1283 réponses à ce sujet

[1xs3thx1]

See the post further down.

Modifié par 1xs3thx1, 10 février 2011 - 05:25 .

[LobselVith8]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

That was an open personal attack, not an attempt to put an opinion or argument in perspsective.  Enough said.

-Polaris

Your intrepretations - as your posts on this subject make infinitely clear - are your own.  I'll just go back to supporting Dave and his "bigotry,"  Mister Kettle.  Or are you Pot?  I've forgotten.

Anyway I hope you win your final victory and convince everyone of the righteousness of your - excuse me, the mages of Thedas - cause.  I'm getting on the chopper.

Doesn't the Chantry preach hatred and intolerance toward mages? Don't we see how fearful and distrustful a pious woman like Isolde is of mages? Don't we see the destruction of self-worth it causes with Keli, and how she's of the opinion that death is what they deserve for being mages? Even KC Greagoir calls magic a "curse" during the opening of the Magi Origin. It does seem geared toward an anti-mage dogma so the only place that mages will be safe is their prisons, while we see how the Dalish accept mages among them while we read about how mages are part of Chasind tribes and Rivain society. Even a rival Cult of Andraste in Haven didn't segregate their mages. Clearly, the anti-mage sentiment has to do with the Chantry of Andraste and what they teach about mages, and how their religious dogma blames them for the Blight.

[falconlord5]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

falconlord5 wrote...

Beautiful logic. Except it ignores point of view, new evidence, interpretation, quality of argument, and so and so forth.

That was your position on academia I was responding to, not your position on anything else. 

falconlord5 wrote...

Or, as another professor put it, there is no right or wrong answer in academia.

There is no right answer - only a series of positive ones, sure - I'll buy that.  But there are a hell of a lot of wrong answers.

Not in academia. In popular culture and among the quacks, yes. Besides, new evidence might just prove them right.

falconlord5 wrote...

The strongest answer here would be to continue to educate the mages, but without threatening to kill them at the end. Keep the Templars though, just in case something goes wrong. Or need canon fodder against the Darkspawn.

That might be the strongest answer from a certain point of view, given certain evidence, your interpretation, and the quality of the arguments presented to you through the game.  I may or may not disagree.

Don't care if you agree or not. Does BioWare, who writes the game, agree? Or will we be given the option to make those choices ourselves?

Given that this is a world that we largely define ourselves, those are the only two questions that matter.

[1xs3thx1]

IanPolaris wrote...

1xs3thx1 wrote...

Excuse me, but how is what is in bold a personal attack?

Simple.  He is directly attacking me and my character and doing so in a way that doesn't contain any topical material.  Seems like a personal attack to me.  By contrast I was noting that a group of posers (who I did NOT distinquish individually) were supporting bigotry, and that is a jusifiable and defensible characterization of the Circle Tower System.  See the difference?

-Polaris

Did you take note of the rest of my statement?

He wasn't making any negative statements about you. He was merely making an analogy of your position in the argument in an attempt to clarify things for another person.

He did NOT launch an attack on you. Please read my statements in the future before replying.

You are still talking about him, to me. You are doing exactly what he was doing. You are describing his stature in the argument to me, another person. By your own definition, you are making a personal attack on him.

Wow, I really messed up the editing there.

Modifié par 1xs3thx1, 10 février 2011 - 05:26 .

[upsettingshorts]

falconlord5 wrote...

Not in academia.

I don't agree.  This will go nowhere.

falconlord5 wrote...

Don't care if you agree or not. Does BioWare, who writes the game, agree?

We'll see.  That's part of the fun.

falconlord5 wrote...

Or will we be given the option to make those choices ourselves?

Good lord I hope so, and I hope no path turns out precisely the way anyone here is predicting.

falconlord5 wrote...

Given that this is a world that we largely define ourselves

Indeed, that's the other part of the fun.

1xs3thx1 wrote...

You are still talking about him, to me.
You are doing exactly what he was doing. You are describing his stature
in the argument to me, another person. By your own definition, you are
making a personal attack on him.

Sure looks like that to me.  I'm not offended though, just bemused.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 février 2011 - 05:32 .

[LobselVith8]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

falconlord5 wrote...

When you support bigotry and instutionalized slavery (and, in it's current form, that is what the Templar system is), you open yourself up to such.

