sure he did not do the same mistakes again". To look back on something in hindsight and express that you would have done things differently can be said using "if it was up to me".
It's essentially semantics, but skilled politicans and diplomats (and Irving is a bit of both) tend to be very good at using things like that to their advantage.
Maybe Irving did say what he said just so that you would not blame him? His codex entry even says that he's good at just that, appeasing both templars and mages.

[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]

I am. I am however also questioning wether it was solely on suspicion. This is an assumption of yours, not something said in either case. To suspect someone is to believe they are guilty. The word itself says nothing on the amount of evidence. A suspicion can be both unfounded and supported by evidence. Both true and false. Both strong and weak. Even if they had caught them both redhanded casting blood magic, they would still "only" suspect them. Not until one is condemned is one more than a suspect.
And even in IRL do suspects sometimes die before tried.

[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]
Indeed. I am just saying... revolutions don't always lead to a better world. Or even better for the group that rose up. Even if it succeeds.

[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]
What role? You say it would have changed things by claiming that Connor would have known to say no. But I don't see the logic behind it. I cannot logically see what exactly would have changed in the situation.

[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]
He'd probably have looked for another way yes. But getting someone into a castle is not difficult. If nothing else you can send someone that appear to come as a guest. Or a relative to one of the servants. A ward. A lone courier. Plenty of ways.

[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]
But everyone knows the Harrowing exist, just not exactly what it means (and given the modus operandum of demons, this is probably to emulate how a real demon attack would look like). But it is heavily implied that miuch of the education prior to it deals with demons and their dangers. The harrowing is not a introductory test but more like an exam after all. Can you or can you not handle a demon?

Because just like in the harrowing, when you do face a demon: You will be all alone.

[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]
Warning them and making them realise what a demon and how to recognice their offers is are very different things though.
Kind of like when we tell children not to talk to strangers. Telling them it is one thing, teaching them why they should and how to recognice those people is quite another.

And ultimately... no matter how good a teacher Connor has. The demon would not show itself when he could ask about advice. It would not slowly court him... but force the decision upon him and demand an answer at once. It would not show itself prior to that so Connor would never be able to confirm that it was a demon and that he should say no.

[quote]I'm proposing that knowledge would have armed Connor against dealing with a demon, nothing more.[/quote]
I agree, but I don't see any logical reason to believe Connor would have gotten that knowledge in the time frame allowed.

[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]
Indeed.

[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]
Yes. We don't know why the Dalish, Rivaini and Haven view their mages in a very positive light. Tevinter in quasi-positive and Andrastians and qunari in a negative light.
I wonder if population density has anything to do with it? Qunari, Andrastians and Tevinter are the three bigger culture-groups after all. Dalish live in small (moving) enclaves with few mages each, Haven is a single village and the Rivaini witches are hermits, right (and caught between qunari, andrastians and probably tevinters and thus those cultures will snatch some magelings)?

[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]
Rogue I think and you'll be a mage.

[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?[/quote]
Oh, Connor absolutely would have made it with sufficient knowledge. He does succeed in his Harrowing after all. I just don't think he would have gotten it with a open mage-culture and see no logical reason to believe otherwise.
And Loghain does indeed say he believed Eamon was aware (well... one of his agents does). But Eamon, the best source of all, says he could not have imagined it. He himself says he did not know (when discussing Jowan I think)... I think Isolde and Jowan can confirm it too.

[IanPolaris]

Everyone,

I am back.  I don't have the time or energy to go back over several pages and answer a lot of these mammoth points, so I will condense and post on the issue as I see it.

1.  Sir JK, you once claimed that Wynne wasn't an apologist since she didn't try to find excuses for everything the Chantry did.  Unfortunately while I generally respect you the most on the pro-mage side, you ar proving to be just that....a Chantry apologist.  I find you are continually twisting meanings and words to try to justify the Chanty PoV when a 'straight' read of the same scene shows anything but.  Specifically, I am referring to the Jowan situation.  Irving KNOWS (likely from multiple accounts) that Lily is scorning her vows to sleep with Jowan which is a highly punishable offense, but Lily will be unpunished, while Jowan based on hearsay evidence alone that Irving isn't even allowed to see (even Irving admits he has seen no proof that Jowan is a blood mage) will be lobomized (which I regard as the equivalent of a death sentence...and so do both Lily and Jowan) without any hearing or any review at all.  Taken in that context, when Irving says, "If it were up to me, things would be different" tells you that Irving has about as much control over the Tower as the Chancellor of East Germany had in East Germany (i.e. only that which the Soviet Commissioners agreed to give him).   In fact I think the comparison is apt because 'hypothetically' East Germany was independant....but everyone knew differently.  The Circle has exactly the same relationship with the Chantry.

2.  Some of have said we never see Templars held accountable.  That isn't true.  When you go through the tower, you find a letter of reprimand and assignment to a 'crud' and career ending assignment because a templar simply would not stop chasing 'tail'.  Given we see evidence of this sort of accountability but none for mages, I think it's fair to say the templars are held more accountable for chasing women (or men) then they are with how they treat mages and that tells you everything you need to know about how Templars are really held accountable for their treatment of mages esp in the field (they are not). 

3.  Let's review the abominations instances in the game.

a.  Conner.  While it's true that Loghain would have poisoned Eamon anyway, it's not true that Conner would have become an abomination anyway.  The fact is that (apparently) Conner had shown signs for a long time (months certainly) without any real problem.  Isolde wasn't scared that her son was going to turn into a demon.  She was scared he would be taken away from her and thrown into a prison (and the Circle Towers ARE prisons and mages DON'T have legal rights) just for being what he was.  That and she clearly suffers from a case of terminal Chantry programming (all magic is evviiiiil) which kept her from contacting the mage's collective on her own.

So why is the Chnatry at fault here?  Two ways.  First of all the chantry clearly promotes a highly anti-mage and anti-magic sermon which has been absorbed by the population for centuries.  Talk to the mother at redcliff if you are a mage and she promises not to raise a mob against you.  How sweet.  That tells you everything you need to know about the normal attitude the current chantry has towards magic.  There are loads of other examples as well (Keli, Grand Cleric at Ostagar, etc, Gregoire's intro to your harrowing, etc).  Without this fear, it's reasonable to think that Isolde would have been more open, and Conner would have been trained approopriately....and that leads to the second point.

There are all sorts of mages even in Andrastian Society that slip through the cracks.  In addition, there are the Dales, Rivain, Chasind, and Haven all of which do just fine without the circle tower system.  You would think that the Dalish in particular would have a huge "abomination social footprint' given the very small clan size and relatively high percentage of mages, but they don't....not even when they live for months at a time in places were the veil is thin (Brecilan Forest).  That tells us that the circle tower system isn't necessary to protect anyone (which is confirmed oddly enough by the Chantry's own History of the Circle).  All of this means that it's vanishingly rare for mages to just become abominations on their own.  Either the mage has to 'let the demon in' whch is suicide and self-preservation kicks in normally, or the mage has to fight and lose against a demon in the fade (which is what summoning seems to be).  Niether are accidents and both are far, far more likely.  Frankly the tower system is akin to having a perfectly good water heater, and then manually closing off all the safety valves one by one...and then wondering why there was a house-destroying explosion.

What this means in terms of Conner should be obvious.  Conner had no idea what a demon even was, and had NO social support network when he started having nightmars about the Lady in his dreams.  He (obviously) couldn't go to Jowan, and Isolde wouldn't understand any more than Conner would.  However, WITH a proper tutor and proper instruction, that social support network would be there.  Conner could have been conforted and the situation explained to him.  When you speak with Conner just before you have to kill him, it's very clear that Conner never would have let the lady in had he known she was a demon....and the entire situation could have been averted.  Who's to blame?  Certainly Isolde, but the Chantry is to blame as well.

