1283 réponses à ce sujet

[lv12medic]

My favorite solution to this whole chantry/mage issue is keep things the way they are but move the templars out of the circle towers. You can keep mages in the tower, but the Templars just don't need to be standing there staring at the mages like they're ticking time bombs.

Secure the perimeter outside of the actual circles and react to anything serious like an abomination outbreak, and maintain communication with the First Enchanter. Maybe periodic security sweeps to check to make sure blood magic isn't being performed. And Apostates should be brought to the circles to have the mages deem whether the apostate is a blood mage or to decide whether they can safely function within the circle of magi and follow the rules.

Modifié par lv12medic, 03 février 2011 - 11:21 .

[upsettingshorts]

IanPolaris wrote...

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

And you could do with a little less "horrifying" and calling people bigots for their interpretation of the implications of fictional lore.

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

Do I think we'd be treating them precisely the same way the Chantry and Templars do?  Not necessarily and certainly not at first.  Do I think they'd be regulated in some way?  You'd be naive not to think so.  Doesn't mean there wouldn't be debate.  But I am pretty sure which side would lose.  And if you use this paragraph to assume which side I'd be on, I will internet slap you. 

IanPolaris wrote...

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 "shot it full of holes" in the sense that you found the things it was never meant to cover.  The example is meant to convey the idea of pre-emptive imprisonment for pre-existing, involuntary conditions.  The difference, and this is a huge part of the issue at hand, is potent extra-normal ability, something the mentally disturbed do not possess.  To say that this is "shot full of holes" is nonsense.

IanPolaris wrote...

  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).

And the ones it does I'll accept as being part of that world.  On the subject of mages and the Chantry, modern ethics have not a thing to do with it.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 février 2011 - 11:25 .

[Anarya]

IanPolaris wrote...

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

We did not see enough of either the Chasind or the Dalish clans to know how they have or have not been affected by abominations, and we haven't seen anything at all of Rivain, so I find your logic there shaky.

[IanPolaris]

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

I think this is a false dichotomy.  No one is suggesting that mages should just be able to do magic hither and yon with no regulations and no controls whatsover!  (Perhaps a few radical libertarians might think this, but I don't think most mages would agree....and possibly not even most libertarian mages).  What I've suggested for a long time here and in other threads is this:  A solid regulatory system that contolls magic should exist with at least one dedicated order of Knights (which would include both mages and mundane templar-like warriors) to help police magic and help educate mages from a young age.  This should ideally be done under the auspicious of the crown and not the Chantry.

-Polaris

[tmp7704]

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

If a clan gets wiped out they're in no position to send nor receive these regular messages. It's rather hard to draw any conclusions from such event -- it's possible the clan has moved elsewhere or it's otherwise too preoccupied to keep in touch. In DAO case the news spread fairly quick before the werewolves and/or warden were able to provide explanation what happened to the public. But i wouldn't expect abominations to be equally informative.

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.

How many tribes do we get to actually see at all in the game? Two, and one of them is in the process of being wiped out by something their own keeper created in a fit of rage. Pretty small sample to draw any conclusions from.

It's not that scarce.  You see and run into Chasind quite often in the game

You do? I recall couple Chasind in Lothering and they're there only because they're running from darkspawn on their native territory. Where else do you see Chasind in the game that it'd be "quite often"?

Again, an abomination social footprint should be blindingly obvious given the small size of individual tribes, and it's just not there.

How many tribes of Chasind did you encounter and conversed with in the game to even begin to think you can make such statement? Again, this is turning lack of knowledge into presumption there's nothing to be known.

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

On the subject of mages and the Chantry, modern ethics have not a thing to do with it.

I'd say it's written with them in mind, the intent being to pose a question to a modern moral position.

[IanPolaris]

Anarya wrote...

We did not see enough of either the Chasind or the Dalish clans to know how they have or have not been affected by abominations, and we haven't seen anything at all of Rivain, so I find your logic there shaky.

