1869 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

You mean Ian's ability to provide codex entries, story examples, and even use David Gaider's quotes to support his arguments, while your defense of the Chantry is that it's all "morally grey?" Or is this where you ignore how templars put a bounty on Morrigan because of their suspicions and the History of the Circle codex states that mages were segregated because of a nonviolent protest they held in a cathedral?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

Considering that the templars murder every man, woman, and child in a Circle during the Rite, it's hardly any different. Which wouldn't have happened if there were mages avaliable who could have stopped the Baroness in time, instead of being imprisoned by the Chantry.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[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]


Not stupid.
More like a troll or spammer.

Have you wever bothered to compare your posts at all?


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

Yes. I want evidence that prooves, beyond doubt that he either is or isn't a blood mage.
And the person saying "I'm not a blood mage" doesn't count, given we see plenty of liars in Ferelden.

Note that I think he wasn't one, and the templars that wen't after him were stupid dicks - but I can't actually PROVE that, so it remains nothing but my oppinion.



[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]

I'm not arguing he is a blood mage. I'm arguing that we DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

And we see Morrigan using what everyone would label as blood magic (dark ritual).

The D'Sims suspicion turned out to be false, but you have yet to prove that he was killed because of that, and not because he resisted or something else.

Also, I never claimed the Chantry circle is the best option.
I claimed it's the safest and best from those we know more about. We know nothing about Rivian and Dalish really, so it would be utterly stupid to use them as examples of something better/worse.



[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]

Not as a hard fact, no. But David is not just a writer. He's a LEAD writer.
His oppinion carries weight, weather you admit it or not.



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

What has that have to do with the point of my post?
What, when you can't articulate an answer or have one, you just go to re-rail mode and tal kabotu something completely different?




[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]

Remember whatI told you earlier? That I will ignore you posts that bring in Rivan and Dalish and exmaples because you know jack s*** about them?

And if that's not enough, you're now aagain de-railing. Againt law and order? WTF???
When the heck did I meantion anything like that?

I compared the damage from an abomination with damage done by natural disasters - like floods or volcanos. Those disasters happen in some parts of the world frequently, and the nations still didn't fall apart. Human race is extreemly ressiliant. Nations can survive the deaths of MILLIONS and still prosper (case in point - World War 2).
You're arguing a point I never even attempted to make.




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

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."[/quote]

Some people are arguing it...who are those "some people" and how much do they know about the other systems? (especially the dalish one. They are secretive). Are they even right?

In other words no....no proof.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 02 février 2011 - 12:05 .

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...
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

Does it matter who's fault it is? Mages are facing a very difficult position if they completely sever themselves from the Chantry. A very harsh and unforgiving position. How the world looks after any revolution will both depend on what they did during it and how they come to deal with those situations.
Some of those threats to their new world will come from a embittered Chantry. But far more would come from life itself. A life they might be very unprepared for.

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...
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

Oh absolutely. That train has long come and went. Now all that remains is either acceptance or fighting. Neither is acceptable causes and the latter will be chosen, sooner or later.

But to answer your questions. What the mages should do is match the chantry step by step in making their lives better. But neither Chantry not mages will, so it is a moot point.

[LobselVith8]

Sir JK wrote...

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.

Well.. that could explain one or two things. Would you mind spelling out the differences in your mind?

I believe Ian means the difference between the existance of the Circle of Magi (established by Emperor Drakon I, who established the Orlesian Empire, the Chantry of Andraste, the Circle of Magi, and the Order of Templars) and the segregation of mages which transpired under Divine Ambrosia II.

Sir JK wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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).

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.

I read about Emperor Drakon I, and it does list him declaring a number of holy wars to establish the Orlesian Empire and spread the particular Cult of Andraste that he established as "the religion" of the Orlesian Empire:

From the Ages article:


1180 TE: The cults of the Maker spread quickly in the southern lands, resulting in the building of the first great temple in Val Royeaux which becomes the major center of worship for the new faith. One of its most fervent followers is the young king of Orlais, Kordillus Drakon. In 1184, Drakon begins a series of holy wars in the name of the Maker, quickly proving himself to be one of the greatest generals in history. 
1192 TE: Having conquered several neighboring city-states and forced others to submit to his overlordship, Kordillus Drakon is crowned in Val Royeaux as emperor. His ambitions to spread farther north into the Free Marches are confounded by constant pressures from the Dales to the east, so Emperor Drakon formalizes the Maker’s cult into the Chantry and commands that missionaries be sent forth into the other lands.

Sir JK wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

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.

I believe Ian was referencing their role as segregating mages and watching over them in prison from the moment Divine Ambrosia II isolated mages from society for their nonviolent protest in her cathedral.

Sir JK wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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. 

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.

Likely because the Chantry prefers the illusion that the Circles are "independent," as Alistair as they "technically" are (in name only, as we can clearly see). That's why the History of the Circle codex ends with all the mages happily going off to segregate themselves from society in its pro-Chantry POV, but oddly lacks any claims about blood mages or abominations when it's explaining the inception of mages being segregated from the rest of society.

Sir JK wrote...

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?

Drakon outlawed magic unless it was done under the auspicies of the Chantry. Mages apparently weren't segregated at that point. Seems like his method of controlling mages rather than keeping the people safe, especially when they're forced to deal with a religious order that labels them as evil and blames them all for darkspawn.

Likely, templars advised against it because mages have helped during all the Blights - and they were the primary reason that the Andrastian nations were able to beat back the Qunari from invading all of Thedas. As much as the Chantry labels magic as cursed and mages as evil, they seem to have no issue letting mages save their bacon time and time again.

Sir JK wrote...

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.

You're asking why they keep mages under their thumb? That seems obvious. As much as the Chantry rails against mages and magic, they can't deny that mages are needed. They're effective against darkspawn and their magic gives the Chantry an edge - which was clear when mages essentially won the war against the Qunari invaders and their advanced technology.

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...
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.

Toussaint Louverture did turn out to be a ruthless dictator and spent some of his later years opressing his own people harshly though. The former slaves in particular fared very ill.

But mostly. I think the mages are unprepared to give up their luxuries because in the circles those come for free. They don't do the wrong thing giving them up. But I don't think they quite realise how life is for non-mages (and why should they, in that siolation). I'm just concerned that they find they don't want to give that up.
Sleeping on silks is a whole lot better than straw. Always having food is a whole different matter from having to scrape it together. Lyrium to develop your powers (and to feed that addiction even mages get) will be very difficult to come by (especially if the chantry retains the monopoly).
Mages will find that while they might be free... life itself will be a whole lot more difficult and demanding. They might in fact end up with less than they had. Being free, but having less ability to excercise it. I think that wll come as a very harsh surprise to many mages... who in turn will do anything to cling to their luxuries and that is what I am concerned about.

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.

It is not those or the people who knows that that concern me (well... they do. But not in that way). But the mages who will want to keep it. Because they do have the power to take it (it's quite literally in their fingertips). How will those mages react when they won... only to find that their lives will be harsh, difficult and unforgiving. Will they be the better men and suck it up? Accept it and work their way slowly up?

Or will they cling to it and take what they need?

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?

All mages have done this I trust? We are not talking about freeing the warheroes but all mages, right? Most of whom never left the tower? Never had to freeze. Never had to starve. Thirst. Never had to pay taxes. Never had to tithe. Never been levied. Never seen banditry. Never realised just how vast the world is. Never gotten lost. Never had to swim.
Never stood by as a disaster destroys all they know
Never seen war (between men)
Never had to stand by as their wife die in child birth
Never had to stand by as their children die of a fever

Normal life is harsh. Without anyone directly opressing you.  Are the mages prepared for that?

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.

No. That's not all it means. That part they know. But have they ever faced that which cannot be fought? Truly how unfair life is? Winning freedom... only to find that they can't excersise it?

