4350 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

I really like your idea except some bugs, which you said there may be. For one thing, in the Magi origin, it's revealed hardly anything is known about the dalish. They know the dalish have magic, but don't know the traditions. And I don't see any Keeper stepping forward to greet the templars and saying "Let me teach you about magic." And I don't think the Chantry would ever allow mages to believe that spirits can't be good and can be treated as individual citizens of another country. They prefer believing (even they believe it) that every spirit represents a virtue or a vice, anything that's selfish or greedy is a demon.

You're idea works great otherwise.

[GavrielKay]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Meredith was nuts, power-hungry, and paranoid. She wouldn't go down without a fight. Any attempt to remove her, any peaceful petition, she would classify as blood magic and have everyone executed.

I think you're agreeing with me without realizing that's what I was saying.  I was basically positing that the rebellion was a non starter meant to give us another quest or two. 

I don't understand what we're meant to think Thrask could accomplish - due to exactly reasons such as you re-state.  I don't think there was a peaceful solution that didn't come down on Meredtih's head from above.  I think there were better ways to get something accomplished than Thrask's ill fated rebellion all along - by violent OR peaceful means.

[EmperorSahlertz]

But magic is not just a gift. It is also a curse. To claim otherwise is ignorant and irresponsible. Mages are gifted with extraordinary power and a wonderous tool, but they are also cursed to forever attract demons, and be a danger to those around them.

And the Templars do not "tear away" all mages from their families. Only the ones who don't give themselves up. As you saw with Bethany, she was allowed to say goodbye, weren't clapped in irons, and was even allowed visits from her family. All that is required of a mage is that they stay in the tower, where they can be supervised. To decentralize (is that even a word?) the mages, would be a logistical hell, and could spread the Templars thin.
Nor do I think that the Dalish has a vastly different way of defending themselves in the veil. They merely say that the only thing you can trust within the veil, is yourself, which is similar to what Irving explains the Warden mage iirc.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I've never denied that there are good templars among Kirkwall's ranks. There are just way too many bad templars. I believe DA3 will show the mage-templar conflict. I can only hope that it does it well and portrays each side being equally good and evil. 50% good Templars, 50% bad templars. And the same applies to the mages. Or at least 60-40.

Just something to not make us want to drown our brains in memory bleach.

Thing is, even if all the knight-commanders were moderates like Greagoir, and all the templars understood their purpose better as being as much to protect mages as to protect against them...the Circle system is still unjust.

Having decent knight-commanders and templars who don't believe it's okay to rape and torture and Tranquil mages for little cause won't change the fact that forcibly removing children from their parents for life is evil.  Nor will it make it okay to lock whole groups of people away from the world and require them to gain permission in order to marry or even to leave the Circle walls for any reason.  Oh, and it won't make it okay to take away their children, either. 

The Kirkwall Circle is especially bad because of the rampant abuses and complete flouting of Chantry law, but that doesn't mean that the Circle system itself would be acceptable absent those crimes.

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Silfren wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

He succeeded in starting the revolution. He was correct in his beliefs about how the mages felt about the Chantry, and also in the notion that they needed a symbol to begin it. He needed to do nothing more; credit will certainly go to those who think about and fight in the war, but he deserves it as well, as the perfect and perhaps only person to start it.

Ends =/= means.

They do when there's only one viable means of achieving them.

*waits for the gasps of horror*

Odd that an anti-circle fella would claim that the ends justify the means.

I'm not drawing an equivalency between the mage revolution or the Circle system.  The Circle is an unjust means of treating mages as guilty before proven innocent, of regarding an entire population as criminals based on an accident of birth.  Mages deserve to be treated humanely, not locked away in Circles for potentialities.  Yet we have seen no indication that the Chantry has any inclination to change the status quo.  It's been in charge of mages for a millenium, and as Wynne herself said, would sooner see mages dead than free.  In light of that, when peaceful means have failed, then yes, more extreme measures are required.

