55 réponses à ce sujet

[Sister Helen]

Oh, forgot to get to my original point: the Templars retook the city pretty quickly because they were probably fighting (mostly) regular mages that they had some immunity to their magic or fairly inexperienced blood mages, who learned their skills in secret, with constant fear of interruption. Bygones.

[alex90c]

I think KoP has it spot on. If the uprising in the Gallows was more prolonged then it would have made more sense that the other circles revolted, because then it would show that they can stand on their own against the Templars. All DA2 really did was show the mage revolt and how regardless of who you side with it will end up getting put down by the Templars (with Hawke post-game either ruling as Viscount or being allowed to leave Kirkwall from which he then goes on the run, but in both cases the Gallows uprising is put down).

[In Exile]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
My problem with that, is how the catalyst was portrayed. The mages in the Gallows perform extremily poorly on a military level. In just one night, the Gallows were secured. At best, some mages fled. But they could not hold a highly defensible fortress for more than a few hours.

Whatever happens, Meredith dies. I think that's the symbol, and the part about lyrium idol madness just dissapears. 

Not saying it's impossible or completely unfeasible mind you. But I think it could have been done much better.
That, or something more happened in the interim between Kirkwall and the revolt.

There is a DLC coming up, so... who knows? 

But Varric's speech was pretty clear. 

[In Exile]

Wulfram wrote...
What with all the blood mages going around, and the destruction of the Chantry, it's hard to see how it stands out as an injustice from all the other times Circles have been annulled.

Well, for one, it could be that all the other times no one talked about it. There was no organized mage resistance to the Chantry back then as far as we know, who was willing to fight a propaganda war. 

[aries1001]

Did the situation really resolve itself or did Hawke actually make it worse? For me, it was very surprising to hear Varric's 'thank god, or thank the maker' comment, when I decided to side with the mages. [I was so inclined anyway, but after Merediths speak in the end game at the Gallows or Docks where she said that all mages were to be killed, I took the personal approach - no one messes with my kid sister! - and kudos the Bioware writers for actually making me care here...]

As I see it, however, nothing is really resolved after the end game; Meredith got her own ending; the darkness in her was indeed responsible for downfall.[Since this a non-spoiler board, I won't say anuthing more than this...].

If, as PAX info suggest, there is a war coming between the mages and the templars, please let us, as the pc, or main protagonist, be able to fail or mission to bring peace to the lands. I really can't see how this could be happening, not without the templars, the chantry and the mages going back to way things were at the beginning of DA2. And I think this is not very likely - for various reasons. Most because most chantries, or the Chantry, is now gone....

[Hurbster]

I guess my main problem is that pretty much every mage you meet (apart from Anders and Merril - who is a special case) goes blood mage bonkers at the slightest provocation. And don't get me started on the 'wtf Orsino ?' bit...

[Harid]

JohnEpler wrote...

SpearofUganda wrote...

But would that be enough to act as a catalyst for wider change? If you say the city itself lended itself towards the corruption of mages then why would the conflict extend beyond the walls of Kirkwall? I think the problem is that Kirkwall feels insular, almost detached from greater Feralden...

Kirkwall was a symbol that, yes, the 'tyranny' of the Templars could be successfully overthrown and the mages could break away from the control of the Circles. Whatever one's feelings on how justified the Chantry is in their control of the mages, if you existed in that situation, even if you spent every day believing that the Templars are there for the greater good and are a necessary precaution - there's still going to be a tiny part of you that realizes you are under the control of another.

And while the events in Kirkwall wouldn't be enough of a catalyst for -everyone-, there are going to be those who are on the edge - who won't resort to blood magic, but who see what happened in Kirkwall as both a symbol and a cautionary tale ('see, this is how bad the Templars can get'). And if there are enough charismatic mages in your Circle who are arguing to break away from the Chantry, well, there will be no shortage of less strong-minded mages who are willing to follow them.

There are certainly sufficient examples in the real world of the domino effect, where one group successfully rebels against an oppressive regime and many other groups follow suit. I don't think it's far fetched to believe the same would be true in Thedas. And whether or not the Templars really -are- unnecessarily oppresive in the majority of cases, if you're a mage, there's going to be part of you (however small) that feels that way.

The problem with this is if you supported the Templars, then Templars aren't overthrown and mages don't break free of anything. . .but they still somehow revolt from the Circle because of it.  Why didn't they revolt before?  In 900 years, given the opinions on mages no unjust anullments ever happened before?  It just doesn't make any sense.

[LordKinoda]

It's pretty obvious that Bioware is heading towards a class struggle that will not only affect Feralden, but also the neighbouring states, as Mages invariably start demanding better rights

The mages and the chantry/templars were always a powder keg since it's inception. It was only a matter of time before somebody did something so huge that it set off a major war. Mages are technically enslaved no matter how you look at it. They have next to no freedom, even the higher level mages are still watched to a degree.

Granted mages have the potential to become possessed powerfully crazed forms of themselves, but that's not really any different than somebody here in the real world going on a shooting spree. Even when mages are possessed it's only a matter of time before they are slain, just like the real world. They don't have the potential to wipe out or dominate the world, let alone a city. If anything, templars should be used as a sort of SWAT type unit to hunt down abominations and maleficarum. That's it. Mages are essentially inserted in concentration camps for their lives and only let out after years and years of training, and are still intently watched after they have proven their strength and skill.

Was Anders approach the best solution ? No. But in the end it's effective, because no other concessions for greater mage freedom had been granted, so violence is all that's left.

but it could have been handled better without every single mage ending up a blood mage

I guess my main problem is that pretty much every mage you meet (apart from Anders and Merril - who is a special case)

Not EVERY mage ended up being a blood mage. Granted we didn't really run across alot of them in the game, but there are plenty regular mages left. They could of let us meet some mages on a more detailed and personal basis that were regular in the beginning of the game, and remained that way throughout. That would of helped quell the confusion that they ALL resorted to blood magic.