An aside:  The Harrowing is not a fair test or comparison to how likely a mage is to become an abomination.  In the case of the harrowing, the poor mage actually INFECTED with a demon, and the demon is egged on to feast on the mage.  That's a far cry from the more normal encounters in the fade where a demon has to trick a mage or find one that is so desperate their own life is meaningless to them.

b.  Uldred.  Uldred did not just "become" an abomination.  He tried and failed to control too many demons which was a stupid, stupid thing to do.  I am sure that Uldred had some motivations of power, but Wynne is not exactly a relialble source into his overall character (Ines for one in DAA remembers Uldred differently).  Wynne has her own hangups and has much to hide/explain post-Ostagar as well.  Essentially, it was do or die for Uldred and Uldred decided that if the circle couldn't be free now, he would go without any bullets left in his gun.  Stupid but understandable.  Certainly his rebellion would have never happened (at least nowhere near to the extent it did) without the Chantry's policy of denying mages basic civil rights and imprisoning them.

c.  Renald.  This is a case where mage self-policing worked.  Renald is missing and you are asked to investigate.  The Mentor (Renald) saw his apprentice doing something bad and tried to stop him....he couldn't but (if you read his journal) his actions did buy enough time for reinforcements from the Collective to handle the situation....and it was with a total casualty count of one.  Not a bad day's work....and far better than the Templars manage.

d.  Baronesss.  I don't know why the Pro-Chantry people keep brining this one one, because if there is any proof the circle tower system doesn't work, it's the baroness.  First of all, this was a landed Orlesian noble acting in Orlais (ok Occupied Fereldan but basically Orlais).  So where was the Chantry?  Why was she even allowed to be a landed noble to begin with?  When she slew the dragon by magic, where were the Templars to take her to the Tower?  Nowhere.  In short, without ANY protection or ANY support whatsoever, the villagers found themselves at the mercy of first a bloodmage and then a pride-abomination....and they STILL were able to take her down. 

So where were the Templars protecting her again?  I promise you in a society where magic was openly sanctioned, someone could have gotten help and the villagers would not have been nearly so helpless against her magic...and who knows maybe a few survive after the Baroness dies.

4.  The circle tower system is inhuman and regressive.  Really, I don't see how anyone can argue this point reasonably.  Given that, it's up to those that would perpetuate it, that the gain society sees in terms of security and lack of abominations (vs having no circle towers) is actually worth the moral price we are being asked to pay.  This is the reason why the burden of proof must lie on the chantry.  If you are going to propogate and sanction a cearly immoral system and one that causes strife and antagonism, then you need to be able to justify it.

Yet no one has shown ANY evidence that the circle tower system has done anything of the sort.  "Basic logic" doesn't cut it.  Please show me the numbers.  Indeed we have very strong leading indicators (lack of a social abomination footprint in non-circle societies) that gives very strong albeit indirect evidence that the circle tower system probably is not necessary and that is backed by the Chantry's own history that shows that the circle tower system was NOT imposed to protect anyone (at least that reason was so minor that it never got mentioned in a major encyclopedia entry regarding the founding of the circle tower system which seems to be a major oversight if protection were the driving reason).  Given the Chantry's position regading the Lyrium trade and the very free hand they give Templars, I think it's clear that the chantry doesn't really care (at least not the highest level churchmen) about protecting anyone, but rather are concerned about controlling all magic.

I am sure I am missing stuff, but I think this highlights the important points.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK,



I share your qualms about revolutions, but when one side (the Chantry) refuses to change or even admit there is a problem, then what choice is left. Like the unnamed bloodmage responding to Wynne when Wynne claims that "ends don't always justify the means", she says:



"You don't really believe that Wynne. Change rarely comes peacefully. Sometimes change has to be forced no matter what the cost. Andrasted didn't write the Tevinter Imperium a strongly worded letter! She freed the slaves, reshaped civilization, gave us the Chantry, but people DIED for it."



She's totally correct. It's hypocritical to condemn mages for wanting change when the organization that can best affect gradual change wants no change at all, and is willing to spend a river of blood to prevent it.



-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Lotion, when you personally attack people because they disagree with you, it doesn't help your argument in defending the Chantry:

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Except there's nothing wrong with IanPolaris' analysis of DG's quote. If you disagree, why not say why you disagree?[/quote]

What? Are you really that stupid or are you just trolling now?
Did you even bother to read?
Analyzing a quote wihtout knowing the context and then then sticking to the conviction your analysis is correct, despite being faced wiht evidence of hte contrary.....ther'es nothing wrong wiht that to you? Y SRS? [/quote]

Furthermore, you continue to fail to make articulate arguments for the Chantry:

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Comparing how a mage can abuse his power with a noble who abuses his authority or
a warrior who can abuse his weapon, in every scenerio this misuse of
power or a weapon (however you'd like to picture it) leads to innocent
people getting hurt. It seems like a fair comparison to make.[/quote]

Waht the hell are you reading man? Does your brain process my posts in such a way that al lthe words are changed in your mind? Plaase, read the UNDERSCORED part again...
If you can rub 2 brain cells together, you'd notice that 's not about abuse of power. Here, I'll additionaly bold a few parts for you.
And even wihout that, the difference in situation in some of hte basics are large neough to make the comparison moot. [/quote]

Maybe in leui of face palm pictures, you should try acting like an adult?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

Are you deaf or just have a massive conprehension faliure?
What part of ACTUAL PROOF you miss?

No, we have no actual proof that he isn't a blood mage. Why did he escape the Circle? Maybe because he knew they were on to him? [/quote]

Wynne explains that he hated it there, that he was taken from his family, and that she shunned his attempts to reach out. It seems like you want to fan fic some explanation to defend the Chantry here rather than accept what we're told about how templars tried to murder a fourteen year old boy who doesn't seem to have anything wrong, but run away from an oppressive prison.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

We only know what HE tells us and a few tidbits for Wynne. Both very biased and limited sources. Aenirin because he can very well lie, and Wynne because she really is voicing her oppinion, not facts.
After all, Jowan was concincing us again and again that he's not a blood mage.. Lily too was convinced. Was it the truth? no.
So how is this different? [/quote]

The difference is that Jowan uses blood magic, while Aenirin is a healer who is part of the Dalish and likes to be out among nature. If Aenirin was a blood mage, why didn't he admit this to Wynne when she made the offer to go back to the Circle? What would it have cost him to admit it? He makes no revelation about it when it's discussed, so what evidence do you have that the templars trying to kill him was anything but another case of D'Sims or even Morrigan in Witch Hunt where they label someone dangerous with no proof?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

Oppinions from the devs are way more solid than anything you throw around Lob.
And let's not forget that the Cullen bit was an aswer to a questio nabout a possible Cullen romance - as in "how woudl that roamnce be?".
Given that that romance wasn't written, David either gave his opinion onhow that romance might have been or was joking. As it is in development, ideas are passed back and forth between writers between something is agreed on.
Cullen being a creepy stalker is not part of hte game, nor it was agreed on. [/quote]

Except opinions aren't lore, Lotion. You can't use an opinion as the basis for lore when people use dictionary definitions and story examples to prove their point. You want to disagree? You're welcome to disagree on the issue, Lotion, but don't claim an opinion is fact when it's anything but.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

Way to completely ignore the point and just hammer the same accusations again and again.
You repeat the magain and again, even when they're out of contex of the post...heck, even on other topics you butt in with it.
Arguing with a record stuck on loop would be more productive..... [/quote]

Ignore the point? You want to imagine that D'Sims was so dangerous that templars needed to take him down because he pretended to heal people, while people are fan fic'ing evidence into Chantry hands to explain why there's a bounty on Morrigan's head in Witch Hunt. Considering she never demonstrates any blood magic abilities during Dragon Age except a ritual of carnal contact that could be argued either way, there's no proof Morrigan is a blood mage.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

Wrong.
First of all, the Chatnry didn't massacre the dales. The Chantry called for the March. The neighbouring nations and their own noblels and leaders led the actual marches.
While the Chantry does have an army of it's own in the templars, they have other duties and aren't numerous enough to go waging wars against large, powerfull kingoms en masse.

Secondly, the number od dead mages, given their low number in general, pales in comparison to other deaths. And killing a mage when he faisl the harrowing is hardly murder...the mage is already gone by that point. [/quote]

The templars were said (by the Dalish) to have entered the Dales when they kicked out their missionaries. The Chantry declared the Exalted March against the Dales in a questionable war. People being killed across an entire nation, along with entire Circles of men, women, and children, clearly show that the Chantry has killed many people, arguably more than any mage or abomination could.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

Because natural disasters compely destroy whole nations?
Why do you assume (again) abominatiosn would destroy everything?

Again - we went over this several times already. You don't bother reading AT ALL. [/quote]

Because you make the situation sound so dire but provide no explanation for why the societies are still standing, despite their lack of templars and Chantry control. If anything you said was remotely accurate, Thedas would be a nation of abominations since the Dales and Arlathan were two nations of mages.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

In other words, you don't want to answer the questions becasue they drop a nuke on your theories?
[/quote]

You mean your lack of a substantial argument and your continued use of terrible analogies is so bad that people ask you to stop making awful analogies that make no sense?

