118 réponses à ce sujet

[EmperorSahlertz]

There are no cases of mages being denied (written) contact with their families. People are basing all their "BUT THE CIRCLE KEEPS THEM AWAY FROM FAMILIES RABBLE RABBLE!!" on the case of one mage, Ella, in which we simply don't know the entire story. There could be hundreds of reasons for why Ella's mother wasn't informed of where Ella was taken, such as for instances her father requesting it be so.
You have to remember that all too often the families of mages have no desire to keep contact with their child, and nor does the child with his family. Emotional bonds aren't directly prohibited, but strong emotions simply needs to be controlled with great discipline, which is simply an impossibility from younger students, which may be why outside contact in the early years are limited.

[Everwarden]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
You have to remember that all too often the families of mages have no desire to keep contact with their child, and nor does the child with his family. Emotional bonds aren't directly prohibited, but strong emotions simply needs to be controlled with great discipline, which is simply an impossibility from younger students, which may be why outside contact in the early years are limited.

You keep using the present tense to describe the quality of life in the Circles, but the Circles are all broken. All of them, regardless who which side you take in Dragon Age 2, successfully revolt. There must be something wrong with the system in place if the success rate of a properly motivated coup is 100%. 

Modifié par Everwarden, 24 octobre 2011 - 04:36 .

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There are no cases of mages being denied (written) contact with their families. People are basing all their "BUT THE CIRCLE KEEPS THEM AWAY FROM FAMILIES RABBLE RABBLE!!" on the case of one mage, Ella, in which we simply don't know the entire story. There could be hundreds of reasons for why Ella's mother wasn't informed of where Ella was taken, such as for instances her father requesting it be so.
You have to remember that all too often the families of mages have no desire to keep contact with their child, and nor does the child with his family. Emotional bonds aren't directly prohibited, but strong emotions simply needs to be controlled with great discipline, which is simply an impossibility from younger students, which may be why outside contact in the early years are limited.

There are more cases then just Ella. Furthermore while im all for discipline this system is not healhty for the mage and serves nothing.

[Wulfram]

We've also got the other case - of Wynne having her child taken away from her.

[EmperorSahlertz]

I was talking about apprentices which are actively kept from their family, which we got a mere half case of. And Ella is only half a case since we don't have the whole story.
Wynne have her child taken from her, for safety reasons, just like any other mage child is taken from their family.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Everwarden wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
You have to remember that all too often the families of mages have no desire to keep contact with their child, and nor does the child with his family. Emotional bonds aren't directly prohibited, but strong emotions simply needs to be controlled with great discipline, which is simply an impossibility from younger students, which may be why outside contact in the early years are limited.

You keep using the present tense to describe the quality of life in the Circles, but the Circles are all broken. All of them, regardless who which side you take in Dragon Age 2, successfully revolt. There must be something wrong with the system in place if the success rate of a properly motivated coup is 100%. 

The reason for the uprising is as of yet unknown. They will be explored in the next novel, but so far we only got a very factured look at the picture.

[TheRevanchist]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
You have to remember that all too often the families of mages have no desire to keep contact with their child, and nor does the child with his family. Emotional bonds aren't directly prohibited, but strong emotions simply needs to be controlled with great discipline, which is simply an impossibility from younger students, which may be why outside contact in the early years are limited.

You keep using the present tense to describe the quality of life in the Circles, but the Circles are all broken. All of them, regardless who which side you take in Dragon Age 2, successfully revolt. There must be something wrong with the system in place if the success rate of a properly motivated coup is 100%. 

The reason for the uprising is as of yet unknown. They will be explored in the next novel, but so far we only got a very factured look at the picture.

Thank you...I'm tierd of Mage sympathizers assumeing the rebellion is because they all hate the Circle. The Circles and Templars all rebel for the same reason, which is not yet revealed. In case many Mage supporters forgot...The Council of mages met in Cumberland to decide weither or not to break away from the Chantry...they decided not to...Golly gee their so abused. And in case you all forgot...the original Anders even thought that was a terrible idea.

