1283 réponses à ce sujet

[seanna vampyr]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

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. 

likes = 100
Unlocked: massive willpower

[Erani]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

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. 

Approves +50 <3<3<3

[Balitant]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

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. 

This thread is interesting (as long as lotion doesn't say anything). What I will find even more interesting is if there indeed is a mage conflict in DA2 with the potential to free a portion of mages .Will they then ensure their independence against at potential threats through drastic measures? Including with the fact that this game is unlikely to have an ending that wraps itself as neatly as origins did , what with the whole world on the edge of war and all, I am quite excited at how the story of the mages will play out. Makes them more interesting to me then the templars; and a reason why I will assuredly play a mage for one of my first playthroughs, and I don't normally like playing mages.

Modifié par RiskyRannis, 05 février 2011 - 07:24 .

[moilami]

Lotion Soronnar 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.

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".

And where has the author said mages are inheritly evil?

[LobselVith8]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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

People are discussing the Chantry of Andraste and the Circles of Magi. Clearly, not everyone agrees on the issue. Honestly, I don't see the harm in the debate when DA2 is still a few weeks away. An interesting notice about how the Chantry of Andraste has regressed any medical practice:

Junri wrote...

The Chantry is overzealous about subduing blood magic. The codex's even say that they even stop people from going into anatomical studies because of their irrational fear of blood magic. Essentially medicine is a dead end because the Chantry forbids it.

[moilami]

seanna vampyr wrote...

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

Added to the list of idiots.

[moilami]

David Gaider wrote...

Alodar wrote...
If a group of people existed in todays supposedly educated society that had these abilites, those modern mages would be controlled/locked up/persecuted without thought.

There is no question it is 100% reasonable for ordinary folks to want mages locked up or killed.

Indeed. The reason the "templars are bad" view is so prevalent is because most of us live in cushy western societies where anything that smells like oppression is Very Bad, and the only determining factor in how one should treat mages is how fair that treatment is. Of course, we don't have to live with the idea that Poor Oppressed Joe living next door to us might be secretly controlling our mind to make us like him-- or one day turn into a monster and kill our entire family-- but that doesn't need to stop us from being idealistic in our fantasy worlds, now, does it?

Indeed? So you are agreeing that godly healers would be certainly slain and treated like a cattle? Do you even see how you are blinded by your fears?

Do you understand that your "Poor Oppressed Joe" next door, who you look down from your high horse, can kill me anyday if he wants without any magic. And I don't fear it a bit to happen, but why you fear mages who have no reason to mind control you. Are mages not people?

Tell me. Are mages people or are they just some evil monsters? You are the one to say.

[tmp7704]

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

There's third alternative here, i believe, or at least one extra factor -- this footprint/backlash you speak of isn't necessarily obvious in the societies which never successfully subdued their mages or ones which never chose to do so.

Consider how different situations in Tevinter and other parts of Thedas can be, for example -- the way mages are currently treated (being locked up etc) could be very well cited as example of this "social footprint" the presence of mages imprinted on the common folk. And yet, the resulting treatment can be considerably different and while in some areas mages are being controlled and governed, in others it's the mages that control and govern themselves. But it'd be rather foolish to conclude from this that it's nothing but sign the spontaneous abominations weren't as much of issue in Tevinter than they were outside of it, no?

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.

We also see mages and non-mages fight together and live side by side at Ostagar -- heck, the mages have their tents right next to the king and the army leaders, quite closer than most of the army. This isn't to say i disagree with this impression of mages in Haven having more say than elsewhere, but this is mainly based on how the village appears to be settlement originally based on rules of Tevinter chantry, with the male priests etc. The setup of combat encounters, i'm rather hesitant to read too much into it.

[Xewaka]

SunnKingg wrote...
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..

So, basically the method that is already stablished, right?

[Ziggeh]

tmp7704 wrote...

There's third alternative here, i believe, or at least one extra factor -- this footprint/backlash you speak of isn't necessarily obvious in the societies which never successfully subdued their mages or ones which never chose to do so.

The dalish highly value tradition, of which the keepers are a part, the chasind we really don't know much about, but we have an account in which they both fear and revere magic users, and there are circles in rivain, so none of them are  all that helpful as examples.

[upsettingshorts]

Xewaka wrote...

SunnKingg wrote...
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..

So, basically the method that is already stablished, right?

Looks like it.

moilami wrote...

Tell me. Are mages people or are they just some evil monsters? You are the one to say.

Why should he?  He's the lead writer, the fact this thread has reached 28 pages and definitely isn't the first of it's kind is a win.  It means he - and the other writers - created a compelling conflict that his audience finds worth debating. 

Put another way, I'd prefer if DG not answer definitively.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 février 2011 - 04:10 .

[LobselVith8]

Xewaka wrote...

SunnKingg wrote...
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..

So, basically the method that is already stablished, right?

The mages don't govern themselves under the current system, they're under Chantry control.

[Master Shiori]

Not really.