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

Not stupid.
More like a troll or spammer.

Have you wever bothered to compare your posts at all? [/quote]

I can certainly read yours:

[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]

You think personally attacking people constitutes a valid post, and I disagree. It's trolling.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

Yes. I want evidence that prooves, beyond doubt that he either is or isn't a blood mage.
And the person saying "I'm not a blood mage" doesn't count, given we see plenty of liars in Ferelden.

Note that I think he wasn't one, and the templars that wen't after him were stupid dicks - but I can't actually PROVE that, so it remains nothing but my oppinion. [/quote]

In other words, you have no proof he's a blood mage, and all the information we're provided from Wynne's revelation and Aenirin's interaction with her doesn't support your theory that he was one.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

I'm not arguing he is a blood mage. I'm arguing that we DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.

And we see Morrigan using what everyone would label as blood magic (dark ritual).

The D'Sims suspicion turned out to be false, but you have yet to prove that he was killed because of that, and not because he resisted or something else.

Also, I never claimed the Chantry circle is the best option.
I claimed it's the safest and best from those we know more about. We know nothing about Rivian and Dalish really, so it would be utterly stupid to use them as examples of something better/worse. [/quote]

You seemed to be arguing that Aenirin is a blood mage, when I mentioned that there's nothing to indicate that he's one. His willingness to return to the Circle doesn't help your case, either.

Morrigan said it was ancient magic that can be seen as blood magic, but a ritual of carnal contact that nobody but the Warden is informed about doesn't make her a blood mage. Therefore, there's nothing to indicate that any of the templars have any reason to suspect that Morrigan is a blood mage, especially when we never see her perform any blood magic like Jowan does. The templars made an assumption, and then put a bounty on her head. You have proof otherwise? Feel free to provide it, Lotion.

D'Sims had his head cut off because the templars thought he was a mage. You want to fan fic that the templars weren't really responsible for his death, and that he brought it on himself? You're welcome to.

Safest option? There's no evidence of that, especially when mages weren't segregated for anyone's safety, and we keep hearing about abominations arising as a direct result of the Chantry.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

Not as a hard fact, no. But David is not just a writer. He's a LEAD writer.
His oppinion carries weight, weather you admit it or not. [/quote]

And yet his opinion of Cullen didn't match Sheryl's, did it? Therefore, opinion isn't canon.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

What has that have to do with the point of my post?
What, when you can't articulate an answer or have one, you just go to re-rail mode and tal kabotu something completely different? [/quote]

Templars having no accountability when it comes to murdering people merely because they can accuse them of being illegal mages or blood mages is the problem.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

Remember whatI told you earlier? That I will ignore you posts that bring in Rivan and Dalish and exmaples because you know jack s*** about them?

And if that's not enough, you're now aagain de-railing. Againt law and order? WTF???
When the heck did I meantion anything like that?

I compared the damage from an abomination with damage done by natural disasters - like floods or volcanos. Those disasters happen in some parts of the world frequently, and the nations still didn't fall apart. Human race is extreemly ressiliant. Nations can survive the deaths of MILLIONS and still prosper (case in point - World War 2).
You're arguing a point I never even attempted to make. [/quote]

Clearly, the people of Thedas know about Rivain and the Dalish, and used them as examples that the Chantry shouldn't imprison mages or oppress them.

As for abominations, there's no reason Ian's suggestion of a taskforce of mages and non-mages couldn't handle abominations.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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."[/quote]

Some people are arguing it...who are those "some people" and how much do they know about the other systems? (especially the dalish one. They are secretive). Are they even right?

In other words no....no proof. [/quote]

The fact that people in Thedas are arguing against it is proof. You seem to pick and choose what to accept and what to ignore.

[Augustei]

Morrigan mighten be a blood mage, But she is a Maleficar. People would have inevitably seen her shapeshift and reported it to the Templars. Maleficarum extends beyond blood magic, it is any magic forbidden by the chantry, which shapeshifting is.

However no I dont think Morrigan is a Blood mage (exept in my playthrough lol)

Very few, if anyone would know of the Dalish mages living peacefully alongside their non mages. Dalish mages are forced to hide their magic from outsiders as their magic is different to that of humans and would have them branded Maleficars. Very few outsiders if any are privy to the infomation that there even is Dalish Mages

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 02 février 2011 - 12:53 .

[Sir JK]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I believe Ian means the difference between the existance of the Circle of Magi (established by Emperor Drakon I, who established the Orlesian Empire, the Chantry of Andraste, the Circle of Magi, and the Order of Templars) and the segregation of mages which transpired under Divine Ambrosia II.

The one typically refered to as the Circle of Mages? Is it possible the thing Drakon created predates and is different from the Circle we know (apart form "natural evolution" thta is). I suppose so. I wonder what led us to believe this.

I read about Emperor Drakon I, and it does list him declaring a number of holy wars to establish the Orlesian Empire and spread the particular Cult of Andraste that he established as "the religion" of the Orlesian Empire:

From the Ages article:

1180 TE: The cults of the Maker spread quickly in the southern lands, resulting in the building of the first great temple in Val Royeaux which becomes the major center of worship for the new faith. One of its most fervent followers is the young king of Orlais, Kordillus Drakon. In 1184, Drakon begins a series of holy wars in the name of the Maker, quickly proving himself to be one of the greatest generals in history. 
1192 TE: Having conquered several neighboring city-states and forced others to submit to his overlordship, Kordillus Drakon is crowned in Val Royeaux as emperor. His ambitions to spread farther north into the Free Marches are confounded by constant pressures from the Dales to the east, so Emperor Drakon formalizes the Maker’s cult into the Chantry and commands that missionaries be sent forth into the other lands.

Ah. Thank you. I wouldn't call them exalted marches though, in the same way the 30 year war was not a crusade. For clarity's sake if nothing else. Let's refer to them as Drakon's holy wars?

I believe Ian was referencing their role as segregating mages and watching over them in prison from the moment Divine Ambrosia II isolated mages from society for their nonviolent protest in her cathedral.

Which could have been under Drakon's influence. Or it might not have been.

But Drakon's entry does mention he created the Circle of Magi. History of the Circle describes how the Circle of Magi was created. Presumably they refer to the same thing and same event. Otherwise the codex is written in a very confusing way there.

Likely because the Chantry prefers the illusion that the Circles are "independent," as Alistair as they "technically" are (in name only, as we can clearly see). That's why the History of the Circle codex ends with all the mages happily going off to segregate themselves from society in its pro-Chantry POV, but oddly lacks any claims about blood mages or abominations when it's explaining the inception of mages being segregated from the rest of society.

That is odd now that you mention it. It is the primary Chantry justification after all. Why does it not mention them at all?
Good catch.

Drakon outlawed magic unless it was done under the auspicies of the Chantry. Mages apparently weren't segregated at that point. Seems like his method of controlling mages rather than keeping the people safe, especially when they're forced to deal with a religious order that labels them as evil and blames them all for darkspawn.

Likely, templars advised against it because mages have helped during all the Blights - and they were the primary reason that the Andrastian nations were able to beat back the Qunari from invading all of Thedas. As much as the Chantry labels magic as cursed and mages as evil, they seem to have no issue letting mages save their bacon time and time again.

Uhm... if this is contemporary with Drakon I then it is before the Second Blight and many hundred years before the arrival of the Qunari. Before the split into Andrastian and Imperial. Long before Ferelden, Rivain, Free Marches and Tevinter converted. When the Dales were still Dalish.

You're asking why they keep mages under their thumb? That seems obvious. As much as the Chantry rails against mages and magic, they can't deny that mages are needed. They're effective against darkspawn and their magic gives the Chantry an edge - which was clear when mages essentially won the war against the Qunari invaders and their advanced technology.

