1283 réponses à ce sujet

[Anarya]

IanPolaris wrote...

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

Well I guess I don't need him to put blinking lights around it and say "hey everyone: mages can turn into abominations at any time" to take it as authoritative but even if you discount what is said on the board by writers you've seen and heard abominations in your game universe so I still don't see how this is in question.

[AlexXIV]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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?

I am not really familiar with babylon 5 but telepaths definately.

Also all kinds of mutants, fantasy races, aliens, etc.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 03 février 2011 - 10:59 .

[upsettingshorts]

AlexXIV wrote...

I am not really familiar with babylon 5 but telepaths definately.

Ah I see.  That's precisely what they were called on the show.  Well, in the technical sense anyway.  Usually it was just "telepaths" or "teeps."

[tmp7704]

IanPolaris wrote...

False.  We know from game lore that the Keepers all meet on a regular basis (about once a decade or so) and that individual clans meet and trade with each other far more often than that.  On a grand historical level (esp since at least someone would escape and the Dalish are all expert woodsmen to a man), knowledge that a clan was wiped out would quickly spread.  Indeed it does if you side with the werewolves.

If i recall it right, while there's meeting every decade or so, not all clans attend it every single time, and as such it could easily take multiple missed meetings (i.e. 20-30 or more years) for anyone to really take notice and start wondering if something bad hadn't happened. This is hardly pace which can be called "quick".

As for the Chasind, we actually know a fair bit about them since they are socially and politically organized much like many native american tribes.  Again, Chasind talk to each other (when they aren't busy killing each other) and news would quickly spread

Yes, just like the news about Flemmeth have certainly spread between the Chasind quickly and kept circulating for ages. However rest of the population treats Witch of the Wilds pretty much like urban legend on level of tooth fairy. Because contact between the Chasind and rest of population is scarce, at best.

[IanPolaris]

Anarya wrote...

Well I guess I don't need him to put blinking lights around it and say "hey everyone: mages can turn into abominations at any time" to take it as authoritative but even if you discount what is said on the board by writers you've seen and heard abominations in your game universe so I still don't see how this is in question.

There is a 70+ page forum threat that does explicitly question this, so it's very much in question.  There is no game evidence and no WoG evidence that abominations are the threat that the Chantry wants you to think, and there is no evidence that mages "spontaneously" are forcibly possessed except under extraordinary circumstances (torn veil, summoning too many demons, etc).

If what you say is true, then we need to be SHOWN this, not have it asserted on a message board using very squirellly language.

-Polaris

[Sharn01]

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.

Indeed. The reason the "templars are bad" view is so prevalent is because most of us live in cushy western societies where anything that smells like oppression is Very Bad, and the only determining factor in how one should treat mages is how fair that treatment is. Of course, we don't have to live with the idea that Poor Oppressed Joe living next door to us might be secretly controlling our mind to make us like him-- 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?

I am curious if your posts are personal opinion, or a defense of the mindset of the people of Fereldan? 

I have not seen many, well, nobody who was serious, who feels mages should not be regulated to some extent, but you have to admit that there are better options then the current system, and it shows no sign of changing on its own.

[AlexXIV]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I am not really familiar with babylon 5 but telepaths definately.

Ah I see.  That's precisely what they were called on the show.  Well, in the technical sense anyway.  Usually it was just "telepaths" or "teeps."

****** superior is I think often used in fiction as a term of 'evolved human'. ****** sapiens -> ****** superior.

I just prefer it to the term 'Übermenschen' because these are basically ****s.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 03 février 2011 - 11:02 .

[tmp7704]

IanPolaris wrote...

The point is that mages are human like anyone else (..)

Given the very root of the whole issue is the mages aren't human like anyone else, this results in the argument being based on wrong premise.

[LobselVith8]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

There should be the option to side with either the mages or the templars. We can clearly see that there are two fanbases - one supporting the mages and another supporting the Chantry; no reason to deny either of them the choice of picking their faction and going the distance. A 10 year story of Hawke should deal with the consequences of either choice, allowing us to try to shape Kirkwall and possibly the rest of the Free Marches by our actions rather than following some pre-set story where we have no agency.

[Anarya]

IanPolaris wrote...

Anarya wrote...

Well I guess I don't need him to put blinking lights around it and say "hey everyone: mages can turn into abominations at any time" to take it as authoritative but even if you discount what is said on the board by writers you've seen and heard abominations in your game universe so I still don't see how this is in question.

There is a 70+ page forum threat that does explicitly question this, so it's very much in question.  There is no game evidence and no WoG evidence that abominations are the threat that the Chantry wants you to think, and there is no evidence that mages "spontaneously" are forcibly possessed except under extraordinary circumstances (torn veil, summoning too many demons, etc).