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Aha...yes...I see...
Again ignoring the act that you haven't actually proved anything...again completely glossing over the content of the posts and just repeating the same old accusations.

I notice that the difference between the posts by Sir JK and you is that Sir JK articulates intelligent thoughts and makes good arguments, many of which I respectfully disagree with, while you basically expect everyone to agree with you or else they're "stupid." Feel free to behave like an adult and try making an argument of substance.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

* FACEPALM*

I guess no trained mage ever faield the Harrowing then...NO WAIT! They did. 

Yes, no mage has ever faield the Harrowing. They have failed it, on the other hand, because they were ignorant of what to do - just like Connor. He had no idea what a Desire Demon was, and simply brushed her off as a "bad lady" who was offering to help save his father. If he was armed with knowledge, he could have make a different and informed choice against it. Thanks for helping me argue my point, Lotion, I appreciate it.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Again, proof of the circumstances would be nice...
Oh wait..you don't have any, have you now?

OH  SNAP!

You mean someone being murdered because the templars falsely thought he was a mage? Yeah, all we know is that they murdered him because they were wrong. I guess that's a win for you, Lotion?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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

Every single post of yours is a clear indicator.
Nobody campaigns the "evil trmplar" angle on these forums as much as you.
No one uses biased and subjective infro as hard evidence as much as you.

Again, you support my claim that anyone who doesn't like what the Chantry does to the mages thinks they're evil.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

For example, I never claimed that the "Dalish were d*** that attacked Orlais and murderd human villagers, and thus brought their fall on themselves"  (what Orlais said) is the truth. You on the other hand constantly use the Dalish codex as a holy bible.
You completely ignore any other interpretation or source of information that differs from your own.

I'm not, I pointed out the Dalish POV to contrast against the Orlesian POV as undisputed fact and to point out that the Chantry and Orlais were involved in the war against the Dales.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

At least I don't condemn the Dalish by default and remain quite open to both versions.
Same as D'Sims and the tempars..and practicly everything else we discussed. I want HARD evidence before I start condemning either side.

No, you condemn the mages by default and throw tantrums when people mention the Dalish clans or Rivain. And everyone has asked you for pages and pages now to provide evidence that the Chantry's imprisonment and dehumanization of mages is necessary, and you've failed to provide it.

[Sir JK]

Polaris.

Quite the post you wrote. Let's see if I can address your points properly.



First you say that I act a bit like a Chantry apologist, and while I can see where you come from. I would argue that while I interpret things differently (or as you said, twist them) I would like to return the favour and say: So do the pro-mage side.

Like your claim that the circles were not formed for any other purpose than direct control. As you know I disagree with this. It is a short and summarized little blurb from an entire book on the subject. You'd think it has more to say on the subject. Especially since we have two knight commanders who seem to think there is another purpose. So in a way I think that is twisting the codex entry into the pro-mage stance. You're waving it in front saying: Aha, look the chantry cares nothing for protection. Despite that it does not say that. In fact... it says nothing on the purpose at all.

Instead you are reading into it that it is for control, and why not? It fits your view of it. Just like I read that protection is indeed part of the purpose from the other entries. We approach the information from different viewpoints and interpret it based on what we know. It is only logical that we reach different conclusions.



Regarding templar accountability. Yes. We have seen no accountability in regards to how templars are treating mages. Before the blog entry we had also not seen there was such as thing as the Knight-Vigilant. Does that mean he/she did not exist? We have yet an incomplete picture of Thedas. Lots of information remains to be seen. That is even a stronger case why absense should not be taken as evidence in these discussions. The world is literally growing piece by piece before our eyes. The only true evidence is when we have something that explicitely shows us the opposite than what we think it would.



Regarding Connor, yes... if one attributes the cause as Isolde did not want to send him away then yes, I suppose they could be held to blame on some level. But from Lobsels arguments I got the impressions that one of the things he wanted the mages to have was the ability to go wherever they please. At which point she could have just called one to her.

As for Connor showing signs for months... when not even his father or many of the guards know he's a mage it cannot have been going on for long. Untrained magic in Thedas is not exactly subtle. As Wynne neatly demonstrates with her background story.

As for the social network thing. Why do you expect that the demon would let him go and ask for advice or ask what she was? That would be like allowing a person you intimidate to go and put himself somehwre safe. Kind of defeats the point. The moment she showed herself would be the moment she would have demanded an answer. Complete with visions of his father dying and all.

I absolutely agree that with a proper tutor and proper instructions he would have made it, and he did considering he succeeds his harrowing later. What I am arguing is that regardless of chantry stance there would not have been time enough for proper instruction. You don't see any child mages (mages, not apprentices) do you? Why do you think that is? Could it perhaps be because the circle does not put them through the harrowing because their training is not complete?

And of course he knew it was a demon in hindsight. Jowan could also figure that out and the warden. The problem is not to figure it out afterwards... it's when it makes it's offer.



I am protesting here because from you and Lobsel it sounds like: Oh, a proper teacher would have stood there and told him to say no. What kind of demon would ever allow that? You'd never manipulate anyone that way.

Or that he'd need a single lesson in: this is what a demon is and you should always say no to them. Demons can change shape in the fade, remember? For crying out loud, it could have come looking like his mother or his teacher. Or his father for that matter "you must help me Connor... just take my hand. If you take my hand I will become better". For that matter... it could probably even show visions of how fantastic everything would be. It was a -desire- demon after all... it used Connors wish to heal his father. It knew exactly what buttons to push.

And you say that a eleven year old boy, who at most have been manipulated by his mother to clean his room, will be able to correctly asses that situation because he has a free roaming mage as his tutor?

I mean sure, I am a very optimistic person... but I think that stretches logic somewhat absurd.



Also, did Isolde know of the mages collective? I was under the impression they hid from nobility because... well... they'd get arrested?



Uldred does not strike me as the sympathic kind of character though. But fair enough, his time as an abomination is certainly an effect of the Chantry. No arguments there.



Renald is not a good example of self-policing because the mages collective. Did. Not. Know. They sent you to find a missing member, not a word of what might have happened to him and not even a mention of his apprentice (did they even know he had one). From the way the quest is worded he might just as well have tripped in the forest. He did luckily write a note and we did, by chance, find the abomination (there are corpses on the ground though) and then the quest ends. You don't even report it to them.



The Baroness is taken as an example because she is presicely not a chantry controlled mage and the perfect demonstration of what a mage can do if they wish. And you say the villagers managed to take her down? No, the warden and justice did. Every single villager died. The Baroness fled into the fade and became a demon, not until the warden arrived did justice and the ghosts/memories of the village stop her. They all died (the codex entry says noone ever knew what happened to the village, which is a good indication of no survivors. A survivor would have told people)

That's not success.



Thing is Polaris. You base your argument of absence of evidence. But that is not evidence of absence. Especially not in a world that grows before our very eyes. What if those very social imprints you insist on shows up in DA2? Did the world change between the games or were we just not shown it earlier?

I agree that if we are to claim that the chantry is better. We should back it up with unambigous sources, like numbers. The converse is also true though. If you want to show it is worse or equally effective, back it up with numbers.



That said... holding an opinion that it is worse is perfectly fine. Just like holding an opinion that it is not worse, is.

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...
Sir JK,
I share your qualms about revolutions, but when one side (the Chantry) refuses to change or even admit there is a problem, then what choice is left. Like the unnamed bloodmage responding to Wynne when Wynne claims that "ends don't always justify the means", she says:
"You don't really believe that Wynne. Change rarely comes peacefully. Sometimes change has to be forced no matter what the cost. Andrasted didn't write the Tevinter Imperium a strongly worded letter! She freed the slaves, reshaped civilization, gave us the Chantry, but people DIED for it."
She's totally correct. It's hypocritical to condemn mages for wanting change when the organization that can best affect gradual change wants no change at all, and is willing to spend a river of blood to prevent it.

-Polaris

I'm not really surprised many mages are rising up. It's perfectly, human, understandable and even reasonable I'd say. Nor do I really think they shouldn't, I mean it might work.
But if mages for one moment think a succesful revolution/uprising/whatever-you-want-to-call-it will lead to paradise on earth... well... they are up for a rude awakening

I also suspect many mages suffer from a massive case of "the grass is greener...". Thinking their lives after a split will be much much easier than it is now.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Polaris.
Quite the post you wrote. Let's see if I can address your points properly.