A particular quote come to mind: One that is something along the lines of "Making peaceful resolution impossible makes violent revolution inevitable." 

What does a person do when they attempt to seek change through compromise and peaceful negotiations, only to be told no?  Go home and say to themselves, "Oh well, at least I tried." 

It's a truism that each individual is responsible for their own actions.  But when group A's refusal to allow for peaceful resolution frustrates group B into taking violent measures because all others have been futile, it can't be said that group A's obstinance was not complicit in the resulting chaos and death.

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

But magic is not just a gift. It is also a curse. To claim otherwise is ignorant and irresponsible. Mages are gifted with extraordinary power and a wonderous tool, but they are also cursed to forever attract demons, and be a danger to those around them.

And the Templars do not "tear away" all mages from their families. Only the ones who don't give themselves up. As you saw with Bethany, she was allowed to say goodbye, weren't clapped in irons, and was even allowed visits from her family. All that is required of a mage is that they stay in the tower, where they can be supervised. To decentralize (is that even a word?) the mages, would be a logistical hell, and could spread the Templars thin.
Nor do I think that the Dalish has a vastly different way of defending themselves in the veil. They merely say that the only thing you can trust within the veil, is yourself, which is similar to what Irving explains the Warden mage iirc.

Sure tell the person who has a gift he's also cursed and see how it affects him. It needs to be used responsibly and handled responsibly (meaning in regards to demons). It's not a curse. To claim that Chantry doctrine and forced belief is right is foolish in my book. Which oddly enough The Book of Foolish Thoughts is getting bigger and bigger each day (like one woman who thought slashing a man's tires and breaking a car's windows was a good thing to do and wasn't the act of a violent woman).

And I'm sorry, but telling mages to live in places where Templars are stationed does not spread the Templars thin.

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Indeed, I assume that the Templars he had already convinced were loyal, and not just mind controlled by Grace. So if he had not included mages at all, the Templars would have seem to pose a united front against Meredith and her rule, instead now with the mages, they compromise their own intergrity. The entire rebellion can easily be written off as blood mage influence now. Had mages never been involved and the Templars had themselves solved their leadership issues, it could have worked.

And it couldn't have been even without the mages?  Meredith accuses her templars at the end of siding with the templars, when all the mages are dead, of all being under the influence of blood magic, iirc.  It isn't as though Thrask shot himself in the foot by bringing mages into his rebellion.  Anyone who wanted to make the accusation of blood magic could do so without there being mages present within the templars ranks, as we saw Meredith do. 

It's arguable that Thrask wanted, among other things, to regain the trust of the Kirkwall mages.  Having actual mages involved with his rebellion would go a long way toward that...much more so than not having any mages, given that under the circumstances, it stands to reason that most of Kirkwall's Circle is going to be innately suspicious of a group consisting solely of templars.  Especially with batcrazy Meredith, who would definitely be the sort to try such a thing in an attempt to weed out the mages geared toward rebellion to begin with.

Modifié par Silfren, 20 mai 2011 - 11:18 .

[TEWR]

dragonflight288 wrote...

I really like your idea except some bugs, which you said there may be. For one thing, in the Magi origin, it's revealed hardly anything is known about the dalish. They know the dalish have magic, but don't know the traditions. And I don't see any Keeper stepping forward to greet the templars and saying "Let me teach you about magic." And I don't think the Chantry would ever allow mages to believe that spirits can't be good and can be treated as individual citizens of another country. They prefer believing (even they believe it) that every spirit represents a virtue or a vice, anything that's selfish or greedy is a demon.

You're idea works great otherwise.

hmm... well in Witch Hunt we have books regarding the Dalish Language, so there may be books regarding the Dalish themselves. But I see your point, there isn't anything so far to show that the Circle may learn about the Dalish ways of magic unless in the Mage Revolution the Dalish side with the Mages because it's in their Keepers' best interests that the mages be given freedoms.