This is what... 600 years before this is proven? The second blight hasn't even happened yet (and the first one predates Andraste by 20 years). The entire development from the fall of the mage tyranny to the creation of the circles happens between the first two Blights.
I mean, Ambrosia II's political opponents (and she would have them, the Chantry being a political organisation with religious windowdrapes after all) could have scored the mage's loyalty and support by just abolishing the circle as soon as she was dead (unless the mages wanted it).

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
You think personally attacking people constitutes a valid post, and I disagree. It's trolling.[/quote]

Funny. I'd describe 99% of the content of your posts as trolling or spamming.


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Yes. I want evidence that prooves, beyond doubt that he either is or isn't a blood mage.
And the person saying "I'm not a blood mage" doesn't count, given we see plenty of liars in Ferelden.

Note that I think he wasn't one, and the templars that wen't after him were stupid dicks - but I can't actually PROVE that, so it remains nothing but my oppinion. [/quote]

In other words, you have no proof he's a blood mage, and all the information we're provided from Wynne's revelation and Aenirin's interaction with her doesn't support your theory that he was one.[/quote]

In other words we don't know. He doesn't APPEAR to be a blood mage, but nither did Jowan, up untill the faithfull point.

Again (for teh zillionth time), I wasn't arguing Aenerin WAS a blood mage, I argued he MIGHT be one. A distinction you constantly miss, over and over again, in favor of your extermist views.



[quote]
You seemed to be arguing that Aenirin is a blood mage, when I mentioned that there's nothing to indicate that he's one. His willingness to return to the Circle doesn't help your case, either.[/quote]


[quote]
Morrigan said it was ancient magic that can be seen as blood magic, but a ritual of carnal contact that nobody but the Warden is informed about doesn't make her a blood mage. Therefore, there's nothing to indicate that any of the templars have any reason to suspect that Morrigan is a blood mage, especially when we never see her perform any blood magic like Jowan does. The templars made an assumption, and then put a bounty on her head. You have proof otherwise? Feel free to provide it, Lotion. [/quote]

What Morrigan chooses to call it is irrelveant...as well as how old that ritual is. She herself describes it as Blood Magic.

You have 0 proof that the templars doesn't have valid reasons to go after her. You got fixated on the use of the wrod "suspect", a semantic issue that we already debunked. so I ask you - do you have anything other than the use of htat single word? Nope. You don't.


[quote]
D'Sims had his head cut off because the templars thought he was a mage. You want to fan fic that the templars weren't really responsible for his death, and that he brought it on himself? You're welcome to.[/quote]

I'm not fan-ficing anything. I'm asking you to asnwer a few simple questions. You didn't.
What EXACTLY happened between the templars and D'Sims? Devil is in the details, details we don't have. Did he try to fight them? did he resist? Or were the templars merely viscious bastards?
I'm not in any way, shape or form absolving the templars (assuming they did kill him in cold blood), but I do want a bit more than a single line.
As Sten put it - people are not simple things you can describe with a word. Neither are situations.



[quote]
Safest option? There's no evidence of that, especially when mages weren't segregated for anyone's safety, and we keep hearing about abominations arising as a direct result of the Chantry.[/quote]

Again, your interpretations. Not facts.




[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Not as a hard fact, no. But David is not just a writer. He's a LEAD writer.
His oppinion carries weight, weather you admit it or not. [/quote]

And yet his opinion of Cullen didn't match Sheryl's, did it? Therefore, opinion isn't canon.[/quote]

Been over this before. Not all oppinions (even from the same person) carry the same amount of weight. Context is different and the impact is different.
I explained this before, but you just refuse to read.


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What has that have to do with the point of my post?
What, when you can't articulate an answer or have one, you just go to re-rail mode and tal kabotu something completely different? [/quote]

Templars having no accountability when it comes to murdering people merely because they can accuse them of being illegal mages or blood mages is the problem.[/quote]

Again, what does that have to do with the post? The post that you replied to didn't have anything to do with templars and acountability.
Not that you're anywhere clsoe to beign right in that regard eihter.


[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Remember whatI told you earlier? That I will ignore you posts that bring in Rivan and Dalish and exmaples because you know jack s*** about them?

And if that's not enough, you're now aagain de-railing. Againt law and order? WTF???
When the heck did I meantion anything like that?

I compared the damage from an abomination with damage done by natural disasters - like floods or volcanos. Those disasters happen in some parts of the world frequently, and the nations still didn't fall apart. Human race is extreemly ressiliant. Nations can survive the deaths of MILLIONS and still prosper (case in point - World War 2).
You're arguing a point I never even attempted to make. [/quote]

Clearly, the people of Thedas know about Rivain and the Dalish, and used them as examples that the Chantry shouldn't imprison mages or oppress them.

As for abominations, there's no reason Ian's suggestion of a taskforce of mages and non-mages couldn't handle abominations.[/quote]

Again, WTF?  What does this have to do with the specific post you're quoting? Here you go again on a tanget and re-rails....

As for such task-forces. Who sez mages don't occasionally help?
Not that I would consider it a regular occurance. After all, the veil is torn in palces where mages turn into abominations, so other mages would be at increased risk of possesion themselves.
That would make trust in such a mixed unit highly problematic...




[quote]
[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Some people are arguing it...who are those "some people" and how much do they know about the other systems? (especially the dalish one. They are secretive). Are they even right?

In other words no....no proof. [/quote]

The fact that people in Thedas are arguing against it is proof. You seem to pick and choose what to accept and what to ignore.[/quote]

That's not proof. People argue about anything.
Here you argue and extrapolate and you're prettty much wrong on every acount. Deosn't seem to stop you to going on and one.
Lack of reason and being wrong never stopped people from debating.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
You mean Ian's ability to provide codex entries, story examples, and even use David Gaider's quotes to support his arguments, while your defense of the Chantry is that it's all "morally grey?" Or is this where you ignore how templars put a bounty on Morrigan because of their suspicions and the History of the Circle codex states that mages were segregated because of a nonviolent protest they held in a cathedral?

No, I mean your and Ians inabiltiy to provide any actual HARD proof.

And your amazing abiltiy to troll and repeat yourself ad infintum. If I'm not mistaken, this is at least your 5th post with exactly the same content.

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

Considering that the templars murder every man, woman, and child in a Circle during the Rite, it's hardly any different. Which wouldn't have happened if there were mages avaliable who could have stopped the Baroness in time, instead of being imprisoned by the Chantry.

Not different?
A single abomination wipes out an enitre village

Given that a Rite only happens when there are multiple abominations and the threat of rampant possesion is too high...

That would be? What..100 or so mages per tower? (of which most would be killed by rampant abominations..Uldred and his cronies didn't leave many mages alive in the Broken Circle)

Yeah...better AND different.

You're aslo assuming having a few mages would have stopped the baronees and not get possesed or killed themselves, and compeltely ignoring that the templars might have stopped her.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 02 février 2011 - 01:36 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote] XxDeonxX wrote...
Morrigan mighten be a blood mage, But she is a Maleficar. People would have inevitably seen her shapeshift and reported it to the Templars. Maleficarum extends beyond blood magic, it is any magic forbidden by the chantry, which shapeshifting is.

However no I dont think Morrigan is a Blood mage (exept in my playthrough lol)

Very few, if anyone would know of the Dalish mages living peacefully alongside their non mages. Dalish mages are forced to hide their magic from outsiders as their magic is different to that of humans and would have them branded Maleficars. Very few outsiders if any are privy to the infomation that there even is Dalish Mages [/quote]
It never states she's a maleficar in the Orlesian entry about the templars - it clearly states they believe she's a blood mage. She's an illegal mage recruited by the Grey Warden, which legally means that she's outside the Chantry. The templars are going after a mage associated with the Grey Wardens - just like Rylock did with Anders.

