1283 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

LobselVith8 wrote...

No, I know. Read History of the Circle reveals - it explains the history of mages being segregated from society because of a protest they held, nothing more. A codex entry written by a Chantry scholar, no less. If the Chantry's history is telling me that mages were isolated because they held a protest, then I have to wonder how necessary it is to segregate them from society under a system that's caused unrest and revolution.

Let me repeat the follow-up question. What were they protesting then against, and what was the reason for circumstances which caused the protest?

Incidentally, that particular codex entry also says mages "went cheerily into exile in a remote fortress outside of the capital, where they would be kept under the watchful eye of the Templars and a council of their own elder magi" as result of negotiations held during the protest. But obviously, we should ignore this part because it doesn't exactly fit the painful picture of oppressed mages held solely under the templar heel.

Because you made it sound like we saw a plethora of mages fighting side by side with non-mages at Ostagar, and that's an inaccurate statement

And it is not statement i made. I only pointed out that mages were stationed at Ostagar together with the other troops, just as mages in Haven were stationed with other villagers. Which is a fact.

It's not like the Dalish clans where we learn that Aneirin was accepted or discover in WH that other elven Circle mages have escaped to find sanctuary with them, or in Haven

Yes, that it's not like the Dalish or Haven despite similar appearance (which shows that appearances are flimsy base to form theories on) was very much the point.

Modifié par tmp7704, 07 février 2011 - 01:06 .

[GreyArea]

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

Get your facts straight Gray Area : no-one can revive the dead in DA.

Really? So people never die in combat? What happens to them? Explain.

[GreyArea]

Riona45 wrote...

GreyArea wrote...
I haven't ever seen anything like it was. Imagine a Jesus walking around and miracleously really curing people of everything. And not only curing but raising dead back to life. Only in world where none never get injuries or dies such healers would be exterminated. How about real world? Died in car accident? No probs, you can go back to work tomorrow and have sex today.

There just is no way mages would be killed. The devs are in a hurry to do something in DA2 to make-believe mages would be killed.

None of that...has anything to do with what I said.

It does. You talked about how there is oppression in real world and it does not get fixed. That is a fact. But that fact would make even more ordinary people wanting to get the top health care godly mages could give. And talking about medieval world, some chantry apologist should be sent to medieval world to get some insight how health care was in those days. It was pain comparable to torture, and you could die afterwards because of different complications very easily. It would benefit oppressed greatly to have a chance to get magical healing,

No way oppressed or common Joes or nobles or anyone would had wanted to kill godly healers in medieval world. Some lunatics might had wanted. Mages in DA can't conjure muffins or shelter but health care they can provide would be priceless enough for people to want mages to be available and use their abilities.

Modifié par GreyArea, 07 février 2011 - 01:41 .

[LobselVith8]

tmp7704 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

No, I know. Read History of the Circle reveals - it explains the history of mages being segregated from society because of a protest they held, nothing more. A codex entry written by a Chantry scholar, no less. If the Chantry's history is telling me that mages were isolated because they held a protest, then I have to wonder how necessary it is to segregate them from society under a system that's caused unrest and revolution.

Let me repeat the follow-up question. What were they protesting then against, and what was the reason for circumstances which caused the protest?

Emperor Kordillus Drakon I believed in a particular Cult of Andraste that he made the "official" religion, declaring a number of Exalted Marches to etablish the Orlesian Empire. Along with the empire, he created the Order of Templars and the Circle of Magi, making all magic illegal unless it was done under the purview of the Chantry of Andraste he established. Mages protested this peacefully in an Orlesian cathedral during the reign of Divine Ambrosia II, which is what the History of the Circle depicts, which lead to their segregation from society under templar authority.

tmp7704 wrote...

Incidentally, that particular codex entry also says mages "went cheerily into exile in a remote fortress outside of the capital, where they would be kept under the watchful eye of the Templars and a council of their own elder magi" as result of negotiations held during the protest. But obviously, we should ignore this part because it doesn't exactly fit the painful picture of oppressed mages held solely under the templar heel.

You realize I said the entire codex was written by a Chantry scholar, no? That's why it's written in a pro-Chantry form. That's why we have this codex:

"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."


Along with this reference to the templars:

"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."

tmp7704 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Because you made it sound like we saw a plethora of mages fighting side by side with non-mages at Ostagar, and that's an inaccurate statement

And it is not statement i made. I only pointed out that mages were stationed at Ostagar together with the other troops, just as mages in Haven were stationed with other villagers. Which is a fact.

You left out that the Chantry only permitted seven to fight against the Blight and that the seven mages were under templar supervision, unlike Haven and the Dalish clans.

tmp7704 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It's not like the Dalish clans where we learn that Aneirin was accepted or discover in WH that other elven Circle mages have escaped to find sanctuary with them, or in Haven

Yes, that it's not like the Dalish or Haven despite similar appearance (which shows that appearances are flimsy base to form theories on) was very much the point.

