4350 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
It is always more useful to be feared and respected, than loved and respected. In statesmanship anyway.

Not really. It's safer, to a certain extent.
But it's much more useful to have people willingly help you. While having tools to instill fear if necessary, hence the Templar warriors.

It is however also the hardest school for a mage to learn, let alone master. The creation school practioners are supposedly rare. But the few there are, are highly coveted for their wide use. Which is probably also why magic is commonly connected with destruction, since the healers are rare.

Then train them more. And give mages incentives to learn it.

Because they even used mages in the war. iirc the Qunari wars was the first documented instance of mages being used in a war.

After decades of getting their ass kicked.

They do not force a mage to train to cast combat spells. Once the amge has passed his Harrowing, it is his own choice to study whatever school he wants. If he wants he can go study primal spells (best used in war), if he doesn't feel like that, tehre are probably hundreds of non-violent spells he can learn, that we don't know of, because they don't have a use in a combat-based game.

If given incentives and things in return, mages would have more reason to learn about war.
And you'd be naive if you think that the Chantry really teaches mages about actual warfare. Primal spells alone don't make an army.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 mai 2011 - 07:53 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Even a centralized state would greatly fear the mages, unless they were temselves mages.

Not if they use and integrate them. And they have every incentive to do so.
So no, it's not a dichotomy between Magocracy and Chantry.

Caution =/= fear. Fear is irrational and clouds judgement.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 mai 2011 - 07:42 .

[Sylvianus]

After a few years, the Magi could gain confidence, and  nobles become increasingly worried.

And specifically, how the crowd or centralized state can have authority over mages without the Templars ? The Templars meet the orders of the Chantry. They desperately need to trust an order of mages who would really hunt its own ? The nobles or crowd who are plagued by power, conflicts of interest and futility at the court? Really? Yes it's clearly underestimating the fear of the Magi.

As Knight says, the Templars by their dictatorship less friendly, have created a wave of sympathy towards the mages in Kirkwall.

But that does not mean than elsewhere, the Templars didn't do their duty, and that sympathy exists elsewhere or people don't fear magic. At Ferelden I did not see many people hate the Templars or wanted to understand or help mages.

People and the Templars who meet a religious and popular logic are a bit agree in my opinion.

Just a one king can become paranoid and change everything for mages in the history and for many years. We saw this with Sophia, when the wardens were banned because of one fool.

Not everyone is like Allistair, on the contrary, I'll bet that many are rather like Anora. Willing to eliminate what they consider as a threat, even if such it is not.

The management of the Magi implies too specific to wean Templars, involves too much power.


For me the solution lies in reform and with the Templars, only power-cons be able to effectively protect the people against the vagaries of magic.

The management of a king lies clearly irrational, subjective opinion and view, most of the time. A king does what he wants. These are feelings that contrast and decide with reason in the same time, yes. But not always.

The work of the Templars involve far more rational with a strict code, intransigent, effective. The solution lies in revising the code in cooperation with the Magi. But this may be the Chantry will never accept unless the upheaval makes her vulnerable enough to accept that.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 08 mai 2011 - 07:43 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sylvianus wrote...
And specifically, how the crowd or centralized state can have authority over mages without the Templars ?

The Chantry is unnecessary for this. Warriors can be trained in Templar skills. You don't even need lyrium.

Centralized states can maintain a Templar like force. But one that is motivated by pragmatism and not dogmatic fervor.

But that does not mean than elsewhere, the Templars didn't do their duty, and that sympathy exists elsewhere or people don't fear magic. At Ferelden I did not see many people hate the Templars or wanted to understand or help mages.

I've always said, I greatly sympathise with the Templars of Ferelden and specifically Gregoir. Because he, unlike Meredith, actually understands how to be a more efficient KC. Yes, he had his failings, but never forgot that a KC's duty is to collaborate with the mages and not rule over them. He is genuinely happy about Irving being alive. They'e almost (skirt) buddies.

I still did not approve of the Chantry system ever since Origins hwoever.

The management of a king lies clearly irrational, subjective opinion and view, most of the time. A king does what he wants. These are feelings that contrast and decide with reason in the same time, yes. But not always.

One man regimes are a myth, kings can't do whatever they want even if they are legally allowed.

