1283 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar 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.

No..reinforcements are called and they definatively arrive if you select the option to cull the tower.

And even IF the tower had compltely fallen, it would be the first such case (all other annulments were sucesfull) in 700 years.
I'd call that a good track record.

That isn't true, we have no proof they arrived at all if the Warden recommends to cull the Tower. You're speculating and using speculation as proof to back up your claims. There's absolutely no proof the reinforcements would have arrived in time to stop Uldred or the abominations. There's also no proof any of the prior Anulments over the past 700 years were even warranted. All we know is that men, women, and children were killed, nothing more than that.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

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

There's plenty of indicators that point that is is effective. There's aslo basic logic. Basic human behavior... And a little thing called reality.

Quite the contrary,  why dont' you prove the abomination rates are worse OR that the system is regressive? Oh yeah....you can't, now can you?

Yet again, more speculation being used as proof. Ian brings up that we have no proof the system is effective, that the establishment of the Cicle for religious reasons and the segregation of mages because they held a protest in a cathedral aren't enough to warrant what's currently being done to them, but you offer no evidence to support the Chantry's position. Can you prove the system is effective? Because it doesn't seem that you can.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

But they're already at risk of possession even if they're not free, so the added marginal risk associated with freedom is smaller in comparison.

The risk is that they can become possesed anywhere...like in the middle of a croweded market.

A mage in the tower, under heavy control, is hardly able to do any damage to the populace. Worst case scenario, some mages and templars may die in the fighting.

That same mage using blood magic or becoming an abomination in a remote village or in a public square...how many people would die before he is stopped?

The difference between a free mage and a mage in a tower is the difference between the army openly driving nukers around trough cities and keeping them in sealed bunkers.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No..reinforcements are called and they definatively arrive if you select the option to cull the tower.

And even IF the tower had compltely fallen, it would be the first such case (all other annulments were sucesfull) in 700 years.
I'd call that a good track record.

That isn't true, we have no proof they arrived at all if the Warden recommends to cull the Tower. You're speculating and using speculation as proof to back up your claims. There's absolutely no proof the reinforcements would have arrived in time to stop Uldred or the abominations. There's also no proof any of the prior Anulments over the past 700 years were even warranted. All we know is that men, women, and children were killed, nothing more than that.

Who culled the tower if not the telpars? Air? But I admit, I got no hard proof for this.
But you got no proof the reinforcements couldn't arrive in time.
There's NO WAY to tell EITHER WAY. None.

You got no proof the prior annulments weren't warranted. Not ot mentio nthat unwarranted annulmets are just stupid. Frist of all, it requires permission fro mthe Grand Cleric, and secondly, it really doesn't benefit the Chantry in any way.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
There's plenty of indicators that point that is is effective. There's aslo basic logic. Basic human behavior... And a little thing called reality.

Quite the contrary,  why dont' you prove the abomination rates are worse OR that the system is regressive? Oh yeah....you can't, now can you?

Yet again, more speculation being used as proof. Ian brings up that we have no proof the system is effective, that the establishment of the Cicle for religious reasons and the segregation of mages because they held a protest in a cathedral aren't enough to warrant what's currently being done to them, but you offer no evidence to support the Chantry's position. Can you prove the system is effective? Because it doesn't seem that you can.

You can't prove anything yourself, yet you are the one screaming for change.

If you want to change a system that the poeple in TheDas accept, then you better have good reason behind it. Reasons backed up by PROOF.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 11 février 2011 - 01:07 .

[kane442]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

But they're already at risk of possession even if they're not free, so the added marginal risk associated with freedom is smaller in comparison.

The risk is that they can become possesed anywhere...like in the middle of a croweded market.

A mage in the tower, under heavy control, is hardly able to do any damage to the populace. Worst case scenario, some mages and templars may die in the fighting.

That same mage using blood magic or becoming an abomination in a remote village or in a public square...how many people would die before he is stopped?

