174 réponses à ce sujet

[DPSSOC]

This thought has occurred to me every time I've heard this; if magic exists to serve man why aren't Mages put to more practical use?  I mean why not have Mages (supervised of course) acting as healers in every Chantry?  Why not have Mages make up a portion of Templar forces (I'm thinking 3 T:1 M)?  Hell why not use them for the simple task of digging trenches to aid  in irrigation?  If magic exists to serve man why aren't Mages allowed to do anything?

Unless I'm just missing something and the Mages are used for practical purposes and not just locked in their towers.

[Marduksdragon]

Far as I've seen they make money for the chantry producing items, and that seems to be the extent of their function beyond the Chantry being able to threaten people with them. Heck-- look at Cailan-- he asked for mages for the army and he got seven out of how many that lived in the Tower?

[GavrielKay]

I'm cynical, but I think it has to do with fear more than pragmatism. Obviously the mages would be more useful serving communities as healers or whatever. But, if the general populace starts to see mages are more helpful and less scary, the Chantry may have a harder time keeping them locked up. Alternately if you aren't trying to be cynical, they could just feel that less exposure to the public means less risk.

There was a codex on the start of the circles that went something like: mages were used to keep the eternal fires burning, they weren't allowed to do much else because of the danger, they got upset and snuffed the fire, they agreed to be kept separate from society so they could learn and use their magic more freely.

I don't think it worked out very well for them.

[Wulfram]

Mages are used as a military asset, against Darkspawn and Qunari. And sometimes even to hunt down mages, it would seem. Trusted mages can get leave to be absent from the tower alone for extended periods, too. Wynne, for example, and Ines the botanist in Awakening.

But that passage does seem to be rather more positive about magic than is current practice. Note also that Magic is referred to as a gift from the Maker, while it is only those who misuse it who are called accursed.

[DRTJR]

Originality mages where only allowed to make the magical lights in chantries. I guess because mages are in the towers and not decentralized throughout each nation

[Marduksdragon]

I think it's interesting to note that in Haven (which was, I admit, corrupted by the cult by the time the Warden got there) the mages and mundanes lived side by side. The village has a direct link back to the time of Andraste through the shrine.

Modifié par Marduksdragon, 11 juillet 2011 - 10:54 .

[whykikyouwhy]

Should mages be put to "practical use", that could lead down the road to indentured servitude or slavery (removing Tevinter from consideration here). And forcing labors from mages could lead to unrest. The last thing the Chantry wants are unhappy people who can fling fireballs from their fingertips.

I think the quote is meant to remind mage and non-mage alike of humility - that great power is bestowed for the benefit of man, not as a means to rule over him.

* Edit (had to walk away before I had truly finished my thought) - The above isn't to say that the a beautiful lyric can't be manipulated or perverted for negative means. Maybe the intended thought behind the quote was one of purity, but how it is used down the line may be a complete departure.

Modifié par whykikyouwhy, 11 juillet 2011 - 11:10 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

The quote is sort of meaningless because the Chantry treats mages as simply an asset. Once a person is degraded to the point where they are perceived to have zero intrinsic value, abuse becomes commonplace. After all, you're not considered a person anymore. Just a conduit through which power can be utilized.

[DRTJR]

The leader in Haven was a mage, Though "Magic exists to serve man and never rule over him" could mean Don't become an abomination Stupid

[GavrielKay]

I think the idea behind the lyric was simply meant to mean that mages shouldn't feel like they are superior to mundane men and that they should therefore be ruling over them. They should feel humble to have such a gift and use it in service to the people of their communities.

Of course that's been perverted into considering mages nothing more than weapons that need to be forcibly restrained.

I wonder if the general population understood how many of their number had died needlessly to wounds or illnesses that a mage could have cured if they would still support the Chantry.

[IanPolaris]

The Leader in Haven was Father Kolgrim who was a Reaver not a mage. He does have choice and unflattering things to say about the current Chantry's stance towards mages if you side with him and ask him.

-Polaris

[DRTJR]

ACHK! I was thinking of the revered father.

[Vit246]

Because mages are supposed to be cursed and evil. After all, they enslaved the world, invaded the golden city, offended the Maker, created the darkspawn blights, and turn into abominations. Worst of all, they exist.

Right?

What the OP is suggesting would ultimately undermine the teachings of the Chantry and threaten their power over mages.

[DRTJR]

First of all Mages and Magic isn't inherently evil, It wouldn't undermine the teachings of the chantry, If it does it's because of the divine not the prophet

[CrimsonZephyr]

Wasn't one of the books you could gift Wynne a tome that suggested Andraste was actually a mage? I want to see this become a future plot point.

[DPSSOC]

Vit246 wrote...
What the OP is suggesting would ultimately undermine the teachings of the Chantry and threaten their power over mages.

