1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Reaverwind]

IanPolaris wrote...

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.  -Polaris

Not all mages are healers, and there's not much use for fireballs and lightning outside warfare. I really don't see mages trading one regimented lifestyle for another.

Modifié par Reaverwind, 01 février 2011 - 10:06 .

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...
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.

And I think the reason I come across as that is perhaps that I spend a lot of time protesting. The problem as I have said. We reach different conclusions, but we come from the same sources.
Let's take my latest discussion with Lobsel. Lobsel says Irving has no power, uses what Irving says as evidence. I see the same conversation, look up irvings codex entry and there it says that he is very good at appeasing both mages and templars alike.
That tells me he's diplomatic, a man that has the skill of saying things that are absolutely non-comittal yet acceptable by both sides. Looking back at the statement. "If it was up to me..." it is expressing a wish but not a method. He's being deliberatly vague. He's speaking to someone he knows is a friend of Jowans and as Lobsel himself admitted, if he had said that Jowan brought his fate on him then he would have lost Lobsels respect. But he's good at standing between the sides. So is he really saying he has no power?
So my next question is... what is he actually saying? Again just expressing a wish not a method. But he knows about it. Why would he know about it if he had no power to decide on it? Irving and Gregoir do seem to be friends sure, but when one looks at the Circle hierarchy codex entry it says the First Enchanter decides who takes the harrowing or not. What happens to those that are deemed unfit? Tranquilisation.
But templars can't do magic, they don't know what it takes. This means only a mage could truly tell who is fit and who isn't. Again of all mages, the First Enchanter has the highest authority. Back to tranquil in Ostagar, says the forehead is branded by magic. That means either magic object or a mage. The latter fist with First Enchanter being able to decide who takes the harrowing and who doesn't.
Back to Jowan, why does Irving know? Perhaps because he is in charge of tranquilisation. Lily says she saw Gregoirs signature, why would they need paperwork? That means it has to go through something? Sent away to higher authorities? If sent a way you seal the letter when it is finished. You sign as you finish that means that either it is missing a signature or it is going to someone within the tower and a seal is unecessary. The templars are military and Gregoir is the highest authority. He does thus not answer to any other templar, which means it's someone elses signature missing. So either he needs Irving's signature or it's going to Irving.
It is called the Rite of Tranquility. That means there is a process, a ceremony. It is done to those unfit or, as Jowan "proves", dangerous. Irving has not seen the evidence. Could it perhaps be presented at the rite? Thus making Irving the final arbiter? Fits with that he decides who take the harrowing and who doesn't. Fits with why he knows. Only does not fit with one thing. What he says. Who does he say it to? You, Jowan's friend. Back to Irving being diplomatic. Look at his sentence again. What is he actually saying? Basically the equalient of: I wish things was different but not what. Non-commital. Can mean anything. He's actually telling us nothing.

And that's how my mind goes!
Is it a complete guess? Yes. But it is a alternate and, if I may say so myself, logical one. Could I be dead wrong? Absolutely.

and unfortunantely I ran out of time. Will answer the rest tomorrow after my exam in statistics if there's any point in that still (meaning that the topic haven't moved on too much).

[LobselVith8]

Sir JK wrote...
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.

I'm going to assume that was directed at me, correct? I think that people willing to fight for their freedom don't assume that it'll be rainbows and sunshine, but they want to be free from the oppressive system they're living under. You keep mentioning how the mages have fine silks, as thought that replaces the complete lack of control that mages have over their lives. You honestly think lyrium and silks make up for being despised, hated, and feared because the same institution that's imprisoned you is spreading propaganda against you? That you can be given a lobotomy or killed because of an accusation? If people are willing to risk or even give their lives so the rest can be free, I find it commendable. Haiti (then Saint Dominique) got its freedom from France because the slaves rose up and beat back their oppressors.

Sir JK wrote...

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).

You seem to be saying that mere creature comforts are an equal tradeoff for the lack of rights and freedom that mages have. I'm certain that the mages who were killed or turned tranquil because of a false accusation that they have no power to protest would have preferred to live in poverty than die or lose their humanity.

Sir JK wrote...

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.

Never worked a day in his life? I guess risking his life with the other seven mages against the darkspawn (and only seven because that's all the Chantry permitted to leave the Tower to stop the Blight) was just a day at the beach?

Sir JK wrote...

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.

I think they fully realize what it means: freedom from an oppressive and abusive system that can murder them or give them a lobotomy without due process. Creature comforts aren't a tradeoff for the lack of freedom and liberty they have to endure under the Chantry. Being given the choice between obedience and death isn't ideal, no matter how fancy they dress up their prisons. I'm sure many would trade the fine silks and lyrium - and clearly risk their lives - for the mere chance of freedom.

[Riona45]

Reaverwind wrote...
Not all mages are healers, and there's not much use for fireballs and lightning outside warfare. I really don't see mages trading one regimented lifestyle for another.

Because you know, the only types of magic are healing, fireballs and lighting.

[Riona45]

Sir JK wrote...

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.

That depends on what mage you talk to.  Obviously some mages think life in the tower is better than if they had to interact with the rest of the world (or, they at least think isolation is better, even if they'd rather not live in a tower, such as the Isolationists).  Other mages do indeed think freedom is better and will run away to attain it (Anders, Anerein).  Assuming that no mage has ever carefully weighed the pros and cons as best they could doesn't gel with what I remember from the actual game.

PS:  I find that when people say "So-and-so never worked a day in his life!" they are usually just talking out of their ass, and are the ones who have no clue what they are talking about.