A majority of the mages who resort to blood magic (Tevinter being excluded here) only do it out of desperation. This is a last resort for them to combat templars who are out to kill them after they have escaped, or to escape imprisonment in the circle.

How would you endure a life of imprisonment just for being born a certain way ? Could we all say that we'd be so strong and look for other ways of escape that didn't resort to blood magic ? I don't think the templars have many mechanisms to fight against blood magic so this is why it invariably becomes an attractive way to fight against them, either when escaping or fending them off for apostacy.

And don't get me started on the 'wtf Orsino ?' bit...

Yeah can't say I like this either. I think of all the circle mages in Kirkwall he should of had the greatest willpower to not resort to blood magic.






DIAA

"By all means, writers, let your story wander around the dank, twisty little passages. You may even permit that journey to come to a bad end. But without some light source, your story will be eaten by the Grue of Indifference."
—The dePlume Dimension

I can see how some might get this impression, but it's definently the mages who are the "lighter" side in the conflict. Because of the reasons I stated above. It's simply a game design and writer error that makes boths sides seem equally evil. Plenty more examples of "good mages" do need to be shown to shine some light on the issue for some people. Though if you played DAO this shouldn't be an issue for you.


For me, it was always clear who the underdogs/oppressed are because my Warden was a mage, and so was Hawke. I didn't play either of them as "evil" and/or antagonisitic type characters. So they were my main "light sources" as the above quote mentions. But you can also look at Irving, Wynne, Aneirin, and Niall. Nobody forgot these mages did they ? Did any of them resort to blood magic during times of stress, or just for the fun of it ? Nope. Hell you can even use Morrigan as an example. She never resorted to blood magic, she had plenty of skill in other areas to defend herself to stay free.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

It's a pity you couldn't actually submit the notes about the Enigma of Kirkwall as evidence of something sinister--and something that even mundanes can feel according to the Codex entries.

While I adore extra story as much as the next person, what's the point of investigating an evidence trail if you can't do anything with it, or talk to anyone about it, when it's something that looks really, really important?

Or would we have just been stuck with an NPC saying "It'll take some time to research this matter properly!" similar to Cullen's "We'll apprehend the rebel Anders soon."? Argh. >.<

[Derengard]

You don't kill all the people, because many people turn out to be bandits, do you? The Templars may be ok as a kind of police but when they reign over life and death almost at will, it's just natural that a process to break the chains ensues. Mad mages are just a way to drive the story forward and to provide some sound ambiguity, however it's one way to argue about the representation and options in context and to argue about the actual points is another. However disastrous the conflicts may be, in the end you won't be needing to violently suppress all the mages, as a halfway decent character.

Modifié par Derengard, 02 septembre 2011 - 11:55 .

[KLUME777]

JohnEpler wrote...

SpearofUganda wrote...

But would that be enough to act as a catalyst for wider change? If you say the city itself lended itself towards the corruption of mages then why would the conflict extend beyond the walls of Kirkwall? I think the problem is that Kirkwall feels insular, almost detached from greater Feralden...

Kirkwall was a symbol that, yes, the 'tyranny' of the Templars could be successfully overthrown and the mages could break away from the control of the Circles. Whatever one's feelings on how justified the Chantry is in their control of the mages, if you existed in that situation, even if you spent every day believing that the Templars are there for the greater good and are a necessary precaution - there's still going to be a tiny part of you that realizes you are under the control of another.

And while the events in Kirkwall wouldn't be enough of a catalyst for -everyone-, there are going to be those who are on the edge - who won't resort to blood magic, but who see what happened in Kirkwall as both a symbol and a cautionary tale ('see, this is how bad the Templars can get'). And if there are enough charismatic mages in your Circle who are arguing to break away from the Chantry, well, there will be no shortage of less strong-minded mages who are willing to follow them.

There are certainly sufficient examples in the real world of the domino effect, where one group successfully rebels against an oppressive regime and many other groups follow suit. I don't think it's far fetched to believe the same would be true in Thedas. And whether or not the Templars really -are- unnecessarily oppresive in the majority of cases, if you're a mage, there's going to be part of you (however small) that feels that way.

Honestly, discounting Kirkwall because theyre all crazy, from what i saw from the Fereldon circle (and it may be different in other countries), apart from the demon revolt by Uldred, its really not even bad being a mage, in fact you would have a better life than most people in the country.

What would you rather be, dwelling in sqaulor in a village slum or living in an institution with others of your kind to teach you your magical talents and to learn the art of magic, and when you become a full mage, you have many different oppurtunities to have a great proffesion in society, like a battlemage and other positions in the army, or working with royalty, or another magely position of importance like a healer. Thats better than a farmer.

I would rather live in the mage tower compared to the conditions of a commoner, so i would not question that i am "being controlled". Its as much as being controlled while at school. And i would understand the danger of my gift. I wholeheartedly believe mages should stay in the circle, for 1. The safety of others, 2. The safety of themselves, and most importantly 3. Living in an environment of learning, care and living with your own people. Whats not to like?

[Flashing Steel]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

I hope that the main parties get a better images. It's too stereotypical now. The mages are characterized as being stupid blood mages who attack anyone on sight. The chantry looks like it has a passive role in which nothing really happens. The templars are the most interesting ones, because there is opposition there. However, because of the bad image of the mages it looks that this opposition has no use at all. The Grey Wardens probably find some underground horror to deal with. The qunari are brainless savages that conquer everything in their path. The elves are the poor bastards that nobody wants. The dwarfs keep doing their thing isolated from the rest.

I think that to make these parties interesting again there has to be a story which goes beyond that. Throw in quests with actions and/or decisions which change the political landscape. A good example would be to have Sebestian serve the chantry or to be crowned. Follow up on it. Make it real quests. Not just hollow talks. Make it have meaningful impact in other parts of the story.

