1283 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Falls Edge wrote...

I thought the reason they were controlled so much was to prevent the most powerful mages from coming into power, andraste and Flemmeth being two of them.

I didn't think it was about so much the fact mages were vulnerable to corruption so much as mages seem to have an incredible capacity to grow in their powers, the reason for the towers and templars was to dumb them down and even make the most talented mage lukewarm at best because of the censorship that prevades the tower.
It's not even about the abominations so much as I thought it was about a mage changing the world through their actions, it's not like mages aren't incredibly valuable with what little they know, there are forbidden texts and secret alchemical and magical formulas that seem to break the very laws of the universe such as the ability to become immortal or body transfer etcetera it seems that magic has no real limits as it has been noted that mages actually had the ability at one point to invade the maker's kingdom.

Or at least that's what I thought.

I generally agree with this.  The Circle-Tower system is all about power and specifically the Chantry guarding it's political power at all cost along with an extreme fear of what mages would do with political power.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Ian also addressed that had mages been avaliable, it likely wouldn't have happened. Instead, mages were imprisoned, and there was no one for the villagers to turn to who could have handled the Baroness.[/quote]

Have any facts that a mage would be able to have stopped it aside from speculation? If you want to bring speculation into it, I can say "a mage could have joined the Baronness and made it a thousand times worse". [/quote]

Well, my elven Warden-Commander from the Circle of Magi stopped her... clearly, she's stopped by a trained profesional who is a member of the Wardens in canon, so it's not impossible for a scholar of the arcane arts to stop her.

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Uldred became an abomination because he recklessly used demonology to summon too many demons that he couldn't control.[/quote]

And he led a revolt against the Circle before hand with blood mages, hoping to take the Circle over. He became a demon, he made other mages become demon and quickly overwhelmed the Circle and planned to build an army. Who is to prevent this from happening in Denerim or Redcliffe (where it sort of already did with Connor's case)?

Give a person some power, they'll abuse it and risk harming everybody. Sealing them in the Circle Tower protects the outside world from people who turn into abominations and it protects the mages from being killed by supersticious people. [/quote]

You mean placing innocents in a prison where they're dehumanized and granted no rights? Are you honestly surprised that people would revolt against such an inhumane system?

Also, you're speculating about Uldred's motivations - Uldred wanted the Circle to ally with Loghain because he promised freedom from the Chantry. There's no indication that he wanted power for himself except Wynne's speculation. He allied with mages who resorted to blood magic because they wanted to be freed from the templars and the Chantry. Considering that even Grey Wardens have resorted to blood magic to defeat the darkspawn, it's not the evil that some claim.

Additionally, trained law enforcement could prevent this (as Ian has suggested) and handle it instead of armed and armored drug addicts who answer only to an anti-religious order and can murder people on speculation of being mages (D'Sims in Awakening) or suspicion of being a blood mage (Morrigan in Witch Hunt).

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Regardless of how powerful they are, abominations have been defeated long before the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars ever existed.[/quote]

And how many innocent people do you suspect were killed whenever a mage slipped and was possessed? [/quote]

Considering anyone and almost anything can be possessed - from an ordinary person with no magical ability to a burned tree - it's not really an issue of simply being a mage.

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Vaughan seemed plenty bad to me, and no demon was forcing him to abduct women out of the Alienage in broad daylight to be gang raped.[/quote]

... so? Did I say all nobility were angels? I did not, I said a demon possessing nobility is threat and you haven't dismissed this claim. [/quote]

A demon possessing a noble with no magical powers is a threat, too. Is there a point to this speculation?

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

In fact, a blood mage could have stopped Vaughan before he ever laid a hand on any of the women.[/quote]

Why would a blood mage even care about what Vaughan did? [/quote]

Some people don't like rapists. Just saying.

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Given how mages are people, and people have this tendency of wanting freedom and liberty, I don't see how being thrown into an inhumane and oppressive prison where they have no rights is going to solve all of our problems.[/quote]

The "prison" is to protect the mages too. Like Wynne explains (and how Gaider mentioned it a lot), a lot of mages don't even reach the Circle because the people might blame them for something wrong and kill them. Whether the mage is responsible for not, it doesn't matter. [/quote]

They're killed because of anti-mage propaganda preached by the Chantry, which is why mages are reviled in Andrastian society and not in Rivain, the Dalish clans, or among the Chasind.