Sure we did.  We know quite a bit about the Chasind from the codex entires, and we see quite a lot of the Dalish even if you aren't Dalish yourself.  The impact that an abomination would have on a small self-contrained tribe with less than 50 people would be severe assuming that abominations are as dangerous and frequent as the chantry claims.  Even one tribe fighting one in a generation would leave a huge social footprint because you'd be seeing per capita death rates that would rival the Black Death.

We don't.  This isn't something that would be hidden in the minutia either.  We should see it in their camp structure, dealing with strangers and especially strange mages, and more.  We simply do not.  That same applies to Haven, Rivvain, and other places.

-Polaris

[upsettingshorts]

Ziggeh wrote...

I'd say it's written with them in mind, the intent being to pose a question to a modern moral position.

Now that is a fair point.  But then we must consider in-character versus out of character positions.  The former still relies on the ethics of the gameworld, and is really all I'm interested in anyway.  If I want to discuss modern ethics, I'll use modern issues.

[moilami]

AlexXIV wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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

Puppy!!!

Rofl.

[tmp7704]

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

That's wordplay. Professional athletes can do the same things better than people who lack training and/or aptitude and the level of performance will vary from person to person. But no amount of training will make a mage out of person that wasn't born one. You either can shoot fireballs out of your fingertips, or not.

[LobselVith8]

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

I don't think anyone contests that magic should be regulated, only that the Chantry's current method is flawed and causing unrest among the mages to the point where it looks like they'll be a Mage/Templar War in DA2.

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

Except mages and templars alike fell before Uldred. It's another case of the Chantry's system basically failing to prevent abominations by causing a myraid of dangerous abominations - from the Sloth Demon Abomination to Pride Demon Uldred. Had a better system been in place, it wouldn't have happened. Certainly others agree that the Chantry's imprisonment of mages isn't helping matters in canon. After all, the ruler of Ferelden openly proclaims that the mages have earned the right to govern themselves if the Hero of Ferelden asks for the mages to be given their independence.

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...

The impact that an abomination would have on a small self-contrained tribe with less than 50 people would be severe assuming that abominations are as dangerous and frequent as the chantry claims. 

I take it you're not saying that the ones we meet don't happen to be dead?

[Anarya]

IanPolaris wrote...

Anarya wrote...

We did not see enough of either the Chasind or the Dalish clans to know how they have or have not been affected by abominations, and we haven't seen anything at all of Rivain, so I find your logic there shaky.

Sure we did.  We know quite a bit about the Chasind from the codex entires, and we see quite a lot of the Dalish even if you aren't Dalish yourself.  The impact that an abomination would have on a small self-contrained tribe with less than 50 people would be severe assuming that abominations are as dangerous and frequent as the chantry claims.  Even one tribe fighting one in a generation would leave a huge social footprint because you'd be seeing per capita death rates that would rival the Black Death.

We don't.  This isn't something that would be hidden in the minutia either.  We should see it in their camp structure, dealing with strangers and especially strange mages, and more.  We simply do not.  That same applies to Haven, Rivvain, and other places.

-Polaris

No, what you saw was ONE clan of Dalish who may or may not have had trouble with possession in the past, and you never spent enough time in any of those places mentioned to learn all about their history in regards to abominations. More data is needed before drawing conclusions about their situation.

[IanPolaris]

tmp7704 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

If a clan gets wiped out they're in no position to send nor receive these regular messages. It's rather hard to draw any conclusions from such event -- it's possible the clan has moved elsewhere or it's otherwise too preoccupied to keep in touch. In DAO case the news spread fairly quick before the werewolves and/or warden were able to provide explanation what happened to the public. But i wouldn't expect abominations to be equally informative.

It's virtually impossible to completely wipe out a Dalish clan given that even the children are skilled woodsmen.  If your own warden can't completely wipe out a Dalish clan (and he doesn't not even if he sides with the werewolves....and we know we don't because we meet up with survivors later), then an abomination won't either...and that means that the Dalish will hear about it and certainly often enough to generate the social footprint I am talking about.

