219 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

KLUME777 wrote...

Lets think this logically (And im only counting humans, for reasons i will explain later).
As much as mages might hate the tower, its better for them as well.

Living in a prison is better for them? Not many would agree with your opinion, particularly the people who have to endure living under the guard of armed and armored drug addicts who only answer to an anti-mage organization.

KLUME777 wrote...

In the tower, the mages are in a learning environment where they are surounded by other mages to teach them how to use their abilities. They will have maximum oppurtunity to use there full potential in the tower. Plus, there with fellow mages who they can relate to, and if anything happens, like a demon outbreak, It wont rip a country in half via fullscale war.

The same enviornment that a rape victim like Fiona, from The Calling, saw no better than her life as a victim of sexual assault?

KLUME777 wrote...

Outside the tower, in villages/cities/farms/wherever, they're NOT around fellow mages to teach them how to use they're power and to guide them (especially for kids who just discover they're power). They will be ostracised by there community because they're perceived as outsiders, which will outcome in mental instability, theyre open to demon intrusion, and lastly, some evil villian can easily kidnap a few child mages, lock them up and use them for his own evil purposes. Or kidnap them and train them as a dark jedi type apprentice (not apostate, dark mage). And they have no friend mages to relate to. Not good.

In other words, let's ignore how Haven, the Dalish clans, and Rivain have mages and non-mages together in favor of a system that has shown to treat mages as sub-human and demonize them in the public?

KLUME777 wrote...

EDIT: Also, only the young mages did'nt like the tower. First Enchanter Irving knew that the tower was a neccassary act, and he agreed with it.

In Irving's opinion; he's also happy of the Magi Warden asks for the Circle to be granted it's independence at the end of DA:O.

[LobselVith8]

KLUME777 wrote...

Dont forget the blight.

Dwarves don't believe the Tevinter mages started the Blight; only the Chantry professes that. No proof that the Tevinters ever stepped into the Golden City, either.

Josef bugman3 wrote...

An urgent review of how mages are treated would be very very good. The only problem is what happens when mages start deciding that they have all this power, why shouldn't they use it? The problem of Tevinter is not just that it ruined a fictional city, but because it created a ruling class so powerful it never had to worry about rebellion.

People misuse power all the time. Divine Ambrosia II wanted to declare an Exalted March on a cathedral because mages staged a non-violent protest. Nobody here is arguing against mages being properly instructed on how to use their powers or against law enforcement keeping law and order for everyone, but the problem lies with a very bad institution that preaches intolerance towards mages and treats mages as though they're the sole property of the Chantry.

-Skorpious- wrote...

Exactly. Mages may not deserve a life of solitude, but (judging by lore standards and not actual gameplay) one abomination is enough to destroy an entire group of seasoned veterans. Imagine if only a single abomination got inside a village like Lothering.

And a possessed cat can kill three seasoned templars (Awakening) and almost anything can be possessed (even dead trees). There's no proof that the Circle is necessary.

[elfdwarf]

this won't just choose side, circle mages have own politics .

The Loyalists chantry lover

The Libertarians power and freedom lover

The Aequitarians palace or people who want make compromise between Loyalists & Libertarians

The Lucrosians greedy mage

The Isolationists mages who don't want live with normal civilian

[silentassassin264]

I would side with the Mages. Not even lore wise does it make sense to confine them. The Tevinter Imperium and the Arlathan elves were able to build powerful societies with mages in control and or running around willy nilly. The Grey Warden without any special abomination fighting training or special training at all was able to plow through every abomination in the Circle Tower and the only one that remotely difficult was Abomination Uldred. The only other parts that were slightly difficult were the two desire demon fights (largely because the ambush was...well an ambush).



Also, the threat is grossly exaggerated because not once did we see a mage being forcefully possessed without the demon being summoned into the real world. As shown previously by the desire demon fights, if a demon gets into the real world, it is dangerous regardless of possession of a mage. Next, the fight at Redcliffe was a massacre because Bann Teagan was a friggin idiot. If they had gone inside the castle and killed Connor instead of waiting around to die in the first place, none of that would have ever happened. They just waited like idiots to die instead of going to solve the problem.

