174 réponses à ce sujet

[Melness]

TheCreeper wrote...

Melness wrote...

TheCreeper wrote...

TheDarkRats wrote...

I'm all for mages freedom, but a free mage might become a maleificar, and a loose maleificar isn't good... I think the Circle should have more freedom though, and they should make Mage cities where the mages can be watched over and their families can come too.

Frankly I don't think there is anything wrong with Blood Magic  itself, it was simply abused by the Imperium.

It appears to me that Blood Magic itself isn't necessarily bad, but the worst comes from its association with demonology.

And that's bad.

Actually Blood Magic is not even tied to  Demons and spirits, it may (key word, may )  have been taught by Old Gods and or demons but it doesn't call on them or spirits.

This seems to be the current belief in the forums, one I'm adept of, but I can't find any citations. Regardless, what I meant is: how many Blood Mages out there don't dabble in demonology?

Not many right? That is the worst of Maleficarum.

[xzxzxz701]

TheCreeper wrote...

xzxzxz701 wrote...

Sharn wrote...

I agree with Anders in awakening when he says mages shouldn't be imprisoned for being born the way they are.

Actually they should, since many mages will abuse their power if given the chance.

Most Mages we meet outside of enemies don't seem like power abusing folk.

I will give you one example of when mages were allowed to be free, the Tevinter Imperium. See how that turned out?

[ExistsAlready]

xzxzxz701 wrote...
]Actually they should, since many mages will abuse their power if given the chance.

Of course you're just making a sweeping statement about the nature of "power corrupts" and not anything about mages.

There's nothing to say mages couldn't live in society without Chantry oversight. There's a middle ground between "locked up in a tower under guard by religious fanatics" and "roaming free and pure out in the countryside with no restrictions".

[Melness]

xzxzxz701 wrote...

TheCreeper wrote...

xzxzxz701 wrote...

Sharn wrote...

I agree with Anders in awakening when he says mages shouldn't be imprisoned for being born the way they are.

Actually they should, since many mages will abuse their power if given the chance.

Most Mages we meet outside of enemies don't seem like power abusing folk.

I will give you one example of when mages were allowed to be free, the Tevinter Imperium. See how that turned out?

I'll give you three other examples of when mages are/were free: Arthalan, Dalish and Rivain.

Are those places necessarily bad?

[LobselVith8]

Bombardist wrote...

So how many people here are actully against apostates because ive noticed hostility towards them lately and i thought that they should have freedom from the Circle?

I don't have a problem with apostates. I certainly don't buy into the idea that mages need to be shackled to the Chantry or the templars. I'm hoping DA2 allows us the opportunity to cause a positive and irrevocable change throughout Thedas for the mages. As for the concerns about abominations without Chantry control, there was an interesting post that touched on this:

IanPolaris wrote...

No. What I am questioning is whether abominations without the toxic circle environment (and I hope you'd agree that it is toxic) are common enough to merit locking away all mages. Clearly not even the chantry thought so for almost two hundred years (and mages weren't locked up for that reason anyway). If the rate of abomination is very low (say 1 in a million as a theoretical excercise) but the rate increases to say 1 in 100 in the tower, then I can reasonably conclude that the tower actually makes the abomination problem worse (because more than 1:1000 abominations will escape or avoid tower confinement).

So your 'obvious' inference is a lot less obvious than you think.

-Polaris

[OmegaBlue0231]

Self governance for mages!

[Melness]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Bombardist wrote...

So how many people here are actully against apostates because ive noticed hostility towards them lately and i thought that they should have freedom from the Circle?

I don't have a problem with apostates. I certainly don't buy into the idea that mages need to be shackled to the Chantry or the templars. I'm hoping DA2 allows us the opportunity to cause a positive and irrevocable change throughout Thedas for the mages. As for the concerns about abominations without Chantry control, there was an interesting post that touched on this:

IanPolaris wrote...

No. What I am questioning is whether abominations without the toxic circle environment (and I hope you'd agree that it is toxic) are common enough to merit locking away all mages. Clearly not even the chantry thought so for almost two hundred years (and mages weren't locked up for that reason anyway). If the rate of abomination is very low (say 1 in a million as a theoretical excercise) but the rate increases to say 1 in 100 in the tower, then I can reasonably conclude that the tower actually makes the abomination problem worse (because more than 1:1000 abominations will escape or avoid tower confinement).

So your 'obvious' inference is a lot less obvious than you think.

-Polaris

What I don't like with Ian's posts, last I looked anyway, is that he jumps to the assumption that without the Circle the rate of abominations is INCREDIBLY LOWER - which, for all we know, may not be the case.

