It is morally justifiable. See the Broken Circle quest in Origins, or Kirkwall at the end of DA2 to find out what happens when Mages lose control and go amok. As Spock would say, "the needs of the many out-way the needs of the few."
However, the whole business about Mages being only born as such seems like misinformation. Highly skilled dwarves like Branka and Caradin, the existence of golems, specializations like Spirit Warrior and Templar, and the non-Mage player being conscious during several Fade scenes seems to contradict much of the Chantry "information" on Magic. My impression is that, in Thedas, anyone enough training can wield magic. Templars are obvious examples of this - yet they are so brainwashed in dogma they cannot see this obvious fact. The current Mages in Ferelden are simply those born with more innate skill than others.
Is keeping the mages "leashed" morally justifiable in the Dragon Age universe?
Débuté par
Sir Pounce-a-lot
, oct. 01 2011 07:11
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 09:34
gandanlin
-
- Members
- 472 messages
Part of the game, I suppose, lies in making decisions about what is morally justifiable -- and what is not.
Do you attempt to save the mages in the Circle Tower from the madness of Uldred or do you side with the Templars and eliminate all the mages? Do you try to help the elves or the werewolves? Do you side with Bhelen or Harrowmont? Even when the decision to support one side or the other is not made with a moral outcome in mind, it nonetheless has consequences that can be subjected to the same question: "Is it morally justifiable?".
In the land of Ferelden, the Chantry exercises control over the Templars, and the Templars exercise control over the mages. In my opinion it makes sense for the mages to be subjected to the checks and balances enforced by the Chantry and the Templars. Even the First Enchanter does not seem to argue much against those checks and balances, and the arrangement seems to be in sync with the general moral view prevailing in Ferelden at the time. Some mages do not like the scrutiny, but others -- Wynne, for example -- seem to be reasonably content with the Templars' oversight of the Circle Tower.
The Wardens themselves are subjected to scrutiny of a certain sort. Stealing from a citizen of Denerim can certainly trigger a moral reaction from the City Guard. But of course the Wardens always are able to fight their way out. Still, it can be asked if the actions of the Wardens (in such a case) was morally justifiable? Stealing is not a necessary part of the game.
As a player you can pick sides and influence the outcome of events, and all of these actions can be considered in a moral light.
Do you attempt to save the mages in the Circle Tower from the madness of Uldred or do you side with the Templars and eliminate all the mages? Do you try to help the elves or the werewolves? Do you side with Bhelen or Harrowmont? Even when the decision to support one side or the other is not made with a moral outcome in mind, it nonetheless has consequences that can be subjected to the same question: "Is it morally justifiable?".
In the land of Ferelden, the Chantry exercises control over the Templars, and the Templars exercise control over the mages. In my opinion it makes sense for the mages to be subjected to the checks and balances enforced by the Chantry and the Templars. Even the First Enchanter does not seem to argue much against those checks and balances, and the arrangement seems to be in sync with the general moral view prevailing in Ferelden at the time. Some mages do not like the scrutiny, but others -- Wynne, for example -- seem to be reasonably content with the Templars' oversight of the Circle Tower.
The Wardens themselves are subjected to scrutiny of a certain sort. Stealing from a citizen of Denerim can certainly trigger a moral reaction from the City Guard. But of course the Wardens always are able to fight their way out. Still, it can be asked if the actions of the Wardens (in such a case) was morally justifiable? Stealing is not a necessary part of the game.
As a player you can pick sides and influence the outcome of events, and all of these actions can be considered in a moral light.
#28
Posté 08 octobre 2011 - 10:10
termokanden
-
- Members
- 5 818 messages
I do not think it's morally justifiable. Where shall we start?
- Discrimination based on the mere ability to use magic (just like skin color, it's not something you choose).
- Basic human rights stuff. Even mages that did nothing wrong at any point are not free. I do not think there can be any justification for this.
- Erasing people's personalities through the Rite of Tranquility. I don't know if I should call it physical or mental violence, but it certainly is just that, violence. And who can tell if the mage being subjected to this is actually dangerous or just dissents politically. I think they learned this stuff in Oppression 101.