No it isn't.  And no he doesn't.  Not when we're talking about fiction and a world with different rules, stakes, and consequences.

People have debated on multiple threads whether it's slavery, and I'm certain even the mages might have similiar discussions among themselves over how they view "their oppressors." It's certainly a debate likely to take place between the Loyalists (the Chantry apologists) and the Libertarians.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

falconlord5 wrote...

Or, as university professors tell me whenever they destroy my arguments, don't like the counter argument? Change your position.

University professors are wrong all the time. Their position is evidence of education and patience, not necessarily wisdom or intelligence.  If this wasn't true, they'd all agree on everything because they'd all always be right.  And academia isn't anything like that.

Is there wisdom in leaving mages at the mercy of an organization that provides them with no rights and can give them a lobotomy or kill them with no oversight? When Greagoir only permits seven mages to fight against the darkspawn at Ostagar and never even shows Irving the evidence against Jowan, how would mages fare under a Circle Tower run by a mage-hating Cullen as the new KC? How many mages would be sent to become tranquil with the First Enchanter being powerless to stop him? How many might be killed because they are labelled "maleficarum" with no evidence to support it (like Aneirin apparently was, as well as the elven D'Sims who was killed because the templars merely thought he was a mage who was healing people)?

Modifié par LobselVith8, 10 février 2011 - 05:32 .

[falconlord5]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

falconlord5 wrote...

Not in academia.

I don't agree.  This will go nowhere.

falconlord5 wrote...

Don't care if you agree or not. Does BioWare, who writes the game, agree?

We'll see.  That's part of the fun.

falconlord5 wrote...

Or will we be given the option to make those choices ourselves?

Good lord I hope so, and I hope no path turns out precisely the way anyone here is predicting.

falconlord5 wrote...

Given that this is a world that we largely define ourselves

Indeed, that's the other part of the fun.

You understand, at least.

[1xs3thx1]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

1xs3thx1 wrote...

You are still talking about him, to me.
You are doing exactly what he was doing. You are describing his stature
in the argument to me, another person. By your own definition, you are
making a personal attack on him.

Sure looks like that to me.  I'm not offended though, just bemused.

I think I may leave this topic now, it's getting horribly off-topic because of IanPolaris and I am probably just adding to it.

I wish you well in your battle, I think you're the best debater here, and by here I mean on the forums .

[upsettingshorts]

LobselVith8 wrote...

My answers to those questions depend on which character I'm playing (which Origin in DAO as well), what they see, what they believe, and what they think supporting either position will do for the world.

Sure, it can be successfully argued that the situation was created deliberately to appeal to the player's ethical compass directly - and that's all well and good and people are free to do that.  I just don't think that's very interesting.  If I want to discuss modern contemporary ethics I'll do so about modern contemporary issues.

[falconlord5]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sure, it can be successfully argued that the situation was created deliberately to appeal to the player's ethical compass directly - and that's all well and good and people are free to do that.  I just don't think that's very interesting.  If I want to discuss modern contemporary ethics I'll do so about modern contemporary issues.

Well of course it is. The problem is, that aside from several broad points (and those are debatable), everyone's moral compass is ever so slightly different. Thus, appealing to the ethical compasses is going to produce wildly different results, as we have seen on the boards.

Hence my compromise. Education, a little insurance policy... keeping the boyos under control without outright enslaving them.

[LobselVith8]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

My answers to those questions depend on which character I'm playing (which Origin in DAO as well), what they see, what they believe, and what they think supporting either position will do for the world.

Sure, it can be successfully argued that the situation was created deliberately to appeal to the player's ethical compass directly - and that's all well and good and people are free to do that.  I just don't think that's very interesting.  If I want to discuss modern contemporary ethics I'll do so about modern contemporary issues.

There are modern values in DA:O, though, like women being given the same opportunities as men - ruling a nation, being a warrior or even a Grey Warden. The case with the mages is a scenerio where people can argue based on what we're shown and told - the murder of the Magnificent D'Sims, the Rite of Tranquility, the bounty placed on Morrigan in Witch Hunt because the templars think she's a blood mage, and even the unrest among some mages that inspired a revolution to take place under Uldred. Personally, I don't see how effective this system is when it's apparently going to be the reason behind a war between the Order of Templars and the mages of Thedas.

