1283 réponses à ce sujet

[Ziggeh]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

Not that I feel it's particularly relevant, but I can see the "that situation was created by antagonism" argument coming a mile a way, so I felt I'd head that off at the pass with: antagonism and being a mage.

[Eclipse_9990]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

So you guys seem to be saying that all Mages are dangerous right? So I propose an idea. Let all the Mages go, and let them live on a far away island somewhere.

The other countries won't really have to deal with those trouble some mages, I'm sure the countries will be just fine without healing magic, and pretty much the greatest weapons on the planet that will ever exist in Dragon Age.

While the Mages will start a new country, where they'll make new little mages, and live their lives happily, developing, and discovering new magics, and sciences. While they make a fortune selling herbal remedies, and magical items to the other countries....
Oh and invade the **** out of everyone once their ready. 

See? Its a win-win situation. 

Modifié par Eclipse_9990, 10 février 2011 - 06:49 .

[the_one_54321]

Ziggeh wrote...
Not that I feel it's particularly relevant, but I can see the "that situation was created by antagonism" argument coming a mile a way, so I felt I'd head that off at the pass with: antagonism and being a mage.

The counter comes in the form of the nature of contradiction in the situation itself. The mages feel antagonized because they are controled. But the mages must be placed under some from of control because an untaught  or unsupervised mage is extremely more vulnerable to posession, as was explained to us (and shown to us) during the game. Certainly, there is always room for improvement and more humane treatment in that system of control. But it does absolutely need to be there, and any form of conrtol will eventually create some from of antagonism.

[LobselVith8]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

So does the ruler of the entire nation of Ferelden. We also hear about the Rivain witches and the mages among the Dalish clans and the Chasind tribes.

the_one_54321 wrote...

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)

Considering we know from the Chantry's own scholars that imprisoning mages had nothing to do with blood magic or abominations, we also have no proof that segregating them in an oppressive system is necessary.

the_one_54321 wrote...

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. 

There's no evidence that what the Chantry is doing is necessary or even effective. The incident at the Circle Tower serves as proof at what will happen when you oppress an entire group of people - they'll fight to be free. We also see from the Abominations codex and this incident that abominations are resulting from the conflicts between the mages and the templars.

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

Mages are people and deserve basic rights like everyone else does.

[Ziggeh]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

So you guys seem to be saying that all Mages are dangerous right? So I propose an idea. Let all the Mages go, and let them live on a far away island somewhere.

The other countries won't really have to deal with those trouble some mages, I'm sure the countries will be just fine without healing magic, and pretty much the greatest weapons on the planet that will ever exist in Dragon Age.

While the Mages will start a new country, where they'll make new little mages, and live their lives happily, developing, and discovering new magics, and sciences. While they make a fortune selling herbal remedies, and magical items to the other countries....
Oh and invade the **** out of everyone once their ready. 

See? Its a win-win situation.

Aside from the whole "create a nation of powerful beings who hate you" thing, mages are born to non mages, which means you have to deal with new ones all the time. Plus, magic is a pretty useful thing. They're a valuable resource, especially in a rumble.

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

Not that I feel it's particularly relevant, but I can see the "that situation was created by antagonism" argument coming a mile a way, so I felt I'd head that off at the pass with: antagonism and being a mage.

That would be because it was the result of the oppressive relationship between the mages and the templars who control them. I don't see how an example can we used and we should blatantly ignore the facts behind the example.

the_one_54321 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...
Not that I feel it's particularly relevant, but I can see the "that situation was created by antagonism" argument coming a mile a way, so I felt I'd head that off at the pass with: antagonism and being a mage.

The counter comes in the form of the nature of contradiction in the situation itself. The mages feel antagonized because they are controled. But the mages must be placed under some from of control because an untaught  or unsupervised mage is extremely more vulnerable to posession, as was explained to us (and shown to us) during the game. Certainly, there is always room for improvement and more humane treatment in that system of control. But it does absolutely need to be there, and any form of conrtol will eventually create some from of antagonism.

There's a difference between properly training mages to use their powers and imprisoning them in an oppressive system where they have no rights and can be killed or given a lobotomy without any say in the matter.

[the_one_54321]

LobselVith8 wrote...
There's no evidence that what the Chantry is doing is necessary or even effective. The incident at the Circle Tower serves as proof at what will happen when you oppress an entire group of people - they'll fight to be free. We also see from the Abominations codex and this incident that abominations are resulting from the conflicts between the mages and the templars.