Interesting ideas for mages: Portray them as smart. Make them have power or make the chantry want to maintain the status quo. Allow the PC to play an active role in that. Make blood mages smart. Make them infiltrate powerful positions. Allow the player to actively support either side of the mages or just betray them all. Do the same for the factions within the templars. Make that stuff mutually exclusive to make replayability meaningful. If the player is considered a renegade to one of the parties then treat him that way in the game. Make it have consequences.

+1 

[CrimsonZephyr]

KLUME777 wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

SpearofUganda wrote...

But would that be enough to act as a catalyst for wider change? If you say the city itself lended itself towards the corruption of mages then why would the conflict extend beyond the walls of Kirkwall? I think the problem is that Kirkwall feels insular, almost detached from greater Feralden...

Kirkwall was a symbol that, yes, the 'tyranny' of the Templars could be successfully overthrown and the mages could break away from the control of the Circles. Whatever one's feelings on how justified the Chantry is in their control of the mages, if you existed in that situation, even if you spent every day believing that the Templars are there for the greater good and are a necessary precaution - there's still going to be a tiny part of you that realizes you are under the control of another.

And while the events in Kirkwall wouldn't be enough of a catalyst for -everyone-, there are going to be those who are on the edge - who won't resort to blood magic, but who see what happened in Kirkwall as both a symbol and a cautionary tale ('see, this is how bad the Templars can get'). And if there are enough charismatic mages in your Circle who are arguing to break away from the Chantry, well, there will be no shortage of less strong-minded mages who are willing to follow them.

There are certainly sufficient examples in the real world of the domino effect, where one group successfully rebels against an oppressive regime and many other groups follow suit. I don't think it's far fetched to believe the same would be true in Thedas. And whether or not the Templars really -are- unnecessarily oppresive in the majority of cases, if you're a mage, there's going to be part of you (however small) that feels that way.

Honestly, discounting Kirkwall because theyre all crazy, from what i saw from the Fereldon circle (and it may be different in other countries), apart from the demon revolt by Uldred, its really not even bad being a mage, in fact you would have a better life than most people in the country.

What would you rather be, dwelling in sqaulor in a village slum or living in an institution with others of your kind to teach you your magical talents and to learn the art of magic, and when you become a full mage, you have many different oppurtunities to have a great proffesion in society, like a battlemage and other positions in the army, or working with royalty, or another magely position of importance like a healer. Thats better than a farmer.

I would rather live in the mage tower compared to the conditions of a commoner, so i would not question that i am "being controlled". Its as much as being controlled while at school. And i would understand the danger of my gift. I wholeheartedly believe mages should stay in the circle, for 1. The safety of others, 2. The safety of themselves, and most importantly 3. Living in an environment of learning, care and living with your own people. Whats not to like?

This relies on a number of assumptions:

1.) That all mages think alike. Just because they are both mages does not mean that a Fereldan, an Orlesian, an Antivan, and a Tevinter will have similar opinions simply because they are mages. People cannot be characterized by any one category, so calling two mages, any two mages, part of the same "kind" is leaving out a lot of the picture. Moreover, when they are encouraged to think this way, it actually alienates them even further. Sure, fellow mages would understand their struggles more easily, but if the only people mages can associate with are mages, the public views them as even more of a black box. The Templars are able to leverage this for more power, and the mages have few methods of recourse.

2.) That the alternative to living as a mage in the Circle is always, always living in total squalor. Perhaps this is a consequence of a popular viewing of every medieval setting as being a stark contrast between royalty and the dirt poor, which isn't precisely accurate, but nevertheless, the alternative to living in the Circle is not necessarily poverty. They could be children of the landed or wealthy elite. Being shipped to the Circle essentially means they have no rights to property or inheritance. Moreover, that argument is exactly the bread and circuses argument used by every tacit supporter of dictatorial regimes ever used: "Hey, our stomaches are full! Who cares whether live under the thumb of a military order that has limitless power over every aspect of our lives!"

3.) That living in the Circle makes anyone safe. Perhaps it does in the short term, but not in the long term. The fact that there was enough support for a rebellion in the Fereldan Circle, a pretty mild example compared to Kirkwall, indicates that, no, it's not really doing anyone any favors by piling all these people into one place and telling people their god hates them. That kind of blatant segregation makes people resentful, resentment eventually breeds contempt, and when contempt becomes unbearable, compromise is impossible.

[DamnThoseDisplayNames]

Where's IanPolaris?

[LobselVith8]

I disliked the depiction of insane and buffoon mages because we were denied having two sides with irrevocable ideals and goals - the dichotomy exists between the templars want to control the mages, and the mages want to be free from the Chantry and its templars. I would have loved to see rational people on both sides trying to persuade Hawke, because even in Origins, The Warden can tell Wynne that the Circle of Ferelden is a "prison" and an "oppressive place" (if he's from the Circle of Magi), and Wynne never contests this - even going as far to say The Warden can change that the Circle is an oppressive place if he takes a leadership position in the Circle, given time that Wynne believes she doesn't have.

We never really get to explore either side because we have mage antagonists acting irrational and a number of templars who are morally repugnant. We never get the kind of conversations that the protagonist in New Vegas has with Caesar, Mr. House, the NCR representatives, and Yes Man in trying to persuade him (or her) in siding with a particular faction.

[Ryzaki]

Harid wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

SpearofUganda wrote...

But would that be enough to act as a catalyst for wider change? If you say the city itself lended itself towards the corruption of mages then why would the conflict extend beyond the walls of Kirkwall? I think the problem is that Kirkwall feels insular, almost detached from greater Feralden...

