1927 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

But all revolutions has been led by (or for) the majority of people. This is a revolution for an absolute minority, at the cost of the majority.

[Mnemnosyne]

If you mean the population in general, yeah, the mages in support of this revolution are probably not even one percent of the total population of Thedas. But if we're considering the mage population, there's got to be a significant percentage of the mage population in support. Maybe nowhere near 50%, but probably at least 15-30% - although we actually have no solid data on this, we know that the libertarians are at least a sufficient number to be considered one of the major fraternities of the enchanters, so they can't be a completely insignificant percentage of the mage population. And the revolution is being led for the majority of mages. Whether they like it or not. Just like most historical revolutions.

[Jannamarie]

Actually, most successful revolutions end up being taken over and run by the extremists. For two examples of this -- the American revolution and the French one (that one devolved into the Reign of Terror but they sure got rid of the prior governmental system). So to me it makes perfect sense that a small core group of extreme mages would end up dominating and forcing a confrontation/fight/war with the Chantry beyond what most mages would want.

[borelocin]

IanPolaris wrote...

Camenae wrote...

lol. I like how if Anders/Justice killed that girl Ella, after he comes back out he says he is planning to go to the girl's funeral and that HE HOPES THE GIRL'S PARENTS THINK A TEMPLAR KILLED HER.

Very classy...

It's a regular Hallmark moment.  Seriously, why don't they let me Murder-Knife Anders the moment I find out he's an abomination, especially as a fellow mage?!  Anders is walking/talking proof that the Templar abuses are justified.  If mages are going to be trusted to police themeselves, then mages have to kill idiots like Anders BEFORE the Templars can.

-Polaris

Agree 100% mate, I wanted to gank him right there and then. If mages want to be "free" they have to be willing to deal with their own lawbreakers. If they don't someone else will and bundle the rest of the mages in with them.

[Rifneno]

borelocin wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Camenae wrote...

lol. I like how if Anders/Justice killed that girl Ella, after he comes back out he says he is planning to go to the girl's funeral and that HE HOPES THE GIRL'S PARENTS THINK A TEMPLAR KILLED HER.

Very classy...

It's a regular Hallmark moment.  Seriously, why don't they let me Murder-Knife Anders the moment I find out he's an abomination, especially as a fellow mage?!  Anders is walking/talking proof that the Templar abuses are justified.  If mages are going to be trusted to police themeselves, then mages have to kill idiots like Anders BEFORE the Templars can.

-Polaris

Agree 100% mate, I wanted to gank him right there and then. If mages want to be "free" they have to be willing to deal with their own lawbreakers. If they don't someone else will and bundle the rest of the mages in with them.

Even as someone who feels he's totally justified with the Chantry, I agree with this.  When a mage goes batty and kills an innocent person, their own kind should hold them responsible.  Temporary insanity exists IRL and I don't agree with executing people for it, but Anders situation is not temporary.  If someone is permanently and irrepairably mentally damaged to that point, honestly I think it'd be more merciful to kill them than imprison them.  Either way, it's criminally irresponsible to let them free to do it again.  I think the only reason there's no option to kill Anders for that is because the plot requires him to blow up the Chantry later.  /sigh.

I wish they would've put in another way for the mage-templar war to occur.  Anders is one of the most interesting parts of the game and there isn't a damn thing we can do to persaude him, cure him, or kill him (at least before Chantry goes boom) because the plot requires him to be alive and psycho at the end.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Koyasha wrote...

If you mean the population in general, yeah, the mages in support of this revolution are probably not even one percent of the total population of Thedas. But if we're considering the mage population, there's got to be a significant percentage of the mage population in support. Maybe nowhere near 50%, but probably at least 15-30% - although we actually have no solid data on this, we know that the libertarians are at least a sufficient number to be considered one of the major fraternities of the enchanters, so they can't be a completely insignificant percentage of the mage population. And the revolution is being led for the majority of mages. Whether they like it or not. Just like most historical revolutions.

Was talking more about the actual population of Thedas. The non-mages are going to suffer for the mages to have their illusion of freedom. That is my main issue with all of this. If the mages were able to contain the conflict it would be all fine and dandy. If casualties were kept to only among Mages and Templars (or any other anti-mage) fine. But we all know that this has spun way out of control, and now the people will suffer.

[Poison_Berrie]

sphinxess wrote...

