1283 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Indeed. If I was going to ask David Gaider for clarification about anything it would be:

Who is sovereign over the Circle Tower, how is authority delegated between the First Enchanter and the Knight Commander, and does this vary from Circle to Circle?

[Ziggeh]

Herr Uhl wrote...

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

There is a lot we don't know it seems, so while they're definitely a part of the discussion, at this point I don't think any of them are helpful as evidence of anything in particular.

Herr Uhl wrote...
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.

Aye, it could be a different system with the same name, as mages are apparently seen in a more positive light. But they do still have a harrowing, which is among the more extreme measure the chantry circle takes. Curiouser and curiouser.

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

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?

And they're at the mercy of the Chantry because they have no freedom. This is why the unnamed blood mage, Niall, and Wynne state that Uldred said that Loghain would force the Chantry to give the Circle of Ferelden freedom, and why the Circle was going to side with Loghain until Wynne revealed what happened at Ostagar. Even Wynne uses the word "freedom" when discussing the situation in Cumberland, and how the Chantry will never allow them to be free.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

The Circles are under Chantry control. The mages live in a prison. We see that Knight-Commander Greagoir is making decisions about mages going to Ostagar, Jowan's Rite, and whether the Circle will be anulled. We read how Cullen can become the new Knight-Commander and rule the Circle in fear. I fail to see how the Chantry doesn't control the Circles when the military arm of their religious organization presides over the Circles across Thedas.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

Politicial groups that ultimately can't change the fact that the Circles are under Chantry control unless they're willing to do to war over independence.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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. 

Well, we won't know what happens in Cumberland - and the trailer for DA2 shows mages fighting templars, so it's possible the Circles decided to break free and fight for their independence.

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Indeed. If I was going to ask David Gaider for clarification about anything it would be:
Who is sovereign over the Circle Tower, how is authority delegated between the First Enchanter and the Knight Commander, and does this vary from Circle to Circle?

I'm not sure I would. I've come to value the flexible nature of uncertainty within the setting. I think if we had a clearer picture it would limit the number of questions it could pose (or angles from which to view the same ones).

[upsettingshorts]

Just to be clear, you realize that I've been splitting hairs - and your argument reads to me that you're saying I can't do that?

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

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.

Knight-Commander Greagoir clearly cares about First Enchanter Irving - he'll only spare the Circle as long as Irving is alive, after all. It doesn't change that Greagoir's authority supercedes Irving's position -  Irving admits he never even saw the evidence against Jowan and laments that if it up to him, things would be different. I don't see how Irving has authority over Greagoir when we see Greagoir makes the decisions or deciding to concede certain matters to Irving.

[LobselVith8]

Herr Uhl wrote...

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:

Rivain is referenced as being free of Chantry oversight for its witches in the Genitivi written codex about Rivain in DA:O and in the latest Bioware 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."

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

And they're at the mercy of the Chantry because they have no freedom.

Your question was why would they seek freedom if they had control but were still at mercy. In that situation the answer would be because they would want control without the mercy.

On the topic of their freedom, fun fact, when Wynne is asking for Irivngs permission to leave the tower, he says: "you were never one to stay in the tower when there was adventure to be had elsewhere".

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Knight-Commander Greagoir clearly cares about First Enchanter Irving - he'll only spare the Circle as long as Irving is alive, after all. It doesn't change that Greagoir's authority supercedes Irving's position -  Irving admits he never even saw the evidence against Jowan and laments that if it up to him, things would be different. I don't see how Irving has authority over Greagoir when we see Greagoir makes the decisions or deciding to concede certain matters to Irving.

Man this one goes round in circles.

I'm not saying Irving has authority over Greagoir, I'm saying they have independant purviews, that some decisions are a matter for the templar and some decisions are a matter for the circle. Giving an example of a matter for the templar doesn't negate all matters for the circle.

Or rather could be. I don't believe it is clear enough to say one way or the other in most cases. My main issue with this debate is declarative statements based on assumptions.

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

And they're at the mercy of the Chantry because they have no freedom.

Your question was why would they seek freedom if they had control but were still at mercy. In that situation the answer would be because they would want control without the mercy.

If they had control, Greagoir wouldn't be the one making the decisions or defering authority to Irving. If mages had control, Uldred wouldn't have gotten the Circle to nearly agree to side with Loghain because of the promise of freedom from the Chantry. If mages were free, the latest codex entry on the Bioware blog wouldn't reference that some mages view templars as "oppressors" and the line tell me all I need to know about the templars role with the mages:

"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."

