174 réponses à ce sujet

[pomrink]

DieHigh2012 wrote...

I really don't think he was being for real, I certainly didn't think so when we were posting back and forth

who?
Edit: Ah, got it.

Modifié par pomrink, 27 février 2011 - 07:36 .

[Nemis-Roidsavelt]

pomrink wrote...


No.

We need to stop fighting one another brother. We need to work together to fight for the freedom of mages. Not turn against one another. This is what they want!!!!! Divide and conquer. Now lets go and destroy that possible troll diehigh2012

 [Edit: Conversation tree trimmed by Moderator] 

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 27 février 2011 - 03:05 .

[pomrink]

Again, No.

[Nemis-Roidsavelt]

pomrink wrote...

Again, No.

You remind me of a mage named Maelkith. He was smart, but hated my boyish brovado. Yet atleast he aknowledge my skill and intelligence enough to see that it was beneficial to work with me. However, eventually we tried to kill one another over a hunter we were both madly in love with. I won, and he was destined to be forever alone. Ugly bastard.

Anyway. Lets skip ahead to the part where we kill one another.

Ill start.

*blood mage powers activate*

*casts Bloud wound*

Your move.

[AngryFrozenWater]

A person who wants to be free just fights for a basic human right. Nothing wrong with that. Their profession should not be taken into account. Arl Howe had a "respectable" profession, but look at what he did. It is not about the potential damage you can cause. It is about the things you have done in the past. Fear is a bad counselor.

[LobselVith8]

DieHigh2012 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

DieHigh2012 wrote...

Ok try this one on remember that leader in germany? Imagine him and is the SS able to shot fireballs, call earthquakes, bring down lighting, and able to heal themselves. 

Extream exaple I know, but it makes its point. Makes me glad we dont have any mages IRL.

Weren't you the one who took issue with me using a quote from real life? 

I can imagine the benefits that mages can bring to the sick and infirm, I can see how mages were the ones who gave an edge to save the Andrastian nations from the Qunari, and who have helped during the Blights when the darkspawn threatened all of humanity. I'm certain there are many who are grateful that they weren't killed or forcefully converted to the Qun in Thedas.

Haha I knew that was you, nice try

Just had to wait for you get back on this profile to say so.

I don't understand why you're directing accusations at me when it seems derived from the fact that we're taking opposite positions in this argument. I understand the argument that you're trying to make here, that mages are dangerous, but everyone is. While mages may be more dangerous than others, why should they be excluded from having basic human rights like everyone else? The fact that the Chantry controlled Circles are causing severe problems is what I'm trying to address in this thread, which I find to be a problem in a world that has depended on mages for survival. Considering how oppressive the Circle is, and how it was formed because of Emperor Drakon's cultist views and imprisoning mages had to do with a peaceful protest they held (which puts into doubt the claims that people have made here about how necessary imprisoning mages is, if it wasn't even found to be necessary during a reign where mages were starting to be treated as "cursed" for having magical ability), I can completely understand why Malcolm Hawke didn't want to be under its subjugation.

While people target mages as being at the risk of possession, non-mages can also be possessed. People, corpses, and even trees are at risk of possession. Despite claims that possessed non-mages aren't dangerous, a possessed cat was able to kill three skilled templars when it was taken over by a rage demon (a relatively minor demon at that). While it does signify that possessed mages would be more dangerous, we also know from canon and DA:O that even a Pride Demon possessed mage like Uldred can be defeated by skilled warriors or mages. A milennia before the Chantry and the Order of Templars were ever formed, and abominations were able to be defeated.

Nobody here is saying mages shouldn't be properly trained in how to use their powers, but people are arguing for an absense of an oppressive and unnecessary prison system that has caused unrest and revolution. Letting the mages be free from the Chantry is a solution that will likely save lives, because there are people who would rather die on their feet than live on their knees.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 27 février 2011 - 01:39 .

[LobselVith8]

I'd imagine that people it wouldn't be too much of a leap for an apostate Hawke, Bethany, Anders, or Merrill to have negative feelings about the Chantry and the templars because of their background and experiences in DA2, so I imagine this conversation will likely continue with Hawke (especially an apostate) in Kirkwall.

Since this thread has explored the issues of mages, I thought I'd include a quote from one of the devs about the relationship between the Chantry and the mages of the Circle, since I thought his term for the relationship between the Chantry and the templars was pretty telling:

Michael Hamilton wrote...