Modifié par Riona45, 01 février 2011 - 10:32 .

[LobselVith8]

Reaverwind wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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.  -Polaris

Not all mages are healers, and there's not much use for fireballs and lightning outside warfare. I really don't see mages trading one regimented lifestyle for another.

Mages can heal due to knowledge of the craft - the four schools of magic. Acting like they would need to be criminals in order to survive ignores how mages have established their nations time and time again - Arlathan, the Dales, and pro-mage societies like the Chasind, the Dalish, and Rivain clearly aren't being overrun with abominations or demons.

[Melness]

Mages can heal due to knowledge of the craft - the four schools of magic.

Not commenting on the discussion per-se, but just noting that wielders of healing are rare and valuable due to the finesse required to wield the school of Creation.

If I got it right, one claims that a mage who lives in a circle-system society would be forced to become a criminal for sustenance? Well, the circle sustains its mages and apostates aren't obligated to use their magic for war/use magic at all.

Modifié par Melness, 01 février 2011 - 10:38 .

[LobselVith8]

Melness wrote...

Mages can heal due to knowledge of the craft - the four schools of magic.

Not commenting on the discussion per-se, but just noting that wielders of healing are rare and valuable due to the finesse required to wield the school of Creation.

If I got it right, one claims that a mage who lives in a circle-system society would be forced to become a criminal for sustenance? Well, the circle sustains its mages and apostates aren't obligated to use their magic for war/use magic at all.

Another person claimed that mages would have to resort to criminal activity to survive if mages rose up and gained independence from the Chantry. Claiming that the alternative to freedom from oppression would be criminal activity ignores how mages lived with non-mages in the past civilizations of the nations of Arlathan and the Dales, as well as presently in the mage tolerant societies of Haven, the Dalish clans, Rivain, and even the Chasind.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 01 février 2011 - 11:08 .

[Reaverwind]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Another person claimed that mages would have to resort to criminal activity to survive if mages rose up and gained independence from the Chantry. Claiming that the alternative to freedom from oppression would be criminal activity ignores how mages lived with non-mages in the past civilizations of the nations of Arlathan and the Dales, as well as presently in the mage tolerant societies of Haven, the Dalish clans, Rivain, and even the Chasind.

Of course I ignore it. It's irrelevent. We're talking about present-day Chantry-dominated Thedas (where the Circles are), not ancient Arlathan, or the Dales, or even Rivain (I do find it odd you consider leashing mages "tolerance" or were you unaware that many Rivainni follow the Qun?) We're talking about a society where mages have centuries of suspicion and hostility to overcome, not to mention that Circle mages are unlikely to have many useful skills outside of their magic. So, how do they make a living? Who'd hire them?

[Melness]

We're talking about a society where mages have centuries of suspicion and hostility to overcome, not to mention that Circle mages are unlikely to have many useful skills outside of their magic. So, how do they make a living? Who'd hire them?

How does the Circle gains sustenance? The Chantry doesn't pay for their expenses at all.

How do Apostates in present Thedas gain sustenance? Sometimes they are mercenaries, sometimes (never seen before) they are criminals.

But do remember that Mages don't have permanently glowing eyes or lyrium spikes growing from their backs and, once training by either the Circle, themselves, or a relative, can perfectly hide their magic from pretty much anything but trained mage hunter or those capable of feeling magical energies, such as Shale and are also perfectly capable of working the same way everyone else does.

(I do find it odd you consider leashing mages "tolerance" or were you unaware that many Rivainni follow the Qun?

The years they spent under the thumb of the qunari left most of the country zealous followers of the Qun. But resistance to the Chant goes deeper than the Qunari War. The Rivaini refuse to be parted from their seers, wise women who are in fact hedge mages, communicating with spirits and actually allowing themselves to become possessed.

Most=/=All

Its is safe to assume that there are still many non-Qunari rivaini and that those maintain their seers.

And even if all of Rivain became one with the Qun, that doesn't erase the past.

not to mention that Circle mages are unlikely to have many useful skills outside of their magic

Mages are much more cultured than the average society, making them qualified to take on the charges reserved to nobles or really wealthy man should you, for some reason, completely rule out them taking jobs that don't require any qualification whatsoever (this is a medieval society after all) or using their magic as a tool for sustenance.

Should the Circle-system ever be dissolved, it won't take long before magic is used more broadly again with rightful suspicion of course. And one doesn't need to be a healer. War should be everywhere with bandits on roads and guarding an expensive caravan with magic would be nice. Not to forget that 'fireball' or other explosive magic CAN be used for non-lethal purposes, such as mining.

Modifié par Melness, 02 février 2011 - 01:55 .

[LobselVith8]

Reaverwind wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Another person claimed that mages would have to resort to criminal activity to survive if mages rose up and gained independence from the Chantry. Claiming that the alternative to freedom from oppression would be criminal activity ignores how mages lived with non-mages in the past civilizations of the nations of Arlathan and the Dales, as well as presently in the mage tolerant societies of Haven, the Dalish clans, Rivain, and even the Chasind.

Of course I ignore it. It's irrelevent. We're talking about present-day Chantry-dominated Thedas (where the Circles are), not ancient Arlathan, or the Dales, or even Rivain (I do find it odd you consider leashing mages "tolerance" or were you unaware that many Rivainni follow the Qun?) We're talking about a society where mages have centuries of suspicion and hostility to overcome, not to mention that Circle mages are unlikely to have many useful skills outside of their magic. So, how do they make a living? Who'd hire them?

