256 réponses à ce sujet

[GavrielKay]

Harid wrote...

There is no perfect, real world analogy.  There is nothing like a mage in these times.

Regardless of which, you are comparing small potatoes to gigantic ones.

You can taze a martial artist on a rampage in real life, he'll go down.

Outside of Templars, (and our main characters), no one can really stop a mage on a rampage.  Worse so if they are an abomination like Anders, did you read the short story?  What could stop him?  That's why mages can't be treated like normal people.  They aren't normal people.

There are better analogies than comparing to weapons that can be put down, because you cannot think of magic as something the mage can simply put down.

I'm pretty sure if you tazed a mage he'd go down too, assuming you could get that close.  They aren't invincible, just powerful.

Yes, I read Anders' short story.  He is special, but I get your point.

Mages can be treated differently without being treated like monsters.  They can be trained, registered and monitored all without being hated, feared and oppressed.  It's a simple matter of not taking everything to the extreme.  No one is saying mages should be encouraged to run rampant and take over the world (well, only a few anyway .  What I've seen is suggestions that mages be trained and then allowed to live in areas where Templars are present to watch out for trouble.

There is a false all or nothing thing going on here.

Modifié par GavrielKay, 23 juillet 2011 - 12:14 .

[Harid]

GavrielKay wrote...

Harid wrote...

There is no perfect, real world analogy.  There is nothing like a mage in these times.

Regardless of which, you are comparing small potatoes to gigantic ones.

You can taze a martial artist on a rampage in real life, he'll go down.

Outside of Templars, (and our main characters), no one can really stop a mage on a rampage.  Worse so if they are an abomination like Anders, did you read the short story?  What could stop him?  That's why mages can't be treated like normal people.  They aren't normal people.

There are better analogies than comparing to weapons that can be put down, because you cannot think of magic as something the mage can simply put down.

I'm pretty sure if you tazed a mage he'd go down too, assuming you could get that close.  The aren't invincible, just powerful.

Yes, I read Anders' short story.  He is special, but I get your point.

Mages can be treated differently without being treated like monsters.  They can be trained, registered and monitored all without being hated, feared and oppressed.  It's a simple matter of not taking everything to the extreme.  No one is saying mages should be encouraged to run rampant and take over the world (well, only a few anyway .  What I've seen is suggestions that mages be trained and then allowed to live in areas where Templars are present to watch out for trouble.

There is a false all or nothing thing going on here.

There are no tazers in the DA world though.  That was my point.  Regular people or their wards, do not have the power to stop a mage on a rampage, that mage would just keep killing and killing.  You cannot compare them to a CQC fighter that can be overwhelmed by numbers, shot, or subdued; we have yet, in terms of story, to run into any combatant that could go on a rampage like mages can because melee combatants are never written to be that powerful in high fantasy in the first place.  Also, there is nothing that proves that magic cannot be put down, given how Malcolm Hawke did it no problem, and probably would have kept it up provided he didn't have to save the Crimson Oar's leader from the Coterie.

And I've never not argued your second point, but I don't think all out war would lead to eased restrictions on mages, given how we've been shown the majority feels about mages.  Yes, Mages could be treated differently.  Yes, some sort of registration system would be perfect, but mages didn't meet in Cumberland, and come to that conclusion, then propose for it to occur, and then get shot down, and then rebelled.  You know, a rebellion that makes sense.  They just rebelled for some sort of concept of 'freedom' that to the people that demonize them, they are just showing themselves to be as dangerous as the Chantry has shown them to be.  Even as such, I would assume that would not be good enough (your system) for some people, and there is nothing that would allow me to believe that even if things were lightened to this extent, we still would not see mages that saw this as oppressive as the circle, even some posters here.  We've yet to have a thread where people have gotten the chance to argue what we feel mages should have to be policed by in the first place.

Bioware had the Mutant Civil War to draw from in making this conflict, and then proceeded to make the same dumb mistakes comic writers made in that fiction.  I think that's what bugs me the most.

Modifié par Harid, 23 juillet 2011 - 12:26 .

[FieryDove]

Harid wrote...

There are no tazers in the DA world though.  That was my point.  Regular people or their wards, do not have the power to stop a mage on a rampage, that mage would just keep killing and killing. 

An arrow through the neck stops mages just fine. If they have ball of doom-glow running just wait, they can't do anything else while "hiding" in it.

[DPSSOC]

GavrielKay wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Perfect example; I am allowed, by law, to walk around openly carrying a broadsword, but I cannot walk around with even a pistol.

It isn't a perfect example because the gun isn't a natural extension of your arm.  We don't forbid martial artists from walking down the street, despite being able to cause far more harm than an untrained person.

