[quote]Lynata wrote...
Wynne was visiting her son. Mages are allowed to send letters. Rhys was in contact with his old mentor for many years, for example, and the fact that Alain complains about the letters to his family having been burned suggest that this goes against what he is used to.[/quote]
How could Wynne have been visiting her son when she never knew where he was and said to Alistair that she constantly thought of him? She didn't even know anything about him after they took him away.
[quote]
I'm not sure where you've read that bit about the rich relative,[/quote]
Various codexes, one being from Mark of the Assassin where a rich mage's family managed to get her out of the Circle by using their money.
There's also the Hawke family, who are able to visit Bethany because they're rich, whereas Huon wasn't even able to see his wife for 10 years.
[quote]
but I would say it makes sense in that the common people just don't have the money to afford the trip, so yeah that bit sounds probable but can hardly be avoided. It's the same for almost everyone else who gets to live away from his parents, be it a slave in Tevinter or a Ferelden noble's servant or a knight's squire, a templar recruit, a Chantry cleric etc.
[/quote]
It has nothing to do with affording the trip. Money buys mages luxuries they're otherwise not allowed to have. If they have a rich family, the mage is treated better.
[quote]Yup, she had only visited him once shortly after the Blight, though, and then chose to stay away again - until the events in "Asunder", about 8 years later.
[/quote]
Which reinforces the point that she hadn't known about him for her whole entire life, until she traveled to Nevarra on Magi business.
She should have always known this information. Even if she couldn't have seen him, she should've known where he was and been allowed to communicate with him via letter. But she said in Origins she knew nothing of her son.
[quote]There are points for and against such a policy, chiefly that the bond between parents and child is something that may stir rebellious thoughts in the parents, prompting them to try to escape with their kid if they'd knew where it was "held".[/quote]
The same could be said of barring the mage from the knowledge of where his/her child/children are kept.
Evelina is one such example. Not only did the Templars and Chantry do nothing to help them, but she wasn't even allowed to see her adopted children. So she fought back to find them. Unfortunately, when the Templars tried to kill her, she became an Abomination. But had she at least known they were being taken care of by the Chantry -- and had she been able to see them, even supervised -- she wouldn't have tried to escape. She joined the Circle willingly, pleading for them to take care of her adopted children.
You can't say one is the right answer on such a thing. I'll concede that much. But I would rather have the mage regularly contact their children and have a bond with them then deny them that right.
These are inalienable human rights. You don't deny a person their rights because of how they're born. And you don't deny people their rights because of what a few bad people did. No matter how much magic can be abused -- which is a lot -- it is wrong to punish them for the crimes of a few.
Especially when you're still punishing them for the crimes of people that existed -- well, one still exists. Two most likely, if we receive new information on the Architect -- 1000 or so years ago.
In Spartan law, unhealthy children were killed. They were denied the right to live. And that is wrong. They punished both the family and the child for how the child was born. Sure, some families may have accepted this since it was law. Doesn't mean that all did, or that it was right. Merely the law.
It's similar here. The Mage is denied the right to have a family simply for being a mage. They're not even allowed to have lovers, and if they do so some Templars things like "two of their kind have been breeding" (said by Greagoir in the comics).
That's certainly wrong and carries a disdainful tone.
They are human beings and are deserving of everything a non-mage has. Life, freedom, a family and friends, etc.
What the Circles do -- discouraging the mages from being with other mages, taking their children away, etc. -- well that's almost like they want magic to be wiped off the face of the planet.
[quote]Conversely, if something bad happens and the child dies (even if it's just smallpox or whatever) the mages would be thrown into emotional instability. Remember Connor? Same thing, just other way around. Or not even, considering the mental state of his mother. Looking at Quentin, even marriage seems to come with potential risks.
[/quote]
Quentin's a case that exists to support the argument for psychological screenings performed by Templars and Magus alike.
Not for telling Mages they can't marry.
Wilhelm was married -- and free! -- though it was because he was a war hero. But demons didn't plague the village nor did he go insane. His only "crime" -- which can be argued -- is that he summoned a demon.
But he did trap it using magical wards that not even the demon herself could figure out. That says something. That means that demons can be summoned, trapped, and studied without consequence.
Some may say "Well remember Wilhelm's journal where he believed the demon was doing something to Shale?". To that I say it's actually the wrong assertion, given that Caridin tells Shale of how the Mage's own experiments led to Shale doing what she did (Wilhelm's experiments led to Shale's memories of fighting at Caridin's side 1000 years ago being restored).
