1283 réponses à ce sujet

[Legbiter]

Mages have their uses.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Zavox wrote...
Seriously?

An author does not decide how I feel about a world or whether I find it justified. The only thing he does is CREATE the world, he doesn't decide whether I find it just or not. That's my own opinion.

No, the author cannot decide how you feel. He however, does set up the reality of his world. He knows ALL the facts.
You are free to reject that reality and disagre with his vision, but the authors vision is "canon".

That must explain why Gaider said Cullen was a creepy stalker, and that was denied by the writer who actually wrote him, Sheryl, or how Gaider wrote the Architect looking dramatically different and having one hand, but in Awakening he got a visual overhaul and has two hands again. Why do you see it so wrong that some people believe that mages shouldn't be oppressed by the templars or the Chantry? All we have to go is read the summary about the Staff of Parlathan to see that there were individuals who desired mages to be emancipated from the Chantry in canon:

"Magic has always run strongly within the Hawke bloodline. The tales passed down from one generation to the next tell of an ancestor named Parthalan, a mage who long ago helped to unite Ferelden under the rule of King Calenhad. Parthalan eventually vanished into legend, fleeing the persecution of the Chantry, but his legacy remains in the hands of his family - along with his hope that one day, mages would achieve the freedom that King Calenhad intended to bring to all men."

[LobselVith8]

KawaiiKatie wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Ignoring the boon is disappointing - why the Chantry turning it down wasn't addressed in Awakening or the DLCs will always confuse me. They made the entire point worthless, and the Magi boon is actually bugged - if Irving doesn't acknowledge it after the ruler of Ferelden makes the proclamation, the flags weren't activated.

Ooof, thank you so much for pointing that out! I had no idea that was the case until you said something. I'm working on fixing it (with mods and a quick replay of some areas) so that all the flags are all set when I transfer my Mage Warden to DA2. Whew! Thanks a heap.

No prob! I've heard a player who got Anora crowned as Queen and didn't do the dark ritual got Irving to actually acknowledge the boon in the DA:O forum not too long ago. Honestly wish that the devs fixed these problems - especially when we hear how the boons are not going to be ignored in the sequels, but they are going to be ignored because the Epilogues are bugged.

KawaiiKatie wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Regarding the Chantry controlled Circles, it does cause more problems than it solves - that's the point.... all of it points to a damaged system that's looking to cause a Templar vs. Mage war in DA2.

But everyone agreed that if anyone could change things for the Circle, it was the Warden! But apparently not even he/she could do it. Is it up to Hawke? The combined efforts of a Mage Warden and a Mage Hawke? Are we going to have to wait until DA3 to see something improve for the better? 

I know all of the wrongs in the world can't be fixed overnight, but I just feel bad for the efforts of mages like Wynne, who said something to the effect of, "I won't live to see the Circle rebuilt, stronger and more glorious than before, but you [Mage Warden], you could do it."

Was she wrong? Will the Mage Warden not live to see the changes he/she fought for? Will Hawke? So many questions... 

It's kind of sad, because even Wynne never denies that the Circle is an oppressive place if you provide it as your reason not to go back - but she actually seems hopeful that the Grey Warden can make an impact and change the Circle of Ferelden - basically, the Warden can use his influence to change it from being an oppressive place over time. It looks like that's not going to happen (since the denied Magi boon isn't even acknowledged in Awakening or Witch Hunt) and Hawke is supposed to be "the most important person in Thedas." Maybe Hawke might be able to emancipate the mages (as one of the options) given it's what his ancestor Parlathan wanted.

[KawaiiKatie]

LobselVith8 wrote...

KawaiiKatie wrote...
Ooof, thank you so much for pointing that out! I had no idea that was the case until you said something. I'm working on fixing it (with mods and a quick replay of some areas) so that all the flags are all set when I transfer my Mage Warden to DA2. Whew! Thanks a heap.

No prob! I've heard a player who got Anora crowned as Queen and didn't do the dark ritual got Irving to actually acknowledge the boon in the DA:O forum not too long ago. Honestly wish that the devs fixed these problems - especially when we hear how the boons are not going to be ignored in the sequels, but they are going to be ignored because the Epilogues are bugged.

Why would they fix those things when Modders out there will fix them for free?