The people of Rivain aren't the Qunari, they're human. Some in Kont-aar have converted to the Qun, that's true, but most believe in Natural Order as opposed to the Andrastian Chantry. The Dalish have a settlement on the borders of Rivain near the city of Llomerry and they have a respect for their mages. If you read the codex of Rivain written by Brother Genitivi, you'd see they don't share the Qunari's negative views of mages and it's one of the societies that is listed as having its mages free from Chantry and templar control.

The Rivain Codex, Written by Brother Genitivi: "Nowhere in my travels, not in the heart of the Imperium nor the streets of Orzammar, have I felt so much an outsider as in Rivain.The Chant of Light never truly reached the ears of these people. The years they spent under the thumb of the qunari left most of the country zealous followers of the Qun. But resistance to the Chant goes deeper than the Qunari War. The Rivaini refuse to be parted from their seers, wise women who are in fact hedge mages, communicating with spirits and actually allowing themselves to become possessed. The Chantry prohibition against such magical practices violates millennia of local tradition."

Basically, you keep mentioning what mages would do if they were emancipated, but you ignore how the Chantry has no intention of providing them any freedoms. Realistically, they'd likely have to fight for their freedom from the Chantry and its templars. The Divine and her templars will never grant them freedom - which is why they turned down the Magi boon.

[Eclipse_9990]

Reaverwind wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Another person claimed that mages would have to resort to criminal activity to survive if mages rose up and gained independence from the Chantry. Claiming that the alternative to freedom from oppression would be criminal activity ignores how mages lived with non-mages in the past civilizations of the nations of Arlathan and the Dales, as well as presently in the mage tolerant societies of Haven, the Dalish clans, Rivain, and even the Chasind.

Of course I ignore it. It's irrelevent. We're talking about present-day Chantry-dominated Thedas (where the Circles are), not ancient Arlathan, or the Dales, or even Rivain (I do find it odd you consider leashing mages "tolerance" or were you unaware that many Rivainni follow the Qun?) We're talking about a society where mages have centuries of suspicion and hostility to overcome, not to mention that Circle mages are unlikely to have many useful skills outside of their magic. So, how do they make a living? Who'd hire them?

You really believe Mages would have no opportunities? 

Plenty of people would Hire mages. Either as healers, advisers, soldiers, farmers(make it rain over your dried fields), bodyguards(I'd MUCH rather have someone who can throw a force field on me, heal me, and can shoot fire from his hands, than a warrior), researchers, scholars, scientists(Mages are pretty much one of the closest examples of scientists in Thedas), and much more.

How do you think the circles support themselves? Donations? Don't make me laugh.

Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 02 février 2011 - 02:53 .

[Huntress]

Reaverwind wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Another person claimed that mages would have to resort to criminal activity to survive if mages rose up and gained independence from the Chantry. Claiming that the alternative to freedom from oppression would be criminal activity ignores how mages lived with non-mages in the past civilizations of the nations of Arlathan and the Dales, as well as presently in the mage tolerant societies of Haven, the Dalish clans, Rivain, and even the Chasind.

Of course I ignore it. It's irrelevent. We're talking about present-day Chantry-dominated Thedas (where the Circles are), not ancient Arlathan, or the Dales, or even Rivain (I do find it odd you consider leashing mages "tolerance" or were you unaware that many Rivainni follow the Qun?) We're talking about a society where mages have centuries of suspicion and hostility to overcome, not to mention that Circle mages are unlikely to have many useful skills outside of their magic. So, how do they make a living? Who'd hire them?

Magic is useful.
How they can survive? Some mages might/probably will like to heal the people, they will probably live outside town, near a forest, they'll sell potion, scrolls, herbs, they'll get paid with, gold/silver or food.

Some others will probably work for some tyrns, help them with defending/guarding the castle or conquering other lands, they get paid, with room/food/gold.

Others will want to adventure and try to discover how to stop the (demon<-->mage) tides, they probably make a sect, organization, collective.

Other mages, will teach young mages what not to do, and how dangerous can be to be a mage in thedas, they get paid with gold, food. room, a place to teach, ect.

Other mages will go out and try to explore Thedas and help anyone along the way like my warden.

[moilami]

Sir JK wrote...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Sorry guys, has been fun and everything but it just happened that my char submitted to this rogue lady. The future: unknown but apparently not working actively to free mages for some time.)

Only one month before the release of the game!

Take care.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Are you saying I'm exaggerating? [/quote]

Yes. By quote a large margin.

And you're constantly repeating yourself..over and over. The same old points you brign up in practicly every replay, regardless oh how many people shut them down..the smae point you bring out, sometimes even in places where they do not belong.



Let's examine how Lotion treats people who disagree with his views on the Chantry:

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...



[quote]
Furthermore, Lotion doesn't know when to stop personally attacking people who disagree with his views on 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][/quote]

Proving my point here.
You don't really read what I write. You completely misinterpret the little thing you do read.

Do you expect me to compliment you on that?

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
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). 

No, it doesn't tells us "everything we need to know".
IT only tells YOU what you want to hear.


Which is pretty much your entire modus operandi. You see hard evidence, where there is none.

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.

The Harrowing is a test devised BY MAGES. As it is, it fulfills it's putrpose wonderfully.
Your analysis of it is completely flawed.
There is no better way to test mages, as actualyl telling them everything would ruin the whole purpose of the test.

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.

Your promises are meaningless.

I'm not going to even bother with your other stuff, as it's jsut a re-hash of the smae old...

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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]

I want evidence...Waht we're told by 3rd, biased parties is not evidence.