First you say that I act a bit like a Chantry apologist, and while I can see where you come from. I would argue that while I interpret things differently (or as you said, twist them) I would like to return the favour and say: So do the pro-mage side.
[/quote]

I am going to strongly dissent and even take a bit of umbrage at that.  I am doing my level best NOT to twist things, but I sincerely think you are.

[quote]
Like your claim that the circles were not formed for any other purpose than direct control. As you know I disagree with this. It is a short and summarized little blurb from an entire book on the subject. You'd think it has more to say on the subject. Especially since we have two knight commanders who seem to think there is another purpose. So in a way I think that is twisting the codex entry into the pro-mage stance. You're waving it in front saying: Aha, look the chantry cares nothing for protection. Despite that it does not say that. In fact... it says nothing on the purpose at all.
Instead you are reading into it that it is for control, and why not? It fits your view of it. Just like I read that protection is indeed part of the purpose from the other entries. We approach the information from different viewpoints and interpret it based on what we know. It is only logical that we reach different conclusions.
[/quote]

The only codex entry we have for how the circle tower system was formed specifically states it was for control.  There was plenty of opportunity (and remember this was written explicitly from the PoV of the Chantry...Sister Petrin in fact) to say that the mages had to be locked away for the protection of others or that protection of others was a major point of the negotiations.  She did not.  Given that the Chantry makes "protection from mages" the reason de terre of the circle system now, it's a shocking lack of information.  In this case, absense is evidence and I've shown even in physical science that absence of a phenomena is frequently very solid evidence AGAINST a posiion (and in this case the the position that the Circle system was meant to protect anyone).  If it were, then the Chantry's own history should say so and it doesn't.  As for the word of two knight commanders, so what?  If you are told something from a young age is true, you are bound to believe it even if it's not.  I see no reason why either KC has priveldged insight.

So I do think the Codex entry is being read fairly by me.  It's you who insists on reading assumptions into the entry that isn't there.

[quote]
Regarding templar accountability. Yes. We have seen no accountability in regards to how templars are treating mages. Before the blog entry we had also not seen there was such as thing as the Knight-Vigilant. Does that mean he/she did not exist? We have yet an incomplete picture of Thedas. Lots of information remains to be seen. That is even a stronger case why absense should not be taken as evidence in these discussions. The world is literally growing piece by piece before our eyes. The only true evidence is when we have something that explicitely shows us the opposite than what we think it would.
[/quote]

Please. Stop.  You are comparing apples to kumquats.  We know there was a Grand Knight Templar somewhere.  What we didn't know was what he specifically was called and now we do.  That's a far cry from claiming there is accountability when we've seen absolutely no in-game evidence of it.  It's even more shocking when we DO see rather strong accountability for Templars in other areas (such as chasing tail).  That tells me that "Chasing Tail" is a far more serious crime for a Templar than anything he or she does to mages, or do you disagree with even that?

[quote]
Regarding Connor, yes... if one attributes the cause as Isolde did not want to send him away then yes, I suppose they could be held to blame on some level. But from Lobsels arguments I got the impressions that one of the things he wanted the mages to have was the ability to go wherever they please. At which point she could have just called one to her.
[/quote]

In the long run I agree that mages should be able to live where they please, but you are glossing over entirely (and IMHO unfairly) the other side of it.  We both feel that mages should be strong and PROPER training from a young age....and the Chantry is definately to blame (at least in part) for Conner's failure to get proper training.  In fact the game evidence we have strongly suggests it's HARD for a demon to possess anyone (even a mage) except under extraordinary circumstances and education and support are key.

[quote]
As for Connor showing signs for months... when not even his father or many of the guards know he's a mage it cannot have been going on for long. Untrained magic in Thedas is not exactly subtle. As Wynne neatly demonstrates with her background story.
[/quote]

That's not always true.  Wynne had apparently been showing signs long before she set a boy's hair on fire and she only did that under extreme physical duress (her life was being threatened).  You can't assume that all signs are equally obvious, and it's clear at least when you talk with Jowan and Isolde that for a while Conner was being shown how to control those outbursts.

[quote]
As for the social network thing. Why do you expect that the demon would let him go and ask for advice or ask what she was? That would be like allowing a person you intimidate to go and put himself somehwre safe. Kind of defeats the point. The moment she showed herself would be the moment she would have demanded an answer. Complete with visions of his father dying and all.
I absolutely agree that with a proper tutor and proper instructions he would have made it, and he did considering he succeeds his harrowing later. What I am arguing is that regardless of chantry stance there would not have been time enough for proper instruction. You don't see any child mages (mages, not apprentices) do you? Why do you think that is? Could it perhaps be because the circle does not put them through the harrowing because their training is not complete?
And of course he knew it was a demon in hindsight. Jowan could also figure that out and the warden. The problem is not to figure it out afterwards... it's when it makes it's offer.
[/quote]

Bolloxs.  If that were true then mage children should be turing abominations right and left and that simply doesn't happen....not even in the mage's tower.  Conner had absolutely no idea that demons could trick him in the fade until it was too late.  That's a lack of background and information that borders on criminal.  Couple that with his father being poisoned and on the brink of death, and having no where to turn BUT the lady in his dreams, and you are begging a demon to come in and possess the boy...and the Chantry bears a large part of the blame.

As for the Mage's Collective, Isolde was a high ranking noblewomen.  Had she not been so afraid of magic,she could have asked around and someone from the Mage's Collective (via intermediary of course) could have contacted her.  This is in large part why the Mage's Collective exists of course.

[quote]
I am protesting here because from you and Lobsel it sounds like: Oh, a proper teacher would have stood there and told him to say no. What kind of demon would ever allow that? You'd never manipulate anyone that way.
Or that he'd need a single lesson in: this is what a demon is and you should always say no to them. Demons can change shape in the fade, remember? For crying out loud, it could have come looking like his mother or his teacher. Or his father for that matter "you must help me Connor... just take my hand. If you take my hand I will become better". For that matter... it could probably even show visions of how fantastic everything would be. It was a -desire- demon after all... it used Connors wish to heal his father. It knew exactly what buttons to push.
And you say that a eleven year old boy, who at most have been manipulated by his mother to clean his room, will be able to correctly asses that situation because he has a free roaming mage as his tutor?
I mean sure, I am a very optimistic person... but I think that stretches logic somewhat absurd.
[/quote]

No I'm really not.  You have to be willing to let the demon in, and that goes contrary to survival instinct.  Even doubt about the Lady's real intentions would have been sufficient.  If not, then lots of children would become abominations and we see absolutely no evidence of that even in the Tower.  Indeed the same codex entry regarding the hiearchy of the circle states that apprentices are not the primary threat Templars need to worry about.

[quote]
Also, did Isolde know of the mages collective? I was under the impression they hid from nobility because... well... they'd get arrested?
[/quote]

See above.  If Isolde was desperate enough to hire an apostate, she could have been contact by intermediaries if necessary...and the only reason the Mage's Collective fears arrest is because of the hate spread by the Chantry.

[quote]
Uldred does not strike me as the sympathic kind of character though. But fair enough, his time as an abomination is certainly an effect of the Chantry. No arguments there.

Renald is not a good example of self-policing because the mages collective. Did. Not. Know. They sent you to find a missing member, not a word of what might have happened to him and not even a mention of his apprentice (did they even know he had one). From the way the quest is worded he might just as well have tripped in the forest. He did luckily write a note and we did, by chance, find the abomination (there are corpses on the ground though) and then the quest ends. You don't even report it to them.
[/quote]

Never worked for the Park Service did you?  Missing Persons (which the Renald case is) IS definately part of self-policing and police work.  If you read his joural, you find that Renald chased the abomination that was his apprentice into a very remote site where he fought and lost....but that gave you (the warden) enough time to finish the job.

[quote]
The Baroness is taken as an example because she is presicely not a chantry controlled mage and the perfect demonstration of what a mage can do if they wish. And you say the villagers managed to take her down? No, the warden and justice did. Every single villager died. The Baroness fled into the fade and became a demon, not until the warden arrived did justice and the ghosts/memories of the village stop her. They all died (the codex entry says noone ever knew what happened to the village, which is a good indication of no survivors. A survivor would have told people)
That's not success.
[/quote]

Yes it is.  If you don't arrive, the Baroness and the VIllages remain trapped in the fade where they've been for over a century.  The problem is quarantined.  That IS a sucess at least as the Templars define it.  The only reason the Baroness comes back is because you and First give her a conduit back.

