1283 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

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.

They were going to side with Loghain because he promised to give the Circle freedom from the Chantry, but then they discovered from Wynne what happened at Ostagar.

Ziggeh wrote...

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.

Mages need permission to leave the Circle, even a Senior Enchanter like Wynne needed permission to aid the Warden against the Blight; that's why only seven mages were permitted to fight against the darkspawn at Ostagar.

Regarding Cumberland, probably a bad example for you, since Wynne reveals that the Chantry would murder the mages rather than see them free from Chantry control.

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

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.

In other words, you gloss over everything I said to make a statement that isn't true in the slightest and isn't backed up by anything in the game or the novels?

Ziggeh wrote...

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.

If we ignore how the Magi Origin refers to it as a prison and how the mages have no rights, of course...

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually yes they are.  If your only power and authority comes at the sufferancde of someone else, then you don't have any yourself.

Power to enforce other peoples laws is called policing, which, if anyone remembers that far back, was where we started.

If we're talking ultimate authority, then yes, absolutely, but that wasn't the suggestion.

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually yes they are.  If your only power and authority comes at the sufferancde of someone else, then you don't have any yourself.

Power to enforce other peoples laws is called policing, which, if anyone remembers that far back, was where we started.

If we're talking ultimate authority, then yes, absolutely, but that wasn't the suggestion.

It's imprisonment, not policing. Mages are imprisoned by the Chantry, they're segregated from society, and they're under templar authority.

[LobselVith8]

@Ziggeh

According to the Bioware Blog codex entry:

"Some are saying, however, that this needs to change. They remind the world that mages are not controlled by templars everywhere in Thedas: not among the Rivaini witches, the Dalish keepers or the Tevinter magisters… and those societies are, arguably, no worse off. The Templar Order, however, is nothing if not certain of its role."

Doesn't appear that canon agrees with your assessment about the mages.

[ObserverStatus]

does anyone actually like muggles?

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...
In other words, you gloss over everything I said to make a statement that isn't true in the slightest and isn't backed up by anything in the game or the novels?

Listing CD's I don't own isn't an argument that I don't own any CD's. And that statement I'm making? It's that there is enough ambiguity in the setting that it can support interpretations of certain elements as limited authority on the behalf of the mages. Ambiguity is not supported by the evidence?

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...
It's imprisonment, not policing. Mages are imprisoned by the Chantry, they're segregated from society, and they're under templar authority.

My statement about policing was semantic, attempting to place it in the context of the game is missing the point by quite some margin.

Point of note, but the templars authority is also limited, as they to fall under the chantry. Do they have authority?

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Doesn't appear that canon agrees with your assessment about the mages.

Doesn't appear you understand the discussion you're involved in. You're continuing to argue against points that haven't been made. You could fill a lot of space with that method.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 04 février 2011 - 06:18 .

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

In other words, you gloss over everything I said to make a statement that isn't true in the slightest and isn't backed up by anything in the game or the novels?

Listing CD's I don't own isn't an argument that I don't own any CD's. And that statement I'm making? It's that there is enough ambiguity in the setting that it can support interpretations of certain elements as limited authority on the behalf of the mages. Ambiguity is not supported by the evidence?

Making a statement that isn't supported by canon doesn't make it true, either. There's absolutely no ambiguity about the role the Chantry plays in the lives of the mages. Mages are under Chantry authority. This is made clear time and again in the game, the novels, and even in the quotes by the devs about the Circle and the mages. This is even addressed by Gaider when he explains why a Grey Warden mage can raise their child - because they're no longer under Chantry authority.

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's imprisonment, not policing. Mages are imprisoned by the Chantry, they're segregated from society, and they're under templar authority.

My statement about policing was semantic, attempting to place it in the context of the game is missing the point by quite some margin.

Point of note, but the templars authority is also limited, as they to fall under the chantry. Do they have authority?

You realize that the templars are the military arm of the Chantry, correct? Chain of command.

[ObserverStatus]

David Gaider wrote...
Sure, but could that person snap and start lobbing off fireballs and torch your entire neighborhood, requiring an entire unit of policemen to bring him down?

