1869 réponses à ce sujet

[Huntress]

Erani wrote...

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*

They change shapes, when  morrigan talk to the warden: "I have seen the world as a cat, smell it as a wolf.."

They will always get out of the tower, thats why that magic is not used in the Tower. Chantry call that type of magic, blood magic, any one who uses it Malificar. Poor morrigan:blush:

[IanPolaris]

Erani wrote...

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*

The modern Chantry is so arrogant about magic, that I don't think they have one or feel they need one.  This magic (shapeshifting) has been declared forbidden, so toe the party line YOU HERETIC! (at least that's what the chantry would say)

-Polaris

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...
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.

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

I'm not convinced, but I think it is time to put it to rest. We're getting nowhere with this, so perhaps we should just agree to disagree?

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
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.

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

I'm not convinced, but I think it is time to put it to rest. We're getting nowhere with this, so perhaps we should just agree to disagree?

Perhaps you're right it might be best to agree to disagree, but I will leave this sub-topic with an appeal to Occam's razor.  You can't seem to make sense of this codex without needlessly complicating how the chantry works.  For me, however, the explaination is very simple.  While Occam's razor isn't absolute proof, it does strongly suggest that the simpliest explaination is likely the right one, and right now that seems to be mine w/r/t this sub-topic.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 03 février 2011 - 08:08 .

[IanPolaris]

[dp]

[dreman9999]

I say cut the Chantry out of the loop and all will be better. When ever religious group set the standard for policing other people, things end up going badly

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Morrigan is not a Grey Warden Lob.
Traveling with a Warden, and actually being conscripted or a true Warden are two different things. Not to mention that she isn't travling with the Warden after DA:O.
Legaly, the Chantry can go after her.

Everyone knows that the Dalish have mages among them - its referenced more than once in the Magi Origin by Circle mages, after all.

The magi may know...But how many others? Aside from the magi and chatnry schoolars, very few ahve any greater edication. Have you seen any peasants or villager talk about the Dalish?

Even if they do know about Dalish having mages, what do they know abotu them specificly? Not much, given that the Dalish don't like anyone near their camps.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

Hello? The first Blight?
At that time there were no Grey Wardens...the BLight caught everyone by surprise. IIRC, it is mentioned that the Tevinter empire was severely weakened.

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).

Doesn't this kinda dispute the whole mage-hate and anti-mage propaganda?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Hawke92 wrote...

I don't like the chantry ! They denied an order from the Gray Warden and the King (Right Of Conscription for Anders)

The Chantry, or just the few templars that were there?
In any organization you will find people that will at some point say "screw the rules". There is every indication that the templars there went rouge.

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 !

It depends on the Knight-Commander. I'd say tranquilisation is most likely.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Morrigan is not a Grey Warden Lob.
Traveling with a Warden, and actually being conscripted or a true Warden are two different things. Not to mention that she isn't travling with the Warden after DA:O.
Legaly, the Chantry can go after her.

Lady Wolsey, Capt Garavel, and your Senechal in DAA haven't formally undergone the joining either, but they are considered Grey Wardens legally.  The same applies to you, Daveth, and Ser Jory...you are legally Grey Wardens and treated as such.  The moment the Grey Wardens conscript/recruit you into their organziation, you are a Grey Warden legally and thus outside the bounds of Secular or Religious authority. 

Now once Morrigan leaves, sure, the Chantry can go after her.  Good luck with that.  Morrigan learned from Flemeth on how to deal with Templars and I'll leave it at that.

Everyone knows that the Dalish have mages among them - its referenced more than once in the Magi Origin by Circle mages, after all.

The magi may know...But how many others? Aside from the magi and chatnry schoolars, very few ahve any greater edication. Have you seen any peasants or villager talk about the Dalish?

Even if they do know about Dalish having mages, what do they know abotu them specificly? Not much, given that the Dalish don't like anyone near their camps.

Everyone knows that the Dalish have mysterious crafts including magic.  From what I can tell most Andrastians fear the Dalish (and not without reason).

