4350 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

NanoKitty wrote...


This whole Bioware-inspired argument reeks of parallels to gun control.  An armed society is a polite society.  If there are good free mages walking around, I bet crime (all crime, not just mage-crimes) would plummet.

Bad analogy.  There's plenty of evidence to contradict the belief that an "armed society is a polite society," and suggest than an armed society is a blood-drenched society.

I'm not going to get into the debate, I'm only pointing out that for every scrap of evidence that people being armed makes crime plummet, there's just as much evidence indicating the exact opposite.  There's no conclusively compelling evidence to support the assertion.

DA itself is an example of a world where a good many people beyond soldiers, guards, and Wardens walk around with weapons, and it is hardly a "polite" society.  Hawke'n co. get mugged everywhere they go, even when they have two or three mages walking around with flashy neon signs declaring their ability to set you on fire with a mere thought, but that doesn't stop people from turning themselves into bullseyes by running right at you.

[GavrielKay]

Sylvianus wrote...

Mages would not become less criminals from the moment the most had seen their power exceed them. Many innocents became monsters, not beacause they wanted, but beaucase they didn't control their power. We have seen all the time in DA2. Many would not become less criminal in total freedom because of their vulnerability to the demon's call. This is not a will as common criminals.

I'm having trouble with your English, but it seems to me that any further argument is a lost cause. 

You appear to agree with the hard line Chantry preaching that all mages are inherenlty dangerous and not to be trusted no matter what.  Sorry if that's putting words in your mouth, but that's the impression I've formed.

I believe that is religious dogma with no evidence to bear it out.  Churches are pretty good at giving their followers something to fear in order to keep them paying attention.  I'm far too much a skeptic to take them at their word.  It doesn't feel right to treat anyone as inherently and iredeemably dangerous starting at age 6.

So, I agree to disagree then.

[Rifneno]

klarabella wrote...
He had received training from Jowan. What got him possessed was the emotional distress caused by the poisoning of his father. Connor made a deal that would save his father's live.

Just look at Feynriel. The tower couldn't help him against the pull of demon temptation. Even Merethari didn't seem to know how to help him avoid possession and suggested killing him if necessary.

Uldred and his lot were fully trained mages.

- I wouldn't trust Jowan to teach the kid how to tie his shoes.  Jowan is NOT an acceptable teacher to a young mage.  I can only think of two examples of apostates we've seen that we know had good mentors.  Morrigan by Flemeth, and Bethany by Malcolm.  Bethany is a shining example of how it should work, and while Morrigan is a selfish **** she seems almost insulted that Connor's demon thinks she's dumb enough to fall for its tricks and flatly tells it "I do not make deals with your kind."

- Feynriel is an extremely rare type of mage and neither civilization knew how to train his type.  Which you conveniently leave out of your post since it hinders your point.

- Uldred and his lot were fighting for freedom.  If the Chantry wasn't oppressing them, they'd have had no need to go to such lengths for power to fight back.

Sylvianus wrote...

We saw Templars allied with the Mages. We have seen with Cullen and Trask, the Templars could change their point of view, they are not all bad and can become totally receptive and responsive to the condition of the Mages.

Cullen is at best severely emotionally scarred and should NOT be put in a position of power over the minority that wronged him.  The very fact he wasn't immediately removed from active duty after the Uldred debacle proves the Chantry's system doesn't give a damn about their prisoners.  He only looks reasonable because he's standing alongside psychopaths like Meredith and all-round criminal scum like Karras and Alrik.  Cullen is NOT an example of a good one.  Thrask and Samson I'd probably agree with.  Although I'm not entirely sure on Samson as we don't have enough interaction or background on him.  Emeric was a good guy but we don't really know how he was with his charges as all interaction revolves around hunting a serial killer.

GavrielKay wrote...

I'm having trouble with your English, but it seems to me that any further argument is a lost cause. 

You appear to agree with the hard line Chantry preaching that all mages are inherenlty dangerous and not to be trusted no matter what.  Sorry if that's putting words in your mouth, but that's the impression I've formed.

I believe that is religious dogma with no evidence to bear it out.  Churches are pretty good at giving their followers something to fear in order to keep them paying attention.  I'm far too much a skeptic to take them at their word.  It doesn't feel right to treat anyone as inherently and iredeemably dangerous starting at age 6.

So, I agree to disagree then.