I don't remember when, but a few years ago a man with an ak-47 managed to kill 2 policemen, and it took an entire unit of policemen to take him down.  Also, if you've been watching the news recently, you may have noticed that all it takes for someone to start lobbing fireballs is a few bottles, rags, and some gasoline.

David Gaider wrote...
Does he do that through no will of his own, or personal defect, but could literally transform into this killer without any warning signs?

Plenty of  people these days live isolated enough of lives to slip into madness without anyone noticing before it's too late.

David Gaider wrote...
What if modern society found that this wasn't the act of a lone madman, but an entire class of people with the same genetic makeup? Do you honestly think that something wouldn't be done to safeguard against these "potentially dangerous" people?

Perhaps in Canada, but in America a lot of people have very different feelings about how much destructive power an individual should be allowed to have.  If there were mages in the United States, I expect they would hire powerful teams of lobbyists to keep them away from the templar.

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Making a statement that isn't supported by canon doesn't make it true, either. There's absolutely no ambiguity about the role the Chantry plays in the lives of the mages. Mages are under Chantry authority. This is made clear time and again in the game, the novels, and even in the quotes by the devs about the Circle and the mages. This is even addressed by Gaider when he explains why a Grey Warden mage can raise their child - because they're no longer under Chantry authority.

Once more, then I'm breaking out the hand puppets:

The fact that the Chantry has ultimate authority over the mages does not mean that the mages have zero authority over themselves. No matter how many times it's made clear.

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Making a statement that isn't supported by canon doesn't make it true, either. There's absolutely no ambiguity about the role the Chantry plays in the lives of the mages. Mages are under Chantry authority. This is made clear time and again in the game, the novels, and even in the quotes by the devs about the Circle and the mages. This is even addressed by Gaider when he explains why a Grey Warden mage can raise their child - because they're no longer under Chantry authority.

Once more, then I'm breaking out the hand puppets:

The fact that the Chantry has ultimate authority over the mages does not mean that the mages have zero authority over themselves. No matter how many times it's made clear.

One more time:  If the mages exist and work completely at the sufference of the chantry (and they do) then they don't have any true authority.  Just because a Warden can assign prisoner "trustee" duties does not mean that prisoners police other prisoners.  It doesn't work that way.  What the Chantry permits mages to do is almost exactly analogous to what wardens permit prison trustees to do, but no one would say that a prison trustee has any true authority.  Same here.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Regarding Cumberland, probably a bad example for you, since Wynne reveals that the Chantry would murder the mages rather than see them free from Chantry control.

Regarding Cumberland, remember the DDR example I hearkened back to?  Suring the Cold War, the Soviet Union would arrange for it's Warsaw Pact "allies" to meet in congress to "discuss" military details and political aims or so at least was the public story.  In fact (and it was a very open secret this), these conferences in reality were the Soviet Union handing each of it's puppet state a 5 or 10 year plan and saying "stick to this or else".

There is no reason why the regularly scheduled magi-meetings (like the one in cumberland) aren't more of exactly this sort of thing and when you read Irving's journal in the tower, that's exactly the impression one gets...and Irving is increasingly concerned that the Libertarians are going to upset the applecart and bring the bear (or in this case the Chantry) down on their necks.

What makes Cumberland different is that the Libertarians are prepared to throw up the middle finger to the Chantry and say "what else" and both Wynne and Anders feel (with justification) that the Chantry will respond with genocide.

-Polaris

[Stazro]

IanPolaris wrote...

One more time:  If the mages exist and work completely at the sufference of the chantry (and they do) then they don't have any true authority.  Just because a Warden can assign prisoner "trustee" duties does not mean that prisoners police other prisoners.  It doesn't work that way.  What the Chantry permits mages to do is almost exactly analogous to what wardens permit prison trustees to do, but no one would say that a prison trustee has any true authority.  Same here.

-Polaris

It doesn't fit as good as you think. In DA:O, when you save the circle and then ask Gregoir for help, he will tell you to ask Irving, because it is not for him to decide, if the mages should assist you. "The Templars guard and advise, but the first enchanter has the last word in what happens in the circle."

