1008 réponses à ce sujet

[tmp7704]

Silfren wrote...

I think the fact that Tevinter is not a distant memory speaks to the fact that abominations and blood mages don't spell the end of civilization as we know it.  If mages living free was the apocalyptic calamity the (White) Chantry would have us believe, then it stands to reason that Tevinter would be a smoking ruin, since not only are mages free, but in charge of the place.  

I think the point the Chantry is making has more to do with how many people become victims as result of the abomination outbreaks and blood magic practices. There is very large area between "civilization turned into a smoking crater" and "everything is fine". And somewhere in that area there's room for a mine supervisor feeding his pet dragons daily meals of slaves, and people being used simply as fuel for the magic feats. Or stuff like building entire city in a manner that makes it easier for the demons to cross the Veil.

Modifié par tmp7704, 19 juin 2011 - 01:40 .

[LobselVith8]

Silfren wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Go ahead, repost the damn thing.  The damage is already done, I'm irreparably scarred for life thanks to you and your enablers.  *glares at various forumites*

I actually have other ones.

<_<

That said....I have no choice but to ask...what scene is the second one based from?  

Both scenes are the romance scenes between Hawke and Merrill, replaced with pure unadulterated evil.

[Deztyn]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Deztyn wrote...

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...
My preferred way to fix everything in Ferelden is to get someone who is sane and rational made Divine. I'd rather reform Andrasteism than crush it. I'd far prefer an Andrasteism that is closer to its original roots, especially if it turns out that Andraste was, you know, a mage, as we're lead to suspect when we find the Ashes. More than anything, I'd like to see the whole church change because of this, stop preaching that mages are Maker-cursed, restore the parts of history they've expurgated, stop oppressing the elves and spreading propaganda about the Dalish.

Nearly every reference to the mages being cursed that I can remember is about their alarming ability to become possessed by a demon and go on a rampage. I don't think that's something mages should ever stop hearing about

What you're making a mistake with, in my very humble opinion, is in assuming that such possession happens in a vacuum - without even considering the causes.

What you're making a mistake with, in my very humble opinion, is in assuming that you can read my mind based on a single comment that says nothing about why I believe such possessions happen.

I know what I think, I don't need you to tell me. Thanks.

Constantly reminding ("accusing" is the precise word actually) someone that he/she may fall prey to a demon would not be my way of going about it. It would simply work toward undermining his/her confidence in countering such possession and confidence in the Chantry itself, to say the least. My objective, if I were taking up such a task, would be to arm the person better against becoming possessed.

A mages training IS to prepare them to face demons as well as to control their powers. The Harrowing is the final test of that training.  And mages damn well better learn they're demon magnets sooner rather than later. (Perhaps that should have been Jowan's first lesson to Connor?) If the powers that demons possess scare them, well they should. And I'd like to remind you that it isn't the Chantry that trains mages, it's other mages. Successful ones.

What I'm interested in though is about the situation in Tevinter. Do we hear anything about possession being as common there as you suggest it is in Ferelden and/or Kirkwall (CulturalGeekGirl did say Ferelden, rather mistakenly, I think)?  And is it as catastropic? If it is not common or catastropic, why is it not so? What is it that makes demons prey particularly upon those mages we've seen in Kirkwall, for instance?

"The Imperium has its own templars, and they too must act when mages cross the line. The line is in a different place, but the end result is the same. We will see abominations born of terror and wrath, men you never believed capable of depravity embracing it gladly." ~ Fenris, advising Hawke during the Templar Ending.

If I had to hazard a guess I'd say  it's not common or catastrophic because there are templars to kill the mages before they get too far out of control. Funny how that could work.

In any case, I think more research on demonic possessions needs to be undertaken. I know the Chantry and the Templars forbid it, as suggested in the Journal of Enchanter Wilhelm. We hardly seem to know anything about the "whys" of things (not much about the Fade, about the spirits and demons that inhabit it), and certainly these restrictions aren't helping much. The Litany of Andralla is another example of a research actually benefitting - the Chantry seems to have little qualms about the Circle using it, even though it doesn't sanction such research - a hyporcitical attitude at best.

The codex entries on demons were written by a senior enchanter who studied them. Right up until he was seduced by a Desire Demon. There's good reason to limit or outright forbid the study of demons. They have an unfortunate tendency to corrupt or possess mages.

[Deztyn]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Both scenes are the romance scenes between Hawke and Merrill, replaced with pure unadulterated evil awesome.

There.

Fixed.


:innocent:

[sphinxess]

Tosses cookies <and not in a good way>

[LobselVith8]

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Cullen's willingness to go against Meredith when she's going against a pro-mage Hawke never really made any sense to me. This particular Hawke is killing templars - why would Cullen care if the Champion is arrested or even killed resisting arrest? It's not even like Hawke surrendered to Meredith or anything like that.

Because Cullen thinks life is better than death, and is a supporter of the Rite of Tranquility. Capturing as many mages as possible to make them Tranquil instead of killing them would be right up his alley.