Everyone knows that the Dalish have mages among them - its referenced more than once in the Magi Origin by Circle mages, after all.
[quote]Sir JK wrote...
The one typically refered to as the Circle of Mages? Is it possible the thing Drakon created predates and is different from the Circle we know (apart form "natural evolution" thta is). I suppose so. I wonder what led us to believe this. [/quote]
Drakon's actions seem to focus more on placing the mages under the thumb of the Chantry, given his religious beliefs, than anything else. Even the History of the Circle confirms that mages are under the thumb of the Chantry, but their segregation clearly doesn't mention any references to mages being dangerous or any mention of blood mages or abominations. If the claims made by people like Lotion are true and mages are too dangerous to be free (ignoring Rivain, the Dalish, and the Chasind), then why don't the codex entries back them?

[quote]Sir JK wrote...
Which could have been under Drakon's influence. Or it might not have been.

But Drakon's entry does mention he created the Circle of Magi. History of the Circle describes how the Circle of Magi was created. Presumably they refer to the same thing and same event. Otherwise the codex is written in a very confusing way there. [/quote]


It seems to be more the 'History of the Circle Towers' as opposed to the concept of the Circles themselves. Drakon outlawed free magic to place mages under the control of the Chantry, and the isolation of the mages from society had to do with their peaceful protest in a cathedral.
[quote]Sir JK wrote...
Uhm... if this is contemporary with Drakon I then it is before the Second Blight and many hundred years before the arrival of the Qunari. Before the split into Andrastian and Imperial. Long before Ferelden, Rivain, Free Marches and Tevinter converted. When the Dales were still Dalish. [/quote]

But it doesn't take knowledge of the future to realize that mages are powerful and likely will be useful. Drakon grasps control of mages by placing them under the religious order he's established.
[quote]Sir JK wrote...
This is what... 600 years before this is proven? The second blight hasn't even happened yet (and the first one predates Andraste by 20 years). The entire development from the fall of the mage tyranny to the creation of the circles happens between the first two Blights.
I mean, Ambrosia II's political opponents (and she would have them, the Chantry being a political organisation with religious windowdrapes after all) could have scored the mage's loyalty and support by just abolishing the circle as soon as she was dead (unless the mages wanted it). [/quote]
I pointed out how useful mages became for the Chantry because of Drakon's actions, not that those were the reasons Drakon placed them under the thumb of his religious order and, by extension, his empire. Mages are powerful - it doesn't take a genius to realize that having command over them would be useful, especially since Drakon wants to expand his empire across Thedas.
[quote]Sir JK wrote...
Toussaint Louverture did turn out to be a ruthless dictator and spent some of his later years opressing his own people harshly though. The former slaves in particular fared very ill. [/quote]
The same happened in Cuba, but in both cases people were able to repel an oppressor. Should mages be denied the right to be free simply because history (even the history of Thedas) has a habit of people fighting an oppressor and becoming one themselves (like the Chantry of Andraste and the Orlesian Empire did)? Should Andraste and Shartan have done nothing because humans would oppressor other humans and the elves would be forced to live in ghettos or be homeless? Should mages do nothing because Uldred may not have been altruistic in his goals of emancipating the Circle from the Chantry?
[quote]Sir JK wrote...

But mostly. I think the mages are unprepared to give up their luxuries because in the circles those come for free. They don't do the wrong thing giving them up. But I don't think they quite realise how life is for non-mages (and why should they, in that siolation). I'm just concerned that they find they don't want to give that up. [/quote]
I think you place more importance on those silks than you do on their lack of freedom. Speaking as the grandson of a man who gave up luxury for freedom and risked poverty and death to gain it, let me assure you that the desire for freedom is far greater than the luxury you describe.
[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Sleeping on silks is a whole lot better than straw. Always having food is a whole different matter from having to scrape it together. Lyrium to develop your powers (and to feed that addiction even mages get) will be very difficult to come by (especially if the chantry retains the monopoly). [/quote]
Being free is better than being a prisoner or a slave, let me assure you. The comforts of the Circle don't supplant the desire for freedom. No amount of silks or lyrium is going to errode the desire of people to be free - our own history has shown plenty of examples of that. Even Thedas' own Dalish clans abandoned the safety of the Alienages to live on their own, homeless and dependent on each other.
[quote]Sir JK wrote...

Mages will find that while they might be free... life itself will be a whole lot more difficult and demanding. They might in fact end up with less than they had. Being free, but having less ability to excercise it. I think that wll come as a very harsh surprise to many mages... who in turn will do anything to cling to their luxuries and that is what I am concerned about. [/quote]
Being free means more to some people than a few luxuries that will never replace the reality of being oppressed. No amount of those fine silks and amounts of lyrium will erase the reality that mages are oppressed, and there are those who want their freedom - even if it means risking their lives to achieve it.
[quote]Sir JK wrote...
It is not those or the people who knows that that concern me (well... they do. But not in that way). But the mages who will want to keep it. Because they do have the power to take it (it's quite literally in their fingertips). How will those mages react when they won... only to find that their lives will be harsh, difficult and unforgiving. Will they be the better men and suck it up? Accept it and work their way slowly up?

Or will they cling to it and take what they need? [/quote]

Work their way up to what? They have no place in Andrastian societies. They're reviled and hated because they're mages. If they are willing to fight for their freedom, it'll be against the very people who want to oppress them. There's no telling what society will be like in the aftermath, but certainly if they're won, mages will be free. Certain freedom and the unknown is better than subjegation and certainty.

[quote]Sir JK wrote...
All mages have done this I trust? We are not talking about freeing the warheroes but all mages, right? Most of whom never left the tower? Never had to freeze. Never had to starve. Thirst. Never had to pay taxes. Never had to tithe. Never been levied. Never seen banditry. Never realised just how vast the world is. Never gotten lost. Never had to swim.
Never stood by as a disaster destroys all they know
Never seen war (between men)
Never had to stand by as their wife die in child birth
Never had to stand by as their children die of a fever

Normal life is harsh. Without anyone directly opressing you. Are the mages prepared for that? [/quote]

Yes, how wonderful of the Chantry to imprison them and grant them a few comforts while forbidding them from having any rights but the few privledges they occassionally grant. How wonderful they can murder mages without providing the evidence to the First Enchanter. How wonderful mages must be feeling to live under the tyranny of oppression and having no say over their lives - never being able to hold their child in their arms, never having a family to love and grow with, never being able to be anything more than a mage who is revised and despised because of the dogma spread by the very institution that's imprisoned them.
Normal life may be harsh, but freedom is worth the cost for many people who are being oppressed under tyranny. Considering that mages have been willing to risk their lives for it, I'd say yes.
[quote]Sir JK wrote...

No. That's not all it means. That part they know. But have they ever faced that which cannot be fought? Truly how unfair life is? Winning freedom... only to find that they can't excersise it? [/quote]
Having freedom is what emancipating mages is about. Having freedom is more than some stupid silks and some piles of lyrium. What's the importance of silks when you can't have normal relationships? What's the point of living when you're going to be a prisoner under drug addicted soldiers who have the right to murder you based on heresay? You make it sound like not having a few luxuries would be worth being enslaved to a tyrannical order that's convinced every religious member living in the Andrastian nations that mages should be feared and despised.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
I believe Ian means the difference between the existance of the Circle of Magi (established by Emperor Drakon I, who established the Orlesian Empire, the Chantry of Andraste, the Circle of Magi, and the Order of Templars) and the segregation of mages which transpired under Divine Ambrosia II.[/quote]
The one typically refered to as the Circle of Mages? Is it possible the thing Drakon created predates and is different from the Circle we know (apart form "natural evolution" thta is). I suppose so. I wonder what led us to believe this.
[/quote]

Lob is right.  That was the distinction I was trying to make.  I note that even today, mages talk about themselves as a society and as mages referring to themselves as the "circle" or "circle mages" even when outside the tower, and that's quite different from references to the tower itself which confusingly is also called the "circle" or "circle tower".  At least that's my take.


