1927 réponses à ce sujet

[LobselVith8]

Deztyn wrote...

I said mage supporters are always willing to excuse the bad mages as either exceptions or products of an abusive system.

That isn't accurate. People who don't support the Chantry controlled Circles simply don't see them as a viable solution because it involves people who have an inate desire not to be imprisoned for what they might do as opposed to what they have done. That's precisely the reason why the Circles rose up and broke free from the Chantry, as many argued was ineviable when you deny people basic rights and give their lives over to an order that preaches that all mages are cursed.

Deztyn wrote...

Bad mages != All mages This is something I've never seen a Circle supporter deny. We just don't think total freedom for a minority is worth the potential cost for the majority. Especially when the members of that minority have no control over their ability to become a threat to the masses.

Considering the Chantry controlled Circles lead to a mage revolution, I'm not certain how successful one can say the Chantry's method was, especially when we kept encountering abominations resulting because of it.

Deztyn wrote...

I said circle supporters want to keep the system and get rid of the bad elements. Bad templars != All templars You respond and essentially say they're all rapists and murders or support rape and murder, get rid of them all. Thus proving me correct, many mage supporters do not distinguish between the crimes committed by some within a group and the group itself unless it's convenient for their argument.

No, people address there are inevitable abuses in a system where mages are denied rights and proper representation when even the First Enchanter is denied say over matters (i.e. the Magi Origin).

Deztyn wrote...

Kirkwall's Circle is not the ideal, it's not even the average, it's the worst case scenario. No one who supports the Chantry and the Circles thinks that Kirkwall is a good example. We know, for a fact, that the abuses that go on within the Circle are illegal. But mage supporters constantly hold Kirkwall up as if it is the only possible example of a Circle.

Because, as Wynne addresses in Awakening, the Chantry would rather kill the mages than see them free, and people have a problem with this kind of institution governing the lives of people they openly condemn as being cursed and responsible for "original sin."

Deztyn wrote...

Edit: Oh yes, and what's the most common alternative to the Circles suggested by mage supporters? The Circle, called something else, minus the templars or with Not!Templars and with a few other modifications that could just easily be made to the existing system.

You mean an alternative and effective system where mages are treated as people, are given basic rights, and are not seen with distain as "cursed"?

[Deztyn]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Are you asking for my opinion on whether Anders is or is not an Abomination? Or do you want me to prove if he's an Abomination or not?

Both. Either. I went through the trouble of finding quotes from Anders that matched what Wynne said and you didn't even bother to answer. Sadface. [smilie]../../../../images/forum/emoticons/sad.png[/smilie][smilie]../../../../images/forum/emoticons/sad.png[/smilie][smilie]../../../../images/forum/emoticons/sad.png[/smilie]

As for Blood Magic, it's a tool like anything else. It doesn't matter what it is or its origins, it's ultimately how it's used by people. The character of the mage determines whether this particular use of blood magic was good or evil. Blood magic is about more than just "GIMME MOAR BLOOD!". Blood Magic can also be used to extend a person's lifespan, like Avernus.

Granted he also subjected the Wardens to horrible experiments, but once you let him live he continues his research while still extending his life.

Any good that Avernus did required someone else's (probably unwilling) sacrifice first. But I won't deny that there can be positive results. To quote myself, "Blood magic might not be innately evil and it might have some good uses, but innately morally dubious isn't a stretch." Even if the life you're draining is your own, you're still self-mutilating for an easy power up. I don't approve. The other things you can do with magic like mind control just make it more unappealing to me.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

I said mage supporters are always willing to excuse the bad mages as either exceptions or products of an abusive system.

That isn't accurate.

And this relates to what your quoting how? Are you saying that you don't think Bad mages are an exception? Do you think they're the rule? Do you secretly think that all mages are dangerous and want them let out to cause havoc across the lands? 

And I'm not responding to the rest. Seriously, if you're not going to make an argument against what I'm actually saying--In a nutshell, that diehard mage supporters and Rifneno in particular, are some of the most hypocritical posters on these forums because they make sweeping generalizations about the entire order and the the circle system, while excusing the less than wholesome mages as nonrepresentative.-- why are you quoting me, breaking my post up into a disjointed mess of lost point and responding to things I'm not saying and arguments I'm not making?