Varriic and Cassandra end game:

"You've already lost all the circles"

"In fact haven't the templars rebelled as well"

"I thought you decided to abandon the chantry to hunt the mages'"

I see a lot of conjecture on what the templars are doing - hunting mages - helping mages - giving up the fight - let me toss one more idea into the mix - they have gone back to their original roots and have started a inquisition

The second and third sentence are said together, meaning they are directly related.
In short the Circles rebelled successfully and Templars have gone rogue to fight mages. In response the Chantry send the seekers to find mediators in this conflict (Warden, Champion).
There is not a lot of vagueness about it.

As for Anders, people seem to forget the collateral that blowing up an entire cathedral would bring with it. Debris would crush houses and people. Nearby house would be caught in the blast. Fires would likely spread. Let's not forget the entire war in the streets, that's going down.
Even if it brings the change he wants I'd still like to see him brought to justice (*dons sunglasses).
 

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 06 avril 2011 - 01:05 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

They do say in-game that an entire district was destroyed in the blast (probably the Chantry Courtyard) iirc. So he killed a lot of people with that act.

[Lewie]

The ripple effect in other cities also, how would what he did help mages? Templars would be even more afraid they would tighten the reins even more and mages would rebel even more. With blood mages running amok, templars glaring at everyone in a skirt it wouldn't be long before the crazy bus pulled up. Maybe the veil being thin was mostly to blame, and everyone in the city then suffered.

[Deztyn]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


4th: Let's examine Justice. We are told that he is a spirit of Justice who, due to Anders' hatred of the Templars, has been warped into a demon of Vengeance. Yet, for those who play the Dissent quest in Act 2, Justice himself proclaims to Ella the Mage that he is no demon. Maybe he is both a demon and spirit, intertwined as one. Or maybe Vengeance is the darker side of the virtue of Justice, not rendering him a demon, but twisting his sense of self so that Justice cannot know what justice truly is. It's hard to say, but Justice and Anders are now one being. How many things that Anders said were actually Justice speaking without the obvious changes we don't know.

Yes.

Justice did say that.

Right before he MURDERED her.

And afterwards 2.0 can still go on about how Justice is righteous and wonderful and a good influence on him. Anything Justice/Anders has to say on the subject is suspect to say the least.

Seriously, if you're willing to acknowledge that his very existance is twisted and wrong, how can you then say the actions he took as a direct result of that twisting are righteous?

Because one action cannot relate to another?

If I kicked a puppy that's not housetrained because I felt like it, and then a couple days later that puppy pissed on a woman's shoe, are you going to blame the pissing on me because I kicked a puppy?

*NOTE: I would NEVER kick a puppy.

I'm saying that it's hard to tell what Justice is/has truly become. We don't have enough information regarding it. Personally, I see Anders' actions not so much as an act against the Kirkwall Chantry and Circle, but against the entirety of the Chantry and Circle. There are strong points that Anders has made regarding the Mages. Just because he's insane to you (which is opinion, insanity is very rarely easily discerned as fact, as it manifests in differing ways), that doesn't mean that anything he says should be tossed out the window and forgotten. Even insane people make strong cases that are right.

Look at Edgar Allen Poe and two of my favorite quotes by him:

“Science has not yet taught us if madness is or is not the sublimity of the intelligence.”

as well as this one.

"All religion, my friend, is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry."



The man was insane, no question. He himself knew he was. Does that mean that anything he said is wrong, simply because he was insane?

The topic is "Was Anders justified?" You can't divorce his actions from his mental state anymore than you can divorce them from his motivations. Would Anders have done it if he weren't possessed? Or would he have found another way to fight? Would he have fought at all? Examining those questions should be as important in determining if he's truly justified as debating the merits and flaws of the Circles. More so, actually. Even if Anders was right about needing a change, he could have been wrong if he took action for the wrong reasons (Madness. Justice did it. Whatever.)

To use a puppy kicking analogy: If I was a psychotic animal rights activist and I killed a man because I saw him kick a puppy, it's irrelevent that he was a prolific serial killer on the hunt for his next victim when the poor little yorkie got in his way. Did the victim deserve to die? Yes. By most people's standards. But you can't say that I was justified in killing him. I did it because I was crazy. Puppy kicking is not a capital offense.

As for trusting what Anders tells us, well, one of the first things Anders 2.0 tells us is that he and Justice are one. Is he…

A) A Dirty Rotten Liar.

 Confused.

or C) A Mad Abomination Who Kills Scared Young Girls When They Mistake Him For A Demon.

If the answer is A, then why should we trust anything he says? He's a liar!

If the answer is B, then why should we trust anything he says? He doesn't even know himself!

If the answer is C, then why should we trust anything he says? He's a lunatic!