Well I don't think it necessarily has to. Think about it we let convicts do various jobs (make licence plates for example), but it's done under heavy supervision. If the common person sees a healer flanked by a bunch of Templars ready to cut his/her head off faster than you can say "Abomination" it easily reinforces the idea that the Mage is only helpful because he/she is chained and watched. The only way it undermines the Chantry is if Mages are allowed to operate without supervision and interact with the populace.

For example let's say you have a group of Mages using their powers to dig an irrigation system. The Mages are unsupervised and a child, being curious as children are, wanders over and asks the questions children do when watching someone work (whatcha doin', what for, how, etc.) This kind of interaction would undermine the Chantry because those who do approach the Mages (adults can be curious too) will quickly learn they're just like normal people and not monsters. However if you have Templars keeping everyone at a distance, officially for the Mages' safety as much as the townsfolk (BS), claiming that the Mages and what they're doing are dangerous it breeds the same kind of fear as locking them out of sight and saying they're dangerous, but also makes them useful.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 12 juillet 2011 - 01:24 .

[Huntress]

DRTJR wrote...

The leader in Haven was a mage, Though "Magic exists to serve man and never rule over him" could mean Don't become an abomination Stupid

Or something close to a tavinter mage where magic rules over them, making themself feel "more" important that commoners and use many of this commoners as slaves and do rituals...
Let me say that putting demons inside commoners is not the way to go, who will work the farms?? stupid mages...

[FieryDove]

DPSSOC wrote...

This thought has occurred to me every time I've heard this; if magic exists to serve man why aren't Mages put to more practical use?  I mean why not have Mages (supervised of course) acting as healers in every Chantry?  Why not have Mages make up a portion of Templar forces (I'm thinking 3 T:1 M)?  Hell why not use them for the simple task of digging trenches to aid  in irrigation?  If magic exists to serve man why aren't Mages allowed to do anything?

Unless I'm just missing something and the Mages are used for practical purposes and not just locked in their towers.

I have always thought this was odd but seeing the opinions from Kirkwall, all mages are going to be possessed according to the mindsets there so lock em all up/tranquil them.

I mean it would have been nice to have a few more *free* clinics that heal people in need but no...

Or have mage hunting groups. Good mages vs bad mages. 1-2 mages, plus a couple of rogue/trackers and a templar or two. Some of these teams running around and Kirkwall could have been cleaned up quickly.

[Big I]

DPSSOC wrote...
 I mean why not have Mages (supervised of course) acting as healers in every Chantry? 

This. A society where doctors still use leeches, and people who can fix serious injury instantly with magic are locked away from sick people. WTH.

[caradoc2000]

Because magic exists to serve man, mages do not.

[SkittlesKat96]

I think its because the Chantry is still superstitious and afraid of mages, they still use them for wars and important stuff but besides that they just keep them locked in the towers so they can hone their abilities and build up their numbers.

The problem is mages and Templars/Chantry haven't been able compromise (as we can see from DA 2.)

You get mages like Anders and Morrigan who think that mages should be completely free then you get crazy Templars like Meredith who think that Mages should all die or be kept under extreme supervision etc.

As to why they don't let them out of the tower to help and do useful things as much I'm not really sure. Maybe they don't have enough Templars, maybe its just complete over the top paranoia, maybe people are scared of them or maybe the Chantry just don't want people realizing the situation of the mages or something like that.

[TEWR]

Because the Chantry is comprised of idiots.



Magic is meant to serve man, not rule over him doesn't mean what the Chantry thinks it means imo.

I believe it means that magic is meant to aid humanity, but a mage should not let his powers go to his head and influence his decisions (Tevinter, I'm looking at you).

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 12 juillet 2011 - 06:31 .

[Macropodmum]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Because the Chantry is comprised of idiots.


Magic is meant to serve man, not rule over him doesn't mean what the Chantry thinks it means imo.

I believe it means that magic is meant to aid humanity, but a mage should not let his powers go to his head and influence his decisions (Tevinter, I'm looking at you).

Seconded!

[TEWR]

even blood magic can be used to aid humanity. It controls blood flow, so if a person's artery was severed and their blood was pouring out, blood magic could help control the injured person from losing so much blood that they die.


At least until a Spirit Healer came along

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 12 juillet 2011 - 07:41 .

[Plaintiff]

Because if the Chantry gave mages more freedom and allowed them to actually mingle with the populace, commoners would begin to see that the supposed "dangers" of amgic are greatly exaggerated, if not outright lies, and they would question the Chantry and weaken its influence.

Likewise, nobles and others would see how useful the mages are in just about every facet of society and would resent the Chantry's monopoly over such valuable power.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 12 juillet 2011 - 08:08 .