264 réponses à ce sujet

[AnotherAD]

Part of the problem is people go "blood mages bad, you FORBIDDEN to know about Blood Mage arts"  When you tell someone either adult or child that something is forbidden he or she is going to find a way to study or practice that is forbidden.

You have people in the Chantry think their powers over rule anyone that gets in their way.  Why because they were taught that way of thinking and it has been passed down for generations.  Yes their Andraste spilled blood to stop the ruthless Tevinter Imperium, but those in Leadership after her death shape the Chantry to be another Tevinter Imperium.

So to say the Mages can not police themselves are mistaken.  They already have the tools and policies to do such a thing which was given to them by Chantry.

[Vukodlak]

 

My Avatar is a Lizard wrote...
Sterilize all mages reducing their numbers then take chantry out

Proper solution is listed above

Mages aren't permitted to have children anyway so it wouldn't really do anything to reduce the number of mages in the circle of magi.

Taleroth wrote...

I don't consider FUD an argument for violations of human rights. YOU DON'T KNOW THEY WON'T is not a position. It's fearmongering.

It's also historically absurd. Freeing the oppressed has pretty much never ended up turning the tables with the oppressed as the oppressive dictators.

Though in Dragon Age the Tevinter mages were overthrown and became the oppressed along side every other mage.

My Avatar is a Lizard wrote...

dam0dred wrote...

Mages can police themselves. There will always be people like Irving and Wynne around to keep the trouble makers in order.

Death to the chantry.

would wynne be like that if the chantry had not been there to teach her the dangers of blood magic?

For every wynne protecting 5 mages there is an Uldred killing 100 along with 1000 innocents. 

Yes she would because she was taught by mages, there was was chantry priestess who cave her comfort not by acting as a jailor[like the Templar] but by treating her like a human being. Uldred and his followers were driven to blood magic in order to combat the templars. If the Circle of Magi was independent the incident at the tower never would have occurred, as those mages would have had no reason to turn to blood magic. And what about the one mage saving millions from the blight? (ie the Warden when playing the magi origin). 

Its interesting that you brought up Uldred considering his disaster occurred under Templar watch, way to argue the need for Templars by pointing out there biggest failure. The mages are capable of policing themselves the Mage Collective is proof of that. The Templars can still exist, as they would be excellent at hunting down rogue and malificar mages. 

Mages are taken from there families, locked away in a tower where with few exceptions and field trips they'll spend the rest of there lives. Its not like being taken to boarding school and when you graduate your free to live your life as much as any other bloke.

Now here's a question? how is a mage ruling a kingdom any different then a mundane King? there really isn't a difference. A mage like Irving would be a far better ruler then Arl Howl or Vaughan. The Chantry is an oppressive organization, they enslave the Templars through Lyrium addiction and the Templars are there tools for controlling mages. Perhaps instead of mages overthrowing the chantry, they should ally with the Templars first.

[lady_v23]

Raygereio wrote...

Taleroth wrote...
It's also historically absurd. Freeing the oppressed has pretty much never ended up turning the tables with the oppressed as the oppressive dictators.

The french and october revolutions would ike a word with you.

Honestly even when thinking from the position as a mage; while living inside a prison your entire life certainly is no picknick, I always fealt it might be better then the alternative.
The chantry currently provides a more importent function then simply making sure no bloodmage makes a puppet from the king. Then chantry is pretty much everywhere, this ensure that anywhere where a child with magical potential is discovered he or she can be picked up and brought to a circle for training.

What would happen if there wasn't such an ubiquitous network? Not every child is as fortunate as the Hawke siblings to have mage as a father who is around to train them. Chances are at some point the child will set someone's hair on fire. Cue angry mob armed with pitchforkes and torches. That or in extreme cases a repeat of the Conner incident probably isn't unthinkable.
Again; living in a prison isn't fun. But is being stoned by an angry mod or getting possesed by a demon because you were messing with powers you didn't understand and had no training in any better?

This.

[PsychoBlonde]

The main problem with a mage rebellion is that they wouldn't be for anything, only against something. They'd have no underlying principles and no guiding purpose. In a rebellion of that kind, the scum always rise to the top--they are the most fervent and consistent.

A blind rebellion followed by a dictatorship of magic can have no good result. The only way to have a good result eventually come out of this mess is to have the various sides hammer out some principles and purpose. Then they can bicker and argue over how to achieve that purpose and how fast without resorting to bloodshed.

The mages are oppressed, but it's not the final type of no-discussion oppression undertaken by, say, the Qunari. While you still have the opportunity to attempt to convince your opponent, you have no excuse for attempting to short-circuit the discussion and seize what you want by force.