Wouldn't that make sense only if Hawke was surrendering to Meredith, though? So far, Hawke has been killing his way through templars to make his way to freedom (I'd assume for the Circle mages as well as his own life, although I'd imagine game mechanics don't convey this properly). It's more than a little odd that Cullen won't do anything to curb the Right of Annulment (and he's voiced that he thinks mages can't be treated like people and are weapons), but he will go against Meredith to protect a templar-killing, pro-mage Hawke who gives no indication that he'll surrender to the templars.

[Deztyn]

Silfren wrote...

To the best of my knowledge, we have exactly one codex that discusses a mage-turned-abomination going on a rampage.  It's in, I believe, the codex that discusses the inception of the Right of Annulment.  Anyway, according to that codex, the abomination was on the loose for a full year before being caught, and in that time had killed seventy people.

I'm sorry to say, I'm underwhelmed by that revelation.  Seventy murders over the course of a year doesn't strike me as a catastrophic level of Doom.  That's fewer than two deaths a week.  Any person can cause that level of damage, with nothing more than their bare hands.  If possessed mages are supposed to be so much more apocalyptically dangerous than a non-mage, or even just a non-possessed mage, that codex fails to convey it.

.... Connor Guerrin.

Silfren wrote...

I think the fact that Tevinter is not a distant memory speaks to the fact that abominations and blood mages
don't spell the end of civilization as we know it.  If mages living free was the apocalyptic calamity the (White) Chantry would have us believe, then it stands to reason that Tevinter would be a smoking ruin, since not only are mages free, but in charge of the place.  

Mages don't live free in Tevinter. Mages are still forced to be a part of the Circles (Indeed, the Chantry's model was originally based on Tevinter.) The Circles are just run by the most elite and powerful mages rather than the Chantry. And according to Fenris the lower ranking mages are slaves.

Tevinter isn't the mage paradise, even if we ignore their treatment of the mundanes, they treat each other just as badly.

Modifié par Deztyn, 19 juin 2011 - 01:46 .

[maxernst]

LobselVith8 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Cullen's willingness to go against Meredith when she's going against a pro-mage Hawke never really made any sense to me. This particular Hawke is killing templars - why would Cullen care if the Champion is arrested or even killed resisting arrest? It's not even like Hawke surrendered to Meredith or anything like that.

Because Cullen thinks life is better than death, and is a supporter of the Rite of Tranquility. Capturing as many mages as possible to make them Tranquil instead of killing them would be right up his alley.

Wouldn't that make sense only if Hawke was surrendering to Meredith, though? So far, Hawke has been killing his way through templars to make his way to freedom (I'd assume for the Circle mages as well as his own life, although I'd imagine game mechanics don't convey this properly). It's more than a little odd that Cullen won't do anything to curb the Right of Annulment (and he's voiced that he thinks mages can't be treated like people and are weapons), but he will go against Meredith to protect a templar-killing, pro-mage Hawke who gives no indication that he'll surrender to the templars.

I think the really odd thing is that he doesn't do anything to stop the rite of annulment.  He expresses doubts about Meredith's leadership even in Act 1, where he says that he thinks the restrictions on mages in Kirkwall just generate more resentment and resistance.   In Act 2, he expresses doubts about Meredith's sanity. By Act 3, he seems to foresee the annulment coming even before Anders blows up the chantry, yet he seems not to be doing anything.  
 Couldn't he gather some of his likeminded templars to go and see Elthina and tell her she's got to replace Meredith?  Maybe it's guilt in the end for not doing anything to stop this from happening that prevents him from trying to stop a pro-mage Hawke?

[maxernst]

tmp7704 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

I'm sorry to say, I'm underwhelmed by that revelation.  Seventy murders over the course of a year doesn't strike me as a catastrophic level of Doom.  That's fewer than two deaths a week.  Any person can cause that level of damage, with nothing more than their bare hands.  If possessed mages are supposed to be so much more apocalyptically dangerous than a non-mage, or even just a non-possessed mage, that codex fails to convey it.

To put it in perspective, Ted Bundy took four years to kill 30 people. And it was enough to give him permanent spot as one of the most known serial killers. The infamous Jack the Ripper? Linked to 11 murders, at best.

While "any person can cause that level of damage" in theory, few people actually do.

Connor's demon is responsible for a few hundred deaths in the space of a few weeks...almost an entire castle's inhabitants and--if the Warden doesn't help them--everyone in the village except Teagan.  An ordinary person going on a murderous rampage will normally be stopped at much smaller numbers.  I'm pretty confident that no twelve-year-old (or whatever Connor is) in our history has murdered hundreds of people, including a castle garrison's worth of trained warriors.  Especially in the context of a medieval society where the vast majority of people live in small villages, rogue mages are going to be a huge law enforcement headache.  How do you suppose a few of Aveline's guards would have fared against Quentin had they tried to bring him in?  Most villages are only going to have the local baron, his squire and a few men-at-arms, and it's quite possible that might not be enough to take on an abomination or a rogue mage.  It clearly wasn't at Redcliffe.  Admittedly, Isolde sending many of his knights away was part of the problem, but the retinue he left behind was still more than a lot of petty barons would have.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

Did the developers want us to side with the templars in DA2?

