1283 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Michael Hamilton wrote...

Since when has any dictatorship ever been turned over by asking politely?

Really think about what you're saying.

"I asked and they said no!"

Almost never and when it happens it's usually because a larger supporting dictatorship has decided to throw in the towel (see Soviet Union vis a vis Eastern Europe in 1989).  That was precisely the point the captured bloodmage was saying when she responded scornfully to Wynne's platitude that "ends don't always justify the means", and that bloodmage was right.....

-Polaris

[KawaiiKatie]

Michael Hamilton wrote...

Since when has any dictatorship ever been turned over by asking politely?

Again, I'm really just speaking as a player, ignore that I'm a dev here because I won't spoil anything.  But really think about what you're saying.

"I asked and they said no!"

*EPIC POUTING ENSUES!*

Asking politely was the only option I, as a player, was given! I mean, I would have taken the violent, war-starting path if I could have, but I guess that's Hawke's deal?

What gets me is everyone other origin can ask for an origin-specific boon politely, and get what they want. No, City and Dalish elves don't suddenly overcome the racial barriers, but they get to make a step in the right direction. (Again, more epic pouting. "But Tabris got what HE asked for! All I got were SOCKS!" )


Looking at the material provided in-game, everyone with an opinion on the matter (even random people like Aneirin) says that if anyone could change things for the Circle, it would be the Mage-Warden. But I guess they should have been talking to Hawke instead...?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm really glad that it's been implied that Hawke, too, can push for mage-freedom the way the Mage-Warden did... I'll be really interested to find out why Hawke has more sway on the subject.

And maybe it's because Hawke doesn't ask politely... but punches Templars in the face instead.

Modifié par KawaiiKatie, 09 février 2011 - 10:40 .

[Ziggeh]

Last Vizard wrote...

Magic is the next step in the advancement of an organism

There isn't a "next step", that's not how it works! If it knew what was advantageous before hand it would be intelligent design! "The next step" is whatever happens to help things procreate, the idea that this could be a specific thing is entirely at odds with the theory! That business from the x-men is nonsense, it just sounds good.

Last Vizard wrote...
Nature is trying to take the path of Magic

It would be equally valid to say The Maker likes giving some people access to magic. Also natural selection? Not a path.

Last Vizard wrote...
This isn't about RL natural selection, this involves magic and demons. 

Was rather my point to begin with.

Last Vizard wrote...
Do you think magic would benifit a male organism that is competing with another male form the same species that can't use magic?....

Benefit in what way? In a fight? Probably, yeah. To survive and procreate in a complex social structure, a large portion of which fears mages for various reasons?

[Last Vizard]

Michael Hamilton wrote...

KawaiiKatie wrote...

Michael Hamilton wrote...

KawaiiKatie wrote...

But.... The Mage-Warden had a chance to make things better for all mages (or, at least the mages of Ferelden), only to learn much later that this request was denied. I already made that decision in-game, why do we have to do it again, and how can we know that this time, it'll stick? What makes the Champion of Kirkwall so much more influential than the Hero of Ferelden?

Guess you'll have to wait and see.

Oh dear, I hope this doesn't all lead up to a huge disappointment.... Then again, I suppose that's true of the entire DA2 story, and not just the mages.

I've got my fingers crossed.....!


EDIT: Ah, I'm going mad! If Mage-Hawke, all on his/her own, can free the mages... It invalidates the efforts of my Mage-Warden so much more than just the Chantry denying the request. It's, "The Chantry said no to your request, Mage-Warden. But if that Champion of Kirkwall were to ask, then we might consider it." I... I don't know how to feel about this... Then again, I'm making assumptions.... I just hope the story doesn't play out that way....

Yes, yes, all my fretting is premature, but with DA2 still a month away, I don't know what else to think...

Since when has any dictatorship ever been turned over by asking politely?

Really think about what you're saying.

"I asked and they said no!"

I'm having an issue with this too^ My Mage-warden has another twenty years of left in him by the end of DA 2 (going to use the magic from warden's peak to live forever though)..... once he finaly tracks down his soul mate Morrigan and his living god son he is going to return to a Fereldon where his one request was denied by the chantry......  nothing short of the Maker himself would stop my Mage-warden from freeing all Mages. 
unless my DA 1 characters don't affect the world in anyway apart from letting those flesh golems out, stoping the arch demon and stoping that brood mother thing?   

^this means that we all just danced around under an illusion of choice when really it was all linear story.

[the_one_54321]

IanPolaris wrote...
Unless it's true that a mage can become an abomination without notice at a reasonable rate, then the Circle Tower System simply isn't justified.

