945 réponses à ce sujet

[Camenae]

What about mage templars, if mages are expected to police themselves?

[In Exile]

Plaintiff wrote...
But the mages aren't given responsibility. Responsibility would be allowing them to govern themselves, among other things.

I think this is on th right track, but you need to account for the standing of non-mages. The problem is that the gap in power and ability is too great; non-mages need some counter-balance against mages.

It is told explicitly to us that the mages that act out are a minority. Not to mention there seems to be a lot of misinformation about them floating around Thedas. Cullen states that a single mage can set a city aflame in a fit of pique, but it took Anders hours at least (could be days or weeks, I'm not sure how time is measured in DA2) to blow up even one building. I think letting them "run free" (that is, allowing them to integrate in society and act independantly of the Circle) is quite plauisble.

Mages are a minority... but they're strong enough to force an empire (e.g. Tevinter). It isn't as simple as allowing mages to do whatever they want, and organize how they wish. There needs to be a counterbalance.

[Lewie]

LobselVith8 wrote...

louise101 wrote...
The reason for the rite is clear, i simply base a decision on that alone its not just anders, there are blood mages turning into abominations, infecting templars is pretty serious, so simply put how is it wrong to invoke the rite when we fight how many in kirkwall?

You're talking about mages outside of the Gallows and labelling all the mages inside the Gallows as being no different than the criminal element we come across.

louise101 wrote...
Its also obvious Orsino was busy behind closed doors. When you get into the gallows and the rooms are full of abominations, if you side with the mages, and you tell Orsino this... its only a guess as to whether they just 'poofed' at the last minute, or were practicising blood magic for a while.

It doesn't take blood magic to be an abomination, the few we encounter don't constitute all of the mages, and Varric states that "many survived" only if Hawke supports the mages.

louise101 wrote...
To me it couldn't be more clear or defined it was made because one went riot. Thats the law whether i think its right or not. I don't add to it, or take fact away or twist it to what i THINK it should be. Weighing up the facts we are given and realising what the rite means, to me isn't difficult. It simply is what it is.

The problem is it's an issue of speculation to determine what the mages in the Gallows are like.

Yes it is specualtion but blood mages are at high risk of becoming abominations,  its already known that even the most hardened mages are at risk. It seems like Orsino had been one for some time and by that had even condemned the circle. Ideally the rite coud be made out differently but as it stands it a strict rule and is needed until its changed. Fiction is always questionable it has to be. 

[Benchmark]

Icy Magebane wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Icy Magebane wrote...

@Plaintiff: I understand that you value complete mage freedom. All I am saying is that the consequences to such action may have a huge negative impact on Thedas. IMO, a system of Circles with strict oversight to both mage AND Templar would be ideal. I think we just disagree on the idea of whether individual freedom is more important than the welfare of society. I'm not even sure what to say beyond that. I just think that if the system had some basic reforms, it would work quite well... I don't see the wisdom in destroying it utterly.

Also, keep in mind that the Templars who tried to recapture Anders were violating Chantry law and the King (or Queen)'s direct orders. Grey Wardens are not beholden to the Circle. You can't blame the system for what rogue elements do.

Can't that argument be turned around to work in favour of mages? In DA2 We see a lot of abusive templars and we see a lot of renegade bloodmages, due to the demands of story and gameplay. But we are also told that these characters do not represent the majority, that the situation in Kirkwall is unusual, etc, etc. Possession is not as common as we are led to believe by Hawke's personal experience.

I don't wish to see the Circle "destroyed" as such, although the reforms I would suggest in my ideal Thedas would alter it substantially from what it is now. The problem lies in its connection to the Chantry. In theory, the Circle is a haven for mages, a place where they can grow into their powers and are educated and protected. But it doesn't work that way in practice. The Chantry monitors the Circle and therein the problem lies, the Chantry hates and fears magic and that has been ingrained in the people of Thedas to the point where mages are no longer considered human.