At any rate, I went off on a bit of a tangent there. My original point was simply that Quentin isn't a case for banning marriage, but for mages undergoing routine psychological screenings. A man like Quentin was obviously close to the edge of insanity prior to his wife's death, and her death was what prompted him to fall into madness.
[quote]It's not nice, but it makes for more stability. Until the entire system collapses and this point gets added to a long list of perceived injustices, of course.[/quote]
Because it
is an injustice.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin.[quote]Well, once the child is old enough that it'd actually be able to understand said correspondence, it'd sent back to the Tower anyways.
[/quote]
If he was a mage. And if he wasn't, he could still communicate -- and visit -- his parents.
[quote]Then I don't see the point you are trying to make, sorry. Either you believe in a deity or you don't. There is no middle ground. One is faith, the other isn't. This has absolutely nothing to do with religious zeal - religious zeal only applies to how far you are willing to go to pursue a perceived cause.[/quote]
*sigh*
My point was that zealots try to impose their beliefs on anyone that disagrees with them. They carry out their beliefs to extremes. It doesn't matter whether you're an atheist. If a person is trying to force you to believe in God, they are a zealot. They don't care what
your opinion is. They only care for their opinion and believe it to be the universal truth.
Faith is about believing what you see as true. Not seeing it as the universal truth that everyone else must adhere to.
[quote]Such as Alrik's "Tranquil Solution". That was religiously motivated zeal. Meredith and the Grand Cleric slamming it down, on the other hand, sounds like the opposite.
[/quote]
I don't place much stock in Meredith or the Grand Cleric's denial of such a request when the number of mages that were Tranquil were so blatantly increasing in number and yet nothing was being done about it.
I imagine that the Circles keep records on what mages were made Tranquil. If they don't, then they should. If they do, then they need to begin investigating when 3 more mages are made Tranquil, some of them well into adulthood.
And they would notice a pattern in who was the one performing the Rite of Tranquility: Alrik. Additionally, I believe it takes the approval of the First Enchanter
and the Knight-Commander for the rite to be performed. I do not recall where -- and more importantly, if -- this was mentioned, but something is telling me that it was mentioned somewhere.
Which means that Meredith and Orsino would've had to have consented to such a thing for it to be legally performed. Since it was illegally performed, then this should've raised suspicion and an investigation should've been performed. But never did one happen -- nor do Cullen or Elthina say one was being performed on Alrik.
As such, it seems like Meredith was blissfully ignoring a situation that is in front of her eyes and was doing nothing about it. And if it's one that neither of the head honchos said should be made Tranquil, then something is definitely off. Orsino on the other hand is a person that wouldn't stand for something like that -- made evident in what little characterization we see of him as well as his codex -- and would certainly be trying to figure out what's going on.
Or try to convince Meredith to investigate.
That Tranquil you see outside the Gallows who tells her former lover that she belongs to Ser Alrik now -- in front of a few Templars I might add! -- was well into her adulthood. Meaning she's a Harrowed mage, since mages are Harrowed at a certain age -- unless they're apostates brought into the Chantry or are considered to not be allowed to undertake the Harrowing.
Which should arouse suspicion that a Harrowed mage was made Tranquil.
So either way, denying Alrik's request doesn't give Meredith much points. Not when we know she fell under the broken idol's influence already. And especially not when Bardel brought his concerns to Meredith -- which I understand you and Emp disagree with.
[quote]Interestingly, Alrik's fears are not unfounded - the mages' numbers were growing,[/quote]
There's nothing really to corroborate this other then the guy at the Hanged Man that worships cheese.
And if you're not going to disbelieve Anders, then you have to disbelieve him as well.
Not saying that he's wrong -- I personally do think he's telling the truth since he says it was his
mother that told him such a thing -- but simply that he's not the best source of information to believe on this matter.
Unless Asunder said something as well.
[quote]
and they have found a way to "infect" fellow templars with demon possession.[/quote]
Which was taken care of by Hawke, and is not something only mages can do. Demons can do it as well -- which Cullen will state to Hawke.
[quote]
He was just blind to the fact that his "solution" would have targeted more innocents than actual perpretrators.[/quote]
I think all he cared about was having an increase of Tranquil in his harem. I don't think he gave a damn who it would harm.