Why?
I am not being fascetious. If you are going to make an assertion like the above then you have to support it otherwise it is not applicable as a defensible argument. Going back to my reference of the framers of the American Declaration of Independance, those framers why they were taking action, what action they were taking, and why this action was justified.

I offer you this claim: mages are not equal to those without magical abilities and do not warrant equal treatment.

[IanPolaris]

the_one_54321 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Unless it's true that a mage can become an abomination without notice at a reasonable rate, then the Circle Tower System simply isn't justified.

Why?
I am not being fascetious. If you are going to make an assertion like the above then you have to support it otherwise it is not applicable as a defensible argument. Going back to my reference of the framers of the American Declaration of Independance, those framers why they were taking action, what action they were taking, and why this action was justified.

I offer you this claim: mages are not equal to those without magical abilities and do not warrant equal treatment.

I have supported it elsewhere with dozens and dozens of pages of argumentation.  Basically given that magic needs to be regulated (no issue there from anyone), does the Circle Tower System which openly imprisons people, causes antangonisms on both sides, and denies fellow human beings basic human rights justified by the risk those mages have of becoming abominations?

To answer that question, we need to look not only at society with circle towers but societies without them, and the answer seems to be when you make the comparison, that the actual base rate of abomination is nowhere near enough to justify the political, social, and moral costs of the Chantry system.  That's the abstract.  I don't feel like cutting and pasting 30+ pages.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

the_one_54321 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Unless it's true that a mage can become an abomination without notice at a reasonable rate, then the Circle Tower System simply isn't justified.

Why?
I am not being fascetious. If you are going to make an assertion like the above then you have to support it otherwise it is not applicable as a defensible argument. Going back to my reference of the framers of the American Declaration of Independance, those framers why they were taking action, what action they were taking, and why this action was justified.

I offer you this claim: mages are not equal to those without magical abilities and do not warrant equal treatment.

Those with perfect pitch aren't equal to those without perfect pitch so we should lock away them as well.  The bottom line if you agree with Hume and his modern disciples that human beings do have intristic human rights (
and most modern cultures assume this including those that play Dragon Age), then the fact a human also has magical talent is irrelevant.  Human rights reflect the bare minimum for being human.

-Polaris

[falconlord5]

Kill the mages. Burn the chanters. Chuckle mildly to oneself.



Perfect solution.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Michael Hamilton wrote...

I believe that's up to the player as they approach each decision in the game.

But then some of them will be wrong, and they'll come here and claim they're right, and we'll just have to correct them all over again.

[Sylvius the Mad]

IanPolaris wrote...

Those with perfect pitch aren't equal to those without perfect pitch so we should lock away them as well.  The bottom line if you agree with Hume and his modern disciples that human beings do have intristic human rights (
and most modern cultures assume this including those that play Dragon Age), then the fact a human also has magical talent is irrelevant.  Human rights reflect the bare minimum for being human.

-Polaris

But natural rights (with which I don't agree) are based on the general understanding that all people are relevantly similar.  After all, those same rights aren't applied to fish.  Why not?  Why don't fish get all the same rights as people?

they don't get the same rights because they're different from people.  So if mages and non-mages are sufficiently different, your argument doesn't apply.

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...

Human rights reflect the bare minimum for being human.

-Polaris

Human rights don't exist on Thedas.

[falconlord5]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Those with perfect pitch aren't equal to those without perfect pitch so we should lock away them as well.  The bottom line if you agree with Hume and his modern disciples that human beings do have intristic human rights (
and most modern cultures assume this including those that play Dragon Age), then the fact a human also has magical talent is irrelevant.  Human rights reflect the bare minimum for being human.

-Polaris

But natural rights (with which I don't agree) are based on the general understanding that all people are relevantly similar.  After all, those same rights aren't applied to fish.  Why not?  Why don't fish get all the same rights as people?

they don't get the same rights because they're different from people.  So if mages and non-mages are sufficiently different, your argument doesn't apply.

If a fish all of a sudden displayed sapience (or is it sentience? I can never remember) they would be entitled to the same rights as the rest of us.

[Balitant]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Those with perfect pitch aren't equal to those without perfect pitch so we should lock away them as well.  The bottom line if you agree with Hume and his modern disciples that human beings do have intristic human rights (
and most modern cultures assume this including those that play Dragon Age), then the fact a human also has magical talent is irrelevant.  Human rights reflect the bare minimum for being human.