[TEWR]

Koyasha wrote...

I think the biggest modification to the existing system would be getting the Chantry the hell out of it. Even if the rest of the system had exactly the same rules, that would, right there, be the biggest improvement there could be, since then mages wouldn't be constantly told they're subhuman, sinners, cursed, etc, etc to the point where many of them hate their own existence.

After that, some adjustments to allow mages to get out of the Circles regularly once they have passed their tests needs to be made, and things like severing all family connections needs to be abolished, etc.

While I agree that the Chantry is the problem, removing them and keeping the Templar Order watching over them would lead to another Gallows, with nothing to even hold them in line, Elthina being an example of no one to keep order. Elthina may have been Grand Cleric, but she was far from being Grand Cleric

[TEWR]

Deztyn wrote...


Both. Either. I went through the trouble of finding quotes from Anders that matched what Wynne said and you didn't even bother to answer. Sadface.

Well, I'm no good at arguments to try and convince people to change their opinions, so I'll give you my opinion and why I think it.

In my view of Anders, he isn't an Abomination. I could just stick with Wynne's "It is madness and cruelty that defines an Abomination" line, but that would be.... what's the latin phrase? Recitio ad absurdem (something like that)? If that's even what it is. So I'll give some others.

I believe Anders is a very broken, troubled, and desperate man. For 7 years, he has been struggling (and usually winning on the friendship path, whereas Rivalry makes him go "Well.... maybe I shouldn't do this... gah goo.... I am Justice! Witness what is righteous!".). For 7 years he has tried to find peaceful and humane ways to resolve the issues at The Gallows, compared to making a fireworks display for the whole city. Had Meredith's grip not been tightened so much that the Mage Resistance had to dissolve, they would've won given time.

He's definitely seen few good Templars, Thrask being one. His line was "Mages and Templars, working together? I can't believe it....". Had he been full-fledged Abomination, he would've killed them because they were Templars

Now if Abomination is meant to mean "a mage that has a presence of the Fade within him/her" then yes he is an Abomination. However, if the Chantry is going to separate the denizens of the Fade into categories of Spirits and Demons, likewise they should create a new term for those mages who have "Spirits" within their being, as Abomination has a negative connotation attached to it.

Any good that Avernus did required someone else's (probably unwilling) sacrifice first

I don't really think so. You're just speculating on Avernus, which you definitely know, but Zathrian used Blood Magic to bind the Lady of the Forest to Witherfang, which required only his own blood and no one else's. This kept Zathrian alive for many centuries. So it's more likely that Avernus did some similar ritual, without binding a naked Tree lady to a wolf.

But I won't deny that there can be positive results. To quote myself, "Blood magic might not be innately evil and it might have some good uses, but innately morally dubious isn't a stretch." Even if the life you're draining is your own, you're still self-mutilating for an easy power up. I don't approve. The other things you can do with magic like mind control just make it more unappealing to me.

True enough. This is your opinion on this form of magic, and you're entitled to it. A sword can be used for both good and evil, yet it is still seen as unappealing because it is a weapon. It is seen as a something for war. For brutality. Still, a sword and Blood Magic are not on the same level, but the idea is relatively the same.

EDIT: Now, I need to go watch the latest Pokemon episode and finish up my latest Star Ocean: Till the End of Time playthrough. It's taking me almost 200 hours just to beat it. It would take only 120 if I wasn't distracted so much. It's a really long and challenging game. You have to actually think tactically in these boss fights.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 10 avril 2011 - 06:47 .

[LobselVith8]

Deztyn wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

I said mage supporters are always willing to excuse the bad mages as either exceptions or products of an abusive system.

That isn't accurate.

And this relates to what your quoting how? Are you saying that you don't think Bad mages are an exception? Do you think they're the rule? Do you secretly think that all mages are dangerous and want them let out to cause havoc across the lands?  

It relates to the fact that you and Emperor were making sweeping generalizations on the last page about people who disagree with the two of you, and I didn't find the comments to be accurate. I'm saying mage supporters aren't always willing to excuse the bad behavior of some mages the reasons you specificy. Some people (including mages) do bad things, which is why it's been argued for there to be regulation, for there to be law and order, for repercussions to actions, for a law enforcement system in place. People aren't arguing for mages to have no regulation at all; rather, they're arguing for mages not to be dominated by an inhumane system that grants them no basic rights or freedoms.