And that is only taking into consideration the single, and arguably worst, problem of 'bad magic'. Abominations are bad, but so are mages who misuse magic - which in itself leads to Abominations.

[Bombardist]

LobselVith8 wrote..

I don't have a problem with apostates. I certainly don't buy into the idea that mages need to be shackled to the Chantry or the templars. I'm hoping DA2 allows us the opportunity to cause a positive and irrevocable change throughout Thedas for the mages. As for the concerns about abominations without Chantry control, there was an interesting post that touched on this:

IanPolaris wrote...

No. What I am questioning is whether abominations without the toxic circle environment (and I hope you'd agree that it is toxic) are common enough to merit locking away all mages. Clearly not even the chantry thought so for almost two hundred years (and mages weren't locked up for that reason anyway). If the rate of abomination is very low (say 1 in a million as a theoretical excercise) but the rate increases to say 1 in 100 in the tower, then I can reasonably conclude that the tower actually makes the abomination problem worse (because more than 1:1000 abominations will escape or avoid tower confinement).

So your 'obvious' inference is a lot less obvious than you think.

-Polaris

So Are you saying that there would be fewer abominations and fewer problems without the chantry ccontrolling the mages ?

[Arttis]

I think il let the circle.chantry control mages....
Freedom is all well and good as long as you dont abuse it.
We all know some person is gonna screw things up.
Less freedom for mages....

[xzxzxz701]

Melness wrote...

xzxzxz701 wrote...

TheCreeper wrote...

xzxzxz701 wrote...

Sharn wrote...

I agree with Anders in awakening when he says mages shouldn't be imprisoned for being born the way they are.

Actually they should, since many mages will abuse their power if given the chance.

Most Mages we meet outside of enemies don't seem like power abusing folk.

I will give you one example of when mages were allowed to be free, the Tevinter Imperium. See how that turned out?

I'll give you three other examples of when mages are/were free: Arthalan, Dalish and Rivain.

Are those places necessarily bad?

We know very little about Arlathan mages, there are only a few Dalish mages in each clan, so that is not really relevent to thousands of mages being free, and again we know very little about Rivain, except for the hedge wizards.

Modifié par xzxzxz701, 27 février 2011 - 03:08 .

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

There is a certain trope called "Light Is Not Good", or as I would put it, not necessarily good. The Chantry comes close to this, as I'm sure you've seen how the more zealous among them and the Templars behave. If the mages were given more freedom, less of them would be driven mad (and thus to violence). I know, for example, that my mage Warden always resented the templars and the Chantry, and took every chance he could to badmouth them.

Modifié par Neverwinter_Knight77, 27 février 2011 - 03:15 .

[Bigdoser]

I wonder why the chantry does not simply create a school for mages for them to attend where mages can train and once they graduate they can leave heck they can use mages for policing since the sprit tree is 10x better than templar talents but I doubt the chantry will do this so I am against them.

[LobselVith8]

Melness wrote...

What I don't like with Ian's posts, last I looked anyway, is that he jumps to the assumption that without the Circle the rate of abominations is INCREDIBLY LOWER - which, for all we know, may not be the case.

And that is only taking into consideration the single, and arguably worst, problem of 'bad magic'. Abominations are bad, but so are mages who misuse magic - which in itself leads to Abominations.

It was a hypothetical analysis, Melness. It's possible, but certainly not absolute. As much as some want to say the world would end if mages were given the slightest bit of freedom, the truth is we really don't know either way whether the Chantry controlled Circles are effective in preventing abominations, or if they're merely effective in keeping the mages under Chantry control.

[Melness]

Bombardist wrote...

So Are you saying that there would be fewer abominations and fewer problems without the chantry ccontrolling the mages ?

Possibly, given that there are/were societies were mages were free. Pre-Circle Chantry, the Dalish, Rivain and ancient Arlathan. But it may actually not be because we don't really know how bad things were back then - in fact, we don't precisely know how bad things are right now.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Melness wrote...

What I don't like with Ian's posts, last I looked anyway, is that he jumps to the assumption that without the Circle the rate of abominations is INCREDIBLY LOWER - which, for all we know, may not be the case.

And that is only taking into consideration the single, and arguably worst, problem of 'bad magic'. Abominations are bad, but so are mages who misuse magic - which in itself leads to Abominations.

It was a hypothetical analysis, Melness. It's possible, but certainly not absolute. As much as some want to say the world would end if mages were given the slightest bit of freedom, the truth is we really don't know either way whether the Chantry controlled Circles are effective in preventing abominations, or if they're merely effective in keeping the mages under Chantry control.

Which is why the part of it that I don't like is how some people tend to assume its not hypothetical and regard it as a fact.