[quote]
I read about Emperor Drakon I, and it does list him declaring a number of holy wars to establish the Orlesian Empire and spread the particular Cult of Andraste that he established as "the religion" of the Orlesian Empire:

From the Ages article:

1180 TE: The cults of the Maker spread quickly in the southern lands, resulting in the building of the first great temple in Val Royeaux which becomes the major center of worship for the new faith. One of its most fervent followers is the young king of Orlais, Kordillus Drakon. In 1184, Drakon begins a series of holy wars in the name of the Maker, quickly proving himself to be one of the greatest generals in history. 
1192 TE: Having conquered several neighboring city-states and forced others to submit to his overlordship, Kordillus Drakon is crowned in Val Royeaux as emperor. His ambitions to spread farther north into the Free Marches are confounded by constant pressures from the Dales to the east, so Emperor Drakon formalizes the Maker’s cult into the Chantry and commands that missionaries be sent forth into the other lands.[/quote]
Ah. Thank you. I wouldn't call them exalted marches though, in the same way the 30 year war was not a crusade. For clarity's sake if nothing else. Let's refer to them as Drakon's holy wars?
[/quote]

I do recall that the codex entries specifically used the term "Exalted March" to describe his war to unify Orlais.  I'll see if I can't dig it up.

[quote]

[quote]I believe Ian was referencing their role as segregating mages and watching over them in prison from the moment Divine Ambrosia II isolated mages from society for their nonviolent protest in her cathedral.[/quote]
Which could have been under Drakon's influence. Or it might not have been.

But Drakon's entry does mention he created the Circle of Magi. History of the Circle describes how the Circle of Magi was created. Presumably they refer to the same thing and same event. Otherwise the codex is written in a very confusing way there.
[/quote]

'fraid I will have to go with confusing since we know the first Divine was Justina I, and that happened late (or at least well into) Drakon I's reign, so I think we have to accept they were different events.


[quote]

[quote]Likely because the Chantry prefers the illusion that the Circles are "independent," as Alistair as they "technically" are (in name only, as we can clearly see). That's why the History of the Circle codex ends with all the mages happily going off to segregate themselves from society in its pro-Chantry POV, but oddly lacks any claims about blood mages or abominations when it's explaining the inception of mages being segregated from the rest of society.[/quote]
That is odd now that you mention it. It is the primary Chantry justification after all. Why does it not mention them at all?
Good catch.
[/quote]

Indeed.  This was precisely the point I was trying to make and why I consider this codex entry to be damning.

[quote]
[quote]Drakon outlawed magic unless it was done under the auspicies of the Chantry. Mages apparently weren't segregated at that point. Seems like his method of controlling mages rather than keeping the people safe, especially when they're forced to deal with a religious order that labels them as evil and blames them all for darkspawn.

Likely, templars advised against it because mages have helped during all the Blights - and they were the primary reason that the Andrastian nations were able to beat back the Qunari from invading all of Thedas. As much as the Chantry labels magic as cursed and mages as evil, they seem to have no issue letting mages save their bacon time and time again.[/quote]
Uhm... if this is contemporary with Drakon I then it is before the Second Blight and many hundred years before the arrival of the Qunari. Before the split into Andrastian and Imperial. Long before Ferelden, Rivain, Free Marches and Tevinter converted. When the Dales were still Dalish.
[/quote]

The Dalish, however, were open heathens on the Southern Borders and openly practiced magic.  Also the Chasind at this point seemed to unify once per generation and were a force to be reckoned with (and also had magic).  Remember that Ostagar was built to protect Old Tevinter against the Wilder Folk (read Chasind).  Then too you had the various threats from heretics and the like (including Dragon Cults).  All told it was a dangerous time and magic, esp healing and battlemagic would be invaluable. 

[quote]

[quote]You're asking why they keep mages under their thumb? That seems obvious. As much as the Chantry rails against mages and magic, they can't deny that mages are needed. They're effective against darkspawn and their magic gives the Chantry an edge - which was clear when mages essentially won the war against the Qunari invaders and their advanced technology.[/quote]
This is what... 600 years before this is proven? The second blight hasn't even happened yet (and the first one predates Andraste by 20 years). The entire development from the fall of the mage tyranny to the creation of the circles happens between the first two Blights.
[/quote]

See above.  Many good reasons to keep a pet mage or two. 

[quote]
I mean, Ambrosia II's political opponents (and she would have them, the Chantry being a political organisation with religious windowdrapes after all) could have scored the mage's loyalty and support by just abolishing the circle as soon as she was dead (unless the mages wanted it).
[/quote]

Mages will also be a tiny minority just from genetics alone, and the Chantry from the Divine down to the rank and file were already showing distinct and heavy anti-magic bias (which would soon create the Imperial/Andrastian Chantry split).  Given that and given it's Chantry lore that all mages were to blame for the blights, abolishing the circle tower system after Ambrosia II would be political suicide.  The Divines don't strike me as being either very daring or very visionary leaders (even the so-called great ones).  Far better and far easier in their minds to consider the mage/magic problem out-of-sight and thus out-of-mind with the circle tower system.  Politically the mages were nothing when it comes to Chantry politics (and now of course less than nothing).

-Polaris

[Sir JK]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Drakon's actions seem to focus more on placing the mages under the thumb of the Chantry, given his religious beliefs, than anything else. Even the History of the Circle confirms that mages are under the thumb of the Chantry, but their segregation clearly doesn't mention any references to mages being dangerous or any mention of blood mages or abominations. If the claims made by people like Lotion are true and mages are too dangerous to be free (ignoring Rivain, the Dalish, and the Chasind), then why don't the codex entries back them?[/quote]
It does and yet it doesn't. Here and there and mostly ambigously (meaning it's easy to disagree with). There are mentions of a single abomination killing 70. We saw what the Baroness did. Redcliffe was absolutely tragic. Certainly good examples of dangerous situations.
But as you say there's also cases where this does not happen. Where mages truly are good and beneficial. Such as healers, their use in fighting blights and qunari. How neither the circle nor the wardens would function without mages. This is intentional. We are not supposed to know exactly how dangerous magic is. Nor do the people in the world. The Chantry have enough evidence to believe in it, but not enough to convince the mages. Conversely the mages have enough evidence that this is exaggerated, but not enough to convince anyone else.

Lotion believes that mages are to dangerous to roam free and that the chantry is the best way. But he cannot prove it. He can use examples like the ones I listed and more to support his belief. But there are no real proof of it.
But the same applies to the opposite belief. You may believe this is false and that all measures are needless. You can take examples to support it. But you cannot prove it.