In-game, I side with the mages because, for lack of a peaceful solution, I really feel it is the right thing. Anders is correct when he says that there is no compromise. Any such compromise in this situation is purely conceptual, because the true power in Thedas, the Chantry, would never accept it, and it doesn't have to because it holds all the cards already. In order to reach a new compromise that would be suitable to all, a radical change has to be forced, and with no other avenues available, that can only be done through conflict.

Hm... I'm willing to accept that.  The Chantry is indeed a problem due to its inherent corruption and its need to dominate the population.  Maybe there could be a system where Circles still exist, but are run by a more impartial body...  one that doesn't also have jurisdiction to declare Exhalted Marches and even interfere with the rule of the governments of sovereign nations.  I think DA2 needed more options for the ending than "freedom" or "continued oppression."  It's too polarizing, and there are obviously better ways to do things that are less extreme than an all or nothing secenario.

All of this is true, but you are assuming that the Chantry is inherently a problem, and has no ability to reform or adapt it's interpretation of the Chant to more moderate views. Someone already posted a quote from the chant where magic was described as a gift of the maker. If the Divine in Orlais was so inclined to declare a reform, a change in the Chantry would trickle down to a change in the Circles.

Being a US citizen, I have a strong belief in separation of Church and State. I am willing to recognize the benefit and importance religeon had during the historical eras. Even if my natural bias is to say, "kick all hocus pocus out of decision making," I recognize it may not have resulted in a better society.

Someone will have to make take a risk with running a Circle under a better system. The example will have to be consistent and unshakeable. Only then will it be possible to trust enough to risk all of Thedas.

[Lewie]

Camenae wrote...

What about mage templars, if mages are expected to police themselves?

We could ask Morrigan to be one. She would annihilate you on the spot. 

[Plaintiff]

Camenae wrote...

What about mage templars, if mages are expected to police themselves?

I think that's totally plausible. Send a thief to catch a thief, they say. Templars don't seem to be as well-equipped to combat mages as they claim: resisting demons and blood magic seems to have very little to do with technique and much more to do with sheer strength of will, mages already have training in resisting demons and the ability to break compulsion by blood magic (As evidenced in 'Enemies Among Us, if you bring a mage with you to interrogate Idunna) and it's possible for a mage to learn spells that dispel and counteract other magic.

If anything, it seems mages are more than qualified to police their own. I'd go so far as to say that Templars are redundant and that their official purpose is an excuse used to mask the fact that the Chantry just likes having its own personal, lyrium-addicted army.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 22 avril 2011 - 06:18 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Plaintiff wrote...

Camenae wrote...

What about mage templars, if mages are expected to police themselves?

I think that's totally plausible. Send a thief to catch a thief, they say. Templars don't seem to be as well-equipped to combat mages as they claim: resisting demons and blood magic seems to have very little to do with technique and much more to do with sheer strength of will, mages already have training in resising demons and the ability to break compulsion by blood magic (As evidenced in 'Enemies Among Us, if you bring a mage with you to interrogate Idunna) and it's possible for a mage to learn spells that dispel and counteract other magic.

If anything, it seems mages are more than qualified to police their own. I'd go so far as to say that Templars are redundant and that their official purpose is an excuse used to mask the fact that the Chantry just likes having its own personal, lyrium-addicted army.

That's what they were supposed to be doing all along though. Wasn't it first enchanter Irving meting out the punishment to Jowan back in DA:O? The problem comes when you've got a first enchanter like Orsino, who purposely turns a blind eye to the members of his own circle and clandestinely supports blood magery.

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...
Given (per Alistair) that at least some anti-mage Templar techniques can be taught without lyrium addiction, and the only real entry requirement for Templar Training is training as a Warrior, if the Chantry were really interested in protecting the people from magic and mages from ordinary people, they would have offered (donated) this training to warriors across Thedas for a thousand years.....for cost (or perhaps even donated for free).

I don't think anyone would deny the Chantry is keen on keeping their authority. But templar techiques disseminating doesn't come close to keeping people safe from mages; it just makes counter-mage abilities more commonplace. It's a step. But not a major one.