- It's all very much mixed up in the Chantry's religion. What if you don't like it? Too bad, the templars will kill you/get you erased if you don't do what they say.
People like Wynne are sympathetic but ultimately blind to the injustices they support indirectly. They are part of the problem.
- Discrimination based on the mere ability to use magic (just like skin color, it's not something you choose).
- Basic human rights stuff. Even mages that did nothing wrong at any point are not free. I do not think there can be any justification for this.
- Erasing people's personalities through the Rite of Tranquility. I don't know if I should call it physical or mental violence, but it certainly is just that, violence. And who can tell if the mage being subjected to this is actually dangerous or just dissents politically. I think they learned this stuff in Oppression 101.
- It's all very much mixed up in the Chantry's religion. What if you don't like it? Too bad, the templars will kill you/get you erased if you don't do what they say.
People like Wynne are sympathetic but ultimately blind to the injustices they support indirectly. They are part of the problem.
Modifié par termokanden, 08 octobre 2011 - 10:15 .
#29
Posté 09 octobre 2011 - 07:44
gandanlin
-
- Members
- 472 messages
Human rights are correctly extended to skin color, but they do not extend as far as granting unlimited rights to use an ability.
One person may have the ability to do magic, and another person may have an ability to play soccer. But it is not discriminatory to put limits on the practice of magic (no using blood magic, for example), nor is it discriminatory to place limits on the game of soccer (no playing soccer in church during Mass, for example).
Discrimination against mages is evident in Ferelden, as with Isolde's treatment of Connor, but that is a quite different issue. Isolde does not want Connor to be a mage when he shows all the signs of being one. She interferes with and tries to prevent the development of his natural talent for magic. That is discrimination.
Having the power to regulate the accepted uses of magic is not discriminatory. Ferelden does not want mages like Uldred running amok doing whatever he pleases. So there are checks and balances against that happening. Well-considered checks and balances, in my opinion.
One person may have the ability to do magic, and another person may have an ability to play soccer. But it is not discriminatory to put limits on the practice of magic (no using blood magic, for example), nor is it discriminatory to place limits on the game of soccer (no playing soccer in church during Mass, for example).
Discrimination against mages is evident in Ferelden, as with Isolde's treatment of Connor, but that is a quite different issue. Isolde does not want Connor to be a mage when he shows all the signs of being one. She interferes with and tries to prevent the development of his natural talent for magic. That is discrimination.
Having the power to regulate the accepted uses of magic is not discriminatory. Ferelden does not want mages like Uldred running amok doing whatever he pleases. So there are checks and balances against that happening. Well-considered checks and balances, in my opinion.
Modifié par gandanlin, 09 octobre 2011 - 07:49 .
#30
Posté 09 octobre 2011 - 09:50
termokanden
-
- Members
- 5 818 messages
gandanlin wrote...
Human rights are correctly extended to skin color, but they do not extend as far as granting unlimited rights to use an ability.
A human can kill another human without magic and without weapons. Why should we be free?
One person may have the ability to do magic, and another person may have an ability to play soccer. But it is not discriminatory to put limits on the practice of magic (no using blood magic, for example), nor is it discriminatory to place limits on the game of soccer (no playing soccer in church during Mass, for example).
But that is not what they do. They put general limits on the freedom of mages. They don't just come after mages who do illegal things with magic. They want to keep all mages under strict control because they could potentially do harmful things with their magic.
It's more like locking up all soccer players so they can't show up in your local church during mass and start playing.
Having the power to regulate the accepted uses of magic is not discriminatory. Ferelden does not want mages like Uldred running amok doing whatever he pleases. So there are checks and balances against that happening. Well-considered checks and balances, in my opinion.
That doesn't explain why all mages must be oppressed. More like a witch hunt and a religious power trip than well-considered checks and balances. Mages living on their own and not bothering anyone? Heresy! Must kill! Mages having opinions of their own? Brainwash time!