Oh, and you could only make Wynne a blood mage due to a weird game mechanic. Oh, and it's the Templars who didn't *arrest* Jowan. Irving was not the authority in that situation, the Knight-Commander was. Greagoir followed procedure and ordered Jowan be made tranquil, but Lily got word before the orders were carried out and told Jowan.

Greagoir had some interesting characterization in Origins. He put on a harsh front because it was his job to do so but it was pretty obvious that underneath he was more than a bit complacent about the mages under his jurisdiction, considering them fairly tame for the most part. Like a lion-tamer who has worked with the same beasts for years. If he's not careful, one of those "tame" mages may suddenly go rogue--which is precisely what happened. Yet he didn't let the experience make him paranoid; he was willing to accept Irving's word that order was restored.

[LobselVith8]

Rasputin wrote...

Right now the Chantry only over-sees the Mages (with the Templar)... I guess in DA2 we are going to get DEEP into this subject... but the opression I saw in DA:O seemed to stem from the Lords/Nobles against the serfs/indentured servants/elves...

I disagree. We have the controversy over the templars trying to kill Aneirin when he was fourteen years old, the fact that the Warden can call the Circle a prison and an oppressive place in discussion with Wynne (and she never disputes either term from the Magi Warden), and basically ask for the emancipation of the mages of the Ferelden Circle as a royal boon to illustrate how the Hero of Ferelden finds the Chantry and the templars to be completely unnecessary (and it's a view that's supported by the ruler of Ferelden).

Rasputin wrote...

In DA:O it seemed like a necessary evil put in place due to the crazy history of mages weilding so much power and ruling.... There is a fatal flaw in the Chantry's logic because if they believe power currupts, they should also be sending Templars to over-see Noble rule as well - I'm sure that would go over well with the Nobility of each area...

That's not historically why mages are imprisoned, though. The History of the Circle reveals they are imprisoned these days because of a nonviolent protest in Orlais centuries ago.

[KallDay]

Kolos2 wrote...

what you need is an organisation like Cowled Wizards in BG2.

Same role as the Chantry, "to find and destroy "deviant" wizards and sorcerers," but since thy work separate from an religious or an gouverment organisation and thy are in fact magic users it gives them a degree of objectivity
And prison is rather a better punisment that death

No one expects the Kirkwallian Inquisition!

[Kmead15]

Insom wrote...

The chantry is the lesser of two evils. Hate them all you want but they cannot make multiple peoples blood boil inside of them at the snap of their fingers.

If the only deciding factor for whether it's okay to oppress someone is how many people they can kill, everyone born in the last few decades ought to be locked up. Especially be on the look out for anyone with access to Google and a well-stocked kitchen.

[RolandX9]

Raygereio wrote...

<snip>
What would happen if there wasn't such an ubiquitous network? Not every child is as fortunate as the Hawke siblings to have mage as a father who is around to train them. Chances are at some point the child will set someone's hair on fire. Cue angry mob armed with pitchforkes and torches. That or in extreme cases a repeat of the Conner incident probably isn't unthinkable.

Again; living in a prison isn't fun. But is being stoned by an angry mod or getting possesed by a demon because you were messing with powers you didn't understand and had no training in any better?

The Dalish would like a word with you. Some societies seem to manage just fine without "such a ubiquitous network."

[SnowHeart1]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

The main problem with a mage rebellion is that they wouldn't be for anything, only against something. They'd have no underlying principles and no guiding purpose. In a rebellion of that kind, the scum always rise to the top--they are the most fervent and consistent.

So I guess freedom isn't something to fight for?

Modifié par SnowHeart1, 03 mars 2011 - 08:24 .

[SgtElias]

TheCreeper wrote...

SgtElias wrote...

Agreed. I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with the Chantry ruling over mages when, as a whole, it really seems to despise them.

A secular force of templars would be a step in the right direction, anyway.

The problem is a secular force of templars is not going to happen anytime soon. The Chantry has religious issues with magic (note what happened with Conner, his mother is a devot andrastian and was utterly ashamed that Conner had magic) and considering a divine almost declared an exalted march against a peaceful mage protest, Any attempt at secularizing the Templars would go down poorly.

At this point, I don't think there's much of a way to instigate change without a huge bloody mess. I suppose the question up for debate is really: Is it worth it?

I think it is. Others disagree. And I love that Bioware has made such an immersive, complex world for us to disagree so fervently about.

[PsychoBlonde]

Vukodlak wrote...
Perhaps instead of mages overthrowing the chantry, they should ally with the Templars first.

This is an excellent suggestion.  Or, at least seek out those templars who don't see mages as filthy animals responsible for the Maker deserting his creation. Or, even better, just seek out the reasonable people in the population at large, mages and templars included.