Conclusion:  The Chantry actually doesn't care one whit about the supposed dangers of magic or the protection of mages.  They simply (at least the highest levels starting with the Divine) simply want a monopoly on magic for their own power....and they are willing to lie or at least dissemble to the rubes of Thedas and overstate the dangers of magic to keep this monopoly.

-Polaris

And we're back to wearing tinfoil. Given the insane templar paranoia about magic and the refusal to let mages to much of anything (prior to circles we had mages forced to light lamps with their power) the Chantry isn't exploiting much of anything.

[LobselVith8]

louise101 wrote...

Camenae wrote...

What about mage templars, if mages are expected to police themselves?

We could ask Morrigan to be one. She would annihilate you on the spot.  

I wonder what Morrigan would think of Anders actions, and the ensuing mage revolution that seems to have taken place since the Chantry lost the Circles of Magi.

[Benchmark]

Plaintiff wrote...

But the mages aren't given responsibility. Responsibility would be allowing them to govern themselves, among other things. It is told explicitly to us that the mages that act out are a minority. Not to mention there seems to be a lot of misinformation about them floating around Thedas. Cullen states that a single mage can set a city aflame in a fit of pique, but it took Anders hours at least (could be days or weeks, I'm not sure how time is measured in DA2) to blow up even one building. I think letting them "run free" (that is, allowing them to integrate in society and act independantly of the Circle) is quite plauisble. Or it would be, except that templars apparently suck so hard at their jobs that when blood magic and abominations do pop up, they call in random civilians to take care of it.

You misunderstood my use of the word responsibility. The responsibility that a mage has, from the very fact they are a mage, is to insure that they do not put any other Thedan at risk from their inherent ability to cause massive destruction.

The ideal of the current system is that the sequester themselves in quiet monastic solitude, surrounded by a specially trained army capable of containing them if they happen to lose control or decide to use their powers immorally.

I wasn't implying they are given some special duty for being a mage. Just that being a mage means you have a duty to others.

[Icy Magebane]

LobselVith8 wrote...

louise101 wrote...

Camenae wrote...

What about mage templars, if mages are expected to police themselves?

We could ask Morrigan to be one. She would annihilate you on the spot.  

I wonder what Morrigan would think of Anders actions, and the ensuing mage revolution that seems to have taken place since the Chantry lost the Circles of Magi.

Considering that she wanted the Warden to anull the Ferelden Circle because they didn't stand up for themselves, I'm guessing she'd be in favor of Anders's actions...

[IanPolaris]

LobselVith8 wrote...

louise101 wrote...

Camenae wrote...

What about mage templars, if mages are expected to police themselves?

We could ask Morrigan to be one. She would annihilate you on the spot.  

I wonder what Morrigan would think of Anders actions, and the ensuing mage revolution that seems to have taken place since the Chantry lost the Circles of Magi.

I think she would applaud honestly.  Remember that Morrigan in DAO was one of the few characters (Sten was the other for obvious reasons) that approved of you going full throttle with the annulment of Fereldan's circle.  Her rational?  If these mages are too weak and lack so much self-respect that they allow themselves to be caged, then death is all they deserve.

Morrigan is a proto-resolutionist in DAO.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

In Exile wrote...

And we're back to wearing tinfoil. Given the insane templar paranoia about magic and the refusal to let mages to much of anything (prior to circles we had mages forced to light lamps with their power) the Chantry isn't exploiting much of anything.

ORLY?  You do realized based on the Bioware's own blog entry on Templars, that Templar recruits are chosen in part becasue they don't question the Chantry and/or doctrine and as such are specifically selected to HAVE that paranoia and that paranoia is deliberatedly cultivated?  I hope you didn't miss that part.

It's been obvious for a long time that the chantry's only real interest in magic is controlling it....or destroying it if they can't.  Wynne in DAA outright says this and not even the Libertarian Anders disagrees.

-Polaris

[Plaintiff]

IanPolaris wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

louise101 wrote...

Camenae wrote...

What about mage templars, if mages are expected to police themselves?