As for the imprisonment of mages, we can read the History of the Circle codex to see that they were segregated because of a nonviolent protest that was held in a cathedral - no reference to protecting the people from mages at all in an entry written by a Chantry scholar, no less.

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

The Circle also isn't very much of a prison, it's more of a community. You aren't forced to do anything in the tower except learn how to control your magic, you're fully capable of seeing family and if you're good you're capable of leaving the tower. Finn for example was given the ability to leave the tower to do his research. [/quote]

Finn had permission, and even Senior Enchanter Wynne needed permission. When the call for Ostagar came, you know how many mages were permitted to stop the Blight? Seven. Seven mages.

As for your comments about the Circle, yeah, a wonderful community where you have no basic rights, can't have relationships or marry in some Circles, can never raise your children, and can be given a lobotomy or killed without being able to prove your innocent and without the First Enchanter being given the "evidence" against you in question (i.e. Magi Origin). I can't imagine why anyone would risk their lives to flee it or start a rebellion to free themselves of such wonderful oppresors...

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

You can keep saying that mages might go rogue, but wouldn't a taskforce
of mages and non-mages trained to deal with such threats be more viable
than imprisoning innocent people because of who they are?[/quote]

Templar can do this job quite fine already, I don't see the benefit of adding mages and putting the people at risk as "benefit". [/quote]

Yeah, A Broken Circle shows the wonderful job they did defeating Uldred and the abominations... oh wait...

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Given that people have defeated them long before there was the Order of Templars or even the Inquisition, I think it's safe to say that abominations aren't some invincible threat that can never be destroyed. People can deal with them and defeat them.[/quote]

At what cost? [/quote]

Clearly not the liberty of all mages.

[atheelogos]

David Gaider wrote...

Alodar wrote...
If a group of people existed in todays supposedly educated society that had these abilites, those modern mages would be controlled/locked up/persecuted without thought.

There is no question it is 100% reasonable for ordinary folks to want mages locked up or killed.

or one day turn into a monster and kill our entire family-- but that doesn't need to stop us from being idealistic in our fantasy worlds, now, does it?

Present the argument any way you want. It doesn't change the fact that Templars are imprisoning people for what they might do, and not for what they have done. That is wrong no matter how you slice it.

[IanPolaris]

atheelogos wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Alodar wrote...
If a group of people existed in todays supposedly educated society that had these abilites, those modern mages would be controlled/locked up/persecuted without thought.

There is no question it is 100% reasonable for ordinary folks to want mages locked up or killed.

or one day turn into a monster and kill our entire family-- but that doesn't need to stop us from being idealistic in our fantasy worlds, now, does it?

Present the argument any way you want. It doesn't change the fact that Templars are imprisoning people for what they might do, and not for what they have done. That is wrong no matter how you slice it.

In addition to that David, it might help if you SHOWED us that this actually happened often enough to be a valid threat and not merely the Chantry "viewing with alarm" so they can monopolize all magical power.  Right now the game lore and game evidence is against the idea that any mage can spontaneously become a monster at the drop of a hat no matter how many times we are 'told' this is so.

-Polaris

[Falls Edge]

But then again, if they really wanted to do what I said they're doing it wrong, the best way to break and ruin someone is to isolate them in a jail cell and not  allow them to exercise, this would damage their ability to communicate for years and greatly undo them, then you could just release them into the tower with the rest and have a bunch of mediocre mages who would be able to do somewhat well in being useful but never enough to do any real harm.

But I guess more advanced tactics would be out of their reach at this time, but then why do they have jails? I don't know, I guess.

[LobselVith8]

atheelogos wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Alodar wrote...
If a group of people existed in todays supposedly educated society that had these abilites, those modern mages would be controlled/locked up/persecuted without thought.

There is no question it is 100% reasonable for ordinary folks to want mages locked up or killed.

or one day turn into a monster and kill our entire family-- but that doesn't need to stop us from being idealistic in our fantasy worlds, now, does it?

Present the argument any way you want. It doesn't change the fact that Templars are imprisoning people for what they might do, and not for what they have done. That is wrong no matter how you slice it.