Kirkwall was a symbol that, yes, the 'tyranny' of the Templars could be successfully overthrown and the mages could break away from the control of the Circles. Whatever one's feelings on how justified the Chantry is in their control of the mages, if you existed in that situation, even if you spent every day believing that the Templars are there for the greater good and are a necessary precaution - there's still going to be a tiny part of you that realizes you are under the control of another.

And while the events in Kirkwall wouldn't be enough of a catalyst for -everyone-, there are going to be those who are on the edge - who won't resort to blood magic, but who see what happened in Kirkwall as both a symbol and a cautionary tale ('see, this is how bad the Templars can get'). And if there are enough charismatic mages in your Circle who are arguing to break away from the Chantry, well, there will be no shortage of less strong-minded mages who are willing to follow them.

There are certainly sufficient examples in the real world of the domino effect, where one group successfully rebels against an oppressive regime and many other groups follow suit. I don't think it's far fetched to believe the same would be true in Thedas. And whether or not the Templars really -are- unnecessarily oppresive in the majority of cases, if you're a mage, there's going to be part of you (however small) that feels that way.

The problem with this is if you supported the Templars, then Templars aren't overthrown and mages don't break free of anything. . .but they still somehow revolt from the Circle because of it.  Why didn't they revolt before?  In 900 years, given the opinions on mages no unjust anullments ever happened before?  It just doesn't make any sense.

It really doesn't. 

[Mike_Neel]

Oh I'm sure there are going to be some mages who love the Maker, Andraste, and support the Chantry and will help the templars contain the rebel mages or heal templars just like there were a few templars showing compassion to the mages and helping them escape. There's no real black and white here.

In Origins in the mage origin there's that one female mage who loves Andraste and the Maker and prays that they'd remove her magic because she saw it as a curse. While that's a bit extreme I'm sure there are a few NPC's we didn't talk to yet who want to do the Makers will and see their gift of magic as a tool to serve the Chantry. Sure they may not have liked the level of oppression that the mages saw in Kirkwall, I'm sure there were plenty who didn't want to say, oh I don't know, blow up the Chantry and kill everyone in it.

[Addai]

craigdolphin wrote...

Fair enough I guess. But I have to admit I too was utterly sick of the constant mage-vs-templar theme by midway through Act 2. One quest in particular (involving lillies) infuriated me in this regard. Could it not have been an 'ordinary' nut-case for a change?

I really don't want to play DA3 if it is going to similarly endlessly bludgeon the same theme to death with darned near every quest and event like DA2 did. Surely there are other stories to tell, other dramas to resolve, that do not involve the conflict between mages and templars.

Yeah, same.  I wasn't thrilled to hear that DA3 will revolve around the mage-templar war.  I, too, was so sick of it by the end of DA2 and was hoping that the last of it would be resolved in DA2 DLC so we could move on to something else.

I find it a stretch to think that the entire Chantry will dissolve over the treatment of mages, who are a minority of the population, a population that generally shares the Chantry's view on them or is even more anti-mage (judging by ambient chatter in Origins).  Circles re-organizing, I could see that, but the idea that an uprising in Kirkwall leads to world-wide religious upheaval...  I am skeptical.

Modifié par Addai67, 06 septembre 2011 - 01:28 .

[phaonica]

Addai67 wrote...
Yeah, same.  I wasn't thrilled to hear that DA3 will revolve around the mage-templar war.  I, too, was so sick of it by the end of DA2 and was hoping that the last of it would be resolved in DA2 DLC so we could move on to something else.

I agree. I hope the main conflict in DA3 isn't the mage-templar conflict ( I maintain hope until something more official is announced ). We've already discussed this conflict to death. Give us something new to talk about, Bioware.

[KLUME777]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

SpearofUganda wrote...

But would that be enough to act as a catalyst for wider change? If you say the city itself lended itself towards the corruption of mages then why would the conflict extend beyond the walls of Kirkwall? I think the problem is that Kirkwall feels insular, almost detached from greater Feralden...

Kirkwall was a symbol that, yes, the 'tyranny' of the Templars could be successfully overthrown and the mages could break away from the control of the Circles. Whatever one's feelings on how justified the Chantry is in their control of the mages, if you existed in that situation, even if you spent every day believing that the Templars are there for the greater good and are a necessary precaution - there's still going to be a tiny part of you that realizes you are under the control of another.

And while the events in Kirkwall wouldn't be enough of a catalyst for -everyone-, there are going to be those who are on the edge - who won't resort to blood magic, but who see what happened in Kirkwall as both a symbol and a cautionary tale ('see, this is how bad the Templars can get'). And if there are enough charismatic mages in your Circle who are arguing to break away from the Chantry, well, there will be no shortage of less strong-minded mages who are willing to follow them.

There are certainly sufficient examples in the real world of the domino effect, where one group successfully rebels against an oppressive regime and many other groups follow suit. I don't think it's far fetched to believe the same would be true in Thedas. And whether or not the Templars really -are- unnecessarily oppresive in the majority of cases, if you're a mage, there's going to be part of you (however small) that feels that way.

Honestly, discounting Kirkwall because theyre all crazy, from what i saw from the Fereldon circle (and it may be different in other countries), apart from the demon revolt by Uldred, its really not even bad being a mage, in fact you would have a better life than most people in the country.

What would you rather be, dwelling in sqaulor in a village slum or living in an institution with others of your kind to teach you your magical talents and to learn the art of magic, and when you become a full mage, you have many different oppurtunities to have a great proffesion in society, like a battlemage and other positions in the army, or working with royalty, or another magely position of importance like a healer. Thats better than a farmer.

I would rather live in the mage tower compared to the conditions of a commoner, so i would not question that i am "being controlled". Its as much as being controlled while at school. And i would understand the danger of my gift. I wholeheartedly believe mages should stay in the circle, for 1. The safety of others, 2. The safety of themselves, and most importantly 3. Living in an environment of learning, care and living with your own people. Whats not to like?