Modifié par termokanden, 09 octobre 2011 - 09:54 .
#31
Posté 09 octobre 2011 - 10:46
Klidi
-
- Members
- 790 messages
gandanlin wrote...
Human rights are correctly extended to skin color, but they do not extend as far as granting unlimited rights to use an ability.
One person may have the ability to do magic, and another person may have an ability to play soccer. But it is not discriminatory to put limits on the practice of magic (no using blood magic, for example), nor is it discriminatory to place limits on the game of soccer (no playing soccer in church during Mass, for example).
Discrimination against mages is evident in Ferelden, as with Isolde's treatment of Connor, but that is a quite different issue. Isolde does not want Connor to be a mage when he shows all the signs of being one. She interferes with and tries to prevent the development of his natural talent for magic. That is discrimination.
Having the power to regulate the accepted uses of magic is not discriminatory. Ferelden does not want mages like Uldred running amok doing whatever he pleases. So there are checks and balances against that happening. Well-considered checks and balances, in my opinion.
So... should all people with the ability to play soccer be imprisoned, to prevent that they would try to play soccer in the church during the mass?
Lets take them from their parents the moment we discover their ability for soccer and isolate them from the rest of the society. We will let them train soccer, of course, because we're not discriminatory bastards - we just won't let them play it outside their prison.
Because, you understand - we can't grant them unlimited rights to use the ability. After all, soccer players can be quite aggressive and there are many cases where they attacked other people. If any of them decided to play the soccer in the church during the mass, the innocent people would be helpless against them.
No, it will be better to isolate them.
Sounds idiotic? I agree. But it's the same logic that is used against the mages.
#32
Posté 10 octobre 2011 - 02:01
Obadiah
-
- Members
- 5 737 messages
My impression of Ferelden and the rest of Thedas is that enough Blood Magic and Abomination "incidents" have taken place that the general population (and many of the mages) agreed: screw freedom - mages need to be watched. In different lands to varying degrees that has turned into imprisonment.
Modifié par Obadiah, 10 octobre 2011 - 04:32 .
#33
Posté 11 octobre 2011 - 09:07
gandanlin
-
- Members
- 472 messages
I'll make one last comment here. I'll do my best to stick within the parameters of the game.
According to the codex, there are five factions or fraternities within the Circle: the Loyalists, who advocate continued loyalty to the Chantry; the Aequitarians, who primary concern is a code of temperance and good conduct; the Libertarians, who would like remain where they are but split away from the Chantry and the scrutiny of the Templars; the Isolationists, who wish to withdraw to a remote location where, presumably, they would be free from the Chantry and the Templars; and the Lucrosians, whose concern is to make money first and wield political power second.
Historically, the Rite of Annulment has been performed 17 times in the last 700 years -- on average, once every 40 years or so. This usually occurred when mages summoned demons and turned them loose either on the Templars or on other parties. The term Maleficar is used to refer to a mage who uses forbidden magic such as blood magic and/or who summons demons. An Apostate is somewhat different. Apostate is a term used to describe a mage who unlawfully leaves the Circle and practises unsanctioned magic. Apostate can also be used to describe a mage who was never a part of the Circle to begin with, as with the so-called “hedge witches” of the Chasind and the shaman of the Avvar.
The Chantry’s view of magic is given in words attributed to Andraste herself: “Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him.” Blood magic by its very nature requires a victim and is therefore accursed and forbidden by the Chantry.
Thus the codex.
In terms of my own personal opinion, I can sort of understand why mages would want to be autonomous. To a certain extent they already are self-governing, with their own hierarchy of officials and their own place of residence. In ordinary times the mages residing in the Circle Tower do not seem too hard done by, even if some of them resent the presence of the Templars. The situation is somewhat different for apostate mages. The practice of hunting down and killing apostates is unwarranted and excessive.
I can, however, understand why outside society would want to have control over the practice of magic. Summoned demons, abominations, blood magic, and sacrificial rites are simply too dangerous to leave unregulated. Independent scrutiny of the practice of magic is therefore a necessity, if not for religious reasons then for reasons of public safety. Apostates need to be dealt with in a fair, reasonable way by the regulatory process.