Also:

"To the mages they are often seen as oppressors, even well-meaning ones, and the gap between them is growing larger with each passing year."

Ziggeh wrote...

On the topic of their freedom, fun fact, when Wynne is asking for Irivngs permission to leave the tower, he says: "you were never one to stay in the tower when there was adventure to be had elsewhere".

Fun fact: even Senior Enchanter Wynne needs permission to leave the Circle Tower.

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

"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 magisters in Tevinter are a seperate group from their mages, who are controlled by templars, so presumably Rivain has a similar distinction. So that statement really amounts to "in small number, mages are arguably ok".

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Knight-Commander Greagoir clearly cares about First Enchanter Irving - he'll only spare the Circle as long as Irving is alive, after all. It doesn't change that Greagoir's authority supercedes Irving's position -  Irving admits he never even saw the evidence against Jowan and laments that if it up to him, things would be different. I don't see how Irving has authority over Greagoir when we see Greagoir makes the decisions or deciding to concede certain matters to Irving.

Man this one goes round in circles.

If you want to conclude this discussion, I have no problem with it. I honestly don't see the point to it.

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

"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 magisters in Tevinter are a seperate group from their mages, who are controlled by templars, so presumably Rivain has a similar distinction. So that statement really amounts to "in small number, mages are arguably ok".

You mean the nation of Rivain?

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

If you want to conclude this discussion, I have no problem with it. I honestly don't see the point to it.

How about we conclude that it's not a dichotomy where the mages are either free to go about their business or are locked up with no self determination.

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean the nation of Rivain?

As opposed to?

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean the nation of Rivain?

As opposed to?

Simply that "So that statement really amounts to "in small number, mages are arguably ok" doesn't seem to fit when one of the examples is a nation that is tolerant to mages.

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

If you want to conclude this discussion, I have no problem with it. I honestly don't see the point to it.

How about we conclude that it's not a dichotomy where the mages are either free to go about their business or are locked up with no self determination.

If mages can only make decisions at the sufference of the chantry (and that does seem to be the case) then they don't have true self-determimation.  I have used the example of both prisoner-trustees and the DDR in the cold war to describe the mage's circle and I think both are apt.  In the case of the DDR, if you ever visited there, you might think the East Germans had broad self-authority and could decide most things themselves.  After all the boarderguards were all german, police and local govt officials were all german, even most of the secret police agents (Stasi) were all german.

You'd have been wrong.  The entire thing was essentially an eleborate hoax because the real decisions were always made by Soviet Commissioners that acted behind the scenes.  The DDR Chancelor had the authority to blow his nose and perhaps wipe is arse (if the Soviet Ambassador co-signed the order).

I see the circle and Irving in exactly the same light.

-Polaris

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Simply that "So that statement really amounts to "in small number, mages are arguably ok" doesn't seem to fit when one of the examples is a nation that is tolerant to mages.

Right, but as we know they have circles, then we're talking about less mages than normal distribution would provide. In the same way that there are likely quite a few Dalish keepers and First's, but a limited number within each community.

[IanPolaris]

Rivain has been a battleground both literally and culturally between the Andrastian nations and the Qun for centuries.  It wouldn't suprise me in the slightest to learn that Rivain culturally has distince "zones" one of which is where the Andrastian faith fully took root.  If there is a Rivain circle it would be in this zone.

However, Bros Genetivi does go on about the Rivain culture (which implies non Andrastian cultural zones) and how the faith of the Maker never made a serious impact.  In such areas, mages are treated completely differently apparently.

Also remember that Rivain was on the literal front line of the New Exatled Marches and part of those forces were Templars.  If there wasn't a circle in Ravain before, the Templar would establish one post-haste (regardless of local customs) because that's what Templars do.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Simply that "So that statement really amounts to "in small number, mages are arguably ok" doesn't seem to fit when one of the examples is a nation that is tolerant to mages.

Right, but as we know they have circles, then we're talking about less mages than normal distribution would provide. In the same way that there are likely quite a few Dalish keepers and First's, but a limited number within each community.

We also know there are several candidates for "first" (which presumably all have to be mages) and that mages are permitted to live with other Dalish and are treated as full members of society even if they aren't selected to be a Keeper's first.  In short we know that typically there are more mages in a Dalish clan (in fact they seem to have a high per capita rate of mages) than just the Keeper and the First.