We are given one clear example in the incident at the mage's tower that the Chantry can be very effective at controling them. We had an uprising that would have been squashed in short order had the Warden not intervened and set all to rights.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Mages are people and deserve basic rights like everyone else does.

Mages are people, but it is not personhood which entitles basic rights. It is demenstrable relative equality and most importantly a lack of contradictory interists which guarantees basic rights. Once contradictory interests are present people will resort even to killing each other, denying other the single most basic right.

[IanPolaris]

the_one_54321 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
There's no evidence that what the Chantry is doing is necessary or even effective. The incident at the Circle Tower serves as proof at what will happen when you oppress an entire group of people - they'll fight to be free. We also see from the Abominations codex and this incident that abominations are resulting from the conflicts between the mages and the templars.

We are given one clear example in the incident at the mage's tower that the Chantry can be very effective at controling them. We had an uprising that would have been squashed in short order had the Warden not intervened and set all to rights.

Actually no.  If you will remember Uldred had almost got done building an army of abominations that would absolutely have PWNED the templars in the tower, and then you would have had a massive outbreak.  Not only did the circle tower system *create* the environment that made the indicident at the circle possible, but they completely failed at containment.  Had it not been for the Grey Warden who just happened to stop by to get help with his treaties, it would have been a total disaster.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Mages are people and deserve basic rights like everyone else does.

Mages are people, but it is not personhood which entitles basic rights. It is demenstrable relative equality and most importantly a lack of contradictory interists which guarantees basic rights. Once contradictory interests are present people will resort even to killing each other, denying other the single most basic right.

You have to show that there is enough contradictory interest and evidence to justify a system that denies an entire group of people basic human rights just for being who and what they are. So far, no one has come close to showing that the circle tower system is actually an improvement (in terms of abomination rates) over non-circle system let alone better enough to justify what is a regressive system that promotes antagonisms.

-Polaris

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

That would be because it was the result of the oppressive relationship between the mages and the templars who control them. I don't see how an example can we used and we should blatantly ignore the facts behind the example.

Right, but it's not the result of oppression in isolation, it was the result of oppressing someone prone to becoming an abomination. It's an example of mages being dangerous when provoked, which is a reasonably likely scenario both in and out of the tower, escpecially if you concede that they must continue to be policed, to be treated as a threat within their own society.

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually no.  If you will remember Uldred had almost got done building an army of abominations that would absolutely have PWNED the templars in the tower, and then you would have had a massive outbreak.  Not only did the circle tower system *create* the environment that made the indicident at the circle possible, but they completely failed at containment.  Had it not been for the Grey Warden who just happened to stop by to get help with his treaties, it would have been a total disaster.

Would it? Wynne seemed pretty confident that her barrier would hold back anything in the tower, and I'd consider it odd if the building hadn't been designed to contain just such an event.

[LobselVith8]

I can already tell we're going to be going around in circles over this discussion...

the_one_54321 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

There's no evidence that what the Chantry is doing is necessary or even effective. The incident at the Circle Tower serves as proof at what will happen when you oppress an entire group of people - they'll fight to be free. We also see from the Abominations codex and this incident that abominations are resulting from the conflicts between the mages and the templars.

We are given one clear example in the incident at the mage's tower that the Chantry can be very effective at controling them. We had an uprising that would have been squashed in short order had the Warden not intervened and set all to rights.

Very effective at running away and hiding behind a large door, true. Also, I noticed your comment that the rebellion "would have been squashed" but I don't see how you'd say this. How do you know this, exactly? Because I saw terrified templars and First Enchanter Irving voicing fear that Uldred and his army of abominations would destroy the templars. There's no proof that they could have handled the situation without the Warden, much less in short order.

the_one_54321 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Mages are people and deserve basic rights like everyone else does.

Mages are people, but it is not personhood which entitles basic rights. It is demenstrable relative equality and most importantly a lack of contradictory interists which guarantees basic rights. Once contradictory interests are present people will resort even to killing each other, denying other the single most basic right.