What does it mean, to side with the Templars?

We're given two very polarised choices, Mage or Templar, when there are a plethora of motives for Hawke to choose who she chooses.

Pro Templar

I think all mages in Kirkwall should die because...

• I hate mages
• I am afraid of what mages can do to me/others
• Mages have wronged me and mine too many times
• I think the Circle has failed. Mages are running rampant in the city. Better to just start over.
• Mages have proven they are too dangerous and out of control
• Demons! Abominations! Undead! Blood magic! Exploding kittens!
• They are cursed by the Maker.
• I like making things die.

I don't agree all mages should die, but will help the templars because...

• Mages are dangerous and should be contained. Letting them run free isn't the answer.
• If I help the templars I might be able to save the mages who surrender.
• If I help the templars maybe Meredith will let me leave with Bethany.
• I think the mages will lose and I intend to be on the winning side.
• Better them than me.
• I think the Circle has failed. Mages are running rampant in the city. Better to just start over.
• Meredith scares the crap out of me.
• I don't want to fight Carver.
• Templars are the lawful authority in Kirkwall
• If I stay with Meredith, maybe I'll be able to talk sense into her or other templars at some point.
• When this is over I'll have more chance to improve/change how things are in future if the templars respect me for aiding them. Whereas if I side with the mages, I'll be dead or forced to flee and have no political power.
• Anders' actions have forced my hand. If I side with the mages then I condone what he did.
• (metagaming) Being a mage!Hawke Viscount with templars bowing to me is too awesome to ignore.

You could do a similar Pro Mages list.

Pro Mage

I'm siding with the mages because...

• All mages should be allowed to be as free as any other man or woman.
• I want to defend the mages against the injustice of the RoA, but I don't agree with letting them run free.
• Some mages deserve death, but I want to protect the innocent (no matter how dangerous they are).
• No mage deserves to pay the price for what Anders did.
• The templars are completely wrong and I want to fight them!
• The Chantry is completely wrong and I want to fight anyone who thinks mages are evil due to what some Maker said.
• Meredith is crazy. She could have executed Anders but instead she blames the entire Circle. I sided with the mages because I would *not* side with a rabid templar.
• The Circle has failed and the mages have been oppressed for too long. Viva la revolution!
• I love Anders.
• I love Merrill.
•  I just want to protect Bethany. I don't care about anything else.
• I am a mage.

I'm sure people can think of more. Suffice to say that just because Hawke sides with the templars doesn't mean she agrees with the RoA, any more than siding with the mages means you just want mages to be free to frolic through Thedas to their hearts' content.

Unfortunately, while we can save a few mages no matter who we side with (or advocate killing them all if we go templar), we have no real clue what Hawke achieved post-endgame, whether she flees or rules. Either way leads to mage revolution and templar rebellion, with one side or the other deeming Hawke an ally.

Modifié par Shadow of Light Dragon, 19 juin 2011 - 03:50 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

The only problem is that what did Andreste mean with the words she spoke. I don't I have seen any codex pages where she said to lock them into a tower to watch them. Only that they should not use there magic to rule over others.

The problem is how people interpret the text and how they enfoce the rule.

The commandment of the Maker goes: "Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him." I necessarily agree with the second part, but not with the first; for, I think the first part - magic exists to serve man - implies servitude of the mages to the rest of humanity.

As to what Andraste might have meant - I think she was speaking mainly from personal experience. She just wanted to free the slaves from the clutches of the Imperium.

Considering Blood magic can be used to control humans that itself is a clear use of magic controling the people. Then there is the always presant Ill just burn you alive or freeze you if you don't do what I say thing.

Yes, if one goes by the assumption that that is what some mages desire - power over others. And it is true to an extent - the old magisters of the Tevinter Imperium seem to stand as clear testament.

As it has been said, most don't konw a thing about magic so anyone  who has magic is automaticly feared.

Don't know a thing about magic or they simply can't wield magic? These are two different things.

(because as history has shown us people fear other who are different) but in this case there is a clear reason to fear a mage.

Clear reason to fear because mages could be dangerous.

People just don't like the idea that someone can have so much power over another person.

Since mages are people, too, it would stand to reason the same applies for mages also. They just as much don't like being enslaved.

I hate to bring this into this kind of forum but... IMO they should do a system like in Harry Potter. It seems the best kind of system to give mages freedom while giving them an envroment to learn how to control and not use there powers.

I'm not much into all that Harry Potter stuff. But, based on what I know, there is no such thing as a Chantry there. Wizards rule over themselves, and they police themselves. There the battle is between a side that is "good" vs. one that is "bad." And the good wants to remain out of sights of the non-magic folks. Perhaps, it is a good thing - I don't know.