Deztyn wrote...

And I'm not responding to the rest. Seriously, if you're not going to make an argument against what I'm actually saying--In a nutshell, that diehard mage supporters and Rifneno in particular, are some of the most hypocritical posters on these forums because they make sweeping generalizations about the entire order and the the circle system, while excusing the less than wholesome mages as nonrepresentative.-- why are you quoting me, breaking my post up into a disjointed mess of lost point and responding to things I'm not saying and arguments I'm not making?  

I was arguing against what you were actually saying, because I read the comments on the prior page about what you and Emperor explicitly stated. And I addressed the different points you made, and I don't see the need to try to color a group of people who disagree with you as "hypocritical" when people have addressed that mages can do bad things, but are arguing against (in Michael Hamilton's words) a "dictatorship" over the mages.

You're welcome to provide all the emoticons that you want in retort to what I said, but I don't think what you said was fair or accurate.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 10 avril 2011 - 07:18 .

[TEWR]

LobselVith8 it looks like you're talking to yourself in that last point. That's a sign of insanity you know

[LobselVith8]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

LobselVith8 it looks like you're talking to yourself in that last point. That's a sign of insanity you know

It was blood magic!

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

I said mage supporters are always willing to excuse the bad mages as either exceptions or products of an abusive system.

That isn't accurate. People who don't support the Chantry controlled Circles simply don't see them as a viable solution because it involves people who have an inate desire not to be imprisoned for what they might do as opposed to what they have done. That's precisely the reason why the Circles rose up and broke free from the Chantry, as many argued was ineviable when you deny people basic rights and give their lives over to an order that preaches that all mages are cursed.

Oh let us be honest for once here Lobes, I know for a fact (cause we have ahd this discussion before), that you have been quick in the past to judge all Templars as drug addicted rapists, who only live to kill mages. Many mage supporters are unusually quick to paint all Templars that way, while at the same time excusing Blood Mages as the byproduct of a bad system.

On a side note: Mages aren't denied any basic rights, since they don't exist in Thedas. Nor does the Chantry directly preach that all mages are cursed, that is however the general consensus amongst the populace. But that is a result of mages' acts in the past, not the Chant.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

Bad mages != All mages This is something I've never seen a Circle supporter deny. We just don't think total freedom for a minority is worth the potential cost for the majority. Especially when the members of that minority have no control over their ability to become a threat to the masses.

Considering the Chantry controlled Circles lead to a mage revolution, I'm not certain how successful one can say the Chantry's method was, especially when we kept encountering abominations resulting because of it.

But how many Abominations DIDN'T we encounter because of it? That is the only important question, which sadly can't be answered. I am of the belief, however, that if there had been no Circles, we would have spent a lot more time fighting abominations.
Many are quick to announce the presence of a single abomination as the proof of the CIrcles total failure. While they refuse to acknowledge the potential hundreds of Abominations which never happened because of the Circles.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

Kirkwall's Circle is not the ideal, it's not even the average, it's the worst case scenario. No one who supports the Chantry and the Circles thinks that Kirkwall is a good example. We know, for a fact, that the abuses that go on within the Circle are illegal. But mage supporters constantly hold Kirkwall up as if it is the only possible example of a Circle.

Because, as Wynne addresses in Awakening, the Chantry would rather kill the mages than see them free, and people have a problem with this kind of institution governing the lives of people they openly condemn as being cursed and responsible for "original sin."

What on sweet mother earth did that have to do with what you qouted? Deztyn were saying that we all know the Kirkwall Circle was as rotten as it come (from both mage and templar perspective), and then you go on a rant about Wynne and original sin? And again I find myself compelled to point out that the Chant does not condemn all amges and call them cursed, it is the interpretation of the Chant which causes some folk to believe mages responsible for a lot of evil in the world.

LobselVith8 wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

Edit: Oh yes, and what's the most common alternative to the Circles suggested by mage supporters? The Circle, called something else, minus the templars or with Not!Templars and with a few other modifications that could just easily be made to the existing system.