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
Perhaps you're right it might be best to agree to disagree, but I will leave this sub-topic with an appeal to Occam's razor.  You can't seem to make sense of this codex without needlessly complicating how the chantry works.  For me, however, the explaination is very simple.  While Occam's razor isn't absolute proof, it does strongly suggest that the simpliest explaination is likely the right one, and right now that seems to be mine w/r/t this sub-topic.

-Polaris

Should we also apply Occams Razon on the whole "grey" issue? Because if we do, you being wrong is clearly the simplest explanation.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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 !

It depends on the Knight-Commander. I'd say tranquilisation is most likely.

The Game Lore disagrees with you.  In the first place if the bloodmage had been harrowed, the Tranquility is not an option.  Once you've been harrowed, you can not be made tranquil (per Anders in DAA).

Furthermore when Wynne tries to rat you out to the Templars (after saving her precious tower) or even the scene just before that (which is generally available to everyone), you hear over and over again that a bloodmage can not be suffered to live (because of the fear of mind control magic).

It's clear from the game-lore that if you are a bloodmage (or the chantry thinks you are), then you will be killed (generally on the spot if possible).

In the Bloodmage Warden scene, Gregoire makes an extraordinary offer to plead for your life (and it's clear that it's an EXTRAORDINARY offer) based on your service to the chantry.....which honestly was not his legal right to make or offer per DG himself.  Grey Warden mages aren't subject to Templar authority.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Perhaps you're right it might be best to agree to disagree, but I will leave this sub-topic with an appeal to Occam's razor.  You can't seem to make sense of this codex without needlessly complicating how the chantry works.  For me, however, the explaination is very simple.  While Occam's razor isn't absolute proof, it does strongly suggest that the simpliest explaination is likely the right one, and right now that seems to be mine w/r/t this sub-topic.

-Polaris

Should we also apply Occams Razon on the whole "grey" issue? Because if we do, you being wrong is clearly the simplest explanation.

Google "Occam's razor" and learn what it means and get back to us.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

Hello? The first Blight?
At that time there were no Grey Wardens...the BLight caught everyone by surprise. IIRC, it is mentioned that the Tevinter empire was severely weakened.

So was everyone else.  However, magic is like superior technology.  The only reliable way to fight it is to have some of your own.  My point stands.

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).

Doesn't this kinda dispute the whole mage-hate and anti-mage propaganda?

Not in the slightest.  The Roman Catholic Church of the High Middle Ages and early Rennaisance (pre-Reformation) was vastly different and basically unrecognizable from the sermons and policies of the early Christian Church.  Same here.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Should we also apply Occams Razon on the whole "grey" issue? Because if we do, you being wrong is clearly the simplest explanation.

Google "Occam's razor" and learn what it means and get back to us.

-Polaris

Maybe you should take your own advice....

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Hello? The first Blight?
At that time there were no Grey Wardens...the BLight caught everyone by surprise. IIRC, it is mentioned that the Tevinter empire was severely weakened.

So was everyone else.  However, magic is like superior technology.  The only reliable way to fight it is to have some of your own.  My point stands.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Tevinter was hit the hardest.

Also, there are other ways to coutner magic. Superior numbers...or NOT having most of your army tied up fighting on another front.

Your point does not stand.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Should we also apply Occams Razon on the whole "grey" issue? Because if we do, you being wrong is clearly the simplest explanation.

Google "Occam's razor" and learn what it means and get back to us.

-Polaris

Maybe you should take your own advice....

Lotion, here is your free lesson of the day.  Occam's razor in the original Latin reads:

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Translated this means (apprx), "Do not multiply contructions (or assumptions) beyond that which is necessary" which in common parlace means., "the theory that requires the least amount of unprovable assumptions and constructions" is likely the correct one, and this has actually been rigorously proven in modern set-theory mathematics.

In the context which I was talking to Sir JK, we have two possible ways to read a particular codex entry, and both can not be rigorously proven to be correct.  However, my interpretation requires far less reading into the text than hers does, thus I appeal to Occam's razor.

