171 réponses à ce sujet

[moilami]

Is someone still believing in this chantry crap killing innocent is grey area?

[Skilled Seeker]

Damn Bioware sure created a rich world to generate all this debate. Kudos to them!

[Red Templar]

LobselVith8 wrote...

As for demons, anyone can be possessed - people, corpses, animals, and even trees.

I've seen you make this point several times now, but I think you keep missing the point. Yes, non-mages and animals and trees can be possessed by demons, but only under extremely rare circumstances - these things get possessed where the veil is torn.

The veil doesn't need to be torn for mages to be possessed. Any mage could turn into a demon anywhere at any time. When a non-mage is possessed, it represents a freak occurance from being in the wrong place. When a mage gets possessed, it represents the metaphorical bomb that has been strapped to their chest finally going off... and this bomb is strapped to the chest of every mage alive, and they don't need to even be aware of it for it to detonate.

The threat of demonic possession between mages and non-mages is not the same.

If you're concerned about possession, isn't that a point for mages to be properly trained in the use of their abilities, rather than subjugated to the point where they would make a deal with a demon rather than live under templar rule?

That's exactly what the Circle does. It trains mages while under controlled, secure circumstances so as to limit disaster as much as possible. If mages train under any greater degree of freedom, it means a statistical increase in the amount of times disaster strikes.

The templar solution is uncompromising, but there simply isn't a more efficient solution that trains mages without a threat to the general public and to each other. Any solution that is more compassionate will be less effective on those specific grounds.

[Skilled Seeker]

That solves it, I will confidently side with the Chantry

[FaeQueenCory]

kjdhgfiliuhwe wrote...

Good and evil are relative to your own moral compass that was likely shaped by the social environment you were raised in. Making any discussion of the moral implications completely pointless.

This. And if I could pronounce your name... I would want your babies, Mr(s). kjdhgfiliuhwe.

But as to the topic... It would apper that supporting one over the other is equally damning... So just like in real life, any choice you make will be bad!

[LobselVith8]

Red Templar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

As for demons, anyone can be possessed - people, corpses, animals, and even trees.

I've seen you make this point several times now, but I think you keep missing the point. Yes, non-mages and animals and trees can be possessed by demons, but only under extremely rare circumstances - these things get possessed where the veil is torn.

And the veil can be torn where a lot of people have died, as we know from the two towns that were massacred during the New Exalted Marches because the people living there had converted to the Qun. Given that there has been two thousand years of people living on Thedas, I'd imagine that it's likely not as rare as we might think.

Red Templar wrote...

The veil doesn't need to be torn for mages to be possessed. Any mage could turn into a demon anywhere at any time. When a non-mage is possessed, it represents a freak occurance from being in the wrong place. When a mage gets possessed, it represents the metaphorical bomb that has been strapped to their chest finally going off... and this bomb is strapped to the chest of every mage alive, and they don't need to even be aware of it for it to detonate.

If mages could be so easily possessed, why aren't all mages under the control of demons, then? How can any mage possibly retain their humanity if they're all at the mercy of demons and can do nothing about it? Clearly, it's not as simple as you make it out to be when we see that apostates and Circles mages have retained their sanity and humanity despite being linked to the Fade.

Red Templar wrote...

The threat of demonic possession between mages and non-mages is not the same.

Yet mages and non-mages can be possessed, so I don't see why we should diminish this fact.

Red Templar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

]If you're concerned about possession, isn't that a point for mages to be properly trained in the use of their abilities, rather than subjugated to the point where they would make a deal with a demon rather than live under templar rule?

That's exactly what the Circle does. It trains mages while under controlled, secure circumstances so as to limit disaster as much as possible. If mages train under any greater degree of freedom, it means a statistical increase in the amount of times disaster strikes.

The templar solution is uncompromising, but there simply isn't a more efficient solution that trains mages without a threat to the general public and to each other. Any solution that is more compassionate will be less effective on those specific grounds.

Or it means a statistical increase of abominations because of the toxic enviornment that mages are forced to live in, which would mean abominations are more likely to kill as a direct result of the oppression that mages are being forced to endure.

As for protecting the public, the Circle's inception had nothing to do with that. Even factoring the existance of blood mages and abominations, neither were enough for mages to be imprisoned until they had a protest over their lack of rights in Orlais during the reign of Divine Ambrosia II, and their rights were restricted because of the religious dogma of the first Orlesian Emperor and his cultist views. If the Chantry's own history makes it clear that imprisoning mages had nothing to do with keeping people safe, why should we take this view now when there's nothing to support this claim?

[moilami]

FaeQueenCory wrote...

kjdhgfiliuhwe wrote...

