1283 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

 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.

Actually, the precise term is "as much a prison as a refuge", if we want to talk about editting sentences for effect.

LobselVith8 wrote...
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.

That tells us why they were segregated. They were restricted prior to that event. It's a part of the circles histiry, not the beginning of it. I don't believe we're told why it was started.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 05 février 2011 - 04:41 .

[Fenn_]

Mage Intro

Modifié par Fenn , 05 février 2011 - 04:40 .

[Herr Uhl]

Master Shiori wrote...

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.

They can improve their lot, the mere existance of the lucrosians heavily suggests that. They may still be bound to towers, but they can influence their life inside.

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

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

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

That must be why the term "oppressors" was used in the latest codex entry for DA2 when it revealed how some mages view the templars.

Ziggeh wrote...

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.

It's Knight-Commander Greagoir's choice to leave the decision to First Enchanter Irving.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

So it's appropriate that Irving isn't even shown the evidence in question? Considering that an anti-mage Cullen can end up as the new Knight-Commander of the Ferelden Circle, I find this to be a problem.

My point is that the Circles are controlled by the Chantry, and the power lies with Knight-Commander Greagoir and his superiors in the Chantry, not the mages. If that wasn't the case, then the Circle wouldn't have almost allied with Loghain because of the promise that he would force the Chantry to give the mages freedom. That's basically why the Grey Warden from the Circle of Magi can ask for the mages to be given independence - and the ruler of Ferelden agrees that the mages have earned the right to govern themselves.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

Having an opinion isn't evidence of authority when the decision is being part of under the Chantry or being killed. And the Chantry wouldn't kill them for breaking up the Circle - it'd kill them for making themselves independent from the Chantry. David Gaider already addressed in another thread that when the ruler of Ferelden goes to ask for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its independence, the ruler goes to the Chantry. The Chantry controls the Circle and its mages - with the exception of Grey Warden mages, who are basically emancipated from the Circle and the Chantry (which is why they alone don't have their children taken from them).

[upsettingshorts]

LobselVith8 wrote...

So it's appropriate that Irving isn't even shown the evidence in question? Considering that an anti-mage Cullen can end up as the new Knight-Commander of the Ferelden Circle, I find this to be a problem.

Whether or not you approve of their command structure is irrelevant if we're trying to decipher precisely what it is.  That part comes later.

LobselVith8 wrote...

My point is that the Circles are controlled by the Chantry, and the power lies with Knight-Commander Greagoir and his superiors in the Chantry, not the mages

And my point is that the Circles control themselves at the mercy of the Chantry.  The distinction would not be unfamiliar to anyone who has studied political science.  The Circle is sovereign, but operates at the mercy of a larger power that influences their external and internal politics in certain specific ways in which they have an interest.  

But I'll freely admit I don't view either position as proven beyond a shadow of a doubt within the game itself.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Having an opinion isn't evidence of authority when the decision is being part of under the Chantry or being killed

Simply having an opinion isn't all they do, or all I said they do.  They have an opinion and they can choose to act, but for any reasons they don't.   I'm making more or less an academic distinction here, that the Chantry ultimately has sway over the Circle Tower, the mages are sovereign over their respective Towers with the exception of certain issues relating to Blood mages, apostates, and so on.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 février 2011 - 04:48 .

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's Knight-Commander Greagoir's choice to leave the decision to First Enchanter Irving.

What he says is "My duty is to watch the mages. They are free to help you, however. Speak to them." That doesn't explicitly suggest it's his decision that they are free, but I'll admit it doesn't actively place it out of his hands as it could be read either way. Perhaps it's not a good idea for either of us to declare either way.

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

 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.

Actually, the precise term is "as much a prison as a refuge", if we want to talk about editting sentences for effect.

From who, though? In Rivain, mages aren't feared. Among the Chasind tribes or the Dalish clans, mages aren't feared, either. In Andrastian society, mages are feared - the same society that proclaims that mages were the ones at fault for the Blights and refers to them as "cursed." Putting mages in prison and then saying it's for their protection - when the Chantry is responsible for the anti-mage dogma in the first place - is hardly altruistic.