That said, I htink I understand where you are heading. You want a strong institution of Templar like warriors, with a strict but rational code of conduct and modus operandi that can only be changed in the most dire of circumstances. So that no king can decide for no reason to be more despotic. That, I would agree to as I've always emphasized the importance of strong institutions in statecraft.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 mai 2011 - 07:53 .

[Silfren]

Sylvianus wrote...


But that does not mean than elsewhere, the Templars didn't do their duty, and that sympathy exists elsewhere or people don't fear magic. At Ferelden I did not see many people hate the Templars or wanted to understand or help mages.

Just for the record, you don't see it in Ferelden because that isn't the point of the story.  You're a Warden preoccupied with gaining allies against the Blight, and in putting an end to the civil war so that the nation can present a united front.  You're not part of a family whose life has been dedicated to keeping its apostate child(ren) out of the Circle, and you don't find yourself going into Templar Central where the mage/templar conflict has become so tense that it's unavoidable.  You also don't find yourself acquainted with an apostate mage who is healing people for free even while he participates in a mage underground.  

So not seeing widespread sympathy for mages in Ferelden does not stand as evidence that the sympathy for mages in Kirkwall is unique or even unusual.  You're not looking for it, and even if you play a Mage Warden, your circumstances are wildly different.  Plus, people are a little too damn concerned with darkspawn spilling onto their doorstep to be concerning themselves with the mage question.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Silfren wrote...

So not seeing widespread sympathy for mages in Ferelden does not stand as evidence that the sympathy for mages in Kirkwall is unique or even unusual. 

Cullen said that sympathy on such a scale never happened before. That people were always eager to help Templars in their duty, except now in Kirkwall.

I am inclined to believe him, since I do not believe the system could have lasted that long with a big amount of sympathy for mages.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 mai 2011 - 07:55 .

[OldMan91]

Can I just say Phoenix that, despite your realist politics, I adore you? And it's not just because of the Xanatos avatar. Honest!

[Sylvianus]

Silfren wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...


But that does not mean than elsewhere, the Templars didn't do their duty, and that sympathy exists elsewhere or people don't fear magic. At Ferelden I did not see many people hate the Templars or wanted to understand or help mages.

Just for the record, you don't see it in Ferelden because that isn't the point of the story.  You're a Warden preoccupied with gaining allies against the Blight, and in putting an end to the civil war so that the nation can present a united front.  You're not part of a family whose life has been dedicated to keeping its apostate child(ren) out of the Circle, and you don't find yourself going into Templar Central where the mage/templar conflict has become so tense that it's unavoidable.  You also don't find yourself acquainted with an apostate mage who is healing people for free even while he participates in a mage underground.  

So not seeing widespread sympathy for mages in Ferelden does not stand as evidence that the sympathy for mages in Kirkwall is unique or even unusual.  You're not looking for it, and even if you play a Mage Warden, your circumstances are wildly different.  Plus, people are a little too damn concerned with darkspawn spilling onto their doorstep to be concerning themselves with the mage question.

Make fiction in a fiction is something that does not interest me at all. And I rely always on the game, the codex, and everything about the world of Dragon Age.

 one can only speculate, imagine with the guidance we have in the game .  I see no reason to think that the people can sympathize with the Magi, without an awareness of their situation for a sytem that lasted centuries.


The people of Ferelden is a believer, as in many countries of Thedas, they believe the stories of Chantry, and are prone to make irrational judgments about magic.

They do not hate mages, but they do not care either about of their cases.

I also see no reason to believe that the Templars are all bad when I see the Templars of Ferelden.

Could one think that there was an evolution of  darkspawn before the Architect and awakening ?

No. It is obvious that it takes elements.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 08 mai 2011 - 08:15 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

OldMan91 wrote...

Can I just say Phoenix that, despite your realist politics, I adore you? And it's not just because of the Xanatos avatar. Honest!

Ha thanks

[Sylvianus]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

That said, I htink I understand where you are heading. You want a strong institution of Templar like warriors, with a strict but rational code of conduct and modus operandi that can only be changed in the most dire of circumstances. So that no king can decide for no reason to be more despotic. That, I would agree to as I've always emphasized the importance of strong institutions in statecraft.

exactly.


That said, I think you underestimate the ability of a king to be crafty or stand strong during his reign. There are many kings who hadn't technically the means nor the right to impose their view alone, and yet they acted as single master of a all a nation with great cruelty.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 08 mai 2011 - 08:30 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Sylvianus wrote...