So yes, it was a success.

[quote]
Thing is Polaris. You base your argument of absence of evidence. But that is not evidence of absence. Especially not in a world that grows before our very eyes. What if those very social imprints you insist on shows up in DA2? Did the world change between the games or were we just not shown it earlier?
I agree that if we are to claim that the chantry is better. We should back it up with unambigous sources, like numbers. The converse is also true though. If you want to show it is worse or equally effective, back it up with numbers.
[/quote]

Absense of Evidence is perfectly valid when I seek to show that a model:

1.  Doesn't do what it says it does.
2.  Isn't needed to do what it says it does.

In both cases I am (and always have been) arguing the negative, and like the lack of anti-matter against the Standard model, it's perfectly reasonable for me to make this argument.

Why do I get the priveledge of the negative argument?  Because the immorality and antagonisms of the Circle Tower system are obvious.  It's up to the Chantry Apologists (which I am including you Sir JK in their number) to show  that the benefits outweigh the costs, and you haven't come close to doing that.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Sir JK,
I share your qualms about revolutions, but when one side (the Chantry) refuses to change or even admit there is a problem, then what choice is left. Like the unnamed bloodmage responding to Wynne when Wynne claims that "ends don't always justify the means", she says:
"You don't really believe that Wynne. Change rarely comes peacefully. Sometimes change has to be forced no matter what the cost. Andrasted didn't write the Tevinter Imperium a strongly worded letter! She freed the slaves, reshaped civilization, gave us the Chantry, but people DIED for it."
She's totally correct. It's hypocritical to condemn mages for wanting change when the organization that can best affect gradual change wants no change at all, and is willing to spend a river of blood to prevent it.

-Polaris

I'm not really surprised many mages are rising up. It's perfectly, human, understandable and even reasonable I'd say. Nor do I really think they shouldn't, I mean it might work.
But if mages for one moment think a succesful revolution/uprising/whatever-you-want-to-call-it will lead to paradise on earth... well... they are up for a rude awakening

I also suspect many mages suffer from a massive case of "the grass is greener...". Thinking their lives after a split will be much much easier than it is now.

Sir JK,

Why  then do you fault the mages for rising up then?  It seem rather hypocritical of you when it's the CHANTRY that has the power and authority to make the change gradually and make the points you are making, but the Chantry shows no inclination to do so.

Speaking for myself, I think the circle tower system should be abolished, but I do NOT condone doing so overnight....but that's not going to be an option if the Chantry persists.

-Polaris

[Sir JK]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
I am going to strongly dissent and even take a bit of umbrage at that.  I am doing my level best NOT to twist things, but I sincerely think you are.[/quote]
Hence why I kept twist in paranthesis. I am not looking at things and thinking: "Hmm, how can I twist this to pro-chantry". I look, compare to other stuff and fit it in my view of things. Just like you do. We are both approaching it very logically I think, but our premises are different and thus our conclusions as well.
So I meant no offense with what I said.

[quote]The only codex entry we have for how the circle tower system was formed specifically states it was for control.  There was plenty of opportunity (and remember this was written explicitly from the PoV of the Chantry...Sister Petrin in fact) to say that the mages had to be locked away for the protection of others or that protection of others was a major point of the negotiations.  She did not.  Given that the Chantry makes "protection from mages" the reason de terre of the circle system now, it's a shocking lack of information.  In this case, absense is evidence and I've shown even in physical science that absence of a phenomena is frequently very solid evidence AGAINST a posiion (and in this case the the position that the Circle system was meant to protect anyone).  If it were, then the Chantry's own history should say so and it doesn't.  As for the word of two knight commanders, so what?  If you are told something from a young age is true, you are bound to believe it even if it's not.  I see no reason why either KC has priveldged insight. [/quote]
We have two entries on circle creation though. The second is the timeline and it adds information that the History of the Circle makes no mention at all of (That Drakon I was very much involved). Then there's two knight commanders who says the purpose is protection. Then there's the templar blog entry that says templars exist to protect. All those together form my picture of things. If the circles/templars don't protect then why do we have 3 sources of that? If the circle is formed due to Ambrosia II being annoyed... how did Drakon I get involved and why does not the history of the circle mention this?

I have never argued that History of the circle is incorrect.  Only incomplete.

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. You can prove that something does not cause a predicted effect by an absense, but not disprove something with an absense. Only a contradiction.

[quote]Please. Stop.  You are comparing apples to kumquats.  We know there was a Grand Knight Templar somewhere.  What we didn't know was what he specifically was called and now we do.  That's a far cry from claiming there is accountability when we've seen absolutely no in-game evidence of it.  It's even more shocking when we DO see rather strong accountability for Templars in other areas (such as chasing tail).  That tells me that "Chasing Tail" is a far more serious crime for a Templar than anything he or she does to mages, or do you disagree with even that?[/quote]
My point was: our picture of Thedas is incomplete. As the development goes on so does every single bit of the world recieve something new. To say that the templars have no accountability is premature, because we might get it tomorrow. We have, however, not seen any accountability. Then again... we have only seen the mage side of things too.
That is why I protest when you make "we have not seen this, thus it does not exist" arguments. The world is incomplete. Things are added all the time. To the mage lore. To Dalish lore. To mundande lore. Stories and fairytales. Truth and lies.

[quote]In the long run I agree that mages should be able to live where they please, but you are glossing over entirely (and IMHO unfairly) the other side of it.  We both feel that mages should be strong and PROPER training from a young age....and the Chantry is definately to blame (at least in part) for Conner's failure to get proper training.  In fact the game evidence we have strongly suggests it's HARD for a demon to possess anyone (even a mage) except under extraordinary circumstances and education and support are key.[/quote]
I agree with the sentiment... I just can't follow the logic behind why specifically Connor is to blame. Unless you're making a "if the situation was better Isolde would perhaps be willing to send him away". That I accept without question.

[quote]That's not always true.  Wynne had apparently been showing signs long before she set a boy's hair on fire and she only did that under extreme physical duress (her life was being threatened).  You can't assume that all signs are equally obvious, and it's clear at least when you talk with Jowan and Isolde that for a while Conner was being shown how to control those outbursts.[/quote]
Yes. Taught to control them. To hide it. Presumably because it was, as I said, not very subtle when it do burst out.
As you say yourself, Wynne had been showing signs. Her family had also thrown her out (poor Wynne, no wonder she likes the circle).  I see a connection there, don't you?

[quote]Bolloxs.  If that were true then mage children should be turing abominations right and left and that simply doesn't happen....not even in the mage's tower.  Conner had absolutely no idea that demons could trick him in the fade until it was too late.  That's a lack of background and information that borders on criminal.  Couple that with his father being poisoned and on the brink of death, and having no where to turn BUT the lady in his dreams, and you are begging a demon to come in and possess the boy...and the Chantry bears a large part of the blame.

As for the Mage's Collective, Isolde was a high ranking noblewomen.  Had she not been so afraid of magic,she could have asked around and someone from the Mage's Collective (via intermediary of course) could have contacted her.  This is in large part why the Mage's Collective exists of course.[/quote]
I don't think demon attacks are that common actually. Common enough to be a danger to anyone, but not common enough to be constantly happening (even in the Circle). Connor was targeted because he was really afraid his father would die and did not want that (thus have a really strong desire to see that stopped and thereby attracting a demon). I'm not saying the circle would have been better for him... well... he wouldn't have been there and seen his father poisoned... that would have helped surely. But I just can't see the logical connection to blame the Chantry.
I suppose it is because I view learning to resist demons as actually quite difficult.

And if Isolde had not feared magic so much, she would not have gone after an apostate to teach Connor. Would she?
In my opinion, I think she's suffering from a major case of denial. She's not trying to teach Connor to be a mage. She wants Jowan teach him not to be a mage. To shut it off, as it were. Denying to herself that he is one. Just my opinion though.
[quote]No I'm really not.  You have to be willing to let the demon in, and that goes contrary to survival instinct.  Even doubt about the Lady's real intentions would have been sufficient.  If not, then lots of children would become abominations and we see absolutely no evidence of that even in the Tower.  Indeed the same codex entry regarding the hiearchy of the circle states that apprentices are not the primary threat Templars need to worry about.[/quote]
Indeed. And I don't think letting the demon in goes contrary to survival instinct... if you really fear them and know on a deep level it will kill you yes. But a desire demons seduction (which is what it is really... just not a sexual one) probably involves making you feel real safe with them.
Kind of like mouse. Mouse is actually doing a rather good job at attempting to be a lost apprentice. The other spirits mucks it up for him and he does betray his intentions a bit too easily (plus you know... leading someone into a game over is just plain not fun) but I think he's not doing that bad a job at it. Not good enough, obviously.