I agree with this.  The Chantry should never be the ones in charge.  I'm firmly of the belief that no religious organization should have a military or be writing laws based on their religious views.  No good EVER comes of it.  History is littered with examples, the best of course being the Crusades.  And in a not so subtle parallel, the "holy" warriors of the crusades were known as templars.  But there's countless other examples.  Some still going on today.  I believe in freedom of religion, and when you give a religion that much power, you're taking away freedom of religion from anyone in their reach.

[Bigdoser]

IanPolaris wrote...

NanoKitty wrote...

And that's why free mages would have private boarding schools or training centers. The templars can still hunt the evil mages, and be involved in law enforcement.

Indeed.  No one (at least no one reasonable) isn't saying that magic isn't dangerous or that mages should be left to do as they like untrained.  I think most would and could agree that if you are a mage, then a certain degree of training is mandatory (if only for public safety).

Regulating magic and mages and making some training mandatory does NOT mean locking away all mages and treating them like lepers or worse.

-Polaris

I agree but lets not forget the chantry does not want to lose one of their main forces of power hopefully when the war is over we can organize a mage boarding school and create a way to regulate criminal mages.

[Sylvianus]

GavrielKay wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Mages would not become less criminals from the moment the most had seen their power exceed them. Many innocents became monsters, not beacause they wanted, but beaucase they didn't control their power. We have seen all the time in DA2. Many would not become less criminal in total freedom because of their vulnerability to the demon's call. This is not a will as common criminals.

I'm having trouble with your English, but it seems to me that any further argument is a lost cause. 

You appear to agree with the hard line Chantry preaching that all mages are inherenlty dangerous and not to be trusted no matter what.  Sorry if that's putting words in your mouth, but that's the impression I've formed.

I believe that is religious dogma with no evidence to bear it out.  Churches are pretty good at giving their followers something to fear in order to keep them paying attention.  I'm far too much a skeptic to take them at their word.  It doesn't feel right to treat anyone as inherently and iredeemably dangerous starting at age 6.

So, I agree to disagree then.

mages are inherenlty dangerous

Yeah. it is not really me who thinks likat that,  that's the reality in the world of Dragon Age. Their power is also a curse. Something dangerous, even with the drive can be turned against them. This is not the church that I refer when I say this, but the facts in dao and da2.

All I'm saying, everything I forbid will always report to the facts. 

Not that I do not trust them, this is unfortunate disability that is the source of all this obligation to be strict. I am also ready to support a rebellion of Mages, but only against Templars who have exceeded the limits. For a fair cause, but this fair cause it is not total free because it is inconsistent with the threat it represents for them

I want them to be safe for themselves and for  people, but I do not want them also to be unhappy, that they are mistreated.

  For me mages can not dream of total freedom without control, after a few decades, thousands of mages in freedom, forget any liability. They will do what they want, if there is no Templars to remind them that same responsibility.

It is very difficult to believe that they themselves create their own schools, with all the mages will follow, they will chart their own future without threatening others.

The isolationists want to be  isolated from the rest of the world, and be quiet, to lead out their experiences. But what experiences? Dangerous of course. They can all became monsters after that.

How can you not believe that magic is inherenlty dangerous. Not having seen each time the nicest mages become a monster ? I'm asking the question honestly. What does it mean to you ?

Modifié par Sylvianus, 04 mai 2011 - 06:33 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

What exactly has Cullen done to be declared a "bad Templar". If you are going to say he killed a bunch of mages or some other nonsense from the epilogue of DA:O, I feel obliged to inform you that, it never happened.
The fact that Cullen has not taken more permanent damage, speaks volumes of his character. Even when he has every reason to hate mages, he is still dedicated to his duty.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

What exactly has Cullen done to be declared a "bad Templar". If you are going to say he killed a bunch of mages or some other nonsense from the epilogue of DA:O, I feel obliged to inform you that, it never happened.
The fact that Cullen has not taken more permanent damage, speaks volumes of his character. Even when he has every reason to hate mages, he is still dedicated to his duty.

I think Cullen is a bad person.  Why:

Cullen: "Mages are dangerous weapons that have to be locked up.  They are not people like you and me."

That pretty much puts him in my villian category forever. [Even some of the templars watching this were appalled and stunned by this proclaimation.]

-Polaris

[Sylvianus]

I have the impression that cullen is a person beset by doubt, he is only reciting something he doesn't believe so. His metamorphosis from dao, early in da2 until the end is important. I personally believe that his perspective is changing slowly but surely.

[IanPolaris]

Sylvianus wrote...