[-Skorpious-]

LobselVith8 wrote...

People misuse power all the time. Divine Ambrosia II wanted to declare an Exalted March on a cathedral because mages staged a non-violent protest. Nobody here is arguing against mages being properly instructed on how to use their powers or against law enforcement keeping law and order for everyone, but the problem lies with a very bad institution that preaches intolerance towards mages and treats mages as though they're the sole property of the Chantry.

I guess I have to agree. The mages should be granted more freedoms but, as I mentioned earlier, men are selfish by nature. A noble can use political ties to have an innocent man executed, a farmer can sabotage a rivals fields, but neither of the two could use magic to bend entire cities to his will.

My point is, mages cannot be entirely unregulated. They were born with great power, and unless they are properly instructed to use said power, are incredibly dangerous. Even then however, mages are still men; they have desires, wishes, and goals. The only difference is that even the lowest mage can usurp the mind of a king - the same cannot be said of a disgruntled shoemaker living in the slums. 

I do not support the Chantry keeping such tight leashes on mages, but I also do not support giving mages absolute freedom. 

Modifié par -Skorpious-, 27 janvier 2011 - 06:02 .

[TJPags]

Oh, I'll be helping the Chantry.



The idea of letting people with that kind of power run free to do whatever they like is frightening to me.



Lock 'em up and let a few out when we need them.

[LobselVith8]

-Skorpious- wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

People misuse power all the time. Divine Ambrosia II wanted to declare an Exalted March on a cathedral because mages staged a non-violent protest. Nobody here is arguing against mages being properly instructed on how to use their powers or against law enforcement keeping law and order for everyone, but the problem lies with a very bad institution that preaches intolerance towards mages and treats mages as though they're the sole property of the Chantry.

I guess I have to agree. The mages should be granted more freedoms but, as I mentioned earlier, men are selfish by nature. A noble can use political ties to have an innocent man executed, a farmer can sabotage a rivals fields, but neither of the two could use magic to bend entire cities to his will.

My point is, mages cannot be entirely unregulated. They were born with great power, and unless they are properly instructed to use said power, are incredibly dangerous. Even then however, mages are still men; they have desires, wishes, and goals. The only difference is that even the lowest mage can usurp the mind of a king - the same cannot be said of a disgruntled shoemaker living in the slums. 

I do not support the Chantry keeping such tight leashes on mages, but I also do not support giving mages absolute freedom. 

No one is unregulated; there's law and order in place. A taskforce with mages and non-mages keeping the peace makes more sense than an anti-mage religious order that imprisons mages and treats them as though they're sub-human.

[TJPags]

Treated as though they're sub-human? How?

[Augustei]

Depends on the charecter im playing.



My Warden would help the chantry, But My Hawke would help the mages even if they were Maleficar or demon possesed as he has a steaming hatred for the chantry.



The Chantry though aren't really a pure evil organisation that treat mages like scum like everyone views them as, They maintain order and stability across the nation to a good degree (By Medieval standards) If mages dont like the way they are treated they should just head to Tevinter and problem solved for em.

[TJPags]

XxDeonxX wrote...

Depends on the charecter im playing.

My Warden would help the chantry, But My Hawke would help the mages even if they were Maleficar or demon possesed as he has a steaming hatred for the chantry.

The Chantry though aren't really a pure evil organisation that treat mages like scum like everyone views them as, They maintain order and stability across the nation to a good degree (By Medieval standards) If mages dont like the way they are treated they should just head to Tevinter and problem solved for em.

Why does your Hawke - who you haven't played yet - hate the Chantry?

And why would your Hawke hate it that much that he would help such obviously deranged and dangerous people?  And help them do what, exactly?

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

Treated as though they're sub-human? How?