The difference between a free mage and a mage in a tower is the difference between the army openly driving nukers around trough cities and keeping them in sealed bunkers.

mages cant become one anywhere they have to be in the fade ...or strike a deal in the fade or be talking to a demon already in controll of a mage  so unless there doing that at random spots ....also it take a lot of lyrium to do so (enter the fade physically) as pointed out in redcliff and the harrowing ...it not like ther walking down the street and oooooh snap demon action

at least it didnt seem to be presented that way to me

Modifié par kane442, 11 février 2011 - 01:15 .

[Eclipse_9990]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

But they're already at risk of possession even if they're not free, so the added marginal risk associated with freedom is smaller in comparison.

The risk is that they can become possesed anywhere...like in the middle of a croweded market.

A mage in the tower, under heavy control, is hardly able to do any damage to the populace. Worst case scenario, some mages and templars may die in the fighting.

That same mage using blood magic or becoming an abomination in a remote village or in a public square...how many people would die before he is stopped?

The difference between a free mage and a mage in a tower is the difference between the army openly driving nukers around trough cities and keeping them in sealed bunkers.

No.. Your thinking about Psykers... Mages pretty much have to be in the fade, or have a demon like.. Right infront of them for that to happen. 

[kane442]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

But they're already at risk of possession even if they're not free, so the added marginal risk associated with freedom is smaller in comparison.

The risk is that they can become possesed anywhere...like in the middle of a croweded market.

A mage in the tower, under heavy control, is hardly able to do any damage to the populace. Worst case scenario, some mages and templars may die in the fighting.

That same mage using blood magic or becoming an abomination in a remote village or in a public square...how many people would die before he is stopped?

The difference between a free mage and a mage in a tower is the difference between the army openly driving nukers around trough cities and keeping them in sealed bunkers.

No.. Your thinking about Psykers... Mages pretty much have to be in the fade, or have a demon like.. Right infront of them for that to happen. 

thats basicly what i said

[Eclipse_9990]

kane442 wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

But they're already at risk of possession even if they're not free, so the added marginal risk associated with freedom is smaller in comparison.

The risk is that they can become possesed anywhere...like in the middle of a croweded market.

A mage in the tower, under heavy control, is hardly able to do any damage to the populace. Worst case scenario, some mages and templars may die in the fighting.

That same mage using blood magic or becoming an abomination in a remote village or in a public square...how many people would die before he is stopped?

The difference between a free mage and a mage in a tower is the difference between the army openly driving nukers around trough cities and keeping them in sealed bunkers.

No.. Your thinking about Psykers... Mages pretty much have to be in the fade, or have a demon like.. Right infront of them for that to happen. 

thats basicly what i said

Oh lol sorry. I was reading his post, and typing mine before I saw your post. 

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

But they're already at risk of possession even if they're not free, so the added marginal risk associated with freedom is smaller in comparison.

The risk is that they can become possesed anywhere...like in the middle of a croweded market.

A mage in the tower, under heavy control, is hardly able to do any damage to the populace. Worst case scenario, some mages and templars may die in the fighting.

That must explain why Irving thought Pride Demon Uldred and the abominations were a threat to the templars.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

That same mage using blood magic or becoming an abomination in a remote village or in a public square...how many people would die before he is stopped?

The difference between a free mage and a mage in a tower is the difference between the army openly driving nukers around trough cities and keeping them in sealed bunkers.

Innocent people have died at the hands of the templars in the name of hunting down mages, and we already know that there are people and places that don't support what the Chantry does to mages. There's also nothing to support that what the Chantry does is necessary, not even their own history that explains why the Circles were formed or why mages were segregated from the rest of society.

[kane442]

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

kane442 wrote...

Eclipse_9990 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

But they're already at risk of possession even if they're not free, so the added marginal risk associated with freedom is smaller in comparison.

The risk is that they can become possesed anywhere...like in the middle of a croweded market.

A mage in the tower, under heavy control, is hardly able to do any damage to the populace. Worst case scenario, some mages and templars may die in the fighting.