This relies on a number of assumptions:

1.) That all mages think alike. Just because they are both mages does not mean that a Fereldan, an Orlesian, an Antivan, and a Tevinter will have similar opinions simply because they are mages. People cannot be characterized by any one category, so calling two mages, any two mages, part of the same "kind" is leaving out a lot of the picture. Moreover, when they are encouraged to think this way, it actually alienates them even further. Sure, fellow mages would understand their struggles more easily, but if the only people mages can associate with are mages, the public views them as even more of a black box. The Templars are able to leverage this for more power, and the mages have few methods of recourse.

2.) That the alternative to living as a mage in the Circle is always, always living in total squalor. Perhaps this is a consequence of a popular viewing of every medieval setting as being a stark contrast between royalty and the dirt poor, which isn't precisely accurate, but nevertheless, the alternative to living in the Circle is not necessarily poverty. They could be children of the landed or wealthy elite. Being shipped to the Circle essentially means they have no rights to property or inheritance. Moreover, that argument is exactly the bread and circuses argument used by every tacit supporter of dictatorial regimes ever used: "Hey, our stomaches are full! Who cares whether live under the thumb of a military order that has limitless power over every aspect of our lives!"

3.) That living in the Circle makes anyone safe. Perhaps it does in the short term, but not in the long term. The fact that there was enough support for a rebellion in the Fereldan Circle, a pretty mild example compared to Kirkwall, indicates that, no, it's not really doing anyone any favors by piling all these people into one place and telling people their god hates them. That kind of blatant segregation makes people resentful, resentment eventually breeds contempt, and when contempt becomes unbearable, compromise is impossible.

1. Mages in the circles are all their own nationality. Only Fereldons in the Fereldon circle, Orlesions in the Orlesion circle (aside from immigrants and the like). The circle is a big place, much akin to High school or university. If you don't get along with people, don't interact with them. I don't see how it could be any different, or better in the outside world. And im pretty sure that mages who have completed the harrowing and their appreticeship are allowed to leave the circle. They certainly don't stay there their whole lives. They leave and take up a magely job, like in the army or a healer etc.

2. True, but i think most people born as a mage would be ostracised by their peers and even their family (like Wynne for example) regardless of their social standing, so really the circle is the only friend they have, as their is no judgement or fearful eyes (aside from templars). The Mage instructers still are their for a young mage, something he wouldn't have outside the circle. Also, Connor was born into a noble family and not brought to the Circle, and look what disaster that brought. Which brings me to the third point.

3. A demon outbreak occurs roughly more than twice every hundred years worldwide (17 circle annulments in 700 yrs), meaning the Fereldon specific circle has probably had it once or twice before in its long history. All those mages living together, and the specific circle may get it every 200-400 years. With connor, just one underage mage who was unneducated and unwatched by the templars caused the death of probably half of the Castle and Village of Redcliffe. Think about how many more times this would occur if there was no circle? I'll take my chances with the small chance of an annullment hapening, rather than young mages vulnerable from attack from a demon at any time, any where, which would cause distrust of mages to be much more by commoners anyway.

Mages are feared rightfully so, because they are dangerous. The circle, while not perfect, is simply the best option, on a broadscale. There is no other option. If an outbreak occurs, it can be contained.

[alex90c]

phaonica wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
Yeah, same.  I wasn't thrilled to hear that DA3 will revolve around the mage-templar war.  I, too, was so sick of it by the end of DA2 and was hoping that the last of it would be resolved in DA2 DLC so we could move on to something else.

I agree. I hope the main conflict in DA3 isn't the mage-templar conflict ( I maintain hope until something more official is announced ). We've already discussed this conflict to death. Give us something new to talk about, Bioware.

Maybe Bioware gave us all this build-up to a Mage-Templar conflict, and then when DA3 starts we get a 20 year time skip at the very beginning and it's back to the status quo again

[CrimsonZephyr]

KLUME777 wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

SpearofUganda wrote...

But would that be enough to act as a catalyst for wider change? If you say the city itself lended itself towards the corruption of mages then why would the conflict extend beyond the walls of Kirkwall? I think the problem is that Kirkwall feels insular, almost detached from greater Feralden...

Kirkwall was a symbol that, yes, the 'tyranny' of the Templars could be successfully overthrown and the mages could break away from the control of the Circles. Whatever one's feelings on how justified the Chantry is in their control of the mages, if you existed in that situation, even if you spent every day believing that the Templars are there for the greater good and are a necessary precaution - there's still going to be a tiny part of you that realizes you are under the control of another.

And while the events in Kirkwall wouldn't be enough of a catalyst for -everyone-, there are going to be those who are on the edge - who won't resort to blood magic, but who see what happened in Kirkwall as both a symbol and a cautionary tale ('see, this is how bad the Templars can get'). And if there are enough charismatic mages in your Circle who are arguing to break away from the Chantry, well, there will be no shortage of less strong-minded mages who are willing to follow them.

There are certainly sufficient examples in the real world of the domino effect, where one group successfully rebels against an oppressive regime and many other groups follow suit. I don't think it's far fetched to believe the same would be true in Thedas. And whether or not the Templars really -are- unnecessarily oppresive in the majority of cases, if you're a mage, there's going to be part of you (however small) that feels that way.

Honestly, discounting Kirkwall because theyre all crazy, from what i saw from the Fereldon circle (and it may be different in other countries), apart from the demon revolt by Uldred, its really not even bad being a mage, in fact you would have a better life than most people in the country.

What would you rather be, dwelling in sqaulor in a village slum or living in an institution with others of your kind to teach you your magical talents and to learn the art of magic, and when you become a full mage, you have many different oppurtunities to have a great proffesion in society, like a battlemage and other positions in the army, or working with royalty, or another magely position of importance like a healer. Thats better than a farmer.