If what you say is true, then we need to be SHOWN this, not have it asserted on a message board using very squirellly language.

-Polaris

Well I mean, I see this as sticking your head in the sand and soldiering on in whatever you want to believe so there's really no point in me trying to debate further. I view this as virtually the same as denying the moon landing.

So hey, have fun with that.

[upsettingshorts]

Sharn01 wrote...

I am curious if your posts are personal opinion, or a defense of the mindset of the people of Fereldan? 

I have not seen many, well, nobody who was serious, who feels mages should not be regulated to some extent, but you have to admit that there are better options then the current system, and it shows no sign of changing on its own.

I have.  I'll support their emancipation when they themselves do.  And even the mages themselves are divided on it, since we don't know the result of Wynne's meeting from DAA.  

It's pre-emptive imprisonment for an inherited condition that increases their potential to harm others.  Sort of like... committing people with psychiatric disorders.  It's not about slavery.  Even the tranquil are a question of what amounts to capital punishment (death of personality).  

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 février 2011 - 11:06 .

[IanPolaris]

tmp7704 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

False.  We know from game lore that the Keepers all meet on a regular basis (about once a decade or so) and that individual clans meet and trade with each other far more often than that.  On a grand historical level (esp since at least someone would escape and the Dalish are all expert woodsmen to a man), knowledge that a clan was wiped out would quickly spread.  Indeed it does if you side with the werewolves.

If i recall it right, while there's meeting every decade or so, not all clans attend it every single time, and as such it could easily take multiple missed meetings (i.e. 20-30 or more years) for anyone to really take notice and start wondering if something bad hadn't happened. This is hardly pace which can be called "quick".

Actually it's a lot faster than you are trying to make out.  The regular meetings aren't the only contact that Dalish clans have with each other, and Dalish clans can and do sent important messenges via messenger to each other.  In fact you as a Dalish Warden get to use this service yourself after you resolve the Werewolf curse.  Also clans run into each other regularly.  The point is the Dalish make it a POINT to trade lore and keep each other informed.  The game lore specifically states this.

That being so, and given the small size of each invidiual tribe, we should see a huge impact from random abominations if the Chantry were correct and we do not.

As for the Chasind, we actually know a fair bit about them since they are socially and politically organized much like many native american tribes.  Again, Chasind talk to each other (when they aren't busy killing each other) and news would quickly spread

Yes, just like the news about Flemmeth have certainly spread between the Chasind quickly and kept circulating for ages. However rest of the population treats Witch of the Wilds pretty much like urban legend on level of tooth fairy. Because contact between the Chasind and rest of population is scarce, at best.

It's not that scarce.  You see and run into Chasind quite often in the game, and I see no reason why it would be all that different for ordinary folks.  Again, an abomination social footprint should be blindingly obvious given the small size of individual tribes, and it's just not there.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
I have.  I'll support their emancipation when they themselves do.  And even the mages themselves are divided on it, since we don't know the result of Wynne's meeting from DAA.  

It's pre-emptive imprisonment for an inherited condition that increases their potential to harm others.  Sort of like... committing people with psychiatric disorders.  It's not about slavery.  Even the tranquil are a question of what amounts to capital punishment (death of personality).  

You do realize that pre-emptive institutionalization for people with inherited mental disorders is considered both unwarrented and inhuman these days, no?  What you say USED to be the case, but it's grossly out of favor and considered downright midaeval these days.

-Polaris

[Altima Darkspells]

Well, I don't think anyone wants to kill all mages everywhere (even the Qunari).  They're just too powerful a potential weapon to just throw away like that.

I just think most people would wish that they'd just act like a sword you can store away until you need it, instead of pesky people who grow agitated under reasonable security procautions, like slavery.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I am not really familiar with babylon 5 but telepaths definately.

Ah I see.  That's precisely what they were called on the show.  Well, in the technical sense anyway.  Usually it was just "telepaths" or "teeps."

Also "teeks" for the telekinetics.

[tmp7704]

Sharn01 wrote...

but you have to admit that there are better options then the current system

So far we don't really know if there's better options -- there's some solutions which people claim would surely work better, and some solutions which are implemented by other societies and which some cite as "better" due to lack of knowledge whether they actually work better or not, but that's about it. As such, the necessity to admit anything doesn't really exist.

[IanPolaris]

Anarya wrote...
Well I mean, I see this as sticking your head in the sand and soldiering on in whatever you want to believe so there's really no point in me trying to debate further. I view this as virtually the same as denying the moon landing.

So hey, have fun with that.

I guess I'll ignore the negative indicates from the Dalish, Tevinter, Arlathan, Haven, Rivvain, and the Chasind not to mention even Chantry society prior to Ambrosia II.