KawaiiKatie wrote...

Oh dear, I hope this doesn't all lead up to a huge disappointment.... Then again, I suppose that's true of the entire DA2 story, and not just the mages.

I've got my fingers crossed.....!

EDIT: Ah, I'm going mad! If Mage-Hawke, all on his/her own, can free the mages... It invalidates the efforts of my Mage-Warden so much more than just the Chantry denying the request. It's, "The Chantry said no to your request, Mage-Warden. But if that Champion of Kirkwall were to ask, then we might consider it." I... I don't know how to feel about this... Then again, I'm making assumptions.... I just hope the story doesn't play out that way....

Yes, yes, all my fretting is premature, but with DA2 still a month away, I don't know what else to think...

Since when has any dictatorship ever been turned over by asking politely?

Really think about what you're saying.

"I asked and they said no!"

Modifié par LobselVith8, 27 février 2011 - 06:35 .

[Selene Moonsong]

Let's not allow the conversation trees to get out of hand, quote only what is needed, not an entire conversation.
As a reminder, the forums are not an instant message or phone system, see Rule 5 in the Site Rules

[cglasgow]

I'm kind of surprised by how vehemently people will defend the imprisonment and occasional killing of innocent folks for the sake of others' alleged safety.  Considering how much damage a well-trained person can do with modern technology (or heck, even with a sword) I'd think people would have a bit more perspective about the notion that anyone who can do something dangerous should be locked up, just in case.  Heck, we let 16 year olds drive and the world hasn't ended yet.

One word: Redcliffe.

A teenaged boy who didn't even intend any harm ended up wiping out most of an entire town.  He hadn't been trained in any destructive magic, he hadn't the slightest interest in murdering people, and *boom*, we've still got hundreds of people dead.

This goes well beyond all comparision to the real world; sure, we accept that if someone has hostile intent and deliberately seeks out special knowledge and tools, he can build a bomb.   What's really scary is the thought that someone could just be walking along thinking 'I want my sick father to not be sick!' and the next thing you know you've got an abomination trying to start the zombie apocalypse.

And on the other end of the scale, one more word: Avernus.

Here we have the exact opposite spectrum from Connor.   Avernus was a very powerful, experienced mage, a genius experimenting on the frontiers of magic.   And, what happened?

His concentration slipped once and bam, everybody died anyway.   And there was a breach in the Fade that could have expanded out to eat a whole chunk of Ferelden if he hadn't managed to stay alive and keep holding it shut with his willpower.   Damn, people are lucky you got to Warden's Keep before he died of old age, aren't they?

So, the verdict is kind of plain; mages cannot just be left to live their own lives and train themselves.   The Fade is inherently dangerous.

If mages were dangerous only if they chose to be, that would make them just like everybody else; the weapon isn't the problem, only the hostile intent.  But the part where they can suddenly flip out and start ethnically cleansing the landscape even if they didn't want to or expect to is something else again.

Does this mean the Chantry is right?   Umm... not so much.    The statement 'Mages need supervised living' is not the same thing as 'And the Chantry's way of supervising is the only correct way'.   Surely there are slightly more humane ways of monitoring, and if necessary, doing a Connor on, mages.

But you can't just let mages wander around by themselves, or villages will start disappearing before anybody can get the word out.

And that is the tragedy of magic in the Dragon Age universe.   There is no neat, moral solution.   It is a gray, ugly compromise where your only choices are 'Who gets screwed?'    Which makes it just like the rest of the game.

Modifié par cglasgow, 27 février 2011 - 06:48 .

[LobselVith8]

cglasgow wrote...

One word: Redcliffe.

That happened as a direct result of the Chantry's anti-mage dogma and lead to Isolde trying to have Jowan teach her son not to be a mage.

cglasgow wrote...

A teenaged boy who didn't even intend any harm ended up wiping out most of an entire town.  He hadn't been trained in any destructive magic, he hadn't the slightest interest in murdering people, and *boom*, we've still got hundreds of people dead.

Isn't this a case for mages being properly trained and not subjugated under tyranny?

cglasgow wrote...

This goes well beyond all comparision to the real world; sure, we accept that if someone has hostile intent and deliberately seeks out special knowledge and tools, he can build a bomb.   What's really scary is the thought that someone could just be walking along thinking 'I want my sick father to not be sick!' and the next thing you know you've got an abomination trying to start the zombie apocalypse.