That said, I think you underestimate the ability of a king to be crafty or stand strong during his reign. There are many kings who were technically not the means nor the right to impose their view alone, and yet they acted as single master of a all a nation with great cruelty.

They usually had to gain a lot of support from within the state apparatus (and army) and outside of that. In the context of strong laws / constitutions, it would be harder for kings to act unilaterraly without much concern for the law.    The only real example of the closest thing we had to a one man regime was Stalin, who virtually had every single document pass by him, and he had technology on his side (and to his credit, he was very hard working. Plus the context of the time).

The history of statecraft is one of problems, then solutions fixing those problems and creating new problems in the process and thus it continues (and so should it imo). So yea, problems will always be present. I am not claiming to know a permanent solution or if it even exists.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 08 mai 2011 - 08:34 .

[In Exile]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Cullen said that sympathy on such a scale never happened before. That people were always eager to help Templars in their duty, except now in Kirkwall.

I am inclined to believe him, since I do not believe the system could have lasted that long with a big amount of sympathy for mages.

Was he reffering only to Kirkwall? I thought he was describing a general trend toward all templars and all mages everywhere.

[KnightofPhoenix]

In Exile wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Cullen said that sympathy on such a scale never happened before. That people were always eager to help Templars in their duty, except now in Kirkwall.

I am inclined to believe him, since I do not believe the system could have lasted that long with a big amount of sympathy for mages.

Was he reffering only to Kirkwall? I thought he was describing a general trend toward all templars and all mages everywhere.

I was under the impression taht it was only Kirkwall. I do not recall his exact words. He spoke of it and sent a letter to Meredith.

[Augustei]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I was under the impression taht it was only Kirkwall. I do not
recall his exact words. He spoke of it and sent a letter to Meredith.

YeahI always thought it  would only be kirkwall.. Why would Orlais and the Anderfels start to hate the Templars? Unless they have their own merediths

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 08 mai 2011 - 09:46 .

[TEWR]

has this just been rinse and repeat since I left the conversation?

[Rifneno]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

has this just been rinse and repeat since I left the conversation?

Don't be silly.  It's been rinse and repeat since the day after release.

[TEWR]

Rifneno wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

has this just been rinse and repeat since I left the conversation?

Don't be silly.  It's been rinse and repeat since the day after release.

Oh yeah. My mistake.

[Lewie]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Sylvianus wrote...

That said, I think you underestimate the ability of a king to be crafty or stand strong during his reign. There are many kings who were technically not the means nor the right to impose their view alone, and yet they acted as single master of a all a nation with great cruelty.

They usually had to gain a lot of support from within the state apparatus (and army) and outside of that. In the context of strong laws / constitutions, it would be harder for kings to act unilaterraly without much concern for the law.    The only real example of the closest thing we had to a one man regime was Stalin, who virtually had every single document pass by him, and he had technology on his side (and to his credit, he was very hard working. Plus the context of the time).

The history of statecraft is one of problems, then solutions fixing those problems and creating new problems in the process and thus it continues (and so should it imo). So yea, problems will always be present. I am not claiming to know a permanent solution or if it even exists.

Stalin was evil, i remember being told about him he had involved himself in 1.5 million people being deported during the second world war but many died and starved, this was apparently his idea of ethnic cleansing and freedom. His views were political always and unjust this was not a man who was stable of mind, or had the capability of seeing past his own horrors about himself. His parents were peasants and he was beaten badly by his father who was a mad alcoholic. He enjoyed his own 'great purges' 3 i think, in one he signed the death warrants of 400,000 people maybe more. Overall with the shootings, purgings, cleansings roughly 20 million deaths. 

Bit extreme for a game maybe?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yea...not sure what the point is though.

[Lewie]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yea...not sure what the point is though.

I was only elaborating on one mans madness.

He also invested in medical services, a great deal, paranoia/greed/anger made him what he was and many suffered for it.

