1283 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

SgtElias wrote...

I had a different thought I was trying to portray, so I should have been clearer. I meant that once you were possessed, you'd then no longer be able to keep your child safe, thus invalidating your own sacrafice.

Hmm i'd imagine that depends on the situation really. I.e. when the choice decides about whether the child lives "here and now" or dies, then what happens after can become a secondary concern -- one can hope that other relatives or anyone really takes some care of them. The inability to keep watching over them yourself doesn't in any way invalidate saving the child from situation that could result in actual death, imo. Well, unless you believe that there's absolutely no way he/she could continue living without you afterward, which can perhaps be true in some specific cases.

[moilami]

SgtElias wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

That's true, but just the same it's not uncommon for normal people to make the same choice -- and save their child at the cost of their own life, in various threatening situations. Or life of their parent if it's reverse. The cold reasoning of "but what happens after" frequently goes out of the window.

I had a different thought I was trying to portray, so I should have been clearer. I meant that once you were possessed, you'd then no longer be able to keep your child safe, thus invalidating your own sacrafice. Would some people do it anyway? Sure. Another reason why I think it's not a great plan to just cart off every child born to a mage.

Neither solution is full-proof. I suppose the debate is just on what everyone thinks to be the lesser of two evils.

Really? So again that killing innocent is grey area stuff?

Do you realize that if chantry attacks mages as a group, then mages have all the rights to fight back against chantry as a group?

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

So, in this case I'd say that the Senior Enchanters had de-facto control of the tower at the time but only because the chantry was hamstrung by the civil war.

Feasible, but it still supports the RPG text.

I'm not saying that text is definitely canon of anything, just that it doesn't contradict anything I know, and my knowledge on the topic is pretty limited at this point. You say there are numerous in game contradictions? Would save me looking. My data drives borked or I'd plow through the relevant content to see.

The RPG claims that control of the circle has fluctuated between the mages and Templars since the Towers were formed because of the mage's heroism of the second blight.

1.  No.  The Circle Towers were formed because Ambrosia II wanted to break a magical worker's strike.  The second blight had nothing to do with it.

2.  At no time do we see or even have alluded a period of time when the mages were in primary control.  The first Annulments happened in response to cold-blooded murder of mages by Templars and the Antivan Mages were (understandably) a bit upset about it.  Chantry response:  Kill them all.

3.  At no time during the mage origin in the game do we get any notion that Irving can make and enforce decisions that really matter (such as Jowan being made tranquil with no hearing and with no evidence that Irving gets to see whatsoever).

I could go on, but the RPG lore clearly contradicts the lore in the game and books which should be considered canon.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

moilami wrote...

Do you realize that if chantry attacks mages as a group, then mages have all the rights to fight back against chantry as a group?

Actually they don't.  It's called the Rite of Annulment and any mage that resists even in self-defense is (sarc) obviously a dirty malificar to resist the Maker's Holy Sword of Mercy (/sarc).

-Polaris

[AlexXIV]

moilami wrote...

SgtElias wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

That's true, but just the same it's not uncommon for normal people to make the same choice -- and save their child at the cost of their own life, in various threatening situations. Or life of their parent if it's reverse. The cold reasoning of "but what happens after" frequently goes out of the window.

I had a different thought I was trying to portray, so I should have been clearer. I meant that once you were possessed, you'd then no longer be able to keep your child safe, thus invalidating your own sacrafice. Would some people do it anyway? Sure. Another reason why I think it's not a great plan to just cart off every child born to a mage.

Neither solution is full-proof. I suppose the debate is just on what everyone thinks to be the lesser of two evils.

Really? So again that killing innocent is grey area stuff?

Do you realize that if chantry attacks mages as a group, then mages have all the rights to fight back against chantry as a group?

I always have a problem with the 'as a group' thing. You should decide for yourself and not because you are part of a group. Sure, if the Chantry decided to kill all mages and you happen to be a mage then you kill them first before they can kill you. But if staying neutral, giving up or running is also an option it should be at least considered.

[Riona45]

Beerfish wrote...
Damndable mages, all of em.  They ought to lock em up tight or kill em all.  I sure wouldn't want one in my village WOULD YOU?

Was a mage your makeup artist, by chance?

[SgtElias]

tmp7704 wrote...

Hmm i'd imagine that depends on the situation really. I.e. when the choice decides about whether the child lives "here and now" or dies, then what happens after can become a secondary concern -- one can hope that other relatives or anyone really takes some care of them. The inability to keep watching over them yourself doesn't in any way invalidate saving the child from situation that could result in actual death, imo. Well, unless you believe that there's absolutely no way he/she could continue living without you afterward, which can perhaps be true in some specific cases.