Good and evil are relative to your own moral compass that was likely shaped by the social environment you were raised in. Making any discussion of the moral implications completely pointless.

This. And if I could pronounce your name... I would want your babies, Mr(s). kjdhgfiliuhwe.

But as to the topic... It would apper that supporting one over the other is equally damning... So just like in real life, any choice you make will be bad!

Supporting chantry would not only be bad. It would be moronical and just plain stupid.

[Russalka]

moilami wrote...

Supporting chantry would not only be bad. It would be moronical and just plain stupid.

Have you ever heard of differing opinions? And perhaps it is best to wait for the game before arguing about what is going to be crap or stupid?

[Red Templar]

LobselVith8 wrote...

And the veil can be torn where a lot of people have died, as we know from the two towns that were massacred during the New Exalted Marches because the people living there had converted to the Qun. Given that there has been two thousand years of people living on Thedas, I'd imagine that it's likely not as rare as we might think.

Saying that tears in the veil are not rare is entirely speculative. But even if they are... it changes nothing in the context of this debate. Can a warrior in some forgotten tomb be possessed by a demon? Yes, possibly. Is Farmer John going to spontaneously be possessed and start eating the faces of the people at the local farmer's market? No. Could any mage turn into an abomination in even the most innocent of settings? Yes.

Red Templar wrote...
If mages could be so easily possessed, why aren't all mages under the control of demons, then? How can any mage possibly retain their humanity if they're all at the mercy of demons and can do nothing about it? Clearly, it's not as simple as you make it out to be when we see that apostates and Circles mages have retained their sanity and humanity despite being linked to the Fade.

All mages aren't abominations because it is a relatively uncommon thing. By "relatively uncommon" I mean about as common as being murdered by your spouse or getting Chicken Pox as an adult. It happens, just not to everyone. A mage's own strength of will is factor... but that only matters to each individual mage. Are the non-mages of Thedas supposed to say to each other "don't worry honey, I'm sure this mage is strong willed enough that he won't turn into a demon and eat our faces. Sure it could happen... but that's no reason to treat him unfairly!"? No, that just isn't reasonable to expect of people who are put at risk by someone's fundamentally unstable presence.

And I'm sure the Circle has a lot to do with the relative rarity of abominations in Adrastian Thedas. People who live in rididly structured environments are more disciplined than people who live in complete freedom. Military school sucks, but people who go to military school are more disciplined and orderly than folks who went to the urban public school with graffiti in its classes. The Circle trains mages with an emphasis on discipline and responsible use of their power. That counts for a lot in comparison to some bitter, reckless apostate living on the run and training his apprentices to take what they can and fight the system with a passionate sense of entitlement.

Yet mages and non-mages can be possessed, so I don't see why we should diminish this fact.

When talking about how to deal with mages, however, it is completely irrelevent.

Or it means a statistical increase of abominations because of the toxic enviornment that mages are forced to live in, which would mean abominations are more likely to kill as a direct result of the oppression that mages are being forced to endure.

Circle mages do not live in a toxic environment. Sure, they can't go outside or study everything they might like to. But are they tortured, starved, or kept in squalor? Are they caged and maimed as the Qunari treat their mages? No.

Circle mages live lives of comfort, security, and stability. They have a guarantee of a cooked meals and warm beds for the rest of their lives, without having to do heavy labour, pay taxes, or worry about bandits or pitchfork-wielding mobs. They live lives of study and quiet contemplation, and have the comfort of knowing that their lifestyle means they will never harm an innocent outside the Tower. In return, they have to give up certain freedoms and do chores. That makes them a lot better off than most people. Given the choice, I'm sure the serfs of Orlais or the street urchins of Denerim would jump at the chance to make that trade. Heck, we should be so lucky as to have that option in RL. Once their Harrowing is done, mages live low-stress lives.

If the mages weren't in the Circle, they would have a hell of a lot more to deal with. Famine, putting food on the table, making money, banditry, plague, and a host of our other stressful, mundane concerns that the common people have to deal with in hardship every day. On top of that, they would have to deal with superstition of a society that would rightfully fear their power, and be vigilant against violence. That would be a high stress lifestyle, which would make mages all the more likely to slip.

As for protecting the public, the Circle's inception had nothing to do with that. Even factoring the existance of blood mages and abominations, neither were enough for mages to be imprisoned until they had a protest over their lack of rights in Orlais during the reign of Divine Ambrosia II, and their rights were restricted because of the religious dogma of the first Orlesian Emperor and his cultist views. If the Chantry's own history makes it clear that imprisoning mages had nothing to do with keeping people safe, why should we take this view now when there's nothing to support this claim?