I would rather live in the mage tower compared to the conditions of a commoner, so i would not question that i am "being controlled". Its as much as being controlled while at school. And i would understand the danger of my gift. I wholeheartedly believe mages should stay in the circle, for 1. The safety of others, 2. The safety of themselves, and most importantly 3. Living in an environment of learning, care and living with your own people. Whats not to like?

This relies on a number of assumptions:

1.) That all mages think alike. Just because they are both mages does not mean that a Fereldan, an Orlesian, an Antivan, and a Tevinter will have similar opinions simply because they are mages. People cannot be characterized by any one category, so calling two mages, any two mages, part of the same "kind" is leaving out a lot of the picture. Moreover, when they are encouraged to think this way, it actually alienates them even further. Sure, fellow mages would understand their struggles more easily, but if the only people mages can associate with are mages, the public views them as even more of a black box. The Templars are able to leverage this for more power, and the mages have few methods of recourse.

2.) That the alternative to living as a mage in the Circle is always, always living in total squalor. Perhaps this is a consequence of a popular viewing of every medieval setting as being a stark contrast between royalty and the dirt poor, which isn't precisely accurate, but nevertheless, the alternative to living in the Circle is not necessarily poverty. They could be children of the landed or wealthy elite. Being shipped to the Circle essentially means they have no rights to property or inheritance. Moreover, that argument is exactly the bread and circuses argument used by every tacit supporter of dictatorial regimes ever used: "Hey, our stomaches are full! Who cares whether live under the thumb of a military order that has limitless power over every aspect of our lives!"

3.) That living in the Circle makes anyone safe. Perhaps it does in the short term, but not in the long term. The fact that there was enough support for a rebellion in the Fereldan Circle, a pretty mild example compared to Kirkwall, indicates that, no, it's not really doing anyone any favors by piling all these people into one place and telling people their god hates them. That kind of blatant segregation makes people resentful, resentment eventually breeds contempt, and when contempt becomes unbearable, compromise is impossible.

1. Mages in the circles are all their own nationality. Only Fereldons in the Fereldon circle, Orlesions in the Orlesion circle (aside from immigrants and the like). The circle is a big place, much akin to High school or university. If you don't get along with people, don't interact with them. I don't see how it could be any different, or better in the outside world. And im pretty sure that mages who have completed the harrowing and their appreticeship are allowed to leave the circle. They certainly don't stay there their whole lives. They leave and take up a magely job, like in the army or a healer etc.

2. True, but i think most people born as a mage would be ostracised by their peers and even their family (like Wynne for example) regardless of their social standing, so really the circle is the only friend they have, as their is no judgement or fearful eyes (aside from templars). The Mage instructers still are their for a young mage, something he wouldn't have outside the circle. Also, Connor was born into a noble family and not brought to the Circle, and look what disaster that brought. Which brings me to the third point.

3. A demon outbreak occurs roughly more than twice every hundred years worldwide (17 circle annulments in 700 yrs), meaning the Fereldon specific circle has probably had it once or twice before in its long history. All those mages living together, and the specific circle may get it every 200-400 years. With connor, just one underage mage who was unneducated and unwatched by the templars caused the death of probably half of the Castle and Village of Redcliffe. Think about how many more times this would occur if there was no circle? I'll take my chances with the small chance of an annullment hapening, rather than young mages vulnerable from attack from a demon at any time, any where, which would cause distrust of mages to be much more by commoners anyway.

Mages are feared rightfully so, because they are dangerous. The circle, while not perfect, is simply the best option, on a broadscale. There is no other option. If an outbreak occurs, it can be contained.

1. Actually no. They are not simply kept in their home country. For example, we know Wynne is a Fereldan, yet her son, Rhys, is a member of the Circle in Orlais. This shows that mages are not always kept in their home country.

2. If they are not allowed to live amongst other people at any point in their lives, they will always be ostracized. This is the exact same attitude that the elves have towards humans and it doesn't do them any favors. It's also the real-world argument that racial groups use to justify clustering together amongst their own nationality rather than integrating, which might have short-term benefits, but few long term ones. As for Connor, look at it from a mother's point of view. If the Templars take him, he'll be locked in a prison his entire life, guarded by helmeted goons who are taught to indiscriminately hate people like him. Because the Circle is so severe and the Templars uncompromising, people go under the table and the results aren't pretty. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be any institution to teach mages, but treating it like a prison will make the alternative freedom, and no sane mage would prefer incarceration, and would thereby give anything to be free.

3. We don't know the context of those 17 annulments, and given the fact that a Divine was once willing to unleashed her Templars on a peacefully protesting Circle within her own chantry, I find it likely a few of them started out because a KC was like Meredith, except without any survivors to bring news back. And what happened with Connor would not have happened if Isolde didn't feel compelled to seek out a fugitive apostate to avoid subjecting her son to the Circle. The fact that there are actual dangers to magic doesn't rule out the need for actual reform in the Circle.

[KLUME777]

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

CrimsonZephyr wrote...

KLUME777 wrote...

JohnEpler wrote...

SpearofUganda wrote...

But would that be enough to act as a catalyst for wider change? If you say the city itself lended itself towards the corruption of mages then why would the conflict extend beyond the walls of Kirkwall? I think the problem is that Kirkwall feels insular, almost detached from greater Feralden...

Kirkwall was a symbol that, yes, the 'tyranny' of the Templars could be successfully overthrown and the mages could break away from the control of the Circles. Whatever one's feelings on how justified the Chantry is in their control of the mages, if you existed in that situation, even if you spent every day believing that the Templars are there for the greater good and are a necessary precaution - there's still going to be a tiny part of you that realizes you are under the control of another.

And while the events in Kirkwall wouldn't be enough of a catalyst for -everyone-, there are going to be those who are on the edge - who won't resort to blood magic, but who see what happened in Kirkwall as both a symbol and a cautionary tale ('see, this is how bad the Templars can get'). And if there are enough charismatic mages in your Circle who are arguing to break away from the Chantry, well, there will be no shortage of less strong-minded mages who are willing to follow them.