Being free from an oppressive system isn't contrary to a way of life. We know the witches of Rivain, the Dalish clans, and the Chasind tribes have mages living alongside non-mages. It's a similar situation in Haven, where mages are not segregated from the rest of the populace. You can certainly argue that mages are powerful, but it's that reality that's aided the Andrastian nations in the past. Unless you argue against that? I suppose mages being responsible for everyone not being under Qunari rule during the New Exalted Marches isn't an interest for the people of Thedas, or their aid during the Blights that threatened all the Andrastian nations?

[IanPolaris]

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually no.  If you will remember Uldred had almost got done building an army of abominations that would absolutely have PWNED the templars in the tower, and then you would have had a massive outbreak.  Not only did the circle tower system *create* the environment that made the indicident at the circle possible, but they completely failed at containment.  Had it not been for the Grey Warden who just happened to stop by to get help with his treaties, it would have been a total disaster.

Would it? Wynne seemed pretty confident that her barrier would hold back anything in the tower, and I'd consider it odd if the building hadn't been designed to contain just such an event.

If you will recall the cut-scene when you first meet Wynne, you find that at least one demon could bypass that barrier.  Honestly a magical barrior like that is simply enough to get around.....break down the surrounding wall if neceessary!  Irving makes it very clear that Uldred is about to release an army of abominations that will PWN the templars.

Also if Uldred is really clever, just wait for the templars to kill off the mages and drop the barrier for you....and then pwn them.  The templars are clearly unable and untrained to handle massive numbers of abominations at once.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

That would be because it was the result of the oppressive relationship between the mages and the templars who control them. I don't see how an example can we used and we should blatantly ignore the facts behind the example.

Right, but it's not the result of oppression in isolation, it was the result of oppressing someone prone to becoming an abomination. It's an example of mages being dangerous when provoked, which is a reasonably likely scenario both in and out of the tower, escpecially if you concede that they must continue to be policed, to be treated as a threat within their own society.

It is the result of oppression when mages are fighting to be emancipated from it. You can't say that it has nothing to do with it when we clearly see that the blood mages sided with Uldred solely for the reason that they wanted to be free from the Chantry, and Uldred's use of demonology concerned fighting for that same goal.

There's also a difference between a police presence and oppression by an order who has the power to kill you or remove your humanity without you or the First Enchanter being able to contest it. This is the system that all of the blood mages in the Circle Tower were fighting against - as the unnamed blood mage admits when we speak to her.

Ziggeh wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually no.  If you will remember Uldred had almost got done building an army of abominations that would absolutely have PWNED the templars in the tower, and then you would have had a massive outbreak.  Not only did the circle tower system *create* the environment that made the indicident at the circle possible, but they completely failed at containment.  Had it not been for the Grey Warden who just happened to stop by to get help with his treaties, it would have been a total disaster.

Would it? Wynne seemed pretty confident that her barrier would hold back anything in the tower, and I'd consider it odd if the building hadn't been designed to contain just such an event.

Actually, she mentioned it made her weary, and we already saw one rage demon who somehow managed to pass through the barrier. I'd imagine an army of abominations lead by a Pride Demon Uldred abomination might have the same success as one rage demon did.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

Your post does a great job, I think, of giving the mages reasons to act as brutal tyrants.

[Elsariel]

I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again:



If mages were not under the thumb of the Chantry, then Uldred would not have gotten so many supporters within the circle to "fight for their freedom" in his bid for power (one could argue that Uldred himself may not have went down that path...) , meaning that its likely the circle would not have been overrun with demons to begin with.



Chantry oppression of mages is one of the causes for the tragedy to begin with.

[Herr Uhl]

Elsariel wrote...

I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again:

If mages were not under the thumb of the Chantry, then Uldred would not have gotten so many supporters within the circle to "fight for their freedom" in his bid for power (one could argue that Uldred himself may not have went down that path...) , meaning that its likely the circle would not have been overrun with demons to begin with.

Chantry oppression of mages is one of the causes for the tragedy to begin with.

The demon problem was contained thanks to them being cooped up in the circle. Imagine that 5 of the people that became abominations became it in public, what would then have been the damage?

Before the circle, abominations going berserk was something to be expected, not so much now.

[LobselVith8]

Elsariel wrote...

I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again:

If mages were not under the thumb of the Chantry, then Uldred would not have gotten so many supporters within the circle to "fight for their freedom" in his bid for power (one could argue that Uldred himself may not have went down that path...) , meaning that its likely the circle would not have been overrun with demons to begin with.