Apparently I'm just being rather roundabout today, sorry.

I was specifically referring to the idea of choosing to become possessed simply to get a child back after they'd been taken away from you. It'd be a poor decision, because then you pretty much invalidated everything you'd worked for.

As for the other side of the coin, you're absolutely right, a child could be used as leverage over a mage. S/he could also turn around and be the driving factor for a mage who becomes a gifted healer or a talented author. My argument is that there are too many variables to be considered to know if taking children from their parents is an acceptable price to pay for safety.

To some it is, to me it is not.

[Falls Edge]

Zavox wrote...

Falls Edge wrote...

Zavox the ones that the templars are taking down are the culturally weak, dumbed down mages that the chantry has tried so hard to create, notice that morrigan and her mother had no problem killing templars.

Makes no sense, for how can Andraste have had any hope of winning against the Tevinter Imperium if those (not culturally weak) mages cannot be defeated? None, ergo, they can be defeated.

Also, you don't even need the historical precedent to see how the mages have acted, quite a few have resented the position they've found themselves in, and they've all made different decisions some have chosen the peaceful route(peaceful secession), others have decided to hate themselves because of religious scripture, others have run and escaped the tower, turning either toward evil/forbidden magic, or leading lives on the run to ensure that they'll never gain in power or establish themselves in the world.

Yet again, you cannot fault an entire populace for the wrong doings of a few or many. The Tevinter Imperium is the only example so far that had mages as the dominant class that also exerted that dominance (in a dangerous way). That however doesn't mean that's what would always happen if they are set 'free'. If it were, Germany should've still been under allied control, just in case.

Other mages have chosen pacts with demons attempting to become powerful enough to drive off the shackles of the templars, to be 'immune' from the fear that they feel towards them, a lot of the mages are afraid and some want to be individually so powerful that no one can take them away from their homes again, they want to go where they want to go, they're susceptible to demon's because of these insecurities and weaknesses like other people, except they can use fireballs in THEIR WEAKENED state.

Still doesn't give you the right to subject mages because of the wrong doings of other mages. It in no way shows that every single mage is guilty and/or dangerous, therefore, you're convicting innocents prematurely.

I'm running under the theory that Andraste was a mage, the reason that they won is because she was a ridiculously powerful mage, she's a ridiculously powerful mage who did something that was good instead of the opposite, mages have the capacity to do both good and evil but their abilities allow them to do it on a grander scale as an individual.

I'm not saying that what the chantry did was right, simply that they saw and noted how powerful mages were, and that some of them saw those who did not have magic as pieces on a board to be toyed with.

Heck, the mages in the game have shown that they can be both good and bad people.

Morally speaking you're right, imagined and past crimes should not be brought over on the table, but they still came to the conclusion that the best way to minimize damage from mages was to weaken them, I purposed that it would be best if they moved the fade farther from their reality in order to keep the mages at the level of power they have now and thus, whether a mage was good or bad was within the realm of the authorty other than just mages to dictate and control.

As mages are now they're simply superior when it comes to fire power, and they're weakened as it is, the only way to effectively combat them is to a take a powerful drug or an insanely rare and expensive magic armor.

They're just trying to even the playing field with what they have not a deus ex machina, that they don't.

This is one of those 'it doesn't matter if it is morally wrong or right, it just needs to be done for the safety of every non-mage'. It's still wrong though, and the mages should be treated better than how they have been on an individual basis.

Edit: Also, I'm guessing Andraste died on purpose, or was poisoned or something.

Then again I'm working on too many hypotheticals that are convenient to my position which is bad ground to expand upon.

Modifié par Falls Edge, 04 février 2011 - 02:35 .

[tmp7704]

SgtElias wrote...

Apparently I'm just being rather roundabout today, sorry.

I was specifically referring to the idea of choosing to become possessed simply to get a child back after they'd been taken away from you. It'd be a poor decision, because then you pretty much invalidated everything you'd worked for.

Ahh that's my bad then, i was thinking more of the supposed theoretical situations where the member of family could be used as leverage by the demon or such in (equally theoretical) setup where the family members aren't being separated to begin with

For trade-off like this i think you're right, the result is not exactly a reunion and as such probably not something that many would consider.

[SgtElias]

moilami wrote...

SgtElias wrote...

I had a different thought I was trying to portray, so I should have been clearer. I meant that once you were possessed, you'd then no longer be able to keep your child safe, thus invalidating your own sacrafice. Would some people do it anyway? Sure. Another reason why I think it's not a great plan to just cart off every child born to a mage.