There are certainly sufficient examples in the real world of the domino effect, where one group successfully rebels against an oppressive regime and many other groups follow suit. I don't think it's far fetched to believe the same would be true in Thedas. And whether or not the Templars really -are- unnecessarily oppresive in the majority of cases, if you're a mage, there's going to be part of you (however small) that feels that way.

Honestly, discounting Kirkwall because theyre all crazy, from what i saw from the Fereldon circle (and it may be different in other countries), apart from the demon revolt by Uldred, its really not even bad being a mage, in fact you would have a better life than most people in the country.

What would you rather be, dwelling in sqaulor in a village slum or living in an institution with others of your kind to teach you your magical talents and to learn the art of magic, and when you become a full mage, you have many different oppurtunities to have a great proffesion in society, like a battlemage and other positions in the army, or working with royalty, or another magely position of importance like a healer. Thats better than a farmer.

I would rather live in the mage tower compared to the conditions of a commoner, so i would not question that i am "being controlled". Its as much as being controlled while at school. And i would understand the danger of my gift. I wholeheartedly believe mages should stay in the circle, for 1. The safety of others, 2. The safety of themselves, and most importantly 3. Living in an environment of learning, care and living with your own people. Whats not to like?

This relies on a number of assumptions:

1.) That all mages think alike. Just because they are both mages does not mean that a Fereldan, an Orlesian, an Antivan, and a Tevinter will have similar opinions simply because they are mages. People cannot be characterized by any one category, so calling two mages, any two mages, part of the same "kind" is leaving out a lot of the picture. Moreover, when they are encouraged to think this way, it actually alienates them even further. Sure, fellow mages would understand their struggles more easily, but if the only people mages can associate with are mages, the public views them as even more of a black box. The Templars are able to leverage this for more power, and the mages have few methods of recourse.

2.) That the alternative to living as a mage in the Circle is always, always living in total squalor. Perhaps this is a consequence of a popular viewing of every medieval setting as being a stark contrast between royalty and the dirt poor, which isn't precisely accurate, but nevertheless, the alternative to living in the Circle is not necessarily poverty. They could be children of the landed or wealthy elite. Being shipped to the Circle essentially means they have no rights to property or inheritance. Moreover, that argument is exactly the bread and circuses argument used by every tacit supporter of dictatorial regimes ever used: "Hey, our stomaches are full! Who cares whether live under the thumb of a military order that has limitless power over every aspect of our lives!"

3.) That living in the Circle makes anyone safe. Perhaps it does in the short term, but not in the long term. The fact that there was enough support for a rebellion in the Fereldan Circle, a pretty mild example compared to Kirkwall, indicates that, no, it's not really doing anyone any favors by piling all these people into one place and telling people their god hates them. That kind of blatant segregation makes people resentful, resentment eventually breeds contempt, and when contempt becomes unbearable, compromise is impossible.

1. Mages in the circles are all their own nationality. Only Fereldons in the Fereldon circle, Orlesions in the Orlesion circle (aside from immigrants and the like). The circle is a big place, much akin to High school or university. If you don't get along with people, don't interact with them. I don't see how it could be any different, or better in the outside world. And im pretty sure that mages who have completed the harrowing and their appreticeship are allowed to leave the circle. They certainly don't stay there their whole lives. They leave and take up a magely job, like in the army or a healer etc.

2. True, but i think most people born as a mage would be ostracised by their peers and even their family (like Wynne for example) regardless of their social standing, so really the circle is the only friend they have, as their is no judgement or fearful eyes (aside from templars). The Mage instructers still are their for a young mage, something he wouldn't have outside the circle. Also, Connor was born into a noble family and not brought to the Circle, and look what disaster that brought. Which brings me to the third point.

3. A demon outbreak occurs roughly more than twice every hundred years worldwide (17 circle annulments in 700 yrs), meaning the Fereldon specific circle has probably had it once or twice before in its long history. All those mages living together, and the specific circle may get it every 200-400 years. With connor, just one underage mage who was unneducated and unwatched by the templars caused the death of probably half of the Castle and Village of Redcliffe. Think about how many more times this would occur if there was no circle? I'll take my chances with the small chance of an annullment hapening, rather than young mages vulnerable from attack from a demon at any time, any where, which would cause distrust of mages to be much more by commoners anyway.

Mages are feared rightfully so, because they are dangerous. The circle, while not perfect, is simply the best option, on a broadscale. There is no other option. If an outbreak occurs, it can be contained.

1. Actually no. They are not simply kept in their home country. For example, we know Wynne is a Fereldan, yet her son, Rhys, is a member of the Circle in Orlais. This shows that mages are not always kept in their home country.

2. If they are not allowed to live amongst other people at any point in their lives, they will always be ostracized. This is the exact same attitude that the elves have towards humans and it doesn't do them any favors. It's also the real-world argument that racial groups use to justify clustering together amongst their own nationality rather than integrating, which might have short-term benefits, but few long term ones. As for Connor, look at it from a mother's point of view. If the Templars take him, he'll be locked in a prison his entire life, guarded by helmeted goons who are taught to indiscriminately hate people like him. Because the Circle is so severe and the Templars uncompromising, people go under the table and the results aren't pretty. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be any institution to teach mages, but treating it like a prison will make the alternative freedom, and no sane mage would prefer incarceration, and would thereby give anything to be free.

3. We don't know the context of those 17 annulments, and given the fact that a Divine was once willing to unleashed her Templars on a peacefully protesting Circle within her own chantry, I find it likely a few of them started out because a KC was like Meredith, except without any survivors to bring news back. And what happened with Connor would not have happened if Isolde didn't feel compelled to seek out a fugitive apostate to avoid subjecting her son to the Circle. The fact that there are actual dangers to magic doesn't rule out the need for actual reform in the Circle [2].