We could ask Morrigan to be one. She would annihilate you on the spot.  

I wonder what Morrigan would think of Anders actions, and the ensuing mage revolution that seems to have taken place since the Chantry lost the Circles of Magi.

I think she would applaud honestly.  Remember that Morrigan in DAO was one of the few characters (Sten was the other for obvious reasons) that approved of you going full throttle with the annulment of Fereldan's circle.  Her rational?  If these mages are too weak and lack so much self-respect that they allow themselves to be caged, then death is all they deserve.

Morrigan is a proto-resolutionist in DAO.

-Polaris

I think she knew it was coming, and was definitely in favour of it. In Witch Hunt she states that "change is coming", that people will fear it, but that change is necessary. I'm pretty certain that the Mage revolution was what she was referring to in a general sense.

[In Exile]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
That's what they were supposed to be doing all along though. Wasn't it first enchanter Irving meting out the punishment to Jowan back in DA:O? The problem comes when you've got a first enchanter like Orsino, who purposely turns a blind eye to the members of his own circle and clandestinely supports blood magery.

The problem is Uldred. For all the good, say, Irving and Wynne did, Uldred was more than capable of overwhleming the Circle with pride and arrogance.

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...
I think she would applaud honestly.  Remember that Morrigan in DAO was one of the few characters (Sten was the other for obvious reasons) that approved of you going full throttle with the annulment of Fereldan's circle.  Her rational?  If these mages are too weak and lack so much self-respect that they allow themselves to be caged, then death is all they deserve.

Morrigan is a proto-resolutionist in DAO.

-Polaris

Morrigain would not have cared. She would have thought Anders was as much of an idiot as the Warden was for trying to save the mages. If they're weak they should die. If they can't rebell against the Circle, they should die. Morrigain wasn't very nuanced.

[Benchmark]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Benchmark wrote...

Seriously? You get to pick which codex entries are factual based on whether or not they agree with your position? How many are errors? Do you have a list? Are they patching the game so Hawke can experience this "new reality"?

Learn to control yourself. I'm addressing factually inaccurate statements made in the Magi Origin and Something Wicked, as well as Gaider addressing something that is factually inaccurate - mages being in servitude to the Chantry.

Benchmark wrote...

Or are you just using a quote by David Gaider to try and make your case dishonestly again? A quote he made after being caught by a plot hole and had to tap dance around a fantasy that doesn't exist for the benefit of rigid DA cultists?

I was addressing that the factually inaccurate mentions in the Magi Origin and Something Wicked that were made, and all I addressed was that because the game is written by a number of writers mistakes can happen.

Benchmark wrote...

Oh right, the second one.

You seem to be more interested in being condescending than actually reading what I've written.

Yes, with You and Ian, Lob, I am actually more interested in being condescending. I do read what you say and it infuriates me that you refuse to allow the existence of any viewpoint other than your own. Instead you run the discussions in circles back to arguments that have little to no actually bearing, using the same quotes and comments that were shown to be incorrect long before. I know that logic and reason will not reach you, so I hope a strong dose of literary ridicule will make you see what calm discussion will not.

I will try again for you. I know you will never see any viewpoint but your own as valid and will instead run around calling everyone who sees things different than you a fuzzy mage killer; but, maybe you will see how dishonest you are being using this one argument.

"I was addressing that the factually inaccurate mentions in the Magi
Origin and Something Wicked that were made, and all I addressed was
that because the game is written by a number of writers mistakes can
happen."

This is what you say you were referencing. However you brought this David Gaider quote up specifically to discredit the codex entry that Klarabella was referencing.