The current method has the Chantry lording over the Circle and establishing the rules and regulation by which all mages must abide. SunnKingg's method would give the Circle the right of self governance and to make it's own rules while still working alongside the templars to keep the mage population in check.



It's the difference between letting someone else decide how you live and having a say in the matter yourself.

[upsettingshorts]

LobselVith8 wrote...

The mages don't govern themselves under the current system, they're under Chantry control.

I saw Greagoir give the orders with regards to a Blood Mage on the loose in the Circle Tower.  

I also seem to recall Greagoir deferring to the evaluation of the status of the Circle Tower in Broken Circle, either when Irving says everyone is fine (he accepts this) or relenting that it is possible he can't be trusted (he accepts this too).

Evaluating Greagor as the one in total control of the Circle Tower seems like an oversimplification of their relationship.  I got the impression Irving was in charge most of the time, but in certain cases Greagoir was given the authority to make the call, and those happened to be cases that seem to be cited most in this thread.

Master Shiori wrote...

Not really.

The current method has the Chantry lording over the Circle and establishing the rules and regulation by which all mages must abide. SunnKingg's method would give the Circle the right of self governance and to make it's own
rules while still working alongside the templars to keep the mage population in check.

It's the difference between letting someone else decide how you live and having a say in the matter yourself.

So the Circle Magi' political parties that they have and you discuss in the Mage Origin are debating for no reason at all?  They debate over what they should do because they have some authority to push to make it happen.

The majority endorse the status quo.

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

[Ziggeh]

Xewaka wrote...

So, basically the method that is already stablished, right?

It seems to be an oddly cooperative arrangement, given the antagonism.

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Evaluating Greagor as the one in total control of the Circle Tower seems like an oversimplification of their relationship.  I got the impression Irving was in charge most of the time, but in certain cases Greagoir was given the authority to make the call, and those happened to be cases that seem to be cited most in this thread.

It's Irvings approval you need to take the mages to war, and his that Wynne needs to mooch off out of Templar control, oddly.

[LobselVith8]

tmp7704 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

There's third alternative here, i believe, or at least one extra factor -- this footprint/backlash you speak of isn't necessarily obvious in the societies which never successfully subdued their mages or ones which never chose to do so.

Consider how different situations in Tevinter and other parts of Thedas can be, for example -- the way mages are currently treated (being locked up etc) could be very well cited as example of this "social footprint" the presence of mages imprinted on the common folk. And yet, the resulting treatment can be considerably different and while in some areas mages are being controlled and governed, in others it's the mages that control and govern themselves. But it'd be rather foolish to conclude from this that it's nothing but sign the spontaneous abominations weren't as much of issue in Tevinter than they were outside of it, no?

Except mages are locked up because of a protest they held in a cathedral, not because of the actions of any blood mages or abominations. Emperor Kordillus Drakon I created the Circle of Magi to control magic through the Chantry of Andraste he established, and Divine Ambrosia II was talked out of an Exalted March against her own cathedral by her templars and instead segregated mages who protested their lack of rights. That's the central problem with imprisoning mages - we're specifically told why they are all imprisoned at the start of DA:O, and it had nothing to do with magic being too dangerous to be among the common people.

tmp7704 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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.

We also see mages and non-mages fight together and live side by side at Ostagar -- heck, the mages have their tents right next to the king and the army leaders, quite closer than most of the army. This isn't to say i disagree with this impression of mages in Haven having more say than elsewhere, but this is mainly based on how the village appears to be settlement originally based on rules of Tevinter chantry, with the male priests etc. The setup of combat encounters, i'm rather hesitant to read too much into it.

You mean the seven mages that were permitted to head to Ostagar to help the King's forces battle the Blight, because Knight-Commander Greagoir refused to send any more mages to aid the battle against the darkspawn?

Haven is an off-shoot of a Cult of Andraste, where magic isn't seen as evil based on dialogue with Kolgrim, and at least one mage is presiding over the local Chantry. Clearly, the "mages have power, I'm afraid" outlook isn't universal - especially when we see mages and non-mages living together among the Dalish, we read about them living among the Chasind tribes, and Genitivi acknowledges that there are mages who are revered in Rivain for generations.

[moilami]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

SunnKingg wrote...
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..

So, basically the method that is already stablished, right?

Looks like it.

moilami wrote...

Tell me. Are mages people or are they just some evil monsters? You are the one to say.

Why should he?  He's the lead writer, the fact this thread has reached 28 pages and definitely isn't the first of it's kind is a win.  It means he - and the other writers - created a compelling conflict that his audience finds worth debating. 

Put another way, I'd prefer if DG not answer definitively.

I did not call his minion. I confronted he who corrupts directly. Hush.

[upsettingshorts]

moilami wrote...

I did not call his minion. I confronted he who corrupts directly. Hush.

Someone want to translate this for me?

[Herr Uhl]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

moilami wrote...

I did not call his minion. I confronted he who corrupts directly. Hush.

Someone want to translate this for me?