Neither solution is full-proof. I suppose the debate is just on what everyone thinks to be the lesser of two evils.

Really? So again that killing innocent is grey area stuff?

Do you realize that if chantry attacks mages as a group, then mages have all the rights to fight back against chantry as a group?

I assume that was meant toward me. And I say to you, good Ser, that you are singling out the wrong person. I'm ridiculously pro-mage.

I was merely admitting that both choices (children being taken away and chidren remaining with mage parents) have the possiblity of causing harm. Perhaps not equally, but as I doubt no Thedas historians have spent years cataloging the exact number of people killed by templars and mages seperately, nor kept accurate records of how many mages are being oppressed to "keep the population safe," all we have is conjecture about an extremely subjective subject.

I just think you should spend your time elsewhere, because I happen to usually agree with you.

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...

The RPG claims that control of the circle has fluctuated between the mages and Templars since the Towers were formed because of the mage's heroism of the second blight.

In the bit Xewaka quoted? It just says they police themselves.

IanPolaris wrote...
1.  No.  The Circle Towers were formed because Ambrosia II wanted to break a magical worker's strike.  The second blight had nothing to do with it.

The segregation stems from that, not the circle itself. You yourself linked me a codex entry that said it was formed by an emperor who created his empire 5 years before the second Blight started. So yes, it could well have something to do with it.

IanPolaris wrote...
2.  At no time do we see or even have alluded a period of time when the mages were in primary control.  The first Annulments happened in response to cold-blooded murder of mages by Templars and the Antivan Mages were (understandably) a bit upset about it.  Chantry response:  Kill them all.

Aside from the Uldred thing, but a) is policing themselves the same as control and the existence of the RIte, which I agree is ultimate authority doesn't mean they don't run the say to day, the Templars stepping in during extreme circumstance.

IanPolaris wrote...
3.  At no time during the mage origin in the game do we get any notion that Irving can make and enforce decisions that really matter (such as Jowan being made tranquil with no hearing and with no evidence that Irving gets to see whatsoever).

Ok, but do we get any notion that he can't?

IanPolaris wrote...
I could go on, but the RPG lore clearly contradicts the lore in the game and books which should be considered canon.

Please do! I wouldn't say clearly, in fact right now I 've yet to see anything at all.

[Heavenblade]

The price of a free society is living with the fact that sometimes bad things will happen that you cannot prevent. The trick is that no matter how good your preventive measures are, no matter how oppressive you get, things will still happen that you cannot prevent. So the choice is freedom and insecurity or oppression and insecurity.

Unless of course you are all for brain-chips/mind-control rays/blood magic to erase free will and free thought, then yes, you can eliminate insecurity. I suppose some people (powerful businessmen and politicians who would be exempt) would love that.

[moilami]

Riona45 wrote...

Beerfish wrote...
Damndable mages, all of em.  They ought to lock em up tight or kill em all.  I sure wouldn't want one in my village WOULD YOU?

Was a mage your makeup artist, by chance?

Rofl there are so hilarious comments it is a must to add to the list.

[Zavox]

Falls Edge wrote...

I'm running under the theory that Andraste was a mage, the reason that they won is because she was a ridiculously powerful mage, she's a ridiculously powerful mage who did something that was good instead of the opposite, mages have the capacity to do both good and evil but their abilities allow them to do it on a grander scale as an individual.

Well, that's a possibility, but still a theory nonetheless. But let's assume that's so, you're advocating to lock up all mages regardless of their intentions just because they can have influence on the world on a more grander scale than regular humans? If Andraste was a mage, it shows that they're capable of good despite their amazing powers, yet you would lock her up still.

I'm not saying that what the chantry did was right, simply that they saw and noted how powerful mages were, and that some of them saw those who did not have magic as pieces on a board to be toyed with.

Heck, the mages in the game have shown that they can be both good and bad people.

Then it's plain power grabbing by the chantry instead of protection. Which is actually one of my theories on the Chantries portrayal in the lore at the moment.

Morally speaking you're right, imagined and past crimes should not be brought over on the table, but they still came to the conclusion that the best way to minimize damage from mages was to weaken them, I purposed that it would be best if they moved the fade farther from their reality in order to keep the mages at the level of power they have now and thus, whether a mage was good or bad was within the realm of the authorty other than just mages to dictate and control.

Wouldn't we want to strife for a 'morally correct' world? I for one wouldn't want to leave something 'morally incorrect' linger if I had the chance to correct it. Even if it were potentially more dangerous, you shouldn't be wanting to give up the soul of humanity (as Shepard put it so nicely in ME2), just to be more safe. Anyway, this is my opinion on the matter, but there may be some may value safeness over fairness.

