1283 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...
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.

We know Uldred was considered good at rooting out blood mages, they're clearly not entirely self governed, but it's apparently not entirely the templars remit either. Again, the RPG text isn't a clear and complete picture, but isn't entirely wrong either.

There's an entry on the wiki that mentions that the circle tries to remain neutral as the chantry "might" take action if they got into the habit of getting involved in conflicts. Being trying to source it.

IanPolaris wrote...
The Codex entry says absolutely nothing about the second blight being the reason for it

Doesn't say it's not either.

IanPolaris wrote...
and both it and the History of the Circle Codex both state that the only legal magic was under strict Chantry control.

Indeed, I'm not sure how much autonomy is involved in "relegated mages to lighting candles and lamps".

IanPolaris wrote...
At best it's ambiguous, but the RPG lore is assuming something that is not in the canonical material.

Again: My point is that it is ambigious, not that it overwrites anything else we know.

IanPolaris wrote...
  The Mage Origin story clearly has the Knight Commander as the final day to day authority as well.

I'm not going to find out without reinstalling and playing am I. "Clearly" is not something I trust you on at this point.

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

In what context?

IanPolaris wrote...
I hope this clarifies a few points.

Not so much.

[PsychoBlonde]

Heavenblade wrote...

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.

Even this won't eliminate insecurity--you turn everyone into mindless slaves and then whoosh, giant meteor from space wipes out your entire species.

Ultimately only people who are free to think an act can produce ANY degree of security.

[Falls Edge]

  The Mage Origin story clearly has the Knight Commander as the final day to day authority as well.
I'm not going to find out without reinstalling and playing am I. "Clearly" is not something I trust you on at this point.

Just going to confirm this, I clearly remember the enchanter sharing almost everything of relevance with the knight commander, he had more say and was somewhat the equivelent of the controller, he was the chantry's eye on the ground, and the enchanter treated him as such.

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
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.

We know Uldred was considered good at rooting out blood mages, they're clearly not entirely self governed, but it's apparently not entirely the templars remit either. Again, the RPG text isn't a clear and complete picture, but isn't entirely wrong either.

There's an entry on the wiki that mentions that the circle tries to remain neutral as the chantry "might" take action if they got into the habit of getting involved in conflicts. Being trying to source it.

This is why I brought up the cold war example of East Germany (or DDR) which was very closely controlled by the Soviet Union.  Even so, the border guard were all german, the local police would be german, even the first layer of the secret police (Stasi) would be german, but they'd all be controlled and all the essential decisions made by Soviet Commissars.  That's why I deny that the mages are in fact self-policing.  If mages are only permitted functions at the sufference of the Templars (and that does indeed seem to be the case), then the mages are not in fact self-policing any more than cold war DDR was.

IanPolaris wrote...
The Codex entry says absolutely nothing about the second blight being the reason for it

Doesn't say it's not either.

IanPolaris wrote...
and both it and the History of the Circle Codex both state that the only legal magic was under strict Chantry control.

Indeed, I'm not sure how much autonomy is involved in "relegated mages to lighting candles and lamps".

IanPolaris wrote...
At best it's ambiguous, but the RPG lore is assuming something that is not in the canonical material.

Again: My point is that it is ambigious, not that it overwrites anything else we know.

Except that the RPG is adding in elements that aren't supported by the rest of the game.  It's not an overt contradiction true, but I do appeal to Occam's razor.

IanPolaris wrote...
  The Mage Origin story clearly has the Knight Commander as the final day to day authority as well.

I'm not going to find out without reinstalling and playing am I. "Clearly" is not something I trust you on at this point.

When you talk with Jowan and Lily, she says she saw the paperwork on GREGOIRE's desk plain as day and that Gregoire thinks he does the maker's work in limiting mages.  Irving himself says that he has no power over Jowan's fate and that if it were up to him, things would be different.  He also wants to implicate Lily using misdirection and sanctioning your PC to do otherwise illegal acts because Irving has no legal authority in the tower when set against the Chantry.

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

In what context?

See above. When you challenge Irving on Jowan's tranquility and say it was wrong, he says this.  Irving makes it very clear that the final say in such matters is the Chantry's and not his.  When Jowan accuses Irving of bowing to the Chantry's every whim, Irving is hurt but he never denies this.

-Polaris

[moilami]

IanPolaris wrote...

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

Yeah, exactly, I was about to talk about that later, but can as well do it now.