Modifié par louise101, 09 mai 2011 - 01:36 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

So we should assume all the information that Anders says is biased when he's the former Circle mage?
[/quote]

Yes, just as I would asume the information Meredith, Karras or Mettin give is also biased, considering their attitude towards mages. [/quote]

Yet we're known Anders since Amaranthine, where he had no goals to emancipate his people and made it clear he didn't like the Chantry controlled Circles. He's been forthright about his reasons, and it's a matter of whether Hawke agrees with those reasons or not. Anders became part of the mage underground after he his first love Karl begged for death because he was illegally made tranquil, but he hasn't liked the Chantry or the templars even when he thought the Circles trying to split from the Chantry was a bad idea (likely for the same reasons Wynne did - the Chantry would kill the mages rather than see them free, Wynne tells the Warden-Commander).

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

When someone hates a particular group of people or an organization, then it's likely that he would allow such hate to color his views of it. [/quote]

Or the living conditions of the Chantry controlled Circles and the plight of the mages are the reasons why he hates them in the first place.

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

Anders hardly has anything good to say about the Ferelden Circle while mages like Wynne and Finn paint an far different picture. My experience from dealing with the said Circle in Origins and Witch Hunt makes me more inclined to believe their version over Anders'. [/quote]

Wynne acknowledges the Circle as a "prison" to The Warden and admits it's an "oppressive place," but tells The Warden that he can change this if he becomes part of the Circle, slowly but surely. Wynne's reasoning for siding against a split from the Chantry is because she says the Chantry would rather kill the mages than see them free.

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Or he's explaining why he's part of the mage underground in the first place by explaining how bad it is for mages living in the Chantry controlled Circles. [/quote]

Or him being in the mage underground means he's trying to make you sympathetic to his cause. He does, after all, ask for your support on several occasions and even tries to convince others of his views. [/quote]

Anders openly admits he sees the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery, and wants to change this. You seem to think he's lying about everything he's saying, but finding the note about the "Tranquil Solution" on Ser Alrik shows this isn't the case - he did hear about templars making mages tranquil illegally, except it didn't have the support of the Knight-Commander or the Divine. Anders even suggests to Hawke that Grand Cleric Elthina might be more reasonable than he gave her credit for.

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

He also claimed that the templars in Kirkwall were planning to make every mage tranquil within a year, only to later realize it was a plan of a single templar and that the Divine, the Grand Cleric and the Knight Commander all refused the idea. [/quote]

Except if you were correct, this would have been completely fabricated. Anders told Hawke what he heard about, and he was correct - Alrik was making mages tranquil, but he was doing this illegally.

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

And let's not even mention how he lied about a potion that would seperate him from Justice. In face of that I think it's my right to take anything Anders says with a grain of salt. [/quote]

Considering he thought Hawke would kill him and that he would be seperated from Justice upon his death, I don't see how you can take this issue and stretch it out to mean he exaggerated the truth about everything. If Anders did not believe in the plight of the mages, he never would have accepted Justice's deal in the first place to change the plight of his people. The short story makes it clear that he did want to change their fate. Anders does believe in what he's saying, but it's an issue of whether the protagonist agrees with his views or not.

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Anders is the only former Circle mage companion we have. Merrill is one of the Dalish, after all, and Hawke (and Bethany) weren't raised in the Circle of Magi. [/quote]

He may be the only companion from the Circle, but he's not the only Circle mage you encounter over the course of the game. I'm pretty sure Orsino himself would mention the suicide rate when arguing for you support, as would other mages. [/quote]

Why would Orsino mention such a thing? It's not like he argues for Hawke to side with him against Meredith because the Right of Annulment is going to murder children, after all, even though we know the apprentices will be killed along with the mages and the enchanters.

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

The fact that only Anders ever brings it up, makes his claim questionable at best. [/quote]

I disagree. Anders is lamenting what his people are going through, and providing his reasons why he doesn't like the Chantry controlled Circles. You seem to be inferring that everything Anders says to Hawke is a lie, and I don't see it that way. When the meeting in Cumberland happens, Wynne thinks the Circles are going to side with the Libertarians, and she needs Ines' help because she's desperate (which Ines admits) and it seems that it was a narrow margain that swayed the enchanters against breaking free. If delegates from the fourteen Circles of Magi wanted freedom from the Chantry and the Order of Templars, it tells me that they aren't satisified, and if Anders is providing his reasons why he doesn't like the Chantry and the templars, I don't see why we should assume that he is fabricating this information when the discovery of the "Tranquil Solution" shows that he was correct about mages being made tranquil. Even the situation with Karl turned out to be true, except Anders didn't know that his former boyfriend was illegally made tranquil on orders from Ser Alrik.