[quote]
[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? [/quote]

Again, why would he? You start from the assumption that blood mages opely admit they are blood mages to everyone.
Jowan was in lvoe with Lily and he never told here. Why do you think Aenirin would have told Wynne? WHY shoudl he admitt anything?

Again, no proof whatsoever...none.




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

Opinion on what? On a possible Cullen romance? No, that wouldn't be lore, as a Cullen Romance is not part of the game or finalized.
Opinion on mages and slavery? Those parts ARE in the game, they ARE part of the lore, so the oppinion of the LEAD WRITER does count.
The man who wrote the story gives you his take on a situation in the story...in other words, what he tried to convery..what atmospehre he tried to create. How can that be anything BUT relevant?



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

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]

That you know of.
You just assume no proof of it exists at all. You ASSUME far too much and far too strongly.

Yes, both assumptions ARE reasonable, but they arne't the onlx assumptions one can make. Otehr intepretations are ALSO reasonable, which makes you harping that issue like it's the Absolute Truith doubly irritating.




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

Oh, I do provide plenty of explanations.

But your Reductio Ad Absurdum is so strong he doesn't want ot hear it.
You turn my "abominations are dangeround and kill a lot of people" into "a single abomination can destroy an eniter nation".
If you want to argue, argue the point I made, not your fantasy.


[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?[/quote]

No, I mean your total lack of reason and critical thinking.

I gave you a perfectly valid examples of how abominations can be a big problem and still not be viewed negatively by tne populace.
Can you prove to me the Dalish don't work that way?
Or that they don't do horrible things to keep the abominations in check?

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 02 février 2011 - 09:05 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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




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

Thank you. Except this argument fails when Morrigan *is* a blood mage. Even if you don't give her the spec, she fully admits the Dark Ritual could be considered blood magic. Considering her connection to Flemeth, I don't think the templars' suspicions (and we do not KNOW how much info they truly have) are baseless.

(Not that I'm saying it's *ok* to slaughter mages just for being blood mages, rather that I want to see ingame evidence they have killed mages on mere hunches of them being naughty.)

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
[...]There seem to be plenty of mages who consider the tower a haven rather than a prison/slave camp.

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

And I am not disputing that. I also assume Fiona was in the Orlesian Circle? I mentioned in another post that I am basing my "Mage Circle = not as bad as all that" on Ferelden's tower. If Ferelden's tower was full of abusive templars THEN I'd definitely be calling for the mages to be set free. As it is, in Ferelden at least, tower living may be restrictive, but does not *seem* to be cruel to its inhabitants so long as they behave and can control their powers.

In that sense, I disagree with the idea that Ferelden tower mages are little more than mistreated slaves.

LobselVith8 wrote...

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

I won't argue because of the language you were using to make your point. It felt too strong and 'I will not change my mind, no matter what' which makes it kinda pointless to hold a dialogue.

I never said it was not a prison. Anywhere. I said that by prison standards, the conditions within the Ferelden Circle of Magi (ignoring Broken Circle) do not look as horrible as, say, a third-world prison or DA:O dungeon would portray.

Being in a restrictive environment doesn't mean there aren't freedoms and good things *within* that environment.

If you have a codex entry or some evidence that proves that mages are living the good life, then feel free to provide it, because all I see is the History of the Circle codex stating that mages were segregated because of a nonviolent protest held at a cathedral in Orlais, which means that when societies like Rivain and the Dalish don't segregate their mages, I don't see why the Andrastian societies couldn't do the same.

According to that codex, didn't the mages *want* to be separated from society? They wanted a place to work magic where the common people wouldn't get scared or interfere.

I have no codex entries of them living the good life, but like I said, testimonies from Wynne and other mages that they like living in the tower is its own evidence. I can't see Wynne saying she loves it there if the place was full of abusive templars etc. Plus the mage Origin makes it look more like a giant magic school than anything else.

The 'good life'? Not in the classic sense. But certainly not a *bad* life. Does that work? Free people can fare much worse, after all.

I also see the habit of codex entries showing how abominations keep happening as a direct result of the templars and the Chantry, where mages are struggling to survive - which I find problematic since templars can kill mages merely suspected (i.e. no actual evidence) of being a maleficar. That's why I take the position that I do, Shadow.

It's likely most records of abominations are by templars is because they're the ones trained to deal with them, or the only ones who survive such conflicts, though I will not dispute that there are records of mages resorting to becoming abominations because they're being chased (whether or not this means they WERE a blood mage or just got desperate is unclear).

The alternative to templar interference is abominations like the Baroness, who had no templars after her and just obliterated an entire town, only to return as a pride demon. No records about her unless the PC writes one. And Avernus, who effectively gets Sophia possessed by a demon? No templar interference there, he summoned the demons deliberately. Connor was young and untrained. So there is evidence that templars and the Chantry are not the sole cause of abominations/demon possession. They can't be blamed for it all.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]
I guess no trained mage ever faield the Harrowing then...NO WAIT! They did. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

LOl...you realyl think you've argued anything there? Again, you lack reading comprehension..

Mages in the Circle are treind for years and still fail the Harrowing occasionaly.
There is no insurance there.

You say it yourself there..he COULD have made a different choice..COULD. But would he?

Not to mention you completley fail to comprehend the purpose of the Harrowing.



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

[quote]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.[/quote]

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

OH  SNAP! [/quote]

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?[/qutoe]

Where's the details?
Youre thorwing around news paper headlines, wihotu actual content..we all know how headlines can be misleading.
You enver answered any of my questions...so I wil lask again. I demand a straight answer..Yes or no.