[Dave of Canada]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I think the position is more about why the Chantry is doing it, rather than whether there's any danger to magic. Nobody here is arguing against mages being properly trained to use their abilities, but we have a system in place where mages have no rights and are under supervision from armored soldiers who are addicted to a drug.

Even if mages were no longer under the templar's vigil, you'd simply have mages watching other mages for signs of corruption instead. Mages would still be killed, mages would still be made tranquil (assuming it's not a templar spell, which I assume some mages would be trained to become mage-templar to do it if so) and they'd still be isolated for the risk.

The only difference is that you don't have non-mages watching them and you don't have people trained in anti-mage abilities to deal with situations that go out of hand, which can be disastrous because templars can mentally sense corruption (Evidence: Templar Wardens can mention they sense blood magic in the Alienage, the blind templar says he senses it even if you don't though).

This is excluding the possibility of mage-templar, which could solve a few problems but they'd still be easy to corrupt and it's still a physical discipline that requires lots of training to do (game mechanics aside) that would probably leave the mages in a situation where they are weaker in the spell department and easier to be possessed as they wouldn't be able to defend themselves from stronger demons.

Caroll ("the Queen of Antiva") is an example of a lyrium addict still working as an active templar, after all.

All templar are lyrium addicts, they still do their job and they get their regular doses by the Chantry. I don't see how it hurts mages, hell the Chantry could actually be telling the truth and it could be improving templar abilities.

As the Warden (and I'd assume as Hawke) we have the right to interpret the world as we see fit.

If you wish to metagame, yes. Though dwarves, elves and human nobles would likely never find out much information about the Circle and it's innerworking except for what we do see in the Circle Tower. Not a good first impression, as some dialogue options given to them suggests.

Even with my metagame, I still believe the Circle under Chantry supervision is better than freedom to do what they want. Abominations can't easily be dismissed and having one loose in the public... would be very bad.

The Warden from the Circle of Magi can refer to it as an "oppressive place" after her conversation with Aneirin

The Warden can also say they loved it, it's their home and they plan to return there. People view everything differently, for example Finn and Wynne which prefer the Circle.

call out against Jowan being given the Rite of Tranquility when Irving hasn't even seen the evidence against him

I've always betrayed Jowan to the Circle, I've never questioned it. How exactly does the conversation go? I always felt Irving saw the evidence. Irving also signed the documents that allowed the rite to go, so it isn't simply the templar that casted him out to be turned into a tranquil.

and we can basically illustrate what we think of the Chantry controlled Circles by asking the ruier of Ferelden to give the mages of the nation their independence:

It's a choice given to Wardens, though. My Mage (for example) died by slaying the Archdemon and the Circle was freed when that was something my Warden would never have asked for, simply because he loved his life in the Circle where he befriended people.

I'll grant you the point of Irving's dialogue which he mentions shackles, as I have nothing to say on that subject.

Getting tired to write @_@

[LobselVith8]

falconlord5 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Sure, it can be successfully argued that the situation was created deliberately to appeal to the player's ethical compass directly - and that's all well and good and people are free to do that.  I just don't think that's very interesting.  If I want to discuss modern contemporary ethics I'll do so about modern contemporary issues.

Well of course it is. The problem is, that aside from several broad points (and those are debatable), everyone's moral compass is ever so slightly different. Thus, appealing to the ethical compasses is going to produce wildly different results, as we have seen on the boards.

Hence my compromise. Education, a little insurance policy... keeping the boyos under control without outright enslaving them.

There's the problem that the Chantry isn't going to give mages any freedoms; they'll never compromise with the mages: Wynne makes this clear in Awakening; they'd rather kill the mages than see them free. And we know the problem with the mages being under the Chantry from Michael Hamilton:

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!"

[upsettingshorts]

I'll play along and say sure, as a real person and not a Thedas character I would support that plan. However the difficult part would be how to implement it, and unless it had broad popular support including but not limited to a significant majority of mages - I would not endorse a violent uprising or destruction of the Chantry to accomplish it.

I don't think forcing ones own revolutionary ideas upon a population that doesn't necessarily find the argument compelling enough to take up arms for on their own has really ever worked out. There may be some examples in history - and I can possibly think of a couple that fit very vaguely - but as a general rule I think it's something to be wary of.