Should we take the Chantry's refusal of the Magi boon (that we had to learn about in a forum rather than in the expansion or the DLCs) and the present comments about the Chantry's subjugation of mages to mean that anyone interested in not supporting a regime that imprisons innocent people isn't going to be able to emancipate them in DA2?

Modifié par LobselVith8, 03 février 2011 - 10:29 .

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Should we take the Chantry's refusal of the Magi boon (that we had to learn about in a forum rather than in the expansion or the DLCs) and the present comments about the Chantry's subjugation of mages to mean that anyone interested in not supporting a regime that imprisons innocent people isn't going to be able to emancipate them in DA2?

I am finding DG's comments worrisome as well.  They almost sound like Chantry rote and verse.

-Polaris

[Falls Edge]

There's quite abit to support the theory that I stated, including that the templars chase them across the world thus making it impossible for a mage to settle down enough to actually learn about magic outside of the tower, this would also explain why they take them young, and why even noblity cannot protect their magical children from the chantry.

Still, this is mostly a guess from tidbits, but the largest and most easily precieved clue is the 'the black mages' or whatever they were called at the start of the game, they were people; not abominations and they were still evil and perhaps more powerful than anything in the fade, except the maker.

[upsettingshorts]

IanPolaris wrote...

I am finding DG's comments worrisome as well.  They almost sound like Chantry rote and verse.

[Anarya]

Ok you guys. The mages vs. Chantry debate is obviously designed to be morally murky and without a clear "right" side, much like the issue of whether the Maker exists. So I don't really see the point in trying to determine a "winner", as it were. It seems like an exercise in futility.

[IanPolaris]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I am finding DG's comments worrisome as well.  They almost sound like Chantry rote and verse.

DG's comments don't sound like Chantry apologia to you?  Really?

-Polaris

[upsettingshorts]

IanPolaris wrote...

DG's comments don't sound like Chantry apologia to you?  Really?

[IanPolaris]

Anarya wrote...

Ok you guys. The mages vs. Chantry debate is obviously designed to be morally murky and without a clear "right" side, much like the issue of whether the Maker exists. So I don't really see the point in trying to determine a "winner", as it were. It seems like an exercise in futility.

The problem lies in the fact the debate is only morally murky if you accept the Chantry and Templar's assertion at face value that any mage can become a slavering, villaige destroying abomination at any time and thus reflects a continuing threat to society.

If that threat isn't accurate (or so rare as to be essentially zero), then the debate is no longer morally murky.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

DG's comments don't sound like Chantry apologia to you?  Really?

If you want to say something, then get a pair of them and say it.  DG is clearly trying to get us to side with the Chantry PoV in his quotes, and he is doing so by insinuating that those that don't agree with the chantry are sheltered and spoiled post-modernists.  Seriously.

-Polaris

[AlexXIV]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

DG's comments don't sound like Chantry apologia to you?  Really?

Puppy!!!

[upsettingshorts]

IanPolaris wrote...

If you want to say something, then get a pair of them and say it.

IanPolaris wrote...

 DG is clearly trying to get us to side with the Chantry PoV in his quotes, and he is doing so by insinuating that those that don't agree with the chantry are sheltered and spoiled post-modernists.

[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie][smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/lol.png[/smilie]

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 février 2011 - 10:45 .

[Falls Edge]

Actually there is a clear moral line, the mages as individuals haven't done anything bad, it's likely that if the chantry didn't intervene a lot of mage children would've been tempted by demon's and that would have been that.

Those that survived would have accumulated knowledge and become powerful, they would have shared their knowledge with other mages and we would have had a bunch of people fearing them.

The mages would grow more and more powerful much like humanity has grown more and more powerful the accumulation of knowledge would result in the creation of magic civillizations, oh wait that happened in the da universe, it didn't end well.

I think the chantry just doesn't want a repeat of the natural consequences that resulted the first time they didn't control mages, not to mention the whole 'we're better than you thing' that would spawn as a 'mage' noblity of sorts.

Still, it seems that the chantry just isn't going about it the right way, which is unfortunate, I look forward to making the chantry fall if I can and making some sort of self-regulating mage organization, though in the end it will just lead back to what's already happened, that's the basic problem, if you create a mage organization that controls the other mages you're going to end up with another accumulation of knowledge.

it's likely that the mage organization would isolate themselves from non-mages and it would just be a repeat of everything that happened the first time, the mages clearly being superior to non-mages.