How is the mage Father Eirik presiding over the Haven Chantry filmsy? How is Kolgrim openly attacking the Chantry of Andraste's negative views on magic flimpsy? How is the Dalish clans having mages and non-mages living together, from the Keeper to the First, and even escaped Circles mages, flimpsy? Your comment makes absolutely no sense.

[LobselVith8]

GreyArea wrote...

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

Get your facts straight Gray Area : no-one can revive the dead in DA.

Really? So people never die in combat? What happens to them? Explain.

I think it's an issue of game mechanics vs. lore (why characters are "dead" but can get revivved, much like why non-Grey Wardens can get darkspawn blood on them without getting infected with the taint), but technically. Wynne does get revived from the dead by a Spirit of Faith.

GreyArea wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

GreyArea wrote...
I haven't ever seen anything like it was. Imagine a Jesus walking around and miracleously really curing people of everything. And not only curing but raising dead back to life. Only in world where none never get injuries or dies such healers would be exterminated. How about real world? Died in car accident? No probs, you can go back to work tomorrow and have sex today.

There just is no way mages would be killed. The devs are in a hurry to do something in DA2 to make-believe mages would be killed.

None of that...has anything to do with what I said.

It does. You talked about how there is oppression in real world and it does not get fixed. That is a fact. But that fact would make even more ordinary people wanting to get the top health care godly mages could give. And talking about medieval world, some chantry apologist should be sent to medieval world to get some insight how health care was in those days. It was pain comparable to torture, and you could die afterwards because of different complications very easily. It would benefit oppressed greatly to have a chance to get magical healing,

No way oppressed or common Joes or nobles or anyone would had wanted to kill godly healers in medieval world. Some lunatics might had wanted. Mages in DA can't conjure muffins or shelter but health care they can provide would be priceless enough for people to want mages to be available and use their abilities.

It's like that in the nation of Rivain, the Dalish clans, and the Chasind tribes - mages are respected. The difference is with the Andrastian nations - where one could argue the anti-mage propaganda keeps the mages under the thumb of the Chantry and its templars.

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

GreyArea wrote...

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

Get your facts straight Gray Area : no-one can revive the dead in DA.

Really? So people never die in combat? What happens to them? Explain.

I think it's an issue of game mechanics vs. lore (why characters are "dead" but can get revivved, much like why non-Grey Wardens can get darkspawn blood on them without getting infected with the taint), but technically. Wynne does get revived from the dead by a Spirit of Faith.

Incapacitated I think is the idea. After combat finishes these people simply get up, albiet suffering from an injury.

[GreyArea]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

GreyArea wrote...

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

Get your facts straight Gray Area : no-one can revive the dead in DA.

Really? So people never die in combat? What happens to them? Explain.

I think it's an issue of game mechanics vs. lore (why characters are "dead" but can get revivved, much like why non-Grey Wardens can get darkspawn blood on them without getting infected with the taint), but technically. Wynne does get revived from the dead by a Spirit of Faith.

Incapacitated I think is the idea. After combat finishes these people simply get up, albiet suffering from an injury.

I think the idea is "sucks I have to manually revive people and sup if I don't have a mage with revival? can't go to a temple and raise peeps because mages are locked in a tower and I really don't want to go to a temple after some1 dies" answer "lol ok after each battle u will become autorevived."

It is clearly game-mechanical "lets make this more fun" choise, which ignores several facts and makes it easier to believe mages are not needed and especially mages with revival are not needed. But it is true, in fantasy world mages are not needed.

[Ziggeh]

GreyArea wrote...

I think the idea is "sucks I have to manually revive people and sup if I don't have a mage with revival? can't go to a temple and raise peeps because mages are locked in a tower and I really don't want to go to a temple after some1 dies" answer "lol ok after each battle u will become autorevived."

It is clearly game-mechanical "lets make this more fun" choise, which ignores several facts and makes it easier to believe mages are not needed and especially mages with revival are not needed. But it is true, in fantasy world mages are not needed.

What if you don't have a mage in the party? You think it's an abstraction of dragging their corpse to the nearest mages circle, popping revive on them and walking back to the cave you were fighting your way out of?

[GreyArea]

Ziggeh wrote...

GreyArea wrote...

I think the idea is "sucks I have to manually revive people and sup if I don't have a mage with revival? can't go to a temple and raise peeps because mages are locked in a tower and I really don't want to go to a temple after some1 dies" answer "lol ok after each battle u will become autorevived."

It is clearly game-mechanical "lets make this more fun" choise, which ignores several facts and makes it easier to believe mages are not needed and especially mages with revival are not needed. But it is true, in fantasy world mages are not needed.