No but we do, at least where I live, register them.  Any facility that provides training at the levels that make people a genuine danger to the general public are forced to register, their students are forced to register, etc.  Outside of people who learn abroad and bring it back or those trained privately (and illegally) every last one of them is monitored.

GavrielKay wrote...
We don't forbid people being who they are, we just deal with it.

Yes we do.  We lock people in prisons everyday because we won't allow them to be who they are.  If I were to go out in public and genuinely be myself I'd be locked in a psychiatric hospital because we, as a society, refuse to deal with who I am.

The entirety of law is telling people who they are not allowed to be, we forbid people from being who they are every day it's the only way our society can function.  We don't deal with anything; we accept, however grudgingly, that to maintain the whole we have to endure limitations and restrictions on ourselves, some more than others.

Like I said the level of restrictions placed on mages isn't fair, it isn't right, and I fully understand those who rage against it.  However restriction is necessary, the degree of damage a single mage is capable of demands it in order to protect those who can't defend themselves against the eventuality of a violent mage.  Now it could be as loose as registration and declaration (declaring to city officials that you're there, why you're there, how long you'll be there - similar to crossing the US/Canada border), but it needs to be there.

[Harid]

FieryDove wrote...

Harid wrote...

There are no tazers in the DA world though.  That was my point.  Regular people or their wards, do not have the power to stop a mage on a rampage, that mage would just keep killing and killing. 

An arrow through the neck stops mages just fine. If they have ball of doom-glow running just wait, they can't do anything else while "hiding" in it.

That's associating gameplay with lore, though.

Bioware hasn't brought up any situations where farmers rose up against a powerful mage overlord.  As far as we've seen, only Templars (and our main characters) are capable to kill mages.  Well. . .and Darkspawn, I guess.

Modifié par Harid, 23 juillet 2011 - 12:41 .

[FieryDove]

Harid wrote...

That's associating gameplay with lore, though.

Bioware hasn't brought up any situations where farmers rose up against a powerful mage overlord.  As far as we've seen, only Templars (and our main characters) are capable to kill mages.  Well. . .and Darkspawn, I guess.

No mage overlords but even farmers can fight...Redcliff? And undead are creepy and they still tried.

Most mages in DAO I killed with an arrow. I always felt LD vs. LD is best. (OR puppy overwhelm)

With the balls of doom-glow and teleporting now makes things a tad more complicated, but its still not impossible even for regular people.

[CrimsonZephyr]

Harid wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

Harid wrote...

There are no tazers in the DA world though.  That was my point.  Regular people or their wards, do not have the power to stop a mage on a rampage, that mage would just keep killing and killing. 

An arrow through the neck stops mages just fine. If they have ball of doom-glow running just wait, they can't do anything else while "hiding" in it.

Bioware hasn't brought up any situations where farmers rose up against a powerful mage overlord.  As far as we've seen, only Templars (and our main characters) are capable to kill mages.  Well. . .and Darkspawn, I guess.

Actually, they have. The entirety of Andraste's rebellion was basically barbarian warriors fighting against mage lords. Granted, Tevinter was weakened from the First Blight, but it still amounts to largely normal human soldiers fighting against mages and winning. Nowhere in the lore is it suggested that a mage would destroy anyone but a Templar, only that they are trained to take down mages. Also, keep in mind most of the Codex is written by the Chantry, which would have a vested interest in making Templars seem like unstoppable terminators, Thedas's only hope against mages.

[Harid]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

Harid wrote...

FieryDove wrote...

Harid wrote...

There are no tazers in the DA world though.  That was my point.  Regular people or their wards, do not have the power to stop a mage on a rampage, that mage would just keep killing and killing. 

An arrow through the neck stops mages just fine. If they have ball of doom-glow running just wait, they can't do anything else while "hiding" in it.

Bioware hasn't brought up any situations where farmers rose up against a powerful mage overlord.  As far as we've seen, only Templars (and our main characters) are capable to kill mages.  Well. . .and Darkspawn, I guess.

Actually, they have. The entirety of Andraste's rebellion was basically barbarian warriors fighting against mage lords. Granted, Tevinter was weakened from the First Blight, but it still amounts to largely normal human soldiers fighting against mages and winning. Nowhere in the lore is it suggested that a mage would destroy anyone but a Templar, only that they are trained to take down mages. Also, keep in mind most of the Codex is written by the Chantry, which would have a vested interest in making Templars seem like unstoppable terminators, Thedas's only hope against mages.

Andraste was written as someone with divine intervention, though, (the famine, that Tevinter was going through, for instance), and we have not seen that rebellion first hand.  They have even written that Andraste may have been a powerful mage herself, and they haven't written that there weren't any mages on Andraste's side for this rebellion, either, as there is no indication that the Avvar's did not have mages among them.  This fight falls under my exception of "soldiers with mage support."

Though now that I go over my posts in this thread I did not cite that example.  So if you want to call me on it, whatever.