[IanPolaris]

kylecouch wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
You have to remember that all too often the families of mages have no desire to keep contact with their child, and nor does the child with his family. Emotional bonds aren't directly prohibited, but strong emotions simply needs to be controlled with great discipline, which is simply an impossibility from younger students, which may be why outside contact in the early years are limited.

You keep using the present tense to describe the quality of life in the Circles, but the Circles are all broken. All of them, regardless who which side you take in Dragon Age 2, successfully revolt. There must be something wrong with the system in place if the success rate of a properly motivated coup is 100%. 

The reason for the uprising is as of yet unknown. They will be explored in the next novel, but so far we only got a very factured look at the picture.

Thank you...I'm tierd of Mage sympathizers assumeing the rebellion is because they all hate the Circle. The Circles and Templars all rebel for the same reason, which is not yet revealed. In case many Mage supporters forgot...The Council of mages met in Cumberland to decide weither or not to break away from the Chantry...they decided not to...Golly gee their so abused. And in case you all forgot...the original Anders even thought that was a terrible idea.

In case you forgot, the vote in Cumberland was very close and the only reason the mages didn't rebel then was because they thought the Chantry would commit genocide against them before they let that happened.  Wynne out and out says this and Anders agrees.  What Meredith proved is that the Templars and Chantry are willing to do genocide for the flimsiest of reasons with no accountability anyway so the circles have nothing left to lose.

-Polaris

[Big I]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I was talking about apprentices which are actively kept from their family, which we got a mere half case of. And Ella is only half a case since we don't have the whole story.
Wynne have her child taken from her, for safety reasons, just like any other mage child is taken from their family.

What safety reasons? What could be unsafe about letting Wynne (and presumably the childs father) raise him in the Circle?


As for mages who are denied contact with their families, Anders says it's very common, and the Mage Warden is certainly an example. If the Mage Warden is an Amell we learn in DA2 that they're the son/daughter of Leandra's cousin, but the Warden doesn't know anything about their family (the same for the elf Mage Warden).

[AlexXIV]

I guess the reason they take children away from their parents is because they are mages, and set things on fire. Accidently, if they are untrained. So that's more of a necessity than cruelty. I doubt they like that mages have kids together, because that would probably make a mage child likely. It seems to run in the blood anyway, as with the Hawke family. So probably some Circles outright forbid any sort of relationship other than platonic, and some are more liberal.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 24 octobre 2011 - 10:34 .

[White_Buffalo94]

Huntress wrote...

Ferelden circle is nothing similar of what we find in kirkwall, some rules were broken in ferelden circle and templars sometimes turn the face because they trust the first enchanter ( the mage was allow to become a warden after helping a blood-mage) with meredith however the rule changed and mages are lockup or turn tranquil without much thoughts.
In the gallows there is one mage talking to a tranquil and he said: I love you! the tranquil answer is: am belong to "so and so now"* ( *templar).
If anyone allow sweet bethany to be in that place meredith have a huge weapon against the champion:
1)turn away from meredith bethany could suffer.
2) what better to allow family to visit her after the mother dies? magic is evil and bethany should learn the hard way. yes that woman is a sick Bstard.

Actually, the Warden was allowed to leave, despite helping a blood mage, because Duncan's authority supercedes any other in terms of recruiting. No rule was broken and Duncan was completely in his rights

[AlexXIV]

White_Buffalo94 wrote...

Huntress wrote...

Ferelden circle is nothing similar of what we find in kirkwall, some rules were broken in ferelden circle and templars sometimes turn the face because they trust the first enchanter ( the mage was allow to become a warden after helping a blood-mage) with meredith however the rule changed and mages are lockup or turn tranquil without much thoughts.
In the gallows there is one mage talking to a tranquil and he said: I love you! the tranquil answer is: am belong to "so and so now"* ( *templar).
If anyone allow sweet bethany to be in that place meredith have a huge weapon against the champion:
1)turn away from meredith bethany could suffer.
2) what better to allow family to visit her after the mother dies? magic is evil and bethany should learn the hard way. yes that woman is a sick Bstard.