[TEWR]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...


The commandment of the Maker goes: "Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him." I necessarily agree with the second part, but not with the first; for, I think the first part - magic exists to serve man - implies servitude of the mages to the rest of humanity.

As to what Andraste might have meant - I think she was speaking mainly from personal experience. She just wanted to free the slaves from the clutches of the Imperium.

By some accounts Andraste may have just been an extremely powerful mage. These were seen as heretical though and were thrown into a fire. By luck, they were saved from the fire (see The Search for the True Prophet gift for Wynne).

Personally, I see that line as meaning magic shouldn't rule over the mage. He has great power and with that, great responsibility. So he should use that magic to help people.

Mages are men too, and in a way by being locked up because they're mages their magic is ruling over their lives.

Don't know a thing about magic or they simply can't wield magic? These are two different things.

Both really. Most of the populus fears anything to do with a mage. Should a bad harvest occur and they discover a child with magical talent, they will blame him for it and form a mob to kill him.

But there are some people who aren't like that, though they are hard to find.

Clear reason to fear because mages could be dangerous.

True enough, and so can any man.

I'm not much into all that Harry Potter stuff. But, based on what I know, there is no such thing as a Chantry there. Wizards rule over themselves, and they police themselves. There the battle is between a side that is "good" vs. one that is "bad." And the good wants to remain out of sights of the non-magic folks. Perhaps, it is a good thing - I don't know.

More or less what happens is the evil side do, well, evil things. They kill anyone they want to and use the an equivalent to most of Thedas' hatred for blood magic. They use spells that are far more dangerous and lethal, and are the ones that should be banned. One is an instant kill spell.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 19 juin 2011 - 05:25 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

maxernst wrote...

Except that as soon as the mages were let free, they wound up right back where they started.

Which ones?

Tevinter may not be a smoking ruin, but huge numbers of people are kept in much worse conditions than the mages in the rest of Thedas.

Some of those magisters even felt it necessary to drain the blood of slaves to enhance their own powers. In other words, they are like blood sucking parasites.

The point that was made was that even with all that atrocity, Tevinter Imperium still stands - with mages and common folks living together. I'd be very much interested to experience life there (and not be told by somebody or some codex) in some future DA game - it could put a whole new perspective for me with regard to mages vs. templars conflict.

Being afraid that the mages will take over and enslave everybody else is not an irrational fear.

The point is to what extent would someone go with such a rational or otherwise fear. The consequent acting on those fears is what I'm interested in. Whether such actions would be just and rational. In the present case, I don't think they are either just or rational.

Without a system in place designed to prevent it from happening, I think eventually the mages will always take over.

Hmm... I suppose we'll see what we'll see.

And it will always be the blood mages who take control, because they have that extra power source, as well as the ability to mind control others, whereas other mages risk becoming addicted to lyrium if they try and go beyond their natural mana supply.

I'll be somewhat open to believing that if Merrill ever accomplishes such a feat.

To me, mages are like a group of people that posess a huge technological edge on their neighbors, except that their edge is innate and can't be reverse-engineered or bought.

True enough, I suppose. But about that reverse-engineered thing: I think we still haven't seen enough of the world of Thedas to arrive at such a conclusion.

And if our history is any indication, the fate of the technological have nots has not been a pretty one, even in cases where they hugely outnumbered the more advanced group, as in the case of Cortez and Pizarro in Latin America.  The Tevinter Imperium is a very plausible and logical outcome of having a minority with extraordinary superhuman abilities. 

I think there are other lessons to be learnt from all this. Such as provocation being a major factor. A non-technological group better not provoke one that is proficient at it.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 19 juin 2011 - 05:46 .

[MichaelFinnegan]

Deztyn wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

Deztyn wrote...
Nearly every reference to the mages being cursed that I can remember is about their alarming ability to become possessed by a demon and go on a rampage. I don't think that's something mages should ever stop hearing about

What you're making a mistake with, in my very humble opinion, is in assuming that such possession happens in a vacuum - without even considering the causes.

What you're making a mistake with, in my very humble opinion, is in assuming that you can read my mind based on a single comment that says nothing about why I believe such possessions happen.

Ah, well. I should have seen those "Immune!" status(es) when I was trying to cast that blood magic mind-control spell on you. Should have taken a cue right there...

I know what I think, I don't need you to tell me. Thanks.

I could tell you, if you just lowered your defenses. 

I do apologize for my presumption, though. It was uncalled for - not for such a debate.

That said, what I should have said instead was, if I were a mage and you were trying to pester me with such accusations, after having enslaved me, I'd no sooner cast death hex and curse of mortality on you followed by a Storm of the Century!

A mages training IS to prepare them to face demons as well as to control their powers. The Harrowing is the final test of that training.  And mages damn well better learn they're demon magnets sooner rather than later. (Perhaps that should have been Jowan's first lesson to Connor?) If the powers that demons possess scare them, well they should. And I'd like to remind you that it isn't the Chantry that trains mages, it's other mages. Successful ones.