If not, then there shouldn't BE any more Dalish given the low population growth rates and dangerous lifestyle of the Dalish in general.

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.

How many tribes do we get to actually see at all in the game? Two, and one of them is in the process of being wiped out by something their own keeper created in a fit of rage. Pretty small sample to draw any conclusions from.

Three actually and you learn quite a bit about Dalish lore and customs even for a non-Dalish.  If there were a social footprint like the one that the Black Death left in our own society immediately after (and there should be), it should be blindingly obviously to anyone.

It's not that scarce.  You see and run into Chasind quite often in the game

You do? I recall couple Chasind in Lothering and they're there only because they're running from darkspawn on their native territory. Where else do you see Chasind in the game that it'd be "quite often"?

I know that Chasind rescued Fergus, and I know in Lotherering you see at least three, and I do seem to remember seing more.  The point is that Chasind aren't that rare.

Again, an abomination social footprint should be blindingly obvious given the small size of individual tribes, and it's just not there.

How many tribes of Chasind did you encounter and conversed with in the game to even begin to think you can make such statement? Again, this is turning lack of knowledge into presumption there's nothing to be known.

You get some very complete descriptions of the Chasind written by Chantry scholars no less.  Magic Using Shamans are completely accepted (as part of the ruling tribal council) in Chasind society.  They fear the Witches of the Wild (and justifiably so) but not magic.   It's in the codecies.

-Polaris

[PsychoBlonde]

tmp7704 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

That's wordplay. Professional athletes can do the same things better than people who lack training and/or aptitude and the level of performance will vary from person to person. But no amount of training will make a mage out of person that wasn't born one. You either can shoot fireballs out of your fingertips, or not.

Erm, the abilities templars have just from training beg to differ.  And there's a fair bit of evidence that quite a few mages can't shoot fireballs out of their fingertips, either.  Plus, if I wanted to go down to the hardware store and pick up a few things, I could shoot fire out of my fingers IN REAL LIFE.  Hell, I don't have to go to the hardware store.  I have a can of hairspray and a pen right here.  Hang on . . .

FWOOSH.


Aw yeah.

[AlexXIV]

IanPolaris wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

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.

I think this is a false dichotomy.  No one is suggesting that mages should just be able to do magic hither and yon with no regulations and no controls whatsover!  (Perhaps a few radical libertarians might think this, but I don't think most mages would agree....and possibly not even most libertarian mages).  What I've suggested for a long time here and in other threads is this:  A solid regulatory system that contolls magic should exist with at least one dedicated order of Knights (which would include both mages and mundane templar-like warriors) to help police magic and help educate mages from a young age.  This should ideally be done under the auspicious of the crown and not the Chantry.

-Polaris

I think the 'crown' should stay out of it. They would just use the the circles for their petty goals. I think a world-wide organisation like the chantry or the circle is the best solution. Normal people, be it nobles or merchants or whatever shouldn't have a thing to say about mages. Best would probably be a whole country for mages. So the non-mages would be save within their borders and the mages would be among like-minded. The dalish basically do the same thing.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 03 février 2011 - 11:36 .

[Ziggeh]

PsychoBlonde wrote...
I have a can of hairspray and a pen right here.  Hang on . . .

Burn her!

[IanPolaris]

Anarya wrote...
No, what you saw was ONE clan of Dalish who may or may not have had trouble with possession in the past, and you never spent enough time in any of those places mentioned to learn all about their history in regards to abominations. More data is needed before drawing conclusions about their situation.

Not necessary that you do.  When you talk with Sarel and have a very high cunning, you find that the Dalish know all about possession and the dangers, but say it's reason to be wary of travelling in the forest.  You also see that Anerin was accepted as a full member of the clan (whatever Anerin thinks of himself) complete with bloodwriting...so clearly the Dalish have no fear of living alongside mages (and the Halla Herder and Storekeeper are also mages).

