1283 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Unless the Circle plans to abolish the entire religion or become tyrannical rulers

If I'm a mage under these circumstances, I vote for tyranny.

[shumworld]

Beerfish wrote...
I had a real good buddy, Haskel was his name, hard working merchant.  Elf lover some called him cause he actually, can you believe it traded with the dalish at times.  Welll I heard he went to do some trading and some crazed elf witch named Velana or something like that just up and kills him and his friends.

You can never trust them Knife-Eared pest.

[Dave of Canada]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Unless the Circle plans to abolish the entire religion or become tyrannical rulers

If I'm a mage under these circumstances, I vote for tyranny.

Oh of course, though I... expect a less than favorable outcome coming from it, I doubt a tower of mages would be enough to overthrow an entire nation. Tevinter did it before the Chantry and anti-mage sentiments (or so we're told), so I don't expect a Tevinter 2.0 to come out quite easily.

Mages of every nation would either have to unite and fight the templar of every nation, which could happen considering the world is at the brink of a large scale war in DA2, or risk defeat. After victory, they'd probably have to cull the angry masses.

It'll be massacre either way.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 10 février 2011 - 06:57 .

[IanPolaris]

distinguetraces wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...
Mages of every nation would either have to unite and fight the templar of every nation

The templars of every nation? Even those of Rivain and the Dalish?

Also as I understand it, there aren't that many Templars (at least when compared with other armies in Thedas).  That's why the Chantry depends on national participation for it's exalted marches.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

I said that a number of posters were supoprting bigotry and a very strong case can be made for that position vis a vis the Circle Tower since the social impetus does largely seem to be from (Chantry dervived) fear of magic.
-Polaris

Your conclusions are flawed. Your lack of evidence obvious.
Where you see facts, many of us see nothing but hot air.
You start with many assumptions that aren't backed by any REAL evidence, but only by things you infer.


The issue is simple. Mages are NOT like regular people.
They cannot be treated exactly the same as regular people.
Freedom is always restricted, only in different things and to different degrees, to different people.

While it is morally questionable to lock up mages, it is also even more moraly questionable to let them go.

You don't hold the moral high-ground here.
You don't hold a reasonable/logical one either.

At best, both sides are balanced..the sooner you relasie this and stop pushing your theories, the better.

[Lotion Soronarr]

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

And he was nothing a specific posters modus operandy.

Or do insults and attacks cease to be attacks if you muddle the water by not specifing names?

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Doesn't the Chantry preach hatred and intolerance toward mages?

No.

[Lotion Soronarr]

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. 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.

I wont' even start how you're wrong on practicly all of your claims there, but I'll deal with the big one.

Unrest really sez nothing about the efficiency of the system.
Unrest happens periodicly in ANY system.
Is the prison system broken and ineffective, because occasionnly the prisoners try a revolt? Nope. Not really.

Conflict and stife are central to the human condition, so there is no system that wil lwork and satisfy everyone. The system that is satisfies most people.

[Morroian]

Dave of Canada wrote...

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.

And yet this very situation is what leads mages to revolt.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Irving seems confident that mages can govern themselves if the Magi boon is requested.

You main failing Lob, is that you are dead-locked in the rebellious mages perspective. You fail to see things properly from other sides.

Irwing seesm confident.? Mages can be trusted because mages say they can be trusted?

Would that argument pass with any sane individual on Thedas? If I told you that templars can be trusted becasue the Divine told me so, you'd call me out instantly on that BS argument.

Mages in power has been proven to be a horrible thing in the past. Old Tevinter was pretty much a horrible, horrible place.

Mages cannot really be trusted. Not only because they may be abominations (so the mage you're talking to isn't really tehre anymore...his owrds are nto his), but because of blood magic and mind control (your thoughts are not yours).

Trust is IMPOSSIBLE..especially for other people in power. Like kings and nobles.

[Lotion Soronarr]

falconlord5 wrote...

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.

The Harrowign was invented by mages. The Chantry did have nothing to do with it, but it did accept the tradition.

[themageguy]

i wonder if the circle in tevinter has much trouble with abominations? Just a thought.

I like mages. my first playthrough will be a mage OR a reaver with 2 mages in my party at all times so i can see what spells i want for my mage hawke.

I saw a vid with hawke using tempest on a rock wraith (who seem to be able to blast lightning themselves) but i cant remember where i saw it. Im sure it was VERY short, and had anders varric and carver in it.

[EmperorSahlertz]

themageguy wrote...

i wonder if the circle in tevinter has much trouble with abominations? Just a thought.

There are Templars in the Tevinter Circles too for a reason.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

themageguy wrote...

i wonder if the circle in tevinter has much trouble with abominations? Just a thought.

There are Templars in the Tevinter Circles too for a reason.

Actually no.  The are called Templars but they are purely mundane warriors with no special abilities under the control of the magisters.  In  short Tevinter Templars aren't Templars as the game defines the term.

-Polaris

[MorseDenizen]

In answer to the title I love a mage that drops in much needed healing followed by a well placed fireball obliterate the masses of enemies that I can't deal with at a tough time, that said I'm a habitual rogue

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually no.  The are called Templars but they are purely mundane warriors with no special abilities under the control of the magisters.  In  short Tevinter Templars aren't Templars as the game defines the term.