As mages are now they're simply superior when it comes to fire power, and they're weakened as it is, the only way to effectively combat them is to a take a powerful drug or an insanely rare and expensive magic armor.

They're just trying to even the playing field with what they have not a deus ex machina, that they don't.

Sure, yet there's only so much mages, and so much more people. A president in our world may hold much more firepower than us regulars, however that doesn't say he can't be defeated by sheer numbers.

This is one of those 'it doesn't matter if it is morally wrong or right, it just needs to be done for the safety of every non-mage'. It's still wrong though, and the mages should be treated better than how they have been on an individual basis.

Of course it matters. If I had to arrest, say 100 people of which alot would be innocent, just to be more safe, I would never have done so. It's rather a matter where your priorities lie, morality or safety.

Edit: Also, I'm guessing Andraste died on purpose, or was poisoned or something. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/sick.png[/smilie]

Then again I'm working on too many hypotheticals that are convenient to my position which is bad ground to expand upon.

Edit on your edit : Andraste burned on the stake in Minrathous, due to being betrayed by Maferath, her ally.

Modifié par Zavox, 04 février 2011 - 02:57 .

[moilami]

AlexXIV wrote...

moilami wrote...

SgtElias wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

That's true, but just the same it's not uncommon for normal people to make the same choice -- and save their child at the cost of their own life, in various threatening situations. Or life of their parent if it's reverse. The cold reasoning of "but what happens after" frequently goes out of the window.

I had a different thought I was trying to portray, so I should have been clearer. I meant that once you were possessed, you'd then no longer be able to keep your child safe, thus invalidating your own sacrafice. Would some people do it anyway? Sure. Another reason why I think it's not a great plan to just cart off every child born to a mage.

Neither solution is full-proof. I suppose the debate is just on what everyone thinks to be the lesser of two evils.

Really? So again that killing innocent is grey area stuff?

Do you realize that if chantry attacks mages as a group, then mages have all the rights to fight back against chantry as a group?

I always have a problem with the 'as a group' thing. You should decide for yourself and not because you are part of a group. Sure, if the Chantry decided to kill all mages and you happen to be a mage then you kill them first before they can kill you. But if staying neutral, giving up or running is also an option it should be at least considered.

Does chantry do any notable selection what mages it choses to chew?

If you are part of the killing machine called chantry, can you say you are not part of it?

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The RPG claims that control of the circle has fluctuated between the mages and Templars since the Towers were formed because of the mage's heroism of the second blight.

In the bit Xewaka quoted? It just says they police themselves.

That is wrong.  Mages don't police themselves (anymore then East Germany really policed itself during the Cold War).  Templars are the ones that guard the entrances.  It's the Knight Commander (not First Enchanter) that is the last word on who gets Harrowed and who gets Tranquiled.  It's the Knight Commander that has the final say as to who can leave the tower, how many, and under what circumstances.  It's the Templars that track down and 'deal' with apostate mages, not the mages themselves.

I fail to see how the mages police themselve in any way other than rearranging the furniture on the Titantic.

IanPolaris wrote...
1.  No.  The Circle Towers were formed because Ambrosia II wanted to break a magical worker's strike.  The second blight had nothing to do with it.

The segregation stems from that, not the circle itself. You yourself linked me a codex entry that said it was formed by an emperor who created his empire 5 years before the second Blight started. So yes, it could well have something to do with it.

The Codex entry says absolutely nothing about the second blight being the reason for it, and both it and the History of the Circle Codex both state that the only legal magic was under strict Chantry control.  At best it's ambiguous, but the RPG lore is assuming something that is not in the canonical material.

IanPolaris wrote...
2.  At no time do we see or even have alluded a period of time when the mages were in primary control.  The first Annulments happened in response to cold-blooded murder of mages by Templars and the Antivan Mages were (understandably) a bit upset about it.  Chantry response:  Kill them all.

Aside from the Uldred thing, but a) is policing themselves the same as control and the existence of the RIte, which I agree is ultimate authority doesn't mean they don't run the say to day, the Templars stepping in during extreme circumstance.

a)  As I showed above, mages don't police themselves in the circle (the Mages Collective on the other hand does).    The Mage Origin story clearly has the Knight Commander as the final day to day authority as well.

IanPolaris wrote...
3.  At no time during the mage origin in the game do we get any notion that Irving can make and enforce decisions that really matter (such as Jowan being made tranquil with no hearing and with no evidence that Irving gets to see whatsoever).

Ok, but do we get any notion that he can't?

From Irvingt himself who says that if it were up to him (re Jowan) things would be different.  That's virtually a direct quote.