Connor was ignorant about demons, which is clear when you speak with him and he talks about the "bad lady." He doesn't realize who he's dealing with because his pious mother simply doesn't want him to be a mage or to lose her son to magic, which the Chantry villifies as cursed from the other Andrastians we speak with. Seeing how there are already societies that have free mages outside of Chantry and templar rule, and they haven't been swallowed whole by abominations, I don't think the Chantry or the templars oppressing mages is the solution.

cglasgow wrote...

And on the other end of the scale, one more word: Avernus.

Here we have the exact opposite spectrum from Connor.   Avernus was a very powerful, experienced mage, a genius experimenting on the frontiers of magic.   And, what happened?

His concentration slipped once and bam, everybody died anyway.   And there was a breach in the Fade that could have expanded out to eat a whole chunk of Ferelden if he hadn't managed to stay alive and keep holding it shut with his willpower.   Damn, people are lucky you got to Warden's Keep before he died of old age, aren't they?

You mean he summoned too many demons, and was able to make certain none of them escaped to harm anyone outside the Warden's Keep? His knowledge could also be instrumental as a new weapon against the darkspawn, the greatest threat to all sentient races living in Thedas. Considering how mages are necessary to create Grey Wardens and were instrumental in fighting the Qunari invaders during the New Exalted Marches, I honestly don't see how you can malign all mages for the mistake of one.

cglasgow wrote...

So, the verdict is kind of plain; mages cannot just be left to live their own lives and train themselves.   The Fade is inherently dangerous.

That must explain why the nation of Rivain, the Dalish clans, and the Chasind tribes don't have mages under Chantry or templar control.

cglasgow wrote...

But you can't just let mages wander around by themselves, or villages will start disappearing before anybody can get the word out.

Haven had free mages living there, and it was around for 900 years.

[Exzander1]

I don't know about you guys, but my rogue has killed many mages in DA:O, he killed demons, hell, he killed the friggin archdemon. If you want to lock up and control anyone, lock up and control rogues. Or, lock up and control warriors, cause my warrior also killed the big dragon and lots of mages/darkspawn/drakes/demons.

Mages aren't anymore powerful than rogues or warriors, if they were, you wouldn't be able to stab them to death easily.

Control over a group of people = wrong. Let the mages run free as you'd let rogues and warriors run free.

Down with the chantry, and I will make every decision in my play of the game against them.

[DieHigh2012]

Exzander1 wrote...

I don't know about you guys, but my rogue has killed many mages in DA:O, he killed demons, hell, he killed the friggin archdemon. If you want to lock up and control anyone, lock up and control rogues. Or, lock up and control warriors, cause my warrior also killed the big dragon and lots of mages/darkspawn/drakes/demons.

Mages aren't anymore powerful than rogues or warriors, if they were, you wouldn't be able to stab them to death easily.

Control over a group of people = wrong. Let the mages run free as you'd let rogues and warriors run free.

Down with the chantry, and I will make every decision in my play of the game against them.

Yes the warden was a bad ass, he could kill anyone. However lore wise mages are much more dangerous. You must be able to understand why someone who can shoot fireballs and lightning bolts from his finger tips and has the tendacy of turning into abominations might pose a much bigger risk than a dude who can use a dagger really well...

One more example of free mages in practice is the abominations in the Denerim alienage.

[cglasgow]

That happened as a direct result of the Chantry's anti-mage dogma and lead to Isolde trying to have Jowan teach her son not to be a mage.

Actually, it happened as a direct result of trying to avoid Chantry supervision, and instead relying on what was effectively self-training, given Jowan's inadequacy as an instructor.

Which only reinforces the point.   Without significant training and supervision, even the most well-meaning and mild-mannered mage is still a grave potential threat.

Isn't this a case for mages being properly trained and not subjugated under tyranny?

Say what?  The one sin you cannot accuse the Chantry of is not wanting mages to be trained.   They want every mage to be Circle-trained.

Connor was ignorant about demons, which is clear when you speak with him and he talks about the "bad lady."  He doesn't realize who he's dealing with because his pious mother simply doesn't want him to be a mage or to lose her son to magic, which the Chantry villifies as cursed from the other Andrastians we speak with.