According to the codex, there are five factions or fraternities within the Circle: the Loyalists, who advocate continued loyalty to the Chantry; the Aequitarians, who primary concern is a code of temperance and good conduct; the Libertarians, who would like remain where they are but split away from the Chantry and the scrutiny of the Templars; the Isolationists, who wish to withdraw to a remote location where, presumably, they would be free from the Chantry and the Templars; and the Lucrosians, whose concern is to make money first and wield political power second.
Historically, the Rite of Annulment has been performed 17 times in the last 700 years -- on average, once every 40 years or so. This usually occurred when mages summoned demons and turned them loose either on the Templars or on other parties. The term Maleficar is used to refer to a mage who uses forbidden magic such as blood magic and/or who summons demons. An Apostate is somewhat different. Apostate is a term used to describe a mage who unlawfully leaves the Circle and practises unsanctioned magic. Apostate can also be used to describe a mage who was never a part of the Circle to begin with, as with the so-called “hedge witches” of the Chasind and the shaman of the Avvar.
The Chantry’s view of magic is given in words attributed to Andraste herself: “Magic exists to serve man, and never to rule over him.” Blood magic by its very nature requires a victim and is therefore accursed and forbidden by the Chantry.
Thus the codex.
In terms of my own personal opinion, I can sort of understand why mages would want to be autonomous. To a certain extent they already are self-governing, with their own hierarchy of officials and their own place of residence. In ordinary times the mages residing in the Circle Tower do not seem too hard done by, even if some of them resent the presence of the Templars. The situation is somewhat different for apostate mages. The practice of hunting down and killing apostates is unwarranted and excessive.
I can, however, understand why outside society would want to have control over the practice of magic. Summoned demons, abominations, blood magic, and sacrificial rites are simply too dangerous to leave unregulated. Independent scrutiny of the practice of magic is therefore a necessity, if not for religious reasons then for reasons of public safety. Apostates need to be dealt with in a fair, reasonable way by the regulatory process.
#34
Posté 12 octobre 2011 - 12:25
termokanden
-
- Members
- 5 818 messages
gandanlin wrote...
Historically, the Rite of Annulment has been performed 17 times in the last 700 years -- on average, once every 40 years or so. This usually occurred when mages summoned demons and turned them loose either on the Templars or on other parties.
That's quite often and a lot of dead mages. In DAO you can also make that choice, despite the fact that there are actually quite a few non-blood mages still alive.
On the other hand, you can say that it seems mages quite often get involved in blood magic. But then when you look at something like Kirkwall, where mages are REALLY oppressed, blood magic is actually far more widespread. Or maybe that was just DAII being silly. So many blood mages in that game.
I have honestly always been a bit annoyed with the treatment of blood magic in both games. It's too black and white, and yet your own player character can be a blood mage without it making you evil, and there's no risk of summoning demons.
#35
Posté 15 octobre 2011 - 09:41
Sir Pounce-a-lot
-
- Members
- 323 messages
I prefer the standard magic user model in rpg's, where they're just people that have learned certain skills through study and training. In most fantasy settings, magic users can't control minds (except for maybe a few seconds during combat), and they don't get demonically possessed either. In Fereldan (or some other universe out there like it), a checks and balances system makes sense, but it doesn't need to be some oppressive regime run by religion.
Actually, it would have been good if blood mage wardens had to fight off demons while they slept from time to time. Maybe every time you enter camp, you'd have a one in ten chance of being attacked by a demon while you sleep. Or, at the end of Awakenings, there could have been the possibility of getting an epilogue box that states that "Shortly after the Grey Wardens were rebuilt, (insert your name) became an abomination and went on a bloody rampage. Ferelden mourned the loss of it's hero. The tragic fall of the Hero of Fereldan serves as a grim testament to the dangers of blood magic".