Put another way, if the mages - or an authoritative representative of the mages came to me (or the manifestation of me as a character in Thedas) with a plan I would examine it and endorse or reject it based on its merits, the situation, and what I could best decipher its long term effect would be. A counterexample would be the Chantry/Templars having their own plan that also forces an evaluation and a choice along similar lines.

Without that plan...I'm not sure what my position is. Probably just wait and see.

LobselVith8 wrote...

There are modern values in DA:O, though, like women being given the same opportunities as men - ruling a
nation, being a warrior or even a Grey Warden.... Personally, I don't see how effective this system is when it's apparently going to be the reason behind a war between the Order of Templars and the mages of Thedas.

Eh, they're modern values in the sense that they are in some way comparable to... well, modern values.  But to my
characters they're just the way things are.  They're contemporary to the character.  If my character has reason to be a liberal humanist, then he or she will be.  The rest of my response is probly clear given the stuff I wrote above, but basically I don't imagine I'd support overhtrowing a broken yet stable system for a new, unstable ????? system.  Need to know and evaluate what the actual alternatives available are.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 février 2011 - 05:57 .

[falconlord5]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

My answers to those questions depend on which character I'm playing (which Origin in DAO as well), what they see, what they believe, and what they think supporting either position will do for the world.

Sure, it can be successfully argued that the situation was created deliberately to appeal to the player's ethical compass directly - and that's all well and good and people are free to do that.  I just don't think that's very interesting.  If I want to discuss modern contemporary ethics I'll do so about modern contemporary issues.

There are modern values in DA:O, though, like women being given the same opportunities as men - ruling a nation, being a warrior or even a Grey Warden. The case with the mages is a scenerio where people can argue based on what we're shown and told - the murder of the Magnificent D'Sims, the Rite of Tranquility, the bounty placed on Morrigan in Witch Hunt because the templars think she's a blood mage, and even the unrest among some mages that inspired a revolution to take place under Uldred. Personally, I don't see how effective this system is when it's apparently going to be the reason behind a war between the Order of Templars and the mages of Thedas.

Agreed, there needs to be some compromise somewhere.

Abolishing the system as a whole is bad. The mages need a safe place to train and be educated in the ethical use of their powers, not unlike the Keeper/First system among the Dalish. And there should be an insurance policy in case some goes rogue.

On the other hand, oppression is inexescusable. And liable to anger the mages. Thus, instead of holding the sword over their head, and giving the templars life and death powers over them all the time, keep the templars in your back pocket, and let the magi walk their own path for most of it. Only bring out the big guns when there's killing to be done.

[falconlord5]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I'll play along and say sure, as a real person and not a Thedas character I would support that plan. However the difficult part would be how to implement it, and unless it had broad popular support including but not limited to a significant majority of mages - I would not endorse a violent uprising or destruction of the Chantry to accomplish it.

I don't think forcing ones own revolutionary ideas upon a population that doesn't necessarily find the argument compelling enough to take up arms for on their own has really ever worked out. There may be some examples in history - and I can possibly think of a couple that fit very vaguely - but as a general rule I think it's something to be wary of.

I can't think of a time that that has ever been done in history. Especially not succesfully; all revolutions have had popular support.

In real life, I'd avoid the violence. As a video game character, however, I fully intend to destroy the Chantry, and then double cross the Magi.

[Dave of Canada]

Honestly though, the only people that oppose the Chantry's rules on mages are probably the mages themselves. The average citizen would probably rise up to side with the Chantry, an uprising would cause massive slaughter for both sides and might or might not change anything.

Even if the mages freed themselves from the Chantry, do you honestly expect the people of Thedas to leave them alone? They'd probably suffer the same thing as the elves that leave the Alienage, homes will burn and people will die (whether they be mages or not).

If freed, mages won't stand by and let themselves be prosecuted and hunted by people. How will they stop it? They isolate themselves, which puts them in a similar position to what they currently are (Maybe they isolate themselves even further and buy an island or something to live in their own little happily ever after mage community) or they decide to fight back and essentially become rulers out of fear.

There won't be a happy ending where mages and people will coexist, that's all I know. People will power will never fail to abuse it and the others that don't understand magic will try to abolish it. Which is why I believe having the Chantry send mages to the tower (protecting the people outside from mages, protecting the mages from people outside) is the best solution.