The enemy isn't the Mages, or the Templars, or the Chantry or the  Elves or the Humans or the Dwarves or the Qunari.  It's just bloody stupid people.  And nobody has a right to be stupid. 

[Naltair]

I actually find the Chantry not evil but an organization that tries to do what is best based on it's ideals. It does much good like helping refugees in Lothering but as an organization has it's own agendas and political stances. It also has a right to protect it's power base and mages per their stance are a direct danger to that stance. There are also several mages you meet in DA:O that show that magic isa dangerous force that can be abused.

I am not saying they would form a magocracy, very doubtful given the aversion to magic most people in Ferelden/Thedas have but they are a dangerous rogue element if left uncontrolled. It would be like being born with machine gun arms. It does not mean you will go out killing people but you have an easier time of making bad decisions and making others pay for it, with their lives. That in a nutshell is how I feel about rogue mages.

[TheCreeper]

The Dalish and other don't exactly get along fine without templars, they pretty much have to deal with abominations as they happen, I imagine the result isn't pretty, probably more loss of life than the Circle of Magi has in an average situation.

[the_one_54321]

RolandX9 wrote...
The Dalish would like a word with you. Some societies seem to manage just fine without "such a ubiquitous network."

The Dalish are small and nomadic with low population and a trained mage set at the head of every small community.

I suppose you're suggesting that all of society should addopti this structure of life so as to live safely with mages.

[Raygereio]

RolandX9 wrote...
The Dalish would like a word with you. Some societies seem to manage just fine without "such a ubiquitous network."

That's because each Dalish clan is a small community lead by a keeper - with said keeper being a mage.

Edit: ninja'd. :-(

Modifié par Raygereio, 03 mars 2011 - 08:28 .

[the_one_54321]

Here is an important question that needs to be answered thoroughly before any claim of "fight for freedom" can be made:
Speaking as a "normal person," why do the mages deserve freedom? Keep in mind that I already have a counter argument prepared and this question is specifically intended to take the conversation along a particular line of thought. An important line of thought.

[Superposition]

Magocracy FTW. ( Just kidding.)

[TheCreeper]

the_one_54321 wrote...

RolandX9 wrote...
The Dalish would like a word with you. Some societies seem to manage just fine without "such a ubiquitous network."

The Dalish are small and nomadic with low population and a trained mage set at the head of every small community.

I suppose you're suggesting that all of society should addopti this structure of life so as to live safely with mages.

Its ironic that both the Dalish and the Tevinter Imperium are ruled by mages.

Modifié par TheCreeper, 03 mars 2011 - 08:30 .

[PsychoBlonde]

SnowHeart1 wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

The main problem with a mage rebellion is that they wouldn't be for anything, only against something. They'd have no underlying principles and no guiding purpose. In a rebellion of that kind, the scum always rise to the top--they are the most fervent and consistent.

So I guess freedom isn't something to fight for?

Freedom without limits is just a word.  Liberty, now, that's something to fight for.  But what is freedom?  Everyone defines it differently.  I define it as "freedom from legal violation of my objective individual rights, so long as I refrain from violating the rights of others".  Other people define it as things that mean they get to violate MY rights or negate them altogether.  No.

Liberty, unlike freedom, contains limits, it requires a positive program and a purpose, not just an "I wanna be able to shoot lightning at fools".  Just because someone's an idiot, that doesn't mean they're inflicting harm upon you.  You have no right to inflict harm upon them just because you don't like them being an idiot.

[the_one_54321]

TheCreeper wrote...
Its ironic that both the Dalish and the Tevinter Imperium are ruled by mages.

The difference is the scale of influence. How much leverage do you have to throw around as opposed to how easily you can be held accountable for abbuse.

[Raygereio]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Speaking as a "normal person," why do the mages deserve freedom?

I'll bite.
Because right now mages are being imprisoned for a crime they haven't committed yet and for which is no guarentee that they will commit it in the future.

[Underoath]

RolandX9 wrote...

Underoath wrote...

First thing,please stay civil.......you can go on a crusade against the chantry in the game it appears so relax and answer with temperance.

Now before you all start going off (which inevitably some of you will despite my plea for temperance) about how the chantry is full of religious zelots who persecute everyone, do not have the capacity to reason, and are unreasonable fools who should go die in a cold forgotten corner let me explain more fully what I'm asking.

I want to know what would keep the mages in check (not enslaved) from enslaving/killing just as many people as the chantry. You could of course just go with the mages b/c of an "anything has to better than the chantry" view, but that doesn't seem to be very, ahh, reasonable.

And as people ruled by reason surely we'd want to make the calm, cool, collected, logical, and reasonable choice despite our feelings if we are given such a choice in the game, yes?

Basically, I want to know what will keep the mages from ending up right where the chantry is. You may like mages better than the chantry (I know I certainly do), but that doesn't make the enslaving/killing any more right if that is what mages do.