Yes, Connor's mother is an ignorant bint.   How you leap from that to 'the Chantry is ignorant and doesn't want mages trained' is beyond me, given that we see Knight-Commander Greagoir is entirely knowledgeable about such things and a strong proponent of more training for mages.

I might also point out that for all of Connor's mothers alleged devoutness, the entire problem arises because she is directly defying what the Chantry teaches about what to do with mages... that is to say, call the templars and have them escort the budding mage to the Circle for an apprenticeship.

Seeing how there are already societies that have free mages outside of Chantry and templar rule, and they haven't been swallowed whole by abominations, I don't think the Chantry or the templars oppressing mages is the solution.

More precisely, that the Chantry isn't the only solution.  I agree with you on that.

But I will point out that all of these societies also have to have some equivalent to the Harrowing, because otherwise they would not survive.   Or do you seriously imagine that some Tevinter archmage wouldn't hesitate to kill one of his apprentices if he noticed that they were succumbing to possession?   That a Dalish keeper would also hesitate?   How does that make them really different from the templars?

That's the point.   All of these 'free societies' are not, cannot be, really that much more free than the Chantry.   Otherwise they would be abomination-ville, seeing as how Lady Isolde The Idiotic has quite amply proven that the only thing you need to do to turn a budding young mage into an abomination is leave them alone in their ignorance.   One way or another, they have to be keeping an eye on all their mages... forcing them to get proper training even if they don't want any, and/or stabbing them in the face if it looks like they're about to succumb to the Fade.

Is the Chantry being overly strict?  Yes.   Are the templars in Kirkwall massively corrupt?  Yes.   Does any of this change the fact that mages can't be allowed to walk around alone and untrained?   No.

So, go ahead, get rid of the Chantry.  What will you replace it with?   Nothing?  That damn sure won't work.  You'll have to replace it with something else to do the same job.

And if so, then exactly how will it be that much more moral than what the Chantry was doing?

Modifié par cglasgow, 27 février 2011 - 08:52 .

[Exzander1]

DieHigh2012 wrote...

Exzander1 wrote...

I don't know about you guys, but my rogue has killed many mages in DA:O, he killed demons, hell, he killed the friggin archdemon. If you want to lock up and control anyone, lock up and control rogues. Or, lock up and control warriors, cause my warrior also killed the big dragon and lots of mages/darkspawn/drakes/demons.

Mages aren't anymore powerful than rogues or warriors, if they were, you wouldn't be able to stab them to death easily.

Control over a group of people = wrong. Let the mages run free as you'd let rogues and warriors run free.

Down with the chantry, and I will make every decision in my play of the game against them.

Yes the warden was a bad ass, he could kill anyone. However lore wise mages are much more dangerous. You must be able to understand why someone who can shoot fireballs and lightning bolts from his finger tips and has the tendacy of turning into abominations might pose a much bigger risk than a dude who can use a dagger really well...

One more example of free mages in practice is the abominations in the Denerim alienage.

Lore wise? I just go by what I see in the actual game, what I can actually see be done. Mages are easy to kill in DA:O, not just by the warden, but my the companions you bring with you as well, and they're not wardens or the main character? They're just random dudes/gals that join in your quest, minus Alistair.

If you read the actual lore and all that (I have not so can't comment too much) it might say mages are super dangerous, but throughout my 100+ hours of DA:O and 2-3 plays through it, I've yet to see a mage that anyone of the random people in my party couldn't beat down with ease, and they aren't special or wardens or anything.

Mages have yet to show any superior power/fighting ability than rogues or warriors inside the actaul game itself, which is what counts, IMO.

[TheCreeper]

Well mages aren't that overpowered compared to warriors and rogues in actual gameplay because then it wouldn't be very fun for warrior and rogue players. When it comes to how powerful things actually are in universe Lore and dialogue> Gameplay. Gameplay has to be fairly balanced, Lore doesn't

[LobselVith8]

DieHigh2012 wrote...

One more example of free mages in practice is the abominations in the Denerim alienage.

Jowan as Master Levyn and protecting innocents is also an example of a free mage in practice. So is every Grey Warden mage out there.

cglasgow wrote...

Actually, it happened as a direct result of trying to avoid Chantry supervision, and instead relying on what was effectively self-training, given Jowan's inadequacy as an instructor.

I disagree. The primary reason was that Isolde was pious and didn't want her son to be a mage, which is explicitly clear from what Jowan tells us. Our conversation with her confirms this, as she said she didn't want to lose her son to magic. I don't see why they should be absolved of any responsibility for what happened when their dogma about mages put it in action in the first place.

cglasgow wrote...