Did he resist?
Did he try to run?
Did he hawe a weapon on him?

If you cannot answer those and back it up, then you don' really have and proof on the circumstance, now have you?

Thank you for helping me prove my point.



[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Again, you support my claim that anyone who doesn't like what the Chantry does to the mages thinks they're evil.[/quote]

Eh? That doesn't even make sense..
Not to mention that that is a blatantly false statement, because I don't think mages are evil. I rather like mages.



[quote]
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.[/quote]

You always point it out in an accusatory tone, as hard facts.
Like everything else that attacsk the templars or the Chantry. You dont' even TRY to sound objective at all.



[quote]
[quote]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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

The only tantrums here are yours Lob.
I don't condemn the mages, I condemn people like you, who lack any form of critical or objective thinking.

I pointed out that there is no hard evidence available...but there are indicators that lead me to belive that it is indeed necessary.
On the other hand you have provided no ovdence whatsoever there it isn't necessary.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

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.

I could copy your post word for word, and it would summarize my stance (on you) perfectly.

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.

It was "quarantened"..but the loos of an entire vilalge is hardly worth calling a sucess.

[Lotion Soronarr]

We're talking about a society where mages have centuries of suspicion and hostility to overcome, not to mention that Circle mages are unlikely to have many useful skills outside of their magic. So, how do they make a living? Who'd hire them?

We know that mages get to travel outside of the Circle on various occasions.
We know nobles sometimes empoly Circle mages.
Combine that with the production of magical items and the Circles don't seem to lack funding.
And IIRC, the internal policy and day-to-day working are determined by heh First Enchanter and Knight Commander.
Given a whole group of mages who are very much capitalists, it certanly looks like mages have funds and are free to use those funds to get whatever they need.

[LobselVith8]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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




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

Thank you. Except this argument fails when Morrigan *is* a blood mage. Even if you don't give her the spec, she fully admits the Dark Ritual could be considered blood magic. Considering her connection to Flemeth, I don't think the templars' suspicions (and we do not KNOW how much info they truly have) are baseless.

(Not that I'm saying it's *ok* to slaughter mages just for being blood mages, rather that I want to see ingame evidence they have killed mages on mere hunches of them being naughty.)

How does knowing an ancient ritual of carnal contact make her a blood mage? Is your comment honestly supposed to make the least bit of sense? She said it could be considered blood magic, not that it was.

Look at the comment about D'Sims in Awakening, he was killed because the templars thought he was a mage, and he wasn't. No different than Morrigan in Witch Hunt.

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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

And I am not disputing that. I also assume Fiona was in the Orlesian Circle? I mentioned in another post that I am basing my "Mage Circle = not as bad as all that" on Ferelden's tower. If Ferelden's tower was full of abusive templars THEN I'd definitely be calling for the mages to be set free. As it is, in Ferelden at least, tower living may be restrictive, but does not *seem* to be cruel to its inhabitants so long as they behave and can control their powers.

In that sense, I disagree with the idea that Ferelden tower mages are little more than mistreated slaves.

"Not all that bad"? Yeah, let's ask Aenirin how he felt getting a sword of mercy shoved into him at fourteen because the templars accused him of being maleficar, and there's absolutely no evidence to indicate he was. Even Chantry apologist Wynne doesn't believe it, and Aenirin became a healer when he united with the Dalish. Considering that Irving didn't even see the evidence against Jowan and he couldn't dispute the charges (which is a problem because even though he was a blood mage, if he wasn't then there was nothing he could do to stop the process - no different than Aenirin), I don't see how you can serious claim that Ferelden's Circle is any different.

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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

I won't argue because of the language you were using to make your point. It felt too strong and 'I will not change my mind, no matter what' which makes it kinda pointless to hold a dialogue.

I never said it was not a prison. Anywhere. I said that by prison standards, the conditions within the Ferelden Circle of Magi (ignoring Broken Circle) do not look as horrible as, say, a third-world prison or DA:O dungeon would portray.

Being in a restrictive environment doesn't mean there aren't freedoms and good things *within* that environment.

Being in a prison tends to mean that the prisoners don't have freedom or rights - that's why they're living in a prison. I don't see why the pro-Chantry side of this debate keeps making it seem like the Circles are some sort of five star hotel when it's the place where a mage can be given a lobotomy or killed without due process.

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If you have a codex entry or some evidence that proves that mages are living the good life, then feel free to provide it, because all I see is the History of the Circle codex stating that mages were segregated because of a nonviolent protest held at a cathedral in Orlais, which means that when societies like Rivain and the Dalish don't segregate their mages, I don't see why the Andrastian societies couldn't do the same.

According to that codex, didn't the mages *want* to be separated from society? They wanted a place to work magic where the common people wouldn't get scared or interfere.

I have no codex entries of them living the good life, but like I said, testimonies from Wynne and other mages that they like living in the tower is its own evidence. I can't see Wynne saying she loves it there if the place was full of abusive templars etc. Plus the mage Origin makes it look more like a giant magic school than anything else.

The 'good life'? Not in the classic sense. But certainly not a *bad* life. Does that work? Free people can fare much worse, after all.

The evidence of the mages who were willing to give their lives to be free from the Chantry in A Broken Circle is evidence as well. Keli is clearly so far gone that she wants to be killed because she thinks she's cursed, and you use her as an example of mages liking the Circle? Also, the Magi Origin calls it what it actually is - a prison, where a demon is placed inside a mage and they hope he or she is smart enough to figure out what to do; as Ian once said, it can be considered a form of torture.