Being blamed for the Blight (Magi Origin), being imprisoned for the rest of their lives under the guard of armored drug addicts, being denied the right to have relationships or marry in some Circles, being unable to raise their own children, having demons placed inside them can be viewed as a form of torture, having no say to prove their innocence if they're accused of being maleficarum (and even First Enchanter Irving never saw the evidence that Greagoir had against Jowan, and the Rite was still signed), and having a lobotomy that leaves a mage as little more than a slave to do manual labor and craft magical items if someone decides that they are "too weak" to be a mage.

[Augustei]

TJPags wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

Depends on the charecter im playing.

My Warden would help the chantry, But My Hawke would help the mages even if they were Maleficar or demon possesed as he has a steaming hatred for the chantry.

The Chantry though aren't really a pure evil organisation that treat mages like scum like everyone views them as, They maintain order and stability across the nation to a good degree (By Medieval standards) If mages dont like the way they are treated they should just head to Tevinter and problem solved for em.

Why does your Hawke - who you haven't played yet - hate the Chantry?

And why would your Hawke hate it that much that he would help such obviously deranged and dangerous people?  And help them do what, exactly?

Cause he will be an evil bastard who will do anything to gain power. I already have him all planned out. Since he is an Apostate and has had to hide his powers for so long, and they hunted him down in the forests in a little backstory I wrote and they have hunted his father before in my story as well.

[Augustei]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Treated as though they're sub-human? How?

Being blamed for the Blight (Magi Origin), being imprisoned for the rest of their lives under the guard of armored drug addicts, being denied the right to have relationships or marry in some Circles, being unable to raise their own children, having demons placed inside them can be viewed as a form of torture, having no say to prove their innocence if they're accused of being maleficarum (and even First Enchanter Irving never saw the evidence that Greagoir had against Jowan, and the Rite was still signed), and having a lobotomy that leaves a mage as little more than a slave to do manual labor and craft magical items if someone decides that they are "too weak" to be a mage.

They are given a choice about being tanquil, Unless they are Maleficar.. Then their choices are tranquil or die. But thats still a choice!

And where does it say Irving had doubts about Jowan? he took tomes from the study because he belived Jowan was studying them and they contained info about blood magic or something. And Uldrud had methods of weeding them out early anyway and he seemed to trust Uldrud up until he went loony and went on a killing spree

That and well.. He DID turn out to be a maleficar

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 27 janvier 2011 - 06:23 .

[Nyaore]

TJPags wrote...

Treated as though they're sub-human? How?

-Killing them if they show even the slightest signs of becoming an abomination.
-Forcing mages to become Tranquil if they're too weak or hesitant to face down a bonnefide demon.
-Cutting all family ties and forcing them into solitude in remote towers across the countryside; though given the fact that most families react badly when they find out their child might be a mage this is sort of a mixed blessing.
-Taking away their right to a family in adulthood. Any children born to a mage under the thumb of the Chantry are immediately taken away upon birth and never allowed to know their parents.
-They're only allowed to leave the tower to perform services, and even then only the senior mages seem to be called upon or allowed to roam about with some sense of freedom.
-Etc.

[LobselVith8]

XxDeonxX wrote...

They are given a choice about being tanquil, Unless they are Maleficar.. Then their choices are tranquil or die. But thats still a choice!

In other words, if they're accused of being maleficar, they're given the Rite, even if it turns out to be a lie.

XxDeonxX wrote...

And where does it say Irving had doubts about Jowan? 

I said Irving wasn't privy to the evidence against Jowan. See the sequence with Irving in the Magi Origin and he admits as much. He even says he'd handle it differently if it were up to him.

XxDeonxX wrote...

That and well.. He DID turn out to be a maleficar

That completely ignores that simply because Jowan was a blood mage, the First Enchanter had no say or even no knowledge of what "evidence" was showing that Jowan was. Mages can do nothing if they're deemed to be maleficar, like Aenirin was - and there's absolutely no evidence showing that Wynne's apprentice was ever a maleficar, since their conversation even heavily implies that Wynne doesn't believe this to be the case (or else she wouldn't have invited him back to the Circle).