Actually, the Warden was allowed to leave, despite helping a blood mage, because Duncan's authority supercedes any other in terms of recruiting. No rule was broken and Duncan was completely in his rights

Because of the Grey Wardens. I don't think anyone doubts that becoming Grey Warden is a sort of freedom of the Circle for the mages. But becomming Grey Warden is not exactly something people like to do. Especially those who know what it means.

[TheRevanchist]

IanPolaris wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Everwarden wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
You have to remember that all too often the families of mages have no desire to keep contact with their child, and nor does the child with his family. Emotional bonds aren't directly prohibited, but strong emotions simply needs to be controlled with great discipline, which is simply an impossibility from younger students, which may be why outside contact in the early years are limited.

You keep using the present tense to describe the quality of life in the Circles, but the Circles are all broken. All of them, regardless who which side you take in Dragon Age 2, successfully revolt. There must be something wrong with the system in place if the success rate of a properly motivated coup is 100%. 

The reason for the uprising is as of yet unknown. They will be explored in the next novel, but so far we only got a very factured look at the picture.

Thank you...I'm tierd of Mage sympathizers assumeing the rebellion is because they all hate the Circle. The Circles and Templars all rebel for the same reason, which is not yet revealed. In case many Mage supporters forgot...The Council of mages met in Cumberland to decide weither or not to break away from the Chantry...they decided not to...Golly gee their so abused. And in case you all forgot...the original Anders even thought that was a terrible idea.

In case you forgot, the vote in Cumberland was very close and the only reason the mages didn't rebel then was because they thought the Chantry would commit genocide against them before they let that happened.  Wynne out and out says this and Anders agrees.  What Meredith proved is that the Templars and Chantry are willing to do genocide for the flimsiest of reasons with no accountability anyway so the circles have nothing left to lose.

-Polaris

And in case you forgot most of the Templars abandon her idea for RoA and save the mages that aren't useing Blood magic.

[Cobra's_back]

Wulfram wrote...

We've also got the other case - of Wynne having her child taken away from her.

In the book "The Calling" Alistair's mom states that mages and/or mage wardens are not allowed to keep their children.

[IanPolaris]

kylecouch wrote...

And in case you forgot most of the Templars abandon her idea for RoA and save the mages that aren't useing Blood magic.

WRONG!  The templars back her right up to the very end (those mages are made tranquil and not saved per DG) until she pulls out her lightsabre and drools openly in public when ranting against Hawke.  They backed the wholesale genocide against mages until the very end despite the fact it was under the flimsiest of circumstances.  More importantly, the Chantry never once tried to bring Meredith in line or admit that she was wrong...not even three years later as Cassandra makes very clear when interviewing Varic.

-Polaris

[TEWR]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There are no cases of mages being denied (written) contact with their families. People are basing all their "BUT THE CIRCLE KEEPS THEM AWAY FROM FAMILIES RABBLE RABBLE!!" on the case of one mage, Ella, in which we simply don't know the entire story. There could be hundreds of reasons for why Ella's mother wasn't informed of where Ella was taken, such as for instances her father requesting it be so.

You have to remember that all too often the families of mages have no desire to keep contact with their child, and nor does the child with his family. Emotional bonds aren't directly prohibited, but strong emotions simply needs to be controlled with great discipline, which is simply an impossibility from younger students, which may be why outside contact in the early years are limited.

Considering Ella's parents welcomed her with open arms before she set out on her own, I doubt her father was the reason why.

And you have no evidence besides Jowan IIRC that mages and their families keep no contact with one another because the family or the mage doesn't want to.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Other than Anders and Wynne? Commoners have great fear of mages, even when it is their own children.

[EmperorSahlertz]

IanPolaris wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

And in case you forgot most of the Templars abandon her idea for RoA and save the mages that aren't useing Blood magic.