I hope this clarifies a few points.

-Polaris

[Falls Edge]

I meant that she was poisoned so that she couldn't resist when she was taken to be burned alive, or that she chose to die and went along with it.

I see your point though, doing bad things to protect the majority isn't a good thing.

Modifié par Falls Edge, 04 février 2011 - 02:56 .

[IanPolaris]

Falls Edge wrote...

I meant that she was poisoned so that she couldn't resist when she was taken to be burned alive, or that she chose to die and went along with it.

I see your point though, doing bad things to protect the majority isn't a good thing.

Not only that but ultimately it's self-defeating and in this case will simplyh mean that once mages do have a revolution, the outcome will be even more dire than it would have been before because of the built up animosity (and conversely if the mages are defeated, mundanes will have to resort to genocide again because of the animosities leaving society vunerable to outside magic and other forces).  It's a disaster either way.

-Polaris

[Zavox]

Ah, yeah that's possible, I find the option that she just chose to let it happen because she lost all hope in humanity after being betrayed like that certainly possible.

[moilami]

Heavenblade wrote...

The price of a free society is living with the fact that sometimes bad things will happen that you cannot prevent. The trick is that no matter how good your preventive measures are, no matter how oppressive you get, things will still happen that you cannot prevent. So the choice is freedom and insecurity or oppression and insecurity.

Unless of course you are all for brain-chips/mind-control rays/blood magic to erase free will and free thought, then yes, you can eliminate insecurity. I suppose some people (powerful businessmen and politicians who would be exempt) would love that.

There is also treats in free society. Big ones. But what treats there is in sick chantry society? Other than chant enraged or happy?

[IanPolaris]

Zavox wrote...

Ah, yeah that's possible, I find the option that she just chose to let it happen because she lost all hope in humanity after being betrayed like that certainly possible.

It would also  be an obvious parallel with Jesus Christ as well who according to the gospels knew he was betrayed and allowed himself to arrested.

-Polaris

[Falls Edge]

Well actually the mages would just all get killed, as has been pointed out, they're weaker than they used to be, so that in the event that they did have a revolution they'd just get wiped out.

That's kind of the point of subjugation.

It's mostly the chantry's fault that the original plan didn't work out  they severely compromised the original plan because of how convenient they were, if the blight didn't happen they would have gotten away with it eventually.

Er, maybe. Who knows? I think I ran away with a theory and can't let go, can someone bomb the train tracks that I'm running on?

[IanPolaris]

moilami wrote...
There is also treats in free society. Big ones. But what treats there is in sick chantry society? Other than chant enraged or happy?

I happen to be of the firm (and definately cynical) opinion that the higest ranking members of the Chantry (Divine, Senior Grand Clerics, Knight Vigilant, and a handful of high ranking scholar) know perfectly well that the entire Circle Tower system is a sham.  I suspect that they are first, last, and foremost after Chantry political and economic domination starting most especially with magic, and the Circle Tower system and the monopoly on the Lyrium Trade (and outlawing of bloodmagic) are all part and parcel to this control.  I think they all view magic and mages alike as soulless resources and don't care and don't want to learn to care differently when it comes to mages.

-Polaris

[Zavox]

IanPolaris wrote...

Zavox wrote...

Ah, yeah that's possible, I find the option that she just chose to let it happen because she lost all hope in humanity after being betrayed like that certainly possible.

It would also  be an obvious parallel with Jesus Christ as well who according to the gospels knew he was betrayed and allowed himself to arrested.

-Polaris

Oh yes, interesting parallel! Was wondering why it felt so familiar actually.

Falls Edge wrote...

Well actually the mages would just all
get killed, as has been pointed out, they're weaker than they used to
be, so that in the event that they did have a revolution they'd just get
wiped out.

That's kind of the point of subjugation.

It's
mostly the chantry's fault that the original plan didn't work out  they
severely compromised the original plan because of how convenient they
were, if the blight didn't happen they would have gotten away with it
eventually.

Er, maybe. Who knows? I think I ran away with a theory and can't let go, can someone bomb the train tracks that I'm running on? [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/sad.png[/smilie]

Depends, so much factors in place. I would love to bomb your tracks though, but they're based on alot of assumptions which I cannot refute (that's the funny thing about assumptions), only Bioware can derail you here.

[Nashiktal]

I agree with Andraste letting herself be killed, but honestly how could she not expect her husband to be jealous? Being courted by another man is one thing, being courted by God himself is just... Well how does someone handle that?



Not that I condone what he did, but really the whole situation was just asking for trouble. (and puts into doubt the omnipresence of the maker, but thats a debate for a whole 'nother forum)