[quote]To me, it simply says that you are quick to assume things - such as a single mage hinting at being raped by a templar automatically means there were dozens of victims who, in spite of Karras' obvious attempts to silence them, have spoken out and brought the matter to a higher-ranking templar's attention (probably the Knight-Captain or Meredith herself), who has then done nothing.[/quote]
Rapists are more often then not repeat offenders. They don't just rape one victim. They rape numerous victims.
I am not saying that Karras' other victims
did come forward. But in 6 years, I doubt that they remained silent. Not when Alain practically confirms it to Hawke twice in 6 years. If Alain was remaining silent, he wouldn't have told
anyone of what Karras was doing. This
includes Hawke and the player. He would've told Hawke to stay away from him, or just acted normally -- if a bit twitchy.
That he says it out loud means that despite being afraid of what might happen, he's not one to keep it to himself. He trusts Grace and often confides in her -- which I believe he said in game. He trusts Thrask and I'm sure confided in him.
So yes, I do think no investigation into Karras was performed. Because if those two knew -- which I'm sure they did -- they would've reported it. Thrask is not one to tolerate abuse and Grace cared for her friends, prior to her becoming an Abomination because of plot stupidity (for pro-mages)
[quote]The logical "point of contact" for all mages of a Tower would actually be their First Enchanter, though, who is supposed to have a working relationship with the Knight-Commander leading the templars.
[/quote]
Meredith became Knight-Commander prior to Orsino becoming First Enchanter, and when she was elected to that post -- something she
never should've had because of her past trauma making her biased -- she immediately began instituting many changes in policies. Many anti-mage policies.
Orsino was right to fight for more rights for the mages. When the Kirkwall Circle was a decent place for mages to live and society didn't have mages and Abominations running rampant throughout Kirkwall in the past, then she had no reason to perform such actions other then her own past dictating what she felt should've been done. And Orsino was right to fight against her.
[quote]Which doesn't actually mean that Starkhaven was worse than, say, Ferelden - or any other golden cage. Then again, you seem convinced that Ferelden was bad, too, so I guess it's a matter of perspective[/quote]
Yes, I do think Ferelden's Circle was bad. It's prone to its abuses despite it being the most liberal Circle. I do see it as a gilded cage, no doubt about that. And it's been shown that Greagoir is a good man one minute and a woman beater the next (pregnant I might add). So I don't know what to make of him, and it certainly doesn't help Gaider's argument where he said "Not all Templars are evil".
If not all Templars are evil, then he should stop trying to portray the good Templars as either killed, dead, or spontaneously turning into douchebags. Because it's really killing any incentive some people might've had to side with the Templars -- well, mine anyway. Though I do know of some people who share that viewpoint.
I think any Circle that has abuses from the people that are watching over the mages is a bad place.
[quote]Heh, you complain about the absence of seeing laws for mage protection in game, deducing that this means they don't exist[/quote]
I think if they did exist, they should be made evident in the games when Templars are abusing their power instead of being "claimed" to exist.
If it's illegal to Tranquil a Harrowed mage -- which it is -- then investigate why a Harrowed mage was made Tranquil a few days back. Investigate why some Templars are abusing their power.
I see no laws being upheld in-game, and have thus no reason to believe the Order is doing its part to protect the mages.
[quote]
- and then you complain about the existence of the Seekers, deducing that this means the templars as an entity are so corrupt they can't go a week without secret supervision?[/quote]
I've known the Seekers exist. But I think that abuse is rampant throughout the Order. Far too rampant for them to deal with.
Question, since you've read Asunder and because I haven't I'm lacking information: Do we know how many Seekers there are? Actually, please tell me everything we know of the Seekers from what Asunder tells us, if anything.
[quote]Which is, funnily enough, exactly what the Codex entry you cited says.[/quote]
The codex has the priest knowing enough about them. And it was also written 50-60 years prior to current events, which is irrelevant to the state of the Order
now.
Half a century can change a lot about the Order.
Even Varric seems to know about the Seekers, considering he's not shocked that he's being interrogated by one.
[quote]We certainly have enough Circle mages doing it because of a lust for power. Like Jowan.[/quote]
Considering he was deemed "weak" and was going to be made Tranquil, I don't blame him for wanting freedom. But he's proven by virtue of being an apostate that he can in fact resist a demon's call. And by the time of Redcliffe, he doesn't want more power anymore.
All he wants now is freedom and a chance to make things right.