WRONG!  The templars back her right up to the very end (those mages are made tranquil and not saved per DG) until she pulls out her lightsabre and drools openly in public when ranting against Hawke.  They backed the wholesale genocide against mages until the very end despite the fact it was under the flimsiest of circumstances.  More importantly, the Chantry never once tried to bring Meredith in line or admit that she was wrong...not even three years later as Cassandra makes very clear when interviewing Varic.

-Polaris

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised by you trying to twist Gaider's words into something he didn't say. What Gaider ACTUALLY said was, that he could imagine during an annulment that some mages would, instead of being executed, be made tranquil. He did NOT say that the mages you spare specifically would be tranquiled, or even that the annulment of the Gallows were ever completed for that matter, in which case (if it wasn't) there would be survivors.

[erilben]

nevermind.

Modifié par erilben, 25 octobre 2011 - 07:26 .

[megski]

I also remember the dialogue about how long term relationships were frowned upon, but weren't necessarily forbidden. I think that was probably meant for the circle in Ferelden though.

Wynne talking to Alistair about her son was some of my favorite dialogue from Origins. I think it shows how unfair life can be for mages. Maybe it was for the best though. I would hate for some one to hold my baby over my head.

I also think that Kirkwall is atypical for a number of reasons, mainly Meredith's toxic leadership. I think Kirkwall is on the extreme side as far as strict treatment.

[SkittlesKat96]

I guess it depends on what Circle it is or who the Commander of the Templars is in that location.

Kirkwall's circle was really strict but Ferelden's circle is a little bit less strict (before the abomination attack in DA:O, not sure about after.)

I assume it depends on who the Knight-Commander is. Meredith was very paranoid and didn't like the mages, so she probably wouldn't want them having children (she really disliked mages, she only barely allowed the mages to live, and when she went insane she wanted to kill the mages in Kirkwall.)

[IanPolaris]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

kylecouch wrote...

And in case you forgot most of the Templars abandon her idea for RoA and save the mages that aren't useing Blood magic.

WRONG!  The templars back her right up to the very end (those mages are made tranquil and not saved per DG) until she pulls out her lightsabre and drools openly in public when ranting against Hawke.  They backed the wholesale genocide against mages until the very end despite the fact it was under the flimsiest of circumstances.  More importantly, the Chantry never once tried to bring Meredith in line or admit that she was wrong...not even three years later as Cassandra makes very clear when interviewing Varic.

-Polaris

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised by you trying to twist Gaider's words into something he didn't say. What Gaider ACTUALLY said was, that he could imagine during an annulment that some mages would, instead of being executed, be made tranquil. He did NOT say that the mages you spare specifically would be tranquiled, or even that the annulment of the Gallows were ever completed for that matter, in which case (if it wasn't) there would be survivors.

Nope.  Lob can verify that I have it absolutely down correctly. It is you who are trying to twist the Right of Annulment and what happened in Kirkwall into something other than canon.  Specifically the Right of Annulment is extremely clear and both Cullen and Meredith specifically state that it means the killing of ALL mages down to the last child.  DG agrees with Lob on this point and says that it might be possible to make captured mages tranquil instead of killing them, he is very clear that these are the ONLY two options.

In short, you don't actually save any mages.  The writers of the game just make you want to think you did to make the templars look better.

Bottom line, you are wrong...as usual.

-Polaris

[Dave of Canada]

IanPolaris wrote...

Nope.  Lob can verify that I have it absolutely down correctly.

Which isn't surprising.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Dave of Canada wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Nope.  Lob can verify that I have it absolutely down correctly.

Which isn't surprising.

Sometimes you must wonder why we even bother...

[Zanallen]

So, to answer the question, no mages are not supposed to form relationships and have sex. That being said, it happens. The consequence of such an event most likely varies from Circle to Circle. Any children born from a mage are taken away, most likely to be raised by the Chantry. This is most likely because the Circle isn't really equipped to deal with small children, nor do they want non-mage children living within the Circle. Plus, well, kids just complicate things.