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I also see the habit of codex entries showing how abominations keep happening as a direct result of the templars and the Chantry, where mages are struggling to survive - which I find problematic since templars can kill mages merely suspected (i.e. no actual evidence) of being a maleficar. That's why I take the position that I do, Shadow.

It's likely most records of abominations are by templars is because they're the ones trained to deal with them, or the only ones who survive such conflicts, though I will not dispute that there are records of mages resorting to becoming abominations because they're being chased (whether or not this means they WERE a blood mage or just got desperate is unclear).

The alternative to templar interference is abominations like the Baroness, who had no templars after her and just obliterated an entire town, only to return as a pride demon. No records about her unless the PC writes one. And Avernus, who effectively gets Sophia possessed by a demon? No templar interference there, he summoned the demons deliberately. Connor was young and untrained. So there is evidence that templars and the Chantry are not the sole cause of abominations/demon possession. They can't be blamed for it all.

Incorrect. The alternative to Chantry oppression and templar domination is the Rivain, the Dales, and the Chasind.

Let's thank the Chantry for the lack of mages in the Blackmarsh to handle the Baronness and save the lives of the villagers or for the anti-mage propaganda that lead to the bloodshed at Redclife.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Yes. By quote a large margin.

And you're constantly repeating yourself..over and over. The same old points you brign up in practicly every replay, regardless oh how many people shut them down..the smae point you bring out, sometimes even in places where they do not belong. [/quote]

Calling people stupid and personally attacking them is what you did. You're welcome to argue your points, Lotion, but maybe you can refrain from the verbal attacks.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
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]

I want evidence...Waht we're told by 3rd, biased parties is not evidence. [/quote]

You want evidence that Aenirin isn't a blood mage, despite the fact that nothing in the story indicates he's one? How are you planning to argue that he's one, Lotion? His healing ability? His desire to commune with nature, perhaps?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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? [/quote]

Again, why would he? You start from the assumption that blood mages opely admit they are blood mages to everyone.
Jowan was in lvoe with Lily and he never told here. Why do you think Aenirin would have told Wynne? WHY shoudl he admitt anything?

Again, no proof whatsoever...none. [/quote]

We see nothing from Aenirin to show he's a blood mage. You want to argue that he is? Prove it. We see nothing from Morrigan, either, and yet the templars still put a bounty on her head to murder her due to their suspicions. Even D'Sims was killed by templars on suspicion that he was a mage, and that suspicion turned out to be false. Also, I find it interesting that the same person who claims that the Chantry controlled Circles is best option is now demanding proof when he's failed to provide any to support any of his claims.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

Opinion on what? On a possible Cullen romance? No, that wouldn't be lore, as a Cullen Romance is not part of the game or finalized.
Opinion on mages and slavery? Those parts ARE in the game, they ARE part of the lore, so the oppinion of the LEAD WRITER does count.
The man who wrote the story gives you his take on a situation in the story...in other words, what he tried to convery..what atmospehre he tried to create. How can that be anything BUT relevant? [/quote]

He said he didn't think, he didn't say it wasn't. It's an argument that can be made, Lotion. It's not like when he said the Chantry said no or that Duncan is dead. If another writer sees it as slavery, then it's a moot point, because it's still a matter of opinion. Different writers and artists handling DA, which is why we have a radically different Architect with two hands instead of one. You cannot argue opinion as fact here.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

That you know of.
You just assume no proof of it exists at all. You ASSUME far too much and far too strongly.

Yes, both assumptions ARE reasonable, but they arne't the onlx assumptions one can make. Otehr intepretations are ALSO reasonable, which makes you harping that issue like it's the Absolute Truith doubly irritating. [/quote]

There's no excuse for murdering people simply because the templars assume they're mages (or a blood mage, in the case of why they placed a bounty on Morrigan because of their suspicions). None at all. It wasn't excusable for D'Sims, and it's certainly not an excuse for the bounty they placed on Morrigan.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

Oh, I do provide plenty of explanations.

But your Reductio Ad Absurdum is so strong he doesn't want ot hear it.
You turn my "abominations are dangeround and kill a lot of people" into "a single abomination can destroy an eniter nation".
If you want to argue, argue the point I made, not your fantasy. [/quote]

Nobody is arguing against regulation or law and order here. You're making it seem like society would fall into chaos without the templars and the Chantry, and even IanPolaris has argued for law and order consisting of mages and non-mages policing society. People are arguing against the inhumane system where innocent people are being thrown into prisons, and there doesn't seem to be any justification for it in the codex entries or the storyline. Saying "mages are dangerous" ignores how Chantry-free and templar-free socities like the Dales and Arlathan thrived, and how present day societies like Haven, the Chasind, the Dalish clans, and Rivain prosper with mages living alongside non-mages.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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?[/quote]

No, I mean your total lack of reason and critical thinking.

I gave you a perfectly valid examples of how abominations can be a big problem and still not be viewed negatively by tne populace.
Can you prove to me the Dalish don't work that way?
Or that they don't do horrible things to keep the abominations in check? [/quote]

The people of Thedas certainly argued it:

"Some are saying, however, that this needs to change. They remind the world that mages are not controlled by templars everywhere in Thedas: not among the Rivaini witches, the Dalish keepers or the Tevinter magisters… and those societies are, arguably, no worse off."

[Sir JK]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
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.[/quote]
Well.. that could explain one or two things. Would you mind spelling out the differences in your mind?

[quote]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).[/quote]
And yet the exalted march against the dales is explained as the first exalted march since Andraste's. Which happened about 45 years after his death.