Mages are a great asset. In that DA world, he who have mage superiority would win all other nations. Mages are more than artillery and godly medics combined. With proper co-ordination with archers and melee soldiers such army would be devastating against any army without mages.

The chantry society would be doomed from the moment some other nation would realize the military might mages have. From that moment on, the said nation would try to gather all mages it can and give them good life as any other citizen can have. And the power of mages would be seen and understood in a right way, which is a great asset both in war and peace.

A mage would not be spat on. They would be super humans, and every family, especially poor family, would celebrate and hope big time to get a mage child. A mage have everything what normal people have, but normal people doesn't have magical skills mages have. Anyway who said mage would have to pursue his talents? He could as well become a fisherman. And since there is no overflow of mages, mages would find themselves in totally advantageous position for life when compared to normal humans.

Evolution would show how a retarded chantry society would destroy itself by the lack of mages (some suitable tears in the veil here and there and where are the competent mages to fix things) or be conquered by much more civiliced nation, much in a way like sick chantry society imagines Qunari are primitives compared to them, with the exception that there would be superior nation in real.

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...
It's not an overt contradiction true, but I do appeal to Occam's razor.

Either ends of the same single assumption, surely? Either they have access to information about the setting that we don't, or not.

Though I suppose I also have "It's badly worded".

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
It's not an overt contradiction true, but I do appeal to Occam's razor.

Either ends of the same single assumption, surely? Either they have access to information about the setting that we don't, or not.

Though I suppose I also have "It's badly worded".

Not only is it badly worded, but it at least implies a completely different dynamic between the mages and Templars than exists either in the books or in the game-lore as it currently exists.  Hence the appeal to Occam's razor.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

moilami wrote...

Yeah, exactly, I was about to talk about that later, but can as well do it now.

Mages are a great asset. In that DA world, he who have mage superiority would win all other nations. Mages are more than artillery and godly medics combined. With proper co-ordination with archers and melee soldiers such army would be devastating against any army without mages.

...

Indeed and the first nation that is able to do all this (I snipped your post for space) will be able to forge an empire that may rival that of Ancient Tevinter which probably gives the Divine nightmares.  I strongly suspect that the first national leader to pull this off will be.....you guessed it.....Hawke.

-Polaris

[Ziggeh]

moilami wrote...

Mages are a great asset. In that DA world, he who have mage superiority would win all other nations. Mages are more than artillery and godly medics combined. With proper co-ordination with archers and melee soldiers such army would be devastating against any army without mages.

I find the Qunari position on mages a bit odd.

They seem a pragmatic people, big on people being born into roles, taking land by force and cookies. You'd think it'd be a match made in....er, the fade, or something.

[Falls Edge]

I can't help thinking the qunari are based off plato's ideal civilization.

Edit: or maybe  a high school biology book.

Modifié par Falls Edge, 04 février 2011 - 04:00 .

[moilami]

Falls Edge wrote...

I can't help thinking the qunari are based off plato's ideal civilization.

Edit: or maybe  a high school biology book.

I should read that book someday. I just have noticed Apology by Socrates is the Book and the rest you better think yourself.

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

We know Uldred was considered good at rooting out blood mages, they're clearly not entirely self governed, but it's apparently not entirely the templars remit either. Again, the RPG text isn't a clear and complete picture, but isn't entirely wrong either.

Allow me to address the question of whether the mages govern themselves with a quote, regarding the Magi boon (which is entirely about giving mages freedom from the Chantry):

David Gaider wrote...

It does come up, actually.

Keep in mind, however, that the kingdom doesn't control the Circle of Magi. That conversation no doubt went a little like this:

King/Queen: "We would like mages in Ferelden to be free."
Chantry: "No."

That said, the conversation doesn't necessarily stop there-- as you'll see. We can indeed pick up the boons the Origins player was granted and do intend to use them in the future.

Clearly, the mages don't govern themselves - the Chantry does.

Ziggeh wrote...

I'm not going to find out without reinstalling and playing am I. "Clearly" is not something I trust you on at this point.

First, Lily said Greagoir signed the Rite. Second, Irving admits he'd do things differently, and says Greagoir has evidence - but apparently isn't even aware of what this evidence is. You can see the clips on YT if you don't feel like installing it again.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 04 février 2011 - 06:38 .

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

moilami wrote...

Mages are a great asset. In that DA world, he who have mage superiority would win all other nations. Mages are more than artillery and godly medics combined. With proper co-ordination with archers and melee soldiers such army would be devastating against any army without mages.