Tell me. Your characters when they meet mouse. Do they refuse him because something is just plain odd about him or because they instantly figure: Ah, demon.

[quote]See above.  If Isolde was desperate enough to hire an apostate, she could have been contact by intermediaries if necessary...and the only reason the Mage's Collective fears arrest is because of the hate spread by the Chantry.[/quote]
Yes... I just wanted to point out she was contacted by intermediates... they just happened to be Loghain's intermediates. Had she been at it longer and Loghain's men had missed it it's not unlikely she'd have been contacted by the Mages collective instead.
Wether that would have changed anything is another... well... the same really... matter.

[quote]Never worked for the Park Service did you?  Missing Persons (which the Renald case is) IS definately part of self-policing and police work.  If you read his joural, you find that Renald chased the abomination that was his apprentice into a very remote site where he fought and lost....but that gave you (the warden) enough time to finish the job.[/quote]
Through plain sheer luck. The abomination is a random encounter after all. One time I even managed to finish the game without ever meeting him (despite having had the quest forever).  Worst part is that you never actually report it either... so even after killing the thing they still don't know his apprentice turned into an abomination.
I admit it turned out good enough. But I wouldn't call it self-policing. An attempt to find someone missing, sure.
But they never sent you to find an abomination and bring it down. Just to see what had happened to a member.
[quote]
Yes it is.  If you don't arrive, the Baroness and the VIllages remain trapped in the fade where they've been for over a century.  The problem is quarantined.  That IS a sucess at least as the Templars define it.  The only reason the Baroness comes back is because you and First give her a conduit back.

So yes, it was a success.[/quote]
Fair enough. Allthough the area is also completely uninhabitable. But still... the main post of using Baroness as an example is to show how dangerous mages can be. And I think you agree there?
Maybe the templars couldn't have handled it better, sure. That's a possibility. But the event was still a disaster for everyone involved.
And that was -one- mage.

[quote]
Absense of Evidence is perfectly valid when I seek to show that a model:

1.  Doesn't do what it says it does.
2.  Isn't needed to do what it says it does.

In both cases I am (and always have been) arguing the negative, and like the lack of anti-matter against the Standard model, it's perfectly reasonable for me to make this argument.
Why do I get the priveledge of the negative argument?  Because the immorality and antagonisms of the Circle Tower system are obvious.  It's up to the Chantry Apologists (which I am including you Sir JK in their number) to show  that the benefits outweigh the costs, and you haven't come close to doing that.
-Polaris[/quote]
But in order to argue such models all other variables need to be equal and you need to detail the exact cause and effect. This works for instance if you set up an experiment to see if an effect happens if you add a certain compund. Or if not adding the compound causes the effect. In simple purely technical systems this works yes.

But this is not a simple purely technical system. Even in biolmedical systems, that does not apply. We're for instance constantly making new discoveries based on things we failed to measure before because our instruments were to inexact (essentially giving a incomplete picture). There there are thousands of interacting systems. Heck... there's even cases when we knocked out life essential genes... only to discover to our surprise that the body compensated.

And then we come to the sociological level. Here interactions are just as complex if not more. Every single person is a variable on it's own. Yes. If we can see that the way the circle train their mages is not more effective than other cultures then we can for sure say that the circles are an uneccesary cruelty. But we don't know how the other cultures train their mages, do we? We can't say for sure the harrowing is pointless, because we don't know if the other cultures harrow or not (we have never seen how dalish train their mages. Presumably they do but how they do it is a mystery. Maybe Merill can enlighten us in DA2).

Basically Polaris. If you want me to accept your proof. Then you need to show me the function of every single part of those societies. You need to show me that all other things are equal. That the only variable is chantry way of doing it vs. non-chantry way of doing it (and that needs examining both systems in detail and comparing every single aspect of them to another) If you do, I promise I will accept your proof.

To put it simply:
You need to show me that f(x) = f(y)

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...
Sir JK,

Why  then do you fault the mages for rising up then?  It seem rather hypocritical of you when it's the CHANTRY that has the power and authority to make the change gradually and make the points you are making, but the Chantry shows no inclination to do so.

Speaking for myself, I think the circle tower system should be abolished, but I do NOT condone doing so overnight....but that's not going to be an option if the Chantry persists.

-Polaris

I suppose I have come across like that and for that I apologise. I don't fault mages for rising up (well... Uldred. But only because and his ilk were perfectly fine with attacking other mages). It is as natural and understandable to me as templar opression is. To me they cause one another. Every time a mage strikes back the templars tightens the straps. Which causes more mages to strike back. Cue 900+ years spiral downwards.
I don't think rising up is the right way.

But mostly I am attacking statements like: It is worth it, better to fight on your feet than live on your knees and that the revolution will make all mages lives better. 

Life is complex, society even more. Some parts of mage-life is a lot better than the vast amount of people have it. The mages don't seem to see this. People like Uldred who speaks of the big oppressive Chantry, but sleeps with it's silk, sit by it's warm fires in winter, eats it's food, learns magic with it's lyrium (most expensive material in the world, remember) and is protected against angry mobs by it's soldiers (by merit of association if nothing else).
The man has never worked for what he has his entire life. He doesn't know what that means even. Cut all that away from him... and his life will be more limited than he has ever known.

By all means. If mages want their freedom and they and the chantry cannot find a way to achieve it together. Then  rising up is understandable. But I don't think they realise what it will mean. A complete split will mean that there are no more silks to sleep by. No more warm fires in winter. No guaranteed meals. No soldiers between them and mobs fearing the unknown. No lyrium.
Nothing they don't work for... or worse: take.

And to be honest... with the power they have. Taking will be easier than earning. Maybe the mages would positively surprise me there. But quite frankly... I expect mages on average to be as bad as mundanes if given the chance.

And perhaps it's part that I don't think the chantry is as bad as some of them making it out to be. Some mages live very long, abuse-free, and happy lives after all. That is opinion I admit. Maybe I'll change it.  But right now that's what I think.

[Reaverwind]

Sir JK wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Sir JK,
I share your qualms about revolutions, but when one side (the Chantry) refuses to change or even admit there is a problem, then what choice is left. Like the unnamed bloodmage responding to Wynne when Wynne claims that "ends don't always justify the means", she says:
"You don't really believe that Wynne. Change rarely comes peacefully. Sometimes change has to be forced no matter what the cost. Andrasted didn't write the Tevinter Imperium a strongly worded letter! She freed the slaves, reshaped civilization, gave us the Chantry, but people DIED for it."
She's totally correct. It's hypocritical to condemn mages for wanting change when the organization that can best affect gradual change wants no change at all, and is willing to spend a river of blood to prevent it.

-Polaris

I'm not really surprised many mages are rising up. It's perfectly, human, understandable and even reasonable I'd say. Nor do I really think they shouldn't, I mean it might work.
But if mages for one moment think a succesful revolution/uprising/whatever-you-want-to-call-it will lead to paradise on earth... well... they are up for a rude awakening

I predict torches and pitchforks will be very much in vogue.

[Sir JK]

Reaverwind wrote...
I predict torches and pitchforks will be very much in vogue.

Exactly. Or that they find themselves under a much greater opressor they cannot fight: poverty.

[BIO18]

This is getting way to intellectual ... here I go . BURN THEM MAGES !!!

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
I am going to strongly dissent and even take a bit of umbrage at that.  I am doing my level best NOT to twist things, but I sincerely think you are.[/quote]
Hence why I kept twist in paranthesis. I am not looking at things and thinking: "Hmm, how can I twist this to pro-chantry". I look, compare to other stuff and fit it in my view of things. Just like you do. We are both approaching it very logically I think, but our premises are different and thus our conclusions as well.
So I meant no offense with what I said.
[/quote]

The problem I am having with your posts, is you seem to be taking every Chantry shortcoming and either apologizing for it, or saying, "but you haven't shown anything is better" or even "well it's better but we haven't seen it yet", and that is why I called you an apologist.