There are problems with the Circles of Magi when we see that even in one of the most liberal of the fourteen Circles of Magi, Senior Enchanter Uldred was able to sway the entire Circle of Magi to side with Loghain for freedom from the Chantry until Wynne told First Enchanter Irving what really happened at Ostagar. Even Irving thanks The Warden for freeing them from their "shackles" if he asks for his people to be given their independence. You're welcome to think that Anders is being disingenuious every time he opens his mouth, but I don't find your reasoning compelling. Meredith has reasons to distrust mages, but her sister's fate doesn't convince me that her methods are correct. Anders is the same - he can provide you with his reasons, but that doesn't mean his actions are the correct ones.

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I disagree. Mages are raised in an oppressive place (as even Wynne admits it is when The Warden from the Circle of Magi addresses this) where they are governed by templars who belong to a religious organization preaching that mages are cursed. Mages were imprisoned in the Andrastian nations because, centuries ago, mages protested their lack of rights in Orlais, and narrowly avoided an Exalted March because the templars convinced Divine Ambrosia II out of the idea. Mages should be properly trained, not imprisoned for the rest of their lives in a dictatorship. [/quote]

Mages are trained in the Circle. Wynne, Anders, Finn, Orsino, Uldred, Decimus, Grace and miriad of other mages all learned to control their powers there.
The fact that Circle mages may also be subject to abuse from the templars doesn't change this. [/quote]

The fact that many mages want to be free from these dictatorships, including a moderate like Irving who is thrilled with The Warden's request for the emancipation of the Circle of Ferelden, illustrates that even mages who aren't Libertarians don't see the Chantry controlled Circles as the answer.

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

I'm addressing what Bethany said and her reasons for changing her mind - Bethany thinks that the Maker doesn't want mages to be imprisoned when she talks to Hawke in the pro-mage ending because of the years she spent in the Circle of Kirkwall. [/quote]

I know what she says. I'm saying that bringing up an absent deity who, as far as we can tell, might not even exist doesn't help either side of the argument. [/quote]

In other words, you made a response to me based on something I never actually said? Giving Bethany's reasoning for why she changes her mind about the mages doesn't mean I'm saying that there's any truth to the Chantry's docturine.

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

Claiming the the Maker wants mages to be free is as valid as claiming he wants them imprisoned. Unless he actually makes his will known we cannot say what he thinks about it or if he even exists. [/quote]

This isn't what I claimed at all. Saying that Bethany changed her initial views on the Circles after her years spent in the Gallows doesn't mean that I'm trying to claim that the Maker wants mages to be free. I thought you understood this when I pointed this out to you in my last response to you.

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

David Gaider addressed that chevaliers don't have a legal right to rape women.[/quote]

Can you provide a link for that? [/quote]

Honestly, not at the moment. This was brought up months ago and he dismissed the claim, saying that they don't have a legal right to rape women, when someone brought up the same comment you did - about the woman from Orlais in the Denerim marketplace. I have to assume he meant that it was a similiar situation as Vaughan if they don't legally have such rights - it's merely a chevalier taking advantage of his position rather than having the law on his side.

It's similar to when he dismissed the comments in the Magi Origin about the reference to apostates getting killed (which is disproven with Anders) and the explanation given behind Maric's death in "Something Wicked" which he said was wrong, because Maric wasn't stabbed - he was lost at sea. I couldn't point you to those posts, either, but he did mention them.

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

Loghain himself also said that chevaliers were free to rape Fereldan women during the occupation, which supports the above claim. [/quote]

There's a difference between the rapes that happened during the occupation, including what transpired with Loghain's mother, and what's actually permissable under Orlesian law.

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

So either they do have that right, or those who are supposed to punish such crimes are so ineffective that chevaliers don't even care about breaking the law. [/quote]

Which is no different than Vaughan abducting women in broad daylight out of the Alienage so he could rape them at his leisure.

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

The Chasind Wilders, the Avvar tribes, the Dalish clans, and the kingdom of Rivain showed what happened once mages are free. The Imperium shows that Magisters have no problem ensaving both non-mages and mages as well. [/quote]

We don't know the details of how mages function among the Avvars or the Chasind. [/quote]

We know they don't emulate the slavery-driven regime of the Imperium and have free mages, so maybe you should cease the comments about free mages = the Imperium when we see alternative societies with free mages who don't resort to trying to mirror the Imperium.