That same mage using blood magic or becoming an abomination in a remote village or in a public square...how many people would die before he is stopped?

The difference between a free mage and a mage in a tower is the difference between the army openly driving nukers around trough cities and keeping them in sealed bunkers.

No.. Your thinking about Psykers... Mages pretty much have to be in the fade, or have a demon like.. Right infront of them for that to happen. 

thats basicly what i said

Oh lol sorry. I was reading his post, and typing mine before I saw your post. 

oh i wasnt mad or anything more just found it funny ...its all good

[Dubya75]

I like Mages...as long as they stay out of my way!

[Last Vizard]

Ziggeh wrote...

Last Vizard wrote...

they shouldn't be treated like they are cursed or abominations.

They pretty much are cursed. Monsters will attempt to inhabit their head and kill or feed from anyone they might meet, and this won't stop even after they die. As curses go, that's a doozy.

But I'll grant you abomination. Question though, do you believe it's right to treat them as potential abominations?

There is a difference between treating someone as a potential abomination and knowing it is a possiblility, with proper education and training demons are prevented entry and control of a mages mind.  Conor displayed magic abilities that his mother picked up on long before the possession happened, this only happened because the mother didn't take the boy to the circle where he would have been protected from such things until he was ready to enter the fade.... also any that fail the test in the fade are caught by the Templars when they come out.

The demon in Redcliff turned an incorrectly taught child (blame the idiot mother for trying to get around the circle system) into a powerful force that raised an army of dead overnight.  A group of mages (protected by Templars) traveling around the world could actively seek out any abominations that are still free while also scouting for any children or (Luke skywalkers using force magic) that show magical abilities and sending them to their local circle Tower for training. (that is goverend by mages and Templars equally)

As for this Curse business, the pros outway the cons.... I see demons as parasites that need mages to be able to even see our world, we are strong and they are weak. (an open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbared and ungaurded) Demons need me, i don't need them.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

That isn't true, we have no proof they arrived at all if the Warden recommends to cull the Tower. You're speculating and using speculation as proof to back up your claims. There's absolutely no proof the reinforcements would have arrived in time to stop Uldred or the abominations. There's also no proof any of the prior Anulments over the past 700 years were even warranted. All we know is that men, women, and children were killed, nothing more than that.

Who culled the tower if not the telpars? Air?

Looks like someone forgot about the big door that locked them all in the Tower.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

But I admit, I got no hard proof for this.
But you got no proof the reinforcements couldn't arrive in time.
There's NO WAY to tell EITHER WAY. None.

There's no proof that reinforcements arrived in time, it's as simple as that.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You got no proof the prior annulments weren't warranted. Not ot mentio nthat unwarranted annulmets are just stupid. Frist of all, it requires permission fro mthe Grand Cleric, and secondly, it really doesn't benefit the Chantry in any way.

I pointed out there's no proof they were warranted. You made it seem as though they were, which is more speculation being used as proof on your part.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Yet again, more speculation being used as proof. Ian brings up that we have no proof the system is effective, that the establishment of the Cicle for religious reasons and the segregation of mages because they held a protest in a cathedral aren't enough to warrant what's currently being done to them, but you offer no evidence to support the Chantry's position. Can you prove the system is effective? Because it doesn't seem that you can.

You can't prove anything yourself, yet you are the one screaming for change.

If you want to change a system that the poeple in TheDas accept, then you better have good reason behind it. Reasons backed up by PROOF.

I based my stand on what we currently know, Lotion. The History of the Circle codex, The History of the Chantry Part Four codex, the murder of the [non-mage] D'Sims by templars, Morrigan's bounty with no evidence to support the claim of her being a blood mage, the apparent lack of evidence involving Aneirin, and the fact that we keep seeing abominations resulting from the templars oppression of mages, but this is all academic. I have repeated my position, and I see no reason to change it when none of the evidence supports your claim that the Chantry controlled Circles are necessary.