EDIT: While I don't justify the act of killing Ella, it could be said that should she have lived after seeing Justice and Anders as one, she would've ratted him out. Justice was probably afraid of that happening. That's why I'm glad you can make her see reason if she lives, by telling her that Anders is a very  troubled person.

It doesn't matter if you could find a way to justify Ella's murder if that wasn't the reason for her murder.  Justice killed her because she called him a demon. Justice got mad. That's the reason. The only reason.

Modifié par Deztyn, 06 avril 2011 - 02:05 .

[TEWR]

Deztyn wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


4th: Let's examine Justice. We are told that he is a spirit of Justice who, due to Anders' hatred of the Templars, has been warped into a demon of Vengeance. Yet, for those who play the Dissent quest in Act 2, Justice himself proclaims to Ella the Mage that he is no demon. Maybe he is both a demon and spirit, intertwined as one. Or maybe Vengeance is the darker side of the virtue of Justice, not rendering him a demon, but twisting his sense of self so that Justice cannot know what justice truly is. It's hard to say, but Justice and Anders are now one being. How many things that Anders said were actually Justice speaking without the obvious changes we don't know.

Yes.

Justice did say that.

Right before he MURDERED her.

And afterwards 2.0 can still go on about how Justice is righteous and wonderful and a good influence on him. Anything Justice/Anders has to say on the subject is suspect to say the least.

Seriously, if you're willing to acknowledge that his very existance is twisted and wrong, how can you then say the actions he took as a direct result of that twisting are righteous?

Because one action cannot relate to another?

If I kicked a puppy that's not housetrained because I felt like it, and then a couple days later that puppy pissed on a woman's shoe, are you going to blame the pissing on me because I kicked a puppy?

*NOTE: I would NEVER kick a puppy.

I'm saying that it's hard to tell what Justice is/has truly become. We don't have enough information regarding it. Personally, I see Anders' actions not so much as an act against the Kirkwall Chantry and Circle, but against the entirety of the Chantry and Circle. There are strong points that Anders has made regarding the Mages. Just because he's insane to you (which is opinion, insanity is very rarely easily discerned as fact, as it manifests in differing ways), that doesn't mean that anything he says should be tossed out the window and forgotten. Even insane people make strong cases that are right.

Look at Edgar Allen Poe and two of my favorite quotes by him:

“Science has not yet taught us if madness is or is not the sublimity of the intelligence.”

as well as this one.

"All religion, my friend, is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination, and poetry."



The man was insane, no question. He himself knew he was. Does that mean that anything he said is wrong, simply because he was insane?

The topic is "Was Anders justified?" You can't divorce his actions from his mental state anymore than you can divorce them from his motivations. Would Anders have done it if he weren't possessed? Or would he have found another way to fight? Would he have fought at all? Examining those questions should be as important in determining if he's truly justified as debating the merits and flaws of the Circles. More so, actually. Even if Anders was right about needing a change, he could have been wrong if he took action for the wrong reasons (Madness. Justice did it. Whatever.)

To use a puppy kicking analogy: If I was a psychotic animal rights activist and I killed a man because I saw him kick a puppy, it's irrelevent that he was a prolific serial killer on the hunt for his next victim when the poor little yorkie got in his way. Did the victim deserve to die? Yes. By most people's standards. But you can't say that I was justified in killing him. I did it because I was crazy. Puppy kicking is not a capital offense.

As for trusting what Anders tells us, well, one of the first things Anders 2.0 tells us is that he and Justice are one. Is he…

A) A Dirty Rotten Liar.

 Confused.

or C) A Mad Abomination Who Kills Scared Young Girls When They Mistake Him For A Demon.

If the answer is A, then why should we trust anything he says? He's a liar!

If the answer is B, then why should we trust anything he says? He doesn't even know himself!

If the answer is C, then why should we trust anything he says? He's a lunatic!

EDIT: While I don't justify the act of killing Ella, it could be said that should she have lived after seeing Justice and Anders as one, she would've ratted him out. Justice was probably afraid of that happening. That's why I'm glad you can make her see reason if she lives, by telling her that Anders is a very  troubled person.

It doesn't matter if you could find a way to justify Ella's murder if that wasn't the reason for her murder.  Justice killed her because she called him a demon. Justice got mad. That's the reason. The only reason.

And what if he did everything he did in Dragon Age 2, free of being possessed? Would you still call him insane and unjustifiable? Or would you call him a visionary? People's opinions on the matter would be different, and that's all justifying him is: OPINION. 