-Polaris

But natural rights (with which I don't agree) are based on the general understanding that all people are relevantly similar.  After all, those same rights aren't applied to fish.  Why not?  Why don't fish get all the same rights as people?

they don't get the same rights because they're different from people.  So if mages and non-mages are sufficiently different, your argument doesn't apply.

That is truly... a baffling example that I don't even know where to begin. Yes human rights are not as rock solid as many people like to think they are, but the idea of differences like a fish and a human is simply too ....I can't think of a word to show how ridiculous that is.The concept of modern rights comes out of revolutionary France and it was more based around cognitive thought .

Example.... In the kingdom of France, deaf people could not legally marry. With the advent of sign language and the revolution they were given legal rights in the state, including the ability to marry. Since a mage is capable of thought, human rights would apply to them. Unfortunately though, as Dave of Canada points out, human rights don't appear to exist in Thedas.

Modifié par RiskyRannis, 10 février 2011 - 12:58 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

falconlord5 wrote...

If a fish all of a sudden displayed sapience (or is it sentience? I can never remember) they would be entitled to the same rights as the rest of us.

But why is spaience the standard?  Because that's what people have.  That's why we use it.

So what if the mages insist that the standard should actually be one of magical ability?  Those who can't use magic are not truly human, they could claim.

Their claims would be as defensible as yours.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 février 2011 - 12:53 .

[Balitant]

falconlord5 wrote...

If a fish all of a sudden displayed sapience (or is it sentience? I can never remember) they would be entitled to the same rights as the rest of us.

Its sentience; sapien refers to ****** sapien.....It would be a really looking wierd fish if it displayed sapien features.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But why is spaience the standard? 

Because sentience is the standard that virtually all societies have held the distinction between animals and humans

Modifié par RiskyRannis, 10 février 2011 - 01:10 .

[the_one_54321]

What if the sentient fish also posed significant threat to us? We are in no way beholden to any other thing in so far as there isn't some for of benefit for ourselves.

I would have been more impressed by the argument that misstreating the mages may lead them to declare war in us.

[LobselVith8]

KawaiiKatie wrote...

Michael Hamilton wrote...

KawaiiKatie wrote...

But.... The Mage-Warden had a chance to make things better for all mages (or, at least the mages of Ferelden), only to learn much later that this request was denied. I already made that decision in-game, why do we have to do it again, and how can we know that this time, it'll stick? What makes the Champion of Kirkwall so much more influential than the Hero of Ferelden?

Guess you'll have to wait and see.

Oh dear, I hope this doesn't all lead up to a huge disappointment.... Then again, I suppose that's true of the entire DA2 story, and not just the mages.

I've got my fingers crossed.....!


EDIT: Ah, I'm going mad! If Mage-Hawke, all on his/her own, can free the mages... It invalidates the efforts of my Mage-Warden so much more than just the Chantry denying the request. It's, "The Chantry said no to your request, Mage-Warden. But if that Champion of Kirkwall were to ask, then we might consider it." I... I don't know how to feel about this... Then again, I'm making assumptions.... I just hope the story doesn't play out that way....

Yes, yes, all my fretting is premature, but with DA2 still a month away, I don't know what else to think...

It's odd because when the flag for the Magi boon is properly set (if Anora is the one who the Warden asks the boon from, because it's bugged with Alistair), Irving seems to regard the boon as a given, and no independent Circle of Orzammar is formed in the Epilogue. The boon should have some impact, although I wish it had been mentioned in Awakening or Witch Hunt instead of ignored. Honestly, if Hawke has a chance to make Parlathan's dream of mage equality a reality, then that would be sufficient for me.

[IanPolaris]

the_one_54321 wrote...

What if the sentient fish also posed significant threat to us? We are in no way beholden to any other thing in so far as there isn't some for of benefit for ourselves.
I would have been more impressed by the argument that misstreating the mages may lead them to declare war in us.

Evidence would be nice.  If you should show beyond any doubt that sentient fish were a significant threat to us (say required human females to lay their eggs), then self-defense is a valid overriding issue.

We see that dilmena with the Awakened Darkspawn which is why I come down on the other side of that issue as my sig suggests (I always kill the Architect), but there is no evidence that mages are a significant threat simply by being in society.  None.  At most the Devs have implied this without any real statistical justification.

-Polarius

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...

but there is no evidence that mages are a significant threat simply by being in society.  None.

There is none when you refuse to see it and dismiss everything that does oppose your view point as chantry propaganda or exaggerations.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 10 février 2011 - 04:22 .