I find the Qunari position on mages a bit odd.

They seem a pragmatic people, big on people being born into roles, taking land by force and cookies. You'd think it'd be a match made in....er, the fade, or something.

You know that "abomination footprint" I keep harping about?  The Qunari have it, bigtime.  Otherwise, yes, I agree you'd expect a very pragmatic attitude towards magic, but apparently there was some ancient conflict or disaster or both that nearly ruined the Qunari people that has left a permanent imprint on Qunari society.  I can't being to guess what it was (but since the forefathers of Tevinter came from the same place it might have to deal with that), but the footprint of this ancient disaster/war/conflict is obvious and unmistakeable.

-Polaris

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Allow me to address the question of whether the mages govern themselves with a quote

You're really arguing against points I haven't made.

At most I'm saying there's much about the situation about which we're unclear and that there is some evidence they're far from prisoners.

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Allow me to address the question of whether the mages govern themselves with a quote

You're really arguing against points I haven't made.

At most I'm saying there's much about the situation about which we're unclear and that there is some evidence they're far from prisoners.

How are they not prisoners when they're forced to live in a prison? Even the Magi Origin VO refers to it as a prison. Even Wynne (after she's spoken with Aenirin and the Warden is a mage) never contests that the Circle is an oppressive place if this is brought up by the Warden - in fact, she says the Warden can be in a position of power and slowly change that over time.

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...

but apparently there was some ancient conflict or disaster or both that nearly ruined the Qunari people that has left a permanent imprint on Qunari society.

Heh, yes. I deleted a paragraph prior to posting about their almost certainly being a line of reasoning, but felt that leaving it off increased the chances of a dev response. Their hatred of magic is so extreme that whatever happened, and the response are fundamental to their society.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 04 février 2011 - 04:47 .

[LobselVith8]

Regarding my use of the David Gaider quote, it was to address:

Ziggeh wrote...

We know Uldred was considered good at rooting out blood mages, they're clearly not entirely self governed, but it's apparently not entirely the templars remit either. Again, the RPG text isn't a clear and complete picture, but isn't entirely wrong either.

The Chantry controls the Circles, as the Gaider quote explains. The decision doesn't lie with the First Enchanter or the ruler of Ferelden, but the Chantry, because the Circles are under governed by them. The mages aren't self-governed; they're prisoners. The Magi Origin makes this point clear when Greagoir denies additional mages to be sent to Ostagar and makes the decisions regarding Jowan.

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

How are they not prisoners when they're forced to live in a prison? Even the Magi Origin VO refers to it as a prison. Even Wynne (after she's spoken with Aenirin and the Warden is a mage) never contests that the Circle is an oppressive place if this is brought up by the Warden - in fact, she says the Warden can be in a position of power and slowly change that over time.

Local politicians love it when they gain the support of the resident prison population. Are they oppressed? Yes. Are they devoid of power and authority? Apparently not.

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...
The decision doesn't lie with the First Enchanter or the ruler of Ferelden, but the Chantry, because the Circles are under governed by them. The mages aren't self-governed; they're prisoners. The Magi Origin makes this point clear when Greagoir denies additional mages to be sent to Ostagar and makes the decisions regarding Jowan.

The chantry have authority over certain elements of their existence. The templars have authority over certain elements of their existence. The mages have authority over certain elements of their existence.

None of these statements are contradictory.

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

How are they not prisoners when they're forced to live in a prison? Even the Magi Origin VO refers to it as a prison. Even Wynne (after she's spoken with Aenirin and the Warden is a mage) never contests that the Circle is an oppressive place if this is brought up by the Warden - in fact, she says the Warden can be in a position of power and slowly change that over time.

Local politicians love it when they gain the support of the resident prison population. Are they oppressed? Yes. Are they devoid of power and authority? Apparently not.

Is the analogy a reference to the Magi boon? If so, how does the ruler openly saying that mages have earned the right to govern themselves going to make the mages happy when the Chantry ends up turning it down flat? They will continue to be powerless, with First Enchanters who have as much power as the Knight-Commanders will permit them to have. Even Wynne, in Awakening, admits that if the Circles tried to emancipate themselves, then the Chantry would kill all the mages rather than see him free.

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
The decision doesn't lie with the First Enchanter or the ruler of Ferelden, but the Chantry, because the Circles are under governed by them. The mages aren't self-governed; they're prisoners. The Magi Origin makes this point clear when Greagoir denies additional mages to be sent to Ostagar and makes the decisions regarding Jowan.