If abominations were the issue you say, that simply would not be the case (certainly Anerin wouldn't be welcomed and held in high regard).  You see the same pattern in the two other Dalish clans you meet (including DAA).

-Polaris

[upsettingshorts]

PsychoBlonde wrote...
 
Plus, if I wanted to go down to the hardware store and pick up a few things, I could shoot fire out of my fingers IN REAL LIFE.  Hell, I don't have to go to the hardware store.  I have a can of hairspray and a pen right here.  Hang on . . .

FWOOSH.


Aw yeah.

Ooh, I get to reference Babylon 5 again!

I really think that show handled telepaths - sociopolitically at the very least - extremely well actually.  If IanPolaris hasn't seen it, and he enjoys this topic, he absolutely should watch the show.

"The Corps is mother..."

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 03 février 2011 - 11:38 .

[Anarya]

And again, I'm not pro-Chantry, although it's been brought to my attention that my Cassandra avatar might be giving that impression (lol). I'm pro-moral ambiguity. Because come on, it makes things more interesting. If I want black and white morality in a fantasy setting I'll go reread LOTR.

[LobselVith8]

Anarya wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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

We did not see enough of either the Chasind or the Dalish clans to know how they have or have not been affected by abominations, and we haven't seen anything at all of Rivain, so I find your logic there shaky.

Genitivi's codex about Rivain does acknowledge that they revere their seers, and a blog containing codex entries does mention Rivain as one of the societies that has tolerant views on mages. From what we do know, though, mages are living among the Chasind tribes and the Dalish clans. Zathrian and Lanaya are mages, Lanaya references several others who vied to be First and gradually came to accept her in time, there are two mages who fight the Warden and the Lady of the Forest if the Warden sides with the werewolves, and Aenirin was accepted into the clan (as are other Circle mages who escape, as we're told in Witch Hunt). Clearly, they're mage tolerant societies. The threat of abominations and possession doesn't seem to have erroded this, considering how long the Chasind tribes and the Dalish clans have been around.

[Ziggeh]

AlexXIV wrote...
I think the 'crown' should stay out of it. They would just use the the circles for their petty goals. I think a world-wide organisation like the chantry or the circle is the best solution.

I'm not sure using them for purposes that are too big to be considered petty acts as justification there.

[AlexXIV]

Ziggeh wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...
I think the 'crown' should stay out of it. They would just use the the circles for their petty goals. I think a world-wide organisation like the chantry or the circle is the best solution.

I'm not sure using them for purposes that are too big to be considered petty acts as justification there.

If you don't have faith in anyone you will have to kill everyone.

[tmp7704]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Erm, the abilities templars have just from training beg to differ. 

Templar abilities focus on resisting and dispelling the magic.

Plus, if I wanted to go down to the hardware store and pick up a few things, I could shoot fire out of my fingers IN REAL LIFE. 

But you know, the point is that mages can do these things without visit to hardware store. And that's what sets them apart.

[Sharn01]

Anarya wrote...

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.

He did say a mage can become an abomination at any time, I can also win the lottery at any time, I dont even need to buy a ticket, I could find it on the ground, the difference is the mage actually can resist the demon trying to take possession of him, and is very unlikely to be attacked by one in the first place, there is nothing I can do to increase my odds of winning the lottery in any signifigant way. 

Yes, people are afraid of mages, people are more likely to have their car get a flat tire in a storm and get struck by lightning when they exit their car to change the tire then they are to win the powerball lottery, that doesnt stop people from buying tickets.  People will be afraid of abominations no matter how infrequent they are.

I know there are a lot of abominations in Origins, I dont think that should be taken as normal, one there was a lot going on at the time that increased the chance of them taking place,  and two, it was a game introducing us to a new game world, not only did the writers want the player to realize the threat of abominations was real, but it was a brain dead easy way to introduce an enemy, an enemy that was no where near the threat it was described to be in the lore of the game.