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Ziggeh wrote...
How so? They give us enough information to let us think it's flawed and troubling, but not enough to come up with a viable alternative. Heck, there are arguments in this thread about who actually controls the tower. There isn't strong evidence in any direction.

People have come up with alternatives to what the Chantry is doing.

Right, but most* rely on assumptions or don't speak to the circumstance, such as public acceptance of the change and the political will of the chantry. We can come up  with alternatives that stand outside of the situation, but that that's not the same as viable in thedas.

*I'm not sure I'd stand by my use of viable, as we can come up with flawed alternatives to the present flawed system, and I think suggestions like "make the harrowing less harsh" are valid.

[Drowsy0106]

I like mages mostly because i dislike the Chantry, to many parallels with Christianity and similar extremist religions - the root of most of today's problems.

[Ziggeh]

Taiyama wrote...

The non-aggression principle is the fundamental axiom around which law must be built. If you want to know why the non-aggression principle is so important, go look at Argumentation Ethics or one of the many many MANY philosophies that attempt to justify that principle.

The link isn't working here, but in general, I'm not sure how well that stands as we don't have anything comparable in real life. We've never had to build the literal presence of monsters into such philosophical debates, the potential to be an unwilling participate in a really rather large amount of aggression. We do have some limited parallels, we do restrain people who we consider at risk to themselves and others, but such things are less binary and measurable, and the potential hazard far smaller.

Don't get me wrong, their treatment is deeply troubling, but I'm of the opinion that not addressing potential large scale destruction is equally problematic.

[Satyricon331]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Yet again, more speculation being used as proof. Ian brings up that we have no proof the system is effective, that the establishment of the Cicle for religious reasons and the segregation of mages because they held a protest in a cathedral aren't enough to warrant what's currently being done to them, but you offer no evidence to support the Chantry's position. Can you prove the system is effective? Because it doesn't seem that you can.

You can't prove anything yourself, yet you are the one screaming for change.

If you want to change a system that the poeple in TheDas accept, then you better have good reason behind it. Reasons backed up by PROOF.

I based my stand on what we currently know, Lotion. The History of the Circle codex, The History of the Chantry Part Four codex, the murder of the [non-mage] D'Sims by templars, Morrigan's bounty with no evidence to support the claim of her being a blood mage, the apparent lack of evidence involving Aneirin, and the fact that we keep seeing abominations resulting from the templars oppression of mages, but this is all academic. I have repeated my position, and I see no reason to change it when none of the evidence supports your claim that the Chantry controlled Circles are necessary.

To this list I would add that Irving, who has far more information and experience regarding these issues than any of us RL players do, seems to think it's a very viable option after you select the Mage boon.  Queen Anora does too, to the extent that she's willing to implement it given Chantry permission.  You could say they're swept up in euphoria, but I recall Irving's statement about responsibility to seem to reflect some consideration (although admittedly I don't recall the quote), and Anora doesn't seem the type to be overly emotional.  I think their opinions carry far more information than do peasant or Chantry opinions.

No, none of it is decisive evidence, but it is supportive.  What information we do have suggests the Chantry system is unnecessarily repressive.  If I had to make a decision based on the currently available information, I would expect that lifting the Chantry's restrictions would improve welfare in Thedas overall and would choose accordingly.  

[Ziggeh]

Last Vizard wrote...

A group of mages (protected by Templars) traveling around the world could actively seek out any abominations that are still free

I'm of the opinion that that doesn't adequately address the issue. I think if you can stop entire towns eating themselves, that going in after the fact becomes morally questionable. Again, it's not as if locking up essentially innocent people is not, but I don't believe it's as simple as a question of balance, that it can be equated in any way.

[Ziggeh]

Satyricon331 wrote...

To this list I would add that Irving, who has far more information and experience regarding these issues than any of us RL players do, seems to think it's a very viable option after you select the Mage boon. 

