1019 réponses à ce sujet

[MorningBird]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Didn't disagree, only mentioned Wynne is technically an abomination but not like abominations we typically encounter because she's bonded to a spirit, not a demon. It's likely the same with the witches of Rivain, who allow themselves to bond with spirits.

Ah, apologies then.

Still, I would not consider Wynne, or the Rivain witches, abominations.  They don't really fit the definition for it.

David Gaider has confirmed that Demons and Fade Spirits are different in nature:

Maria: "And thank you OP for using the term 'desire spirit.'  It's sad that the majority of people on this board are so narrow-minded they feel the need to use the term 'demon.'"

David Gaider: "Except that it is a demon.  It's not a question of polite phrasing but of terminology--a demon is any spirit that feeds of of/attemps to manipulate living beings through thier baser emotions.  The desire demons do so by definition."

Wynne is being possessed by a Fade Spirit, not a demon.

Considering the definition for an abomination is "a broad term for the result of a demon possessing a living human or elf." I wouldn't consider Wynne, or the witches of Rivain, to be abominations.

But that's just me.  People can debate this until they go blue in the face. xD

[In Exile]

AlexXIV wrote...

The question is if they are indeed a necessary evil, or if there is something bigger behind. It wouldn't be the first time in fantasy that a supposed good natured order turns out to have some skeleton in the cellar. Aka maybe they want to control mages to avoid that they discover some sort of truth without the Chantry being able to censor it.

We know, though, that demons posses mages and that blood magic can do horrible things to people. Essentially, the Chantry is not lying about what mages could do.

The issue is just if that's all they are doing and if there isn't a more reasonable means of protection for both mages and the non-mage majority. But whether something like the Chantry should exist is, IMO, pretty well grounded and easily defensible.

[panamakira]

moilami wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

panamakira wrote...
My opinion though~ I know they had "some" reasons for such treatments against Mages if any but I still found it ridiculous and felt bad for the Mages.

You  know, I also felt bad for the mages when hearing them talk about it. Like Anders and Wynne. But I also couldn't help but think "but you do pose a real verfiable threat to people." It's a tough situation generated there because they are dangerous but they are still people. I think the concept presented here was very well written.

Everyone is dangerous. You are freaking dangerous nanomage able to load your car with firearms and go somewhere where people gather and start shooting. Or you don't even need weapons for it. You could just take a SUV and drive over people. Why you don't do it? Why you say mages would do it? Why you are super human and mages animals?

Yes anybody is dangerous. Thedas population or not. I know the reasons the Chantry had for their justifiable treatment of mages but that didn't make it any better. As I remember correctly, Cullen when crazy at the end after the whole Circle-abominations fiasco, so the Templars are as much a danger as mages. I'm not saying, mages are not dangerous but for some reason I find the Chantry's brainwashing and misuse of their religion in Thedas even more dangerous. It's like blind-hatred without the benefit of doubt. The mages lives are even suckier when they take children away. Seriously I have no real preference for mages but I don't really care for the Chantry.

Bioware was brilliant on this aspect and the story. Who is right? Who is wrong? Neither.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

1st statement: How many mages run away or fight templars in comparision to how many choose to stay and learn? [/quote]

Does an exact figure matter when we know mages have run away to gain freedom, and risk being labelled as a maleficar and killed for their attempt to gain their freedom in doing so?

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

guess we will never know exact figures but lets face it if the majority of mages ran then the chantry would have said its not worth the trouble better to eradicate them, the fact they chose to send them to the circle before local villages get pitchforks and torches and and have themselves a good burning says a lot for thier defense. [/quote]

Likely why Wynne shows such concern in Awakening that the meeting in Cumberland will lead to the mages deciding to break free from the Chantry - despite the risks of a war, there are people who value freedom more than subjegation.

And you forget to mention that unlike Rivain, the Dalish clans, and the Chasind, those angry anti-mage mobs will come after mages because of the Chantry's anti-mage dogma.

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

armoured guards well what can they use to safeguard the general populace if mages were to go rogue? you say they are the prison warders I say they are the first line of defense should mages succomb to the temptaion of abusing such powers if they fall who defends the innocent civilians, remove them from guard duty and by the time they can react to any such incident you have already lost to many lives. [/quote]

Templars aren't the only people who can do that, and you're neglecting how templars have gotten people killed merely because they assumed the person was a mage (D'Sims) or a blood mage (Morrigan) with absolutely no evidence to warrant it. Instead of an oppressive regime, why not have a taskforce of mages and non-mages policing society instead of oppressing mages under a regime that preaches hatred of them on one hand but uses them to save their bacon from darkspawn and invading Qunari on the other? IanPolaris has suggested such a taskforce made up of mages with non-mages, basically law and order to tackle people who break the law.