Hell, Anders (in Awakening) himself thinks it's crazy that the mages are seperating and it's a "recipe for disaster".

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 10 février 2011 - 06:02 .

[falconlord5]

Dave of Canada wrote...


Even if mages were no longer under the templar's vigil, you'd simply have mages watching other mages for signs of corruption instead. Mages would still be killed, mages would still be made tranquil (assuming it's not a templar spell, which I assume some mages would be trained to become mage-templar to do it if so) and they'd still be isolated for the risk.

The only difference is that you don't have non-mages watching them and you don't have people trained in anti-mage abilities to deal with situations that go out of hand, which can be disastrous because templars can mentally sense corruption (Evidence: Templar Wardens can mention they sense blood magic in the Alienage, the blind templar says he senses it even if you don't though).

This is excluding the possibility of mage-templar, which could solve a few problems but they'd still be easy to corrupt and it's still a physical discipline that requires lots of training to do (game mechanics aside) that would probably leave the mages in a situation where they are weaker in the spell department and easier to be possessed as they wouldn't be able to defend themselves from stronger demons.



All templar are lyrium addicts, they still do their job and they get their regular doses by the Chantry. I don't see how it hurts mages, hell the Chantry could actually be telling the truth and it could be improving templar abilities.

If you wish to metagame, yes. Though dwarves, elves and human nobles would likely never find out much information about the Circle and it's innerworking except for what we do see in the Circle Tower. Not a good first impression, as some dialogue options given to them suggests.

Even with my metagame, I still believe the Circle under Chantry supervision is better than freedom to do what they want. Abominations can't easily be dismissed and having one loose in the public... would be very bad.

The Warden can also say they loved it, it's their home and they plan to return there. People view everything differently, for example Finn and Wynne which prefer the Circle.

call out against Jowan being given the Rite of Tranquility when Irving hasn't even seen the evidence against him

I've always betrayed Jowan to the Circle, I've never questioned it. How exactly does the conversation go? I always felt Irving saw the evidence. Irving also signed the documents that allowed the rite to go, so it isn't simply the templar that casted him out to be turned into a tranquil.



It's a choice given to Wardens, though. My Mage (for example) died by slaying the Archdemon and the Circle was freed when that was something my Warden would never have asked for, simply because he loved his life in the Circle where he befriended people.

I'll grant you the point of Irving's dialogue which he mentions shackles, as I have nothing to say on that subject.

Getting tired to write @_@

To point out, it is the oppression of the Templars and the Chantry that drive the Blood Mages to act as they do.

I'll never argue for the abolition of the Circle or the Templars as a whole, they serve an important function for the Magi. It is their excesses that bug me.

And further, I agree with Anders, if for no other reason than a sudden seperation would be opposed by the Templars violently. But a compromise must be reached somewhere, or you're going to have some very bloody revolutions in the future.

Modifié par falconlord5, 10 février 2011 - 06:05 .

[Dave of Canada]

falconlord5 wrote...

To point out, it is the oppression of the Templars and the Chantry that drive the Blood Mages to act as they do.

I'm sure there would still be plenty of blood mages outside the Chantry's "oppression", they'd just have different exuses for their magic. If I were a mage in real life and nobody kept me in check, I'd probably abuse the hell out of mind control.

Now come on, George Lukas. We got to make a rightful prequel trilogy.
"Yes, master Dave."
Good man.

I'll never argue for the abolition of the Circle or the Templars as a whole, they serve an important function for the Magi. It is their excesses that bug me.

Which excess? To me, the Chantry's influence in the Circle of Magi seems... rather tame compared to what it could be. The Circle seems a bit more like a boarding school to me, which might or might not a prison depending on how you view it. Hogwarts for the Tevinter Magisters!

All mages can be visited by friends and family, given gifts and stuff.

They tranquil possible threats instead of letting them become a full threat, which I believe is just because I believe in the needs of the many over the few.

They kill confirmed Blood Mages or those that fight back against them when captured, which is self defense at it's best and they still sometimes bring Blood Mages back to the tower (as shown in the comic where they bring back a blood mage for judgement). Anders himself was captured seven times and they didn't kill him, though they did consider it (though I assume this is simply them venting their frustrations with him, because he escapes a few others times if you let him go with the Chantry and was never made tranquil or killed).