Modifié par Harid, 23 juillet 2011 - 01:21 .

[Harid]

FieryDove wrote...

Harid wrote...

That's associating gameplay with lore, though.

Bioware hasn't brought up any situations where farmers rose up against a powerful mage overlord.  As far as we've seen, only Templars (and our main characters) are capable to kill mages.  Well. . .and Darkspawn, I guess.

No mage overlords but even farmers can fight...Redcliff? And undead are creepy and they still tried.

Most mages in DAO I killed with an arrow. I always felt LD vs. LD is best. (OR puppy overwhelm)

With the balls of doom-glow and teleporting now makes things a tad more complicated, but its still not impossible even for regular people.

Your Warden (and his companions) were no dirt farmers.

And undead grunts weren't mages either.

Modifié par Harid, 23 juillet 2011 - 01:19 .

[GavrielKay]

DPSSOC wrote...

The entirety of law is telling people who they are not allowed to be, we forbid people from being who they are every day it's the only way our society can function.  We don't deal with anything; we accept, however grudgingly, that to maintain the whole we have to endure limitations and restrictions on ourselves, some more than others.

No, law tells you what you're not allowed to DO unless you want to be subject to the specified consequences.  You can think whatever you like, so far at least.

[GavrielKay]

Harid wrote...
Bioware hasn't brought up any situations where farmers rose up against a powerful mage overlord.  As far as we've seen, only Templars (and our main characters) are capable to kill mages.  Well. . .and Darkspawn, I guess.

I don't recall seeing ordinary people killing much of anyone, outside the above mentioned Redcliffe reference.  I'm sure the Legion of the Dead must kill the occasional emissary, but I don't recall gameplay actually showing it to me.  We don't see too many folks fending for themselves because we're the hero.  I know how squishy mages in my party are, I have to assume they are equally squishy as apostates.

[Harid]

GavrielKay wrote...

Harid wrote...
Bioware hasn't brought up any situations where farmers rose up against a powerful mage overlord.  As far as we've seen, only Templars (and our main characters) are capable to kill mages.  Well. . .and Darkspawn, I guess.

I don't recall seeing ordinary people killing much of anyone, outside the above mentioned Redcliffe reference.  I'm sure the Legion of the Dead must kill the occasional emissary, but I don't recall gameplay actually showing it to me.  We don't see too many folks fending for themselves because we're the hero.  I know how squishy mages in my party are, I have to assume they are equally squishy as apostates.

Dwarves have storyline "magic defense" and aren't really part of this discussion, given they aren't under the dominion of the Chantry and don't have any circles.  I don't count the Orzamarr circle due to Bioware backpedaling on epilogues until we see it first hand in a game.

We don't have to "see" such a situation occur, but we haven't read it either.

Modifié par Harid, 23 juillet 2011 - 01:25 .

[Sepewrath]

klarabella wrote...

Sepewrath wrote...
You increase your chances of going on a murderous rampage when you own a sword too, does that mean that no one should own a sword?

Not unless possession of a sword includes an increased risk of suffering bouts of insanity that make you go on a killing spree.

It doesn't take a sword or blood magic to fall victim to bouts of insanity, I'm sure there are a lot of elven children that can attest to that. The take home message about the mage situation is everything with them is about potential, whether it be with regular magic or blood magic. I can understand that, but the problem with the train of thought is, potential exist in anyone to do a lot of damage to a lot of damage to a lot of people. Unfortunately it doesn't take fireballs and blood magic to do it or to be the motivation for it.

[Macropodmum]

Sepewrath wrote...

klarabella wrote...

Sepewrath wrote...
You increase your chances of going on a murderous rampage when you own a sword too, does that mean that no one should own a sword?

Not unless possession of a sword includes an increased risk of suffering bouts of insanity that make you go on a killing spree.

It doesn't take a sword or blood magic to fall victim to bouts of insanity, I'm sure there are a lot of elven children that can attest to that. The take home message about the mage situation is everything with them is about potential, whether it be with regular magic or blood magic. I can understand that, but the problem with the train of thought is, potential exist in anyone to do a lot of damage to a lot of damage to a lot of people. Unfortunately it doesn't take fireballs and blood magic to do it or to be the motivation for it.

Exactly, it all boils down to mental state and mental state can be altered due to environmental conditions.  So when squeezed or oppressed enough anyones mental state can change and the potential is there for harm to selves and others.  If you want to hold onto something, you can do so firmly, but squeezing it tighter will cause quite the opposite effect.

[nos_astra]

Macropodmum wrote...
Exactly, it all boils down to mental state and mental state can be altered due to environmental conditions.

I don't think it's that easy.