There is a saying you know? That fledgling birds are pushed out of their nests by their mothers in a cruel, but necessary, act to help them to learn to fly. If they fail, they end up helpless, as prey.

I see it in a different light. People giving and taking respect generally has a tendency to keep everyones' spirts up, in a manner of speaking. The idea ought to be to build courage - not to resort to means that would discourage them. Building willpower is where it's all at!

As to the Chantry teaching mages (which I didn't suggest, by the way; I said that Chantry calls the shots) - that's rather obvious. What other talents do they have apart from enacting enactments?!

"The Imperium has its own templars, and they too must act when mages cross the line. The line is in a different place, but the end result is the same. We will see abominations born of terror and wrath, men you never believed capable of depravity embracing it gladly." ~ Fenris, advising Hawke during the Templar Ending.

That is, umm, something, I suppose. I haven't experienced that ending yet. But thanks for letting me know. A few things:
1. Has Fenris experienced such things himself?
2. What does he mean by "they too must act" and "we will see abominations born"? Is he simply professing what he belives to be true?

In any case, I found something else that now makes me believe that abominations do exist in Tevinter.

If I had to hazard a guess I'd say  it's not common or catastrophic because there are templars to kill the mages before they get too far out of control. Funny how that could work.

If your last statement were framed as a question, I'd answer by showing you this: http://social.biowar...46148/3#4557599

Seeing that, I'd simply say that those templars act after the fact. Which means, I think, that they hunt abominations. Or against those who are known to practice mind-control.

The codex entries on demons were written by a senior enchanter who studied them. Right up until he was seduced by a Desire Demon. There's good reason to limit or outright forbid the study of demons. They have an unfortunate tendency to corrupt or possess mages.

I thought it was an Enchanter. Nevermind. Not important...

That was the case where the templars weren't present and such experiments were carried out in secret. I'm simply suggesting that, at the very least, they could be carried out under supervision. I think however that the Chantry has no desire to advance such knowledge - having simply branded it all as taboo.

EDIT: Correcting the link.

Modifié par MichaelFinnegan, 19 juin 2011 - 06:53 .

[In Exile]

IanPolaris wrote...
If there is TRUE justice, however, circumstances DO matter and can at least mitigate the crime sometimes entirely (the entire notion of justifiable homocide is based on this idea).

That's what I said. Justifiable homocide (for example) would be self-defence. Beating an assailant and then (for example) shooting his dog to teach him a lesson would not be.

The problem is the Chantry refuses to recognize mages as fellow human beings with Maker given rights and has thus seized magical power in a very dehumanizing and hypocritical way.  When all options to peace are eliminated, violence becomes justified.

Well, sure. Broadly, we can say violence becomes justified. But what does that really mean? If you say that it justifies the mages relaliating in any way, then I disagree.

Silfren wrote...
I don't see revenge as inherently wrong.  As
has been said, revenge and justice are different faces of the same
coin.  Granted, I see your point, but I think there's a moral difference
between an abused mage turning to blood magic to strike against the
templars, and using it against people not associated with the Chantry in
any way.  I'd have an issue with a mage using blood magic against
random civilians, but I don't have the same issue with them going on the
attack against templars, even those templars who weren't directly or
even indirectly related to their abuse.

I'd say there's a difference between murder and self-defence, even if both involve taking a life, because in one case you are intentionally and without external prompt deciding to take a life and in the other case you are effectively forced to choose between your own life and the life of another person.

Put simply, I think there is a moral distinction between a mage using blood magic or demons to flee from an abusive templar and that same mage using that same magic to strike at a contingent of templars walking to a Chantry.

However, I see it the same way I see any action of war.  Each and every
soldier on the battlefield, looked upon as indviduals, may not be evil
people who deserve to be executed.  But it's a war, they are an
acceptable target for the enemy to blow up.  It may not be a pleasant
thought, and it makes for a very gruesome visual, but that's what war
is.  We can talk about which side in the war had the moral high ground
based on their reasons for fighting, but at the end of a day, when
there's a war going on, all combatants in the war are acceptable
targets.

Let's say I agree (I don't, but for the sake of argument). What precisely makes it the case that the mages and templars are at war, prior to DA2? And if the mages and templars are at war prior to DA2, then why are templar prison camps (the Circles) not morally justified by that standard?

[In Exile]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
The question actually is: where does one draw the line? Would someone wait for such an injustice to happen to him/her (knowing that it is already happening to others) or would he/she take up blood magic in anticipation of the problem?

That enters into the morality and legality of pre-emptive violence. At that point, I think it depends on the circumstances. So, basically, the consequence-oriented reasonable person fiction of our legal system.

Anyway, once a war if afoot, I think most morality goes outside the window. It is therefore imperative on those somewhat narrow-minded groups who set up such systems based on expediency, to ponder about the long term consequences of their actions.