Apprentices must go through the Harrowing and prove themselves strong enough to resist temptation and defeat the (inevitable) mages that will try to possess them. The weaker (which most likely would've failed, Chantry or no) die and the stronger ones get to live and become higher ranking within mage society.

Mages outside of apprenticehood, though I don't know how high in ranking, can leave out of the Chantry provided they eventually come back. Wynne leaves and can decide to go to Tevinter to help Shale, she can stay in court to help you out and whatever other endings she has. She even leaves for Cumberland in Awakening where all mages are gathering, which I assume has nothing to do with the Templar. Finn in Witch Hunt, which can't be that old, can also freely leave without telling a Templar but I don't know how far he is in the Circle's hierarchy.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 10 février 2011 - 06:15 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I think the position is more about why the Chantry is doing it, rather than whether there's any danger to magic. Nobody here is arguing against mages being properly trained to use their abilities, but we have a system in place where mages have no rights and are under supervision from armored soldiers who are addicted to a drug.[/quote]

Even if mages were no longer under the templar's vigil, you'd simply have mages watching other mages for signs of corruption instead. Mages would still be killed, mages would still be made tranquil (assuming it's not a templar spell, which I assume some mages would be trained to become mage-templar to do it if so) and they'd still be isolated for the risk. [/quote]

But mages would have rights and agency, which they really don't have in the Chantry controlled Circles. Mages aren't going to fight for their freedom if they already have it - and if there were checks and balances, then things could be governed without the need for a group that some mages see as "oppressors."

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

The only difference is that you don't have non-mages watching them and you don't have people trained in anti-mage abilities to deal with situations that go out of hand, which can be disastrous because templars can mentally sense corruption (Evidence: Templar Wardens can mention they sense blood magic in the Alienage, the blind templar says he senses it even if you don't though). [/quote]

Templars killed the Magnificent D'Sims under the mistaken assumption that he was a mage, so their abilities aren't infallible.

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

This is excluding the possibility of mage-templar, which could solve a few problems but they'd still be easy to corrupt and it's still a physical discipline that requires lots of training to do (game mechanics aside) that would probably leave the mages in a situation where they are weaker in the spell department and easier to be possessed as they wouldn't be able to defend themselves from stronger demons. [/quote]

Irving seems confident that mages can govern themselves if the Magi boon is requested. It seems to be the case with the Dalish, the Rivain witches, and the Chasind tribes. It may come down to a choice left to Hawke in DA2. Side with the templars or the mages? What would be the ramifications of keeping the status quo of the Chantry or starting a revolution for mage emancipation? If there are possibilities, will Hawke be supporting another person leading the charge, or will Hawke be the one to lead either the templars or the mages? Maybe siding with the mages will bring up the points you've asked about, including how to handle regulation with the templars no longer being a factor.

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Caroll ("the Queen of Antiva") is an example of a lyrium addict still working as an active templar, after all.[/quote]

All templar are lyrium addicts, they still do their job and they get their regular doses by the Chantry. I don't see how it hurts mages, hell the Chantry could actually be telling the truth and it could be improving templar abilities. [/quote]

Or they could be lying and it's merely a form of control, as Alistair believes. It's impossible to say either way. While templars are all addicted to lyrium, some engage in illegal trade to feed their habit - like Caroll does. That was my point. He's clearly not "all there" when you speak to him; even Greagoir comments on it, but he's still an active templar.

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

As the Warden (and I'd assume as Hawke) we have the right to interpret the world as we see fit.[/quote]

If you wish to metagame, yes. Though dwarves, elves and human nobles would likely never find out much information about the Circle and it's innerworking except for what we do see in the Circle Tower. Not a good first impression, as some dialogue options given to them suggests.

Even with my metagame, I still believe the Circle under Chantry supervision is better than freedom to do what they want. Abominations can't easily be dismissed and having one loose in the public... would be very bad. [/quote]

Why would anyone need to metagame to assess their own views in DA:O? The Warden is free to tell Wynne that he enjoyed being in the Circle or that he hated it, the Warden can decide to make idealistic or pragmatic choices in his endeavor to stop the Blight, and whether the Chantry and its templars should even be controlling the mages of the Circles.