Your silly "authorial moral greyness" argument is based on unfounded assumptions from top to bottom and so clearly an appeal to Occam's razor is unwarrented.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Hello? The first Blight?
At that time there were no Grey Wardens...the BLight caught everyone by surprise. IIRC, it is mentioned that the Tevinter empire was severely weakened.

So was everyone else.  However, magic is like superior technology.  The only reliable way to fight it is to have some of your own.  My point stands.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Tevinter was hit the hardest.

Also, there are other ways to coutner magic. Superior numbers...or NOT having most of your army tied up fighting on another front.

Your point does not stand.

Facts not in evidence.  We KNOW that the ancient Avaars had magic (and indeed we see direct evidence of this when we liberate the circle tower).  To suggest that the Avaar barbarians under Andraste's command did not use magic when the Tevinter Imperium did (when we know that they had it) is simply silly on the face of it.  Andraste's army may not have had as much magic, but they most certainly had it.

As for being tied up on another front, again facts not in evidence.  The Blight hit every nation in Thedas hard. 

Thus my point does stand.  You simply don't want to admit it.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
Lotion, here is your free lesson of the day.  Occam's razor in the original Latin reads:

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Translated this means (apprx), "Do not multiply contructions (or assumptions) beyond that which is necessary" which in common parlace means., "the theory that requires the least amount of unprovable assumptions and constructions" is likely the correct one, and this has actually been rigorously proven in modern set-theory mathematics.

In the context which I was talking to Sir JK, we have two possible ways to read a particular codex entry, and both can not be rigorously proven to be correct.  However, my interpretation requires far less reading into the text than hers does, thus I appeal to Occam's razor.

Your silly "authorial moral greyness" argument is based on unfounded assumptions from top to bottom and so clearly an appeal to Occam's razor is unwarrented.

-Polaris

*YAWN*

Your theory is not supported by any hard evidence and requires one to belive that:
a) your intepretations on the developers motives are correct
your interpetatiosn of various texts are correct
c) the developers made several big mistakes

So yeah..your agument is clearly less likely to be right than mine..

Not that Occams Razor actually has any practicla value....The simpler solution is the wrong one as often as it is the right one.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Hello? The first Blight?
At that time there were no Grey Wardens...the BLight caught everyone by surprise. IIRC, it is mentioned that the Tevinter empire was severely weakened.

So was everyone else.  However, magic is like superior technology.  The only reliable way to fight it is to have some of your own.  My point stands.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but Tevinter was hit the hardest.

Also, there are other ways to coutner magic. Superior numbers...or NOT having most of your army tied up fighting on another front.

Your point does not stand.

Facts not in evidence.  We KNOW that the ancient Avaars had magic (and indeed we see direct evidence of this when we liberate the circle tower).  To suggest that the Avaar barbarians under Andraste's command did not use magic when the Tevinter Imperium did (when we know that they had it) is simply silly on the face of it.  Andraste's army may not have had as much magic, but they most certainly had it.

As for being tied up on another front, again facts not in evidence.  The Blight hit every nation in Thedas hard. 

Thus my point does stand.  You simply don't want to admit it.

I'm not saying Andraste didn't have any mages in her army. I' m saying that mages are not necessary to defeat mages.

And yeah...a Blight will not politely wait for Tevinter to deal with rebellion. The first Blight hit every nation on Thedas. Just imagine how big it was. To think Tevinter wasn't actively fighting it any way it could it  silly.

You point does not stand...

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 03 février 2011 - 02:50 .

[LobselVith8]

Erani wrote...