We don't know whether Justice is still a spirit or is a demon, because all we have to go on is as you said, one man: Anders. I'm not saying Anders is unreliable, but his word alone doesn't give us everything we need, nor does Justice's. As you'll see above, I said that maybe Justice is still a spirit, or a demon and spirit intertwined as one, or just the darker side of Justice.

And what if it's D)?

D) A man who, by saying he and Justice are one, mean they inhabit the same body, but are not the same being. An abomination is a Mage who has no control over his/her body anymore. The demon does. Justice manifests himself very rarely, and Anders is able to take back control. In the words of Wynne, "It is madness and cruelty that defines an abomination"

One thing that I want to say is that exteme actions are often needed for the right course of action. The mages may not be slaves, as Anders sees it, but they are not treated equally. They are not treated as human/elven beings. Sure they can conjure up fireballs, so that gives them an unfair edge, but so does a man well-versed in swordplay against a common farmer.

If you bring Justice with you to Amaranthine, and then say "Burn Amaranthine"; he will voice his opinion that you should save the people there. However, you're able to convince him that you can't save everyone in the name of justice. There will always be casualties in our world, and maybe that's what led him and Anders to do what they did.

Anders seems justified, in my opinion. But maybe blowing up the Chantry could've been a last resort, instead of the first option he pulled out of his Red, White, and Blue Top Hat.

Sorry if my argument seems flawed at points, but I know a lot of stupid people and I don't get the chance to exercise a good debate very often since all of my smart friends have moved away.

[Dean_the_Young]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

And what if he did everything he did in Dragon Age 2, free of being possessed? Would you still call him insane and unjustifiable? Or would you call him a visionary? People's opinions on the matter would be different, and that's all justifying him is: OPINION.

Insane.

And there are actual clinical definitions for mental disorders, and legal definitions for criminal behaviors, so there's also a matter of objectivity.

We don't know whether Justice is still a spirit or is a demon, because all we have to go on is as you said, one man: Anders. I'm not saying Anders is unreliable, but his word alone doesn't give us everything we need, nor does Justice's. As you'll see above, I said that maybe Justice is still a spirit, or a demon and spirit intertwined as one, or just the darker side of Justice.

Why are we still pretending that Spirits and Demons are fundamentally different? It's always been an arbitrary classification in terms of what composes a spirit: they are beings of pure purpose, and the only real 'difference' is that the vices of demons prompt them to be more active than spirits.

And what if it's D)?

D) A man who, by saying he and Justice are one, mean they inhabit the same body, but are not the same being. An abomination is a Mage who has no control over his/her body anymore. The demon does. Justice manifests himself very rarely, and Anders is able to take back control. In the words of Wynne, "It is madness and cruelty that defines an abomination"

Abominations, of most sorts, are combinations. Duality-combinations (like Connor) are a matter of circumstance, but Abominations are a unifying of beings, being neither what the possessed or possessor once were.

One thing that I want to say is that exteme actions are often needed for the right course of action. The mages may not be slaves, as Anders sees it, but they are not treated equally. They are not treated as human/elven beings. Sure they can conjure up fireballs, so that gives them an unfair edge, but so does a man well-versed in swordplay against a common farmer.

On the other hand, anyone can become well-versed in swordplay, or have their sword removed.

It's not that mages aren't treated like humans. It's the inverse: mages are treated like humans who have incredibly potent, dangerous powers and aspects that they can't be separated from or be matched by others.

When you start looking at how we deal with other people who have disproportionate danger that they can't be separated from, you see similar treatments: people wearing suicide vests, plague-carriers, or even crazy people who've gotten their hands on guns and can't be separated from them.

[Dean_the_Young]

IanPolaris wrote...

"Hiearchy" means chain of command. If the local Arch-bishop dies, then this spiriual duties fall on to the most senior bishop under him until the Pope can nominate a replacement. That's how heirarchies work. Until 36 hours ago anyway....

-Polaris

That's how hierarchies in a system like the one you described work. A
system not like the one you describe would have a different succession.
Hierarchies can set up any chain of succession they want and still be
hierarchies.

Certainly heirarchial chains of succession can and
often do value seniority of leadership to sticking to the
replacement-subordinant of a particular branch. This is why the American
governmental succession goes
President-Vice President-Speaker of the House-President pro tempore of the Senate-Sec of State
and not
President-Vice President-Speaker of the House-Speaker of the House's Replacement-Speaker of the House's Replacement's Replacement


Having a hierarchy in which the replacement of the Grand Cleric is the Knight Commander is just as valid a succession setup as one in which the replacement of the Grand Cleric is the next religious figure.