I have the impression that cullen is a person beset by doubt, he is only reciting something he doesn't believe so. His metamorphosis from dao, early in da2 until the end is important. I personally believe that his perspective is changing slowly but surely.

 I don't.  At no time do I see Cullen fundamentally change his mind about mages not being people.  Until that happens, he is a villian in my book.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Sylvianus wrote...

Yeah. it is not really me who thinks likat that,  that's the reality in the world of Dragon Age. Their power is also a curse. Something dangerous, even with the drive can be turned against them. This is not the church that I refer when I say this, but the facts in dao and da2.

I believe GavrielKay is making a case for properly instructing mages as opposed to oppressing them under a religious order that preaches that they are cursed and caused original sin in the Golden City.

Sylvianus wrote...

All I'm saying, everything I forbid will always report to the facts. 

Not that I do not trust them, this is unfortunate disability that is the source of all this obligation to be strict. I am also ready to support a rebellion of Mages, but only against Templars who have exceeded the limits. For a fair cause, but this fair cause it is not total free because it is inconsistent with the threat it represents for them

From what we've seen, some mages want freedom from the Chantry and the templars, but no one is discussing total freedom with no laws. Apparently, the mage revolution lead to all the remaining Circles of Magi rising up to be free from the Chantry and the templars after the massacre at Kirkwall.

Sylvianus wrote...

For me mages can not dream of total freedom without control, after a few decades, thousands of mages in freedom, forget any liability. They will do what they want, if there is no Templars to remind them that same responsibility.

Mages have lived under the oppression of the Chantry for nearly a thousand years, and we've seen the Chantry controlled Circles result in mages wanting to be free from their oppressors. The desire for freedom will never be lost among the people who live in a dictatorship.

Sylvianus wrote...

How can you not believe that magic is inherenlty dangerous. Not having seen each time the nicest mages become a monster ? I'm asking the question honestly. What does it mean to you ?

I believe the argument is addressing that mages should be properly trained to control their abilities, rather than treating the mages as "weapons" who cant be treated like people.

[EmperorSahlertz]

But mages AREN'T like you and me. WHy is Cullen "evil" for stating the obvious?

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

But mages AREN'T like you and me. WHy is Cullen "evil" for stating the obvious?

Mages ARE people entitled by the Maker to certain inalienable rights.  Even the generally pro-Templar Sebastian conceeds this point.

-Polaris

[Rifneno]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

I have the impression that cullen is a person beset by doubt, he is only reciting something he doesn't believe so. His metamorphosis from dao, early in da2 until the end is important. I personally believe that his perspective is changing slowly but surely.

 I don't.  At no time do I see Cullen fundamentally change his mind about mages not being people.  Until that happens, he is a villian in my book.

-Polaris

This.  Cullen's doubt is in Meredith's political ambition.  The only time he shows doubts about the templar's treatment of the mages is when Meredith calls for the RoA.

[jlb524]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

But mages AREN'T like you and me. WHy is Cullen "evil" for stating the obvious?

It's his attempt to deny mages personhood and all the rights that go along with that.

[EmperorSahlertz]

But mages can't be treated like any other commoner. You have to treat them like the mages they are. He isn't wrong in this either. How you want to treat mages, and what the right way to treat mages is, is debatable. What Cullen is saying is that you shouldn't view them as a normal bloke, and I concur. To do so would be the first mistake.

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

But mages can't be treated like any other commoner. You have to treat them like the mages they are. He isn't wrong in this either. How you want to treat mages, and what the right way to treat mages is, is debatable. What Cullen is saying is that you shouldn't view them as a normal bloke, and I concur. To do so would be the first mistake.

I call strawman.  No one is saying that mages should be treated like any other commoner!  (Except perhaps the real loonies but no one serious).

We are saying that mages are people and their rights as a human being (or elves, qunari, etc) granted by the Maker need to be respected.  As I said, it's a point even Sebastian (who is generally pro-Templar) aknowledges.

Cullen explicitly and overtly wants to strip mages of their personhood.  That marks him as a villian (and a pretty vile one) forever at least in my book.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 04 mai 2011 - 06:57 .

[LobselVith8]

Icy Magebane wrote...

Orsino was a blood mage... that is more than enough reason to believe the Circle was compromised...

Orsino is one man. Should we condemn countless men, women, and children to death because of one man who is only their representative? Meredith has no issue with murdering Bethany, and will do so unless Hawke stops the Knight-Commander.

Icy Magebane wrote...