Say what? The one sin you cannot accuse the Chantry of is not wanting mages to be trained. They want every mage to be Circle-trained.

You didn't read what I wrote. I'm saying mages should be trained, but that there's a difference between being properly trained and being stripped of all your rights and forced to live what amounts to a dictatorship under the Chantry.

cglasgow wrote...

Yes, Connor's mother is an ignorant bint. How you leap from that to 'the Chantry is ignorant and doesn't want mages trained' is beyond me, given that we see Knight-Commander Greagoir is entirely knowledgeable about such things and a strong proponent of more training for mages.

I might also point out that for all of Connor's mothers alleged devoutness, the entire problem arises because she is directly defying what the Chantry teaches about what to do with mages... that is to say, call the templars and have them escort the budding mage to the Circle for an apprenticeship.

The Chantry is a strong proponent of mages being under their heel. That's why we have apostates like Malcolm and Bethany in the first place. You see multiple times in the Magi Origin how people of Andrastian faith refer to mages as cursed, and Wynne talks about how people often kill mages because of the stigma against them. Contrast this with the nation of Rivain, the Dalish, or even the Chasind, and you see that the Chantry plays the driving force behind how mages are hated and feared to the point where the Chantry's prisons are the only refugee a mage has.

cglasgow wrote...

That's the point. All of these 'free societies' are not, cannot be, really that much more free than the Chantry. Otherwise they would be abomination-ville, seeing as how Lady Isolde The Idiotic has quite amply proven that the only thing you need to do to turn a budding young mage into an abomination is leave them alone in their ignorance. One way or another, they have to be keeping an eye on all their mages... forcing them to get proper training even if they don't want any, and/or stabbing them in the face if it looks like they're about to succumb to the Fade.

They are free by their existance as societies without the templars being able to give them a lobotomy or kill them based on heresay or suspicion. They're referenced in the DA2 codex on the Bioware Blog as societies where mages aren't under templar control. As for your speculations on how they're run, whether they have Harrowings, and the like, we don't know - so I see no point in speculating on the issue when we have no information. What we do know is that they don't have mages living under an oppressive tyranny.

cglasgow wrote...

So, go ahead, get rid of the Chantry. What will you replace it with? Nothing? That damn sure won't work. You'll have to replace it with something else to do the same job.

That won't work? I'm not saying there shouldn't be law and order in place, but you can't say it won't work when we already know an entire nation like Rivain and groups like the Dalish and the Chasind don't have templars ruling over mages, but do have mages living among them.

[TheCreeper]

The problem is that people seem to think that "Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him" means "Mages Exist to serve man, and never to rule over him." Andraste just meant that people in power shouldn't use magic to mind control people and invade their dreams.

[pomrink]

Lets just ship em' all on a bunch of boats to qunari lands, then see what happens to both sides. should be fun.

[AngelicMachinery]

Nemis-Roidsavelt wrote...

pomrink wrote...

Again, No.

You remind me of a mage named Maelkith. He was smart, but hated my boyish brovado. Yet atleast he aknowledge my skill and intelligence enough to see that it was beneficial to work with me. However, eventually we tried to kill one another over a hunter we were both madly in love with. I won, and he was destined to be forever alone. Ugly bastard.

Anyway. Lets skip ahead to the part where we kill one another.

Ill start.

*blood mage powers activate*

*casts Bloud wound*

Your move.

OH MMM GEEE  I turn into a gryphon!  

[Blood-Lord Thanatos]

I've never heard of a possessed cat killing templars? can anyone elucidate?

[LobselVith8]

Blood-Lord Thanatos wrote...

I've never heard of a possessed cat killing templars? can anyone elucidate?

Anders discusses this when he mentions what happened to the cat that used to live in the Circle Tower. Killed three templars when it was possessed by a rage demon.

[cglasgow]

Jowan as Master Levyn and protecting innocents is also an example of a free mage in practice. So is every Grey Warden mage out there.

Jowan and every Grey Warden mage out there had Circle training originally.   The Grey Warden mages also survived a Harrowing.   (Yes, even Anders... remember, he didn't run away from the Circle until after his Harrowing.)   So, your claim here is invalid.

I disagree. The primary reason was that Isolde was pious and didn't want her son to be a mage, which is explicitly clear from what Jowan tells us.