"In the 83rd year of the Glory Age, one of the mages of the Nevarran
Circle was found practicing forbidden magic. The templars executed him
swiftly, but this brewed discontent among the Nevarra Circle. The mages
made several magical attacks against the templars, vengeance for the
executed mage, but the knight-commander was unable to track down which
were responsible.
Three months later, the mages summoned a demon and turned it
loose against their templar watchers. Demons, however, are not easily
controlled. After killing the first wave of templars who tried to
contain it, the demon took possession of one of its summoners. The
resulting abomination slaughtered Templars and mages both before
escaping into the countryside.
The grand cleric sent a legion of templars to hunt the fugitive.
They killed the abomination a year later, but by that time it had slain
70 people.
Divine Galatea, responding to the catastrophe in Nevarra and
hoping to prevent further incidents, granted all the Grand Clerics of
the Chantry the power to purge a Circle entirely if they rule it
irredeemable. This Rite of Annulment has been performed 17 times in the
last 700 years."

You cannot use David Gaider's comments to discredit Klarabella's position by telling her that somethings are wrong and implying her reference is one of those things. David Gaider does not state anywhere that this codex reference is not factual, therefore she is perfectly capable of using it in her arguments.

[Icy Magebane]

Plaintiff wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

louise101 wrote...

Camenae wrote...

What about mage templars, if mages are expected to police themselves?

We could ask Morrigan to be one. She would annihilate you on the spot.  

I wonder what Morrigan would think of Anders actions, and the ensuing mage revolution that seems to have taken place since the Chantry lost the Circles of Magi.

I think she would applaud honestly.  Remember that Morrigan in DAO was one of the few characters (Sten was the other for obvious reasons) that approved of you going full throttle with the annulment of Fereldan's circle.  Her rational?  If these mages are too weak and lack so much self-respect that they allow themselves to be caged, then death is all they deserve.

Morrigan is a proto-resolutionist in DAO.

-Polaris

I think she knew it was coming, and was definitely in favour of it. In Witch Hunt she states that "change is coming", that people will fear it, but that change is necessary. I'm pretty certain that the Mage revolution was what she was referring to in a general sense.

I doubt it.  This would also be the change that Flemeth refers to... I think there's something bigger in store, and that the Templar vs. Mage conflict is a stepping stone.  This conflict will determine what kind of state Thedas is in when the big event begins.

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...

ORLY?  You do realized based on the Bioware's own blog entry on Templars, that Templar recruits are chosen in part becasue they don't question the Chantry and/or doctrine and as such are specifically selected to HAVE that paranoia and that paranoia is deliberatedly cultivated?  I hope you didn't miss that part.

I don't read blog entries. That being said, part A does not in ANY way relate to part B. The Chantry picks loyal templars; awesome. It wants an army that follows orders.

How does that at all prove they have some secret nefarious mage controlling agenda. Take the tinfoill off.

It's been obvious for a long time that the chantry's only real interest in magic is controlling it....or destroying it if they can't.  Wynne in DAA outright says this and not even the Libertarian Anders disagrees.

-Polaris

No, Wynne doesn't. And Anders believes in the Chantry and opposes rebelion against the Circle. In fact, Wynne even gives you a quest to try and find someone to calm the mages down and not seek to break away from the Chantry.

So... yeah.

[Lewie]

In Exile wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
I think she would applaud honestly.  Remember that Morrigan in DAO was one of the few characters (Sten was the other for obvious reasons) that approved of you going full throttle with the annulment of Fereldan's circle.  Her rational?  If these mages are too weak and lack so much self-respect that they allow themselves to be caged, then death is all they deserve.

Morrigan is a proto-resolutionist in DAO.

-Polaris

Morrigain would not have cared. She would have thought Anders was as much of an idiot as the Warden was for trying to save the mages. If they're weak they should die. If they can't rebell against the Circle, they should die. Morrigain wasn't very nuanced.

Yet if she had been more nuanced, she would have been a great mage-templar. She has strength of conviction and wouldn't take any bull.

[Avissel]

My working theory is that the mage/templar war will cause a global weakening of the veil, which will lead to the changes she is talking about.

[LobselVith8]

Benchmark wrote...

Yes, with You and Ian, Lob, I am actually more interested in being condescending. I do read what you say and it infuriates me that you refuse to allow the existence of any viewpoint other than your own. Instead you run the discussions in circles back to arguments that have little to no actually bearing, using the same quotes and comments that were shown to be incorrect long before. I know that logic and reason will not reach you, so I hope a strong dose of literary ridicule will make you see what calm discussion will not.