Chantry oppression of mages is one of the causes for the tragedy to begin with.

That's very true, Elsariel. The incident at Kinloch Hold never would have happened had it not been for the Chantry oppression.

Herr Uhl wrote...

Elsariel wrote...

I know I've said this before, but I'll say it again:

If mages were not under the thumb of the Chantry, then Uldred would not have gotten so many supporters within the circle to "fight for their freedom" in his bid for power (one could argue that Uldred himself may not have went down that path...) , meaning that its likely the circle would not have been overrun with demons to begin with.

Chantry oppression of mages is one of the causes for the tragedy to begin with.

The demon problem was contained thanks to them being cooped up in the circle. Imagine that 5 of the people that became abominations became it in public, what would then have been the damage?

Before the circle, abominations going berserk was something to be expected, not so much now.

The abomination problem only happened at Kinloch Hold because of the Chantry and their templars. Causing a problem and then taking credit for isolating it from society doesn't make much sense to me, especially when we have no reason to believe that Knight-Commander Greagoir could have prevented Uldred and the abominations from breaking free.

As for the last comment, abominations seem to happen quite a bit because of the Chantry controlled Circles.

[Ziggeh]

IanPolaris wrote...
If you will recall the cut-scene when you first meet Wynne, you find that at least one demon could bypass that barrier. 

That's not strictly true, it could just be the last one left, there's clearly been fighting going on in that section of the tower. She does say that nothing from inside can get to the children, that would be an ood thing to say right after that very thing had happened. Not that it's terribly relevant, I only bring it up because she seems to think it's  fairly simple to contain large amounts of monsters.

I assume the doors to the circle aren't just doors, or the plan to sit and wait for reinforcements would be a massively daft.

IanPolaris wrote...
Irving makes it very clear that Uldred is about to release an army of abominations that will PWN the templars.

He makes it very clear he thinks it will happen. There really aren't all that many mages in the tower. I assume we're supposed to believe there are more however, or there wouldn't be a circle left when you're done.

IanPolaris wrote...
The templars are clearly unable and untrained to handle massive numbers of abominations at once.

Clearly? They have a procedure for dealing with compromised towers, which assuming they are indeed compromised, implies large numbers of the things.

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

It is the result of oppression when mages are fighting to be emancipated from it. You can't say that it has nothing to do with it when we clearly see that the blood mages sided with Uldred solely for the reason that they wanted to be free from the Chantry, and Uldred's use of demonology concerned fighting for that same goal.

Strictly speaking, he gets possessed while trying to take control of the circle. Maybe he was truly fighting on behalf of his fellow mage, but it's equally likely he saw it as an opportunity. We don't know. It's quite likely he was subject to a good deal of pride, mind.

That aside, I'm not saying it's "nothing to do with it", I'm saying that the stance that oppression is bad because it's potentially dangerous is the same as the argument that their freedom is potentially dangerous: They are potentially dangerous beings.

[the_one_54321]

Most of you are conveniently forgetting the Right of Annulment. It's implied that the only reason there is an issue in the mage's tower is because the head of the Templars isn't keen on massacering all the remaining mages.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Your post does a great job, I think, of giving the mages reasons to act as brutal tyrants.

The only strict reason I can think of for why they shouldn't is that the potential for demonic possessions poses a threat to themselves as well.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 10 février 2011 - 07:55 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Ziggeh wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

If you will recall the cut-scene when you first meet Wynne, you find that at least one demon could bypass that barrier.  [/quote]
That's not strictly true, it could just be the last one left, there's clearly been fighting going on in that section of the tower. She does say that nothing from inside can get to the children, that would be an ood thing to say right after that very thing had happened. Not that it's terribly relevant, I only bring it up because she seems to think it's  fairly simple to contain large amounts of monsters. [/quote]

Wynne mentions that she kept the barrier up for some time, though, so it'd odd that they would still be a rage demon after such a period of time. After all, Owain mentioned he came by some time ago and noticed there was a barrier, and went back to the storage room.

[quote]Ziggeh wrote...

I assume the doors to the circle aren't just doors, or the plan to sit and wait for reinforcements would be a massively daft. [/quote]

But if Irving thinks Pride Demon Uldred and his abominations can destroy the templars, then he likely thinks they can get through that door.