Maybe it's a cultural thing. In my country people aren't allowed to own arms or carry them around, unless they are trained and registered.
One man with a sword or a gun in the street would be eyed with suspicion or the police would arrest them for violating the law.
Someone who's known to suffer from some kind of mental disorder (that could make them lose control) may not even be allowed to buy arms legally.

I'm not sure how strict the regulations really are. A collection of knives and swords at home may be possible, while a collection of fire arms would be a tricky thing, but you can be sure that you can't just carry them around with you in public.

Now mages can't just leave their potential for destruction at home and lock it away. Mages in Thedas also can't minimize the risk of possession with a little pill or a modern psychological training.

No, doesn't boil down to anything comparable to the real world at all.

Modifié par klarabella, 23 juillet 2011 - 06:26 .

[Macropodmum]

I think it can be that easy, well adjusted persons in normal circumstances, do not commit attrocities...people who are squeezed too tight rebel, anyone with a mental state who wishes to do others harm will do so regardless of whether or not they are or can get a licensed weapon, anyone who does not give a damn about anyone elses rights will still stomp all over the rights of others regardless. I do think it really comes down to an individual and how they chose to act, not to an accident of who or what they were born

Modifié par Macropodmum, 23 juillet 2011 - 08:33 .

[nos_astra]

Macropodmum wrote...
... anyone who does not give a damn about anyone elses rights will still stomp all over the rights of others regardless.

Yes, and some people have the means to do this more effectively than others.

[Rifneno]

klarabella wrote...

Macropodmum wrote...
... anyone who does not give a damn about anyone elses rights will still stomp all over the rights of others regardless.

Yes, and some people have the means to do this more effectively than others.

Tune in next week for another episode of Captain Obvious! Same Obvious channel, same Obvious time!

[Huntress]

Mages with integrity die early inside a Circle tower or are turn into tranquils "wich means the same". Only the bat cases survives the Circle towers for a while. Two mages have scaped the circle one is sorta monster and the other is Malcolme-Hawke.. we don't know much about him but soon enough we will.

[stobie]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

T_T


those are the words I hate to see. "I killed Merrill" just makes me cry.

I was just thinking that - there's a person to avoid forever!

[Sepewrath]

klarabella wrote...
Yes, and some people have the means to do this more effectively than others.

Well I don't think the victims care about efficiency. Someone made a comparsion that someone could do more damage with a gun than with a sword and that may be true in most circumstances. But even if only person is killed before the rampage ends, its little solace to that one person. The number of victims only matters to the people trying to stop them, but to the actual victimes, one is too many and anyone is capable of one.

[cdtrk65]

I think it is a little crazy for people to believe that mages would be normal and functional members of a community when they are treated differently the moment they are discovered to be mages. What if say you take away their abilities to shot fireballs, and risk of an incident like Connors. Lets say they are discovered to be excellent potato farmers, so from that moment they are forced to register as potato farmers, and would be taken out of their homes for periods of their lifes because of this unique gift and . Others look and fear them for their unique abilities, similar to a criminal in our own societity. Do you think the potato farmer  would be a normal (and by normal I mean, not outcasted or fell that way) and functional? I would say probably not due to the seperation from community and the residual fear.

For mages to truely be free, Thedas would have to change there view of magic to a tool, that is only available to use be certian individuals. A demons offer of power would be a lot less tempting to an individual that is adjusted and contributing without fear do to their abilities.

It wouldn't be so hard for those in authority to educate everyone (not just mages) about magic and it's safe use, in fact educating them might help remove the fear and stigma of mages. Obviously templars would still be needed as some kind of law enforcment units for those that would use their abilities to harm and hinder others.

[Sepewrath]

Well that's the problem, the Chantry has made it their mission to spread propaganda about how mages will eat your children and when you have been doing that for damn near a thousand years, you would be hard pressed to change that with a few kind words and some seminars. The Chantry has made it so that a mage, no matter where they are on the integrity scale will always be hated and feared and forced to hide and turn to any source of power to protect themselves.

Granted even if Thedas did a total 180, of course there would still be people like Quentin, but that's just people. There will always be people like that, but if it weren't for the current situation, there would be far less Grace's and Jowan's in the world.

[Foolsfolly]

So what you're saying OP is that we need less Osama bin Anders and more Mohandas Anders or Martin Luther Anders Jr.

But seriously, of course I agree with you 100% OP.

[Rifneno]

Foolsfolly wrote...

So what you're saying OP is that we need less Osama bin Anders and more Mohandas Anders or Martin Luther Anders Jr.

But seriously, of course I agree with you 100% OP.

Martin Luther Anders Jr. wouldn't have a dream, because they'd tranquil his ass as soon as he got on the public soapbox.

The Chantry removed the possibility of peaceful protest when they decided it was okay to steal the soul of anyone who says the chicken at the Gallows cafeteria is dry.  So I pose this question:  Where is the CHANTRY with integrity?