You mean an alternative and effective system where mages are treated as people, are given basic rights, and are not seen with distain as "cursed"?

Enough with the basic rights already... A mage is allowed to eat, sleep, live and study. There, that is the basic rights of mages. None of those are taken away from them. If you are talking about some sort of "universal basic rights" I'm sorry to tell you, that they don't exist in Thedas.
And yes, with a few alterations to the Circle sytem it could have worked perfectly.

[TEWR]

And yes, with a few alterations to the Circle sytem it could have worked perfectly.

I doubt, however, that the Chantry would be willing to make these changes of their own volition. Maybe the new Divine, Dorothea, would. But overall I'd say that the Chantry would say "Our system is the way! Now shut the **** up or we will shove a sword of mercy through your heathen heart!"

Even if the Chantry did make these changes, most people would probably not react too favorably to them.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

And yes, with a few alterations to the Circle sytem it could have worked perfectly.

I doubt, however, that the Chantry would be willing to make these changes of their own volition. Maybe the new Divine, Dorothea, would. But overall I'd say that the Chantry would say "Our system is the way! Now shut the **** up or we will shove a sword of mercy through your heathen heart!"

Even if the Chantry did make these changes, most people would probably not react too favorably to them.

Most people would never know they happened in the first place. How many of the peasants, in the middle of Orlais, working of fields of Mr. Imaginaryfarmer, do you think have any clue at to how the Circles function?

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

And yes, with a few alterations to the Circle sytem it could have worked perfectly.

I doubt, however, that the Chantry would be willing to make these changes of their own volition. Maybe the new Divine, Dorothea, would. But overall I'd say that the Chantry would say "Our system is the way! Now shut the **** up or we will shove a sword of mercy through your heathen heart!"

Even if the Chantry did make these changes, most people would probably not react too favorably to them.

Most people would never know they happened in the first place. How many of the peasants, in the middle of Orlais, working of fields of Mr. Imaginaryfarmer, do you think have any clue at to how the Circles function?

I think it's safe to say that most, if not all, people know about the Circle's function, especially if they have a mage child.

While having a lineage of magic strengthens the likelihood of having Mage child, there are families that have had no ties to magic and have had a child who was a mage.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Oh let us be honest for once here Lobes, I know for a fact (cause we have ahd this discussion before), that you have been quick in the past to judge all Templars as drug addicted rapists, who only live to kill mages. Many mage supporters are unusually quick to paint all Templars that way, while at the same time excusing Blood Mages as the byproduct of a bad system.

No, I addressed that the Chantry controlled Circles are prone to abuse, and that there are templars who have no issue with killing mages, i.e. Cullen's remark that some of his fellows talk about killing mages "with glee." I have never said all templars are alike, however.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

On a side note: Mages aren't denied any basic rights, since they don't exist in Thedas. Nor does the Chantry directly preach that all mages are cursed, that is however the general consensus amongst the populace. But that is a result of mages' acts in the past, not the Chant.

Not according to the line of succession for the rulers of Ferelden and the Teyrns, Arls, and Banns. If there were no rights in Thedas, there would be no law enforcement to protect the people against criminals.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

But how many Abominations DIDN'T we encounter because of it? That is the only important question, which sadly can't be answered. I am of the belief, however, that if there had been no Circles, we would have spent a lot more time fighting abominations.
Many are quick to announce the presence of a single abomination as the proof of the CIrcles total failure. While they refuse to acknowledge the potential hundreds of Abominations which never happened because of the Circles.

It's not a single abomination, however; it's a plethora of abominations.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

What on sweet mother earth did that have to do with what you qouted? Deztyn were saying that we all know the Kirkwall Circle was as rotten as it come (from both mage and templar perspective), and then you go on a rant about Wynne and original sin? And again I find myself compelled to point out that the Chant does not condemn all amges and call them cursed, it is the interpretation of the Chant which causes some folk to believe mages responsible for a lot of evil in the world.