On a side note, isn't a mage becoming an abomination a little bit like a gun owner that goes off the deep end and shoots up their workplace? We have laws regulating guns ...
Actually, it would have been good if blood mage wardens had to fight off demons while they slept from time to time. Maybe every time you enter camp, you'd have a one in ten chance of being attacked by a demon while you sleep. Or, at the end of Awakenings, there could have been the possibility of getting an epilogue box that states that "Shortly after the Grey Wardens were rebuilt, (insert your name) became an abomination and went on a bloody rampage. Ferelden mourned the loss of it's hero. The tragic fall of the Hero of Fereldan serves as a grim testament to the dangers of blood magic".
On a side note, isn't a mage becoming an abomination a little bit like a gun owner that goes off the deep end and shoots up their workplace? We have laws regulating guns ...
Modifié par Sir Pounce-a-lot, 15 octobre 2011 - 09:59 .
#36
Posté 17 octobre 2011 - 08:58
termokanden
-
- Members
- 5 818 messages
Sir Pounce-a-lot wrote...
On a side note, isn't a mage becoming an abomination a little bit like a gun owner that goes off the deep end and shoots up their workplace? We have laws regulating guns ...
It is, and it isn't. A gun is not something that's part of you. It's just an object you can get rid of. That makes all the difference.
It would be fair to regulate the use of magic to some degree. But that's not what the system is all about. It's about regulating the mages themselves.
Modifié par termokanden, 17 octobre 2011 - 08:59 .
#37
Posté 18 octobre 2011 - 02:31
Zaxarus
-
- Members
- 182 messages
termokanden wrote...
I have honestly always been a bit annoyed with the treatment of blood magic in both games. It's too black and white, and yet your own player character can be a blood mage without it making you evil, and there's no risk of summoning demons.
And this in my opinion is a fault of the game. Blood magic should give the mage some concrete additional power, an appeal to use it. And there should be a danger even for the player character. could be simple as a 1% chance every time he uses it to have a side effect, possibly even be visited by a nice demon.
#38
Posté 18 octobre 2011 - 04:08
Fauxnormal
-
- Members
- 800 messages
Zaxarus wrote...
termokanden wrote...
I have honestly always been a bit annoyed with the treatment of blood magic in both games. It's too black and white, and yet your own player character can be a blood mage without it making you evil, and there's no risk of summoning demons.
And this in my opinion is a fault of the game. Blood magic should give the mage some concrete additional power, an appeal to use it. And there should be a danger even for the player character. could be simple as a 1% chance every time he uses it to have a side effect, possibly even be visited by a nice demon.
I love this idea. Just sayin'. I can't bring myself to be a blood mage- it bothers me- but this is still a sweet idea.
#39
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 03:08
ShadowLordXII
-
- Members
- 1 238 messages
Sounds like everyone is overreacting about blood mages and the Tevinter magisters and decided to label all mages as volatile powderkegs.
Speaking of which, even though blood magic can only be learned from demons...how did Mage Hawke and Jowan learn their schools of blood magic though we've clearly seen that they haven't made any deal with a demon?
Speaking of which, even though blood magic can only be learned from demons...how did Mage Hawke and Jowan learn their schools of blood magic though we've clearly seen that they haven't made any deal with a demon?
#40
Posté 23 octobre 2011 - 11:56
termokanden
-
- Members
- 5 818 messages
It was my impression that you can learn blood magic in other ways, although I can't say it has been confirmed.
Hawke is the best source for that, but then you could just say it's a gameplay mechanics issue, because you can pick all other specializations without doing anything special.
The blood magic books in the Circle tower are hidden as well, so that might mean you can learn blood magic simply by reading about it, but then again they could also just be hidden to prevent mages from getting tempted to deal with demons.
Hawke is the best source for that, but then you could just say it's a gameplay mechanics issue, because you can pick all other specializations without doing anything special.
The blood magic books in the Circle tower are hidden as well, so that might mean you can learn blood magic simply by reading about it, but then again they could also just be hidden to prevent mages from getting tempted to deal with demons.