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

Statement 2: not played mage Origins in sometime but if memory serves me correct it actually says: which some would call a prison. when I find time in my hectic schedule I'll run through it again just to be sure. [/quote]

No, it specifically refers to the Circle Tower as a prison.

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

Statement 3: can you be so certain because evidence you see with your own eyes says otherwise look at the shale dlc, who owned shale?a mage why wasnt shale allowed in the house and smaller than she originally was? because the mages wife made it happen, who is in the basement of that house? The mages son and grandchild.
If you read the journels found thier he is in communication with the circle whilst doing his research so its fairly certain they are aware of his circumstances. [/quote]

David Gaider made the revelations about mages and their families in the Templars and Chastity thread, so I'm not assuming anything. You're basically referencing Wilheim, a war hero who aided Moira the Rebel Queen and Maric the Savior in saving Ferelden from Orlais - he likely had a royal boon. Gaider has said that only Grey Warden mages have rights to their children because they're no longer under the Chantry.

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

So to recap we have a Mage whos settled outside of tower confines with no templar guards has taken a wife had a child hmm [/quote]

Yes, a war hero who helped both Moira and Maric against the Orlesian occupation. Doesn't change the fact that Gaider has already admitted that mages can't raise their children (just look at the dialogue between Wynne and Alistair if you doubt me when she mentions her son being taken away).

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

Id also like to point out a couple of other instances where mages have free roam for example after saving the tower you come across 3 circle  mages 2 of which are apprentices fighting darkspawn they are heading back to the tower after hearing they will be needed in your army. hmm for being a tightly run prison why are these 3 happily roaming the land without any templars guarding them? [/quote]

Blight. Darkspawn. Grey Warden Treaty. Any further questions?

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

Also in awakenings out in the wilds yu have a botanist collecting herbs again with no guards
For a prison run by such evil jailors they sure do have an open door policy. [/quote]

Even Wynne, a Senior Enchanter, needed permission to leave the Circle Tower. Considering only seven mages were permitted to leave to fight darkspawn in Ostagar, I'd say your view of mages being able to leave whenever they want is a bit exaggerated.

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

Statement 4: I cannont comment I have yet to play witch hunt just havnt had the time :/ [/quote]

Fair enough.

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

Comment about Anders: revenge for believing a person has killed your friends yup thats motive enough to ambush him but yes I guess you could make the assumption that perhaps the chantry ordered him dead wait what was it you said about assumption? [/quote]

You mean how the templars killed the Magnificent D'Sims because they thought he was a mage (Awakening) or how the templars put a bounty on Morrigan (Orlesian Warden) because they think that she's a blood mage? I don't think suspicion is enough to warrant killing people over.

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

it is not the Chantry that needs hate,the faith it helps to intill within the populace is good the goals of helping others and even rewarding those who are willing to lend a hand is a noble end. [/quote]

I don't think the Chantry is evil, but they have some serious flaws when it comes to the mages. I don't see why people whitewash their behavior. You know, we could ask the Dalish how they feel about the Chantry's helpful hand... I don't think they'd share your enthusiasm, though. 

[quote]Mlaar wrote...

One last question for you is... when the mother superior says she will not raise a lynch mob against you how can you be certain it is not just her dry sense of humour playing on superstions offered [/quote]

Because Wynne makes the same comments when she speaks about her childhood as a mage, and how the Andrastian societies have mages killed because they blame them for everything that goes wrong. Unlike Rivain, the Dalish clans, and the Chasind, where mages are living alongside non-mages...

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

The question is if they are indeed a necessary evil, or if there is something bigger behind. It wouldn't be the first time in fantasy that a supposed good natured order turns out to have some skeleton in the cellar. Aka maybe they want to control mages to avoid that they discover some sort of truth without the Chantry being able to censor it.

We know, though, that demons posses mages and that blood magic can do horrible things to people. Essentially, the Chantry is not lying about what mages could do.

The issue is just if that's all they are doing and if there isn't a more reasonable means of protection for both mages and the non-mage majority. But whether something like the Chantry should exist is, IMO, pretty well grounded and easily defensible.