That mages have wanted freedom from the Chantry in other Circles according to Wynne in Amaranthine, so it wasn't simply the Circle of Kirkwall where mages wanted a change from the status quo. And I addressed that mages being governed by a religious organization that preaches how mages caused the Blights and see the mages as "cursed" probably shouldn't have absolute authority over them.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Enough with the basic rights already... A mage is allowed to eat, sleep, live and study. There, that is the basic rights of mages. None of those are taken away from them. If you are talking about some sort of "universal basic rights" I'm sorry to tell you, that they don't exist in Thedas.
And yes, with a few alterations to the Circle sytem it could have worked perfectly.

Slaves could eat, sleep, live, and some were given fine clothes and could sometimes study, too; that didn't mean they had rights.

And given the innate desire of people to be free, I don't think the Chantry controlled Circles will ever work perfectly.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

And yes, with a few alterations to the Circle sytem it could have worked perfectly.

I doubt, however, that the Chantry would be willing to make these changes of their own volition. Maybe the new Divine, Dorothea, would. But overall I'd say that the Chantry would say "Our system is the way! Now shut the **** up or we will shove a sword of mercy through your heathen heart!"

Even if the Chantry did make these changes, most people would probably not react too favorably to them.

Most people would never know they happened in the first place. How many of the peasants, in the middle of Orlais, working of fields of Mr. Imaginaryfarmer, do you think have any clue at to how the Circles function?

I think it's safe to say that most, if not all, people know about the Circle's function, especially if they have a mage child.

While having a lineage of magic strengthens the likelihood of having Mage child, there are families that have had no ties to magic and have had a child who was a mage.

They all know they exist, without a doubt. But do they all know how they function? Highly doubt it. Just like I know of Guatamala, I do not, however, know how it is governed or where in the world it is.

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

And yes, with a few alterations to the Circle sytem it could have worked perfectly.

I doubt, however, that the Chantry would be willing to make these changes of their own volition. Maybe the new Divine, Dorothea, would. But overall I'd say that the Chantry would say "Our system is the way! Now shut the **** up or we will shove a sword of mercy through your heathen heart!"

Even if the Chantry did make these changes, most people would probably not react too favorably to them.

Most people would never know they happened in the first place. How many of the peasants, in the middle of Orlais, working of fields of Mr. Imaginaryfarmer, do you think have any clue at to how the Circles function?

I think it's safe to say that most, if not all, people know about the Circle's function, especially if they have a mage child.

While having a lineage of magic strengthens the likelihood of having Mage child, there are families that have had no ties to magic and have had a child who was a mage.

They all know they exist, without a doubt. But do they all know how they function? Highly doubt it. Just like I know of Guatamala, I do not, however, know how it is governed or where in the world it is.

and yet you can research all of that information. So too can a citizen of Thedas.

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
On a side note: Mages aren't denied any basic rights, since they don't exist in Thedas. Nor does the Chantry directly preach that all mages are cursed, that is however the general consensus amongst the populace. But that is a result of mages' acts in the past, not the Chant.

Not according to the line of succession for the rulers of Ferelden and the Teyrns, Arls, and Banns. If there were no rights in Thedas, there would be no law enforcement to protect the people against criminals.

And this made me wonder if you even know what basic rights are.
There are rights in Thedas. There are no basic rights applied to all Humans/Elves/Dwarves/Kossith. There are only the rights defined by your role in society. A King being top of the food chain with the most rights, next the noble, then Freehodlers, and so on and so forth. The mages do also have their own rights, defined by them being Mages, such as not being amde Tranquil after having passed the Harrowing.
Yes, rights exists in Thedas. No, basic rights don't exist in Thedas.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

And yes, with a few alterations to the Circle sytem it could have worked perfectly.

I doubt, however, that the Chantry would be willing to make these changes of their own volition. Maybe the new Divine, Dorothea, would. But overall I'd say that the Chantry would say "Our system is the way! Now shut the **** up or we will shove a sword of mercy through your heathen heart!"

Even if the Chantry did make these changes, most people would probably not react too favorably to them.

Most people would never know they happened in the first place. How many of the peasants, in the middle of Orlais, working of fields of Mr. Imaginaryfarmer, do you think have any clue at to how the Circles function?

I think it's safe to say that most, if not all, people know about the Circle's function, especially if they have a mage child.

While having a lineage of magic strengthens the likelihood of having Mage child, there are families that have had no ties to magic and have had a child who was a mage.