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

The Warden from the Circle of Magi can refer to it as an "oppressive place" after her conversation with Aneirin[/quote]

The Warden can also say they loved it, it's their home and they plan to return there. People view everything differently, for example Finn and Wynne which prefer the Circle. [/quote]

Exactly. As I said, we can formulate our own opinion on the world of DA and what we see as right or wrong.

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

call out against Jowan being given the Rite of Tranquility when Irving hasn't even seen the evidence against him[/quote]

I've always betrayed Jowan to the Circle, I've never questioned it. How exactly does the conversation go? I always felt Irving saw the evidence. Irving also signed the documents that allowed the rite to go, so it isn't simply the templar that casted him out to be turned into a tranquil. [/quote]

Irving never signed the Rite, Greagoir did. That's exactly what Lily says when you ask if the information about Jowan being put through the Rite is accurate.

Also, Irving admits he didn't see the evidence and says if it were up to him, things would be different. (You can likely find the scene on YT). The fact that, if the Warden asks for the Circle of Ferelden to be emancipated, he's very happy and thanks the Warden for freeing them from their "shackles" tells me that Irving wasn't happy about the Circle being under Chantry control either.

[quote]Dave of Canada wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

and we can basically illustrate what we think of the Chantry controlled Circles by asking the ruier of Ferelden to give the mages of the nation their independence:[/quote]

It's a choice given to Wardens, though. My Mage (for example) died by slaying the Archdemon and the Circle was freed when that was something my Warden would never have asked for, simply because he loved his life in the Circle where he befriended people.

I'll grant you the point of Irving's dialogue which he mentions shackles, as I have nothing to say on that subject.

Getting tired to write @_@ [/quote]

Precisely. As the Warden, we can formulate our own view on what's right or wrong in the world we live in. I know that Sir JK, for instance, favors the Chantry and the templars. Her viewpoint will likely be pro-Chantry through her character's perception of the DA realm.

Regarding independence, I favor it. I always ask for the Circle to be given its freedom, although Anora is the only ruler who recognizes this in the vanilla game because there is a bug with Alistair as the ruler granting this boon.

[Sylvius the Mad]

falconlord5 wrote...

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.

Assuming that species classifications are relevant, sure.  But on what basis are species classifications relevant?

There isn't one.  It's just convention at this point, and it hasn't even always been true through history.  Not to mention that we still treat some humans differently.  We imprison some.  We kill others.  We let some live freely.  But they're all human, so clearly distinctions within the species can matter.

The mage/non-mage distinction is one such divide.  There is as much reason to draw a moral line between the two groups as there is not to draw such a line.  There is exactly zero reasoned justification for either position.  As such, they have equivalent prescriptive force.

RiskyRannis wrote...

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

And that matters why?  Just because something has always been done that way - particulaly in the real world, which arguably isn't relevantly similar to one where some humans have enormous magical powers - is no reason to keep doing it.  It doesn't even make that a rational default position.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 10 février 2011 - 06:19 .

[falconlord5]

Dave of Canada wrote...

falconlord5 wrote...

To point out, it is the oppression of the Templars and the Chantry that drive the Blood Mages to act as they do.

I'm sure there would still be plenty of blood mages outside the Chantry's "oppression", they'd just have different exuses for their magic. If I were a mage in real life and nobody kept me in check, I'd probably abuse the hell out of mind control.

Now come on, George Lukas. We got to make a rightful prequel trilogy.
"Yes, master Dave."
Good man.

And a lot of Mages outside the Chantry don't abuse their powers. The Dalish, for example.

I'll never argue for the abolition of the Circle or the Templars as a whole, they serve an important function for the Magi. It is their excesses that bug me.

Which excess?

All mages can be visited by friends and family, given gifts and stuff.

They tranquil possible threats instead of letting them become a full threat, which I believe is just because I believe in the needs of the many over the few.

They kill confirmed Blood Mages or those that fight back against them when captured, which is self defense at it's best and they still sometimes bring Blood Mages back to the tower (as shown in the comic where they bring back a blood mage for judgement). Anders himself was captured seven times and they didn't kill him, though they did consider it (though I assume this is simply them venting their frustrations with him, because he escapes a few others times if you let him go with the Chantry and was never made tranquil or killed).