[quote]Ziggeh wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

Irving makes it very clear that Uldred is about to release an army of abominations that will PWN the templars.[/quote]
He makes it very clear he thinks it will happen. There really aren't all that many mages in the tower. I assume we're supposed to believe there are more however, or there wouldn't be a circle left when you're done. [/quote]

There likely are supposed to be more mages around, given the scene with the dozens of mages heading towards Denerim.

[quote]Ziggeh wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

The templars are clearly unable and untrained to handle massive numbers of abominations at once.[/quote]
Clearly? They have a procedure for dealing with compromised towers, which assuming they are indeed compromised, implies large numbers of the things. [/quote]

I suppose it boils down to an issue of whether this is an example of the need for templars or an example of how badly turns can result because of templars. I personally advocate the emancipation of mages from the Chantry, which I plan on following through in DA2 if it's an option. As Michael Hamilton said on the issue of the Chantry turning down the Magi boon:

[quote]Michael Hamilton wrote...

[quote]KawaiiKatie wrote...

[quote]Michael Hamilton wrote...

[quote]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?

[/quote]

Guess you'll have to wait and see.

[/quote]

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...

[/quote]

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!" [/quote]

[Taleroth]

Too bad the request doesn't take with Alistair on the throne. I swear to science, it better not be an element of the imported data.

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

It is the result of oppression when mages are fighting to be emancipated from it. You can't say that it has nothing to do with it when we clearly see that the blood mages sided with Uldred solely for the reason that they wanted to be free from the Chantry, and Uldred's use of demonology concerned fighting for that same goal.

Strictly speaking, he gets possessed while trying to take control of the circle. Maybe he was truly fighting on behalf of his fellow mage, but it's equally likely he saw it as an opportunity. We don't know. It's quite likely he was subject to a good deal of pride, mind.

That aside, I'm not saying it's "nothing to do with it", I'm saying that the stance that oppression is bad because it's potentially dangerous is the same as the argument that their freedom is potentially dangerous: They are potentially dangerous beings.

Strictly speaking, he gets possessed because he was reckless with demonology during a fight to free the Circle from the Chantry. We have no idea what Uldred planning to do if the revolution succeeded - we can speculate that Uldred would have taken control of the Circle for himself, but besides Wynne's speculation on the matter, we have nothing to prove that he was planning this.

As for mage liberation, the entire debate here has been between two sides that clearly won't agree on the matter. Loyaltists vs. Libertarians, perhaps. I simply don't see the benefits of oppressing an entire group of people who have proven necessary to beat back the Qunari and have aided against the Blights.

[LobselVith8]

Taleroth wrote...

Too bad the request doesn't take with Alistair on the throne. I swear to science, it better not be an element of the imported data.

If it didn't register with DA:O, it likely isn't going to be imported. I got the Magi boon recognized with Anora as Queen proclaiming it before the audience in the royal ceremony, along with a hardened Alistair and a Grey Warden Loghain in attendance.

the_one_54321 wrote...

Most of you are conveniently forgetting the Right of Annulment. It's implied that the only reason there is an issue in the mage's tower is because the head of the Templars isn't keen on massacering all the remaining mages. 

No one is forgetting it - its inception is also tied to a templar killing a mage, and the mages responding over the murder of one of their own. And Greagoir already called for the Right of Anulment when the Warden encounters him - he's waiting on word from Denerim before he carries it out along with reinforcements.

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Your post does a great job, I think, of giving the mages reasons to act as brutal tyrants.

The only strict reason I can think of for why they shouldn't is that the potential for demonic possessions poses a threat to themselves as well.

Anyone can be possessed - anyone. People, animals, corpses, even trees.

[the_one_54321]

LobselVith8 wrote...
As for mage liberation, the entire debate here has been between two sides that clearly won't agree on the matter. Loyaltists vs. Libertarians, perhaps. I simply don't see the benefits of oppressing an entire group of people who have proven necessary to beat back the Qunari and have aided against the Blights.

You know, a number of us on the "loyalist" side have conceded numerous times that a more effective system could certainly be possible. I'm actually rather baffled as to why the "libertarians" seem addamant on the rufusal that mages pose a danger simply by being. Neither side of things are based on difficult or complex concepts.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Anyone can be possessed - anyone. People, animals, corpses, even trees.

Certainly, but none of those things can actively access the fade and bring demons over. Only mages can do that.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 10 février 2011 - 08:11 .