Even though, as mentioned above, we don't know how many abominations were/are created in the pre-circle chantry era, amongst the dalish, amongst the arlathven, amongst the rivaini or even amongst the post-circle chantry era (today).

Modifié par Melness, 27 février 2011 - 03:16 .

[ExistsAlready]

Because the Chantry is mired too deeply in it's own dogma to make changes to the current system.

[TheCreeper]

Melness wrote...

TheCreeper wrote...

Melness wrote...

TheCreeper wrote...

TheDarkRats wrote...

I'm all for mages freedom, but a free mage might become a maleificar, and a loose maleificar isn't good... I think the Circle should have more freedom though, and they should make Mage cities where the mages can be watched over and their families can come too.

Frankly I don't think there is anything wrong with Blood Magic  itself, it was simply abused by the Imperium.

It appears to me that Blood Magic itself isn't necessarily bad, but the worst comes from its association with demonology.

And that's bad.

Actually Blood Magic is not even tied to  Demons and spirits, it may (key word, may )  have been taught by Old Gods and or demons but it doesn't call on them or spirits.

This seems to be the current belief in the forums, one I'm adept of, but I can't find any citations. Regardless, what I meant is: how many Blood Mages out there don't dabble in demonology?

Not many right? That is the worst of Maleficarum.

Okay fair point but we don't see a lot of Blood mages and keep in mind the Blood Mages who allied with Uldred (who was probably not a blood mage, just allied with them) where the worst hurt by the Demons, and we meet and hear about a good number of blood mages who aren't very bad people.

[LobselVith8]

Bombardist wrote...

So Are you saying that there would be fewer abominations and fewer problems without the chantry ccontrolling the mages ?

There does seem to be the habit of the main quest and the codex entries showing abominations happening as a direct result of the Chantry and the templars. Whether there would be less without them is speculation. While I don't think the Chantry or the templars are evil, I do think they're wrong, and I can see why Malcolm wanted to keep his children safe from an anti-mage religious order. My problem with the Circles is that mages have no freedom; we see with Jowan that Greagoir had the Rite already signed with Jowan having no say to defend himself, or Irving even seeing the evidence against him. While Jowan was guilty, the same can't be said for Aneirin, or a Circle under the control of an anti-mage Cullen as the new Knight-Commander. I think Ian is correct in calling the enviornment "toxic," and I personally see it as a place where people are bereft of dignity and worth by a religious order's docturine that treats mages as sub-human and can subject them to forms of torture in the name of the greater good.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Bombardist wrote...

So how many people here are actully against apostates because ive noticed hostility towards them lately and i thought that they should have freedom from the Circle?

I am not paragon or renegade Shepard. Imposing such value will dealt with fierce resistance that could collapse my entire immersion. 

As a neutral diplomatic person, I have no grudge against apostate. They deserve their freedom as much as anyone else. Provided they don't burn my house and sacrifice my love ones for blood magic and their lust for power.  As long as they keep their art to themselves, it's fine with me.

[Hexadecimal]

I don't think a free mage is any more dangerous then a free man with a sword.

A free man who is cunning can be much more dangeous then a free mage.

[EclipticOlive54]

Hexadecimal wrote...

I don't think a free mage is any more dangerous then a free man with a sword.

A free man who is cunning can be much more dangeous then a free mage.

Exactly! How is a mage any more dangerous than a man with a sword, knife, or bow? I'm pretty sure they're both equally dangerous.

[TheCreeper]

Hexadecimal wrote...

I don't think a free mage is any more dangerous then a free man with a sword.

A free man who is cunning can be much more dangeous then a free mage.

No, Just No. Magic is freaking powerful in DA, A free mage could in theory do a lot of damage if they want to, they can drive a group of people insane, set fire to a city block, etc with just a quick spell

Modifié par TheCreeper, 27 février 2011 - 03:33 .

[ExistsAlready]

Well the mage is technically always an abomination waiting to happen.

But then a man with a sword is technically always a psychotic-episode-induced-rampage waiting to happen too..

[TheJist]

Ehhh the thing is a average mage is much more powerful then your average person with a weapon it is almost like some one being born with super powers in todays world (not to superman level or anything like that) sure we could kill them but against the average person they would dominate so there needs to be some control.

[pomrink]

Self policing. If mages are given tenative freedom, then a all mage order is made to slaughter abominations, I think it'd be a very doable thing. Considering that the majority of mages are Aequitarians, I think most would be very willing to become abomination hunters. Just my two cents.

[TheCreeper]

Look at some of the higher end spells, A man with a sword can not cause nearly as much damage as a massive Firestorm, well they could in theory but it would take a lot longer