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*

The Magi Warden admits he's never even heard of the kind of magic Morrigan is talking about (when she talks about how she can change shape, which the Dalish mages actually do as well) so it's likely the Chantry simply wiped out all practitioners of the art in the name of the One True Way of Magic taught at the Circle of Magi.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[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]

Because I disagree with your views on the Chantry?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

I pointed out there was no proof that Aenirin was a blood mage, and that none of the scenes we're shown with the Dalish at the campfire, the story Wynne tells about her past, or the interaction between Wynne and Aenirin shows no indication that the templars claim was true.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

The burden of proof isn't on me to fan fic explanations for the templars putting a bounty on a person who has known ties to the Grey Wardens or who has shown absolutely no blood magic abiltiies (unlike Jowan). The templars have no proof that Morrigan is a blood mage. In fact, we're never shown her performing any blood magic feats like Jowan does - so nothing disproves that they put a bounty on her for their suspicions alone.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

There's no evidence Aenirin is a maleficar, but he was nearly killed by templars. There's no evidence that Morrigan is a blood mage, but she had a bounty placed on her by the templars. What we do know doesn't honestly support your suggestions.

Regarding D'Sims, if he used a knife instead of magic, wouldn't that have been an indication that perhaps he wasn't a mage, especially one who was only healing people?

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

You mean the codex entry explaining the reason why mages are segregated (because of a protest mages held in a cathedral) is interpretation? I disagree.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

I do read. Opinion isn't fact. He could easily have said it wasn't, but he clearly worded it as his opinion. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if mages were debating this distinction themselves (i.e. the Libertarians arguing with the Loyalists).

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

Morrigan, Aenirin, and D'Sims might disagree.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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]

We were discussing Rivain, the Dalish, and the Chasind, and you once again claimed I couldn't use them as examples. I pointed out how the people in canon are apparently using them as examples to debate whether mages should be imprisoned and segregated under the Chantry.

Mages help all the time - the Blights, the invading Qunari armies - but are still relegated to being imprisoners of the Chantry with no rights.

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

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. [/quote]

No, your attempts to make it seem like the Chantry is correct and any dispute is wrong is completely off-base. The fact that people in Thedas are debating whether it's necessary and pointing to the alternative societies as proof that mages can live with nonmages provides us a greater context of the world we're discussing. Not everyone in the Andrastian societies thinks the templars are necessary, and openly use the examples of the Dalish clans and Rivain to show mages can live alongside nonmages.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Like Ian's use of David Gaider quotes, examples from the codex entries, and citing from the story of DA?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

I'm trolling because I disagree with you? You, who called me stupid and made a condescending comment about brain cells because I refuse to agree with you? Maybe you could try making some strong arguments to back up your case rather than making vague comments about Gaider quotes that never say what you claim they do or saying it's morally grey so we can't disagree with you. Yes, there's a lot of things in DA that allow us to see that it's often an issue of being pragmatic or being idealistic  - like the Anvil of the Void, for instance - but we've never given any proof that the templars imprisoning and dehumanizing mages has accomplished anything but runaways and rebellions. In fact, DA2 looks like it'll feature Mages vs. Templars. 

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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

An Orlesian noble brought a village of Ferelden people into the Fade - which could have been prevented if mages were avaliable to handle the Baroness, instead of being imprisoned by drug addicts following the word of an order that preaches anti-mage propaganda.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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

Abominations that seem to be created as a direct result of the templars oppressing mages, you mean?

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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)

Not according to the all the mages leaving the Circle Tower to fight in the Battle of Denerim.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

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.

Since the Warden-Commander and Anders don't get possessed by the Baroness, and neither do any of the other companions, that doesn't seem to be an issue. If the Baroness had such control over people, the villagers could not have contained her in the first place.

[atheelogos]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Erani wrote...

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*

so it's likely the Chantry simply wiped out all practitioners of the art in the name of the One True Way of Magic taught at the Circle of Magi.

This is another reason the Chantry shouldn't regulate magic. You lose too much precious lore with them charge.

[moilami]

Sir JK wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
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.

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

I'm not convinced, but I think it is time to put it to rest. We're getting nowhere with this, so perhaps we should just agree to disagree?

Lol in case you killed my char while he was sleeping I can tell you I was revived and now I am again fighting for Nanomage Liberation Front, Third Faction, and Drow Society For Life

Edit: And in case you did not kill me Oghren came and said lets go drink some beer and I made a statement to you I go drink beer with Oghren now

Modifié par moilami, 04 février 2011 - 02:55 .