[TEWR]

Dean the Young wrote...

Insane.

And there are actual clinical definitions for mental disorders, and legal definitions for criminal behaviors, so there's also a matter of objectivity.

There may be clinical definitions, but insanity manifests in differing ways so it's hard to pinpoint insanity to those definitions.

I also, nothing personal to you, don't see how people can compare one world's definitions, terms, and everything else to a fundamentally different world. It just doesn't work, no matter how much World B draws inspiration from elements of World A.

Why are we still pretending that Spirits and Demons are fundamentally different? It's always been an arbitrary classification in terms of what composes a spirit: they are beings of pure purpose, and the only real 'difference' is that the vices of demons prompt them to be more active than spirits.

Except that demons were apparently spirits, regular spirits, who were transformed into demons by finding that more people were drawn to the darker things (pride, vanity, lust, power). They are different, and yet they are the same.

Abominations, of most sorts, are combinations. Duality-combinations (like Connor) are a matter of circumstance, but Abominations are a unifying of beings, being neither what the possessed or possessor once were.

And Anders fits none of that because he is still Anders and Justice, not some twisted, deformed mound of flesh bent on destroying everything in its wake.

On the other hand, anyone can become well-versed in swordplay, or have their sword removed.

It's not that mages aren't treated like humans. It's the inverse: mages are treated like humans who have incredibly potent, dangerous powers and aspects that they can't be separated from or be matched by others.

When you start looking at how we deal with other people who have disproportionate danger that they can't be separated from, you see similar treatments: people wearing suicide vests, plague-carriers, or even crazy people who've gotten their hands on guns and can't be separated from them.

But how many mages outside of any ties to the Tevinter Imperium whatsoever have turned to forbidden magic? Were they not forced into a corner, were they free, blood mages would be rarely seen outside of the Tevinter Imperium because all the mages outside of Tevinter just want to live a normal life.

When a mage is backed into a corner, they will turn to blood magic (or become possessed and turn into an Abomination.) The Tevinter Imperium has been ruled by magisters practicing blood magic, so there it's commonplace. But give a mage freedom outside of the Circle and Chantry, would he really turn to forbidden magic? Most likely no.

Personally, the Circle should be an institution for learning only, not that and a prison so to speak. After they pass their Harrowing, they can leave the Circle forever if they wished to.

[Dean_the_Young]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...


There may be clinical definitions, but insanity manifests in differing ways so it's hard to pinpoint insanity to those definitions.

I also, nothing personal to you, don't see how people can compare one world's definitions, terms, and everything else to a fundamentally different world. It just doesn't work, no matter how much World B draws inspiration from elements of World A.

For things that would change (matters of legality), that is true, but our conception of various things (mental disorders) doesn't: whether they would agree, by the standards we have for observation, it's our standards we're talking about.

Except that demons were apparently spirits, regular spirits, who were transformed into demons by finding that more people were drawn to the darker things (pride, vanity, lust, power). They are different, and yet they are the same.

When is this ever raised? Justice became corrupted (or not) in combining with Anders, but most spirits/demons have never interacted with such.

And Anders fits none of that because he is still Anders and Justice, not some twisted, deformed mound of flesh bent on destroying everything in its wake.

How is appearance relevant? We've found plenty of abominations who maintain non-grotesque forms, even as Anders certainly does start to physically change when the Justice aspect emerges.

Flemeth, the Black Marsh ****, Connor, among others.

But how many mages outside of any ties to the Tevinter Imperium whatsoever have turned to forbidden magic?  Were they not forced into a corner, were they free, blood mages would be rarely seen outside of the Tevinter Imperium because all the mages outside of Tevinter just want to live a normal life.

Enough for the public concern to be there to spur the Andrastian revolution, and the Chantry system, in the first place.

Mages don't
resort to magic simply because they're oppressed, mages resort to magic
when they're stressed, no matter what stresses them, and magic is always exclusively available to them. Wanting to live a normal life, and living a normal life when you have super powers, are two entirely different thing, and it's because they're human that anyone with power tends to abuse it to their advantage. And that's the ones who mean to: weak-willed, unprepared, or even just mages having a bad day don't even mean to be bad at all.

When a mage is backed into a corner, they will turn to blood magic (or become possessed and turn into an Abomination.) The Tevinter Imperium has been ruled by magisters practicing blood magic, so there it's commonplace. But give a mage freedom outside of the Circle and Chantry, would he really turn to forbidden magic? Most likely no.