If mages are so dangerous, why didn't the first Emperor of Orlais, who created the Circle of Magi, the Order of Templars, and the Chantry of Andraste, segregate mages immediately? In fact, let's examine why mages are segregated in modern day Thedas by looking at the incident that caused it in the first place. Let's examine the History of the Circle codex, written in Of Fires, Circles, and Templars: A History of Magic in the Chantry, by Sister Petrine, Chantry scholar.:

"It is a truth universally acknowledged that nothing is more successful at inspiring a person to mischief as being told not to do something. Unfortunately, the Chantry of the Divine Age had some trouble with obvious truths. Although it did not outlaw magic-quite the contrary, as the Chantry relied upon magic to kindle the eternal flame which burns in every brazier in every chantry-it relegated mages to lighting candles and lamps. Perhaps occasional dusting of rafters and eaves.

I will give my readers a moment to contemplate how well such a role satisfied the mages of the time.

It surprised absolutely no one when the mages of Val Royeaux, in protest, snuffed the sacred flames of the cathedral and barricaded themselves inside the choir loft. No one, that is, but Divine Ambrosia II, who was outraged and attempted to order an Exalted March upon her own cathedral. Even her most devout Templars discouraged that idea. 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. "

Despite that it's pro-Chantry and has a pro-templar bias, there's no reference to blood mages or abominations as the reason mages are segregated. A nonviolent protest doesn't seem like a sufficient reason to segregate all mages to me. Maybe the people of Rivain, the Dalish clans, and the Chasind have the right idea about not spreading anti-mage dogma and letting mages live alongside non-mages.

[Bio Addict]

I gave up on the Chantry after they blew up Alderaan. That was them right?

[MorningBird]

Bio Addict wrote...

I gave up on the Chantry after they blew up Alderaan. That was them right?

Wrong, it was the evil 'Force' mages.  Honestly, where have you been?

[hart37]

If I were a mage I'd rather be forced to study and serve the Chantry than be killed or burned at the stake like in some societies



There are huge risks in using magic in the Dragon Age universe and if that means controlling the magical community to keep themselves and others safe than there's not much wrong with that.

[IanPolaris]

hart37 wrote...

If I were a mage I'd rather be forced to study and serve the Chantry than be killed or burned at the stake like in some societies

There are huge risks in using magic in the Dragon Age universe and if that means controlling the magical community to keep themselves and others safe than there's not much wrong with that.

That's easy to say unless you are the one imprisoned.  As a modern German poet wrote, "they first came for the Jews, but I wasn't a Jew so I did nothing.  They then came after the Gypsies, but I wasn't a Gypsy, so I did nothing.  They then came after the Socialists, but I wasn't a Socialist, so I did nothing.  Then one way they came for me, and no one was there to stand with me because they had all been taken away"

That's the problem with the Chantry in a nutshell.

-Polaris

[GodWood]

Ugh...

LobselVith8 wrote...
snip

I did get about half way through responding to your retorts before I decided it was pointless.
Reason? You seem unable to see the reason why the Chantry does the things that they do and when a mage does something bad you twist it so it's some how the Chantry's fault.
If you can't at least acknowledge the threat that mages are than there is no point.

I will respond to one thing though.
The Tevinter mages are the cause of the first blight, just because you don't belive in the Chantrys beliefs that doesn't mean you can simply dismiss everything they say.
Good story telling dictates there is at least some truth behind the legend.

I personally believe that there's two potential theorys of how the darkspawn were created.
a) The Chantry's story is basically true in the sense that The Tevinter mages usurped the black city, got corrupted, became the first darkspawn, yadayadayada.
or
Basically the same thing minus all the Maker and heaven stuff.
So essentially the powerful Tevinter mages (since they had no regulations on what magics could and could not be used)  accidently (through powerful dark magics) created the darkspawn.

Oh, and just because the dwarves don't believe the Chantry story that doesn't mean the Tevinter Blood mages are suddenly innoccent as a bunny.
The two dwarven beliefs for the origin of the darkspawn are: They sprung up one day OR the humans are the reason for their existence

[Augustei]

Addai67 wrote...

moilami wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Gavinthelocust wrote...

Problem being is that when you actually take a good look at any religion there's a lot of ****s in them. Being mostly based on Christianity, arguably the religion with the widest variety of believers and many of them being pricks, doesn't help. If they incorporated the good parts of Christianity more than the bigoted nonsensical parts people would like them more. Makes sense as Christianity in the middle ages where at best a bunch of hooting devoted **** and at worst hypocritical murderous zealots in denial.