[TJPags]

LobselVith8 wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Treated as though they're sub-human? How?

Being blamed for the Blight (Magi Origin), being imprisoned for the rest of their lives under the guard of armored drug addicts, being denied the right to have relationships or marry in some Circles, being unable to raise their own children, having demons placed inside them can be viewed as a form of torture, having no say to prove their innocence if they're accused of being maleficarum (and even First Enchanter Irving never saw the evidence that Greagoir had against Jowan, and the Rite was still signed), and having a lobotomy that leaves a mage as little more than a slave to do manual labor and craft magical items if someone decides that they are "too weak" to be a mage.

1.  For all we know, they did cause the Blights.
2.  Being imprisoned is not being treated as a sub-human.
3.  Some Circles are not all.  Some of those in the Circle in Ferelden didn't seem to mind so much.
4.  Not every parent raises their own children.  See, for instance, Qunari.
5.  Can also be viewed as a kind of test, to see if they're able to handle the power they're born with.
6.  Jowan was, in fact, a blood mage.  Should you really use him as an example of a false accusation?
7.  If they can't handle the power they have, what other option do you suggest?  Since, you know, imprisoning them is so terrible also.

Nyaore wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Treated as though they're sub-human? How?

-Killing them if they show even the slightest signs of becoming an abomination.
-Forcing mages to become Tranquil if they're too weak or hesitant to face down a bonnefide demon.
-Cutting all family ties and forcing them into solitude in remote towers across the countryside; though given the fact that most families react badly when they find out their child might be a mage this is sort of a mixed blessing.
-Taking away their right to a family in adulthood. Any children born to a mage under the thumb of the Chantry are immediately taken away upon birth and never allowed to know their parents.
-They're only allowed to leave the tower to perform services, and even then only the senior mages seem to be called upon or allowed to roam about with some sense of freedom.
-Etc.

1.  I doubt they're killed out of hand, without some proof acceptable to those in charge.
2.  If they can't avoid the temptation of giving over their will and power to another, what would you prefer to do with them?
3.  As you point out, some families are afraid of their mage children.  And even if not, should those children be left to grow up with no training or supervision?  I'm reminded of an old Twilight Zone episode here.
4.  Some people should not raise children.  If the child is not a mage, should they have to stay in the terrible Towers you describe with their parents?  If the child is a mage, where else to raise but in the Chantry, and without favoritism, since we don't know whose it is?  Asuuming, of course, that having children and raising them is a right that should never be taken away.
5.  They're dangerous, which is why they're locked up in the first place.  Senior mages have poven themselves capable of handling that power in a responsible way.
 
None of this seems sub-human to me.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]TJPags wrote...

1.  For all we know, they did cause the Blights. [/quote]

As in, we don't know, and the people fighting the darkspawn on a daily basis - the dwarves - certainly don't believe that's the truth.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

2.  Being imprisoned is not being treated as a sub-human. [/quote]

Being killed or given a lobotomy without having any say in the matter, living a life where a false accusation can get you killed, living under the guard of armored soldiers who (as Cullen says) can discuss killing mages with glee, and having no future outside of a prison seems to sound wonderful to you. Treating all mages as though they're cursed and isolating them from the rest of society in a prison under armed guard doesn't sound like a picnic to me. In fact, the kind of behavior we see from Keili is precisely because of how the Chantry and it's anti-mage views have conditioned some mages to see themselves as cursed and think that death would be preferable to life. If the Circle was so much of an alternative, why does a rape victim like Fiona see the Circle as no better than her life prior to the Circle?

[quote]TJPags wrote...

3.  Some Circles are not all.  Some of those in the Circle in Ferelden didn't seem to mind so much. [/quote]

A Ferelden Circle with Cullen as the new Knight-Commander and ruling in fear would change that.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

4.  Not every parent raises their own children.  See, for instance, Qunari. [/quote]

So having your child taken away from you is all right because the Qunari say so? They also don't think women should be warriors - I assume you agree with them on that issue as well?

[quote]TJPags wrote...