Why on earth not? Why would most human beings pass up on freely available, incredibly effective powers that could make their lives easier, convenient, and more successful, capable of catering to every whim and indulgance?

Blood magic isn't used because it's Tevinter. Tevinter uses blood magic because it works, and works well. When you get any population, rejection of a proven advantage that can bring immense personal advantage is not an enduring trait.

Personally, the Circle should be an institution for learning only, not that and a prison so to speak. After they pass their Harrowing, they can leave the Circle forever if they wished to.

And why should the majority be forced to deal with the fallout?

[Camenae]

Just think of Harry Potter, a well intentioned, GOOD mage I think most would agree. Well let's look at what happens when he doesn't know how to control his magic: among other things, he disappeared a pane of glass enclosing a large python in a zoo. A python undeniably has the potential to hurt people. Sure his cousin deserved it for tormenting him and all that, but what if that boa constrictor decides to practice its namesake on a five-year-old?

Mages should be treated better than they are in DA2, but to let them run free as they please? Ill-advised.

[Rifneno]

Camenae wrote...

Just think of Harry Potter, a well intentioned, GOOD mage I think most would agree. Well let's look at what happens when he doesn't know how to control his magic: among other things, he disappeared a pane of glass enclosing a large python in a zoo. A python undeniably has the potential to hurt people. Sure his cousin deserved it for tormenting him and all that, but what if that boa constrictor decides to practice its namesake on a five-year-old?

Mages should be treated better than they are in DA2, but to let them run free as they please? Ill-advised.

Using that example, baseballs should be outlawed because a kid playing baseball could break that same pane of glass.  Once you start locking people up because they might do something bad, you're on a really slippy slope.  "Hey, there sure is a lot of crime in Lowtown.  We should lock up poor people."

[TEWR]

Dean the Young wrote...
When is this ever raised? Justice became corrupted (or not) in combining with Anders, but most spirits/demons have never interacted with such.

there was a codex entry, though admittedly I don't know if it was a codex entry written by someone or if it was one of those plain fact codex entries. If it was the former, it could be false. COULD BE.

How is appearance relevant? We've found plenty of abominations who maintain non-grotesque forms, even as Anders certainly does start to physically change when the Justice aspect emerges.
Flemeth, the Black Marsh ****, Connor, among others.

I was really just trying to make a joke with the deformed mound of flesh bit. But Anders is not an abomination because he doesn't fit the criteria you said. And Flemeth isn't an Abomination. We don't know what she is.

Mages don't resort to magic simply because they're oppressed, mages resort to magic when they're stressed, no matter what stresses them, and magic is always exclusively available to them. Wanting to live a normal life, and living a normal life when you have super powers, are two entirely different thing, and it's because they're human that anyone with power tends to abuse it to their advantage. And that's the ones who mean to: weak-willed, unprepared, or even just mages having a bad day don't even mean to be bad at all.

so condemn all for the shortcomings of the few? Great logic. When a mage is put into a corner, they see blood magic as their only way out. Does that mean that if they had freedom they wouldn't do BM? No, as I said earlier. Most likely most mages wouldn't, but inevitably some would.

Look at Grey Wardens. They are given abilities to combat the Darkspawn and they live relatively normal lives, and they're stronger than your average person. Of course they are a necessity against the Blights and Darkspawn, but I'll address more on this issue below.

Why on earth not? Why would most human beings pass up on freely available, incredibly effective powers that could make their lives easier, convenient, and more successful, capable of catering to every whim and indulgance?

Blood magic isn't used because it's Tevinter. Tevinter uses blood magic because it works, and works well. When you get any population, rejection of a proven advantage that can bring immense personal advantage is not an enduring trait.

Where did I say blood magic is solely a Tevinter art? I said it's commonplace there. And I said most likely not. Most likely. I will not be so blind to reason to say it would never happen, but they would have no reason to, especially if they started killing citizens left and right. The Templars would be on them like a fat kid on cake. Blood Magic doesn't cater to every whim and indulgance. It has risks. Risks that far outweigh the skill of a mage, so by performing it you run a very high chance of becoming an Abomination. However, Tevinter is somehow able to keep their abominations down to a minimum, but we know very little of Tevinter so ignore this sentence.

And why should the majority be forced to deal with the fallout?

Addendum to that, because I apparently forgot to post all of what I wanted:

Keep the Order of the Templars. My idea for how mages should be treated is this.