[IanPolaris]

Stazro wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

One more time:  If the mages exist and work completely at the sufference of the chantry (and they do) then they don't have any true authority.  Just because a Warden can assign prisoner "trustee" duties does not mean that prisoners police other prisoners.  It doesn't work that way.  What the Chantry permits mages to do is almost exactly analogous to what wardens permit prison trustees to do, but no one would say that a prison trustee has any true authority.  Same here.

-Polaris

It doesn't fit as good as you think. In DA:O, when you save the circle and then ask Gregoir for help, he will tell you to ask Irving, because it is not for him to decide, if the mages should assist you. "The Templars guard and advise, but the first enchanter has the last word in what happens in the circle."

That's Gregoire though who cedes a lot of his authority to Irving.  The fact is that Irving only has the authority that the Chantry (and Gregoire) is willing to give him [and Gregoire is a radical liberal by Templar standards].  If you example the game evidence in toto, you find I am correct and my analogy is apt.

-Polaris

Edit:  I note that in Witchhunt which happens after DAO and thus is more current acting KC Hadley (acting as either KC Cullen's or Gregoire's Deputy) clearly has the first and last word as to what mages can and can't do (and if they can leave the tower).  Even Finn asks Hadley for permission to leave (and not the first enchanter).  That tells you everything you need to know about where the real authority lies.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 04 février 2011 - 06:58 .

[Taritu]

Well David, here's what I know from DA I - the mages turned to forbidden magic and became abominations not in spite of the Templars, but because of the Templars. It was the oppression which caused them to do whatever it took in order to be free.



I understand both sides of the equation, and have argued that blood magic, for example, should probably be illegal. But there seems to be little question that the Chantry, in severely restricting the freedom of mages, causes many of the problems it claims to want to stop.



Add in your "those who fight monsters often..." quotes here. The same is true of victims, those who are victimized often become monsters in response.



It's reasonable to fear mages, especially blood mages, it's also reasonable to argue that the Chantry has gone too far, and even putting ethical concerns for mages (as opposed to non-mages) aside, that their policies do more damage than good.



As for the original post, "bless them mages, why without them the Qunari would have conquered us all, and the Maker would be worshipped by no one any more. Maker sure knew what he was doing when he gave some of his children magic, didn't he?"

[Stazro]

IanPolaris wrote...

Stazro wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

One more time:  If the mages exist and work completely at the sufference of the chantry (and they do) then they don't have any true authority.  Just because a Warden can assign prisoner "trustee" duties does not mean that prisoners police other prisoners.  It doesn't work that way.  What the Chantry permits mages to do is almost exactly analogous to what wardens permit prison trustees to do, but no one would say that a prison trustee has any true authority.  Same here.

-Polaris

It doesn't fit as good as you think. In DA:O, when you save the circle and then ask Gregoir for help, he will tell you to ask Irving, because it is not for him to decide, if the mages should assist you. "The Templars guard and advise, but the first enchanter has the last word in what happens in the circle."

That's Gregoire though who cedes a lot of his authority to Irving.  The fact is that Irving only has the authority that the Chantry (and Gregoire) is willing to give him [and Gregoire is a radical liberal by Templar standards].  If you example the game evidence in toto, you find I am correct and my analogy is apt.

-Polaris

And what is your source for this being only Gregoire's doing?

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Doesn't appear that canon agrees with your assessment about the mages.

Doesn't appear you understand the discussion you're involved in. You're continuing to argue against points that haven't been made. You could fill a lot of space with that method.

Because you make general statements that aren't accurate, and this discussion spiraled forth with this statement from you:

Ziggeh wrote...

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.

Mages aren't far from prisoners - they're prisoners. I don't see what's so difficult to grasp about this. We have the Magi Origin refer to the Circle as a prison in the opening scene, and the following scenes confirm it with Jowan's inability to contest the Rite and Irving's lack of authority over sending mages to Ostagar or over Jowan's Rite. No amount of condescending comments from you is going to change that mages are prisoners of the Chantry controlled Circles.