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

Also, those societies are primitive when compared to countries like Antiva or Orlais, so they may even see mages as some sort of divine beings rather normal humans with the ability to control magic. [/quote]

I still don't see free mages trying to create another Imperium like you claimed would happen with free mages. Even the morally bankrupt town of Haven had free mages (like Father Eirik) and it didn't try to mirror the Tevinter Imperium when we see that Father Kolgrim was in charge of the Disciples of Andraste - no oppressive regime of Magisters enslaving non-mages and mages alike. Again, we have free mages and no attempt to create another Imperium.

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

Rivaini do revere their female women or witches, even if they allow themselves to be possessed. That, however, is hardly enough knowledge to make a fair judgement on mages there. [/quote]

No, it's not fair of you to claim free mages = the Imperium when we see this isn't the case with other human cultures that have free mages.

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

The most knowledge we have of mages outside the Chantry controlled lands is Tevinter, both due to what Fenris tells us and because of what we can read in the codex (granted nothing within the codex is 100% accurate). 
I certainly wouldn't call a land where mages keep slaves or make human sacrifices in order to provide power for their spells to be a shinning example of mage freedom. [/quote]

Hold on a minuet. You're going to dismiss everything Anders says because you think he's biased against the Chantry, but you're going to take Fenris' word as uncontested truth? Doesn't Anders refer to the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery to Fenris and Sebastian? Aren't mages made tranquil, where they become thralls who craft magical items and handle manual labor? And we know the Magisters of the Imperium enslave both mages and non-mages alike. Again, you provide the Imperium as though it's the only course of action that could happen if mages are free, and we see from the Chasind Wilders, the Avvar tribes, the Dalish clans, and the kingdom of Rivain that this isn't true.

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Let's ask the Warden mages who are free from the Chantry and the templars, but dedicate their lives to protecting the people of Thedas against the darkspawn. [/quote]

Those mages cannot live a normal life due to the taint within them. They cannot sire children, are plagued by nightmares and doomed to die fighting darkspawn. Being a Warden is a calling, not a profession.
They make great sacrifices to become Wardens, and I highly doubt all of them are happy to do so. Bethany sure didn't look thrilled. [/quote]

In other words, free mages who, once again, aren't trying to emulate the Imperium despite not being under the control of the Chantry or the templars. So much for your claims that free mages = the Imperium.

[quote]Master Shiori wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Mages don't need to be oppressed in a dictatorship under the rule of an organization that sees them as cursed. We've seen where that leads to: a rebellion across the continent, and the world on the brink of war.[/quote]

Ok, since we obviously cannot agree to disagree, I'll just repeat my opinion on the matter this once and drop it.

I believe that any mage who proves himself responsible should be allowed full freedom like any other person.. That, however, is something the mage needs to earn, not take for granted.

I also believe that an organization like the templars is needed to ensure mages never abuse their powers or bring harm to others, but this doesn't give templars the right to torture or abuse the mages under their care. Any that do so need to be dealt with in the same manner as any other criminal. [/quote]

The problem is no one here is seriously arguing for mages to be free to do whatever they please - people are arguing for regulation - law enforcement - on the mage side, it's simply that they don't think that the Chantry controlled Circles are the correct path. Freedom from the Chantry doesn't mean freedom from all laws and regulations.

[TEWR]

Master Shiori wrote..

Those mages cannot live a normal life due to the taint within them. They cannot sire children, are plagued by nightmares and doomed to die fighting darkspawn. Being a Warden is a calling, not a profession. They make great sacrifices to become Wardens, and I highly doubt all of them are happy to do so. Bethany sure didn't look thrilled.

Actually they can have kids, but the chance is just diminished greatly. The OGB is proof enough
that a Warden can have a kid, so long as the other person isn't a Warden.

Also, Wardens are free to live relatively normal, albeit somewhat ****ed up, lives. Talk to Alistair where he and the other Wardens had a drinking game with Grigor, Gregoir, whatever his name was (we never find out). Duncan came in laughing.

Duncan was good friends with Maric. Just because you're a Grey Warden doesn't mean you're not allowed to have a life outside of it. It just means you have to devote yourself to a cause that is slowly killing you.

Oghren sees his little nugget every now and then, writes him letters, and checks up on Felsi. Kristoff was married to Aura. Keenan was married too. They can have lives.