5.  Can also be viewed as a kind of test, to see if they're able to handle the power they're born with. [/quote]

Which doesn't change that it's basically a form of torture.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

6.  Jowan was, in fact, a blood mage.  Should you really use him as an example of a false accusation? [/quote]

You mean, besides you ignoring how First Enchanter Irving had no knowledge of the evidence against Jowan and how easily Jowan may not have been a blood mage? He'd have been killed by the templars instead of escaping, Lily would have been sent to Aeonar, and nothing would have changed in regards to the role that the templars have over mages.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

7.  If they can't handle the power they have, what other option do you suggest?  Since, you know, imprisoning them is so terrible also. [/quote]

People don't like being enslaved; they have a tendency to fight their oppressors in order to be free.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

1.  I doubt they're killed out of hand, without some proof acceptable to those in charge. [/quote]

Irving already admits he didn't see the proof against Jowan but the Rite was already signed, so evidently they do.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

2.  If they can't avoid the temptation of giving over their will and power to another, what would you prefer to do with them? [/quote]

See: Dalish, Haven, Rivain, Dales, and Arlthan.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

3.  As you point out, some families are afraid of their mage children.  And even if not, should those children be left to grow up with no training or supervision?  I'm reminded of an old Twilight Zone episode here. [/quote]

You're intentionally ignoring the issue to bring up how the Chantry openly demonizes mages to the public and instills fear and hatred in people.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

4.  Some people should not raise children.  If the child is not a mage, should they have to stay in the terrible Towers you describe with their parents?  If the child is a mage, where else to raise but in the Chantry, and without favoritism, since we don't know whose it is?  Asuuming, of course, that having children and raising them is a right that should never be taken away. [/quote]

Except if we look at current societies like Haven, the Dalish clans, and Rivain, where mages and non-mages live together, which disproves the idea that a mother who is a mage can't raise a child.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

5.  They're dangerous, which is why they're locked up in the first place.  Senior mages have poven themselves capable of handling that power in a responsible way. [/quote]

No, they were segregated because of a non-violent protest in a cathedral. See: History of the Circle codex entry. There's nothing in it that says mages were isolated as a means to protect anyone.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 27 janvier 2011 - 07:04 .

[marshalleck]

I'd side with Libertarians fighting for independence, not just any old traditionalist or apologist mages like the Loyalists or Isolationists. Since my main Hawke will be an apostate mage, their struggle for independence is his struggle as well. Would not side with Templars. So I guess I'd be neutral, with conditional partisanship.

Modifié par marshalleck, 27 janvier 2011 - 07:14 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

When was Aneirin branded Maleficar? He was an Apostate. We don't know what happened when teh Templars caught up with him. If he resisted capture, they are forced to subdue/kill him (im willing to wager that "kill" being the most common solution here).

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

When was Aneirin branded Maleficar? He was an Apostate. We don't know what happened when teh Templars caught up with him. If he resisted capture, they are forced to subdue/kill him (im willing to wager that "kill" being the most common solution here).

Wynne admits this happened if you ask why the templars didn't simply bring him back.

[C9316]

I'd be to lazy to join the mages and I kinda disagree with the templars, if the mages did win good for them.

[Bad King]

I'll side with the mages so long as they are responsible Aequitarian types (and not overly reckless Libertarians) who accept that they need to follow a strict code of conduct even if they do become independent of chantry juristiction.

Modifié par Bad King, 27 janvier 2011 - 07:26 .

[TJPags]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]TJPags wrote...

1.  For all we know, they did cause the Blights. [/quote]

As in, we don't know, and the people fighting the darkspawn on a daily basis - the dwarves - certainly don't believe that's the truth.[/quote]

We don't know, and while I'm no great lover of the Chantry, I still say better safe than sorry.  Besides, that's one reason they're locked up, and far from the more important one.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

[quote]TJPags wrote...