Regarding his use of blood magic, it's my belief -- and Origins does support this somewhat -- that Uldred was somehow getting apprentices to learn blood magic before telling the Templars about them so that he could not only keep his own status as a maleficar hidden, but increase his standing amongst both groups.
Now, I don't mean to say he just handed an apprentice a book. But he could've left it out in the open near an apprentice that was studying and not paying attention, or dropped a piece of paper near the mage, or done all manner of things to make them begin down such a path.
Irving's own mistake was not seeing Uldred for being a maleficar in the first place. How else would he have known so well who was a maleficar and who wasn't?
Uldred's intentions during his failed coup were noble though, even if his methods for both increasing his standing amongst the mages and going about it -- demon summoning should
never be done, no matter how noble the intention -- were wrong.
Though this makes me wonder, if Andraste was a mage like the games allude to a few times -- and in my mind, a Somniari blood mage -- I wonder if she may have summoned demons somehow to defeat the Imperium.
I would hope not, but it would make for an interesting twist on things.
[quote]Anders' confinement certainly didn't scar him much[/quote]
Solitary confinement -- which is what he was placed in -- does scar people if done for prolonged amounts of time. It makes otherwise healthy people mentally scarred and makes unhealthy people worse.
I either went over this before with Emperor in this thread or in another thread.
Not only that, but the games seem to point to him being a dark person using jokes as a veil to conceal how damaged he is. It's how I -- and other people I've discussed it with -- have always viewed his Awakening persona. It's merely a facade, we believe.
He does seem to be depressed, saying that every now and again he has to remember to smile and he also wants to kill every Templar in creation. He even holds contempt for the First Enchanter, calling him a bastard and making no secret of the fact he hated Irving.
So yes, I do believe it psychologically damaged him, and jokes were a means of hiding it from the rest of the world. And then it was made even worse by his failed merging with Justice, which brought about its own issues.
[quote]Actually, the problem I have isn't that you claim these things exist - I certainly see the possibilities. It's that you make them out to be everyday occurrences in every Circle everywhere.[/quote]
Chantry dogma labels magic a curse and both Templars and Chantry priests tell mages such. They sugarcoat it by calling it a gift as well -- which it is, certainly. Though one that comes with responsibilities -- but this doesn't diminish the labeling of a mage as cursed.
[quote]Whereas the greed, insanity or sheer maliciousness of blood mages gets discarded as "plot stupidity".[/quote]
No, only in DAII where the plot was rushed and doesn't make sense as a result of the actions taken.
I do not call Caladrius or Danarius subject to plot stupidity, nor do I call Jowan or Connor such. I do not even call Uldred such. Same for Zathrian and Velanna, Merrill or Marethari (I find Marethari's actions themselves stupid, but not plot stupid. Just stupid).
The plot made sense for such characters, whereas for Decimus, Grace, Orsino and Thrask it doesn't
unless you're pro-Templar.
But if you're pro-mage, it makes no sense and is thus deserving of the label "plot stupidity"
. What part of Cullen's dialogue are you referring to? He was in love with a mage. And Anders ... well, let's just say I wouldn't trust everything he says.
[quote]You mean the same people that are mysteriously absent from his room when Karras comes to "rape" him at night?[/quote]
I imagine that Alain sleeps in his own quarters, but since the Gallows is a former prison complete with cells -- as we're told in game -- mages across from his room would see such when he's getting dressed, were he to be beaten.
[quote]And yes, you can actually harm people without causing them to limp.
Not to mention a mages' ability to cast healing spells on himself.
[/quote]
And you think that if a mage were to be
healing himself on a regular basis, people wouldn't wonder why?
[quote]No, they do not need to have one in command of the other when they're just there to execute an order they've both been tasked with.
[/quote]
And what if the situation changes and they need to make a judgement call? Someone has to be in command. This is essential military structure.
[quote]Well, considering the situation she found him in, her reasoning isn't difficult to understand. Especially given Anders' reputation for constantly trying to escape the Tower, and likely rather rebellious remarks mirroring those he made to the player character.[/quote]
She found him assisting the Grey Wardens and only assumed that her fellow Templars were dead -- which they were, but she didn't actually know their status. She merely presumed that for Anders to have been free, the Templars must've died.
It is unreasonable, because it's assuming a lot on the grounds that a mage isn't with his Templars.
Now, he does confirm it, but she still assumed that for him to be free, they must've been dead.
And Anders himself states that given time, he would've been labeled a maleficar true or not.