As for the spirits bit, well Anders is living (or dead) proof of how spirits are dangerous. If they denied that then I'd personally go into Thedas and smack the Divine upside the head....


repeatedly.

[Silfren]

Beerfish wrote...

It all comes down to whether you want to believe that all bad scenarios are due to the chantry and templars or not.  I think there is more than enough evidence to support the thought that mages are indeed a danger to themsleves and others even if they are the nicest people around and have to be watched closely and have their lvies controlled to a point.  Now there are many ways this might be accomplished that make it not so hard on the mages but 'free reign' is not an option at all if you ask me.

And just who has advocated for mages not having any oversight whatsoever? 

[EmperorSahlertz]

I don't think the Chantry has any qualms about saying that all spirits are dangerous. As long as people recognize the difference between them. The demons prey on our sins, the spirits on our virtues. A spirit of valor is just as dangerous to the cowardly as any demon would be.

[Silfren]

GavrielKay wrote...

We know the Kirkwall circle houses hundreds of mages (it was already hundreds even before the Starkhave mages joined them)  And we know that most law abiding mages will still be in the Gallows because it's illegal to run away.  So, good mages stay put, bad mages try to get out - thus the ones we encounter at large are almost certainly going to be the bad ones.  That means they aren't a representative sample of the circle population.

And because, thanks to Chantry doctrine, many of them probably have nowhere to go, what with not knowing the whereabouts of their family or possibly having a family who despises them for being born, and may even lack any skills to exist in the outside world, having been locked up and treated as a cursed being for the entirety of their lives.

Oh, sorry, that's just my anti-Chantry bias flaring up again.  I should probably get a prescription for that...

Modifié par Silfren, 20 mai 2011 - 10:57 .

[TEWR]

you end up building a tolerance to the meds Silfren. After a while they just don't cut it.

[Harid]

Silfren wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

It all comes down to whether you want to believe that all bad scenarios are due to the chantry and templars or not.  I think there is more than enough evidence to support the thought that mages are indeed a danger to themsleves and others even if they are the nicest people around and have to be watched closely and have their lvies controlled to a point.  Now there are many ways this might be accomplished that make it not so hard on the mages but 'free reign' is not an option at all if you ask me.

And just who has advocated for mages not having any oversight whatsoever? 

A lot of people on this board have since DA1 has come out.

[Silfren]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

But magic is not just a gift. It is also a curse. To claim otherwise is ignorant and irresponsible. Mages are gifted with extraordinary power and a wonderous tool, but they are also cursed to forever attract demons, and be a danger to those around them.

And the Templars do not "tear away" all mages from their families. Only the ones who don't give themselves up. As you saw with Bethany, she was allowed to say goodbye, weren't clapped in irons, and was even allowed visits from her family. All that is required of a mage is that they stay in the tower, where they can be supervised. To decentralize (is that even a word?) the mages, would be a logistical hell, and could spread the Templars thin.
Nor do I think that the Dalish has a vastly different way of defending themselves in the veil. They merely say that the only thing you can trust within the veil, is yourself, which is similar to what Irving explains the Warden mage iirc.

If you're required by law to give up your child, and you do so willingly, not because you want to, but because you understand that things will just be made worse if you put up a fight...I think you're splitting hairs to try to argue semantics over "tearing away." 

Anders was not apparently pulled away kicking and screaming from his parents, but his short story indicates that it is definitely not something his mother wanted.

All that's required of mages is that they stay in the tower?  Sure, and be denied their families, be disallowed from marrying except at the whim of the grand cleric or revered mother granting permission, and have any children born to them taken away as a matter of course.  Sure, no biggie, no big deal at all.  

There is considerable evidence that mages are not granted the right to see their families, but are removed from them permanently.  Even Bethany states early on that if she'd been taken to the Circle as a child, Hawke would be nothing more to her than a name in her file.  You can't point to what happened to her following Act 2, because Hawke's status as a moneyed noble and later as the Champion easily accounts for why Bethany was allowed to see her family at all, just as it does Arl Eamon's ability to see Connor.  There's no evidence to indicate that the common citizenry has the same opportunity, and we do see several examples of mages who were explicitly denied it.  Ella, for one states that nobody told her mother where she was being taken.