Nah, I don't mind doing some stuff over again... It gives me a chance to make sure everything is exactly the way I want it before DA2 is released.

It's kind of sad, because even Wynne never denies that the Circle is an oppressive place if you provide it as your reason not to go back - but she actually seems hopeful that the Grey Warden can make an impact and change the Circle of Ferelden - basically, the Warden can use his influence to change it from being an oppressive place over time. It looks like that's not going to happen (since the denied Magi boon isn't even acknowledged in Awakening or Witch Hunt)

What makes it sad for me is that everyone else's "wish" came true. City Elves got their Bann and even their own militia. Did they completely overcome racial barriers and bigotry? No. But things improved, no matter how slightly, thanks to the Warden.

Hawke is supposed to be "the most important person in Thedas." Maybe Hawke might be able to emancipate the mages (as one of the options) given it's what his ancestor Parlathan wanted.

That would be cool.... but way to invalidate the Warden, Dragon Age 2! I don't want to jump to conclusions before I see how the Mage Warden and the Boon really effected Thedas, but if it all comes down to the efforts of Hawke (regardless of who the Warden was) I'll have to say... I don't understand the "point" of the Mage Warden as distinct from any other Warden. If the Warden isn't a Mage, he/she is capable of great changes for his/her people. But a Mage Warden has to rely on Kirkwall's Champion? Hopefully, this won't be the case.

Maybe it'll be a combination of efforts. Perhaps a Mage Hawke who follows up the efforts of a Mage Warden will really make change possible. I could buy into that kind of story, too. Then the Mage Warden is the first great step, the first push in an avalanche of change that Hawke needs to help along. That would be cool. But if it's all up to Hawke, if the Mage Warden didn't do anything at all for his/her people.... then you might as well play a City Elf.

Modifié par KawaiiKatie, 05 février 2011 - 12:34 .

[IanPolaris]

Beerfish wrote...

Zavox wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You know what I find funny..

The people keep bashing the Chantry and the templars and the Circle system.

And the Lead Writer DG, occasionally pops up, to try and set things straight, constantly remaining people that the Chantry isn't as evil as some think/want it to be.

But there's no reasoning with some people. They'll rather argue with the author than accept the reality of the setting.
I pitty you people....

Seriously?

An author does not decide how I feel about a world or whether I find it justified. The only thing he does is CREATE the world, he doesn't decide whether I find it just or not. That's my own opinion.

You're obviously totally free to feel any way you wish on the subject.  Once one starts putting their beliefs forth in a discussion like this however you now have to defend then and point out in a logical fashion why you feel the way you do and I assume that is what Lotion was getting at.

No, what Lotion seems to be getting at is his opinions and his interpretation of Dev quotes is the only correct one.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

No, the author cannot decide how you feel. He however, does set up the reality of his world. He knows ALL the facts.
You are free to reject that reality and disagre with his vision, but the authors vision is "canon".

That is only true when the author is speaking as the author (WoG mode).  That does not applyi when the author is explaining how people within that world preceive it or even when said author explains why attitudes are the way they are.  Those are in-game opinions that the author is explaining and this is NOT WoG mode.  It's even murkier when there is more than one author which is the case here (more than one Dev anyway).

In short, Lotion, you don't get to tell us that your interpretation of what the Devs say is the only right one, and you certainly don't get to do it when the DG clearly is not speaking in WoG mode.

-Polaris

[tmp7704]

LobselVith8 wrote...

If mages were as dangerous as the Chantry claims and couldn't be permitted to be free, then I don't see why the threat of abominations wouldn't have destroyed the Dalish, the Chasind, or the nation of Rivain.

Maybe because full annihilation is something that's very unlikely to actually happen in practice?

Let's put it in some perspective -- the world war 2, the most bloody conflict known in human history to date racked up ~60 million casualties total. That's ~10 million a year, and it's with forces all over the world actively seeking and participating in full-scale conflict. And still, these numbers amount to 10% or so of total population of participating countries, on average. Just the same, that 10% on average had huge impact.

The reason I referenced Haven when discussing this issue during the Gaider comments is because we see a society of humans who clearly have a different approach to mages - they accept them. They accept magic, and mages have positions of authority - Father Eirik presiding over the Haven Chantry and Kolgrim admits that they endorse magic. Clearly, it doesn't always have to be mages versus everyone else.