They all know they exist, without a doubt. But do they all know how they function? Highly doubt it. Just like I know of Guatamala, I do not, however, know how it is governed or where in the world it is.

and yet you can research all of that information. So too can a citizen of Thedas.

Citizens of Thedas does not have the luxury of the internet, or even the ability to read however. Nor can I imagine they even have the desire to research the inner workings of the Circle.

[TEWR]

Citizens of Thedas does not have the luxury of the internet, or even the ability to read however. Nor can I imagine they even have the desire to research the inner workings of the Circle.

Research is not solely limited to what you read. They could ask Templars. However, it is as you said. Whether they want to know is what's key.

[Mnemnosyne]

How about 'the same rights as any other citizen of their country' or 'the same rights as their brother who isn't a mage' rather than basic rights?  To give an immediate and obvious example, Bethany should have the same
rights as Carver, given that they are fraternal twins, born in exactly the same social position under the laws of Ferelden.  It's true that there's no universal rights that all citizens in Thedas are granted, and that varies by country and station, but everyone in Thedas has certain rights based on those things.

Except Mages, who are taken by an extralegal authority which refuses to answer to the rightful government (see the Chantry's refusal to follow the decree of the King or Queen of Ferelden on freeing the mages, for instance) and answers to no one but themselves, plus has a private army to prevent any government from reclaiming the authority they are usurping.

The Circles need to be replaced with a system of training and registration, one that is in no way connected to the Chantry and is under the rightful authority of the government of the land. They need to stop being psychologically abused (in the sense that being constantly told that you are cursed and your very existence is a sin is severe psychological abuse, which takes place even in Circles where the more physical abuses do not) and they need to be held accountable for their actions, not their potential actions.

Modifié par Koyasha, 10 avril 2011 - 08:34 .

[TEWR]

Koyasha wrote...


The Circles need to be replaced with a system of training and registration, one that is in no way connected to the Chantry and is under the rightful authority of the government of the land. They need to stop being psychologically abused (in the sense that being constantly told that you are cursed and your very existence is a sin is severe psychological abuse, which takes place even in Circles where the more physical abuses do not) and they need to be held accountable for their actions, not their potential actions.

I remember a girl in the Ferelden Circle who was convinced that being a mage was a curse during the Magi Origin. During Uldred's uprising, she became even more convinced and said it was the Maker's judgement for being a mage and bearing that sin.

[Girl on a Rock]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
And this made me wonder if you even know what basic rights are.
There are rights in Thedas. There are no basic rights applied to all Humans/Elves/Dwarves/Kossith. There are only the rights defined by your role in society. A King being top of the food chain with the most rights, next the noble, then Freehodlers, and so on and so forth. The mages do also have their own rights, defined by them being Mages, such as not being amde Tranquil after having passed the Harrowing.
Yes, rights exists in Thedas. No, basic rights don't exist in Thedas.

Jumping in a bit late on this one, but this was interesting to me.

I don't think it's entirely relevant whether basic rights are guaranteed under the law in Thedas - I mean, after all, Thedas isn't a country, it's a continent made up of numerous independent sovereign states, and so the rights granted to the citizens of each of those states are going to vary based on the usual things. This even includes Circle mages, even though the Circle is governed by the Chantry, which of course exists throughout Thedas, but because of the variety of cultures and circumstances, different Circles/Chantries function differently.

That said, I think that what the previous poster meant when he was talking about basic rights were more the rights that we in the developed, Western, real world have come to expect (or at least hope for) for all people, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, creed, etc.

I think we can all agree that such rights - the right to own property, the right to privacy, the right to live freely and make one's own choices about where to live, who to love, what to do, etc. - are lacking for mages, elves, and certain other marginalized classes in certain parts of Thedas. Thus far, of course, we can only speak to Ferelden and Kirkwall, since those are the only places in Thedas we've actually seen "first hand," and I would say that the rights of a Circle mage are limited in both places, but especially, of course, in Kirkwall.