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

But magic is not just a gift. It is also a curse. To claim otherwise is ignorant and irresponsible. Mages are gifted with extraordinary power and a wonderous tool, but they are also cursed to forever attract demons, and be a danger to those around them.

And the Templars do not "tear away" all mages from their families. Only the ones who don't give themselves up. As you saw with Bethany, she was allowed to say goodbye, weren't clapped in irons, and was even allowed visits from her family. All that is required of a mage is that they stay in the tower, where they can be supervised. To decentralize (is that even a word?) the mages, would be a logistical hell, and could spread the Templars thin.
Nor do I think that the Dalish has a vastly different way of defending themselves in the veil. They merely say that the only thing you can trust within the veil, is yourself, which is similar to what Irving explains the Warden mage iirc.

Sure tell the person who has a gift he's also cursed and see how it affects him. It needs to be used responsibly and handled responsibly (meaning in regards to demons). It's not a curse. To claim that Chantry doctrine and forced belief is right is foolish in my book. Which oddly enough The Book of Foolish Thoughts is getting bigger and bigger each day (like one woman who thought slashing a man's tires and breaking a car's windows was a good thing to do and wasn't the act of a violent woman).

And I'm sorry, but telling mages to live in places where Templars are stationed does not spread the Templars thin.

Just FYI I think it makes more sense to just have a squadron of templars in every major settlement, whether some place like Lothering or Denerim.  Anywhere you'd have mundane guards, have templars.  It goes without saying you'll have at least some mages living in remote places with no such thing, but they'd likely be hermits, as any settlement with a significant population is more than likely going to have a policing force of some strength.  But you'll have mages doing that anyway, even if they were legally required to live in settlements with templar posts per your example.  

[Silfren]

Harid wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

It all comes down to whether you want to believe that all bad scenarios are due to the chantry and templars or not.  I think there is more than enough evidence to support the thought that mages are indeed a danger to themsleves and others even if they are the nicest people around and have to be watched closely and have their lvies controlled to a point.  Now there are many ways this might be accomplished that make it not so hard on the mages but 'free reign' is not an option at all if you ask me.

And just who has advocated for mages not having any oversight whatsoever? 

A lot of people on this board have since DA1 has come out.

I don't buy that.  Not one pro-mage person I've read has suggested that mages should be completely free a la Tevinter with no safeguards or controls or oversight whatsoever.  Not one.  I've read second-hand of one person claiming such, but that was mentioned by another pro-mage person in passing.  Never saw any such thing myself, and I've read more or less every pro-mage post in this particular thread. 

[Rifneno]

Silfren wrote...

I don't buy that.  Not one pro-mage person I've read has suggested that mages should be completely free a la Tevinter with no safeguards or controls or oversight whatsoever.  Not one.  I've read second-hand of one person claiming such, but that was mentioned by another pro-mage person in passing.  Never saw any such thing myself, and I've read more or less every pro-mage post in this particular thread. 

Well what do you expect them to do?  NOT strawman and lie about their opposition's words and intentions?

[TEWR]

does such a thing exist Rifneno?

[Silfren]

Rifneno wrote...

Silfren wrote...

I don't buy that.  Not one pro-mage person I've read has suggested that mages should be completely free a la Tevinter with no safeguards or controls or oversight whatsoever.  Not one.  I've read second-hand of one person claiming such, but that was mentioned by another pro-mage person in passing.  Never saw any such thing myself, and I've read more or less every pro-mage post in this particular thread. 

Well what do you expect them to do?  NOT strawman and lie about their opposition's words and intentions?

I know, I know.  Me and my unreasonable expectations.

[EmperorSahlertz]

I havn't seen anyone proposing no oversight in this thread, but I have seen a couple do so in the past. Though they never really join the discussion and are probably just trying to start a flamewar.