2.  Being imprisoned is not being treated as a sub-human. [/quote]

Being killed or given a lobotomy without having any say in the matter, living a life where a false accusation can get you killed, living under the guard of armored soldiers who (as Cullen says) can discuss killing mages with glee, and having no future outside of a prison seems to sound wonderful to you. Treating all mages as though they're cursed and isolating them from the rest of society in a prison under armed guard doesn't sound like a picnic to me. In fact, the kind of behavior we see from Keili is precisely because of how the Chantry and it's anti-mage views have conditioned some mages to see themselves as cursed and think that death would be preferable to life. If the Circle was so much of an alternative, why does a rape victim like Fiona see the Circle as no better than her life prior to the Circle?[/quote]
Let's keep our arguments straight, and separate.  This comment was in response to you saying "being imprisoned for life".  So no, being imprisoned is not sub-human.  Millions of people are in prisons every day.  Not all of them are being treated inhumanely, unless you want to say that prison, in and of itself, is inhumane.  Which, you know, is what you said, and what I responded to here.  Your other arguments are addressed below, where they were previously brought up.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

3.  Some Circles are not all.  Some of those in the Circle in Ferelden didn't seem to mind so much. [/quote]

A Ferelden Circle with Cullen as the new Knight-Commander and ruling in fear would change that.[/quote]

And who says Cullen is, or would be, the new Knight-Commander?  Does he not, in one epilogue, get hunted himself by Templars for atrocities against mages?  Give them some credit for choosing people capable of leading - or do you want to paint all Templars with an "evil" brush, while arguing that not all mages should be so painted?

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

4.  Not every parent raises their own children.  See, for instance, Qunari. [/quote]

So having your child taken away from you is all right because the Qunari say so? They also don't think women should be warriors - I assume you agree with them on that issue as well?[/quote]

There are many reasons to take children from their parents, many of which add up to, they'd be better off with someone else raising them.  Or would you, again, prefer that these children be raised in the Tower, the place you feel is so terrible?  Wonderful childhood.

As for your women as warriors comment, let's keep on topic, shall we? 

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

5.  Can also be viewed as a kind of test, to see if they're able to handle the power they're born with. [/quote]

Which doesn't change that it's basically a form of torture.[/quote]

In your opinion.  People's opinions of torture vary.  Testing someone with a temptation, to see if they can withstand it, is a valid test, IMO.  Or would you prefer that mages NOT be tested to see if they can resist that temptation, and just let loose on the world?

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

6.  Jowan was, in fact, a blood mage.  Should you really use him as an example of a false accusation? [/quote]

You mean, besides you ignoring how First Enchanter Irving had no knowledge of the evidence against Jowan and how easily Jowan may not have been a blood mage? He'd have been killed by the templars instead of escaping, Lily would have been sent to Aeonar, and nothing would have changed in regards to the role that the templars have over mages.[/quote]

Gegor did.  And you know what?  Jowan was, in fact, a blood mage.  So where, exactly, is your argument here going?  You're using Jowan as some example of how we can't trust the Templars to judge fairly, and yet, they're judgment was, in fact, correct.  The fact that Irving didn't know what the evidence was is irrelevant, which is why I ignored it.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

7.  If they can't handle the power they have, what other option do you suggest?  Since, you know, imprisoning them is so terrible also. [/quote]

People don't like being enslaved; they have a tendency to fight their oppressors in order to be free.[/quote]

Of course they don't.  But now you're changing the argument - first you said sub-human, now you're saying enslaved.  Which aregument do you want to have?  And you didn't respond at all to my point.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

1.  I doubt they're killed out of hand, without some proof acceptable to those in charge. [/quote]

Irving already admits he didn't see the proof against Jowan but the Rite was already signed, so evidently they do.[/quote]

I responded to this already.  You're hung up on Irving not seeing the evidence.  The fact is, Jowan was actually a blood mage.  The Templars judgment that he was a blood mage was actually correct.  Where is the problem?

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

2.  If they can't avoid the temptation of giving over their will and power to another, what would you prefer to do with them? [/quote]

See: Dalish, Haven, Rivain, Dales, and Arlthan.[/quote]

Do you think they have no means to handle malficars or abominations?  We may see exactly how the Dalish treat them in DA2, since Merril is a blood mage - and isn't there an indication that she is exiled for being such?