And like pointed out, Haven under the rule of mages is a cesspit of hicks who kill any outsider that won't follow their religion. Hardly an example of mages being able to peacefully co-operate with rest of the world if put in position of charge. It pretty much is "mages versus everyone that is not with us".

Modifié par tmp7704, 05 février 2011 - 01:15 .

[IanPolaris]

[quote]tmp7704 wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

If mages were as dangerous as the Chantry claims and couldn't be permitted to be free, then I don't see why the threat of abominations wouldn't have destroyed the Dalish, the Chasind, or the nation of Rivain.[/quote]
Maybe because full annihilation is something that's very unlikely to actually happen in practice?

Let's put it in some perspective -- the world war 2, the most bloody conflict known in human history to date racked up ~60 million casualties total. That's ~10 million a year, and it's with forces all over the world actively seeking and participating in full-scale conflict. And still, these numbers amount to 10% or so of total population of participating countries, on average. Just the same, that 10% on average had huge impact.
[/quote]

If that is the case then the entire moral justification for locking away mages pre-emptively goes right out the airlock.  That was sort of the point I've been getting at in other threads.  If the threat of an abomination is so small that it doesn't even seem to impact these societies when it should (and you've pointed out just how small a percentage it would take to have a major impact), then there is no moral justification or practical one for the Circle Tower system OTHER than the Chantry wanting to monopolize magic for itself.

[quote]

[quote]The reason I referenced Haven when discussing this issue during the Gaider comments is because we see a society of humans who clearly have a different approach to mages - they accept them. They accept magic, and mages have positions of authority - Father Eirik presiding over the Haven Chantry and Kolgrim admits that they endorse magic. Clearly, it doesn't always have to be mages versus everyone else.[/quote]And like pointed out, Haven under the rule of mages is a cesspit of hicks who kill any outsider that won't follow their religion. Hardly an example of mages being able to peacefully co-operate with rest of the world if put in position of charge. It pretty much is "mages versus everyone that is not with us".[/quote]
[/quote]

No it's not.  There is plenty wrong with Haven and Father Kolgrim, but this isn't one of them.  Father Kolgrim is a hgh level Reaver, not a mage and he is clearly the one in charge so Haven is not an example of mages vs everyone else.  It's not even run by mages (although mages form a respected part of that society).

-Polaris

[seanna vampyr]

Persoanlly I dislike mages, but they are useful. I just distrust a group of men prancing around in dresses...

[KawaiiKatie]

seanna vampyr wrote...

Persoanlly I dislike mages, but they are useful. I just distrust a group of men prancing around in dresses...

(And old ladies with their walking sticks.)

[tmp7704]

IanPolaris wrote...

If that is the case then the entire moral justification for locking away mages pre-emptively goes right out the airlock.  That was sort of the point I've been getting at in other threads.  If the threat of an abomination is so small that it doesn't even seem to impact these societies when it should (and you've pointed out just how small a percentage it would take to have a major impact), then there is no moral justification or practical one for the Circle Tower system OTHER than the Chantry wanting to monopolize magic for itself.

However you keep ignoring that we don't know whether these societies actually are experiencing such impact -- you insist this is not the case because these societies haven't been entirely wiped out. But that degree of damage is both not necessary at all and extremely hard to create. Just the same, i doubt you're capable of telling whether the Chasind or the other of these societies are at theoretical 100% of population, or if that population is say, 10-20-30% smaller due to the abominations occuring there more freely.

No it's not.  There is plenty wrong with Haven and Father Kolgrim, but this isn't one of them.  Father Kolgrim is a hgh level Reaver, not a mage and he is clearly the one in charge so Haven is not an example of mages vs everyone else.  It's not even run by mages (although mages form a respected part of that society).

Hmm you're right, Kolgrim isn't a mage. But then i'm not sure on what exactly we're basing this presumption the mages form "respected part of the society" in Haven -- we get to see a few of them as enemies during the crawl through the caves, but that's it. But we don't know how they're handled by the rest of the village population, do we? I can't really remember at this point.