  My, we are a tolerant sort, aren't we?  I could provide some RL historical examples of the positive impact of all three major monotheistic religions on medieval society, but not sure it matters.  It's a story and the parallels to the actual historical medieval world are extremely loose.

You are now supposing that without those religions nothing good would had happened. There is this buddha spiritualism what people practise in oriental countries (don't have better word now) and other less known religions or ways of life like some nature religions which has not been forced for people to adapt. Also there is logic, which is what I believe on. It gives more answers, and better yet, new questions, more than you can think.

I guess you missed the point, which is that it doesn't matter if you're a pastafarian or worship your dog.  The Chantry figures in a fantasy setting which is only loosely based on the medieval world.  I have my own views of religion like anyone else, but I don't evaluate the Chantry based on those, rather on the story.

All in all I think the Chantry sucks because of its oppression of mages and elves.  I like mages and elves, I play them a lot, so that's what influences my view.  OTOH I've also played Andrastian characters, and think that the Chantry also has positive effects on Ferelden, which is the only society we've seen up close.

We see no evidence of the chantry mistreating elves so far. And them living in slums and alienages is not a matter to be adressed by the chantry but to be adressed  by the Monarchs of the countries said elves live in.

And if you are referring to the Dales it cannot be condemned or justified due to lack of non bias evidence.

[IanPolaris]

XxDeonxX wrote...

We see no evidence of the chantry mistreating elves so far. And them living in slums and alienages is not a matter to be adressed by the chantry but to be adressed  by the Monarchs of the countries said elves live in.

And if you are referring to the Dales it cannot be condemned or justified due to lack of non bias evidence.

That last isn't completely true.  Yes, we here two different stories abouit how the Exalted Marches on the Dales started, but consider this:

The Dales did not change their written history to justify the war.  The Chantry did (they omitted the Chant of Shartan).  That tells me that the Chantry has something to hide.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Which is an interesting notion.
Where does defence end and agression start?

I find it natural that if someone attacks you, you want to push them out of your borders. That is defense.
Pushing into enemy teritory? Now you are the agressor and the enemy is the one defending their homes and families.

If Orlais invaded the Dales first or the Chantry did send in templars to force the elves to convert, then the Dalish are only trying to prevent an enemy that wants to forcibly convert them from having the power to do so again. What should they do? Do nothing and pray for the best? They were slaves because of humans for centuries, so I doubt they want that to happen again.

I'm saying that it doesn't really work.
Look at Germany after WW1. You cannot really prevent the "enemy coutnry" from re-gaining her strength in a few years unless you destroy it UTTERLY.
And since to do that you effectively have to becoem an invader and mass murderer, it's just stupid.

Of course, when attacked, you ALWAYS have the right to defened yourself, but some push that right beyond it's limits. Take for example Iraq or Afghanistan. Heck, the history is full of such examples.

Weather it's Orlais destroying the Dales or the Dalish destroying Orlais - it simply isn't justified either way.

The lack of evidence the templars had against D'Sims (who wasn't even a real mage) and their lack of evidence against Morrigan (who they put a bounty on in Witch Hunt) doesn't seem to bother you in the slighest, though.

For the n(th) time. Reading comprehension.
Yes, the lack of evidence agasint D'Sim bothers me (about Morrigan we don't know). But that is not the issue. The question I am raising is if D'Sims was struck down because he resisted or not. Did he pull a knife on the Templars when they appraoched? We don't know that.
Would the tempalrs have simply taken him to the Circle if he didn't resist? Or were the tamplrs dicks that would have killed him anyway? Did he even resist?
We know they were after him because they thought he was a mage. We lack confirmation that they killed him for that and that reason alone.

Did you forget Duncan recruiting Alistair by using the Rite, because Alistair couldn't leave since he was handed over to the Chantry?

I don't recall if he was at that point officialy a templar. Since Grey Wardens are reluctant to use the right, maybe the Reverend Mother thought she could pressure him into chosing someone else?

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

How so?
It cleary show Gregoir doesn't hate the mages. Quite the contrary, he almost breaks down when thinking of mage survivors.

I'm speaking about his seeming support of the way Qunari treat Mages.. *Sighs* But whatever. 

"The Qunari cerantly wouldn't have gotten into this mess."
Well, it IS the truth. Sounds like some dark humor to me.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 03 février 2011 - 09:29 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
That last isn't completely true.  Yes, we here two different stories abouit how the Exalted Marches on the Dales started, but consider this:

The Dales did not change their written history to justify the war.  The Chantry did (they omitted the Chant of Shartan).  That tells me that the Chantry has something to hide.