[LobselVith8]

Silfren wrote...

Butting in--I'm fairly certain TJPags objection has to do with you answering something they didn't say.  They asked the question, "what makes the templars think they can contain the mages anyway" and you launched into a defense of the mages as if TJPags had attacked what they were doing.  It reads like you're jumping them for arguing in favor of templar abuse, when all they did was ask a neutral, possibly rhetorical question that had nothing to do with either side of the debate.

I didn't think TJPags attacked the mages at all, but the dilemma he posed is mired in the dichotomy between mages and templars. Rationally, if the templars were ordered to escort the mages to the Gallows for their safety, I don't see the mages trying to leave if the mob wants to kill them, but we know that it can be bad for the mages in the Gallows, as we see from Alain. If the mages left the Gallows because of the conditions there, then they aren't going to want to be contained there - they will want to leave. The current status quo is the crux of the problem if mages aren't going to feel safer in the Gallows than they would outside its walls. If you disagree with my point of view, that's fine, but I never thought TJPags attacked anyone in his question - it's merely that I saw the probem of what he was asking deeply entrenched in the difficulties that we see between the mages and the templars over the course of seven years.

[TJPags]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Butting in--I'm fairly certain TJPags objection has to do with you answering something they didn't say.  They asked the question, "what makes the templars think they can contain the mages anyway" and you launched into a defense of the mages as if TJPags had attacked what they were doing.  It reads like you're jumping them for arguing in favor of templar abuse, when all they did was ask a neutral, possibly rhetorical question that had nothing to do with either side of the debate.

I didn't think TJPags attacked the mages at all, but the dilemma he posed is mired in the dichotomy between mages and templars. Rationally, if the templars were ordered to escort the mages to the Gallows for their safety, I don't see the mages trying to leave if the mob wants to kill them, but we know that it can be bad for the mages in the Gallows, as we see from Alain. If the mages left the Gallows because of the conditions there, then they aren't going to want to be contained there - they will want to leave. The current status quo is the crux of the problem if mages aren't going to feel safer in the Gallows than they would outside its walls. If you disagree with my point of view, that's fine, but I never thought TJPags attacked anyone in his question - it's merely that I saw the probem of what he was asking deeply entrenched in the difficulties that we see between the mages and the templars over the course of seven years.

Actually, Lob, again - none of that has anything to do with the issue.

Regardless of what the mob wanted - mage blood or templar blood - mages have been leaving the Gallows seemingly at will throughout the game.  What makes anyone think the Templars - even if they honestly, truly wanted nothing more than to keep the mages safe from harm - could keep them in the Gallows now?

If the mages want out - whether its because they want to run amok, or because they don't feel safe in the Gallows, or because they want to go get laid - they can get out.

So my sole point is, the concept of "lock the mages in the Tower and keep them there for safety" is laughable - they stay if they want, go if they don't.

[LobselVith8]

TJPags wrote...

Actually, Lob, again - none of that has anything to do with the issue.

Regardless of what the mob wanted - mage blood or templar blood - mages have been leaving the Gallows seemingly at will throughout the game.  What makes anyone think the Templars - even if they honestly, truly wanted nothing more than to keep the mages safe from harm - could keep them in the Gallows now?

I don't think there's a guarantee, but if the mages knew that the templars were genuinely trying to protect them from the mob (assuming that there are lynch mobs who want to kill mages in this scenerio), then I don't see a plethora of mages running into the midst of the mobs. With the underground tunnel compromised (since the death of Ser Alrik was discovered), I would assume that the mages would prefer to be safe behind thick walls than risk heading off when Anders has potentially villified mages throughout Kirkwall.

TJPags wrote...

If the mages want out - whether its because they want to run amok, or because they don't feel safe in the Gallows, or because they want to go get laid - they can get out.

Why not make the attempt, though? I think more lives could potentially be spared by getting the mages within the fortress of the Gallows than the alternative, particularly if Aveline, First Enchanter Orsino, and the Champion were recruited to help deal with the situation.

TJPags wrote...

So my sole point is, the concept of "lock the mages in the Tower and keep them there for safety" is laughable - they stay if they want, go if they don't.

But if they're escaping because they have help, would this same assistance try to help them leave into the arms of an angry mob?

Modifié par LobselVith8, 09 mai 2011 - 02:57 .