I think he holds scorn for Gaider, and you're his lapdog. That is what I got from it.

Edit: Oh, and he wants David to answer it directly.

Modifié par Herr Uhl, 05 février 2011 - 04:27 .

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...
we're specifically told why they are all imprisoned at the start of DA:O

We are?

[LobselVith8]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The mages don't govern themselves under the current system, they're under Chantry control.

I saw Greagoir give the orders with regards to a Blood Mage on the loose in the Circle Tower.  

I also seem to recall Greagoir deferring to the evaluation of the status of the Circle Tower in Broken Circle, either when Irving says everyone is fine (he accepts this) or relenting that it is possible he can't be trusted (he accepts this too).

Evaluating Greagor as the one in total control of the Circle Tower seems like an oversimplification of their relationship.  I got the impression Irving was in charge most of the time, but in certain cases Greagoir was given the authority to make the call, and those happened to be cases that seem to be cited most in this thread.

It's not an oversimplication when you learn that Greagoir signed the Rite of Tranquility against Jowan and Irving admitted that he didn't see the evidence in question - as well as the fact that he admits he would have handled things differently if it were up to him. Simply because Greagoir is willing to defer the decision about the treaty to Irving at the conclusion of A Broken Circle doesn't alter the fact that the Circles are under Chantry control. Even Wynne admits this in her discussion about Cumberland in Awakening - saying that the Chantry would rather kill the mages than see them free.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Master Shiori wrote...

Not really.

The current method has the Chantry lording over the Circle and establishing the rules and regulation by which all mages must abide. SunnKingg's method would give the Circle the right of self governance and to make it's own
rules while still working alongside the templars to keep the mage population in check.

It's the difference between letting someone else decide how you live and having a say in the matter yourself.

So the Circle Magi' political parties that they have and you discuss in the Mage Origin are debating for no reason at all?  They debate over what they should do because they have some authority to push to make it happen.

The majority endorse the status quo.

That's not actually true. The Circle was about to side with Loghain - because he offered to give the Circle freedom from the Chantry - when Wynne revealed what Loghain did at Ostagar. If the entire Circle was willing to side with Uldred because an outside force was willing to make it possible for them to have freedom from the Chantry, then I don't see how "the majority endorse the status quo."  In fact, it seems more a case that some mages simply don't try to reach out for independence because they know the Chantry would outright kill all the mages rather than see them free - as Wynne and Anders admit in Awakening.

[upsettingshorts]

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's not an oversimplication when you learn that Greagoir signed the Rite of Tranquility against Jowan and Irving admitted that he didn't see the evidence in question - as well as the fact that he admits he would have handled things differently if it were up to him.

It's an oversimplification to assume that because things like the Rite of Tranquility is Greagoir's call that everything must be his call. 

I'll put it a different way:  If there was something that a limited-authority Greagoir would have authority over the First Enchanter in deciding, what to do with Blood Mages would absolutely be on the list.

LobselVith8 wrote...

 In fact, it seems more a case that some mages simply don't try to reach out for independence because they know the Chantry would outright kill all the mages rather than see them free - as Wynne and Anders admit in Awakening.

I was talking about during the mage Origin, but you're right in that their position changes later.

The fact that they have an opinion, and they can act on it, is evidence of their authority.  The fact that the Chantry would outright murder them if they wanted to break up the Circle doesn't mean that the latter isn't under their own authority, it's that the Chantry is much bigger than them and they operate at their mercy.   That's different.

The distinction is between political authority and the reality of the situation.  The former is that the Mages police themselves.  The latter is that if the Mages don't police themselves to the Chantry's satisfaction, there will be blood.  This is reflected in Irving and Greagoir's relationship.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 février 2011 - 04:32 .

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
we're specifically told why they are all imprisoned at the start of DA:O

We are?

When you cut most of the sentence out, it loses the whole point, Ziggeh, but I suppose that was your intention. We're told at the start of the Magi Origin that mages are placed in prisons - the precise term used by the VO when describing the Circle Tower - and it's revealed why this is the case in the codex History of the Circle. The mages are imprisoned because of a completely peaceful protest they held in a cathedral during the reign of Divine Ambrosia II, not because of blood mages or abominations.

[Master Shiori]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Master Shiori wrote...

Not really.

The current method has the Chantry lording over the Circle and establishing the rules and regulation by which all mages must abide. SunnKingg's method would give the Circle the right of self governance and to make it's own
rules while still working alongside the templars to keep the mage population in check.

It's the difference between letting someone else decide how you live and having a say in the matter yourself.

So the Circle Magi' political parties that they have and you discuss in the Mage Origin are debating for no reason at all?  They debate over what they should do because they have some authority to push to make it happen.

The majority endorse the status quo.

That's right, because their reasons don't matter to the Chantry. 

The Chantry has it's own policy on how mages should live and they aren't going to debate about it or compromise. 

Which is the crux of the problem since it doesn't leave mages any room to improve their lot in life or prove that they can use their powers responsibly.