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I havn't seen anyone proposing no oversight in this thread, but I have seen a couple do so in the past. Though they never really join the discussion and are probably just trying to start a flamewar.

Indeed.  Most of the pro-mage folks are quite willing to admit that mandatory training would be a good thing.  Though we tend to also believe that once training has been completed to some set standard the mage should be allowed to live their own life.

[TEWR]

Right. We acknowledge that the Templars are needed and that mages do need training, but we do so in a way that would be both fair and safe.

[GavrielKay]

Silfren wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

We know the Kirkwall circle houses hundreds of mages (it was already hundreds even before the Starkhave mages joined them)  And we know that most law abiding mages will still be in the Gallows because it's illegal to run away.  So, good mages stay put, bad mages try to get out - thus the ones we encounter at large are almost certainly going to be the bad ones.  That means they aren't a representative sample of the circle population.

And because, thanks to Chantry doctrine, many of them probably have nowhere to go, what with not knowing the whereabouts of their family or possibly having a family who despises them for being born, and may even lack any skills to exist in the outside world, having been locked up and treated as a cursed being for the entirety of their lives.

Oh, sorry, that's just my anti-Chantry bias flaring up again.  I should probably get a prescription for that...

Heh.  Yeah, the religion angle really works against the mages in Thedas.  I like the realism of mentioning that some mages take their own lives out of desperation and guilt.  Really drives home just how bad it would be to be treated as cursed and dangerous in a systematic way.  There really is no truly good choice for a mage - you can either be a prisoner or be hunted (or I suppose in rare cases, tainted a la Wardens).  And that's even when they're not being raped and tortured.

[Harid]

Silfren wrote...

Harid wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

It all comes down to whether you want to believe that all bad scenarios are due to the chantry and templars or not.  I think there is more than enough evidence to support the thought that mages are indeed a danger to themsleves and others even if they are the nicest people around and have to be watched closely and have their lvies controlled to a point.  Now there are many ways this might be accomplished that make it not so hard on the mages but 'free reign' is not an option at all if you ask me.

And just who has advocated for mages not having any oversight whatsoever? 

A lot of people on this board have since DA1 has come out.

I don't buy that.  Not one pro-mage person I've read has suggested that mages should be completely free a la Tevinter with no safeguards or controls or oversight whatsoever.  Not one.  I've read second-hand of one person claiming such, but that was mentioned by another pro-mage person in passing.  Never saw any such thing myself, and I've read more or less every pro-mage post in this particular thread. 

I don't care enough about this issue to go digging through this board for the last 100+ page mage freedom post on this board?

But to act like there aren't people in these arguments who feel that mages should have free reign is disingenuous.

[Harid]

GavrielKay wrote...

Silfren wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

We know the Kirkwall circle houses hundreds of mages (it was already hundreds even before the Starkhave mages joined them)  And we know that most law abiding mages will still be in the Gallows because it's illegal to run away.  So, good mages stay put, bad mages try to get out - thus the ones we encounter at large are almost certainly going to be the bad ones.  That means they aren't a representative sample of the circle population.

And because, thanks to Chantry doctrine, many of them probably have nowhere to go, what with not knowing the whereabouts of their family or possibly having a family who despises them for being born, and may even lack any skills to exist in the outside world, having been locked up and treated as a cursed being for the entirety of their lives.

Oh, sorry, that's just my anti-Chantry bias flaring up again.  I should probably get a prescription for that...

Heh.  Yeah, the religion angle really works against the mages in Thedas.  I like the realism of mentioning that some mages take their own lives out of desperation and guilt.  Really drives home just how bad it would be to be treated as cursed and dangerous in a systematic way.  There really is no truly good choice for a mage - you can either be a prisoner or be hunted (or I suppose in rare cases, tainted a la Wardens).  And that's even when they're not being raped and tortured.

They can go to Rivain or the Tevinter Imperium.