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

3.  As you point out, some families are afraid of their mage children.  And even if not, should those children be left to grow up with no training or supervision?  I'm reminded of an old Twilight Zone episode here. [/quote]

You're intentionally ignoring the issue to bring up how the Chantry openly demonizes mages to the public and instills fear and hatred in people.[/quote]

I'm ignoring nothing.  Do you remember that sweet, innocent Wynne, when a child,  set fire to another child?  Is that not reason for people to have feared her?  A reason that has nothing to do with demonizing mages?  Or do you think she lied about that, or that she was the only one to have ever done such a thing?  Should I mention Connor?

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

4.  Some people should not raise children.  If the child is not a mage, should they have to stay in the terrible Towers you describe with their parents?  If the child is a mage, where else to raise but in the Chantry, and without favoritism, since we don't know whose it is?  Asuuming, of course, that having children and raising them is a right that should never be taken away. [/quote]

Except if we look at current societies like Haven, the Dalish clans, and Rivain, where mages and non-mages live together, which disproves the idea that a mother who is a mage can't raise a child.[/quote]

Haven is a village of lunatics.  They are their own religious fanatics, who see nothing wrong with butchering people who commit the terrible of crime of walking into town. 

As to the Dalish and Rivain (and we really know almost nothing about Rivain, btw) I think we'll see in DA2 how they treat blood mages, as I mentioned before.  I'm sure they have something in place to deal with malificar and abominations.  Or do you think they don't?

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]TJPags wrote...

5.  They're dangerous, which is why they're locked up in the first place.  Senior mages have poven themselves capable of handling that power in a responsible way. [/quote]

No, they were segregated because of a non-violent protest in a cathedral. See: History of the Circle codex entry. There's nothing in it that says mages were isolated as a means to protect anyone.[/quote]

" For 21 days, the fires remained unlit while negotiations were conducted, legend tells us, by shouting back and forth from the loft.

The mages went cheerily into exile in a remote fortress outside of the capital, where they would be kept under the watchful eye of the Templars and a council of their own elder magi. Outside of normal society, and outside of the Chantry, the mages would form their own closed society, the Circle, separated for the first time in human history."

From that Codex Entry you mentioned.  See the bolded parts. 

None of which, by the way, negates that they are dangerous. 

[LordGarm]

Difficult to say.



It will depend on what I have to do in order to support each of the sides. I'll try to do something like I did in DA:O - side with the templars without slaughtering the mages (lol).

[LobselVith8]

[quote]TJPags wrote...

We don't know, and while I'm no great lover of the Chantry, I still say better safe than sorry.  Besides, that's one reason they're locked up, and far from the more important one. [/quote]

Better safe than sorry? Let's deny all mages basic human rights and liberty because a silly story might possibly be true? Why not utilize the mages and armies against the darkspawn in the Deep Roads and deal with the actual threat that threatens all life in Thedas instead of imprisoning them because a crazy Divine wanted to murder all of the mages in her own cathedral because of a nonviolent protest.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

Let's keep our arguments straight, and separate.  This comment was in response to you saying "being imprisoned for life".  So no, being imprisoned is not sub-human.  Millions of people are in prisons every day.  Not all of them are being treated inhumanely, unless you want to say that prison, in and of itself, is inhumane.  Which, you know, is what you said, and what I responded to here.  Your other arguments are addressed below, where they were previously brought up. [/quote]

You mentioned one fragment of the argument and ignored the rest. And people are arrested for committing crimes and breaking the law, not for being who they are.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

And who says Cullen is, or would be, the new Knight-Commander?  Does he not, in one epilogue, get hunted himself by Templars for atrocities against mages?  Give them some credit for choosing people capable of leading - or do you want to paint all Templars with an "evil" brush, while arguing that not all mages should be so painted? [/quote]

I noted the possibility that the same lunatic who sees dwarves as "cave dwelling heathens" can just as easily become Knight-Commander over every man, woman, and child in the Circle Tower. And I never claimed that all templars were evil, so don't put words in my mouth.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

There are many reasons to take children from their parents, many of which add up to, they'd be better off with someone else raising them.  Or would you, again, prefer that these children be raised in the Tower, the place you feel is so terrible?  Wonderful childhood.