The chantry have authority over certain elements of their existence. The templars have authority over certain elements of their existence. The mages have authority over certain elements of their existence.

None of these statements are contradictory.

Actually, they do contradict one another. The templars serve as the military arm of the Chantry. The Chantry is the main religion of the Andrastian nations, has its roots in the inception of the Orlesian Empire, and has control over the Circles of Magi across Thedas.

Mages have no basic rights, they can't have relationships or marry in some Circles, they can't raise their children, and they can be killed without any say in the matter - as even the First Enchanter is powerless to do anything to veto or contest the decision made by the Knight-Commander of the Circle. We read how a victim of sexual assault like Fiona found the Circle no better than her previous life.

We discover how Aenirin was nearly killed because he run away from the Circle and they branded him a maleficar (but there's no evidence to support this, as the Dalish know him to be a healer). We know from the case of the Magnificent D'Sims that an innocent person can be killed if the templars assume he's an illegal mage. There is no proof to show that Morrigan is a blood mage, but the templars put a bounty on her anyway because they suspect she's one. Where is this control you speak of? How do mages have control when they can be killed on heresay and speculation alone?

I'm honestly not seeing how mages have any control over their lives when they're prisoners of the Chantry - the only free mages are the ones in Rivain, the Dalish clans, the Chasind tribes, or the mages who become Grey Wardens.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 04 février 2011 - 05:46 .

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
The decision doesn't lie with the First Enchanter or the ruler of Ferelden, but the Chantry, because the Circles are under governed by them. The mages aren't self-governed; they're prisoners. The Magi Origin makes this point clear when Greagoir denies additional mages to be sent to Ostagar and makes the decisions regarding Jowan.

The chantry have authority over certain elements of their existence. The templars have authority over certain elements of their existence. The mages have authority over certain elements of their existence.

None of these statements are contradictory.

They imply something that is significantly different from what we observe in the game world, however.  In reality, mages only have the power and authority the chantry (and templars) choose to give them which is why I used the example of the DDR.  On paper the DDR was an independent country.  In fact, everyone with an IQ in the double-digits knew better.  The Chanceller of the DDR had the authority to blow his nose and perhaps wipe it afterwords if the Soviet Poliburo said it was OK.  The same thing applies to the mages.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

How are they not prisoners when they're forced to live in a prison? Even the Magi Origin VO refers to it as a prison. Even Wynne (after she's spoken with Aenirin and the Warden is a mage) never contests that the Circle is an oppressive place if this is brought up by the Warden - in fact, she says the Warden can be in a position of power and slowly change that over time.

Local politicians love it when they gain the support of the resident prison population. Are they oppressed? Yes. Are they devoid of power and authority? Apparently not.

Actually yes they are.  If your only power and authority comes at the sufferancde of someone else, then you don't have any yourself.  In addition to the DDR, another valid example would be the field foreman in a slave holding cotton plantation in the Old (pre-Civil War) South.  The Field "Boss" had authority but it was at the sole discretion of his white plantation owner and everyone knew it.  That means it wasn't his authority.  The same applies to mages in the circle tower.

-Polaris

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...
How are the not devoid of power and authority when all of that resides with the Chantry? Where are you getting that mages remotely have any degree of power over their lives?

Uldred initially attacks the other mages after failing to convince them to continue to support Loghain. Maybe they meant moral support. He was also admired for his ability to root out blood mages: he was an active participant in their anti blood mage policy.

There's also the meeting in cumberland. Generally speaking you don't send representatives of various prison populations to discuss the possibility of breaking away from the correction facilities staff.

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Mages have no basic rights, they can't have relationships or marry in some Circles, they can't raise their children, and they can be killed without any say in the matter - as even the First Enchanter is powerless to do anything to veto or contest the decision made by the Knight-Commander of the Circle.

Listing the things they don't control doesn't negate ones they do.

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...

They imply something that is significantly different from what we observe in the game world, however.  In reality, mages only have the power and authority the chantry (and templars) choose to give them which is why I used the example of the DDR.  On paper the DDR was an independent country.  In fact, everyone with an IQ in the double-digits knew better.  The Chanceller of the DDR had the authority to blow his nose and perhaps wipe it afterwords if the Soviet Poliburo said it was OK.  The same thing applies to the mages.

Absolutely, and I'm sure there's nothing they're doing that the Chantry couldn't step in and stop. My boss has authority over me, despite the fact that he too has a boss.