That we know of....
Does the Chantry have something to hide? Probably. But it may be something completely different.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...

There are things though that should give evreyone to thnk though. For once the circle mages were overthrown by demons. Ultimately Irvings fault, since as the leader of the circle he should have been prepared for something like that. As a second, the templars could not deal with the thread alone, they needed support from Denerim, besides the right of annulment also more templars/troops. So it seems the templars, while not really being able to handle it at first, at least would have had a chance to deal with it in the long run.
 
Of course only if there wasn't the blight. Even if the templar would have eventually cleansed the tower they would have had taken heavy losses which ultimately would have lowered Fereldan's chances to fight the Blight.  It's too bad we don't know if the templars could have managed without the Warden. But chances are yes, since Uldred, or the demon that possessed him wanted to use the Blight as a sort of distraction. He probably counted on Denerim being reluctant to send enough reinforcements while they also have to deal with the blight, not to mention the civil war.
 
Just makes me the more amazed about the Wardens accomplishments which were clearly more than 'gathering an army' but more about 'building these armies' to begin with which all would be non-existant when the Warden would not have dealt with certain threats.

One has to wonder though how Uldred managed to overthrow the tower in the first place. Well there was the blight of course, and for once many mages died and the survivors were preoccupied with the events at ostagar in their heads. They didn't see the 'Uldred threat' in the shadow of the greater one. So one could argue under 'normal' (no blight) circumstances it wouldn't have happened to begin with. On the other hand many of Uldred's followers were unhappy with the situation in the Circle so the system as it was 'generated' unhappy powerful beings. Which is sort of a bad thing and one really should wonder how that can be changed. Either they have to screen mages more, aka restrict their rights more. Or they need to give them more freedom.

The equation would be how much freedom can you give them so they stay 'happy'. And how much freedom can you give them without entirely losing control. Another question would be, could the Circle control itself without the help of the templars/chantry. Well the Chantry teaches us that mages are responsible for the blights, when the magisters of tevinter tried to usurp heaven. That's basically their main argument why mages are so dangerous. It would be helpful to know what exactly happens or to have at least examples how Circles failed to control themselves, without templar interferance.

Once more we don't really have really enough information to make an 'educated guess' even. We don't really know any free mages who are not apostates, hunted and outlawed by the chantry. So we couldn't say how and if it would work out.

Good post. But regarding the "freedom" and "restrictions".. It's is a balance thing, but there is no optimal ratio.
Even under the best of systems there will always be people who are not happy with their lot in life. No matter what changes you make to the Circles, there will still be people like Uldred popping up. The changes can at most lower the rate with which they pop up.

The purpose of the Circle is not to lower those ratios (altough it would be desirable).
It's to protect the mages from non-mages and vice-versa, and to weed out weak mages. An occasional rebllion flushes out the restelss element.


And, in fact we do have an example of a mage-run society. Tevinter. The old one is horrifying to say the last:
Statues of tortured slaves fill the Gallows courtyard, a ghastly memento
of Kirkwall's history. The statues are not monuments to the suffering
of slaves. Every inch and angle of the courtyard was designed by
magisters bent on breaking the spirit of newcomers. Executions here took
place daily, sometimes hourly, and corpses were hung from gibbets
throughout the yard. New slaves trudging in from the docks saw what
awaited them.

The new one seems somewhat better, but from the dev posts, it still has salvery and the magisters still lord over everyone else (including other mages).


Could theorethicly mage Circles fully govern and oversee themslves? Yes... But given the very bad history with mages, who would want that? (Aside from mages) Not to mention, how strict that control would be?

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
sure mages as they are discovered are sent to the circle sounds terrible dosnt it to be confined in a place where they can learn to manage thier powers in a controlled enviroment but a prison it is not

You must be ignoring the Magi Origin VO, which specifically calls it a prison.

A matter of oppinion. The VO can call it what it wants. Duncans oppinion.

I played trough the game origin several times and talked ot everyone I could. Didn't look like a bad place to live.
You can't go out whenever you want? Big deal. Peopel are generally restriced in their movements and actions in real life too..altough in different ways.

You realize mages aren't allowed to have relationships or marry in some Circles, can never raise their own children, and can be killed or given a lobotomy if they are declared maleficar, even without evidence (like Aenirin nearly was)?

Wroing. They can have relationships, altouhg it is frowned upon depending on the Circle.
True, they cannot raise their children, since demons seem to LOVE to exploit that link. (from DG's post on that isue, it seems that mages were allowed to raise their children before, but it created a lot of problems)
Also, you got no real proof templars can legaly act wihout evidence.