What if you don't have a mage in the party? You think it's an abstraction of dragging their corpse to the nearest mages circle, popping revive on them and walking back to the cave you were fighting your way out of?

If it would be that, then it would still be "lets make this more fun" choise, in case there is any working circle nearby. Then you would travel back to the cave, the whole two way trip lasting one week, and everything would be as it was when you left the cave. Lovely game mechanics.

So to make it easier lets just state that "if people die, they don't actually die". In fantasy world everything is possible. Mages are not needed in fantasy world and mages are not needed even in real world.


Edit: Just kill them all. Gray area.

Modifié par GreyArea, 07 février 2011 - 02:30 .

[Ziggeh]

GreyArea wrote...

If it would be that, then it would still be "lets make this more fun" choise, in case there is any working circle nearby. Then you would travel back to the cave, the whole two way trip lasting one week, and everything would be as it was when you left the cave. Lovely game mechanics.

So to make it easier lets just state that "if people die, they don't actually die". In fantasy world everything is possible. Mages are not needed in fantasy world and mages are not needed even in real world.

Or they're instead of dead they're just incapacitated for the duration of the fight, which neatly fits actual events and doesn't require bizarre concessions to fantasy.

The "revive" spell of which you speak states: The caster revives a fallen party member, raising them from
unconsciousness and restoring some health.

[GreyArea]

Ziggeh wrote...

GreyArea wrote...

If it would be that, then it would still be "lets make this more fun" choise, in case there is any working circle nearby. Then you would travel back to the cave, the whole two way trip lasting one week, and everything would be as it was when you left the cave. Lovely game mechanics.

So to make it easier lets just state that "if people die, they don't actually die". In fantasy world everything is possible. Mages are not needed in fantasy world and mages are not needed even in real world.

Or they're instead of dead they're just incapacitated for the duration of the fight, which neatly fits actual events and doesn't require bizarre concessions to fantasy.

The "revive" spell of which you speak states: The caster revives a fallen party member, raising them from
unconsciousness and restoring some health.

They are incapacitated, yes, it is a very good word.  And that "fallen" is just another way to say incapasitated.

I don't really understand what is all this discussion. Mages are a huge danger to the society and not really needed for anything. So just kill them. Or pick the suitable ones into a tower from where you can raise them to use in wars.

It is hard choise since you can benefit of them mages greatly in wars, so I would recommend to make a maximum security tower where you transport every mage and observe them carefully to see if you can find any signs of disobedience or rebellion. If you see anything suspicious in their behaviour, anything, kill it. Those who survive in the tower can then be used pretty safely in wars.


Edit: It is grey area after all.

Edit: I might also recommend cutting their tongues away. Qunari has realized it is a very good method to control and monitor mages. If you can't talk, you can't plot anything that easily or get some bad ideas with others.

Modifié par GreyArea, 07 février 2011 - 02:59 .

[GreyArea]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

GreyArea wrote...

_Loc_N_lol_ wrote...

Get your facts straight Gray Area : no-one can revive the dead in DA.

Really? So people never die in combat? What happens to them? Explain.

I think it's an issue of game mechanics vs. lore (why characters are "dead" but can get revivved, much like why non-Grey Wardens can get darkspawn blood on them without getting infected with the taint), but technically. Wynne does get revived from the dead by a Spirit of Faith.

Incapacitated I think is the idea. After combat finishes these people simply get up, albiet suffering from an injury.

Mmm.. yes. They simply get up like nothing would had happened. That's why I recommend that any maleficar you find you chop it to pieces and burn. Or feed the remains to dogs. You really don't want maleficars or even apostates getting up at some point. Any mage can cause huge destruction. Better kill them who refuse to understand it is best for them and for the society if they are, hmm, guarded in some suitable tower.

[Ziggeh]

GreyArea wrote...

Mmm.. yes. They simply get up like nothing would had happened. That's why I recommend that any maleficar you find you chop it to pieces and burn. Or feed the remains to dogs. You really don't want maleficars or even apostates getting up at some point. Any mage can cause huge destruction. Better kill them who refuse to understand it is best for them and for the society if they are, hmm, guarded in some suitable tower.

Grind them down to a fine, nutritious paste. A welcome entry to any pre industrial diet.

[RAF1940]

I do. Very fun.

[Malanek]

David Gaider wrote...

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, the players, are from a modern day societies and have these values. It is very difficult to have a discussion over a moral topic in which one side claims you can't apply modern morals to it. What other modern day values do you believe as writers you ignore? IMO you don't ignore this modern day value at all. It shows up strongly with themes around mages and elves.

David Gaider wrote...
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?