Like I asked previously, though, how do we determine when two groups are at war, even if morality goes out the window when they are?

[In Exile]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Wouldn't that make sense only if Hawke was surrendering to Meredith, though? So far, Hawke has been killing his way through templars to make his way to freedom (I'd assume for the Circle mages as well as his own life, although I'd imagine game mechanics don't convey this properly).

No, I think the game takes it for granted that Cullen considers Hawke a friend (given the Hawke I think the only way to rationalize it is if Cullen is the dullest knife in the drawer, and that neatly explains his total inability to figure out Hawke is a mage).

It's more than a little odd that Cullen won't do anything to curb the Right of Annulment (and he's voiced that he thinks mages can't be treated like people and are weapons), but he will go against Meredith to protect a templar-killing, pro-mage Hawke who gives no indication that he'll surrender to the templars.

The Rite of Tranquility doesn't treat mages like people, and instead treats them like weapons. Cullen made it clear that if he had his way, he'd just make every mage a tranquil. I think it suits his character just fine to offer any non immediately hostile mage the chance to surrender and become tranquil.

[MichaelFinnegan]

In Exile wrote...

MichaelFinnegan wrote...
The question actually is: where does one draw the line? Would someone wait for such an injustice to happen to him/her (knowing that it is already happening to others) or would he/she take up blood magic in anticipation of the problem?

That enters into the morality and legality of pre-emptive violence. At that point, I think it depends on the circumstances. So, basically, the consequence-oriented reasonable person fiction of our legal system.

I was merely justifying the learning of blood magic itself, not the usage of it, prior to the violence. I got an impression that you were suggesting that one ought to learn the art after the abuse has happened - which to me makes little sense.

Anyway, once a war if afoot, I think most morality goes outside the window. It is therefore imperative on those somewhat narrow-minded groups who set up such systems based on expediency, to ponder about the long term consequences of their actions.

Like I asked previously, though, how do we determine when two groups are at war, even if morality goes out the window when they are?

Are asking when does one come to the conclusion that a war has ended? So that morality can be used as a barometer once again? I don't have an answer to that one. I don't think the answer is an easy one.

[MichaelFinnegan]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

By some accounts Andraste may have just been an extremely powerful mage. These were seen as heretical though and were thrown into a fire. By luck, they were saved from the fire (see The Search for the True Prophet gift for Wynne).

Interesting. Thanks. I have never given that gift to Wynne. Now how would Andraste being a mage fit into things? Hmm...

Personally, I see that line as meaning magic shouldn't rule over the mage. He has great power and with that, great responsibility. So he should use that magic to help people.

To me, helping people is a whole different thing from not hurting others. But I suppose it'd make sense for the Maker to imply that.

Mages are men too, and in a way by being locked up because they're mages their magic is ruling over their lives.

Not sure I understood this one.

Both really. Most of the populus fears anything to do with a mage. Should a bad harvest occur and they discover a child with magical talent, they will blame him for it and form a mob to kill him.

Haha. Yes, likely.

But there are some people who aren't like that, though they are hard to find.

Yes.

More or less what happens is the evil side do, well, evil things. They kill anyone they want to and use the an equivalent to most of Thedas' hatred for blood magic. They use spells that are far more dangerous and lethal, and are the ones that should be banned. One is an instant kill spell.

That's true enough. But they oversee themselves - which is a key difference for me. Good mages make it a point to defeat evil ones. But the lives they lead is one of secrecy.

[Get Magna Carter]

sticking to the original topic I think the debate goes something like
TEMPLARS - While in Kirkwall, Hawke has seen many mages going bad, becoming serial killers or abominations, etc. Even Hawkes ally mages include a mass murderer and a blood-mage dabbling in matters she doesn't understand the consequences. Mages are a menace and need to be dealt with.
MAGES - Hawke is from a family of mages, Hawkes father, sister and some cousins were mages. Hawke may be a mage. To oppose mages regardless of innocence or guilt is against his/her own family.
TEMPLARS - And one mage serial killer murdered Hawke's mother - and his research was being secretly supported by the head of Kirkwall's circle. And too many mages in that circle are turning to blood magic. There is clearly something bsdly wrong wih that circle and that is what the Right of Annulment was created for.
MAGES - much of the problem is caused by excessive pressure from Meredith plus the flawed leadership. Many of mages there (possibly including Bethany) are innocent. Replace the 2 leaders and things may normalise.
TEMPLARS -but the people are calling out against all mages. If we spare them then the city may descend into riots.
MAGES - submitting to mob rule is a bad idea. And it's only an excuse for Meredith who has probably been wanting to use the Right for years.
TEMPLARS - with all 5 leader figures in the city dead, mob rule is all that's left. Side with the templars and the Mob makes Hawke Viscount and Hawke rises to power. Side with the mages then Hawke flees the city and does not rise to power. The game is rise to power so side with the Templars.