As for your women as warriors comment, let's keep on topic, shall we?   [/quote]

My views? You were the one who decided to pick the Qunari as the society to side with when they treat their mages like animals and have sexist views on women, but I'll try not to hold it against you.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

In your opinion.  People's opinions of torture vary.  Testing someone with a temptation, to see if they can withstand it, is a valid test, IMO.  Or would you prefer that mages NOT be tested to see if they can resist that temptation, and just let loose on the world? [/quote]

Doesn't seem to have hurt Haven, the Dalish, or Rivain.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

Gegor did.  And you know what?  Jowan was, in fact, a blood mage.  So where, exactly, is your argument here going?  You're using Jowan as some example of how we can't trust the Templars to judge fairly, and yet, they're judgment was, in fact, correct.  The fact that Irving didn't know what the evidence was is irrelevant, which is why I ignored it. [/quote]

In other words, Irving didn't, and if Greagoir had flimpsy evidence and decided to do it anyway, there's nothing Irving could have done, correct?

[quote]TJPags wrote...

Of course they don't.  But now you're changing the argument - first you said sub-human, now you're saying enslaved.  Which aregument do you want to have?  And you didn't respond at all to my point. [/quote]

How does one exclude the other, TJPags? And you basically ignored my assessment of the Circle in my prior post.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

I responded to this already.  You're hung up on Irving not seeing the evidence.  The fact is, Jowan was actually a blood mage.  The Templars judgment that he was a blood mage was actually correct.  Where is the problem? [/quote]

No, you didn't. And templar judgement could have condemned an innocent person, like it did with the Magnificient D'Sims and Aenirin.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

Do you think they have no means to handle malficars or abominations?  We may see exactly how the Dalish treat them in DA2, since Merril is a blood mage - and isn't there an indication that she is exiled for being such? [/quote]

We see that they exist without the Chantry and the templars.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

I'm ignoring nothing.  Do you remember that sweet, innocent Wynne, when a child,  set fire to another child?  Is that not reason for people to have feared her?  A reason that has nothing to do with demonizing mages?  Or do you think she lied about that, or that she was the only one to have ever done such a thing?  Should I mention Connor? [/quote]

Sweet innocent Wynne? WTF? You mean the person who tries to murder the Warden because Morrigan dared to have an opinion? Yeah, let's not go there. And you ignored how the Circles weren't even created because of the power mages wield, so unless you have any actual proof to provide that the Chantry controlled Circles are even necessary, why are we having this discussion?

[quote]TJPags wrote...

Haven is a village of lunatics.  They are their own religious fanatics, who see nothing wrong with butchering people who commit the terrible of crime of walking into town.  [/quote]

The Dalish could make the same claim about Orlais and the fall of the Dales.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

As to the Dalish and Rivain (and we really know almost nothing about Rivain, btw) I think we'll see in DA2 how they treat blood mages, as I mentioned before.  I'm sure they have something in place to deal with malificar and abominations.  Or do you think they don't? [/quote]

We know the people respect their seers and we know Dalish mages and non-mages live together.

[quote]TJPags wrote...

" For 21 days, the fires remained unlit while negotiations were conducted, legend tells us, by shouting back and forth from the loft.

The mages went cheerily into exile in a remote fortress outside of the capital, where they would be kept under the watchful eye of the Templars and a council of their own elder magi. Outside of normal society, and outside of the Chantry, the mages would form their own closed society, the Circle, separated for the first time in human history."

From that Codex Entry you mentioned.  See the bolded parts. 

None of which, by the way, negates that they are dangerous.  [/quote]

In other words - it had nothing to do with the threat of blood mages or abominations?