[SunnKingg]

I believe the chantry shouldn't have jurisdiction over the mages, but mages shouldn't be allowed to wonder untethered. The circle of magi should rule over themselves and have the responsibility of rounding up harmful mages. However, the chantry may retain the templar order to control mages that stray to far from the reach of the circle..

[IanPolaris]

tmp7704 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

If that is the case then the entire moral justification for locking away mages pre-emptively goes right out the airlock.  That was sort of the point I've been getting at in other threads.  If the threat of an abomination is so small that it doesn't even seem to impact these societies when it should (and you've pointed out just how small a percentage it would take to have a major impact), then there is no moral justification or practical one for the Circle Tower system OTHER than the Chantry wanting to monopolize magic for itself.

However you keep ignoring that we don't know whether these societies actually are experiencing such impact -- you insist this is not the case because these societies haven't been entirely wiped out. But that degree of damage is both not necessary at all and extremely hard to create. Just the same, i doubt you're capable of telling whether the Chasind or the other of these societies are at theoretical 100% of population, or if that population is say, 10-20-30% smaller due to the abominations occuring there more freely.

No tmp.  My argument is more persuasive than that and a lot more subtle.  Look at the Qunari.  They hate magic despite being almost chillingly pragmatic about all other things.  We can come to the very reasonable conclusion that at some point in the Qunari past there was some cataclysmic conflect with magic that had a major impact and it's footprint reasonates in that society even today.  Likewise in our own real life society (at least Western European Societies) the footprint of the millions of dead from the black death (and from the thirty years war) continues to reasonate even centuries later even in such things as nursery rhymes.  Likewise even thought the per capita death rate was less, WWII will continue to have a huge global footprint for centuries to come especially in Russia and other states of the former Soviet Union.

Given that abominations SHOULD have huge per capita fatality rates because of the tribal nature of the Dalish and Chasind (just to name two), and given the frequency claimed by the Chanty, we should be seeing a huge and unmistakeable social footprint against magic (or at least untrained mages) in these societies and others but we do not.  That tells us that either abominations aren't as dangerous as the Chantry claims (and we know that's not true, abominations for most people are plenty dangerous) or abominations simply don't occure at anywhere near the frequency or ease that the Chantry would have you believe.

That's why the moral justification for the Chantry system goes right out the airlock.

No it's not.  There is plenty wrong with Haven and Father Kolgrim, but this isn't one of them.  Father Kolgrim is a hgh level Reaver, not a mage and he is clearly the one in charge so Haven is not an example of mages vs everyone else.  It's not even run by mages (although mages form a respected part of that society).

Hmm you're right, Kolgrim isn't a mage. But then i'm not sure on what exactly we're basing this presumption the mages form "respected part of the society" in Haven -- we get to see a few of them as enemies during the crawl through the caves, but that's it. But we don't know how they're handled by the rest of the village population, do we? I can't really remember at this point.

Father Elrik was clearly a mage and he clearly acted as Villiage Priest and effective Mayor....a highly respected position without question. We see mages and non-mages living cheek and jowl in the village of Haven and fighting together, and we see the same in the Temple on the Mountain.  Seems to me that mages in this particular society were accepted and respected but weren't automatically leaders.  Plenty else wrong with the Cultists , but magocracy wasn't one of them.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 05 février 2011 - 01:55 .

[seanna vampyr]

KawaiiKatie wrote...

seanna vampyr wrote...

Persoanlly I dislike mages, but they are useful. I just distrust a group of men prancing around in dresses...

(And old ladies with their walking sticks.)

lol, or that fact they are trained to by like a doctor fresh out of school with no real world experience saying this won't hurt a bit?

[TMA LIVE]

David Gaider wrote...

If you're suggesting that the argument against magic isn't clear-cut, as magic has its uses and there's clearly no "better" solution... then you'd be correct. I'm not sure arguing that "non-mage societies can also be bad" is really a way to convince people who are frightened of mages for very good reasons that they shouldn't be.

"Don't be scared of that monster! That man over there with the sword could also kill you! If he wanted to!"
"Ahhh! Someone spare us, for the love of Andraste!"
squish

Speaking of which, I'd like to know how being a mage in DR:O affects Awakening and DR2. At the end of my game, my mage had the Circle be given freedom from the Templers. At least in Ferelden.