Yes, and Chantry doctrine re: mages is that when you discover that your child is a mage, you call the templars and have them taken to the Circle, as Wynne tells us.

Isolde deliberately flouted this doctrine.  Quit claiming that Isolde = Chantry policy on mages.    If she'd actually followed Chantry policy on mage children, the entire mess would not have happened.

The Chantry is a strong proponent of mages being under their heel.

Yup!  That's not a fact in dispute.

What's in dispute is the part where this means that the Chantry is automatically wrong and horrible and awful and mages should just be left to walk around without supervision.

What we do know is that they don't have mages living under an oppressive tyranny.

So, these free places allow someone with mage-talent to avoid getting any mage training if they don't want any?   Are you claiming that?

These free places don't kill mages when they turn into abominations?  Are you claiming that?

If you are, then that's crazy.   

And if not... then how do they REALLY differ morally from the Chantry?

Everywhere there are mages, there is someone or something forcing them to train even if they don't want to, and sticking a sword in their heads if they end up demon-possessed.   Whether that something is the Chantry, someone else, or even other mages policing themselves is only a difference in degree, not in kind.    The claim that 'mages exist without supervision!' is bogus; it might not be Chantry supervision, but there is no way that they are not trained and supervised by someone.

Because a mage left untrained by anyone?   Ends up like Connor.

So I ask the question again -- if you get rid of the Chantry, what will you replace it with?    What will they do to keep abominations from happening?    What methods will they use?    And in what way will they be morally superior to the Chantry?

If you can't answer those questions, then you can't say that the Chantry should be abolished.   Because getting rid of the Chantry without replacing it with anything is the same thing as saying 'Hey!  Demons!  Come eat me!'

Modifié par cglasgow, 28 février 2011 - 07:13 .

[DieHigh2012]

LobselVith8 wont grasp that, I spent two pages trying to explain to him the exact same thing. Finally just had to stop replying to his posts.

I am interested in how these other "free mage" cultures treat their mages. I do not think it's a eutopia like what Lobs seem to thinks. Ether the mages or the regular humans, I reckon someone is getting the short end of the stick.

Modifié par DieHigh2012, 28 février 2011 - 07:35 .

[Ellestor]

Pro-Circle, anti-Chantry.

It's vital to have a safeguard against possession, but it isn't even passingly suggested that the Templars' anti-magic abilities are somehow imparted by their religious beliefs—it seems, instead, strongly implied that it is a lyrium-dependent technique kept under a tight NDA, presumably for fear of the autonomy that the Circle's possession of this knowledge would allow.

Of course this doesn't make them malicious. Everyone wants power, and no doubt the Chantry sincerely believes that they are wielding it for everyone's own good. Yet it seems perfectly plausible that, one way or another, the Circle could do at least as well without them, with whatever tools they are being denied. With that in mind, I contend that the Circle would be no more malicious to pursue this autonomy and face the risks involved in that transition. ¡Viva la revolución!

cglasgow wrote...

So I ask the question again -- if you get rid of the Chantry, what will you replace it with?    What will they do to keep abominations from happening?    What methods will they use?    And in what way will they be morally superior to the Chantry?

I know you're responding specifically to LobselVith8, but I would say: why not the same methods? I don't think the methods are the issue.

Unless the implication here is that the Templars' religion bestows upon them superior morality (ell oh ell), I don't see the point. The organization standing over your shoulder with a gun to your head at all times doesn't need to be morally reprehensible in order for freedom from it to be morally desirable. It's not that the Chantry's methods of preventing and dealing with abominations are unreasonable, but that the Chantry is much more than their methods. By being the body governing the Circle, it seems strongly suggested that they're doing something religious organizations often have in reality: holding their services ransom for the object of their faith.

Modifié par Ellestor, 28 février 2011 - 08:50 .

[cglasgow]

Why not the same methods?  I don't think the methods are the issue.

Nah, several people in this thread have been saying stuff like 'I don't think free range mages are inherently dangerous', and all.  

Unless their definition of 'free range' is at significant variance from mine (which is that 'free range' means precisely that -- free to do WTF they want or don't want, with no conscription into any required training program, no supervised living, no axe in the face if they go maleificar, etc.), that is not true; untrained and ignorant mages are prime demon bait, and even after a basic training program you still sometimes get people like Uldred.