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Making a statement that isn't supported by canon doesn't make it true, either. There's absolutely no ambiguity about the role the Chantry plays in the lives of the mages. Mages are under Chantry authority. This is made clear time and again in the game, the novels, and even in the quotes by the devs about the Circle and the mages. This is even addressed by Gaider when he explains why a Grey Warden mage can raise their child - because they're no longer under Chantry authority.

Once more, then I'm breaking out the hand puppets:

I assume you want me to be entertained when you make another incorrect statement?

Ziggeh wrote...

The fact that the Chantry has ultimate authority over the mages does not mean that the mages have zero authority over themselves. No matter how many times it's made clear.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. The Chantry controls the Circles, has their templars manage the Circles, and the mages are forced to live their lives in Chantry controlled prisons. In fact, the example I provided from the Bioware blog specifically reads that the templars control the mages in Andrastian societies. This is clear from the fact that Knight-Commander Greagoir ultimately makes the decisions regarding how many mages are permitted at Ostagar and what will happen to Jowan, without even showing First Enchanter Irving the evidence in question against Jowan. What kind of authority do you think they have when templars are the ones who decide whether the Senior Enchanter can leave to help stop the Blight or whether the mage is given a lobotomy or killed due to their suspicions?

[IanPolaris]

Stazro wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Stazro wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

One more time:  If the mages exist and work completely at the sufference of the chantry (and they do) then they don't have any true authority.  Just because a Warden can assign prisoner "trustee" duties does not mean that prisoners police other prisoners.  It doesn't work that way.  What the Chantry permits mages to do is almost exactly analogous to what wardens permit prison trustees to do, but no one would say that a prison trustee has any true authority.  Same here.

-Polaris

It doesn't fit as good as you think. In DA:O, when you save the circle and then ask Gregoir for help, he will tell you to ask Irving, because it is not for him to decide, if the mages should assist you. "The Templars guard and advise, but the first enchanter has the last word in what happens in the circle."

That's Gregoire though who cedes a lot of his authority to Irving.  The fact is that Irving only has the authority that the Chantry (and Gregoire) is willing to give him [and Gregoire is a radical liberal by Templar standards].  If you example the game evidence in toto, you find I am correct and my analogy is apt.

-Polaris

And what is your source for this being only Gregoire's doing?

See above.  Lob has cited several official game sources that clearly place the Chantry in complete control over the Circle Towers.  In addition, I cite all of the first part of Witch-hunt which occures AFTER DaO.  There the templars are clearly the first and last word when it comes to the disposition of mages.  In addition to all that, Gregoire is actually willing to take a bloodmage (your PC warden) prisoner and plead for his life because of extraordinary service rendered.....and that clearly makes Gergoire a radical at least when it comes to Templars.

-Polaris

[bloodransom]

 wow people take their Thedian politics rather seriously.

Im trying to understand why people view the templars as such bad people, the chantry is pure oppressive evil, and mages are philanthropic softies who cast rainbows and kittens. 

The truth is eventually one of the two is going to do something bad. Mages can be like good surgeons, they possess a highly powerful and rare talent, some gain god complexes while others use their talents out of an affliction to help people, 

trained warriors are the same way the only difference is that warriors cant summon lightening/fire/snow storms, throw lightening/ fire/frost balls/bolts, raise the dead, control your mind, summon ancient evils, turn a man into a bomb, turn groups of men into bombs, turn into ravenous beasts, turn into evil abominations, summon clouds of pure death, cause earthquakes, and help create a whole race of mutants that are mostly focused on destroying everything living.


........oh and they can heal you and make you feel better sometimes.

The point is that both groups can cause harm, one just has to work much harder than the other. So should they all be locked up or should they be set free? the answer is that there is no right or wrong answer (i.e. bioware's particular penchant). That is your decision, and that's why its a role playing game, bioware loves this because you care.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

as far as I am concerned I think it would suck to live in a tower all day, however, it would be totally awesome to throw fireballs. even trade. (freedom for fireballs) = new circle tower slogan yay:D

Modifié par bloodransom, 04 février 2011 - 07:31 .

[gunslinger235]

MAGE POWER!!!