Very true, even after the whole abomination thing. I suppose being an important element in saving the nation would help with public support issues, in a way that wouldn't be present elsewhere, but it's certainly hard to believe he wouldn't have considered the potential problems and how they might be addressed without the templars.

[LobselVith8]

Ziggeh wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

People have come up with alternatives to what the Chantry is doing.

Right, but most* rely on assumptions or don't speak to the circumstance, such as public acceptance of the change and the political will of the chantry. We can come up  with alternatives that stand outside of the situation, but that that's not the same as viable in thedas.

*I'm not sure I'd stand by my use of viable, as we can come up with flawed alternatives to the present flawed system, and I think suggestions like "make the harrowing less harsh" are valid.

Actually, Ian's recommendation took into account the current wave of anti-mage propaganda that the Andrastian societies deal with, and said slow change would work best to reverse the dogma against mages. However, the Chantry has no intention of implementing any reforms in its treatment of mages, so it's a moot point. It looks like only a revolution will change things.

Ziggeh wrote...

Taiyama wrote...

The non-aggression principle is the fundamental axiom around which law must be built. If you want to know why the non-aggression principle is so important, go look at Argumentation Ethics or one of the many many MANY philosophies that attempt to justify that principle.

The link isn't working here, but in general, I'm not sure how well that stands as we don't have anything comparable in real life. We've never had to build the literal presence of monsters into such philosophical debates, the potential to be an unwilling participate in a really rather large amount of aggression. We do have some limited parallels, we do restrain people who we consider at risk to themselves and others, but such things are less binary and measurable, and the potential hazard far smaller.

Don't get me wrong, their treatment is deeply troubling, but I'm of the opinion that not addressing potential large scale destruction is equally problematic.

We can infer that the nation of Rivain, the Dalish clans, and the Chasind tribes handle it without templar or Chantry control. If abominations were so frequent or so deadly that only templars could stop them, then there wouldn't be a Thedas at all because the Order of Templars was established roughly 900 years ago, and we already know Arlathan existed some time before that with mages (as Witch Hunt reveals with the Eluvians and even the magical markers). The Dales also had mages, which we know because the leaders of the clans typically descend from the nobility that ruled the Dales - and so far all the Keepers and Firsts we've seen have been mages. A law enforcement tasked comprised of mages and non-mages to handle people committing crimes and abusing magic would address the issues without the need for imprisoning innocent people, as Ian suggested.

Ziggeh wrote...

Last Vizard wrote...

A group of mages (protected by Templars) traveling around the world could actively seek out any abominations that are still free

I'm of the opinion that that doesn't adequately address the issue. I think if you can stop entire towns eating themselves, that going in after the fact becomes morally questionable. Again, it's not as if locking up essentially innocent people is not, but I don't believe it's as simple as a question of balance, that it can be equated in any way.

Considering that same magic has also been used to fight the darkspawn that threaten all of human existance and the invading Qunari armies, there's also a need for mages that can't be ignored. The current system looks to be the cause of the apparent war between templars and mages in DA2, based on the battle between an army of mages and templars. That doesn't seem like a viable option to keep the current one in place, but regardless of the arguments for or against, it doesn't matter. Hawke will likely determine whether the Order of Templars or the mages succeed.

Ziggeh wrote...

Satyricon331 wrote...

To this list I would add that Irving, who has far more information and experience regarding these issues than any of us RL players do, seems to think it's a very viable option after you select the Mage boon. 

Very true, even after the whole abomination thing. I suppose being an important element in saving the nation would help with public support issues, in a way that wouldn't be present elsewhere, but it's certainly hard to believe he wouldn't have considered the potential problems and how they might be addressed without the templars.

Clearly he thinks it can be handled without Chantry oversight, no different than the Rivain witches, the Chasind, or the Dalish, as does the ruler of Ferelden.

[Junri]

I do not know if this was pointed out, but mages can be compared to mutants in the x-men. If you watched any of the series or the movies you'll understand why people can be skeptical about having someone with power to take on groups of law enforcement. One mage can take on quite a few templars if I'm not mistaken, although it depends on how powerful and aware the mage is :X

[the_one_54321]

LobselVith8 wrote...
That must explain why Irving thought Pride Demon Uldred and the abominations were a threat to the templars.