Why? Because in neither case does evidence exist. Why? Because then it would not be ambigous. Then you could clearly say that one side is doing the wrong thing. Then it's not grey anymore.
[quote]It seems to be more the 'History of the Circle Towers' as opposed to the concept of the Circles themselves. Drakon outlawed free magic to place mages under the control of the Chantry, and the isolation of the mages from society had to do with their peaceful protest in a cathedral.[/quote]
That is an awfully and pointlessly complex and confusing though. Why would they have the same name for two different things?
[quote]But it doesn't take knowledge of the future to realize that mages are powerful and likely will be useful. Drakon grasps control of mages by placing them under the religious order he's established.[/quote]
Perhaps yes. But why did the Chantry accept? Why did not his political opponents move to have it abolished (possibly after his death). Why is not the situation boiling over until 900 years later?
[quote]I pointed out how useful mages became for the Chantry because of Drakon's actions, not that those were the reasons Drakon placed them under the thumb of his religious order and, by extension, his empire. Mages are powerful - it doesn't take a genius to realize that having command over them would be useful, especially since Drakon wants to expand his empire across Thedas.[/quote]
Perhaps.
[quote]The same happened in Cuba, but in both cases people were able to repel an oppressor. Should mages be denied the right to be free simply because history (even the history of Thedas) has a habit of people fighting an oppressor and becoming one themselves (like the Chantry of Andraste and the Orlesian Empire did)? Should Andraste and Shartan have done nothing because humans would oppressor other humans and the elves would be forced to live in ghettos or be homeless? Should mages do nothing because Uldred may not have been altruistic in his goals of emancipating the Circle from the Chantry?[/quote]
The ideal would be working together. But that train has long since gone. No, I think what is happening is inevitable. Regretable but inevitable. But the paradise of magi? It isn't coming. Life will be different, but not neccessarily better.
[quote]I think you place more importance on those silks than you do on their lack of freedom. Speaking as the grandson of a man who gave up luxury for freedom and risked poverty and death to gain it, let me assure you that the desire for freedom is far greater than the luxury you describe.[/quote]
For some yes. And by all means people who willingly and knowingly give it up (like I presume your grandfather did) are admirable. But are all mages prepared to do that? To just walk out of the tower and sleep on knarly roots under starry skies (well... not neccessarily that dramatic).
[quote]Being free is better than being a prisoner or a slave[/b], let me assure you. The comforts of the Circle don't supplant the desire for freedom. No amount of silks or lyrium is going to errode the desire of people to be free - our own history has shown plenty of examples of that. Even Thedas' own Dalish clans abandoned the safety of the Alienages to live on their own, homeless and dependent on each other.[/quote]
That's not my concern Lobsel. My concern is that these mages, used to luxury, will decide that they don't want to give that up despite having attained freedom. That they won't earn their lives. But take them. That they decide to take the cake and eat it too. That not only is their gilded cage unacceptable but also normal life.
That's what concerns me with a mage separation from the chantry. I trust them to be human, with all the bad (and good) sides coming with it.
Or that they will find life so unexpectedly tough many of them will die. That's also a concern.
Or that nobles will move into the vacuum left by the Chantry. A third concern.
[quote]Being free means more to some people than a few luxuries that will never replace the reality of being oppressed. No amount of those fine silks and amounts of lyrium will erase the reality that mages are oppressed, and there are those who want their freedom - even if it means risking their lives to achieve it.[/quote]
See above... I don't think they will refuse to try to overthrow their to savour a few silks. I think they will rise up and then come to realise they want the comforts of their former life as well.
[quote]Work their way up to what? They have no place in Andrastian societies. They're reviled and hated because they're mages. If they are willing to fight for their freedom, it'll be against the very people who want to oppress them. There's no telling what society will be like in the aftermath, but certainly if they're won, mages will be free. Certain freedom and the unknown is better than subjegation and certainty.[/quote]
Things is Lobsel... overthrowing the Chantry? That's the easy part. Carving out a new sort of life in society? That's the real difficult bit. True freedom? That won't be achieved in the former part. But in the latter. When they have to learn to live with the people they just fought.

[quote]Yes, how wonderful of the Chantry to imprison them and grant them a few comforts while forbidding them from having any rights but the few privledges they occassionally grant. How wonderful they can murder mages without providing the evidence to the First Enchanter. How wonderful mages must be feeling to live under the tyranny of oppression and having no say over their lives - never being able to hold their child in their arms, never having a family to love and grow with, never being able to be anything more than a mage who is revised and despised because of the dogma spread by the very institution that's imprisoned them.
Normal life may be harsh, but freedom is worth the cost for many people who are being oppressed under tyranny. Considering that mages have been willing to risk their lives for it, I'd say yes.[/quote]
I'm not saying they have it better in the circle Lobsel. But do they know what normal life is? They will fight, that is inevitable. I'm just concerned they might not want to give up what they do have despite fighting.
[quote]
Having freedom is what emancipating mages is about. Having freedom is more than some stupid silks and some piles of lyrium. What's the importance of silks when you can't have normal relationships? What's the point of living when you're going to be a prisoner under drug addicted soldiers who have the right to murder you based on heresay? You make it sound like not having a few luxuries would be worth being enslaved to a tyrannical order that's convinced every religious member living in the Andrastian nations that mages should be feared and despised.[/quote]
No you miss my point... What if they want to keep the luxuries and have that freedom? What if they decide that just being free is not good enough? That they want to be free and have luxuries? Who will pay for that do you think?

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...
Lob is right.  That was the distinction I was trying to make.  I note that even today, mages talk about themselves as a society and as mages referring to themselves as the "circle" or "circle mages" even when outside the tower, and that's quite different from references to the tower itself which confusingly is also called the "circle" or "circle tower".  At least that's my take.

Allright...so... uhm... which is which? Circle refers to the training, culture and such? Circle tower being the system of oppressive segregation?

I do recall that the codex entries specifically used the term "Exalted March" to describe his war to unify Orlais.  I'll see if I can't dig it up.

Please do.

'fraid I will have to go with confusing since we know the first Divine was Justina I, and that happened late (or at least well into) Drakon I's reign, so I think we have to accept they were different events.

He died in Divine: 45 (1:45) after having ruled as emperor for 48 years (and 54 since he started his wars of conquest). If the divines, like the popes, were chosen from among the old. There is room to have had a fair few in those 45 years.

Indeed.  This was precisely the point I was trying to make and why I consider this codex entry to be damning.

Wait... you consider this to be damning? That a chantry sister is not even mentioning the primary justification they use in every instance? I mean even if it was a false justification that would have been mentioned would it not? If nothing else to say that it was not, contrary to popular opinion, one of the reasons. I mean if a member of the chantry comes reading this book, would he/she not come with that belief firmly rooted? That it would need extra care to be cleared up that it was not a reason?
I mean... just look at me. I believe the chantry believe that. And this entry thus completely failed to dispel that belief. So if it was not a reason... wouldn't that have to be completely spelled out?

The Dalish, however, were open heathens on the Southern Borders and openly practiced magic.  Also the Chasind at this point seemed to unify once per generation and were a force to be reckoned with (and also had magic).  Remember that Ostagar was built to protect Old Tevinter against the Wilder Folk (read Chasind).  Then too you had the various threats from heretics and the like (including Dragon Cults).  All told it was a dangerous time and magic, esp healing and battlemagic would be invaluable.

Indeed. There's just one teeny tiny flaw with healing and battlemagic. A disloyal mage can withold it or turn it on you. The Chantry was not strong at this time. I don't think it is unreasonable to say it largely relied on Drakon I's support. If you wanted to make obedient servants out of mages (and that being the only reason)... wouldn't this (quite literally) explode in your face?
Why would mages, forcefully segregated, ever support their opressors against people who would treat them better?

Mages will also be a tiny minority just from genetics alone, and the Chantry from the Divine down to the rank and file were already showing distinct and heavy anti-magic bias (which would soon create the Imperial/Andrastian Chantry split).  Given that and given it's Chantry lore that all mages were to blame for the blights, abolishing the circle tower system after Ambrosia II would be political suicide.  The Divines don't strike me as being either very daring or very visionary leaders (even the so-called great ones).  Far better and far easier in their minds to consider the mage/magic problem out-of-sight and thus out-of-mind with the circle tower system.  Politically the mages were nothing when it comes to Chantry politics (and now of course less than nothing).

But the Chantry is not monolithic (it cannot be, by merit of having more than 3 members). There will be struggles for power, there will be dominating Divines and figurehead Divines. Political factions. Are you saying that it never struck a single one of them (or more importantly, their followers) to seek support among the mages? Simply because Ambrosia II got a bit annoyed and it was handly to have pet (but upset) mages around?
I mean you said it yourself. Mages are both dangerous and very useful. Having them on your side would have been a very strong ace up your sleeve. Especially in the early Chantry, before it got truly worldspanning.
I mean is there any reason at all to believe that if your assumption is true no Divine ever tried to buy the mages support with rights? I mean... if the purpose is as flimsy and arbitrary as you say. Then getting rid of it should be easy (well... easy and easy... convincing your followers wouldn't be too hard...). The history of the Chantry ought to have been full of people wanting to be Divines that sought the support of mages (among others).