For the most part.

[Ziggeh]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

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.

That's one of the important questions DA:O asks, is it right to attempt to impose my own morality upon the situation? We can discuss whether we feel the system is good or bad, but the current system is a product of the circumstance, and if we want to discuss alternatives these need to be addressed.

[Jimmy Fury]

IanPolaris wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

themageguy wrote...

i wonder if the circle in tevinter has much trouble with abominations? Just a thought.

There are Templars in the Tevinter Circles too for a reason.

Actually no.  The are called Templars but they are purely mundane warriors with no special abilities under the control of the magisters.  In  short Tevinter Templars aren't Templars as the game defines the term.

Out of curiosity could you cite your source?

[Ziggeh]

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Out of curiosity could you cite your source?

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/4546148/3#4557599

[Erani]

Ziggeh wrote...

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Out of curiosity could you cite your source?

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/4546148/3#4557599

Thank you, didn't know that about Tevinter Templars.

[Jimmy Fury]

Ziggeh wrote...

Jimmy Fury wrote...

Out of curiosity could you cite your source?

http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/141/index/4546148/3#4557599

Thank you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Oh of course, though I... expect a less than favorable outcome coming from it, I doubt a tower of mages would be enough to overthrow an entire nation.

In open warfare, I agree.

I expect a long guerrila campaign.

After victory, they'd probably have to cull the angry masses.

It'll be massacre either way.

As I've explained, there's no reason why the mages should view non-mages as equivalent persons, so they shouldn't mind the cull.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Irving seems confident that mages can govern themselves if the Magi boon is requested.

You main failing Lob, is that you are dead-locked in the rebellious mages perspective. You fail to see things properly from other sides.

Irwing seesm confident.? Mages can be trusted because mages say they can be trusted?

I noted Irving's conversation along with the lack of an independent Circle in Orzammar, but I see how you're going to ignore that to go on another anti-mage rant and talk about how the Chantry is wonderful and how templars pee raindows and poop puppies.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Would that argument pass with any sane individual on Thedas? If I told you that templars can be trusted becasue the Divine told me so, you'd call me out instantly on that BS argument.

Mages in power has been proven to be a horrible thing in the past. Old Tevinter was pretty much a horrible, horrible place.

You mean like Arlathan and the Dales? And I'm certain some Dalish elves would argue that as a case against humans, given how mages are among the clans in positions of leadership.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Mages cannot really be trusted. Not only because they may be abominations (so the mage you're talking to isn't really tehre anymore...his owrds are nto his), but because of blood magic and mind control (your thoughts are not yours).

Trust is IMPOSSIBLE..especially for other people in power. Like kings and nobles.

Why do you take such a position? Oh wait... aren't you and Emperor the ones who argued that mages are property of the Chantry?

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Mages of the Collective might not be abominations currently, but that does not mean tehy are safe from possession. No matter how you put it, no matter which examples you bring forth, every mage everywhere is constantly under threat of possession. There is no use denying it. The lore states as much. So it stands to reason that some mages in the collective, at some point in the past or in the future might have been or will become abominations, and once that happens, the abomination won't be contained in a tower like circle mages, but it will be free somewhere on the countryside.
The amount of mages amongst the Dalish and the Cult of Andraste is so small that they would have few troubles with abominations to begin with, add to that that they probably can't control them, so they kill them. That is the sole reason we don't see abominations in those groups. Aside from the fact that they are rare to begin with. Just because we don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist or is somehow immune to possession.

Also, the Chantry owns all the Circles. If Ferelden were to expel the Templars and "free" the mages. It would basically be theft of Chantry "property", and borderline heretical. So of course that would result in an Exalted March against Ferelden.

You later supported this view:

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

tool_bot wrote...

Theft of Chantry property? No. It would be undermining their control and authority in an area they feel the Maker has given them complete control. And it would also be just another excuse to force a monarch in line.

Pharse it as you wish, it doesn't change what it is. The Cirlces are under Chatnry control and they run them. Ergo, they belong to the Chatnry.

[the_one_54321]

A mage seems confidant that a group of mages can handle freedom responsibly and without creating a danger? Oh, no bias there. Nope, none whatsoever.

That was very sarcastic and I apologize if I overdid it. The point is that any one persons assurances of protection, of responsibility, of effectiveness, of whatever, are unreliable at best. Thoroughly dangerous at worst.

The fact remains that mages are not the same as other people and from what I have read, no one has provided any concrete reason why they need to be treated the same. Yes, sentience has been brought up, and the notion of them also being people. (really the same argument in different words)

However I will counter with this:

1. Mages pose a potential threat to those around them simply by existing. I am also claiming that the assertion that there is no evidence of this is completely bogus. The incident in the mage tower serves as concrete evidence at the very least.

2. Mages are not equal to other men and do not warrant any special need for equal treatment. They look after their own well being, as can be seen quite clearly in the numerous instances witnessed where mages, individuals or groups, rebel against the system, sometimes with the result of causing injury and death to others.