The Andrastian Chantry preaches hatred and intolerance towards mages. The Reverand Mother in Redcliffe practically apologies for it if you greet her as a human mage and promises not to raise a mob against you.

Incorrect. You cannot use that as a rule. The chant iself sez nothing about that. The acts of a priest or two are hardly indicative of a general stance of the Chantry.

This happens in RL too b.t.w. - I know a priest who downright hates jews. Deos that mean the Catholic Church hates jews?

Mlaar wrote...

Templars who ambushed Anders believed thier comrades had been slain by him they were emotionally involved and therefore had personal reason to want him dead thier reasoning is the only thing in question

So assumptions are valid reasons to murder someone? I disagree.

Did the man say that? No, he didn't. He said they acted on their own violition.
You like to argue point people don't make, do you?

[Lotion Soronarr]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...
I think the "unknown factor" is that Mages are very.. VERY profitable. Having mages under the Chantries control means that. The Chantry would get money for pimping out sourcing Mages to different groups for a fee, and because they have control over the Mage population they have the most powerful people in Thedas at their disposal. 
Remember. The Chantry slogan is "Magic must serve man, and not rule over him". They've pretty much been open about their intentions the entire time. 

Unless I'm mistaken, the Circles uses the funds they get by selling magic items and their services on itself.
In other words, the Chantry pays for the templars and the building itself.
The items, operating costs, books and al lthe litle things and items mages get for themelves come from mage earnings. Since there's a whole group of capitalist mages who enjoy the riches they earn, it's safe to assume the Chantry isn't milking the Circles for money..otherwise the mages wouldn't have money.

In other words, Circles are governed internally by the First Chanter. Security is the domain of the Knight Commander.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]Godwood wrote...
One unregulated child mage (without the Warden's interference) managed to wipe out Redcliffe completely.
Imagine what a whole country side of unregulated mages could do. [/quote]
You mean the child who was unregulated because his Chantry mother thought that being a mage was the worse thing for her son, and tried to have an apostate teach him not to be a mage? The Chantry's anti-mage dogma contributed to the bloodshed at Redcliffe.[/qutoe]

This is where you're wrong.
Isolde didn't want to let her son go. If hte Circle was run fully by mages, she still wouldn't want to let him go. She wants to be clsoe to her son. It's that simple.
No Circle reform or propaganda will change the fact that she is a clingy mother.

[Collider]

Sometimes I wish the Chantry had been portrayed more positively.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
sure mages as they are discovered are sent to the circle sounds terrible dosnt it to be confined in a place where they can learn to manage thier powers in a controlled enviroment but a prison it is not

You must be ignoring the Magi Origin VO, which specifically calls it a prison.

A matter of oppinion. The VO can call it what it wants. Duncans oppinion.

I played trough the game origin several times and talked ot everyone I could. Didn't look like a bad place to live.
You can't go out whenever you want? Big deal. Peopel are generally restriced in their movements and actions in real life too..altough in different ways.

A guilded cage is still a cage.  Can mages leave the tower of their own volition?  no.  Are they there for any act or crime they have committed?  no.  Can a mage be killed (or at least punished) for trying to leave anyway?  Yes.

That makes the circle tower a prison by ANY reasonable defintion.

You realize mages aren't allowed to have relationships or marry in some Circles, can never raise their own children, and can be killed or given a lobotomy if they are declared maleficar, even without evidence (like Aenirin nearly was)?

Wroing. They can have relationships, altouhg it is frowned upon depending on the Circle.
True, they cannot raise their children, since demons seem to LOVE to exploit that link. (from DG's post on that isue, it seems that mages were allowed to raise their children before, but it created a lot of problems)
Also, you got no real proof templars can legaly act wihout evidence.

Mages can only have relationships under the sufference of the Chantry (usually but not always delegated to the local KC or First Enchanter).  So basically Lob is right.  That doesn't stop mages from seeking each other's company, but it's not a right.  At best it's a privledge or something that is 'overlooked'.

Please cite the DG quote because I have never seen any game evidence that even remotely comes close to what you are saying.  The Templars may be afraid of the influence of children (or so they claim), but that's not the same thing...and besides, seperating a child from it's mother especially when no crime was comitted is simply rephrensible....and the Templars wonder why there might be a demon problem afterwords..... (roll eyes).