• Kid shows magical talent.
• Kid is taken to Circle and educated, where he is listed in the records of known Mages.
• Mage (he's grown up now) passes Harrowing with Templars present should the unwanted occur.
• Mage leaves tower to live relatively normal life
• Templars keep record of Mage.
• Mage checks in occasionally so that the Templars know he's not either A) doing something fishy or an abomination (similar to parole, but not quite the same)

Basically a better version than just strip away almost all rights. If there are any flaws in there let me know and I'll try to address them.

[Deztyn]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

And what if he did everything he did in Dragon Age 2, free of being possessed? Would you still call him insane and unjustifiable? Or would you call him a visionary? People's opinions on the matter would be different, and that's all justifying him is: OPINION.

Unjustified, absolutely. Visionary, no. Anders has an ideal. It's a nice ideal, but that's all he has. I wouldn't agree with him regardless, but without a hard goal and method for achieving it I can't even respect him.

We don't know whether Justice is still a spirit or is a demon, because all we have to go on is as you said, one man: Anders. I'm not saying Anders is unreliable, but his word alone doesn't give us everything we need, nor does Justice's. As you'll see above, I said that maybe Justice is still a spirit, or a demon and spirit intertwined as one, or just the darker side of Justice.

Spirit, demon or both, I think once you're at the point of killing innocents because they say something you don't like the distinction (if it ever existed) is meaningless. Justice is bad.

And what if it's D)?

D) A man who, by saying he and Justice are one, mean they inhabit the same body, but are not the same being.

That's not far off what I meant by C. He's not lying, or mistaken. He's just an abomination.

"He's gone now, he's part of me."

"I feel his thoughts as my own."

"Not even the greatest scholar could tell you where I end and he begins."

An abomination is a Mage who has no control over his/her body anymore. The demon does. Justice manifests himself very rarely, and Anders is able to take back control. In the words of Wynne, "It is madness and cruelty that defines an abomination"

"He is a force of vengeance. And he has no grasp of mercy."

"It's a madness, a frenzy. I only find out after what I might have done."

"I cannot control my need for vengeance."

Madness, cruelty and an inability to control himself, in Anders own words.

One thing that I want to say is that exteme actions are often needed for the right course of action. The mages may not be slaves, as Anders sees it, but they are not treated equally. They are not treated as human/elven beings. Sure they can conjure up fireballs, so that gives them an unfair edge, but so does a man well-versed in swordplay against a common farmer.

Mages can conjure up fireballs and if that was all they could do I'd have more sympathy for the pro-mage side. The fact is no matter how good a person a mage is they are innately dangerous in a way no mundane human is. Game mechanics aside, abominations are extremely powerful. A little kid upset about his father's illness can make a deal with a demon and devastate an entire village. That's the real power of an abomination.

Modifié par Deztyn, 06 avril 2011 - 04:08 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
there was a codex entry, though admittedly I don't know if it was a codex entry written by someone or if it was one of those plain fact codex entries. If it was the former, it could be false. COULD BE.

It's not a secondary source codex, it's not written by anyone. I think they are simple facts to explain to use what happens to companions between acts. That same codex says Anders was getting more and more paranoid.

[Camenae]

Undeniably mages have more options than most people. A normal kid couldn't have just made that pane of glass disappear no matter how angry he was. When someone insults a normal kid's mom, the usual kid can only yell or cry, throw a tantrum. A Mage kid can blow up the person like a balloon and make a wineglass explode in their face. WITHOUT INTENDING TO, I might add. In fact, I commend Harry in that he tried SO HARD not to do it, but in the end his anger overrode his self-control.

That's what gets me, that even if a Mage has all good intentions, is honest and kind, he is still human. Strong emotions make humans do things they wouldn't normally do, and for mages these extraordinary instances are *usually* more destructive.

Yes normal people are dangerous too, but that's why we don't let them run free and do whatever they please either! There are laws. You have to have a permit to carry a concealed handgun. You have to pass vigorous training and jump through a whole bunch of hoops to get the proper clearance level to be able to handle nuclear weapons. In this society we don't hand anyone a bomb and trust them to use their own judgment.

I'm definitely not saying it's ok to lock them up and beat and rape them, but more potential for danger DOES merit more precautions.

[Mnemnosyne]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Was talking more about the actual population of Thedas. The non-mages are going to suffer for the mages to have their illusion of freedom. That is my main issue with all of this. If the mages were able to contain the conflict it would be all fine and dandy. If casualties were kept to only among Mages and Templars (or any other anti-mage) fine. But we all know that this has spun way out of control, and now the people will suffer.

The common people aren't relevant to this question, unless you're suggesting that no smaller percentage of people should ever rise up in revolt if a larger percentage of people is going to suffer.  No matter how small a percentage of the population of Thedas mages are, they are correct to revolt because of how they are treated.