[Anerin is welcomed as  full member of Zathriens clan, and even has bloodwriting on his face marking him as a full adult.  Anerin himself prefers solitude, but the clan themselves make it very clear that Anerin is more than welcome.  Likewise both Varathorn and Eloras (Halla herder) are mages as you discover if you side with the Werewolves.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Simply that "So that statement really amounts to "in small number, mages are arguably ok" doesn't seem to fit when one of the examples is a nation that is tolerant to mages.

Right, but as we know they have circles, then we're talking about less mages than normal distribution would provide. In the same way that there are likely quite a few Dalish keepers and First's, but a limited number within each community.

Actually we know that the culturally pure Rivain do NOT have circles.  The latest blog entry specifically cites Rivanni Witches as part of a cultural group of mages that aren't bound by the circle and whose society is arguably no worse off.

Again, remember that Rivain was on the front line of the new Exalted Marches and that meant there were templars.  Templars would automatically establish local circles of mages regardless of local customs and enforce this in their own charming way.

-Polaris

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...
If mages can only make decisions at the sufference of the chantry (and that does seem to be the case) then they don't have true self-determimation.  I have used the example of both prisoner-trustees and the DDR in the cold war to describe the mage's circle and I think both are apt.  In the case of the DDR, if you ever visited there, you might think the East Germans had broad self-authority and could decide most things themselves.  After all the boarderguards were all german, police and local govt officials were all german, even most of the secret police agents (Stasi) were all german.

You'd have been wrong.  The entire thing was essentially an eleborate hoax because the real decisions were always made by Soviet Commissioners that acted behind the scenes.  The DDR Chancelor had the authority to blow his nose and perhaps wipe is arse (if the Soviet Ambassador co-signed the order).

I see the circle and Irving in exactly the same light.

I think they're apt comparisons too. I think prisoner trustees is less so, as they aren't likely to be given authority over day releases and such, but the fact that it's essentially borrowed authority is still valid.

It's an important distinction. They are allowed to make decisions, and I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. But the extent that they're allowed such control is important, because I don't think anyone is saying that they should be unregulated either, and so it's a matter of degree and I don't believe we're entirely clear what the present condition happens to be.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 05 février 2011 - 06:14 .

[moilami]

JohnEpler wrote...

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.

There are questions only makers of the game can answer. One question is are mages people or are they evil monsters. I have discussed things related to mages with many people and that is the ultimate question regarding mages. If mages are people, then there will be mages who want only destruction, personal gain, and sorrow among other things but there will be also mages who want to fight against that kind of mages. There will be heroes and villains just like in real world, and just like in any fantasy world. So, if mages are not people, then it makes some sense to hunt them like they would be darkspawn. But if mages are people, then it makes no sense to exterminate godly healers.

It is easy to forget in relatively secure real world how priceless godly healers would be in very violent fantasy world or even in this real world. A demon pops up somewhere and kills people? Call the heroes and let mage revive dead people afterwards. Someone dies accidentally - call a mage. Mage goes mad? Call the sherif. Every village would want to have a responsible godly healer or two, and if mages are people, there is no reason why some mages would not want to just be godly healers in villages, and it would depend on particular mage what he wants to do. He would chose to side with the society or pursue destruction of the society just like anyone else does.

So, third time, the question is are mages people or are they orcs. To get an answer I call Melkor developer of the realm, like Fingolfin called, after I see him popping in this thread talking about mages. I ask what are these mages. Are they people or are they evil monsters. Who else than the creater can answer to that? So am I asking from the right or wrong person?

If you don't dare to answer and just threaten me and expect me to go on my knees and pray for an answer, so be it. I can live without the answer for I have made my decision and it says mages are people. Besides, I would not even listen Melkor. I would just have fun with him

*bends for banhammer and laughs*

Modifié par moilami, 05 février 2011 - 06:20 .

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually we know that the culturally pure Rivain do NOT have circles.

I don't believe we do. We know there are circles in Rivain, and while I concede that could well mean that these are confined to specific areas, I don't think we have a basis to say either way. Declaritives again I suppose.

[Ziggeh]

moilami wrote...

There are questions only makers of the game can answer. One question is are mages people or are they evil monsters.

You really think that's something only the writers can answer?

moilami wrote...
If you don't dare to answer and just threaten me and expect me to go on
my knees and pray for an answer,

Haha, on second thought, never mind. You carry on.

Modifié par Ziggeh, 05 février 2011 - 06:26 .