Your request for temperance is amusing given that you're basically arguing for Project Wideawake (that's an X-Men reference, for the younger geeks in the audience *g*).

First of all, the Chantry *is* full of religious zealots, in the sense that there are a lot of them and they have a lot of the power. Is everyone in the Chantry evil? No, duh. That doesn't change the fact that the Chantry basically locks up mages and destroys the minds of any who get out of line (and get caught). Literally a fate worse than death in at least one instance.

Second of all, mages are not a monolithic group. Elves had mages for Creators only know how long (Arcane Warrior background, before anyone argues "we don't know that" -- yes, we do) before the Chantry came along. Yes, the Tevinter Imperium was (and probably still is) evil, and yes, powerful mages did bad things in it. We have at least one counter example of a society with mages in it that didn't have this problem, and still doesn't if the Dalish are anything to go by. "The Chantry" is a political/religious organization, and comparing them to a group of people who are born the way they are is a logical fallacy of epic proportions.

Finally, there's the minor detail that Templar training explicity does not require the Chantry. Ask Alistair about it in DA:O. You want a group of warriors to keep mages in check? Without the Chantry's interference, it would be easier to train counter-mage guard units (no socio-religious limitations on numbers, possibly no lyrium addiction). And that answers both your asked question about how you keep mages from curb-stomping Thedas and your unasked "is the Chantry right?" implied question. The Chantry does not need to be destroyed. It does need to be reformed. I have a very strong feeling that DA II is going to be a game-length object lesson in why.

Edit: minor spelling correction.

Lol I"m not arguing for hunting down the mages, I'm simply asking how we end up in the middle with a bunch of angry mages and angry templars. Simply, I don't think we will (at least not in this game); therefore, I'm asking how it is better to let the mages rage and enslave than let the chantry rage and enslave. My answer: it isn't, wasn't, and never will be.

Anyway some good points, and yes if the chantry can have reform without the mages attempting to slaughter everyone in it great, but I guess I look at this from a strictly "story" standpoint and I just can't see this story ending up with "reform for the chantry" and "freedom for the mages".  

You'll have to forgive my trust issues with Gaider and the other writers. In a "dark fantasy" I think extremes are where it will end.

As for "is the chantry right" that is defnitely not a question I'm asking. I've already got a solid view on that.

[ReallyRue]

I think that Thedas should still keep soldiers trained with templar abilities in case a group of mages group too out of control, but I think it's unfair to assume that the mages are incapable of creating an institution that governs and polices itself.
And the Chantry doesn't need to be involved in anything other than religion.

[the_one_54321]

Raygereio wrote...
for which is no guarentee that they will commit it in the future.

Elaborate, please. I think I may disagree with this claim.

[LobselVith8]

My Avatar is a Lizard wrote...

For every wynne protecting 5 mages there is an Uldred killing 100 along with 1000 innocents.

There's an Uldred because the oppressed will always revolt against their oppressors, which is exactly what happened in "A Broken Circle." That's why we had the unnamed blood mage refer to the Chantry of Andraste in the same vein as the Tevinter Imperium.

M-Taylor wrote...

I think people take against the Chantry for the simple fact that the Western World abhours dictatorship. However, the Western World does not have to factor in humans with abnormal powers. I think the Chantry is a needed system simply because of this fact.

Likely because people value freedom over oppression. I don't see how oppressing a group of mages is going to accomplish anything but more revolutions, like the one Uldred lead against the Chantry and the templars. Should we continue to support the Chantry system in DA2 when all it's accomplishing is unrest and revolts? When I read how Bioware's Michael Hamilton calls the Chantry a dicatatorship:

Michael Hamilton wrote...

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!"

Hamilton's words don't tell me that the Chantry is necessary, his words tells me that the Chantry is a dictatorship, and from what we know about the Chantry controlled Circles, that means the Chantry won't permit the mages to have any degree of freedom or basic rights.

Raygereio wrote...

What would happen if there wasn't such an ubiquitous network? Not every child is as fortunate as the Hawke siblings to have mage as a father who is around to train them. Chances are at some point the child will set someone's hair on fire. Cue angry mob armed with pitchforkes and torches. That or in extreme cases a repeat of the Conner incident probably isn't unthinkable.

The Chantry plays the role in the stigma against mages. We know the Chasind and the Dalish have mages among them, and we know the town of Haven and the nation of Rivain has mages, but the difference is where these mage-tolerant societies don't condemn mages for being mages, we know Andrastians refer to mages as cursed (Keli, Greagoir, Lily in the Magi Origin) and will even kill them simply for being mages (Wynne).

Modifié par LobselVith8, 03 mars 2011 - 08:35 .