To imply that no rights are given or denied based on a person's race - human, elf, kossith, dwarf, or, for the purposes of this discussion, mage - is really misleading. Of course your rights are dramatically affected by these. While I don't quite know enough of the Qunari to speak to the kossith in Par Vollen, we know at least that discrimination runs rampant in Ferelden and Kirkwall against anyone who isn't a native of the place, but especially against kossith and elves. And clearly, mages are also discriminated against.

So I'm not sure exactly what you're argument is. I mean, it's accurate to say that there are no basic rights in Thedas, and that many of a person's rights are dictated by the social order. I think what the previous poster was saying though, and what many of those who support the mages would agree with, is that the iniquity of the social order in Ferelden and Kirkwall is as troubling as it is unfair, and this is probably the underlying reason for their support of mages. I mean, it is for mine, anyway.

[Girl on a Rock]

Koyasha wrote...

How about 'the same rights as any other citizen of their country' or 'the same rights as their brother who isn't a mage' rather than basic rights?  To give an immediate and obvious example, Bethany should have the same
rights as Carver, given that they are fraternal twins, born in exactly the same social position under the laws of Ferelden.  It's true that there's no universal rights that all citizens in Thedas are granted, and that varies by country and station, but everyone in Thedas has certain rights based on those things.

Except Mages, who are taken by an extralegal authority which refuses to answer to the rightful government (see the Chantry's refusal to follow the decree of the King or Queen of Ferelden on freeing the mages, for instance) and answers to no one but themselves, plus has a private army to prevent any government from reclaiming the authority they are usurping.

The Circles need to be replaced with a system of training and registration, one that is in no way connected to the Chantry and is under the rightful authority of the government of the land. They need to stop being psychologically abused (in the sense that being constantly told that you are cursed and your very existence is a sin is severe psychological abuse, which takes place even in Circles where the more physical abuses do not) and they need to be held accountable for their actions, not their potential actions.

This! <3

[Deztyn]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I believe Anders is a very broken, troubled, and desperate man. For 7 years, he has been struggling (and usually winning on the friendship path, whereas Rivalry makes him go "Well.... maybe I shouldn't do this... gah goo.... I am Justice! Witness what is righteous!".). For 7 years he has tried to find peaceful and humane ways to resolve the issues at The Gallows, compared to making a fireworks display for the whole city. Had Meredith's grip not been tightened so much that the Mage Resistance had to dissolve, they would've won given time.

See, I don't see Friend Anders as having more control, or better control. I see him as in harmony with Justice to the point where control doesn't factor in as much. I think that might be partly why we disagree. And IMO if he loses control to Justice at all and makes himself a danger to those around him, it's enough to call him an abomination. Also disagree on Anders seeking out a peaceful solution, I tend to think he was just biding his time waiting for the right opportunity. Even in Act II he went on about everyone having to pick a side.

He's definitely seen few good Templars, Thrask being one. His line was "Mages and Templars, working together? I can't believe it....". Had he been full-fledged Abomination, he would've killed them because they were Templars

But he was entirely willing to murder Thrask in Act I, and that was after Thrask got us involved in order to save the mages in the first place. I like to think that was the Justice in him. But maybe I'm giving Anders too much credit.

Now if Abomination is meant to mean "a mage that has a presence of the Fade within him/her" then yes he is an Abomination. However, if the Chantry is going to separate the denizens of the Fade into categories of Spirits and Demons, likewise they should create a new term for those mages who have "Spirits" within their being, as Abomination has a negative connotation attached to it.

I'm a fan of the all spirits are the same being theory. So I don't make a distinction between them (Wynne was totally an abomination too, just a nicer one than Vengeance.)

Any good that Avernus did required someone else's (probably unwilling) sacrifice first

I don't really think so. You're just speculating on Avernus, which you definitely know, but Zathrian used Blood Magic to bind the Lady of the Forest to Witherfang, which required only his own blood and no one else's. This kept Zathrian alive for many centuries. So it's more likely that Avernus did some similar ritual, without binding a naked Tree lady to a wolf.

Ah. I meant the warden torturing in order to study the power of the taint. I guess because I don't see living for centuries as an inherently good thing. Not bad, just not what I meant there. And Zathrian... really isn't a good example of a benevolent blood mage.