[Zavox]

IanPolaris wrote...

That's why the moral justification for the Chantry system goes right out the airlock.

-Polaris

While I agree with nearly anything you say, and this quote may not exactly be what you had in mind, I feel I have to comment on it though.

There's no moral justification of the mass exile of mostly innocents possible whatsoever. Whether it's a logical thing to do by the Chantry, is however another question. Which, for the record, I believe isn't logical either. Atleast not for the reasons they state.

[Dr. wonderful]

Mages are cool.



It's just that they have silly hats.



(I mean, DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMN)

[LobselVith8]

TMA LIVE wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

If you're suggesting that the argument against magic isn't clear-cut, as magic has its uses and there's clearly no "better" solution... then you'd be correct. I'm not sure arguing that "non-mage societies can also be bad" is really a way to convince people who are frightened of mages for very good reasons that they shouldn't be.

"Don't be scared of that monster! That man over there with the sword could also kill you! If he wanted to!"
"Ahhh! Someone spare us, for the love of Andraste!"
squish

Speaking of which, I'd like to know how being a mage in DR:O affects Awakening and DR2. At the end of my game, my mage had the Circle be given freedom from the Templers. At least in Ferelden.

Every time I see that quote, I can't help but remember that we have mage children being watched over by armored and armed drug addicts...

Regardless, it was revealed that the Magi boon seems to mean nothing - the Chantry says no when the ruler of Ferelden asks for the mages to be given their freedom, and the boon is bugged if Irving doesn't acknowledge it at the royal ceremony at the end of DA:O.

[Dave of Canada]

Came back, read a bit of the thread and noticed the argument seems to be going in circles.

"Mages are bad, they do X / X / X"
"THAT ONLY HAPPENS BECAUSE THE CHANTRY IS THERE" or "LOOK AT THE DALISH / CHASIND / RIVAINI".

*leaves thread*

Have fun, then. You guys seem personally involved somehow.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 05 février 2011 - 03:39 .

[IanPolaris]

Zavox wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

That's why the moral justification for the Chantry system goes right out the airlock.

-Polaris

While I agree with nearly anything you say, and this quote may not exactly be what you had in mind, I feel I have to comment on it though.

There's no moral justification of the mass exile of mostly innocents possible whatsoever. Whether it's a logical thing to do by the Chantry, is however another question. Which, for the record, I believe isn't logical either. Atleast not for the reasons they state.

While I agree in this case there is no moral justification for mass exile and mass imprisonment, I think it's a mistake to say that it's never morally justified.  For example, if you're read Stephen King's "The Stand", you'd know the entire story is predicated on an event where a varient of the flu that is 99% deadly, and 100% transmittable by air and contect gets out of bioweapons confinement.  Part of the safety precautions was if there was a containment leak, the entire base would be locked down and all personelle imprisoned (quarantined).

Are such security measures morally justified?  In that case I'd say "yes" (esp when we see the global disaster that ensues when containment fails).  This is a very extreme case though, but like individuals, social groups do have an inherent right to self defense.

That is what I am refering to when I mention the Chantry's "moral justification".  The Chantry would have you believe that all mages are a real, present, likely, and continual threat to public safety no matter what because of Abominations.  This is a very extraordinary claim for an extraordinarly regressive system.

If, however, it turns out, that the abomination is so small as to be effectively neglible unless artifically inflated by anti-mage dogma and imprisonment, then what little moral justification one might find vanishes.

-Polaris

[Nashiktal]

Now hold on. While I doubt that all mages are going to suddenly sprout fangs and explode into fiery fury... I would not call the abomination effect negligible.

No matter what happens with mages, I firmly believe they should be separated from society. Perhaps not a tower/prison, but at the very least they should be a good ways from crowded areas and mages should still have those Phylactery. Even if its a mage watch-group system, that would be for the best.

Ill let the writers decide how much or little freedom will be granted in the future, but there has to be some level of separation, even with education and safeguards, disaster can and will happen. Keeping that as close to home as possible is for the best.

If societies like rivain, (which we know little of) voluntarily live close with mages, thats their decision to sleep next to the lion. (so to speak)

Modifié par Nashiktal, 05 février 2011 - 04:14 .

[Zavox]

IanPolaris wrote...