Of course... now that I think of it. There's nothing that says there wasn't.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Sir JK wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Lob is right.  That was the distinction I was trying to make.  I note that even today, mages talk about themselves as a society and as mages referring to themselves as the "circle" or "circle mages" even when outside the tower, and that's quite different from references to the tower itself which confusingly is also called the "circle" or "circle tower".  At least that's my take.[/quote]

Allright...so... uhm... which is which? Circle refers to the training, culture and such? Circle tower being the system of oppressive segregation?
[/quote]

That's how I've been distinquishing the two.  Honestly this sort of dual-name confusion happens all too often.

[quote]

[quote]I do recall that the codex e

ntries specifically used the term "Exalted March" to describe his war to unify Orlais.  I'll see if I can't dig it up.[/quote]
Please do.
[/quote]

Your wish is my command.  See Codex Entry: The History of the Chantry Chapter 4 (under books and songs) by (in game) Bros Genitivi.  The money quote follows:

There were many converts, including powerful people in the Imperium and in the city-states of what is now Orlais. Such was the power of the Maker's word that the young King Drakon undertook a series of Exalted Marches meant to unite the city-states and create an empire solely dedicated to the Maker's will. The Orlesian Empire became the seat of the Chantry's power, the Grand Cathedral in Val Royeaux the source of the movement that birthed the organized Chantry as we know it today. Drakon, by then Emperor Drakon I, created the Circle of Magi, the Order of Templars and the holy office of the Divine. Many within the Chantry revere him nearly as equal with Andraste herself.

[quote]


[quote]'fraid I will have to go with confusing since we know the first Divine was Justina I, and that happened late (or at least well into) Drakon I's reign, so I think we have to accept they were different events.[/quote]
He died in Divine: 45 (1:45) after having ruled as emperor for 48 years (and 54 since he started his wars of conquest). If the divines, like the popes, were chosen from among the old. There is room to have had a fair few in those 45 years.
[/quote]

Perhaps but it does seem unlikely but admittedly not impossible.


[quote]

[quote]Indeed.  This was precisely the point I was trying to make and why I consider this codex entry to be damning.[/quote]
Wait... you consider this to be damning? That a chantry sister is not even mentioning the primary justification they use in every instance? I mean even if it was a false justification that would have been mentioned would it not? If nothing else to say that it was not, contrary to popular opinion, one of the reasons. I mean if a member of the chantry comes reading this book, would he/she not come with that belief firmly rooted? That it would need extra care to be cleared up that it was not a reason?
I mean... just look at me. I believe the chantry believe that. And this entry thus completely failed to dispel that belief. So if it was not a reason... wouldn't that have to be completely spelled out?
[/quote]

You are not trying to claim that protection was such an important issue that it was never even implied much less mentioned from a Encyclopedia Type Entry written BY the Chantry?  Really?

[quote]

[quote]The Dalish, however, were open heathens on the Southern Borders and openly practiced magic.  Also the Chasind at this point seemed to unify once per generation and were a force to be reckoned with (and also had magic).  Remember that Ostagar was built to protect Old Tevinter against the Wilder Folk (read Chasind).  Then too you had the various threats from heretics and the like (including Dragon Cults).  All told it was a dangerous time and magic, esp healing and battlemagic would be invaluable. [/quote]
Indeed. There's just one teeny tiny flaw with healing and battlemagic. A disloyal mage can withold it or turn it on you. The Chantry was not strong at this time. I don't think it is unreasonable to say it largely relied on Drakon I's support. If you wanted to make obedient servants out of mages (and that being the only reason)... wouldn't this (quite literally) explode in your face?
Why would mages, forcefully segregated, ever support their opressors against people who would treat them better?
[/quote]

Perhaps because at this time, the mages were just as devout followers of Andraste as anyone else?  The hatreds and animosities we see today hadn't yet had a chance to mature perhaps?  We do know that Andraste herself had nothing against mages and magic per se (and indeed may have been one though this is disputed).  We do know that she grew up in a society (the Avaars) that openly had mages and non-mages living together.  Just as it too time for the chantry to sow the seeds of hatred (900 years), perhaps it took time for the system to be recognized as the bad system it was.

Besides who's to say that the mages just submitted meekly.  We simply don't know.

[quote]

[quote]Mages will also be a tiny minority just from genetics alone, and the Chantry from the Divine down to the rank and file were already showing distinct and heavy anti-magic bias (which would soon create the Imperial/Andrastian Chantry split).  Given that and given it's Chantry lore that all mages were to blame for the blights, abolishing the circle tower system after Ambrosia II would be political suicide.  The Divines don't strike me as being either very daring or very visionary leaders (even the so-called great ones).  Far better and far easier in their minds to consider the mage/magic problem out-of-sight and thus out-of-mind with the circle tower system.  Politically the mages were nothing when it comes to Chantry politics (and now of course less than nothing).[/quote]
But the Chantry is not monolithic (it cannot be, by merit of having more than 3 members). There will be struggles for power, there will be dominating Divines and figurehead Divines. Political factions. Are you saying that it never struck a single one of them (or more importantly, their followers) to seek support among the mages? Simply because Ambrosia II got a bit annoyed and it was handly to have pet (but upset) mages around?
I mean you said it yourself. Mages are both dangerous and very useful. Having them on your side would have been a very strong ace up your sleeve. Especially in the early Chantry, before it got truly worldspanning.
I mean is there any reason at all to believe that if your assumption is true no Divine ever tried to buy the mages support with rights? I mean... if the purpose is as flimsy and arbitrary as you say. Then getting rid of it should be easy (well... easy and easy... convincing your followers wouldn't be too hard...). The history of the Chantry ought to have been full of people wanting to be Divines that sought the support of mages (among others).

Of course... now that I think of it. There's nothing that says there wasn't.
[/quote]

That last sentence just destroyed your entire argument.  You don't know.  It's quite feasible in fact that a pro-mage faction did exist in the early chantry and lost out (just as early Gnostics lost out in the early history of Christianity).  The fact that the Imperial/Andrastian Chantry split took place indicates to me at least, that there were strong pre-magic elements in the early chantry that later got purged and the Chant itself altered to turn them into Heretics.  After all, they did that to the elves writing out one of their greastest disciples of Andraste (Shartan).

-Polaris

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...
That's how I've been distinquishing the two.  Honestly this sort of dual-name confusion happens all too often.

Indeed

Your wish is my command.  See Codex Entry: The History of the Chantry Chapter 4 (under books and songs) by (in game) Bros Genitivi.  The money quote follows:

There were many converts, including powerful people in the Imperium and in the city-states of what is now Orlais. Such was the power of the Maker's word that the young King Drakon undertook a series of Exalted Marches meant to unite the city-states and create an empire solely dedicated to the Maker's will. The Orlesian Empire became the seat of the Chantry's power, the Grand Cathedral in Val Royeaux the source of the movement that birthed the organized Chantry as we know it today. Drakon, by then Emperor Drakon I, created the Circle of Magi, the Order of Templars and the holy office of the Divine. Many within the Chantry revere him nearly as equal with Andraste herself.

Fascinating... and yet the Exalted March codex entry says it's the first since Andraste's. Then again... that does not mean Drakon couldn't have called his wars of conquest Exalted Marches.

Perhaps but it does seem unlikely but admittedly not impossible.

Indeed

You are not trying to claim that protection was such an important issue that it was [i]never even implied much less mentioned from a Encyclopedia Type Entry written BY the Chantry?  Really?