But yeah, other than that, I guess I am sticking my head in the sand. 

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Anarya wrote...

Well I guess I don't need him to put blinking lights around it and say "hey everyone: mages can turn into abominations at any time" to take it as authoritative but even if you discount what is said on the board by writers you've seen and heard abominations in your game universe so I still don't see how this is in question.

Yet we have the examples of Rivain, the Dalish clans, and the Chasind tribes to see that not everyone agrees with segregating mages. If we read the History of the Circle codex, we read that their segregation transpired because of a nonviolent protest in an Orlesian cathedral. We read codex entries and see from the incident at the Circle Tower that abominations seem to happen as a direct result of the conflict between the Order of Templars and the mages. We know that the Dales and Arlathan weren't the Tevinter Imperium from what we've heard, and given how imprisoning people who are innocent has only caused people to either run away or start a rebellion, can we assume that continuing this cycle is going to be any different? Are mages going to simply never want any rights and accept being under an oppressive system that can kill them on suspicion and without giving them the right to contest being given a lobotomy or being killed? I think the core argument is over whether the Chantry's current system is the correct choice, or simply creating more problems by segregating mages in a prison where they have no basic rights.

[upsettingshorts]

There are two reasons I found your position laughable enough to resort to dog pictures and emoticons, as anyone who posts around here probably knows by now I have no problem arguing with anybody:

IanPolaris wrote...

You do realize that pre-emptive institutionalization for people with inherited mental disorders is considered both unwarrented and inhuman these days, no?  What you say USED to be the case, but it's grossly out of favor and considered downright midaeval these days.

"These days" do not matter.  And medieval ethics - if that's what you're claiming them to be - are very much appropriate for medieval fantasy.  It's also hilarious to presume that one's ethical position with regards to a fictional fantasy world, when made in-character, have anything to do with their real-world beliefs.

If you're going to talk about how people with inherited medical disorders are different from mages, this is obvious, and the source of the italicized "sort of" in my statement.

IanPolaris wrote...

-Polaris

Signing your own posts on a webforum that lists your name to the left and provides a section for signatures is the other reason.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 février 2011 - 11:12 .

[IanPolaris]

tmp7704 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The point is that mages are human like anyone else (..)

Given the very root of the whole issue is the mages aren't human like anyone else, this results in the argument being based on wrong premise.

Disagree.  Mages are human like anyone else.  They can simply do things that others can not.  The same thing can be said about professional athletes IRL, but no one would claim they aren't human like anyone else.

Same same.

-Polaris

[Anarya]

IanPolaris wrote...

Anarya wrote...
Well I mean, I see this as sticking your head in the sand and soldiering on in whatever you want to believe so there's really no point in me trying to debate further. I view this as virtually the same as denying the moon landing.

So hey, have fun with that.

I guess I'll ignore the negative indicates from the Dalish, Tevinter, Arlathan, Haven, Rivvain, and the Chasind not to mention even Chantry society prior to Ambrosia II.

But yeah, other than that, I guess I am sticking my head in the sand. 

-Polaris

You have a vastly different interpretation of what is presented in the game than I do, apparently. 

[PsychoBlonde]

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.

Yeah, it's designed this way, but the game doesn't quite back it up.  So you have one camp saying "Mages are awful!" and one camp saying "But I kicked their butts!"  One is responding to the *intent* of the mage segments, one is responding to the *actuality* of the mage segments.  (That and some people are hysterical twerps who have no problem with what happens to other people as long as they aren't mages themselves.)

If there was real, solid evidence that mages really are just helpless pawns of their own abilities and they don't have to voluntarily jump off the deep end, sure, lock them up.  I'm in favor of locking up insane people, after all, and you can't say that schizophrenics did anything to deserve their condition.  It's just that you can't reason with them--you can't say "you should stop being schizophrenic" to them and get anywhere.  But you can say to mages "you shouldn't use your powers to hurt people for reasons x, y, and z" and they can decide to do just that.  If they have the *ability to choose to be good*, they should be treated just like everyone else who equally has this ability, regardless of the fact that they're "more dangerous" when they *choose* to be bad.

Now, I'm not saying you should therefore hand them the keys to the kingdom.  Goodness no--you don't just let anyone into your home and trust them with the care of your children because they CAN choose to be a good person.  They can also choose to be an axe murderer.  You look for evidence of their personal principles and their choices before you trust them with your personal belongings/life.