Considering you completely ignored what my comments were pertaining to, I doubt there was any point to your statements besides being condescending. All I did was address that David Gaider pointed out that there were mistakes made in Origins and that the codex entries stating something were not accurate to the reality of the situation for mages in the Chantry controlled Circles.

Benchmark wrote...

I will try again for you. I know you will never see any viewpoint but your own as valid and will instead run around calling everyone who sees things different than you a fuzzy mage killer; but, maybe you will see how dishonest you are being using this one argument.

Again, you seem to be ignoring what I'm saying to fan fic some debate that isn't actually happening between us.

Benchmark wrote...

"I was addressing that the factually inaccurate mentions in the Magi
Origin and Something Wicked that were made, and all I addressed was
that because the game is written by a number of writers mistakes can
happen."

This is what you say you were referencing. However you brought this David Gaider quote up specifically to discredit the codex entry that Klarabella was referencing.

What are you talking about? I addressed that David Gaider stated that the apostate reference in the Magi Origin and the reference to Maric's death in Something Wicked was incorrect, and I stated that he said mages weren't forced into servitude.

Benchmark wrote...

You cannot use David Gaider's comments to discredit Klarabella's position by telling her that somethings are wrong and implying her reference is one of those things. David Gaider does not state anywhere that this codex reference is not factual, therefore she is perfectly capable of using it in her arguments.

I think you need to re-read what I wrote, because you seem to be having a non-existant debate with me over something I didn't say.

[In Exile]

Avissel wrote...

My working theory is that the mage/templar war will cause a global weakening of the veil, which will lead to the changes she is talking about.

Given the crazy sandal prophecy that ''magic will come back'' that would make sense.

[Benchmark]

IanPolaris wrote...

In Exile wrote...

And we're back to wearing tinfoil. Given the insane templar paranoia about magic and the refusal to let mages to much of anything (prior to circles we had mages forced to light lamps with their power) the Chantry isn't exploiting much of anything.

ORLY?  You do realized based on the Bioware's own blog entry on Templars, that Templar recruits are chosen in part becasue they don't question the Chantry and/or doctrine and as such are specifically selected to HAVE that paranoia and that paranoia is deliberatedly cultivated?  I hope you didn't miss that part.

It's been obvious for a long time that the chantry's only real interest in magic is controlling it....or destroying it if they can't.  Wynne in DAA outright says this and not even the Libertarian Anders disagrees.

-Polaris

Look at you using nonfactual bias to support your side of the argument again. It is so tiring to read your posts when you are allowed to do this but noone else is allowed to draw their own conclusions if they are different from yours.

Choosing soldies that are strong in the faith and will not hesitate to follow orders is not evidence of cultivated mage paranoia. It is facing the reality that Templars will likely be required to do some things that are very difficult for humans to moralize; however, if they hesitate they could cause the deaths of their entire company.

Didn't you claim to be a vet once? All military indoctrination is essentially for the same purpose you are trying to accuse the Chantry of malpractice for.

And you can't make definitive statements like "It's been obvious", when counter arguments have been made successfully, only you refuse to acknowledge or even recognize them if they are in conflict with your personal views.

[LobselVith8]

Benchmark wrote...

This is what you say you were referencing. However you brought this David Gaider quote up specifically to discredit the codex entry that Klarabella was referencing.

Klarabella? I was addressing AlexXIV when he asked if there was any in-game mention of Knight-Commanders using the RoA.

LobselVith8 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Btw. do we even have something like official in-game lore that states that the RoA was legal? I know DG popped in and said that it was, but is there like a codex entry or wiki entry or an in-game quote?

No, there isn't anything in canon that said Meredith's use of the Right of Annulment was legal, only WoG. There isn't even anything in the game that contradicts the codex entries about mages being controlled by templars or in servitude or in service to the Chantry, but David Gaider said those were factually incorrect as well. I suspect it's an issue of multiple writers handling the game and not everyone being on the same page.