The Andrastian Chantry preaches hatred and intolerance towards mages. The Reverand Mother in Redcliffe practically apologies for it if you greet her as a human mage and promises not to raise a mob against you.

Incorrect. You cannot use that as a rule. The chant iself sez nothing about that. The acts of a priest or two are hardly indicative of a general stance of the Chantry.

This happens in RL too b.t.w. - I know a priest who downright hates jews. Deos that mean the Catholic Church hates jews?

Actually the RCC has openly Jew baited and preached hatred towards Jews (as the betrayers of Christ) for most of it's history.  This is something that only recently has been changed.  The Chantry's dogma against mages and magic is similiar in nature.  Pretty much everywhere we go, we see Chantry hatred of magic (and even Duncan during the Mage's origen says as much).

Mlaar wrote...

Templars who ambushed Anders believed thier comrades had been slain by him they were emotionally involved and therefore had personal reason to want him dead thier reasoning is the only thing in question

So assumptions are valid reasons to murder someone? I disagree.

Did the man say that? No, he didn't. He said they acted on their own violition.
You like to argue point people don't make, do you?

The Templars and Mother Superior of the Amaranthine Chantry didn't know that a Templar of Ryloc's rank (and her team) weren't there?  They weren't aware of the Phylactery trap?

Sure.  And Snow is Black.

Of course the Chantry knew.  The Chantry also set it up so they could throw Ryloc under the bus and deny it because the Chantry knows perfectly well they have no legal rights or oversight over Anders once conscripted by the Grey Wardens.  Had Ryloc suceeded, do you think for a nanosecond that the Chantry would have recognized the Grey Warden's legal rights before murdering Anders?  Of course not!

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Collider wrote...

Sometimes I wish the Chantry had been portrayed more positively.

The Chantry is being protrayed very well as the controlling church of most of Thedas just as the Roman Catholic Church was the controlling church for virtually all of Europe until the Reformation.  With such power and influence in the hands of religious authority comes some very negative things...and that is what I think the Devs are trying to illustrate (and do so very well) even from religions that start from a very positive basis.

-Polaris

[Collider]

IanPolaris wrote...

Collider wrote...

Sometimes I wish the Chantry had been portrayed more positively.

The Chantry is being protrayed very well as the controlling church of most of Thedas just as the Roman Catholic Church was the controlling church for virtually all of Europe until the Reformation.  With such power and influence in the hands of religious authority comes some very negative things...and that is what I think the Devs are trying to illustrate (and do so very well) even from religions that start from a very positive basis.

-Polaris

True enough - however, in context of making the moral decisions ambiguous, it's sometimes heavily stacked against the Chantry and it's policies. So far as these forums go, it seems that most people don't like the Chantry at all.

[hart37]

Collider wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Collider wrote...

Sometimes I wish the Chantry had been portrayed more positively.

The Chantry is being protrayed very well as the controlling church of most of Thedas just as the Roman Catholic Church was the controlling church for virtually all of Europe until the Reformation.  With such power and influence in the hands of religious authority comes some very negative things...and that is what I think the Devs are trying to illustrate (and do so very well) even from religions that start from a very positive basis.

-Polaris

True enough - however, in context of making the moral decisions ambiguous, it's sometimes heavily stacked against the Chantry and it's policies. So far as these forums go, it seems that most people don't like the Chantry at all.

So I take it I am the only one that saved it then to get Wynn

I can see why the Dwarves would want nothing to do with the Chantry though. As for the Templars I suppose they're not really any better than assassins

Modifié par hart37, 03 février 2011 - 10:23 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

MorningBird wrote...
Oddly enough, I've thought of this as well.  However, I ultimately disagree with you.  Reason being: while mages are allowed to leave the Circle Tower on occasion, it is always with purpose, and always with supervision.  They cannot leave for reasons of pleasure or interest.

If a noble wants a magically fit body guard, they can be contracted out.  If the King wants mages in his army, they can be contracted out.  If a Grey Warden or Templar were to request magical assistance/the assistance of a mage, they can be contracted out.

They must, however, always return.

Sound a lot like a life of a soldier in some ways. We are all limited in where we can go and what we can do. We all have rules to follow. When you're a kid, you have to go to bed at 22:00, oyu cna't watch X and stuff. When you are odler, you have to go to work - don't and face the consequences. You can't go wherever you want whenever you want.
Limits ALWAYS exist. Some jsut have have bigger limits.

As Gregoir put it at the beginign of the Mage origin - magic is both a gift and a cruse. A gift, because of all the things it allws you to do. A curse, because of the danger that come with it, you have to shoulder more restrictions than most.