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

That tells us why they were segregated. They were restricted prior to that event. It's a part of the circles histiry, not the beginning of it. I don't believe we're told why it was started.

Their powers were restricted by order of the first Orlesian Emperor, who said the mages could only operate under the Chantry of Andraste he established. His actions had to do with the fact that he was a firm believer in a certain Cult of Andraste that he later made into the official religion, since he also formed the Order of the Templars.

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's Knight-Commander Greagoir's choice to leave the decision to First Enchanter Irving.

What he says is "My duty is to watch the mages. They are free to help you, however. Speak to them." That doesn't explicitly suggest it's his decision that they are free, but I'll admit it doesn't actively place it out of his hands as it could be read either way. Perhaps it's not a good idea for either of us to declare either way.

Again, he delegates the decision to First Enchanter Irving. If the Knight-Commander wasn't in charge, I don't see how Cullen can end up ruling the Circle in fear. In fact, let's look at the latest codex entry from the Bioware Blog:

"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."

[moilami]

Herr Uhl wrote...

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.

Yes. And he can either keep hiding or show himself again and answer to the question. Only he can answer to the question.


Edit: Oh yeah, he can also hit me with a banhammer.

Modifié par moilami, 05 février 2011 - 05:00 .

[Jimmy Fury]

It might be slightly inaccurate for either side of this debate to quote Codex entries as gospel truth. Gaider has said many times that the Codex entries are written from specific view points and are thus colored by the biases of the character who wrote them.

A codex entry taken from the writings of Brother Genitivi, for example, would probably paint the Chantry in a better light than one taken from Flemeth's Diary.

I think the writers did a very good job of adding a critical thinking angle to the codex. You have to weigh the biases and reliability of the different authors. Even then history is written by the winner so it can be hard to tell what is true, what is opinion stated as fact, and what is outright propaganda.

Which is why I agree with Shorts that Gaider should leave things up to interpretation.

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...
From who, though? In Rivain, mages aren't feared. Among the Chasind tribes or the Dalish clans, mages aren't feared,

There are circles in Rivain, the Chasind fear the witches of the wilds and the dalish clan revere their traditions, which could easily overcome any fears they might otherwise hold.

Ziggeh wrote...

Their powers were restricted by order of the first Orlesian Emperor, who said the mages could only operate under the Chantry of Andraste he established. His actions had to do with the fact that he was a firm believer in a certain Cult of Andraste that he later made into the official religion, since he also formed the Order of the Templars.

Well, yes, he wanted the whole society to be under the Chantry, that's not so much a motive for the circle specifically.

[TMA LIVE]

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Really? Is there a link? Someone else has claimed that Gaider said it's because in Awakening, nothing has happened yet because it's only been 6 months. 

[upsettingshorts]

Herr Uhl wrote...

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

Ah, so he can be actively ignored guilt-free then.  Thanks

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 février 2011 - 04:59 .

[GodWood]

moilami wrote...
Yes. And he can either keep hiding or show himself again and answer to the question. Only he can answer to the question.

Why do you dislike DG?

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Again, he delegates the decision to First Enchanter Irving.

It can be read that way. It can also not.

LobselVith8 wrote...
If the Knight-Commander wasn't in charge, I don't see how Cullen can end up ruling the Circle in fear.

Do you have the exact quote from the epilogue?

[LobselVith8]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

So it's appropriate that Irving isn't even shown the evidence in question? Considering that an anti-mage Cullen can end up as the new Knight-Commander of the Ferelden Circle, I find this to be a problem.

Whether or not you approve of their command structure is irrelevant if we're trying to decipher precisely what it is.  That part comes later.

It's not an issue of approval, it's an example that if Knight-Commander Cullen can rule the Circle in fear, then the templars and the Chantry clearly have the authority.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

My point is that the Circles are controlled by the Chantry, and the power lies with Knight-Commander Greagoir and his superiors in the Chantry, not the mages

And my point is that the Circles control themselves at the mercy of the Chantry.  The distinction would not be unfamiliar to anyone who has studied political science.  The Circle is sovereign, but operates at the mercy of a larger power that influences their external and internal politics in certain specific ways in which they have an interest.  