Yes, I'm sure you do.  The point is that people outright dismissing the Right of Annulment as an "evil" choice is short-sighted.  There were blood mages in the tower, and the First Enchanter was one of them.  This is the mage responsible for overseeing the Circle and instructing at least some of the apprentices. 

In other words, we should permit our suspicions to condemn an entire population of people in the Gallows who Meredith wants to execute because Anders blew up the Chantry?

Icy Magebane wrote...

He hid and funded the actions of a blood mage necromancer who had been a serial murderer in Kirkwall for 5 years or more.  Pretending that it's impossible, or even unlikely, that he would have had other projects going on inside the Gallows is ridiculous.  There is more than enough evidence in game to show players that the Circle had some dark secrets (and no, I don't mean abusive Templars obviously).

Again, Orsino is one man. All the men, women, and children who have magical ability shouldn't be executed because of Anders or Orsino.

Icy Magebane wrote...

It just gets tiresome hearing the same judgmental speeches from people willing to allow anybody and everybody with magic power to wander around without any restrictions.  Supporting the Right of Annulment is a noble action.  Depending, of course, on the outlook of the player in question.

This is a noble act? Meredith stabbing Bethany in the back.

Icy Magebane wrote...

Practicing blood magic is in violation of the rules of the Circle.  Whether or not it's evil is irrelevant.  The mages knew they weren't supposed to learn blood magic, they did it anyway, and they were punished for their crimes (in some players games...).  Again, this goes to the point that some people think that every mage deserves the freedom to do what they want, even if those actions are illegal.

You're conflating the issue of mages who practiced blood magic with the fact that every mage, from the eldest enchanter to the youngest apprentice, has been condemned to execution for an act they had nothing to do with. Meredith makes it clear she is ordering their execution to satisfy the mob that will demand the death of the Circle mages for something they had nothing to do with.

[Sylvianus]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

Yeah. it is not really me who thinks likat that,  that's the reality in the world of Dragon Age. Their power is also a curse. Something dangerous, even with the drive can be turned against them. This is not the church that I refer when I say this, but the facts in dao and da2.

I believe GavrielKay is making a case for properly instructing mages as opposed to oppressing them under a religious order that preaches that they are cursed and caused original sin in the Golden City.

Sylvianus wrote...

All I'm saying, everything I forbid will always report to the facts. 

Not that I do not trust them, this is unfortunate disability that is the source of all this obligation to be strict. I am also ready to support a rebellion of Mages, but only against Templars who have exceeded the limits. For a fair cause, but this fair cause it is not total free because it is inconsistent with the threat it represents for them

From what we've seen, some mages want freedom from the Chantry and the templars, but no one is discussing total freedom with no laws. Apparently, the mage revolution lead to all the remaining Circles of Magi rising up to be free from the Chantry and the templars after the massacre at Kirkwall.

Sylvianus wrote...

For me mages can not dream of total freedom without control, after a few decades, thousands of mages in freedom, forget any liability. They will do what they want, if there is no Templars to remind them that same responsibility.

Mages have lived under the oppression of the Chantry for nearly a thousand years, and we've seen the Chantry controlled Circles result in mages wanting to be free from their oppressors. The desire for freedom will never be lost among the people who live in a dictatorship.

Sylvianus wrote...

How can you not believe that magic is inherenlty dangerous. Not having seen each time the nicest mages become a monster ? I'm asking the question honestly. What does it mean to you ?

I believe the argument is addressing that mages should be properly trained to control their abilities, rather than treating the mages as "weapons" who cant be treated like people.

Yeah.  I like what you say, I had not planned it that way. Indeed, freedom from Chantry, not necessarily from laws, but who could control them ? Only the Templars really have the capacity. And they are the arm of the Chantery. I personally believe we will reach more achievements in the reform that the total break.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 04 mai 2011 - 07:01 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

He does no such thing. He merely points out the dangers mages pose, and that to believe they can be treated like normal people, is ignorant. Cullen is in the conversation in question, trying to educate Hawke on why the Circle works as it does. Him calling the magesw eapons, does not neccesarily reflect his view of all mages. It just reflects the dangers he percieves the mages to pose. And you can't really blame him. He has seen first hand the dangers mages, grasping out of their reach, pose. He, if anyone, knows what he is talking about.

[jlb524]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

But mages can't be treated like any other commoner. You have to treat them like the mages they are. He isn't wrong in this either. How you want to treat mages, and what the right way to treat mages is, is debatable. What Cullen is saying is that you shouldn't view them as a normal bloke, and I concur. To do so would be the first mistake.