If the mages are wrong to revolt because the people will suffer, then no smaller group of individuals is ever right to revolt if a much larger group would suffer.  They should merely accept their treatment since it is for the good of the many.  I don't think this is a point of view many would agree with.

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Where did I say blood magic is solely a Tevinter art? I said it's commonplace there. And I said most likely not. Most likely.
I will not be so blind to reason to say it would never happen, but they
would have no reason to, especially if they started killing citizens
left and right. The Templars would be on them like a fat kid on cake.
Blood Magic doesn't cater to every whim and indulgance. It has risks.
Risks that far outweigh the skill of a mage, so by performing it you run
a very high chance of becoming an Abomination. However, Tevinter is
somehow able to keep their abominations down to a minimum, but we know
very little of Tevinter so ignore this sentence.

We have no
evidence that blood magic causes a mage to have a higher risk of
becoming an abomination.  We see an implied connection because mages who
are desperate often turn to blood magic (since Chantry dogma paints it
as such a horrible thing) and the fact that they are desperate seems more of a cause for their abomination vulnerability than anything else.

Modifié par Koyasha, 06 avril 2011 - 04:19 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Koyasha wrote...

Something to keep in mind for those of you who talk about Anders presuming to speak for all mages: I don't think there's any revolution in history (and certainly not many, if there are any at all) which was actually started by the majority of the people. In the American revolution, which I believe was one of the ones with extremely high levels of popular support, about 40 to 45% of the people were supporting the revolutionaries. Somewhere near 15-20% were loyalists to England. And the remainder wanted to stay the hell out of it.

So keep in mind that pretty much every revolution in history was essentially done by a minority. That doesn't mean they were wrong. Similarly, it doesn't mean Anders is wrong in forcing mages into a revolution.

40-45% is a huge number however. And a majority (simple majority as opposed to absolute majority).
I doubt mages make up more than 5% of the population and even that sounds too high. 1% or so sounds reasonable.

Within that 1%, only the Resolutionists call for armed revolt against the Chantry and are deemed as too extremist by the Libertarians themselves. Let's assume that all fraternities have the same number of adherents (not true, but lets for the sake of argument). That means only 1/6 are resolutionists. I doub they represent a higher percentage or even that percentage, as the Chantry would have probably called in the Seekers a long time ago. 

At worse, Anders is representing himself only, as he is not part of any organization or fraternity. At best, he is representing the Resolutionists who are deemed extremists by even Libertarians. At best, 1/6 of all mages, who themselves probably make up about 1% of the total population. Him representing the Resolutionists however is  highly debatable as we have no indication that he is part of the group and if he coordinated anything with them. They might like his act, but that does not mean he planned anything with them and that he wasn't acting on his own.

I think he is just representing himself. This goes far from a substantial minority (or a simple majority) deciding the fate of everyone else. This is more like one man thinking he is qualified to make a choice bigger than himself on behalf of all mages.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 avril 2011 - 04:23 .

[TEWR]

Koyasha wrote...

We have no
evidence that blood magic causes a mage to have a higher risk of
becoming an abomination. We see an implied connection because mages who
are desperate often turn to blood magic (since Chantry dogma paints it
as such a horrible thing) and the fact that they are desperate seems more of a cause for their abomination vulnerability than anything else.

Demons use it as a gateway to breach the minds, souls, and bodies of a mage, which inevitably turns them into an abomination.




Oh and for all of us who were unsure of whether Uldred was in fact a blood mage or just insane, he was both. DA2 confirmed he practiced blood magic somewhere. I think it was Cullen who said so.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Koyasha wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Was talking more about the actual population of Thedas. The non-mages are going to suffer for the mages to have their illusion of freedom. That is my main issue with all of this. If the mages were able to contain the conflict it would be all fine and dandy. If casualties were kept to only among Mages and Templars (or any other anti-mage) fine. But we all know that this has spun way out of control, and now the people will suffer.

The common people aren't relevant to this question, unless you're suggesting that no smaller percentage of people should ever rise up in revolt if a larger percentage of people is going to suffer.  No matter how small a percentage of the population of Thedas mages are, they are correct to revolt because of how they are treated.

If the mages are wrong to revolt because the people will suffer, then no smaller group of individuals is ever right to revolt if a much larger group would suffer.  They should merely accept their treatment since it is for the good of the many.  I don't think this is a point of view many would agree with.

The many would. The many are certainly not going to be happy that they should suffer war and death, just becasue some extreme minority feels they have been slighted.