EDIT: Deeply sorry, wall of text, i apologise, but please read.

1. Hence, why i said immigrants, but its mostly people from the same country. Like the make-up of kids at a highschool, there are lots of different nationalities from immigrants, but they all integrate together mostly. I don't even see why you brought this up, how is that a problem at all? And its not like it would be different elsewhere, the Circle is an institution, if there are non-magical universities in Thedas, there would be different nationalities there as well. Also, it is likely that the reason Wynne's son was brought up in the Orlesion circle was because Wynne was living in the Fereldon one, and since he was an illegitimite son, and mages aren't supposed to have ties with their families, it would be better for him to grow up elsewhere. This would make the occurence somewhat rare. And since he is brought up elsewhere, he would take on the Orlesion culture rather than Fereldon's, like Leliana. He may not even know he was from Fereldon.

2. It is very unlikely, not to mention very dangerous, for a young mage to be accepted in a non magical community as a child. Often not, they would probably be thrown out of their house for fear of magic. Because like Wynne said "The fear of magic is born of misunderstanding, but Wynne cautions apprentices never to forget that the fear is also a real one. Source" And also, once they have finished their apprenticeship, they do leave the circle. Its not like they never leave those walls for their 80-odd year lives. They do leave, and mingle with non-magical folk, as educated on magic and knowledge on how to resist demon possesion. Now yes, it is likely that some mages are killed by templars, but that is only because that mage posses an extreme risk of getting possessed, or is already possesd by a demon. That is what the Templars job is. Because getting possesed by a demon is a real and constant threat, wether you like it or not. It is not treated exactly like a prison, it is an institution of learning, except the students are watched and not allowed to leave until they are deemed strong enough to resist possesion. It is a neccasary evil, but it must be done, and really, its not that bad.

3. It is funny that you mention that [underlined], because that happened before the circle was formed. There was no circle, and mages were relagated to doing menial tasks. They protested, and due to religious ignorance, the Divine declared an exalted March, which the Templars discouraged and refused, and due to the incident, they were happily granted the circle. The incident occured because there was no circle.

On to Merideth, first i discount it because DA2 was just absolute BS in that regard; Everyone was a rage-fueled, unrealistic extreme nutcase. I discard it, and moreso, even the devs had to come up with an explanation for the unrealistc garbage, which was that Kirkwall had a long bloody history and that the veil was greatly teared which influenced everyone to be extreme, which would mean that other places wouldn't have a similar incident, though i still think the whole thing was just garbage; They had to make everyone extreme so they could make thier plot work, which was Mages Vs Templars. If Everyone was like DAO, aka a normal and realistic portayel, there story wouldn't work because the Circle is just simply the logical and best option.

[underlined 2] Reform for what? For more freedom? Then no, it does rule out reform, because there is a danger, and that danger overules everything else, and quite simply, young mages just cannot have freedom. They can't. Its too dangerous and thats it. If they had more freedom, they would be a danger upon themselves and others. So they can't have freedom at a young age. They already have freedom when they pass they're harrowing. So really, can you name exactly what changes you want, in detail, along with their causes and effects? Because the current model works fine for me.

Modifié par KLUME777, 07 septembre 2011 - 01:07 .

[CrimsonZephyr]

Changes? Well, for one, have an openly known internal affairs division for templars. The seekers don't do anything. By the time they investigate Meredith's meltdown, she's been dead for three years. DA2 is a case study in what happens when internal affairs does nothing. Make it easier for mages to appeal to law enforcement and to figures of authority without feeling as though they are incriminating themselves, which they can't really do if there is no standard of evidence. On top of that, get mages involved in enforcing the law with respect to mages.

A huge problem with the templars is the inherently tautological nature of their mandate. They are servants of the Chantry, the Chantry represents the Maker on Thedas, and Maker is good, ergo the Templars are good. Whether they rape their subjects, kill indiscriminately, torture people, it is irrelevant because they are good, therefore their actions are good. The more dutiful templars like Greagoir actually do try to be good, but Meredith embodies this phenomenon. And don't try to exclude her. She exists and she was a loon. Therefore, if there are templars, cut them off from the Chantry. Make their actions subject to official review and make seekers a public counterbalance to their power. Also, make Tranquility a more severe action subject to review. The fact that no one really gave a damn as legal mages were being lobotomized left and right is disturbing and indicates that there are not enough safeguards against its abuse.

On top of that, make more actual prisons, in the style of Aeonar, except not in places where the Veil has thinned. When the two most widely applied punishments are essentially capital punishment or a lobotomy, most mages would just go for broke. If killing a templar in self-defence and using blood magic are both punished with becoming Tranquil, why not do both?

Mages by and large live most of their lives in the Circle compounds. For one, most templars are too paranoid to let even the most trustworthy mages out. But it's also because mages have zero secular rights and most templars don't really lift a finger to help mages, only guard them. For example, in the quest with Quentin, one of his victims was a Circle mage, Mharen. How many templars were investigating that disappearance? One, and he was constantly stonewalled by Meredith. Also, mages cannot own land and it's suggested that the lion's share of any money they earn is taken by the Circle and the Chantry. Since the Chantry preaches people to fear magic, separates people from their families at a young age, then strips them of any means to actually live independently, its a small wonder that few ever can.

And I never denied the danger of magic, I only contended that the Chantry's extreme paranoia regarding each individual mage's propensity for it creates many of the problems it seeks to prevent.

[Zlarm]

UgandanNinja wrote...
.... but it could have been handled better without every single mage ending up a blood mage. 

Agreed.  I completely lost interest in the whole mage/templar thing when I realized that every single save/help the mages type quest would end with the mages going all blood magic (I actually can't remember one single quest of this type that didn't end up as ohhh yeah he's another blood mage)...