I guess the best thing for everyone is if the fade got cut off from the real world, or at least weakened so that firestorms got limited to fireballs, less magical power, less danger, we'd end up with the equivelent of wizards which couldn't be much more than what the majority of mages are under censorship except this time the mages can't do anything about it.

Modifié par Falls Edge, 03 février 2011 - 10:51 .

[Maria Caliban]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I am finding DG's comments worrisome as well.  They almost sound like Chantry rote and verse.

David is obviously a Chantry sympathizer. He may even believe in Andreste and the Maker himself.

This is worrisome because...

People believing in things I don't is bad. Also, David is the lead writer so maybe he'll write nice stuff about the Chantry, which I don't like because the Chantry is bad.

[Anarya]

IanPolaris wrote...

Anarya wrote...

Ok you guys. The mages vs. Chantry debate is obviously designed to be morally murky and without a clear "right" side, much like the issue of whether the Maker exists. So I don't really see the point in trying to determine a "winner", as it were. It seems like an exercise in futility.

The problem lies in the fact the debate is only morally murky if you accept the Chantry and Templar's assertion at face value that any mage can become a slavering, villaige destroying abomination at any time and thus reflects a continuing threat to society.

If that threat isn't accurate (or so rare as to be essentially zero), then the debate is no longer morally murky.

-Polaris

But you have Gaider telling you exactly that (plus Connor and other things in-game) So I don't see why this is even in question.

[AlexXIV]

IanPolaris wrote...
If you want to say something, then get a pair of them and say it.  DG is clearly trying to get us to side with the Chantry PoV in his quotes, and he is doing so by insinuating that those that don't agree with the chantry are sheltered and spoiled post-modernists.  Seriously.

-Polaris

I think you read too much into it. The way I understood his post was that he was sort of analysing. DA is in a sort of medivial setting though, and may not value freedom higher than for example safety. After all the world of DA is a mix of theocracy and feudalism/monarchy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Beerfish wrote...

Does anyone actually LIKE mages?

I do, but I've always had a soft spot for übermenschen.

[IanPolaris]

Anarya wrote...
But you have Gaider telling you exactly that (plus Connor and other things in-game) So I don't see why this is even in question.

DG doesn't tell you that.  Not once does he actually tell you that in WoG mode.  He implies it certainly but never says it.  Anyttime he does mention it, it's always speaking with the "Chantry justification" or "Chantry PoV" voice or as opinion, never as WoG.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

IanPolaris wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Should we take the Chantry's refusal of the Magi boon (that we had to learn about in a forum rather than in the expansion or the DLCs) and the present comments about the Chantry's subjugation of mages to mean that anyone interested in not supporting a regime that imprisons innocent people isn't going to be able to emancipate them in DA2?

I am finding DG's comments worrisome as well.  They almost sound like Chantry rote and verse.

-Polaris

I could deal with the hack and slash accusations that are being levelled at the sequel if it has a good story, but I'm hoping for the option to side with the mages and emancipate them - somerhing that we were denied in DA:O (even with the Magi boon apparently), Awakening, Golems, and Witch Hunt. Gaider's comments are making it seem like siding with the mages would bring about another Tevinter Imperium, when we know from the tales of Arlathan and the references to the Dales that it isn't the case - mages in power don't always become like the Tevinter Imperium.

The info about the Staff of Parlathan and the implication that Hawke's ancestor Parlathan wanted to bring forth the emancipation of mages when he aided Calenhad in creating Ferelden seemed like that was going to be a real possibility with Hawke in DA2, which I felt carried weight for people who did ask for the Magi boon in Origins and want to see their choice matter - not see it ignored.

[AlexXIV]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

Does anyone actually LIKE mages?

I do, but I've always had a soft spot for übermenschen.

I have a soft spot for freaks. Which in some cases are ****** superior.

[upsettingshorts]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I'm hoping for the option to side with the mages and emancipate them

Now there's a position I can respect.

I would love to have the opportunity to emancipate the mages of Thedas.  I would also love to have the opportunity to restrict them further.  I would also view any choice on this matter that didn't have serious negative repurcussions as cheap and unsatisfying.

AlexXIV wrote...

I have a soft spot for freaks. Which in some cases are ****** superior.

Babylon 5 telepaths?

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 février 2011 - 10:56 .