[Dave of Canada]

There's no 1:1 comparison to mages in real life, it would be foolish to find one but I'll try to give a hypothetical situation using the guy with guns + molotovs and stuff vs police officers example that people seem to love using.

A mage has a lot of firepower behind his / her hands, enough that should they go crazy they'd be extremely powerful and easily be capable of dealing a lot of damage. People bring up police officers as a comparison to templar but that isn't that strong of an idea because templar don't have equal firepower to the mage, they have a sword and the ability to probably nullify / stop some of the mage's weaponry.

While it is possible for a regular average joe to stop the mage, it's unlikey to happen unless the mage is caught off guard or ran out of firepower. The most likely situation would be that the mage would kill him and anybody who'd try to stop them, how can the average citizen deal with it?

This is excluding the abilities of mind control, shielding, healing, summoning, freezing, and whatever else a mage has in their repertoire. A mage that throws fireballs all over the place is one of the most dangerous things on Thedas for everybody, including Templar who are trained to stop them (though a fireball casting mage would most likely be killed easier than one who mixes spells up). Now what happens when a mage goes crazy in a group? The destruction increases, the chances of people being able to stop them are lowered and they become a much greater threat.

This is all about the powers of a mage, I haven't even brought demons into it. Mages struggle against demons that will try to possess them, these demons increase the mage's powers and the mage can probably corrupt other individuals and turn them into abominations too.

A lone desire demon abomination possessing a kid that can barely cast magic nearly destroyed (or successfully destroyed) Redcliffe, killed an entire castle filled with armed guards and mind controlled surviving guards (and Bann Teagan) to do it's bidding. That alone should prove that mages are dangerous, though that isn't enough right?

What if instead of it being a simple mage child, the abomination would be the King of Ferelden? What if the King became like the Baroness but on a much larger scale?  You'd have a lot of problems, from small to gigantic depending on how long it took for people to find out that the King was possessed.

Gaider even gave a few examples about what happens if Dalish / Rivaini / Chasind--the cultures that are said as "abominationless" by the pro-mages group-- get possessed, "they suffer and deal with it". I doubt the large majority of the non-mages would want to have ticking time bombs walking around, especially when not having today's morals that are often dragged into these discussions.

Hell, the "prison" that is the Circle of Magi isn't even all that bad. The people are allowed to be visited by their family members, they get free shelter, are raised in how to use their magic correctly, can marry (with permission) and are allowed to leave once they've completed their training if Finn is any evidence. I was surprised when Finn was like "alright, let's go." and I didn't even need to talk to the Templar to get permission to leave.

The Circle feels more like one gigantic boarding school rather than a prison to me, as the individual can still do as he / she pleases provided they come back to "school" and ask the "teachers" permission for stuff.

And let's be honest here, Mages wouldn't have a fun life outside of the Circle Tower. Wynne herself says that for every mage that arrives to the Circle, some don't even survive to get there because they were killed by people who blamed them for something. Hell, they'd probably be treated worse than the Alienage Elves who have their homes burned down by humans.

I won't even bring up the implications of the Broken Circle quest happening somewhere public instead of an isolated community where nobody else resides.

Edit:

Hell, I support mages on the side lines but they aren't thrown into the tower without justification.

Edit 2:

Just in case...

Please don't call me a bigot again, Ian. You can do better.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 04 février 2011 - 08:26 .

[bloodransom]

rainbows and kittens good sir,



.....rainbows and kittens......

[Balitant]

Dave of Canada wrote... a giant wall of text that I wont quote again

The implications of a boarding school is true to an extent, it isolates individuals in an environment that is somewhat alien to them. Some adapt and some don't. Still, it is much more dangerous than simple school. They could die from the Harrowing, which is necessary in my opinion, and die or opt to be made tranquil. The thing is that in the case of Jowan we see that the templars can essentially lobotomize a mage against their will.

Furthermore, during the Broken circle quest we come across a codex entry that lists a series of letters of one senior mage trying to teach his students to combat swords. The result is that he gets suspended by the senior enchanter in what looks like an act done at the beset of the templars.

I am not saying that mages should not be watched, but denying them any form of gain in their lives is true tyranny.