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.[/quote]
Uhm... Drakon I formed the order of the templars. Prior to that they were the inquisition. But then, if he created the circles then he and Ambrosia II would be contemporary. Which is not that unlikely (if divines are like popes, they tend to be rather old when elected after all). But yes, that would be the first time mages were separated. I agree with that.

[quote]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.  [/quote]
Just thiking out loud, maybe protection is not mentioned because it is thought to be obvious. It is the templars that run the thing after all. Their purpose would by merit of association be attributed to the circles then, if not more.
But that is a bit of strawgrasping.

But overall I think it looks like an introductory text, rather than an explanatory. Something must follow that and it's either a description of the early circle or a discussion on reason and purposes. It is so very short and abrupt. It does not even dwell on why Ambrosia II would get angry or how she was talked down. It mentions nothing on the negotitations or the contributions of other parties (Drakon, templars, non-mages non-chantry). Reasons must be motivated, otherwise we learn nothing from it. The point of history is to learn why something happened. Why did they reach this "compromise" (in citation marks due to it being uncertain if it was a compromise at all). Why exactly did they protest? Why was Ambrosia II so furious? Why weren't the templars? Why did the templars advice against it?
Nothing of that is explained.
You're right, I am assuming there is more to it. The text itself gives little indication that there were more to it. But it seems too simple. And if it was just Ambrosia II's whim... why does it still exist? Why keep something so insanely expensive as a circle alive for no reason than an annoyed Divine? I just don't think it adds up... mostly because I think humanity as a whole tend to be more practical that arbitrary.

[quote]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]
But the text does not explicitely state that it is the reason. If anything it is a implied reason. It says the circles were created following her being angry. Not because of it or due to it. Control is never even mentioned.

In order to be explicit. It needs to be in clear writing. It needs to be written in exact wording that it was a reason. Otherwise it is at most implied. The History of the Codex entry never even mentions the word reason, nor cause, nor any of it's synonyms. It does not explicitely say that Ambrosia II's fury was the reason and mentions nothing on control. So those are implied reasons, not explicit ones.

[quote]That doesn't give you the right to assume stuff in that entry that isn't there.[/quote]
No. But neither does it give anyone the right to deny there are more reasons.  

[quote]Which IS valid evidence against the model.[/quote]
We have no model. We cannot set up an experimental study here. We do not add or take anything away from a system. We are observing and as such only what is directly observed is valid.
If the Chantry fell and nothing changed at all. Then you would be correct. Then an absense of a change would be proof. But the Chantry has not fallen. Nothing have been added to or taken from an experiment. An absense cannot prove anything except one thing: that it was not observed.

[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]
What I am doing first and foremost is question your evidence. You have not proven it. You have made an assumption and ask me to prove the opposite. But neither of us have proof.
For instance you say that the Harrowing does not work and is a needless cruelty. But we have seen no Dalish training, have not have ability to to talk to the Dalish about their training or read about it in the codices. Yet you claim the Harrowing is needless. I ask you to prove that. You answer that you don't need to.

To make an analogy (I like analogies):
You say the bolt is falling to the ground, this is due to gravity.
I say how do you know that? There might be a magnet on the ground.
You ask me to prove there is a magnet on the ground
I answer that the ground is not defined. We don't even know it's the ground. The bolt could be moving upwards.
You claim I must prove that.
I still claim that your proof in invalid since the ground is not defined
You say it is my duty to prove the ground is anything but ordinary ground
I reply that what you have is an assumption, not a proof
Cue a few more pages of massive posts.

[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]
Exactly! But incomplete also means there might be more information we have yet to see. So you cannot claim that is the only reason or the only cause of. As I cannot just assume there is more information you cannot assume there isn't. Both statements are unproven and thus not true (nor false).

[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]
That argument I can agree with. Absolutely.

[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]
I was speaking solely about Wynne. First her family and then the family that took her in pushed her away. Is there any wonder she likes the Chantry. That does not mean others have to like it. It does not have to be a general pattern, just for her as an individual. Of course... there's probably more to it.

[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 that is the only thing you have on your mind I agree. Connor did have something else on his mind though, and the demon knew what button to press.

[quote]Either way, she didn't hesitate to accept an apostate KNOWING he was an apostate into her household.  See the point?[/quote]
That if the circles were friendlier and the attitude better this would not have happened? Perhaps. I think Cnnor's presence at Redcliffe would be key.
[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]
Yes, I know. Bioware has a tradition of not letting us walk into a unavoidable game over (which I think is a good idea). But yes, you can know Mouse is a demon from the get go. But it all depends on the things he says... until he reveals his game at the end of course. Then it's fairly obvious.

[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]
Down to type? I'm impressed.

[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]
Uh... Polaris. That would require Connor to refuse her the first time. Before he can tell anyone about the strange lady in his dreams. That means you assume that she was courting him for a while and well... he didn't tell Jowan did he? Perhaps a good tutor would tell Jowan to talk about his dreams. That would probably be a very good idea even. But that still hinges on Connor knowing to refuse the lady the first time she contacts him.

If she's good at manipulation that would be the only contact she makes with him. That he, then and there, would have to decide wether to let his father die or not. With noone to assist in that decision.

I'm sure you too have encountered "easier said than done" decisions in your life? That before and after they made they are easy, but not when you stand there?
[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]
Fair enough then. It is self policing.

[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]
I said nothing of typical. Just that it demonstrates just how bad it can get with a person of poor moral fiber.