And obviously the threat they posed to a group of Templars is equitable with the threat posed to a group of random innocents just doing their daily shopping in a crowded market of hundreds. To respond to sarcasm with sarcasm...

Modifié par the_one_54321, 12 février 2011 - 03:17 .

[LobselVith8]

Junri wrote...

I do not know if this was pointed out, but mages can be compared to mutants in the x-men. If you watched any of the series or the movies you'll understand why people can be skeptical about having someone with power to take on groups of law enforcement. One mage can take on quite a few templars if I'm not mistaken, although it depends on how powerful and aware the mage is :X

That's an interesting point. The Chantry system looks like the kind of place that would result in a Magneto type.

the_one_54321 wrote...

And obviously the threat they posed to a group of Templars is equitable with the threat posed to a group of random innocents just doing their daily shopping in a crowded market of hundreds. To respond to sarcasm with sarcasm... 

You realize you didn't even quote something I actually said, right?

[Ziggeh]

LobselVith8 wrote...
We can infer that the nation of Rivain, the Dalish clans, and the Chasind tribes handle it without templar or Chantry control. If abominations were so frequent or so deadly that only templars could stop them, then there wouldn't be a Thedas at all because the Order of Templars was established roughly 900 years ago, and we already know Arlathan existed some time before that with mages (as Witch Hunt reveals with the Eluvians and even the magical markers).

I'm not sure we need to look that far to discover that other people can indeed kill abominations.

LobselVith8 wrote...
A law enforcement tasked comprised of mages and non-mages to handle people committing crimes and abusing magic would address the issues without the need for imprisoning innocent people, as Ian suggested.

Firstly, I don't believe that does address the abomination issue, and secondly consider who would fund such a project and to what purpose.

[Taiyama]

Ziggeh wrote...

The link isn't working here, but in general, I'm not sure how well that stands as we don't have anything comparable in real life. We've never had to build the literal presence of monsters into such philosophical debates, the potential to be an unwilling participate in a really rather large amount of aggression. We do have some limited parallels, we do restrain people who we consider at risk to themselves and others, but such things are less binary and measurable, and the potential hazard far smaller.

Don't get me wrong, their treatment is deeply troubling, but I'm of the opinion that not addressing potential large scale destruction is equally problematic.

Strange, the link operates fine for me. The link is to a PDF file, so perhaps you lack the requisite program to run it?

Regardless, it does not MATTER that we have nothing comparable in real life. I'm assuming everyone here accepts the intersubjective consensus that Lockean use-rights are the way to determine property boundaries. So either the mages have justified property rights to their own bodies, or they do not. If we do not accept the former we contradict ourselves, which makes the whole debate meaningless (again, see that link on Argumentation Ethics--or if you can't read it, just go google "Hoppe Argumentation Ethics").

I'm not arguing that something doesn't  need to be done about the mage problem, obviously. I am simply advocating that one should not violate the non-aggression principle while doing so. Otherwise one cannot logically hold property rights as something to be enforced. The particulars of different worlds may change but logic and reason do not, and there are only two logically consistent methods to pursue.

[Iconic_N7]

Im DAO i was completely anti mage. I thought it was way too much power for anyone to have. No matter what race. Human, Dwarf, Elf, or Quaniri. But i by the end of the game i kind of felt sorry for them. All of that power and the either are forced to be non emotional zombies, or evil blood thirsty destroyers. The average mage didnt really didnt have a blanance. Thats why I liked Morrigan and Flemeth so much. While they didnt let the Templars control them, they didnt let the temtations from the fade control them ethier, Which proves mages can due without templars in my opinion, Which is why My Hawke is going to be a mage, To further prove that all Mages dont need templars. Only the ones that have abused their power should be locked in that cursed tower.