If the Circles controlled themselves at the mercy of the Chantry, why would the mages side with Loghain for freedom from the Chantry? Why would the ruler of Ferelden ask the Chantry to free the mages (Magi boon) if Circles weren't controlled by them? Why would Wynne be so afraid that mages would be killed if the Circles attempted to break free from the Chantry?

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Having an opinion isn't evidence of authority when the decision is being part of under the Chantry or being killed

Simply having an opinion isn't all they do, or all I said they do.  They have an opinion and they can choose to act, but for any reasons they don't.   I'm making more or less an academic distinction here, that the Chantry ultimately has sway over the Circle Tower, the mages are sovereign over their respective Towers with the exception of certain issues relating to Blood mages, apostates, and so on.

It's an opinion that has little power when it comes down to how the Circles are controlled by the Chantry. A Warden from the Circle can address that it's a prison seperately comment to her that it's an oppresive place - Wynne never contests this, and says she thinks the Warden can use his or her influence and power to change that for the Circle of Ferelden. You seem to think that the Circles have some sort of autonomy - but I don't see it being any different than prisons who can exercise or read at a given time. Does the prisoner having the chance to get an education, be part of a group, have opinions, and get meals alter the fact that he's a prisoner who has to defer to the guards? If Irving can lament that he's powerless to do anything about the situation with Jowan, and Greagoir can say no to the King's request for more troops to Ostagar, I don't see how you don't think the Circles aren't under Chantry control.

[John Epler]

A) Keep it civil. Some of you are crossing the line into hostility and nonconstructive posting.



If you aren't interested in discussing things with other posters but are only interested in a response from a Dev, I recommend that you simply don't post in the thread. It's Saturday, for one, and most everyone is out of the office (and likely avoiding anything even remotely work-related), and secondly, we don't really respond well to people demanding that we, and only we, respond to them.



Thanks.

[Herr Uhl]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
From who, though? In Rivain, mages aren't feared. Among the Chasind tribes or the Dalish clans, mages aren't feared,

There are circles in Rivain, the Chasind fear the witches of the wilds and the dalish clan revere their traditions, which could easily overcome any fears they might otherwise hold.

No, there aren't. Rivain is the only country apart from the Qunari that have no circles. The circles are a thing of the Andrastian faith (as in Tevinter and the other Chantry places), but Rivain is atheistic and has great esteem for their "wise ones" (not sure if that is the term, but that is still besides the point) that talk with spirits. How they keep their mage population under check is largely unknown, but something like the mages collective would be likely.

[LobselVith8]

TMA LIVE wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

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.

Really? Is there a link? Someone else has claimed that Gaider said it's because in Awakening, nothing has happened yet because it's only been 6 months. 

Here you go:

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.

Unfortunately, the Magi boon is bugged - if Irving doesn't acknowledge it during the ceremony, it's likely not going to be picked up because the flag isn't activated.

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

If the Circles controlled themselves at the mercy of the Chantry, why would the mages side with Loghain for freedom from the Chantry?

Because they're at the mercy of the chantry?

[upsettingshorts]

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's not an issue of approval, it's an example that if Knight-Commander Cullen can rule the Circle in fear, then the templars and the Chantry clearly have the authority.

It's one example where the Templars have authority.  This does not mean they have authority over everything. 

If one example is enough of a datapoint, then you could prove anything in this discussion either way, and we'd get nowhere.  It's not enough.

LobselVith8 wrote...

If the Circles controlled themselves at the mercy of the Chantry, why would the mages side with Loghain for freedom from the Chantry?[ Why would the ruler of Ferelden ask the Chantry to free the mages (Magi boon) if Circles weren't controlled by them? Why would Wynne be so afraid that mages would be killed if the Circles attempted to break free from the Chantry?

Because all of those things weaken the relative power of the Chantry versus the relative power of the Circle of Magi through political alliances.  Just like a small country allying with a big country in order to get out from under the thumb of another big country.

LobselVith8 wrote...