[maxernst]

MichaelFinnegan wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Except that as soon as the mages were let free, they wound up right back where they started.

Which ones?

Tevinter may not be a smoking ruin, but huge numbers of people are kept in much worse conditions than the mages in the rest of Thedas.

Some of those magisters even felt it necessary to drain the blood of slaves to enhance their own powers. In other words, they are like blood sucking parasites.

The point that was made was that even with all that atrocity, Tevinter Imperium still stands - with mages and common folks living together. I'd be very much interested to experience life there (and not be told by somebody or some codex) in some future DA game - it could put a whole new perspective for me with regard to mages vs. templars conflict.

Being afraid that the mages will take over and enslave everybody else is not an irrational fear.

The point is to what extent would someone go with such a rational or otherwise fear. The consequent acting on those fears is what I'm interested in. Whether such actions would be just and rational. In the present case, I don't think they are either just or rational.

Without a system in place designed to prevent it from happening, I think eventually the mages will always take over.

Hmm... I suppose we'll see what we'll see.

And it will always be the blood mages who take control, because they have that extra power source, as well as the ability to mind control others, whereas other mages risk becoming addicted to lyrium if they try and go beyond their natural mana supply.

I'll be somewhat open to believing that if Merrill ever accomplishes such a feat.

To me, mages are like a group of people that posess a huge technological edge on their neighbors, except that their edge is innate and can't be reverse-engineered or bought.

True enough, I suppose. But about that reverse-engineered thing: I think we still haven't seen enough of the world of Thedas to arrive at such a conclusion.

And if our history is any indication, the fate of the technological have nots has not been a pretty one, even in cases where they hugely outnumbered the more advanced group, as in the case of Cortez and Pizarro in Latin America.  The Tevinter Imperium is a very plausible and logical outcome of having a minority with extraordinary superhuman abilities. 

I think there are other lessons to be learnt from all this. Such as provocation being a major factor. A non-technological group better not provoke one that is proficient at it.

Right...so the Europeans basically conquered the world, not because they had the power to do so and human greed drove them to use it, but because everyone else provoked them.  Fine, if non-mages are willing to accept perpetual slavery and being slaughtered for blood-magic rituals whenever the mages need power, there's no problem at all.

And, as someone else noted, mages and non-mages don't live side by side in Tevinter, either.  They have Circles, there's just no Chantry oversight.  Magic is still kept under control.  Among the Dalish, the mages are also the ruling class, but I don't think the social structure of small nomadic clans can be transferred to entire countries.  Presumably it's the keeper's job to prevent his mages from going berserk.  Merrill does say that if the keeper becomes an abomination, the clan must hunt him down and kill him.  I have to wonder if any clans have ever failed in that task and been destroyed by their keeper.  The Qunari keep their mages under even stricter controls than the Orlesian Chantry.  Rivain...might have mages living freely amongst the people.  Exactly how their society works is not clear.

The point is that mages pose a real threat for public safety (whether due to becoming abominations or simply being wicked), and every society has to come up with means of control.  The easiest way is simply to surrender the political structure to the most powerful mages, which is what both the Dalish and Tevinter have done. The mages have the power to deal with their own.  However, given how ruling minorities in our own world have treated the populace on the basis of merely imagined superiority, I'm not optimistic about how a ruling minority that really is innately superior would behave toward the rest.  I think a ruling class of mages will always treat the mundanes as animals--pets in the case of the dalish, livestock in the case of Tevinter. 

Modifié par maxernst, 19 juin 2011 - 04:10 .

[IanPolaris]

maxernst wrote...

Right...so the Europeans basically conquered the world, not because they had the power to do so and human greed drove them to use it, but because everyone else provoked them.  Fine, if non-mages are willing to accept perpetual slavery and being slaughtered for blood-magic rituals whenever the mages need power, there's no problem at all.

That's fear talking, not reason.  To be sure there are some mages who will feel their magical might makes right (see Tevinter) and tried to take over the world.  In fact (again see Ancient Tevinter) been there and done that, but it's not universal among mages.  Mages exist in many non-Andrastian societies without taking them over, so just because a group of people have magical power does not make them bloodthirsty abusers unlike what the White Chantry suggests.

-Polaris

[maxernst]

IanPolaris wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Right...so the Europeans basically conquered the world, not because they had the power to do so and human greed drove them to use it, but because everyone else provoked them.  Fine, if non-mages are willing to accept perpetual slavery and being slaughtered for blood-magic rituals whenever the mages need power, there's no problem at all.

That's fear talking, not reason.  To be sure there are some mages who will feel their magical might makes right (see Tevinter) and tried to take over the world.  In fact (again see Ancient Tevinter) been there and done that, but it's not universal among mages.  Mages exist in many non-Andrastian societies without taking them over, so just because a group of people have magical power does not make them bloodthirsty abusers unlike what the White Chantry suggests.