Apprentices must go through the Harrowing and prove themselves strong enough to resist temptation and defeat the (inevitable) mages that will try to possess them. The weaker (which most likely would've failed, Chantry or no) die and the stronger ones get to live and become higher ranking within mage society.

Mages outside of apprenticehood, though I don't know how high in ranking, can leave out of the Chantry provided they eventually come back. Wynne leaves and can decide to go to Tevinter to help Shale, she can stay in court to help you out and whatever other endings she has. She even leaves for Cumberland in Awakening where all mages are gathering, which I assume has nothing to do with the Templar. Finn in Witch Hunt, which can't be that old, can also freely leave without telling a Templar but I don't know how far he is in the Circle's hierarchy.

The tranquil part really bugs me. Better dead, than robbed of all emotions. They also violently oppress other cultures, like the Dalish. And the Harrowing is disturbing as well, they are other ways to test a young Mage's ability to resist demons.

Like I said, they're not all bad. Not most, anyway; fanatics are always an issue. But the extreme measures they take, have proven unnecessary under other cultures and with different methods.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Honestly though, the only people that oppose the Chantry's rules on mages are probably the mages themselves. The average citizen would probably rise up to side with the Chantry, an uprising would cause massive slaughter for both sides and might or might not change anything.

Even if the mages freed themselves from the Chantry, do you honestly expect the people of Thedas to leave them alone? They'd probably suffer the same thing as the elves that leave the Alienage, homes will burn and people will die (whether they be mages or not).

If freed, mages won't stand by and let themselves be prosecuted and hunted by people. How will they stop it? They isolate themselves, which puts them in a similar position to what they currently are (Maybe they isolate themselves even further and buy an island or something to live in their own little happily ever after mage community) or they decide to fight back and essentially become rulers out of fear.

There won't be a happy ending where mages and people will coexist, that's all I know. People will power will never fail to abuse it and the others that don't understand magic will try to abolish it. Which is why I believe having the Chantry send mages to the tower (protecting the people outside from mages, protecting the mages from people outside) is the best solution.

"Best" from whose point of view?

I see no reason why the mages should care at all about the welfare of non-mages except insofar as the non-mages are needed to grow food (though perhaps they could use magic for that).

[Dave of Canada]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

"Best" from whose point of view?

Both.

Assuming the independent Circle isolates itself in a tower similar to the Chantry's current structure.

The Chantry asks that people give up their mage children, devout andrastians are most likely to comply with the Chantry in this case and send the mage child away to the Circle. This allows the Chantry to protect innocent mage children who could probably be strung up for what could simply be a failed crop or something, though this is still flawed because mages are killed anyways and lots of mage children are probably killed instead of brought to the Circle. The Circle, independent from the Chantry, probably wouldn't have as much influence.

Should the non-mages riot and want to burn down the Circle and kill all the mages, the Chantry can also intervene and say that they are still men and women and the Chantry can probably calm down the anti-mage Andrastians. Independent Circle would probably... recieve very poor reception from the anti-mage crowd.

... and a few more but I grow weary of typing for the night.

Unless the Circle plans to abolish the entire religion or become tyrannical rulers, anti-mage riots will happen and I think it's best for everybody's interest to stop the death and destruction that will happen. Mages destroying anti-mage riots will make public opinion sour, people will rise up more and mages might eventually be forced to kill them all or rule over them.

This all hypothetical, of course, but knowing how much the people of Thedas hate elves enough to justify burning their homes even when they do nothing... I doubt they'd take too kindly to people with strong power.

[upsettingshorts]

Why assume "the mages" are a coherent, consistent, and organized political force?

My grasp of the lore is, as I've mentioned, lacking - but the only example of mages meeting such criteria is in the Tevinter Imperium. Which is likely not a coincidence. That being said, I do think that we're examining the issue of mages in an oddly particular way if we're going to attack this from a real-world-question way and not a gameplay-choice-question way. The latter makes distinctions like that. The former is much more complex and demands we account for the motivations, relative power, and negotiating positions (or hard liners) of many parties.

I'd get the ball rolling, but I'm going to bed. Also, my recent posts in this thread may or may not have been influenced rather dramatically by a recent reading of The Best and the Brightest so feel free to disregard.

Edit: Added bold to strengthen a point I think might otherwise be lost.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 février 2011 - 06:48 .