So what? Even if the Chantry is an evil, controlling organising hell bent on preserving its power and authority at all costs... if their solution to mages is the most effective and efficient way of safeguarding the general populace from the dangers and abuses of magic, then that solution is valid and in the best interests of the people. The function served today is more important to the people living today than the motivations of men who lived hundreds of years ago.

[r2dr]

XxDeonxX wrote...

So we are seemingly given 2 grey choices.. or 2 black choices, trading 1 evil for another.. Possibly worse evil.

What are your thoughts on this?

Morally ambiguous, damned if you do and damned if you don't type scenarios are great. It's like in Redcliffe with the possessed child. If you kill him, you're a child-murdering douchebag. If you let him live, you're letting a demon run free in the world.

[Neleothesze]

r2dr wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

So we are seemingly given 2 grey choices.. or 2 black choices, trading 1 evil for another.. Possibly worse evil.

What are your thoughts on this?

Morally ambiguous, damned if you do and damned if you don't type scenarios are great. It's like in Redcliffe with the possessed child. If you kill him, you're a child-murdering douchebag. If you let him live, you're letting a demon run free in the world.

Or...  you could go into the fade, kick the demon's arse and save the child, spare the mother.
Of cooourse... that means having the kid sent to a Circle Tower where he can live as a prisoner for the rest of his life.

I personally don't see the issue in terms of 2 black choices... being forced to pick the lesser of two evils...

You need to understand that Hawke's more important choices will be made at a point when he will be the driving force behind a revolution... as Cassandra would say it... the world on the brink of war.
So he/she can allow him/herself a bit of cockyness to think that whatever the choice, they can later on deal with any extreme elements in their allied forces. (chantry wanting to kill apostates whether or not they are blood mages or blood mages). Whether this is actually included in the game ( the possibility of forcing moderation in the winning faction ) is the issue. If it's not included I might have to replay a Chantry fanatic just to see what I missed.

Morally speaking, imprisoning people is wrong. (freedom being a universal right of all who have not been proven guilty etc)
Historically speaking, limiting the freedom of a whole class of people has proven to be a very bad idea.  Regardless of the purity of one's motives, the validity of one's concerns or whatever supporting 'statistical information' is available, it's the surest way of breeding monsters and ultimately causing the fall of the state/form-of-government.

And for the information of all that say that "statistically speaking, putting mages in a cage is safer than risking them turning to blood magic" I'd like to point out that 82.5% of all statistics are made on the spot to prove a point and that if you place 4 dogs in a cage (same gender), one extremely aggressive and 3 mild-mannered ones:
a) the mild-mannered ones get eaten/beaten up/develop distressing behaviours(chew their fur, excessive peeing,etc)
they all show an increase in aggressive behaviour.
Observed behaviour > statistics.

As for my Lady Hawke... well...
If I play a mage [automatically an apostate since my daddy kindly trained me at home] I'll be damned if I support the chantry. I am the 'hero' of the game so I can handle whatever mess my allied blood mages may cook up.
If I play a warrior... well... my baby sister is an apostate I'll be damned if I support the chantry and let them lock her up. I'm the 'hero' so I can handle etcetc....

Modifié par Indolence, 27 février 2011 - 09:07 .

[badboy64]

The Chantry is going down everytime i play a new game in DA2. They been in power way to long and need to be knocked a few notches for letting  them allow to control people regardless of who they are. I my play through I have no respect for them period and after finishing the mage origins I ask that mages break free from the chantry completely which is all fair to the mage. They have the right to be free regardless of what path they have choosen for themselves. I don't need a history lesson on their reign to power. I seen enough that already.

Modifié par badboy64, 27 février 2011 - 09:08 .

[TheCreeper]

The thing I have against the chantry is that while I agree with their reasons for watching and controlling the Mages I believe that they are simply too strict and overbearing in it's watch, I Believe if I support the mages they would (given time) develop something similar to the templars to watch over them in cases of Abominations and what not, but it wouldn't be nearly as strict in it's rule (for one thing, mages would be allowed to have families) and Apostates would be more willing to join this new circle.

[Neleothesze]

Red Templar wrote...

Circle mages do not live in a toxic environment. Sure, they can't go outside or study everything they might like to. But are they tortured, starved, or kept in squalor? Are they caged and maimed as the Qunari treat their mages? No.

Circle mages live lives of comfort, security, and stability. They have a guarantee of a cooked meals and warm beds for the rest of their lives, without having to do heavy labour, pay taxes, or worry about bandits or pitchfork-wielding mobs. They live lives of study and quiet contemplation, and have the comfort of knowing that their lifestyle means they will never harm an innocent outside the Tower. In return, they have to give up certain freedoms and do chores. That makes them a lot better off than most people. Given the choice, I'm sure the serfs of Orlais or the street urchins of Denerim would jump at the chance to make that trade. Heck, we should be so lucky as to have that option in RL.