The same could be said of Templars or assassins...they aren't normal blokes, but highly trained warriors or killers.

However, no one wants to deny them personhood and their rights as people.

[GavrielKay]

Sylvianus wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

You appear to agree with the hard line Chantry preaching that all mages are inherenlty dangerous and not to be trusted no matter what.  Sorry if that's putting words in your mouth, but that's the impression I've formed.
...

So, I agree to disagree then.

For me mages can not dream of total freedom without control, after a few decades, thousands of mages in freedom, forget any liability. They will do what they want, if there is no Templars to remind them that same responsibility.

How can you not believe that magic is inherenlty dangerous. Not having seen each time the nicest mages become a monster ? I'm asking the question honestly. What does it mean to you ?

Well, at least you've accepted my point on your general outlook on the matter.

I believe the nature vs. nurture argument plays a part here.  I happen to believe that nurture plays a larger role than nature.  I know that some people will turn out evil despite the best parents around, but 99% or more of the children raised by loving and competent parents will turn out to be good people who want to live normal lives and prefer not to harm anyone else in reaching their goals.  Most stories of evil people can be traced back to something that did or didn't happen to them in childhood.  NOT ALL, before anyone tries to argue that I'm a blind idealist, but most cases of truly depraved individuals turn out to have been abused, neglected or even simply raised by amoral parents.

So, in Tevinter they raise magisters and they are quite easily argued as evil people, but their whole society creates them and in a twisted way supports them.  In Kirkwall, we have a thin veil, downright evil Templars, a zealot turned crazy person in charge and again, we get arguably evil people as a result.  But to say that you see evil mages (or even just weak mages) in Kirkwall or Ferelden doesn't say much - because we know a bit about the environment that created them, and that explains a lot.

Since we can attribute just about all the evil we see to the system that created it, it's rather illogical to say we need to keep the system in order to contain the evil.  I wouldn't expect any religion to announce that it has suddenly realized that following their doctrine causes more trouble than it solves, but that doesn't mean it can't be true.

[IanPolaris]

Sylvianus wrote...

Yeah.  I like what you say, I had not planned it that way.
Indeed, freedom from Chantry, not necessarily from laws, but who could control them ? Only the Templars really have the capacity. And they are the arm of the Chantery. I personally believe we will reach more achievements in the reform that the total break.

Who could control/regulate magic?  The crown.  Ultimately I think that's what's going to happen, and Alistair is already starting down this route.  I note that for all their unquestioned evil (which is cultural and not based on magic per se) the Tevinters control magic and mages very well (most mages are NOT magisters even in Tevinter).

There is no reason why Templar-like training has to be controlled by the chantry, and there is no reason why mages can't be incorporated by the crown into a mage-hunter/mage-police order along with such specially trained warriors to control and regulate magic.  Indeed we know that mages (including bloodmages) are actually better at detecting and identifying both bloodmagic and abominations than any Templar.

-Polaris

[Sylvianus]

Rifneno wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

I have the impression that cullen is a person beset by doubt, he is only reciting something he doesn't believe so. His metamorphosis from dao, early in da2 until the end is important. I personally believe that his perspective is changing slowly but surely.

 I don't.  At no time do I see Cullen fundamentally change his mind about mages not being people.  Until that happens, he is a villian in my book.

-Polaris

This.  Cullen's doubt is in Meredith's political ambition.  The only time he shows doubts about the templar's treatment of the mages is when Meredith calls for the RoA.

Exactly, I think you do not realize the path. He was worse than an extremist. To come to doubt about RoA, when he was required to Ferelden is something very important. Slowly but surely.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 04 mai 2011 - 07:05 .

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

He does no such thing. He merely points out the dangers mages pose, and that to believe they can be treated like normal people, is ignorant. Cullen is in the conversation in question, trying to educate Hawke on why the Circle works as it does. Him calling the magesw eapons, does not neccesarily reflect his view of all mages. It just reflects the dangers he percieves the mages to pose. And you can't really blame him. He has seen first hand the dangers mages, grasping out of their reach, pose. He, if anyone, knows what he is talking about.

Cullen says, and I quote: "Mages aren't people like you and me."

Even many of his fellow templars were completely appalled.

The quote says it all.

-Polaris

[Merela]

Myabe that, by "people like you and me", he meant "People not able to destroy a whole building only by sneezing"? Who knows...

Modifié par Merela, 04 mai 2011 - 07:10 .