[upsettingshorts]

IanPolaris is a one-issue poster Dave, I'm pretty sure he ain't letting this one go.

It's kinda like Vietnam in a way in that he lives here and we don't. Eventually we're going to leave. He'll still be here. And then there'll be memorable footage of us and others clinging to the last chopper out of Saig... Chantry/Mage threads.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 février 2011 - 04:25 .

[IanPolaris]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

but there is no evidence that mages are a significant threat simply by being in society.  None.

There is none when you refuse to see it and dismiss everything that does oppose your view point as chantry propaganda or exaggerations.

I have done no such thing. My demand today (since we know the Templars predate the Circle Tower system) is the same as it's always been.  SHOW NOT TELL.  If abominations are that big a threat, then surely we can compare the number of abomination incidents and severity before the circle tower system as opposed to afterwards.  How about the abomination rate in non-tower societes?

If you are going to claim that such a regressive system is needed, you need to prove it, and Bioware (or the Chantry) hasn't come close.

-Polaris

[falconlord5]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

falconlord5 wrote...

If a fish all of a sudden displayed sapience (or is it sentience? I can never remember) they would be entitled to the same rights as the rest of us.

But why is spaience the standard?  Because that's what people have.  That's why we use it.

So what if the mages insist that the standard should actually be one of magical ability?  Those who can't use magic are not truly human, they could claim.

Their claims would be as defensible as yours.

Lack of universality. Not all humans, by provable genetics, are mages. Ergo, their claim is false.

Further, just because a person is claimed to be less than human, that doesn't make it true. Again, provable, observable genetics. Magi can breed with normal people. Ergo, we are the same species.

And, are thus entitled to the same rights.

As to the issue of what to do with the mages... educating them without the threat of the sword over their head might work.

Modifié par falconlord5, 10 février 2011 - 04:30 .

[LobselVith8]

KawaiiKatie wrote...

Michael Hamilton wrote...

Since when has any dictatorship ever been turned over by asking politely?

Again, I'm really just speaking as a player, ignore that I'm a dev here because I won't spoil anything.  But really think about what you're saying.

"I asked and they said no!"

*EPIC POUTING ENSUES!*

Asking politely was the only option I, as a player, was given! I mean, I would have taken the violent, war-starting path if I could have, but I guess that's Hawke's deal?

What gets me is everyone other origin can ask for an origin-specific boon politely, and get what they want. No, City and Dalish elves don't suddenly overcome the racial barriers, but they get to make a step in the right direction. (Again, more epic pouting. "But Tabris got what HE asked for! All I got were SOCKS!" )


Looking at the material provided in-game, everyone with an opinion on the matter (even random people like Aneirin) says that if anyone could change things for the Circle, it would be the Mage-Warden. But I guess they should have been talking to Hawke instead...?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm really glad that it's been implied that Hawke, too, can push for mage-freedom the way the Mage-Warden did... I'll be really interested to find out why Hawke has more sway on the subject.

And maybe it's because Hawke doesn't ask politely... but punches Templars in the face instead.

Exactly! It could be an issue of the Warden-Commander being a member of a "technically" neutral organization who disproves the Chantry's anti-mage dogma by his or her very existance as the Hero of Ferelden, while Hawke might have a chance to come to power and tell the Chantry where they can shove their "no." If you hear how Irving thanks the Warden for freeing the mages from their shackles and how he could have asked for wealth or power, but instead asked for the mages to be given their freedom, it's a very nice moment. Regardless of whether TPTB pick up the ball with the boon, I think it'd have great meaning throughout Thedas that the Hero of Ferelden asked not to become a Teyrn, but for the mages to be given their freedom. Maybe the Chantry saying no is what inspires Hawke to pick up the ball and make it happen, regardless of what the Chantry thinks on the matter.

[Morroian]

the_one_54321 wrote...

What if the sentient fish also posed significant threat to us? We are in no way beholden to any other thing in so far as there isn't some for of benefit for ourselves.
I would have been more impressed by the argument that misstreating the mages may lead them to declare war in us.

I think there's a threat beyond just the abomination issue but there are alternatives to policing that threat that aren't so oppressive. Most of the pro-mage people don't want absolute de-regulation just a different form of regulation.

[Morroian]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

IanPolaris is a one-issue poster Dave, I'm pretty sure he ain't letting this one go.

It's kinda like Vietnam in a way in that he lives here and we don't. Eventually we're going to leave. He'll still be here. And then there'll be memorable footage of us and others clinging to the last chopper out of Saig... Chantry/Mage threads.

Is that really necessary angrypants?