-Polaris

It doesn't have to be universal among mages.  It only has to be the rule among the mages who wind up in power often enough. Are all Europeans bloodthirsty abusers?  And as far as non-Andrastean societies, the only one where the mages are not in control is Rivain, and we don't know how their society works.  Maybe the Chasind as well.  That's not "many". 

People in power always think that might makes right.  That's how they get there.

Modifié par maxernst, 19 juin 2011 - 04:18 .

[LobselVith8]

maxernst wrote...

It doesn't have to be universal among mages.  It only has to be the rule among the mages who wind up in power often enough. Are all Europeans bloodthirsty abusers?  And as far as non-Andrastean societies, the only one where the mages are not in control is Rivain, and we don't know how their society works.  Maybe the Chasind as well.  That's not "many". 

People in power always think that might makes right.  That's how they get there.

Mages are in leadership positions among the Avvar and the Chasind because it's how their society is structed around their Shamans, and the people celebrate the tale of Flemeth, who they believe taught the early shamans how to wield magic. It's not like the Avvar tribes or the Chasind Wilders are similar to the brutal Magisters who enslave mages and non-mages alike. And the Dalish place the Keepers in a position of leadership because their beliefs hold that magic was wielded by all Arlathan elves during the time of their ancient kingdom (and we know from Witch Hunt that there were mages among the Arlathan elves; in fact, one could infer that the primeval thaig was forged by dwarves who had magical ability). Mages being chosen to be leaders isn't much different than "nobility" being chosen to rule a nation, since democracy doesn't seem to exist in Thedas. The difference is that the alternative societies to the Andrastian nations aren't trying to emulate the brutal, slave-driven economy of the Imperium.

[MichaelFinnegan]

[quote]maxernst wrote...

Right...so the Europeans basically conquered the world, not because they had the power to do so and human greed drove them to use it, but because everyone else provoked them.[/quote]
I was merely suggesting that the rest of the world provoking them wasn't an alternative. Best as I could tell from the above, I think you're suggesting that the rest of the world somehow should have enslaved the Europeans first.

[quote]
Fine, if non-mages are willing to accept perpetual slavery and being slaughtered for blood-magic rituals whenever the mages need power, there's no problem at all.[/quote]
Remember, the order of Templars seem very much capable of handling any such threats.

[quote]
And, as someone else noted, mages and non-mages don't live side by side in Tevinter, either. They have Circles, there's just no Chantry oversight.  Magic is still kept under control.[/quote]
Not right next to each other, yes. But mages do seem to police themselves. The issue with Tevinter I suppose is that it is actually a magocracy - meaning the order of Templars are under the control of the First Enchanter of the Circle - not a very good thing, in my opinion.

There is disparity in the balance of power between the two groups at both Tevinter and the other other Andrastian societies we see. That's how I look at it.

[quote]
Among the Dalish, the mages are also the ruling class, but I don't think the social structure of small nomadic clans can be transferred to entire countries.[/quote]
I think that is a premature conclusion. We still don't know anything about Arlathan and the rest of the ancient elven controlled cities.

[quote]
Presumably it's the keeper's job to prevent his mages from going berserk.  Merrill does say that if the keeper becomes an abomination, the clan must hunt him down and kill him.  I have to wonder if any clans have ever failed in that task and been destroyed by their keeper.[/quote]
Quite besides the point. I don't see any of the clans harping about enslaving their mages. The clan simply takes care of it, if the inevitable happens.

[quote]
The Qunari keep their mages under even stricter controls than the Orlesian Chantry.[/quote]
The Qunari are an interesting lot. They do seem to have other means of dealing with threats - what's that explosive of theirs called? Saar-kamek or something? However theirs is a society that subjugates, again. I think their Saarebaas have been allowed to exist merely to wage wars against the Tevinter Imperium, and perhaps to assist in the eventual conquest of all of Thedas.

[quote]
Rivain...might have mages living freely amongst the people.  Exactly how their society works is not clear.[/quote]
Aren't those the people who willfully allow possessionsy? You're right, though. We don't know much about them.

[quote]
The point is that mages pose a real threat for public safety (whether due to becoming abominations or simply being wicked), and every society has to come up with means of control.[/quote]
Yes. But some systems are just oppressive the other way. What we get as an end result in either case is the inevitable - all round chaos.

[quote]
The easiest way is simply to surrender the political structure to the most powerful mages, which is what both the Dalish and Tevinter have done.[/quote]
I wouldn't equate the Dalish with the magisters of the Tevinter Imperium.

[quote]
The mages have the power to deal with their own.[/quote]
Really? How does that work with the Dalish?

[quote]
However, given how ruling minorities in our own world have treated the populace on the basis of merely imagined superiority, I'm not optimistic about how a ruling minority that really is innately superior would behave toward the rest.  I think a ruling class of mages will always treat the mundanes as animals--pets in the case of the dalish, livestock in the case of Tevinter.  [/quote]
I haven't taken up the position that you imply here - to empower the mages. I'm simply arguing against the enslavement of mages, which is what I thought was the whole point of our debate.