I see... so if I give you a Xbox, a PC, food and a hotel room you'd be fine with living in your hotel room for the rest of your life. Because you don't have any talents with which you could earn money... and you don't want to have a normal family life and you certainly don't want to travel. And heaven forbid you ignorant people be afraid of you and turn it into a media disaster.
Please tell me if you noticed one married mage couple or that mages are allowed to have children [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]
... they can't marry, can't have kids... having a kid with magic is a "shame" that happens to normal people... having 2 powerful mages "breed" is, I'm sure, something they can't allow.

Yes, we should all be so happy RL. I'm sure in real life a beautiful woman/man can't marry for money and spend her/his life in luxury instead of being termed "mage" and sent to the hotel room.
I'm sure in real life an intelligent man/woman can't invent a new web gizmo to earn a monthly 5-6 figure salary and live comfortably instead of being sent to their hotel room for being born a mage.

Sure, we have poor people IRL too... and there are poor people in the Dragon Age universe... but saying that a man
with no freedom of movement should consider himself lucky because there are poor people around is just wrong.

Red Templar wrote...

So what? Even if the Chantry is an evil, controlling organising hell
bent on preserving its power and authority at all costs... if their
solution to mages is the most effective and efficient way of
safeguarding the general populace from the dangers and abuses of magic,
then that solution is valid and in the best interests of the people.
The function served today is more important to the people living today than the motivations of men who lived hundreds of years ago.

Yes, let's imprison a whole class of people to safeguard another class of people. Instead of investing into better trained Templars to track down those mages who do use blood magic and leave every other mage alone as he is a normal human being guaranteed the same rights as poor farmer Joe.

By your standards, in any marvel or DC univerce people with superpowers should be held in state-governed, militarised facilities to protect poor farmer Joe who can't run his fist through a wall or has infravision. Nevermind that Anne-superhero can only turn green. She's abnormal! Nefermind that most mages prove they can resist the lure of demons by going through the Harrowing. They're abnormal!

And nevermind that allowing mages to go free would actually encourage mages to help catch those that give them a bad name.

If I'm an average flameball-throwing mage and me and my spirit-healer wife/husband hear from the local folk that a blood mage has been terrorising the area and are offering a reward I might even consider going with the Templars after the **** instead of pretending I don't have magic and leaving everyone to deal with their problems.

Modifié par Indolence, 27 février 2011 - 09:35 .

[Red Templar]

Indolence wrote...

I see... so if I give you a Xbox, a PC, food and a hotel room you'd be fine with living in your hotel room for the rest of your life. Because you don't have any talents with which you could earn money... and you don't want to have a normal family life and you certainly don't want to travel. And heaven forbid you ignorant people be afraid of you and turn it into a media disaster.

If all my physical needs were met, I was kept safe and secure, I had a community of people around me, and I knew that my lack of freedom kept me from hurting innocent people against my will... yeah, I'd deal with it just fine.

It isn't ideal for the mages, but it isn't terrible either. They could be a lot worse off. If I was a mage in Thedas I like to think that I would be mature and selfless enough to put what is best for everyone above my own selfish hopes for what my life might be.

There are things much, much worse than being doomed to live with warm meals and warm beds for the rest of your life. Don't be quick to scoff at those things if you don't know what it is like to go without them.

Please tell me if you noticed one married mage couple or that mages are allowed to have children
... they can't marry, can't have kids... having a kid with magic is a "shame" that happens to normal people... having 2 powerful mages "breed" is, I'm sure, something they can't allow.

Last I saw David Gaider speak on the issue, he said romance, family and marriage are discouraged and not too commonplace, but that they weren't expressly forbidden. Even so, if I had a serious genetic condition that would pass to my offspring, or if me reproducing put the people around at me risk, I could live with the sacrifice. It would suck, but the greater good would matter more than my wish to be a parent.

Sure, we have poor people IRL too... and there are poor people in the Dragon Age universe... but saying that a man
with no freedom of movement should consider himself lucky because there are poor people around is just wrong.

Not having your basic human rights sucks. I know all about it, because I live in a place in a world where those human rights aren't always met. But countries that can put modern human rights and nice, fluffy ideas like freedom over practical things like public safety or the stability of society are countries that can afford to that. There are countries that can't... it sucks, but it is real. That was true of the real world in medieval times, before the day of human rights. It is true of many countries in modern day Earth. And it is true of Thedas. Civilization is not built on idealistic notions and well intentioned hopes. Tough choices have to be made for the good of the many. Our freedom to debate this is only made possible by the tough choices people took to bring civilisation to this point.

Point: freedom is great. But when freedom comes at the cost of safety and stability, it is anarchy. (edit for clarity) Having a society where everyone's human rights are met is a good and just ideal to work towards, by anyone's standards. But you don't get there all at once, you accomplish it step by step. Until you get there, you have to do what is practical and sensible, not disregard much more basic things like safety and security for things that need safety and security to matter in the first place.

Yes, let's imprison a whole class of people to safeguard another class of people. Instead of investing into better trained Templars to track down those mages who do use blood magic and leave every other mage alone as he is a normal human being guaranteed the same rights as poor farmer Joe.

We do it all the time in real life. People with deadly, infectuous illnesses are kept in quarantine so that they can't endanger anyone they come into contact with. Suspected terrorists are kept from boarding planes for obvious reasons. People with mental disorders that make them dangerous to themselves and others are kept in facilities that care for them. It isn't malicious or mean spirited. It is just necessary for the good of everyone.

Mages aren't kept in bare cells, or cages. They have comfortable, safe lives. Fair deal.

As for training better templars to hunt bad mages and abominations instead of keeping all mages in the tower... sure, it is an option. Would it be better for the good mages? Yes. Would it be better for society in general? No. Because the bad mages and aboms that the templars would be sent to hunt would be able to do a lot of damage before they got caught. And that may seem better for the innocent mage miles away, but it would be a hell of a lot worse for the innocent farmer who just watched his family get butchered by an abomination because a of mage's civil rights.

By your standards, in any marvel or DC univerce people with superpowers should be held in state-governed, militarised facilities to protect poor farmer Joe who can't run his fist through a wall or has infravision.

That is an oversimplification, but yes actually. I rather enjoyed the Marvel Universe registration arc. People with power should be able to be held responsible for how they exercise that power. It is one of the core pillars that makes modern western government an improvement over the autocratic systems of the past.

Modifié par Red Templar, 27 février 2011 - 10:17 .

[pulsar989]

all this philosophical arguing between chantry restrictions and mage rights(there is nothing wrong with being a mage) is very interesting but in the end as Andraste proved (it doesn't matter if she was a mage warrior or rouge) its the one with the power that decides whats right. and if your going to argue that then remember in her name the chantry declared a march on the Dales and destroyed the 2nd elven homeland relegating the people she promised freedom to into almost slaves or homeless wanders. that is why i will side with the group that's in my best interest.

Morality is all fair and good and preferable but in the end has no meaning.
wealth, power, survival, freedom, and love now those have meaning.

so maker help whoever stands in my.

Modifié par pulsar989, 27 février 2011 - 10:28 .

[Red Templar]

pulsar989 wrote...
Morality is all fair and good and preferable but in the end has no meaning.
wealth, power, survival, freedom, and love now those have meaning.

That's true for the individual, in the short term.
For a society to progress and advance and improve in the long term, people need to be able to look beyond their own interests and work towards building something greater and more important than themselves. We live in a modern world that allows us all kind of luxary never dreamed of a thousand years ago... and we wouldn't be here if not for people throughout history who looked beyond their own lifetimes and tried to contribute to the cause of humanity as a whole.

But then, my idealism isn't all that vital to the current discussion. You're welcome to your views of course. I, for one, am not about to disregard the good that a force like the Chantry can do just because it's methods aren't ideal for everyone.

[Felene]

Instead of putting down either Chantry or Circle of Magi, I support making a new power to balance them out.

[pulsar989]

Red Templar wrote...

pulsar989 wrote...
Morality is all fair and good and preferable but in the end has no meaning.
wealth, power, survival, freedom, and love now those have meaning.

That's true for the individual, in the short term.
For a society to progress and advance and improve in the long term, people need to be able to look beyond their own interests and work towards building something greater and more important than themselves. We live in a modern world that allows us all kind of luxary never dreamed of a thousand years ago... and we wouldn't be here if not for people throughout history who looked beyond their own lifetimes and tried to contribute to the cause of humanity as a whole.

But then, my idealism isn't all that vital to the current discussion. You're welcome to your views of course. I, for one, am not about to disregard the good that a force like the Chantry can do just because it's methods aren't ideal for everyone.

the world was moved forward by indeviduals (the wright brothers, Davinchi, Abraham Lincoln) without the drive to improve to be the one who wins there is no moving forward, improvment, and change.

after all the society of dragon age was changed individuls Andraste, the Majester lords of the imperium. not to mention the warden who killed the arch demons.

but i will respect you oppinion.

[Skilled Seeker]

You know Templars could deal with Mages in a far easier, more cost effective manner.They could kill them all. But they don't and instead come up with the best compomise for all parties. I will most certainly support the Chantry in this scenario. Having mages running around free is just too much of a risk to take, as Red Templar put it excellently.

Modifié par Skilled Seeker, 27 février 2011 - 11:25 .

[LobselVith8]

Red Templar wrote...

Saying that tears in the veil are not rare is entirely speculative. But even if they are... it changes nothing in the context of this debate. Can a warrior in some forgotten tomb be possessed by a demon? Yes, possibly. Is Farmer John going to spontaneously be possessed and start eating the faces of the people at the local farmer's market? No. Could any mage turn into an abomination in even the most innocent of settings? Yes.

I used the words "I imagine" so I could made it clear it was speculation, but something I don't think should be dismissed given the two thousand years of Thedas history. We have nothing to prove it one way or another, and I noticed how you didn't address that there are a myraid of mages who are not under the command of a demon. Clearly, the issue is more complicated than you make it out to be.

Red Templar wrote...

All mages aren't abominations because it is a relatively uncommon thing. By "relatively uncommon" I mean about as common as being murdered by your spouse or getting Chicken Pox as an adult. It happens, just not to everyone. A mage's own strength of will is factor... but that only matters to each individual mage. Are the non-mages of Thedas supposed to say to each other "don't worry honey, I'm sure this mage is strong willed enough that he won't turn into a demon and eat our faces. Sure it could happen... but that's no reason to treat him unfairly!"? No, that just isn't reasonable to expect of people who are put at risk by someone's fundamentally unstable presence.

And I'm sure the Circle has a lot to do with the relative rarity of abominations in Adrastian Thedas. People who live in rididly structured environments are more disciplined than people who live in complete freedom. Military school sucks, but people who go to military school are more disciplined and orderly than folks who went to the urban public school with graffiti in its classes. The Circle trains mages with an emphasis on discipline and responsible use of their power. That counts for a lot in comparison to some bitter, reckless apostate living on the run and training his apprentices to take what they can and fight the system with a passionate sense of entitlement.

The Circle can also have the Knight-Commander sentence a mage to be made tranquil or to death without showing the evidence to the First Enchanter or giving a mage a chance to defend himself against the charges. Taking someone's humanity from them is barbaric, and we know from Aneirin that not every mage charged with being maleficar is one. We have the descendants of Parlathan as an example of how a long line of apostates can live outside of Chantry or templar rule without the need for being oppressed and mistreated, and still prevent demonic possession.

Red Templar wrote...

When talking about how to deal with mages, however, it is completely irrelevent.

Not when it addresses that mages aren't alone as people who can be possessed.

Red Templar wrote...

Circle mages do not live in a toxic environment.

They live in an environment where they have no basic rights and can be killed or have their humanity taken from them on suspicion or heresay. That sounds pretty toxic to me.

Red Templar wrote...

Sure, they can't go outside or study everything they might like to. But are they tortured, starved, or kept in squalor? Are they caged and maimed as the Qunari treat their mages? No.

I'd argue the Harrowing is a form of torture since it involves putting a demon inside a mage, and we have no way of knowing whether it's necessary or whether it's putting mages forth in a test to fail is the truth. There's also the Rite of Tranquility, and losing your humanity, that reduces you to being little more than a slave that I'd address as torture.

Red Templar wrote...

Circle mages live lives of comfort, security, and stability. They have a guarantee of a cooked meals and warm beds for the rest of their lives, without having to do heavy labour, pay taxes, or worry about bandits or pitchfork-wielding mobs. They live lives of study and quiet contemplation, and have the comfort of knowing that their lifestyle means they will never harm an innocent outside the Tower. In return, they have to give up certain freedoms and do chores. That makes them a lot better off than most people. Given the choice, I'm sure the serfs of Orlais or the street urchins of Denerim would jump at the chance to make that trade. Heck, we should be so lucky as to have that option in RL. Once their Harrowing is done, mages live low-stress lives.

So they're treated like a lot of real life slaves were treated, given fine things because of their master's wealth and having no rights and no agency over their own lives?

Red Templar wrote...

If the mages weren't in the Circle, they would have a hell of a lot more to deal with. Famine, putting food on the table, making money, banditry, plague, and a host of our other stressful, mundane concerns that the common people have to deal with in hardship every day. On top of that, they would have to deal with superstition of a society that would rightfully fear their power, and be vigilant against violence. That would be a high stress lifestyle, which would make mages all the more likely to slip.

Some would say it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees, since many have left the comforts of the Circle and risked their lives to seek freedom over the creature comforts you've put forth.

Red Templar wrote...

So what? Even if the Chantry is an evil, controlling organising hell bent on preserving its power and authority at all costs... if their solution to mages is the most effective and efficient way of safeguarding the general populace from the dangers and abuses of magic, then that solution is valid and in the best interests of the people. The function served today is more important to the people living today than the motivations of men who lived hundreds of years ago.

If it never served that function in the first place, why should I trust it serves that function now? If the Harrowing is setting up mages to fail and the Circles do little more than put mages under the heel of the Chantry and it's military arm, why should I believe it's protecting anyone by robbing innocent people of their rights and subjugating them?

[LobselVith8]

Skilled Seeker wrote...

You know Templars could deal with Mages in a far easier, more cost effective manner.They could kill them all. But they don't and instead come up with the best compomise for all parties. I will most certainly support the Chantry in this scenario. Having mages running around free is just too much of a risk to take, as Red Templar put it excellently.

Instead of killing them, the Chantry controls all the mages of Thedas and has them under their boot. Forcing people to be little more than thralls sounds like they're the new Tevinter Imperium to me.

Red Templar wrote...

If all my physical needs were met, I was kept safe and secure, I had a community of people around me, and I knew that my lack of freedom kept me from hurting innocent people against my will... yeah, I'd deal with it just fine.

It isn't ideal for the mages, but it isn't terrible either. They could be a lot worse off. If I was a mage in Thedas I like to think that I would be mature and selfless enough to put what is best for everyone above my own selfish hopes for what my life might be.

There are things much, much worse than being doomed to live with warm meals and warm beds for the rest of your life. Don't be quick to scoff at those things if you don't know what it is like to go without them.

Considering the revolutions that have been fought for freedom throughout human history, it seems like you're scoffing at the idea that people would desire freedom over subjugation.

Red Templar wrote...

Last I saw David Gaider speak on the issue, he said romance, family and marriage are discouraged and not too commonplace, but that they weren't expressly forbidden. Even so, if I had a serious genetic condition that would pass to my offspring, or if me reproducing put the people around at me risk, I could live with the sacrifice. It would suck, but the greater good would matter more than my wish to be a parent.

He addressed that they are explicitly forbidden in some Circles. As for raising children, he said Grey Warden mages can raise their children. That puts into question how accurate any claim that mages shouldn't be able to raise their own children is, especially when you factor the long line of Parlathan's descendents who are apostates.

Red Templar wrote...

Not having your basic human rights sucks. I know all about it, because I live in a place in a world where those human rights aren't always met. But countries that can put modern human rights and nice, fluffy ideas like freedom over practical things like public safety or the stability of society are countries that can afford to that. There are countries that can't... it sucks, but it is real. That was true of the real world in medieval times, before the day of human rights. It is true of many countries in modern day Earth. And it is true of Thedas. Civilization is not built on idealistic notions and well intentioned hopes. Tough choices have to be made for the good of the many. Our freedom to debate this is only made possible by the tough choices people took to bring civilisation to this point.

Sounds like an easy choice to deny an entire group of people their freedom because of what some might do.

Red Templar wrote...

Point: freedom is great. But when freedom comes at the cost of safety and stability, it is anarchy. (edit for clarity) Having a society where everyone's human rights are met is a good and just ideal to work towards, by anyone's standards. But you don't get there all at once, you accomplish it step by step. Until you get there, you have to do what is practical and sensible, not disregard much more basic things like safety and security for things that need safety and security to matter in the first place.

Except we have no proof that what the Chantry or the templars do is necessary, especially when their own history shows it had nothing to do with protecting innocents.

Red Templar wrote...

We do it all the time in real life. People with deadly, infectuous illnesses are kept in quarantine so that they can't endanger anyone they come into contact with. Suspected terrorists are kept from boarding planes for obvious reasons. People with mental disorders that make them dangerous to themselves and others are kept in facilities that care for them. It isn't malicious or mean spirited. It is just necessary for the good of everyone.

Mages aren't infected, they aren't diseased, and they aren't terrorists, so I don't see the point in bringing up those analogies when they have nothing to do with imprisoning innocent people as a result of a nonviolent protest mages held in Orlais centuries ago.

Red Templar wrote...

Mages aren't kept in bare cells, or cages. They have comfortable, safe lives. Fair deal.

Clearly not to the mages, especially those willing to die for their freedom.

Red Templar wrote...

As for training better templars to hunt bad mages and abominations instead of keeping all mages in the tower... sure, it is an option. Would it be better for the good mages? Yes. Would it be better for society in general? No. Because the bad mages and aboms that the templars would be sent to hunt would be able to do a lot of damage before they got caught. And that may seem better for the innocent mage miles away, but it would be a hell of a lot worse for the innocent farmer who just watched his family get butchered by an abomination because a of mage's civil rights.

We also saw how a Blight devastated Ferelden because the Chantry was more concerned with keeping mages locked up than allowing more than seven mages to fight the darkspawn. How many innocents died because of their refusal to allow the mages to help save the nation from a Blight?

Red Templar wrote...

That is an oversimplification, but yes actually. I rather enjoyed the Marvel Universe registration arc. People with power should be able to be held responsible for how they exercise that power. It is one of the core pillars that makes modern western government an improvement over the autocratic systems of the past.

I find that comment interesting when the only time we've seen any oversight for the templars was concerning one who was chasing tail.

[LordPaul256]

If that's the choice, then you can count on 70+% of players to choose the mages. (Hopefully the actual story can make this more 50/50... but I'm sure the kneejerk is mages = cool and Chantry = not cool).

EDIT:
And now that I think about it, either Hawke is a mage himself, or his sister is.  So BioWare has to know that that will give everyone more incentive to choose mages.  I'm willing to bet that based on which sibling you choose, they will give you reason to choose the other side.  Like Bethany will become a blood mage (becoming her specialty) and Carver will become a Templar (becoming his specialty).  

That's... actually, brilliant. 

I hope BioWare did this. 

Modifié par LordPaul256, 28 février 2011 - 01:41 .

[TheCreeper]

LordPaul256 wrote...

If that's the choice, then you can count on 70+% of players to choose the mages. (Hopefully the actual story can make this more 50/50... but I'm sure the kneejerk is mages = cool and Chantry = not cool).

EDIT:
And now that I think about it, either Hawke is a mage himself, or his sister is.  So BioWare has to know that that will give everyone more incentive to choose mages.  I'm willing to bet that based on which sibling you choose, they will give you reason to choose the other side.  Like Bethany will become a blood mage (becoming her specialty) and Carver will become a Templar (becoming his specialty).  

That's... actually, brilliant. 

I hope BioWare did this. 

I don't think Bethany would become a blood mage since if she dies in demo you get a codex entry about how she really wanted a normal life for herself and was nervous about how Hawke was embracing being mage easier than she was.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...
When we consider that the nation of Rivain and the Chasind tribes don't treat mages like the Andrastians do, I don't see how it's wrong to point out that calling mages cursed (Magi Origin) and blaming them for the Andrastian version of "original sin" doesn't cause mistrust.

1) We know little of Rivain and how mages are treated there. Of coruse, some mages certanly belive life there is better, but you know what they say about grass and the other side? DG once confirmed that many mages think Tevinter is a better place for mages to live, but they mihght end up severly dissapointed if they went there.

2) Chasing TRIBES. Completely different lifestyle and culture. And beliefs. For all we know, what do Chasind even know of magic? If they don't know how it works, when an abomination takes out a tribe, they might as well think of it as punishment from the gods, and thus not blame the mages.
Again, what worlds for a tribal society does not work for a empire/nation.

There are also Grey Warden mages who use blood magic and don't use slaves to power spells. The Hero of Ferelden can use blood magic. The fact is that simply because the Tevinter Magisters abused the abilities of magic doesn't mean "every Blood Mage of note" has done the same.

Ture. But Blood magis is, and will remain dangerous, mistrusted and feared. Why do you think the GW's hide the Joining?
And b.t.w. - GW's are hardly the paragons of morality, so what does that tell us? Avernus is certanly not the kind of guy I'd ever trust.

And the Chantry of Andraste is built around a woman who fought Tevinter, who is viewed as the Bride of the Maker, and whose teachings have lead to mages being viewed as "cursed" and what amounts to imprisoning innocent people for what they might do. Considering the elves also fought Tevinter and didn't establish a stigma against mages, it's fair to point out that the Chantry is responsible for the mistrust we see in Andrastian societies that differs from the alternative societies out there that don't share their religious views.

Wrong. This "cursed" obession of yours is flat out wrong.
The stigma of mages depends on several factors - history, exposure, knowledge (of the wrokings of magic), culture and area.
Your conclusion is premature.

The fact is that the Andrastian societies have a negative attitude towards mages while we see other societies that don't share such a view. As for demons, anyone can be possessed - people, corpses, animals, and even trees. If you're concerned about possession, isn't that a point for mages to be properly trained in the use of their abilities, rather than subjugated to the point where they would make a deal with a demon rather than live under templar rule?

Other societies? Like the Qun?
Funny to note that all large, advanced empires seem to have such a stygma, while tribal societies (Dalish, Chasind) don't.

swk3000 wrote...
As Lotion Soronnar has said, the Chantry is not the only source promoting mistrust of Mage's; the very nature of Magic itself promotes even more mistrust.

That comment ignores the fundamental difference between the mistrust of mages in Andrastian nations and the completely different attitude towards magic we see and hear about in alternative societies that aren't part of the Chantry of Andraste. Clearly, magic doesn't automatically promote mistrust.

And your comment ignores the OTHER findamental differences between those societies, beside the Chantry.