I think there are very few, if any, who are seriously claiming that mages should have no regulation. Rather we are claiming that oppression is not the way to go about it. IMO it is always going to be a critical error to entrust a group that hates or fears another group (chantry and the mages) to police that group. In Origins the chantry and templars were showed up as quite incompetent and almost certainly did more harm than good. Take them away and Irving and the other senior enchanters could have done a better job quite easily.

[GreyArea]

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 *chucles* People can't understand what kind of threat mages pose to the society because there are no mages in real world. Any mage is like ticking time bomb able to turn into abdomination unpredictably. So the question is just how much we want to give them mercy?

[Archmage_Etherial]

 I love mages and if I had the choice, I'd associate with only mages.  Mundane people are so judgemental.

[GreyArea]

Ziggeh wrote...

GreyArea wrote...

Mmm.. yes. They simply get up like nothing would had happened. That's why I recommend that any maleficar you find you chop it to pieces and burn. Or feed the remains to dogs. You really don't want maleficars or even apostates getting up at some point. Any mage can cause huge destruction. Better kill them who refuse to understand it is best for them and for the society if they are, hmm, guarded in some suitable tower.

Grind them down to a fine, nutritious paste. A welcome entry to any pre industrial diet.

Will do. Mages are not people. And it is grey area what we do to them.

[Ziggeh]

Malanek999 wrote...
Of course we, the players, are from a modern day societies and have these values. It is very difficult to have a discussion over a moral topic in which one side claims you can't apply modern morals to it.

He's not saying we shouldn't apply modern morality, as you say he clearly understands this is the position from which it is viewed by it's audience. He's saying it's problematic to apply moral positions based upon those derived from a different context.

We don't have anything comparable to mages in real life, and while we can draw incomplete parallels and analogies, taking a moral position from these and then applying it to the mage situation leaves you with that lack of completion.

[GreyArea]

Archmage_Etherial wrote...

 I love mages and if I had the choice, I'd associate with only mages.  Mundane people are so judgemental.

...

My friend, I don't even know how to start with this. Love is very good. But...why mages? I mean those monsters who can anytime kill tens of innocent people. Why? That doesn't make sense. I am sure there are many other things to love than mages.

[GreyArea]

Ziggeh wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...
Of course we, the players, are from a modern day societies and have these values. It is very difficult to have a discussion over a moral topic in which one side claims you can't apply modern morals to it.

He's not saying we shouldn't apply modern morality, as you say he clearly understands this is the position from which it is viewed by it's audience. He's saying it's problematic to apply moral positions based upon those derived from a different context.

We don't have anything comparable to mages in real life, and while we can draw incomplete parallels and analogies, taking a moral position from these and then applying it to the mage situation leaves you with that lack of completion.

Exactly. The question you have to ask is do we need mages? Are they useful to us? Can you live without mages? I say my life wont be a bit worse without mages - the opposite is true. I would at least be safe.

[Ziggeh]

GreyArea wrote...
Exactly. The question you have to ask is do we need mages? Are they useful to us? Can you live without mages? I say my life wont be a bit worse without mages - the opposite is true. I would at least be safe.

Are you attempting to provoke a response because you have a counter argument, or is this satire?

It might be easier to just state what you intend in more general terms, as I think you've covered the reductio ad absurdum position already.

[GreyArea]

Malanek999 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
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?

I think there are very few, if any, who are seriously claiming that mages should have no regulation. Rather we are claiming that oppression is not the way to go about it. IMO it is always going to be a critical error to entrust a group that hates or fears another group (chantry and the mages) to police that group. In Origins the chantry and templars were showed up as quite incompetent and almost certainly did more harm than good. Take them away and Irving and the other senior enchanters could have done a better job quite easily.

I can't believe anyone could say mages should be able to walk freely anywhere. It is not about hate but just common sense. What happened in Connor catastrophy? A whole village almost destroyed. How much proof you want untill you believe one mage can destroy a village and a group of mages can destroy the whole world?

Regarding the tower catastrophy, the reason for it was again - try guess - mages. It could had possibly been avoided had there been some more competent templars, who would had not hesitated to do what a man needs to do for public good. I see the ultimate reason for the failure was however the fact that mages were able to speak. Qunari, for example, does not let mages speak. If a mage cannot speak, then many problems will be avoided. This is very obvious.

[Eveangaline]

People, people, I think we're overlooking one major fact.



Mages, are essentially the x-men.



Which means if we oppress the mages, wolverine will come and kick our ass.

[Riona45]

Ziggeh wrote...

We don't have anything comparable to mages in real life, and while we can draw incomplete parallels and analogies, taking a moral position from these and then applying it to the mage situation leaves you with that lack of completion.

I've noticed that some of the most ridiculous analogies come from those who defend the status quo, though:   Inappropriate and IMO offensive comparisons to prisoners and the mentally ill.

Modifié par Riona45, 07 février 2011 - 04:26 .