[quote]

[quote]The only codex entry we have for how the circle tower system was formed specifically states it was for control.  There was plenty of opportunity (and remember this was written explicitly from the PoV of the Chantry...Sister Petrin in fact) to say that the mages had to be locked away for the protection of others or that protection of others was a major point of the negotiations.  She did not.  Given that the Chantry makes "protection from mages" the reason de terre of the circle system now, it's a shocking lack of information.  In this case, absense is evidence and I've shown even in physical science that absence of a phenomena is frequently very solid evidence AGAINST a posiion (and in this case the the position that the Circle system was meant to protect anyone).  If it were, then the Chantry's own history should say so and it doesn't.  As for the word of two knight commanders, so what?  If you are told something from a young age is true, you are bound to believe it even if it's not.  I see no reason why either KC has priveldged insight. [/quote]
We have two entries on circle creation though. The second is the timeline and it adds information that the History of the Circle makes no mention at all of (That Drakon I was very much involved). Then there's two knight commanders who says the purpose is protection. Then there's the templar blog entry that says templars exist to protect. All those together form my picture of things. If the circles/templars don't protect then why do we have 3 sources of that? If the circle is formed due to Ambrosia II being annoyed... how did Drakon I get involved and why does not the history of the circle mention this?
[/quote]

Why?  Simple.  You are again completely overlooking the fact that the circle as an organization and the circle as a system are two different things, and this is why I specifically said the circle-tower system.  The circle as an organization was apparently formed under Drakon I (who btw DID spread the Chantry Faith through Exalted Marches...the codex specifically states this).  The Templars were formed at the same time.  Yet we know from the latest blog entries that the primary job of the Templars under Drakon I were hunters (of maleficar...esp Tevinter ones, heretics, magical monsters, and bloodmages) and not as magical police.  That job came only after Ambrosia II and that codex entry specifically states that mages were seperated from socity for the first time in human history.  If protection really were the primary reason, then such a momentus occasion and recording of it, would have mentioned it at least in passing.  That they didn't means that Sister Petrin didn't think it was important enough to mention and thus surely wasn't the reason (or at least certainly not the primary reason) the circle-tower system was formed. 

If I have to choose between an explicitly state reason and one that we are supposed to take on "faith" was the real implied reason, I'll take the explicit reason thank you unless I see SPECIFIC evidence to the contrary.

[quote]
I have never argued that History of the circle is incorrect.  Only incomplete.
[/quote]

That doesn't give you the right to assume stuff in that entry that isn't there. 

[quote]
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. You can prove that something does not cause a predicted effect by an absense, but not disprove something with an absense. Only a contradiction.
[/quote]

Which IS valid evidence against the model.

[quote]

[quote]Please. Stop.  You are comparing apples to kumquats.  We know there was a Grand Knight Templar somewhere.  What we didn't know was what he specifically was called and now we do.  That's a far cry from claiming there is accountability when we've seen absolutely no in-game evidence of it.  It's even more shocking when we DO see rather strong accountability for Templars in other areas (such as chasing tail).  That tells me that "Chasing Tail" is a far more serious crime for a Templar than anything he or she does to mages, or do you disagree with even that?[/quote]My point was: our picture of Thedas is incomplete. As the development goes on so does every single bit of the world recieve something new. To say that the templars have no accountability is premature, because we might get it tomorrow. We have, however, not seen any accountability. Then again... we have only seen the mage side of things too.
[/quote]

We have seen only the mage side?  How many mages have written codex entries (only a few and only by first enchanters who were clearly chantry apologists).  Virtually all the information we have comes from the PoV of the Chantry.  As for "incomplete", we have enough to know that the justification of the circle tower system is almost certainly wrong AND we know how regressive and inhuman the circle tower system is.  Yet you continue to apologise for it.  Why? 

[quote]
That is why I protest when you make "we have not seen this, thus it does not exist" arguments. The world is incomplete. Things are added all the time. To the mage lore. To Dalish lore. To mundande lore. Stories and fairytales. Truth and lies.
[/quote]

Incomplete does not mean no information and it doesn't mean that you can put just anything into the missing pieces.  Indeed the latest blog entry is the clearest possible evidence short of giving the game away, that I am probably closer to the truth than you are about just what those missing pieces are.

[quote]

[quote]In the long run I agree that mages should be able to live where they please, but you are glossing over entirely (and IMHO unfairly) the other side of it.  We both feel that mages should be strong and PROPER training from a young age....and the Chantry is definately to blame (at least in part) for Conner's failure to get proper training.  In fact the game evidence we have strongly suggests it's HARD for a demon to possess anyone (even a mage) except under extraordinary circumstances and education and support are key.[/quote]
I agree with the sentiment... I just can't follow the logic behind why specifically Connor is to blame. Unless you're making a "if the situation was better Isolde would perhaps be willing to send him away". That I accept without question.
[/quote]

You don't get it, do you?  If it weren't for 900 years of Anti-Mage rhetoric by the Chantry, Isolde wouldn't have been afraid of revealing her son was a mage and open proactive action could have been taken. 

[quote]
Yes. Taught to control them. To hide it. Presumably because it was, as I said, not very subtle when it do burst out.
As you say yourself, Wynne had been showing signs. Her family had also thrown her out (poor Wynne, no wonder she likes the circle).  I see a connection there, don't you?
[/quote]

No.  Jowan's family was worse and he was no fan of the circle even before he was accused of being a bloodmage.  Wynne fought the Chantry and lost and now expects everyone else to roll over and accept it as well.

[quote]
[quote]Bolloxs.  If that were true then mage children should be turing abominations right and left and that simply doesn't happen....not even in the mage's tower.  Conner had absolutely no idea that demons could trick him in the fade until it was too late.  That's a lack of background and information that borders on criminal.  Couple that with his father being poisoned and on the brink of death, and having no where to turn BUT the lady in his dreams, and you are begging a demon to come in and possess the boy...and the Chantry bears a large part of the blame.

As for the Mage's Collective, Isolde was a high ranking noblewomen.  Had she not been so afraid of magic,she could have asked around and someone from the Mage's Collective (via intermediary of course) could have contacted her.  This is in large part why the Mage's Collective exists of course.[/quote]
I don't think demon attacks are that common actually. Common enough to be a danger to anyone, but not common enough to be constantly happening (even in the Circle). Connor was targeted because he was really afraid his father would die and did not want that (thus have a really strong desire to see that stopped and thereby attracting a demon). I'm not saying the circle would have been better for him... well... he wouldn't have been there and seen his father poisoned... that would have helped surely. But I just can't see the logical connection to blame the Chantry.
I suppose it is because I view learning to resist demons as actually quite difficult.
[/quote]

The evidence strongly indicates that you are wrong.  Unless the veil is torn, at some level a person instinctively resists possession.  Take a look how hard it is even when the veil is torn or weak.  Kitty couldn't posess Amelia straight away even though Kitty had her around her finger.  Kitty had to trick her and when Amelia said, "No I will never let you in", the game as they say was up (and why kitty attacked you in rage).  Consider also when you encounter Uldred Abomination.  There the Veil was definately torn and Abomination-Uldred was clearly no one's dummy.  He had blood magic and could force mages to accept possession.  Don't you think that if he could have waggled his fingers and had you and Wynne possessed that easily, he would have?  Even when the Veil is torn, it's just not that easy.  Abomination-Uldred had to torture and break the will of his subjects first and even then the ritual took a long, long time to complete (at least in combat terms).

We see this pattern over and over.  If the subject knows that what he is talking to is a demon and cares about his or her own existance, then possession is essentially impossible.

[quote]
And if Isolde had not feared magic so much, she would not have gone after an apostate to teach Connor. Would she?
In my opinion, I think she's suffering from a major case of denial. She's not trying to teach Connor to be a mage. She wants Jowan teach him not to be a mage. To shut it off, as it were. Denying to herself that he is one. Just my opinion though.[/quote]

Either way, she didn't hesitate to accept an apostate KNOWING he was an apostate into her household.  See the point?
[quote]

[quote]No I'm really not.  You have to be willing to let the demon in, and that goes contrary to survival instinct.  Even doubt about the Lady's real intentions would have been sufficient.  If not, then lots of children would become abominations and we see absolutely no evidence of that even in the Tower.  Indeed the same codex entry regarding the hiearchy of the circle states that apprentices are not the primary threat Templars need to worry about.[/quote]
Indeed. And I don't think letting the demon in goes contrary to survival instinct... if you really fear them and know on a deep level it will kill you yes. But a desire demons seduction (which is what it is really... just not a sexual one) probably involves making you feel real safe with them.
Kind of like mouse. Mouse is actually doing a rather good job at attempting to be a lost apprentice. The other spirits mucks it up for him and he does betray his intentions a bit too easily (plus you know... leading someone into a game over is just plain not fun) but I think he's not doing that bad a job at it. Not good enough, obviously.
[/quote]

You can know almost from the start if you are paying attention that Mouse is really a demon.  Even if you don't, Mouse comes back over and over again to HAVING to want to let him in.  He won't take anything else.  It's also worth noting that you can't fail the harrowing with mouse (try it!)