I am saying it makes no sense at all. If protection is not an issue then why is this belief not dispelled. It is at the heart of the anti-mage dogma of the Chantry. So why is not even mentioned in this which is supposedly describing the full story? You can even take me as an example... it did not dispel my belief that protection was a core issue. So if it was supposed to clarify the reasons behind it, the text absolutely failed to do so.
I mean... if something differs from the norm you would have to point that out right? This text deals with how the circle towers were formed and at the center of anti-mage dogma is their danger.

So why is it not mentioned at all? Why is it not pointed out that the circle towers does not exist for that purpose? Since that is what one would expect? It makes no sense to me.

Perhaps because at this time, the mages were just as devout followers of Andraste as anyone else?  The hatreds and animosities we see today hadn't yet had a chance to mature perhaps?  We do know that Andraste herself had nothing against mages and magic per se (and indeed may have been one though this is disputed).  We do know that she grew up in a society (the Avaars) that openly had mages and non-mages living together.  Just as it too time for the chantry to sow the seeds of hatred (900 years), perhaps it took time for the system to be recognized as the bad system it was.

Besides who's to say that the mages just submitted meekly.  We simply don't know.

Well. That the animosity had not have had time to develop I agree with. Absolutely. It sounds very reasonable that the animosity is a result of hundreds of years worth of templars and mages clashing against one another. 
Though... I must ask... from where do we know Andraste had nothing against mages? I'm not saying it is wrong. I just can't recall that mentioned anywhere.
As for Andraste growing up among the Avvars, yes and no. She grew up among the Avvars, her people. But she grew up as part of the Tevinter Imperium, A slave even (a true slave ). A society in which anti-mage sentiments were reaching it's boiling point... just then in fact. That said... she might have worked alongside Avvar mages just fine. But I don't think we really can say mages and non-mages were living side by side in peace in the waning days of the Old Tevinter Imperium. I believe the entire point was they weren't .

That last sentence just destroyed your entire argument.  You don't know.  It's quite feasible in fact that a pro-mage faction did exist in the early chantry and lost out (just as early Gnostics lost out in the early history of Christianity).  The fact that the Imperial/Andrastian Chantry split took place indicates to me at least, that there were strong pre-magic elements in the early chantry that later got purged and the Chant itself altered to turn them into Heretics.  After all, they did that to the elves writing out one of their greastest disciples of Andraste (Shartan).

-Polaris

I know I ruined my argument. But I figured I ought to treat my argument with the same critiscism I treat yours, right?. However, I would not say for certain they are gone (they might be). We have seen precious little of Chantry internal politics (nothing, in fact). They might still be around, if they existed. Currently not in power though, but not neccessarily weak.

After all. The mages are allowed to meet in Cumberland after all. Maybe our hypothetical pro-mage faction might be the primary reason the cumberland meetings exist?
There seem to me to be a significant number of mages who believe they can reason with the Chantry after all. Who is to say they can't (well... the libertarians, but we knew that)? The pro-mage faction being their primary "allies"?
I like that thought actually. It sounds very interesting.

That is all pure speculation by the way. Just thought I'd point that out.

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK,



As for where I get that Andraste was not Anti-Mage, she obviously was the leader of barbarian armies that defeated the Tevinter Imperium backed up by the most powerful bloodmagic in Thedas. I don't think it's reasonable to assume they had such success if they didn't use magic on their side. Also a lot of her miracles seem pretty magical to me as well, and Anders (who admittedly is biased but still overall a devout Andratian) says that Andraste would have been confused about the whole notion of locking mages up.



Also if you just look at the Chant of Light, there is nothing anti-mage about it. It says that magic is the maker's gift (not curse...that came later) and that magic should be used to serve man and not to rule over him (our mages are good. magisters are EVIL would be an apt read of that I think). The chant goes on to say that those that abuse their gift and harm others shall be labled as Malificar (again targeting the Magisters while not naming them specifcially).



We see the same thing in Spiderman 1, i.e. With Great Power comes Great Responsibility.



Basically there is no evidence whatsoever that Andraste was anti-mage and many good reasons to think that she actually had no problem with magic whatsoever......but rather had huge problems with the Old Tevinter Magisters which is no suprise.



Given how Andraste was a slave herself, how do you really think she'd react to the current circle tower system. Jesus in the Money-Changers is what I'd guess would be an apt analogy..,..



-Polaris

[Hawke92]

I don't like the chantry ! They denied an order from the Gray Warden and the King (Right Of Conscription for Anders)I understand that they want to control the mages but there out of hand the Templers isn't that a bit forced ?To execute every mage that is an apostate or a maleficar i perosnally aprove of both the apostates and the blood mages because they are fighting for freedom.I'm not saying that all of them should become abominations and start running wild ! All i'm saying is that they deserve a little more freedom.Imagine if a Blood Mage surrenders to the chantry do you think they will keep him inprisend or execute him ? I think it's the secound !

[IanPolaris]

Hawke,



The Chantry in Dragon Age is very obviously (and some say too obviously) modeled off the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle-Ages and pre-Reformation Rennaissance. That institution was large, politically active, and very openly hypocritical about it's practices vs it's supposed preaching (esp on things such as Indulgences and such).



The RCC then went to great lengths to preserve and expand it's political power often given spiritual matters short (if any) shrift.



Getting back to this topic, it seems clear at least to me that "control of magic" is a tool the Chantry uses to further it's political power and to (try) to insure that secular kings can't ever challenge the overall political power and scope of the Chantry which (if you think the historical parallel is apt...and I do) explains a great deal why the Chantry is willing to go gonzo over even the merest threat of a breakage of their monopoly of lyrium or magic (which is why the Chantry is stupidly considering an Exalted March...which they will lose....against Orzammar if Orzammar hosts an independant circle of magi).



-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

[dp]

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

You are not trying to claim that protection was such an important issue that it was never even implied much less mentioned from a Encyclopedia Type Entry written BY the Chantry?  Really?

I am saying it makes no sense at all. If protection is not an issue then why is this belief not dispelled. It is at the heart of the anti-mage dogma of the Chantry. So why is not even mentioned in this which is supposedly describing the full story? You can even take me as an example... it did not dispel my belief that protection was a core issue. So if it was supposed to clarify the reasons behind it, the text absolutely failed to do so.
I mean... if something differs from the norm you would have to point that out right? This text deals with how the circle towers were formed and at the center of anti-mage dogma is their danger.

You have no idea when this codex was written.  It seems far more reasonable given what the codex DOES say, that it's written with an eye towards the justification of the segregation of mages in mind.  That being so, the most reasonable explaination for not mentioning protection of mundanes from abominations was because at the time this wasn't a serious issue or problem.  That being so, it destroys the claim the Chantry makes now that it is.

So why is it not mentioned at all? Why is it not pointed out that the circle towers does not exist for that purpose? Since that is what one would expect? It makes no sense to me.

I have a real simple explaination.  The circle towers aren't meant for that purpose (to protect mundanes from abominations).  The entire theme of the codex is one of control and honestly that's consistant with all chantry policies towards magic and lyrium before and since.  It simply shows (perhaps unintentionally) just how hypocritical the chantry really is.

-Polaris

[Haverrun]

I'm kind of taking this away from the current point here, but I've always wondered why the Chantry forbade shapeshifting. It's not like it's blood magic or anything.

[IanPolaris]

Haverrun wrote...

I'm kind of taking this away from the current point here, but I've always wondered why the Chantry forbade shapeshifting. It's not like it's blood magic or anything.

It's hard to keep mages prisoner when they can turn into a bird and literally fly the coop. 

-Polaris

[Erani]

IanPolaris wrote...

Haverrun wrote...

I'm kind of taking this away from the current point here, but I've always wondered why the Chantry forbade shapeshifting. It's not like it's blood magic or anything.

It's hard to keep mages prisoner when they can turn into a bird and literally fly the coop. 

-Polaris

Right, but I wonder what their "official excuse" is?...*ponders*