Zavox wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

That's why the moral justification for the Chantry system goes right out the airlock.

-Polaris

While I agree with nearly anything you say, and this quote may not exactly be what you had in mind, I feel I have to comment on it though.

There's no moral justification of the mass exile of mostly innocents possible whatsoever. Whether it's a logical thing to do by the Chantry, is however another question. Which, for the record, I believe isn't logical either. Atleast not for the reasons they state.

While I agree in this case there is no moral justification for mass exile and mass imprisonment, I think it's a mistake to say that it's never morally justified.  For example, if you're read Stephen King's "The Stand", you'd know the entire story is predicated on an event where a varient of the flu that is 99% deadly, and 100% transmittable by air and contect gets out of bioweapons confinement.  Part of the safety precautions was if there was a containment leak, the entire base would be locked down and all personelle imprisoned (quarantined).

Are such security measures morally justified?  In that case I'd say "yes" (esp when we see the global disaster that ensues when containment fails).  This is a very extreme case though, but like individuals, social groups do have an inherent right to self defense.

That is what I am refering to when I mention the Chantry's "moral justification".  The Chantry would have you believe that all mages are a real, present, likely, and continual threat to public safety no matter what because of Abominations.  This is a very extraordinary claim for an extraordinarly regressive system.

If, however, it turns out, that the abomination is so small as to be effectively neglible unless artifically inflated by anti-mage dogma and imprisonment, then what little moral justification one might find vanishes.

-Polaris

Yes, I see what you're trying to point out.

However, I was specifically refering to 'innocents'. Your example of the flu virus won't hold water in this case, as the persons in the base would all be rapidly infected and thus won't be 'innocent' anymore. In that case it's indeed morally acceptable to lock them up as they already pose immediate destruction for the outside world. This however isn't the case with mages, for they could possibly become a problem later on, instead of being so already. (As abomination or otherwise).

Furthermore, you're talking about something that can infect others and is next to impossible to erradicate. I wouldn't say this is the case with mages, it's not infectious, nor are they next to impossible to combat. They could pose a danger to society, but they are not nearly as dangerous as a killer virus.

Not to mention that the Chantry prosecutes because of a birthdefect? , not because of intent or action, which a virus is. (infecting would be an inescapable action).

Though, I grant that if the mages are a problem to society from the moment they are born and there being no exception of mages bad conduct. It may arguably be moral. Which is why I specifically refered to 'innocents'. And  as there have been cases of 'good' mages known throughout, the Chantry can't ever hide such a fact. So in Dragon Age, there should (atleast for me) not be any possibly moral justification possible.

To conclude, I can see now though, you meant it on a broader scale than that, without that variable (innocent) attached. I guess I can agree that then you're most definately right.

[seanna vampyr]

It's all a matter how you view things. I dislike mages that are not myself when I play... but on the whole they live a shoddy life in the tower. In my views you shouldn't lock anyone up in a tower like like that or they would turn to something that even they feel is forbidden. When you are trapped like a warthog in a corner your not going to just sit there and look pretty unti lyour cooked, your going to go for those little knobbley things on the human and hope you gore it to shreds. How should a mage feel any other way.

Are the templars necesary yes, you need a check and balance board for any form of power otherwise there are people that are going to abuse that power. It's the way a person is raised, and if the child went from lavish luxoury to squaller being stuck in a tower full of books that person would do anything to get it back. That is what the Templars are for (sorry my brain gets side tracked easily), to stop those who would abuse the power they posses. They wouldn't be so bad if they were just (by they i mean templars) in a little chantry in every city to keep an eye on mages in shifts. Mages would have to report their power, (or a family member) to the chantry so they could be kept track of, but otherwise give them normal lives.

You can argue all you want on here on if they are good or bad and your personal opinions on the matter, but the psychology of the situation is really all that matters.

[Jimmy Fury]

What an utterly fascinating conversation... I must refer back to what AlexXIV said on the first page and confess that my decades of reading X-men comics have ingrained in me a bias toward the downtrodden superpowered types but I still find the back-and-forth of this debate extremely interesting.

For my two cents I will offer this:
Part of me can understand and possibly even agree with the arguments for segregating mages but it just doesn't overpower the inherent unease I feel at the notion of punishing potential.