[quote]
Tell me. Your characters when they meet mouse. Do they refuse him because something is just plain odd about him or because they instantly figure: Ah, demon.
[/quote]

Even the first time I played, when Mouse set, "You just want to let me in", I had him pegged as a demon and probably a pride demon.

[quote]

[quote]See above.  If Isolde was desperate enough to hire an apostate, she could have been contact by intermediaries if necessary...and the only reason the Mage's Collective fears arrest is because of the hate spread by the Chantry.[/quote]
Yes... I just wanted to point out she was contacted by intermediates... they just happened to be Loghain's intermediates. Had she been at it longer and Loghain's men had missed it it's not unlikely she'd have been contacted by the Mages collective instead.
Wether that would have changed anything is another... well... the same really... matter.
[/quote]

I believe it would have made all the difference in the world based on the game evidence.  At least Conner would have had a person to talk to and could have explained that strange ladies in dreams are not to be trusted...and that would have been enough.

[quote]

[quote]Never worked for the Park Service did you?  Missing Persons (which the Renald case is) IS definately part of self-policing and police work.  If you read his joural, you find that Renald chased the abomination that was his apprentice into a very remote site where he fought and lost....but that gave you (the warden) enough time to finish the job.[/quote]
Through plain sheer luck. The abomination is a random encounter after all. One time I even managed to finish the game without ever meeting him (despite having had the quest forever).  Worst part is that you never actually report it either... so even after killing the thing they still don't know his apprentice turned into an abomination.
I admit it turned out good enough. But I wouldn't call it self-policing. An attempt to find someone missing, sure.
But they never sent you to find an abomination and bring it down. Just to see what had happened to a member.
[/quote]

Then you haven't worked in the Park Service.  When a person goes missing, there is always a possibility (and in Metro Missing Persons often a strong possibility) that there might be foul play.  In this case the Mage's Collective wanted info on a mssing mage because they were afraid something might have happened, and they were right.

This is classic self-policing.

[quote]
[quote]
Yes it is.  If you don't arrive, the Baroness and the VIllages remain trapped in the fade where they've been for over a century.  The problem is quarantined.  That IS a sucess at least as the Templars define it.  The only reason the Baroness comes back is because you and First give her a conduit back.

So yes, it was a success.[/quote]
Fair enough. Allthough the area is also completely uninhabitable. But still... the main post of using Baroness as an example is to show how dangerous mages can be. And I think you agree there?
Maybe the templars couldn't have handled it better, sure. That's a possibility. But the event was still a disaster for everyone involved.
And that was -one- mage.
[/quote]

This was an EVIL woman by any standards who abused not just her magical power, but her vested noble power as well, and happened to be perhaps one of the strongest mages of her generation....but yeah, other than that a typical case (sarcasm fully intended).

[quote]
[quote]
Absense of Evidence is perfectly valid when I seek to show that a model:

1.  Doesn't do what it says it does.
2.  Isn't needed to do what it says it does.

In both cases I am (and always have been) arguing the negative, and like the lack of anti-matter against the Standard model, it's perfectly reasonable for me to make this argument.
Why do I get the priveledge of the negative argument?  Because the immorality and antagonisms of the Circle Tower system are obvious.  It's up to the Chantry Apologists (which I am including you Sir JK in their number) to show  that the benefits outweigh the costs, and you haven't come close to doing that.
-Polaris[/quote]
But in order to argue such models all other variables need to be equal and you need to detail the exact cause and effect. This works for instance if you set up an experiment to see if an effect happens if you add a certain compund. Or if not adding the compound causes the effect. In simple purely technical systems this works yes.
[/quote]

No I don't.  All I need to show is that the predicted outcome of a model fails to show up.  I can do this in not one but a half dozen different societies replete with mages (per capita) that are otherwise very different from each other.  That is solid contrary evidence whether you choose to accept it or not.

[quote]
But this is not a simple purely technical system. Even in biolmedical systems, that does not apply. We're for instance constantly making new discoveries based on things we failed to measure before because our instruments were to inexact (essentially giving a incomplete picture). There there are thousands of interacting systems. Heck... there's even cases when we knocked out life essential genes... only to discover to our surprise that the body compensated.
[/quote]

However, when the burden of proof is on those that would sanction the imprisonment and mistreatment of mages, I'd say it's pretty solid leading indicators at the very least.

[quote]
And then we come to the sociological level. Here interactions are just as complex if not more. Every single person is a variable on it's own. Yes. If we can see that the way the circle train their mages is not more effective than other cultures then we can for sure say that the circles are an uneccesary cruelty. But we don't know how the other cultures train their mages, do we? We can't say for sure the harrowing is pointless, because we don't know if the other cultures harrow or not (we have never seen how dalish train their mages. Presumably they do but how they do it is a mystery. Maybe Merill can enlighten us in DA2).

Basically Polaris. If you want me to accept your proof. Then you need to show me the function of every single part of those societies. You need to show me that all other things are equal. That the only variable is chantry way of doing it vs. non-chantry way of doing it (and that needs examining both systems in detail and comparing every single aspect of them to another) If you do, I promise I will accept your proof.

To put it simply:
You need to show me that f(x) = f(y)
[/quote]

No.  You are putting an unreasonable burden on the pro-mage side.  All I really have to show is that the fundamental purpose of the circle tower system (as it is stated now) has no basis in fact.  I have done this.  (And btw large groups of people can be mathematically modeled and rather well just as an aside).  Computational Models for Society and Ethics can and have worked quite well (see Computational Game Theory).

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...
I predict torches and pitchforks will be very much in vogue.

Exactly. Or that they find themselves under a much greater opressor they cannot fight: poverty.

Who's fault is that?  The Chantry for refusing to consider even the smallest degree of reform even when Championed by the Hero of Fereldan and the King of Fereldan!  Please don't blamde the mages for a revoluation that the Chantry is forcing and IMHO that is exactly what you are doing.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

[I suppose I have come across like that and for that I apologise. I don't fault mages for rising up (well... Uldred. But only because and his ilk were perfectly fine with attacking other mages). It is as natural and understandable to me as templar opression is. To me they cause one another. Every time a mage strikes back the templars tightens the straps. Which causes more mages to strike back. Cue 900+ years spiral downwards.
I don't think rising up is the right way.

Fine.  In principle I actually agree that rising up will (in the short run) do more harm than good, but doing nothing is no longer an alternative.  Of the two groups, only the Chantry has the power to affect any kind of reasonable long-term reform, and they won't even admit there is a problem let alone a need for a solution?

What ELSE are the mages supposed to do?  Say, "Yes, Masser" to the chantry the rest of their lives?  Not. An. Option.

-Polaris

[Reaverwind]

Sir JK wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...
I predict torches and pitchforks will be very much in vogue.

Exactly. Or that they find themselves under a much greater opressor they cannot fight: poverty.

What do you mean they can't fight poverty? They're mages - they'll start intimidating the mundanes into giving them their "due" - leading to the inevitable backlash, that is, if they don't get eaten by demons first.

Modifié par Reaverwind, 01 février 2011 - 09:44 .

[IanPolaris]

Reaverwind wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...
I predict torches and pitchforks will be very much in vogue.

Exactly. Or that they find themselves under a much greater opressor they cannot fight: poverty.

What do you mean they can't fight poverty? They're mages - they'll start intimidating the mundanes into giving them their "due" - leading to the inevitable backlash, that is, if they don't get eaten by demons first.

I know you are being sardonic, but mages don't have to intimidate others in order to eat.  Mages, even apprentice mages, can do things that others simply can not, such as magical healing, and more.  In fact I wouldn't be suprised if the Lucrosians wind up siding with the Libertarians if only because it's criminal that actual mages aren't allowed to use their talents to make money in honest trade like other skilled artisans are.

As for being eaten by demons, we have no evidence that mages are prone to that outside the circle tower system to any reasonable degree (certainly the Dalish, Rivain, Chasind, and Haven socities just to name four indicate otherwise).

-Polaris