But I won't deny that there can be positive results. To quote myself, "Blood magic might not be innately evil and it might have some good uses, but innately morally dubious isn't a stretch." Even if the life you're draining is your own, you're still self-mutilating for an easy power up. I don't approve. The other things you can do with magic like mind control just make it more unappealing to me.

True enough. This is your opinion on this form of magic, and you're entitled to it. A sword can be used for both good and evil, yet it is still seen as unappealing because it is a weapon. It is seen as a something for war. For brutality. Still, a sword and Blood Magic are not on the same level, but the idea is relatively the same.

Yeah, definately an agree to disagree thing. I think the dangers exceed the benefits, but I can see where people would disagree.

Modifié par Deztyn, 10 avril 2011 - 08:40 .

[Deztyn]

LobselVith8 wrote...

It relates to the fact that you and Emperor were making sweeping generalizations on the last page about people who disagree with the two of you, and I didn't find the comments to be accurate. I'm saying mage supporters aren't always willing to excuse the bad behavior of some mages the reasons you specificy. Some people (including mages) do bad things, which is why it's been argued for there to be regulation, for there to be law and order, for repercussions to actions, for a law enforcement system in place. People aren't arguing for mages to have no regulation at all; rather, they're arguing for mages not to be dominated by an inhumane system that grants them no basic rights or freedoms.

LULZ. I was saying that for the most part mage supporters think "Bad" is not the default setting of all mages and Circle supporters tend to agree on that point. Sorry if that was too much of a sweeping generalization for you.

I was arguing against what you were actually saying, because I read the comments on the prior page about what you and Emperor explicitly stated. And I addressed the different points you made, and I don't see the need to try to color a group of people who disagree with you as "hypocritical" when people have addressed that mages can do bad things, but are arguing against (in Michael Hamilton's words) a "dictatorship" over the mages.

You're welcome to provide all the emoticons that you want in retort to what I said, but I don't think what you said was fair or accurate.

My only argument on the previous page was that it's not fair to color all templars with the same brush, that  MANY mage supporters do that, and MOST Circle supporters don't do the same to mages. If you DON'T think all templars and clergy are evil, murdering, rapists or are actively supporting murder and rape--good. That means I wasn't talking about YOU.

Modifié par Deztyn, 10 avril 2011 - 08:44 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Koyasha wrote...

How about 'the same rights as any other citizen of their country' or 'the same rights as their brother who isn't a mage' rather than basic rights?  To give an immediate and obvious example, Bethany should have the same
rights as Carver, given that they are fraternal twins, born in exactly the same social position under the laws of Ferelden.  It's true that there's no universal rights that all citizens in Thedas are granted, and that varies by country and station, but everyone in Thedas has certain rights based on those things.

Sure. And if Carver were in the same context as Bethany, he should be treated the same.

Rights have always fluctuated with context as to how they affect others. People who pose exceptional inherent dangers to others (people with plague, or wearing suicide vests) have different rights than those who don't. Rights aren't static in practice or theory, and never have been.

Unfortunately, Bethany and Carver are not born in the exact same social position. One has incredibly potent and potentially dangerous powers and an elevated risk of involuntary insanity, and the other, doesn't.

[TEWR]

I'm a fan of the all spirits are the same being theory. So I don't make a distinction between them (Wynne was totally an abomination too, just a nicer one than Vengeance.)

I believe that theory too, but if the Chantry is going to label spirits into two distinct groups, so too should they label Abomination as a demon possession, and something else as a Spirit possession. Because people like Wynne will be murdered because they have a benevolent spirit inside them (I know Wynne's alive, but if the Templars found out, they wouldn't care. Not under this current idea of the definition of an Abomination)

Ah. I meant the warden torturing in order to study the power of the taint. I guess because I don't see living for centuries as an inherently good thing. Not bad, just not what I meant there. And Zathrian... really isn't a good example of a benevolent blood mage.

I didn't realize that's what you meant. Anyway yea I don't condone his methods on studying the taint, save for extending his lifespan so he could do more research. But what's done is done, and at least he's agreed to research ethically now. Eventually, he'll redeem himself for those crimes. Also, I wasn't saying Zathrian was a benevolent blood mage. Maybe back when his kids were killed, but not anymore. I was just saying that one can extend their lifespan without having to kill other people.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 10 avril 2011 - 09:02 .