While I agree with the Chantry's stance that mages need to be trained, I see no reason for them to remain captive once they've passed their Harrowing.  After all, a mage may be gifted with magic, and wish to gain proper control of their powers so that they do not pose a threat to themself or those around them... but heck, what if they had aspirations of becoming a baker as a child? =/  Fact is, they can't.

If the Harrowing was a sort of ultimate test/immunization..I'd agree.
But given that a mage remins a danger to both himself and others even after the harrowing, simply letting them go where they please does not seem like a good idea.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
sure mages as they are discovered are sent to the circle sounds terrible dosnt it to be confined in a place where they can learn to manage thier powers in a controlled enviroment but a prison it is not

You must be ignoring the Magi Origin VO, which specifically calls it a prison.

A matter of oppinion. The VO can call it what it wants. Duncans oppinion.

I played trough the game origin several times and talked ot everyone I could. Didn't look like a bad place to live.
You can't go out whenever you want? Big deal. Peopel are generally restriced in their movements and actions in real life too..altough in different ways.

A guilded cage is still a cage.  Can mages leave the tower of their own volition?  no.  Are they there for any act or crime they have committed?  no.  Can a mage be killed (or at least punished) for trying to leave anyway?  Yes.

That makes the circle tower a prison by ANY reasonable defintion.

That makes a quarantene zone a prison by any reasonable definition too.

Technicly, the tower is a prison. But a necessary one that's at least a nice one.

Wroing. They can have relationships, altouhg it is frowned upon depending on the Circle.
True, they cannot raise their children, since demons seem to LOVE to exploit that link. (from DG's post on that isue, it seems that mages were allowed to raise their children before, but it created a lot of problems)
Also, you got no real proof templars can legaly act wihout evidence.

Mages can only have relationships under the sufference of the Chantry (usually but not always delegated to the local KC or First Enchanter).  So basically Lob is right.  That doesn't stop mages from seeking each other's company, but it's not a right.  At best it's a privledge or something that is 'overlooked'.

Please cite the DG quote because I have never seen any game evidence that even remotely comes close to what you are saying.  The Templars may be afraid of the influence of children (or so they claim), but that's not the same thing...and besides, seperating a child from it's mother especially when no crime was comitted is simply rephrensible....and the Templars wonder why there might be a demon problem afterwords..... (roll eyes).

Would love to provide the exact quote, but I don't recall the actual name of the thread it was in.
DG basicly discussed relationships in the tower and children, and it pretty muhc sez exactly what I said above.

Actually the RCC has openly Jew baited and preached hatred towards Jews (as the betrayers of Christ) for most of it's history.  This is something that only recently has been changed.  The Chantry's dogma against mages and magic is similiar in nature.  Pretty much everywhere we go, we see Chantry hatred of magic (and even Duncan during the Mage's origen says as much).

I disagree. I didn't see "Chantry hatered of magic" everyhere I went. And I'm the type of player that likes to explore and talk to every NPC.
I saw no anti-mage propaganda or brainwashing.

Did the man say that? No, he didn't. He said they acted on their own violition.
You like to argue point people don't make, do you?

The Templars and Mother Superior of the Amaranthine Chantry didn't know that a Templar of Ryloc's rank (and her team) weren't there?  They weren't aware of the Phylactery trap?

Sure.  And Snow is Black.

Of course the Chantry knew.  The Chantry also set it up so they could throw Ryloc under the bus and deny it because the Chantry knows perfectly well they have no legal rights or oversight over Anders once conscripted by the Grey Wardens.  Had Ryloc suceeded, do you think for a nanosecond that the Chantry would have recognized the Grey Warden's legal rights before murdering Anders?  Of course not!

Any proof of that BS?

Does the MS know Ryloc is there? Possibly, I don't know.
Does she know what Ryloc is planing?  Probably not.

You have some strange notion that leaders and commanders who spend most of their lives in the office, shuffling reports, know exactly what every soldiers does in the field.

Because Lord knows that in the field, with no means of direct supervision, soldiers NEVER act against orders and do bad stuff. No man...no police officer ever beat down a suspsect in a dark ally, knowing there are no witnesses. No soldier ever disregarded orders and killed civilians or opened fire. So soldier ever went awol for a while, hoping no one would notice before he gets back..

So, no. Of course... superior commadners are all-seeing and all knowing. Everything every single soldier ever does or has done, is known and sanctioned by the president himself!!!!