 If Irving can lament that he's powerless to do anything about the situation with Jowan, and Greagoir can say no to the King's request for more troops to Ostagar, I don't see how you don't think the Circles aren't under Chantry control.

As I said I'm making what amounts to an academic distinction.  Whether or not you or I am right ultimately does not matter because the reality of the situation is that the Mages are restricted by the power of the Chantry.  You are arguing that this control is explicitly part of the institution, I am arguing that - specific issues aside - it is implicit because of their relative power and ideological position.  

It's like this:
I'm saying they can decide to be free, but then they'd all be killed.  So they don't.
You're saying they can't decide to be free because they'd all be killed.  So they don't.

The interesting thing is that I think your example of the alliances actually supports my interpretation more.  But I expect you'll disagree.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 février 2011 - 05:15 .

[Ziggeh]

Herr Uhl wrote...

No, there aren't. Rivain is the only country apart from the Qunari that have no circles. The circles are a thing of the Andrastian faith (as in Tevinter and the other Chantry places), but Rivain is atheistic and has great esteem for their "wise ones" (not sure if that is the term, but that is still besides the point) that talk with spirits. How they keep their mage population under check is largely unknown, but something like the mages collective would be likely.

http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Codex_Entry%3A_The_Harrowing:

I heard one patently ridiculous rumor among the Circle at Rivain, which claimed that failed apprentices were transformed into pigs, fattened up, and served at dinner to the senior enchanters.

http://dragonage.wik...:_Desire_Demon:

--From the journal of former Senior Enchanter Maleus, once of the Circle of Rivain, declared apostate in 9:20 Dragon.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 05 février 2011 - 05:09 .

[LobselVith8]

TMA LIVE wrote...

Really? Is there a link? Someone else has claimed that Gaider said it's because in Awakening, nothing has happened yet because it's only been 6 months. 

I'm guessing the Circles of Magi and Order of Templars will come to a head in DA2, since Hawke's ancestor wanted mages to be free and helped Calenhad (the Staff of Parlathan). Maybe we'll have the chance to side with either the templars or the mages? Here's some more information if you're curious about mages and the Circles:

David Gaider wrote...

Mages within the Circle are permitted to marry, but it's impractical with outsiders and they also must get permission from the Chantry (so it might be considered a reward for good behavior). Even so, the culture within the typical Circle of Magi tends to make mages unwilling to marry. The policy on fraternization will depend on the individual Circle-- some forbid it, while others do not, though in either case it still occurs. Considering mages live outside normal culture, they also consider themselves free of cultural conventions (especially those who were raised in a Circle from a young age) and thus tend to be quite liberal in their views.

Whew! Okay-- verbose answer of the day. Time for coffee.

And why being a Grey Warden is great for a mage:

David Gaider wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Yes, married or not the child of a mage is taken away by the Chantry.

Would the same happen if the mage was also a Grey Warden, such as the Warden-Commander of DA:O and Awakenings?

A mage who is not part of the Circle is not subject to the will of the Chantry. So, no.

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

If Irving can lament that he's powerless to do anything about the situation with Jowan, and Greagoir can say no to the King's request for more troops to Ostagar, I don't see how you don't think the Circles aren't under Chantry control.

When Jowan make a break for it, Greagoir shouts at Irving: "If you had let me act sooner, this would not of happened!", and when you walk in on the conversation about Ostagar, it could just as well be read as part of a debate, it doesn't explicitly suggest command.

[Herr Uhl]

Ziggeh wrote...

http://dragonage.wik..._The_Harrowing:

I heard one patently ridiculous rumor among the Circle at Rivain, which claimed that failed apprentices were transformed into pigs, fattened up, and served at dinner to the senior enchanters.

http://dragonage.wik...:_Desire_Demon:

--From the journal of former Senior Enchanter Maleus, once of the Circle of Rivain, declared apostate in 9:20 Dragon.

Hmm, how does the hedge-mages come into the picture in that case? And how are the circles used and to what purpose?

This made it more interesting, I doubt they have Templars, but they may still have circles as academies or something like that as remnants from their pre-Qunari days. Or the circles could be used by andrastian mages in order to set an example.

I want a game based in Rivain :sadface: