171 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Red Templar wrote...

I won't agree to disagree with you, because that means your point of view is at least somewhat valid in a rational universe. It isn't. The Chantry-Mage conflict is a difficult dilemma with no easy answers by design. Both mage and templar perspective are intentionally complicated so that each side has a valid perspective. Your arugment continues to dismiss that, dismiss the Chantry as serving no purpose at all based on a flimsy comparison to Rivain and Chasind, make it out like there is absolutely no problem in mages being unsupervised, and the chantry is just an evil organisation that represses people for its own power with no positive intentions or consequence. That is not valid, it is intentionally one sided, and by advocating that point of view you deliberately cheapen the issue.

Considering that DA2 seems to be set up to offer us a choice between whether we'll side with the templars or the mages, I think it's intentional that we're permitted to choose a side to see as right in this discussion. It's the same reason the Hero of Ferelden can ask for the mages of the Circle of Magi in Ferelden to be given their independence.

Red Templar wrote...

How's this for an alternative, to try to salvage some discussion. Why don't you come up with an alternative system that is better than the templars? Come up with your own, detailed idea as to how to solve these problems in a system where no one is oppressed and everyone is protected. I guarantee you I will be able to pick much larger holes in whatever you can come up with than you can pick in the current system

People already have. This discussion has gone on for quite some time in several different threads. IanPolaris offered one proposal for an alternative to the Chantry and the templars.

[Red Templar]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Considering that DA2 seems to be set up to offer us a choice between whether we'll side with the templars or the mages, I think it's intentional that we're permitted to choose a side to see as right in this discussion. It's the same reason the Hero of Ferelden can ask for the mages of the Circle of Magi in Ferelden to be given their independence.

The difference between us is not that I side with the Chantry and you side with the mages. The difference is that I can admit the complexity of the situation, and concede validity to both viewpoints, before making up my mind which I think is the most valid, sa the writers intended. Whereas you deny the Chantry point of view any validity at all, and pretend that this is a black and white issue. This simplistic view makes you a poor advocate for the mage "side".

People already have. This discussion has gone on for quite some time in several different threads. IanPolaris offered one proposal for an alternative to the Chantry and the templars.

I've seen such proposals. None of them are airtight, none of them are as efficient as the current solution, and all of them accomplish making Thedas a nicer place to live for mages while making it a much more dangerous place to live for non-mages. No one has yet come up with a practical solution that gives mages more freedom without putting non-mage society at serious risk or that is founded on practicality rather than shallow sentinemtality.

If you disagree, please demonstrate a practical alternative. I will then demonstrate how whatever you come up with is merely a trade off of one group's rights versus another... just like the status quo.

If you do not want to demonstrate that and wish to agree to disagree so that we can drop this reptetitive discussion, then by all means feel free to abandon your compulsion to get the last word in and do so.

: )   

Modifié par Red Templar, 01 mars 2011 - 02:14 .

[LobselVith8]

Red Templar wrote...

The difference between us is not that I side with the Chantry and you side with the mages. The difference is that I can admit the complexity of the situation, and concede validity to both viewpoints, before making up my mind which I think is the most valid, sa the writers intended. Whereas you deny the Chantry point of view any validity at all, and pretend that this is a black and white issue. This simplistic view makes you a poor advocate for the mage "side".

I take the approach that I do because codex entries like History of the Chantry Part Four and History of the Circle address the real reasons that mages rights were restricted and why they were imprisoned. If their scholars of the Chantry admit that blood mages and abominations played no role in the inception of the Circle or the segregation and imprisonment of the mages, why should I grant the Chantry view validity? It's not a view I share because I see no future in oppressing a group of people and thinking the status quo will always remain the same, and I find the conduct of the Chantry and the templars monstrous.

I think the mages should be emancipated from the Chantry. It's a point that can be addressed in DA:O when the Warden calls the Circle a prison and an oppressive place, and Wynne doesn't disagree with either comment. In fact, when the Warden calls the Circle an oppressive place, she says the Warden can change that. Clearly, we're permitted not to like the Chantry or templar system in the storyline. I addressed my distain for what the Chantry and templars do in my canon run when the Hero of Ferelden asked for the Circle of Ferelden to be given their independence and the ruler agreed.

Red Templar wrote...

I've seen such proposals. None of them are airtight, none of them are as efficient as the current solution, and all of them accomplish making Thedas a nicer place to live for mages while it making a much more dangerous place to live for non-mages.

I don't think the current system is efficient at all, unless we're talking about it's ability to produce abominations and setting mages up to fail.

Red Templar wrote...

No one has yet come up with a practical solution that gives mages more freedom without putting non-mage society at serious risk or that is founded on practicality rather than shallow sentinemtality.

I don't see what's practical about a system that seems like it's going to lead to an inevitable war between templars and mages.

Red Templar wrote...

If you disagree, please demonstrate a practical alternative. I will then demonstrate how whatever you come up with is merely a trade off of one group's rights versus another... just like the status quo.

So I should waste my time coming up with an alternative that you're going to disagree with before you even read what I write? That sounds wonderful, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to pass on the offer.

Red Templar wrote...

If you do not want to demonstrate that and wish to agree to disagree so that we can drop this reptetitive discussion, then by all means feel free to abandon your compulsion to get the last word in and do so.

: )   

If having the last word is that important to you, feel free to take it.

[Red Templar]

Oh look. Another "the templars are bad no matter what, everything is the Chantry's fault, I'm not going to bother trying to illustrate a better system" reply.

This is why nothing comes from these conversations.

If you are confident that a better system is possible, you should be able to produce a better system and trust in your logic to make it stand up to my criticism. I invite you again to do so. It easy to poke holes in something and dismiss it as wrong, it is not so easy to do a better job yourself.

You say the mages should be emancipated and that it would be a good thing. Prove it. Show me a system where mages can be emancipated with a guarantee that none of them will victimize non-mages

[Augustei]

This thread wasn't originally intended to be a Mage vs. Chantry thread.. Kinda already had 1 of those... But I can see how things got this way Lol

But seriously.. you gotta admit.. Siding with either mighten be considered the best choice.. Siding witheither 1 will have bad consequences from the opposite side

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 01 mars 2011 - 03:20 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

I take the approach that I do because codex entries like History of the Chantry Part Four and History of the Circle address the real reasons that mages rights were restricted and why they were imprisoned. If their scholars of the Chantry admit that blood mages and abominations played no role in the inception of the Circle or the segregation and imprisonment of the mages, why should I grant the Chantry view validity? It's not a view I share because I see no future in oppressing a group of people and thinking the status quo will always remain the same, and I find the conduct of the Chantry and the templars monstrous.

HA! Where does it say this? Nowhere. At no point in the Codex does it say "Abominations and mages were no issue. Everything is fun, sunshine and lollipops".

You - again - prove to everyone reading this that you see no difference between hard facts and what you want to see. You infer things.. Fill in the blank wiht whatever meaning you want.. and then peddle that as "facts".

I don't think the current system is efficient at all, unless we're talking about it's ability to produce abominations and setting mages up to fail.

What you think and what you can prove are two Ccompletely different things Lob.

You belive the Harrowing is seting up mages to fail..but that is a redicolous and idiotic view...especially considering it's the invention of MAGED and is used even in Tevinter.
Obvipously it has come to this point - blaming the chantry for something the mages did themselves -and
something that isn't evil, broken or needs changing to boot.

I don't see what's practical about a system that seems like it's going to lead to an inevitable war between templars and mages.

700 years of peace? And after the war is over..another 700?

Or do you have a better system? We are waiting.....

So I should waste my time coming up with an alternative that you're going to disagree with before you even read what I write? That sounds wonderful, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to pass on the offer.

No - we challange you to come up with a better alternative. One that has less holes than the Circle system.
You know you can't. We know that we will find lots and lots of holes in that system - just like we do in your arguments. That's not disagreeing before you write - that expecting you to fail at an impossible task you claims youe can accomplish.

[SunnKingg]

The Circle is critical. It protects mages from non-mages just as much as non-mages from mages. There is never a solution that will prevent harm to everyone. However, I don't believe the Chantry oversight of the Circle is necessary. It is never wise to give power over a group to the people who hate or fear them (or whatever word you wish to call it).

The Circle should stand as an autonomous collective. The mages themselves will have jurisdiction over the mages of Thedas. Much like how the Templars are under the jurisdiction of the Chantry. Through this system mages will not be labeled malificars out of a prejudice haste. As well, the mages should have the right to trade for lyrium with the dwarves. The fact that the Chantry controls the lyrium trade shows thier own greed from power. In addition, I find that the harrowing ritual will still have its place. It is paramount that mages learn how to handle demons, and control their powers.

I believe that when mages show that they can govern themselves the fears that the populace of Thedas have will start to diminish. That's my personal opinion anyways.

Modifié par SunnKingg, 01 mars 2011 - 03:49 .

[DKJaigen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

e]

Hahaha...you know so very little of tribal societies.
That are tribes that do horrible things .. and stupid things.. yet they are so tied into their culture that they don't really question them.
A little research on the subject does wonders.

explain the dalish to me then? we have little knowledge of the barbarians thats true. and yet the highest ranking people of the dalish are all magi. and yet they dont suffer from abominations


Again, templars aren't ineffective. The lore proves otherwise. the lore proves nothing as we dont have enough lore infomration

the lore is incomplete. i judge the templars from the specimens we encounterd in fereleden. im not impressed.

Not to mention that if mages are still restricted to tower, then its' still "slavery" according to some of you. You just change the jailor. Yes.. a massive improvement!

No i dont as the templars put a lot of unnecisary restrictions on the mages. including forbidding to join higher social standing. their is no reason why mages cant be nobles.




2 quests IIRC. And people can be bought???? *SCHOCK*  This has NEVER happened in history! Oh dear! How horrible. It indeeds shows how corrupts tempalrs are.and mages..and anything with a brain for that matter.

Yes it does. how many abominations and mage criminals are being protected by corrupt templars. If you put such a system in modern day would anyone accept it? Only the most retarded people would support such a system. Not to mention that this form of control can be used against the chantry. should someone gain control of the lyrium trade they will have a lot op templar slaves at their disposal.Also another thing of note. the templars become mentally unstable after a while. Great way in supporting mental lunatics lotion

And about purposefull adiction? List the names please. Only one I can recall from the top of my head i Alistair, and he isn't even a proper templar.

He is a proper templar. and uses templar abilities but its not only alistair its godwin that says the same as well. and templars are to ignorant to realise they are enslaved by the chantry. furthermore the grey warden himself can become a templar without the lyrium addiction.


Some proof of that supposed super-effectiveness would be nice.

i already did goodday.


Haha..resistant to bribery? Really?
Yes if you are claiming they are not bring proof
Better at controling themselves?
yes the mages have long line training and mental disciplines test and safe guards to prevent abominations
Again, would the populace and the nobility want mages to govern themselves?
if the contribute to society in meaningful way lets say through healing or building i doubt many would object.
How do you prevent abomination damage with mages beign free? How do you deal with mage incidents?
through mages of course.templars aren't needed to prevent or hunt abominations. magi are also wealthy enough to creat their own mage hunter squads.






Are they? Really? Think again.
Not to mention that all 4 are needed..and the 4th one isn't  - and not because of Chantry propaganda. We've been over this already.


The tevinter imprium proves otherwise.


What few days? Didn't you look at the cutscene?
Both the ferry man and greagoir confirm its a few days.
The Warden arrives shortly after the s*** hits the fans.. We see templars barricading the doors and Gergoir giving orders. You don't barricade the doors several days after.

Your timeline and subsequent accuations are completely wrong.

right


Again, CODEX. It mentions exactly how many rites of Annulment were invoked. And we know when such Rites are called for. Meaning there have been 17 major rebelions in 700 years...across all the Cricles.
Which IS an impressive record.

The question is why they where annulled in the first place. abominations running free or political problems?annulling a circle isnt impressive preventing them is far better. and 17 mishaps over 700 years proves that mages can govern themselves.

And how does that destroy the "mages are dangerous" argument?

appearently mages arent as dangerous as you make them out to be.

Aha..so the Codex is worthless...when it tells something you don't want to hear?

No the codex is only usefull if it gives all the information. we only know that 17 annulments occured. but why this occured isnt told.

[LobselVith8]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

HA! Where does it say this? Nowhere. At no point in the Codex does it say "Abominations and mages were no issue. Everything is fun, sunshine and lollipops".

It reads that in the complete absense of any mention of blood mages or abominations as the factor in mages being restricted of their rights for Emperor Drakon's religious views (History of the Chantry Part Four), and the fact that Divine Ambrosia II was talked down by the templars from declaring an Exalted March on her own cathedral because mages held a nonviolent protest there (History of the Circle).

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You - again - prove to everyone reading this that you see no difference between hard facts and what you want to see. You infer things.. Fill in the blank wiht whatever meaning you want.. and then peddle that as "facts".

There's no facts that indicate that blood mages or abominations played any role in the creation of the Circle of Magi or the imprisonment of the mages when the Chantry written histories in the codex entries demonstrate why the Circle was created and why mages are now imprisoned at the first sign of magical ability.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't think the current system is efficient at all, unless we're talking about it's ability to produce abominations and setting mages up to fail.

What you think and what you can prove are two Ccompletely different things Lob.

You belive the Harrowing is seting up mages to fail..but that is a redicolous and idiotic view...especially considering it's the invention of MAGED and is used even in Tevinter.
Obvipously it has come to this point - blaming the chantry for something the mages did themselves -and
something that isn't evil, broken or needs changing to boot.

Maybe you should try to keep your composure, Lotion, instead of tossing insults around. I said nothing about who established the Harrowing, I addressed the current system in place.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I don't see what's practical about a system that seems like it's going to lead to an inevitable war between templars and mages.

700 years of peace? And after the war is over..another 700?

Or do you have a better system? We are waiting.....

It's not peace when it involves violent conflict, Lotion. Peace is defined as:

n. The absence of war or other hostilities.

That isn't the case because of the existance of the Circles of Magi, where you have an entire group of people across the continent who have their rights being stripped away, can be killed or given a lobotomy under suspect conditions, are being imprisoned because of a nonviolent protest mages held in Orlais centuries ago, and where countless men, women, and children were killed across seven hundred years of the Rites because of the conlict and hostilities between templars and mages.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

So I should waste my time coming up with an alternative that you're going to disagree with before you even read what I write? That sounds wonderful, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to pass on the offer.

No - we challange you to come up with a better alternative. One that has less holes than the Circle system.
You know you can't. We know that we will find lots and lots of holes in that system - just like we do in your arguments. That's not disagreeing before you write - that expecting you to fail at an impossible task you claims youe can accomplish.

I know this discussion is the same as every other discussion where mages and templars have been debated, and no consensus is reached.

[Augustei]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

HA! Where does it say this? Nowhere. At no point in the Codex
does it say "Abominations and mages were no issue. Everything is fun,
sunshine and lollipops".

You - again - prove to everyone reading
this that you see no difference between hard facts and what you want to
see. You infer things.. Fill in the blank wiht whatever meaning you
want.. and then peddle that as "facts".

What you think and what you can prove are two Ccompletely different things Lob.

700 years of peace? And after the war is over..another 700?

Or do you have a better system? We are waiting.....

No - we challange you to come up with a better alternative. One that has less holes than the Circle system.
You
know you can't. We know that we will find lots and lots of holes in
that system - just like we do in your arguments. That's not disagreeing
before you write - that expecting you to fail at an impossible task you
claims youe can accomplish.

First of all, Bias Chantry writings are not "hard facts" thats bs. Alot of evidence in favor of the chantry.. Their own damn scholars have written its bias as dude.. Likewise alot of arguments against the chantry are bias as well.. But presenting hard facts? Im yet to see any.

What you think and what you can prove are two completely different things Lotion.

700 years of peace? Yeah.. that might be true if you have lived under a rock all your life. Wars against the dales.. Justification pending, Wars against Ferelden. Justification? none. Wars against Nevarra, Justfication? none. Wars against Tevinter? Justification? ****ing stupid. "Ohh they insulted our dead divine.. lets go to war"


Better system? Tevinter minus slavery & Blood magic which btw.. The possibility for that system to be put in place seems to have been presented to us in DA2

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 01 mars 2011 - 03:52 .

[OmegaBlue0231]

First of all, Bias Chantry writings are not "hard facts" thats bs. Alot of evidence in favor of the chantry.. Their own damn scholars have written its bias as dude.. Likewise alot of arguments against the chantry are bias as well.. But presenting hard facts? Im yet to see any.

What you think and what you can prove are two completely different things Lotion.

700 years of peace? Yeah.. that might be true if you have lived in a hole all your life. Wars against the dales.. Justification pending, Wars against Ferelden. Justification? none. Wars against Nevarra, Justfication? none. Wars against Tevinter? Justification? ****ing stupid. "Ohh they insulted our dead divine.. lets go to war"


Better system? Tevinter minus slavery & Blood magic which btw.. The possibility for that system to be put in place seems to have been presented to us in DA2

My thoughts exactly.

[TheCreeper]

Tevinter is controlled by mages, even without blood magic and slavery I believe that no society should allow only mages to rule.

[Augustei]

TheCreeper wrote...

Tevinter is controlled by mages, even without blood magic and slavery I believe that no society should allow only mages to rule.

Even so, its a better alternative to The crazy nuts who believe that their will is that of their god and they have to conquer the world to spread the world of the chant.. Supress the mages and elves when they dont have to because the alternative doesn't involve that and keeps Abominations in line seemingly.

OmegaBlue0231 wrote...
My thoughts exactly.

:happy:

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 01 mars 2011 - 04:06 .

[Celtic Latino]

Shinimas wrote...

Bioware has a habit of portraying large political organizations as incompetent, both in particular members and as a whole.<br />
<br />
But have we actually met any "good" blood mage so far? Nope. Practical impications of blood magic pretty much require sacrifices of living beings, cutting yourself has a limit and doesn't let you to get into it's full potential.<br />
<br />
So it's safe to assume that any serious blood mage has the intention to cause harm to others in order to use his abilities.

This.

Most people side with mages because of their RL feelings on religion (people are very anti-religion these days, partly because of the atrocities committed by SOME members of the religion in the name of their beliefs and partly because it's in vogue to hate religion).

But I'm sure if people LIVED in Thedas as common folk, I'm pretty darn sure they'd be terrified of mages, especially since mages exert considerably more power than the average person just from sheer will. The Chantry has done some shady things but so has the Tevinter Imperium (Mage Run) and the majority of blood mages experienced in Origins.

Me personally, I think both Templars and Mages have their points...but I can see why Templars hunt some illegal mages. Personally the Templars should be more humane to mages (allow them to marry, more personal freedom, no Tranquil unless proven dangerous) BUT I can see why the restrictions are there. The Circle should welcome the mage's family to stay or visit at least though, so I can see why people feel badly towards the Chantry and the view on magic.

But as Andraste said, magic was made to serve man, never to rule over him. When it rules over man they become power crazed (Flemeth, Morrigan). When man rules over magic it exists to serve (Wynne). That's the way I see it at least.

[BlackIce541]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

marcusgs221 wrote...

taking away freedom from the few to protect the many works well in theory, but when it comes down to it the few are the ones that end up rising up and making changes. no matter how well your treated in captivity its still just that, captivity.

Any form of opression, no matter how just or justified - will eventually lead to some form of resistance. (exmaple: prisons and prison riots)

Taking into acount the masive numbers disadvantage of mages, and the feeling of common folk on the matter, any mage uprising is highly unlikely to suceed.

It looks like a cyclical process. A few mages start a rebellion, it gets quelled, and it gets quite for a while.
Rinse and repeat.
If anything, it weeds out the biggest malcontents and the most power-hungry individuals among the mages.

How exactly do you use a prison as an example? Prisons are made for people that have actually done something bad, The Circle is where a mage is sent because of that persons 'potential' to do something bad.

Comparing a riot of people who have been found guilty to that of people who are assumed guilty without actually doing anything is ridiculous.

Modifié par Scatcat101, 01 mars 2011 - 05:01 .

[pulsar989]

Red Templar wrote...

Oh look. Another "the templars are bad no matter what, everything is the Chantry's fault, I'm not going to bother trying to illustrate a better system" reply.

This is why nothing comes from these conversations.

If you are confident that a better system is possible, you should be able to produce a better system and trust in your logic to make it stand up to my criticism. I invite you again to do so. It easy to poke holes in something and dismiss it as wrong, it is not so easy to do a better job yourself.

You say the mages should be emancipated and that it would be a good thing. Prove it. Show me a system where mages can be emancipated with a guarantee that none of them will victimize non-mages

i accept your challange sir

its safe to say from your privious post and others that untrained (non harrowed) mages are a threat. i will grant you that point. that is why i will accept that a circle of magi system must exsist. that is why after a magi passes the harrowing or fails it (no more forced trancility) he is granted greater freadom. the templars would still be connected to the circle ( a example would be they live on the bottom 2 floors of the tower and can go no higher without cause) but they would no longer be breathing down the mages necks. then the mages in there own societys can have a life (familys, pick there field of study, etc). also with proper aproval a mage can leave the tower to barter magic goods, use healing magic for a rich clint or what have you. its not perfect but at least its a resonable comprimse that all but the most extreme could live with.

Modifié par pulsar989, 01 mars 2011 - 06:24 .

[Zeroed55]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No - we challange you to come up with a better alternative. One that has less holes than the Circle system.

Simple. As has been said before, many, many times - let the Mages govern themselves. 

The Circle of Magi should be an independent body, governed, and its tenants enforced by mages. NOT the Chantry.

Not arguing for turning mages loose entirely here. Mages NEED training, NEED to be armed with the knowledge of the powers they command to avoid becoming abominations, possessed, or using their abilities irresponsibly. Nobody is arguing this (Well, except for the extreme 'FREE MAGES' guys). 

This is why the Circle is ideal - it is a safe haven for mages to study and train, to learn about the forces they control and to learn how to use them responsibly. The Circle is a -good- thing. The fact that it is governed by an oppressive organization which pumps out vehemently anti-mage dogma is -not-.

There is nothing to say that, given the circumstances, mages could not govern themselves. Nothing. Given the chance, I'd say the Circle could easily govern, regulate, and police itself if it were other mages running the show - NOT an obviously anti-mage establishment such as the Chantry.

When you have mages running around whom have no real knowledge or training about their powers, you get scenarios like Redcliffe. That's a given. But it doesn't mean the mages can't take care of that all themselves - the Imperium is a decidedly extreme example, but I sincerely doubt the Circle would follow the same road. There are already other societies, as have been mentioned before, that have 'free' mages, sometimes even in positions of power, like the Dalish, and they hardly seem to be up there with the Imperium.

I wouldn't go as far as to say the Chantry is evil. Corrupt? Perhaps to a degree. But that can be expected with any political entity. But the current system is far from ideal, OR 'efficient'.

Modifié par Zeroed55, 01 mars 2011 - 07:06 .

[Huntress]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

XxDeonxX wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
How would that change anything?

Instead of a dick templar killing a apostate mage, it will be a dick mage killing an apostate mage.
Not to mention that the populace wouldn't like that idea.

no that wouldn't happen. a mage isn't bound by religious edicts and can see the world in grey tones instead of black and white like the templars. templars will kill any bloodmage regardless of intentions. a bloodmage with good intentions will only receive a boot on his ass with a stern warning from the mage-judge not to use bloodmagic again.

what the population thinks isn't relevant as they are extremely ignorant. as soon as templars are out of the picture the mages can easily create their own chantry and convince the common population in that their fews are the correct ones

Thats pretty much true.. The problem with the Templars is that majority of them are stuck in the belief that the divines word is the word of the maker and that what she says is fact and has to be done.. However the possible problem with putting mages in power is the tevinter situation where they will elevate themselves complete above society and politics will be decided by Mages etc.. Which frankly is worse Imo. Hopefully that doesn't happen

No.

Both of you are starting from several false assumptions and forgetting some things.

1) That mages policing mages will be free to set up laws and rules as they see fit. No. They would be pressured by others to mantain certain laws. Blood magic will still be illegal - death of tranquilisation will be something everyone will demand. Blood Magic is like hand-held nuke and no sane individual wants to place that power in the hands of a single person.

2) That templars aren't black-and-white. Laws are laws. It's as simple as that. Police officers aren't bound by religious dogma, and they can still kill unjustly and get away with it. They still have to follow the law. If mages police themselves there WILL be dick mages among that force, and mages WILL suffer at hte hands of others mages, just like non-mages can suffer at the hands of non-mages.

3) What the population thinks matters. Always has and always will.Rulers have to follow hte will of the people or risk rebellion and civil war. You can call the population ignorant, but is that true? I'd argue they know more about living in TheDas than you. In fact, I'd call your views rather ignorant of the bigger picture.

1) Blood magic is prohibited because is the ONLY magic that  TEMPLARS can't do anything about, is not about been evil or good, is just TEMPLARS are not able to stop it.

2)So a police/templar can kill anyone because law is law and they can get away with it? wow  Tyrant's thinks this way too!! way to go!

3)So people in Thedas knows better, are you out of your mind good sir? THEDAS is a FANTASY PLACE, the people there only think when WE want them to. The only choices been made there are by Writers choices. We might dissagre of how the writers think a world should be forge,  what rules and the like, but that doesn't mean anyone in Thedas will dissagre or aprove of it.

[Red Templar]

pulsar989 wrote...

i accept your challange sir

its safe to say from your privious post and others that untrained (non harrowed) mages are a threat. i will grant you that point. that is why i will accept that a circle of magi system must exsist. that is why after a magi passes the harrowing or fails it (no more forced trancility) he is granted greater freadom. the templars would still be connected to the circle ( a example would be they live on the bottom 2 floors of the tower and can go no higher without cause) but they would no longer be breathing down the mages necks. then the mages in there own societys can have a life (familys, pick there field of study, etc). also with proper aproval a mage can leave the tower to barter magic goods, use healing magic for a rich clint or what have you. its not perfect but at least its a resonable comprimse that all but the most extreme could live with.

I could agree with that kind of reform, depending on how it was executed. It still has mages policed by templars, and still have mages kept apart from mainstream society. It is a variation of the current system, and therefore practically viable.

Zeroed55 wrote...

Simple. As has been said before, many, many times - let the Mages govern themselves. 

The Circle of Magi should be an independent body, governed, and its tenants enforced by mages. NOT the Chantry.

And that could work one of two ways.

1) The mages self govern themselves, but the mage leadership adopts policies that are similarly totalitarian to the templars. This mage leadership is just as likely to be corruptable and self-interested as the templar order was, but it accomplishes the aim of keeping the common folk safe by sharply limiting the freedoms of the mages and keeping them under the thumb of the First Enchanter/whatever. The only significant change is that mages are "oppressed" by other mages. This is probably how they roll in Tevinter.

2) The mages self govern themselves, with a more lenient attitude, giving mages their freedoms. Mages have enough freedom that this system is significantly different from the templar system... thereby giving them enough freedom to abuse their powers. Because they have this freedom, the MagePolice will only find out about magic law violations after they happen if they even find out at all, and punishment is not as good as correction. A new class of common criminal is unleashed on the populace, with the MagePolice having an enormous task on their hands such that they cannot help but let several violaters slip through the cracks. Innocents suffer, the population has to fear mages again, and the the rights of the mages are obtained by jeopardizing those of non-mages. Better for mages, worse for everyone else.

[Huntress]

Celtic Latino wrote...

Shinimas wrote...

Bioware has a habit of portraying large political organizations as incompetent, both in particular members and as a whole.<br />
<br />
But have we actually met any "good" blood mage so far? Nope. Practical impications of blood magic pretty much require sacrifices of living beings, cutting yourself has a limit and doesn't let you to get into it's full potential.<br />
<br />
So it's safe to assume that any serious blood mage has the intention to cause harm to others in order to use his abilities.

This.

Most people side with mages because of their RL feelings on religion (people are very anti-religion these days, partly because of the atrocities committed by SOME members of the religion in the name of their beliefs and partly because it's in vogue to hate religion).

But I'm sure if people LIVED in Thedas as common folk, I'm pretty darn sure they'd be terrified of mages, especially since mages exert considerably more power than the average person just from sheer will. The Chantry has done some shady things but so has the Tevinter Imperium (Mage Run) and the majority of blood mages experienced in Origins.

Me personally, I think both Templars and Mages have their points...but I can see why Templars hunt some illegal mages. Personally the Templars should be more humane to mages (allow them to marry, more personal freedom, no Tranquil unless proven dangerous) BUT I can see why the restrictions are there. The Circle should welcome the mage's family to stay or visit at least though, so I can see why people feel badly towards the Chantry and the view on magic.

But as Andraste said, magic was made to serve man, never to rule over him. When it rules over man they become power crazed (Flemeth, Morrigan). When man rules over magic it exists to serve (Wynne). That's the way I see it at least.

I m sure if you were a mage that live in Thedas that  opinion would change, am I wrong?

I do not know what I would do, if I meet someone like a X-blood mage, I'll probably think mages are nutt's and should be killed on site!, But what if I meet someone as wynne? then what? too bad so sad get over it? <_<

[pulsar989]

Red Templar wrote...

pulsar989 wrote...

i accept your challange sir

its safe to say from your privious post and others that untrained (non harrowed) mages are a threat. i will grant you that point. that is why i will accept that a circle of magi system must exsist. that is why after a magi passes the harrowing or fails it (no more forced trancility) he is granted greater freadom. the templars would still be connected to the circle ( a example would be they live on the bottom 2 floors of the tower and can go no higher without cause) but they would no longer be breathing down the mages necks. then the mages in there own societys can have a life (familys, pick there field of study, etc). also with proper aproval a mage can leave the tower to barter magic goods, use healing magic for a rich clint or what have you. its not perfect but at least its a resonable comprimse that all but the most extreme could live with.

I could agree with that kind of reform, depending on how it was executed. It still has mages policed by templars, and still have mages kept apart from mainstream society. It is a variation of the current system, and therefore practically viable.

Zeroed55 wrote...

Simple. As has been said before, many, many times - let the Mages govern themselves. 

The Circle of Magi should be an independent body, governed, and its tenants enforced by mages. NOT the Chantry.

And that could work one of two ways.

1) The mages self govern themselves, but the mage leadership adopts policies that are similarly totalitarian to the templars. This mage leadership is just as likely to be corruptable and self-interested as the templar order was, but it accomplishes the aim of keeping the common folk safe by sharply limiting the freedoms of the mages and keeping them under the thumb of the First Enchanter/whatever. The only significant change is that mages are "oppressed" by other mages. This is probably how they roll in Tevinter.

2) The mages self govern themselves, with a more lenient attitude, giving mages their freedoms. Mages have enough freedom that this system is significantly different from the templar system... thereby giving them enough freedom to abuse their powers. Because they have this freedom, the MagePolice will only find out about magic law violations after they happen if they even find out at all, and punishment is not as good as correction. A new class of common criminal is unleashed on the populace, with the MagePolice having an enormous task on their hands such that they cannot help but let several violaters slip through the cracks. Innocents suffer, the population has to fear mages again, and the the rights of the mages are obtained by jeopardizing those of non-mages. Better for mages, worse for everyone else.

wow i thank you red templar are erlier disagrement on this forum of the individual vs the group lead to use both being on the opposite ends of the spectrum. that said i have never spread a no chantry free mage design or its opposite. usually (not always) the most fair and just path is the one that neither side walks away completely happy but both accepts the other. perosonaly im going to play as the a person trying to get all he can but that doesnt mean im going to be a total psyco and that i can't compromise. 
:innocent:

[Blumbum]

I'm gonna go with the lesser of two evils and side with the chantry. They got the right idea. Mages are like atomic bombs you keep some just in case a.k.a. the circle, and destroy the others a.k.a. apostates/maleficars.

[Augustei]

Blumbum wrote...

I'm gonna go with the lesser of two evils and side with the chantry. They got the right idea. Mages are like atomic bombs you keep some just in case a.k.a. the circle, and destroy the others a.k.a. apostates/maleficars.

Depends really how they present it to us which can be interpreted as the lesser of two evils.. If we have to remove them completely though; I will be very hesitant to do so since yeah.. Massive power vacuum, many deaths etc etc.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]DKJaigen wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Hahaha...you know so very little of tribal societies.
That are tribes that do horrible things .. and stupid things.. yet they are so tied into their culture that they don't really question them.
A little research on the subject does wonders.

explain the dalish to me then? we have little knowledge of the barbarians thats true. and yet the highest ranking people of the dalish are all magi. and yet they dont suffer from abominations [/quote]

That we know off...
In the Dalish Origin we spent an hour in the dalish camp. In the Bracelian forest, we also spend a short time there, fixing the crap the Keeper caused.
As DG pointed out, the Dalish and Chasind just suffer trough abominations and deal with the loss.

Do you really think the "clamp you mouth shut and deal with the pain" option is something people would like?


the lore is incomplete. i judge the templars from the specimens we encounterd in fereleden. im not impressed.

Gregoir? Reasonable, badass and shows that he cares about the mages.
Ser Bryant? Again, friendly and seems competent enough.
It all keeps coming back to the Broken Circle, which is a rather unique incident.

So I really dont' see where you get that from.



No i dont as the templars put a lot of unnecisary restrictions on the mages. including forbidding to join higher social standing. their is no reason why mages cant be nobles.


I can think of a few off the top of my head. For one nobles mix with other nobles. A blood mage with mind control would do a lot of damage there.
For another, living a life of a mge leads itself poorly to running estates.


[quote]
2 quests IIRC. And people can be bought???? *SCHOCK*  This has NEVER happened in history! Oh dear! How horrible. It indeeds shows how corrupts tempalrs are.and mages..and anything with a brain for that matter.

Yes it does. how many abominations and mage criminals are being protected by corrupt templars. [/quote]

I dunno? Less than by todays police I guess...

And dealing with abominations? Nah..templars might deal with an apostate or two...but with maleficars and abominations? No way.



If you put such a system in modern day would anyone accept it? Only the most retarded people would support such a system. Not to mention that this form of control can be used against the chantry. should someone gain control of the lyrium trade they will have a lot op templar slaves at their disposal.Also another thing of note. the templars become mentally unstable after a while. Great way in supporting mental lunatics lotion


Would anyone accept it? Yes. The vast majority would I guess.
Kepping mages confined is necessary - that is how any government worth it's salt would view it.
Do templars need lyrium to keep up their efficiency? It appears that it indeed increases the templars powers form the Anders short story.
Is it forced onto templars? Not that I know off. Templars are well aware of lyrium. They take it knowing the price they might end up paying - and they do it all to protect the people. For duty.
Dunno about you, but such sacrifice and deviotion to duty is commendable.



He is a proper templar. and uses templar abilities but its not only alistair its godwin that says the same as well. and templars are to ignorant to realise they are enslaved by the chantry. furthermore the grey warden himself can become a templar without the lyrium addiction.

I asked for proof of Chantry usign lyrium to control the templar. You gave me none.
Aslo, the Warden doesn't become a templar. He learns a few templar abilitites from Alistair.


[quote]
Some proof of that supposed super-effectiveness would be nice.

i already did goodday.[/quote]

You did what?


[quote]
Better at controling themselves?
yes the mages have long line training and mental disciplines test and safe guards to prevent abominations[/quote]

And templars don't recive rigorous training - both physical and mental?
And really..you'd trust a dangerous goup to control itself, with no oversight from your part? Taht is folly.

[quote]
Again, would the populace and the nobility want mages to govern themselves?
if the contribute to society in meaningful way lets say through healing or building i doubt many would object.[/quote]

They already do. Mages produce potions and magical items. They also travel outside of the tower routinely to help when needed. Some nobles even have mages in their service.

[quote]
How do you prevent abomination damage with mages beign free? How do you deal with mage incidents?
through mages of course.templars aren't needed to prevent or hunt abominations. magi are also wealthy enough to creat their own mage hunter squads.[/quote]

Isn't the damage already done by then?
If the mage is free, he can become an abomination in the middle of a crowded market..or a vilalge..and by the time the response force getrs there, dozens will die. In other words, such a solution is reactive by nature, not pro-active.
Also, abominations seem to be able to tear the veil - which a huge danger for a mage.



[quote]
The tevinter imprium proves otherwise.[/quote]

You mean the nation that is hated by the whole world? The nation that still has rampart slavery?
That is ruled over by fear? The same nation that comminted the greatest attrocities in history?


[quote]
What few days? Didn't you look at the cutscene?
Both the ferry man and greagoir confirm its a few days.

The Warden arrives shortly after the s*** hits the fans.. We see templars barricading the doors and Gergoir giving orders. You don't barricade the doors several days after.

Your timeline and subsequent accuations are completely wrong.

right[/quote]
Either someone messed up the text, someone messed up the cutscene..or..another explanation present itself...which actualyl meshes well with what Gregoir said. As soon as abominations appeared, Gregoir sent for aid and mages and templars fought agaisnt abominations..but were slowly pushed back.
So it is possible that the tempalrs were fighting for a good shile, and only fel lback and barriaced recently.
Makes sense...



[quote]
Again, CODEX. It mentions exactly how many rites of Annulment were invoked. And we know when such Rites are called for. Meaning there have been 17 major rebelions in 700 years...across all the Cricles.
Which IS an impressive record.

The question is why they where annulled in the first place. abominations running free or political problems?annulling a circle isnt impressive preventing them is far better. and 17 mishaps over 700 years proves that mages can govern themselves.
[/quote]

Political problems? Why would the temaplrs anull the Circle? Abominations are hte reason the rite exist. There would be no advantage or gain to be had from anulling the tower wihout need.

And no, 17 rebellions over 700 years certanly DON'T prove mages can govern themselves, either way you look at it.


[quote]
And how does that destroy the "mages are dangerous" argument?

appearently mages arent as dangerous as you make them out to be.[/quote]

I have no idea what you're on about. Mages clearly are dangerous. The codex confirms it. The lore confirms it. Gameplay confirms it. The devs themselves confirm this.


[quote]
Aha..so the Codex is worthless...when it tells something you don't want to hear?

No the codex is only usefull if it gives all the information. we only know that 17 annulments occured. but why this occured isnt told.
[/quote]


So you're gonna assume the EEEEVIL chantry jsut gets a kick out of occasionally anulling the tower for no reason in particular?
Two can play that game. By your logic, I can defy every codex entry ...ever.

[Lotion Soronarr]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

HA! Where does it say this? Nowhere. At no point in the Codex does it say "Abominations and mages were no issue. Everything is fun, sunshine and lollipops".

It reads that in the complete absense of any mention of blood mages or abominations as the factor in mages being restricted of their rights for Emperor Drakon's religious views (History of the Chantry Part Four), and the fact that Divine Ambrosia II was talked down by the templars from declaring an Exalted March on her own cathedral because mages held a nonviolent protest there (History of the Circle).

No, it doesn't.
You cannot simply look for what isn't mentions specificly and immediately assume the worswt as a fact.

As other people have told you already before - that specific codex entries is not concerned with the details about the creation of the Circles. You assume a singualr reason, but that is not a given. I cna, in fact, give you examples of text that cna be read similary as you did that one, and one could come to the wrong conclusion.

EXAMPLE:
"The villagers were angry and stormed the mayors house, demanding change. The mayor, while initally furios, sat down and made the damn reality."

That the above snippet mention the flood? No...and that's why the damn is built.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
What you think and what you can prove are two Ccompletely different things Lob.

You belive the Harrowing is seting up mages to fail..but that is a redicolous and idiotic view...especially considering it's the invention of MAGED and is used even in Tevinter.
Obvipously it has come to this point - blaming the chantry for something the mages did themselves -and
something that isn't evil, broken or needs changing to boot.

Maybe you should try to keep your composure, Lotion, instead of tossing insults around. I said nothing about who established the Harrowing, I addressed the current system in place.

Setting up the mages to fail? You talked about the Harrowing like that before.
Be more specific in the future.

And...NO

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
700 years of peace? And after the war is over..another 700?

Or do you have a better system? We are waiting.....

It's not peace when it involves violent conflict, Lotion. Peace is defined as:

n. The absence of war or other hostilities.

That isn't the case because of the existance of the Circles of Magi, where you have an entire group of people across the continent who have their rights being stripped away (reduced or restricted..and only some), can be killed or given a lobotomy under suspect conditions (what suspect conditions?), are being imprisoned because of a nonviolent protest mages held in Orlais centuries ago, and where countless (hardly..mages have alwys been low in numbers) men, women, and children were killed across seven hundred years of the Rites (as opposed to the countless men, women and children who didn't dice because the Circles exist?) because of the conlict and hostilities between templars and mages.

Ahh..the dictionary approach. No man. It is peace.
The countryside is more peacefull. There are no large-scale mage-templar wars.

By your definition, no country is ever at peace...because he have bandits and crooks and pllice officers on the streets.

The country is safer. The people are safer
So yes..peace..

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
No - we challange you to come up with a better alternative. One that has less holes than the Circle system.
You know you can't. We know that we will find lots and lots of holes in that system - just like we do in your arguments. That's not disagreeing before you write - that expecting you to fail at an impossible task you claims youe can accomplish.

I know this discussion is the same as every other discussion where mages and templars have been debated, and no consensus is reached.

Consensuss is irrelveant.
You providing a better system with less hols is relevant.