Part of the problem is also that evidence in stories is generally horribly skewed.  They don't just want to spring stuff on you out of nowhere because this is generally bad storytelling, so they do things like telegraph Uldred being a dick via some rather generic storytelling dick-establishment methodology.  So IN GAME it was pretty obvious from the moment you hear him speak that he's up to no good.  But by telegraphing in this manner they still undercut the idea of "you never know with mages".

Conveying an actually murky conflict in a game/story is REALLY REALLY DIFFICULT and maybe not always entirely possible or worthwhile.  I know what I would have changed if I wanted to leave people at the top of the tower going, OMG, should I kill them or let them live?!  (I'm talking about people who kind of play as "themselves" and thus try to pick the "right" options). But I probably wouldn't want to write that story in the first place, because it would be HORRIBLE.  I've written stuff like that before and it's quite something when you have to put your own work down and go outside to get some fresh air/sunshine because you've made YOURSELF feel ill.

[Anarya]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Anarya wrote...

Well I guess I don't need him to put blinking lights around it and say "hey everyone: mages can turn into abominations at any time" to take it as authoritative but even if you discount what is said on the board by writers you've seen and heard abominations in your game universe so I still don't see how this is in question.

Yet we have the examples of Rivain, the Dalish clans, and the Chasind tribes to see that not everyone agrees with segregating mages. If we read the History of the Circle codex, we read that their segregation transpired because of a nonviolent protest in an Orlesian cathedral. We read codex entries and see from the incident at the Circle Tower that abominations seem to happen as a direct result of the conflict between the Order of Templars and the mages. We know that the Dales and Arlathan weren't the Tevinter Imperium from what we've heard, and given how imprisoning people who are innocent has only caused people to either run away or start a rebellion, can we assume that continuing this cycle is going to be any different? Are mages going to simply never want any rights and accept being under an oppressive system that can kill them on suspicion and without giving them the right to contest being given a lobotomy or being killed? I think the core argument is over whether the Chantry's current system is the correct choice, or simply creating more problems by segregating mages in a prison where they have no basic rights.

Don't misunderstand, I'm not supporting the Chantry's solution to the problem either. Like I said, the issue is murky and without an easy solution, and that's by design.

[AlexXIV]

Question is if the mages can be emanzipated. Without anyone checking on them. Of course this would require the mages themselves to fill the role of the templars and make sure that not some Jowan-type goes around screwing up big time. That mages need to be taken away from 'normal' people I think is no question. As somebody said, you can't let a child with a gun into a school just because it was sort of born with a gun. There has to be some sort of regulation of magic.

The incident in the Circle of Ferelden shows though that the mages basically had no chance. Irving was captured and the few stray mages who had escaped couldn't do much against the abominations. The templars were the only ones who had any hope to contain the abominations. Even though we don't know what would have happened without the Warden. Maybe not even the templars could have managed, but at least they were the next line of defense after the mages, including their first enchanter, had fallen.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 03 février 2011 - 11:16 .

[IanPolaris]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

There are two reasons I found your position laughable enough to resort to dog pictures and emoticons, as anyone who posts around here probably knows by now I have no problem arguing with anybody:

Then you might want to use a little courtesy and a little less snark.

IanPolaris wrote...

You do realize that pre-emptive institutionalization for people with inherited mental disorders is considered both unwarrented and inhuman these days, no?  What you say USED to be the case, but it's grossly out of favor and considered downright midaeval these days.

"These days" do not matter.  And medieval ethics - if that's what you're claiming them to be - are very much appropriate for medieval fantasy.  It's also hilarious to presume that one's ethical position with regards to a fictional fantasy world, when made in-character, have anything to do with their real-world beliefs.

If you're going to talk about how people with inherited medical disorders are different from mages, this is obvious, and the source of the italicized "sort of" in my statement.

These days very much matters because DG was directly comparing how we'd deal with mages today as a justification for how the Chantry was doing so.  This point has been covered before and as such the moral issue very much applies.

As for the mental health issue, you were the one that used the analogy and it happens to be a decent one.  I simply shot it full of holes.  You need to deal with that and deal with the fact that the DA universe has all sorts of modern ethics and conceits built into it (such as gender egalitarianism to name one).

IanPolaris wrote...

-Polaris

Signing your own posts on a webforum that lists your name to the left and provides a section for signatures is the other reason.

Then you need to grow up and untwist thost panties.  It's an old habit I got from the early days of Usenet and I'll stick to it.  If you have an issue with it, go file it in dev/null.  Thanks.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Anarya wrote...

You have a vastly different interpretation of what is presented in the game than I do, apparently. 

Not really.  I am simply not accepting what people say in the game at face value.  I look for evidence in the game world and the evidence in the game world simply doesn't back the notion that mages are anywhere near as likely to become abominations as the chantry would have you think.

If not, then the whole moral greyness vanishes.

-Polaris