[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 you have not shown how they are different. In fact... you're even comparing Dalish worth of 5 mages to a andrastian circle worth of... a hundred? Hundred and fifty? Twohundred? And no mages in basic and mid training compared to loads of mages in basic or mid-training. No mage ceremonies to some.

You have compared an unknown to a known and made a conclusion. I don't accept it until you prove that the unknown and the known are equal in all but what you say it differs in.

[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]
The burden of proof lie with someone making a value statement. Positive, equal or negative. If you say that the Chantry is not more effective then that must be proven. If I say the Chantry is better then that must be proven.
A negative statement must be proven as much as a positive one do.

I am asking you to demonstrate your proof and show me that all parts are equal. Show me that my hypothesis cannot be true. I am questioning your proof by making an alternate (and often opposite) hypothesis from the same evidence.
Both of us need to prove these value statements.

Essentially. I cannot prove anything unless you tell me what to prove it against. Explicitely, clearly and unambigously. But neither of us can't. Since that data is not available.
[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[/quote]
Yes. Large groups can be mathematically modelled. You still have to show they are equal in all except in what is measured. Otherwise no proof can be made on either ground.

If you make a "I don't care about about how effective the chantry is." Then I have no problem.

If you say a "The chantry is not better (read more effective)" Then that needs to be proven just as much as if I claimed the chantry is better.

Modifié par Sir JK, 02 février 2011 - 11:51 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

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).  [/quote]

No, it doesn't tells us "everything we need to know".
IT only tells YOU what you want to hear.

Which is pretty much your entire modus operandi. You see hard evidence, where there is none. [/quote]

Why is it wrong to use examples from the actual story as proof that there's regulation when it comes to "chasing tail," but not when it comes to killing mages? The templars didn't need any proof that Morrigan was a blood mage before putting a bounty on her - only their suspicions that she was one.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

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.[/quote]

The Harrowing is a test devised BY MAGES. As it is, it fulfills it's putrpose wonderfully.
Your analysis of it is completely flawed.
There is no better way to test mages, as actualyl telling them everything would ruin the whole purpose of the test. [/quote]

Mages who are enslaved to the Chantry and watched over by the military arm of the Chantry - the templars. If Rivain, the Dalish, and the Chasind don't require their mages to submit to this ridiculous test, then maybe they have an alternative means of preparing mages - like actually warning them against the dangers of demons who will try to invade their body.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

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.[/quote]

Your promises are meaningless.

I'm not going to even bother with your other stuff, as it's jsut a re-hash of the smae old... [/quote]

I thought it was because you continually failed to debate Ian on any point as he provided codex entries, used Gaider's quotes, and even examples from the storyline where you simply disagreed and said nobody can disagree with you because it's all "morally grey."

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

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. [/quote]

LOl...you realyl think you've argued anything there? Again, you lack reading comprehension..

Mages in the Circle are treind for years and still fail the Harrowing occasionaly.
There is no insurance there.

You say it yourself there..he COULD have made a different choice..COULD. But would he?

Not to mention you completley fail to comprehend the purpose of the Harrowing. [/quote]

Training people to be wary of demons would be a more effective means of saying no than simply tossing an ignorant apprentice into the Fade and hoping for the best, but you're welcome to your opinion.

Connor certainly can't make a different choice in ignorance. Knowledge could have armed him in a way that his ignorance certainly couldn't. There's a difference between assuming that someone in his dreams is simply a lady, and knowing that the "lady" is actually a demon.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]

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

OH  SNAP! [/quote]

You mean, besides the entry that mentions that he was killed by templars because they thought he was a mage? Or how the templars put a bounty on Morrigan's head because they think she's a blood mage? Apparently, all it takes to murder someone is to assume they're an illegal mage - no evidence necessary.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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?[/quote]

Where's the details?
Youre thorwing around news paper headlines, wihotu actual content..we all know how headlines can be misleading.
You enver answered any of my questions...so I wil lask again. I demand a straight answer..Yes or no.

Did he resist?
Did he try to run?
Did he hawe a weapon on him?

If you cannot answer those and back it up, then you don' really have and proof on the circumstance, now have you?

Thank you for helping me prove my point. [/quote]

Apparently, all it takes is suspicion to put a bounty on Morrigan's life, because the templars think she's a blood mage. Evidently, they don't need to justify the murder of another person as long as they assume that person is an illegal mage.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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

Eh? That doesn't even make sense..
Not to mention that that is a blatantly false statement, because I don't think mages are evil. I rather like mages. [/quote]

Actually, that comment was about how you were once again misconstruing the facts and saying that someone who disagrees with the Chantry policy against mages is calling the Chantry evil.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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.[/quote]

You always point it out in an accusatory tone, as hard facts.
Like everything else that attacsk the templars or the Chantry. You dont' even TRY to sound objective at all. [/quote]

I point it out as the Dalish POV, nothing more. I do it to counteract those who try to use the Orlesian version of events as canon.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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.[/quote]

The only tantrums here are yours Lob.
I don't condemn the mages, I condemn people like you, who lack any form of critical or objective thinking.

I pointed out that there is no hard evidence available...but there are indicators that lead me to belive that it is indeed necessary.
On the other hand you have provided no ovdence whatsoever there it isn't necessary. [/quote]

Calling people stupid and saying nobody can disagree with you because it's all "morally grey" is throwing a tantrum, Lotion. Considering that the History of the Circle codex entry states that mages were segregated as a result of a nonviolent protest, and not because of anything to do with blood mages or abominations, I'm still waiting for the evidence to support that the Chantry imprisonment of mages is necessary.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 02 février 2011 - 11:55 .