[quote]Are you sure they were? I mean, their leader was apparently the one who started the fire in Starkhaven, so I suppose it might be possible. It's been quite a while since I played the game, though, and my memory on this part is hazy.[/quote]
I went on youtube when I made that comment and Thrask assures Hawke that they attack Templars on sight.
[quote]He was smuggling a group of mages who had already escaped once outside a Tower. The same group of mages that harbored a maleficar in their midst, and was, as you say, suspected of having murdered other templars.
That's negligence of duty. So yes, he was "soft on the robes". And he paid the price for his trust in Grace.[/quote]
Grace gave no one any inclination that she was a practicing blood mage. Association with one is not sufficient grounds for her to have been one.
And I simply find BSC's plot -- for a pro-mage person anyway -- to be completely idiotic. You can denounce Meredith and support Orsino -- which Thrask himself will state if you talk to him! -- and yet the group says things like this:
"We know you're spying for Orsino!"
and the kicker...
"I don't know why you support Meredith" said by Thrask.
I'm spying for the man arguing for Meredith to step down and for greater rights for the mages and Thrask
knew I denounced her publicly, yet the whole quest just reeks of plot stupidity.
That is what I mean when I say plot stupidity. When the narrative doesn't make sense as a result of actions taken by the player.
[quote]An alchemical potion doesn't suddenly turn into magic just because it involves blood, much like ritualistic cannibalism isn't blood magic either.
From the DA:O specialization entry:
"Demonic spirits teach more than blood magic. Reavers terrorize their enemies, feast upon the souls of their slain
opponents to heal their own flesh, and can unleash a blood frenzy that
makes them more powerful as they come nearer to their own deaths [/quote]
Considering becoming a Reaver
doesn't derive from demons at all but from drinking Dragon's blood -- as Kolgrim says. Well, he says Wyvern's blood, but whatever -- this bit is wrong.
[quote]
Life is power. Blood Mages know this, but they are not the only ones. [...]"[/quote]
So? That doesn't mean that the Reaver Joining isn't blood magic. It just says that Blood
Mages aren't the only ones that know how to use blood magic.
The codex on Dragon cults
asserts that the Reaver Joining
is blood magic.
It was penned by a mage.
[quote]I still think that it's more akin to a controlled infection, kept in check by the power provided by lyrium. They could just as well lick Darkspawn corpses or whatever - blood quite simply is corruption in its purest (heh) form, and as the Codex entry says the corruption is the essential bit.
If everyone could use blood magic, more people than just mages would do it, and the Grey Wardens wouldn't have been forced to basically kidnap Papa Hawke to do it for them.[/quote]
It's blood magic, plain and simple. The phylacteries are a form of blood magic, confirmed by Gaider. Are you going to say that's not blood magic either just because it's a vial of blood?
The Joinings are forms of blood magic. The Reaver Joining has been confirmed in-game to be blood magic because it grants the person who drinks it abilities. The Warden Joining does the same thing, least of which being the ability to sense darkspawn.
Blood magic isn't just about using blood to power the spell. It's about gaining abilities from blood as well.
If you look up some of the Reaver specific talents -- more so in DAII, but Origins has a few as well -- you'll see that they do the same things as what some blood Mage spells do. And thus, being a Reaver is blood magic. Both forms.
[quote]I don't need to read it, I believe you. You don't seem to get my point that a mage doesn't need decades to achieve the same result. Even those mages who don't want to, when they fall prey to possession.[/quote]
My point is that there's an inherent level of danger in everyone, but not everyone is locked away for something they might do.
Should all Elves be locked away in Towers too because they rebel a lot in both Tevinter and White Chantry Thedas? Should we punish all Elves for what other people did, simply because they're all Elves?
[quote]Tigers are dangerous, too, just on another level. Would you not put them in a cage rather than letting them live in a city?
[/quote]
That depends. Some people raise tigers and lions from the day they're cubs and don't get eaten as a result. Personally, sure I'd put them in cages. But that's because
all of them like to eat meat, humans sometimes included.
Mages don't however like to eat long pork. Not all mages are inclined to practice blood magic, or restore the Imperium, or do anything that is justified for locking them away.
[quote]And here we finally come to the core of the argument. Apart from mages not being locked away "for crimes" -
as this is not the justification we are presented with - you would rather risk the suffering of countless innocent people rather than making sure the dangerous minority is contained.[/quote]
Orly?
Magic allows for abuses far greater then the scope of mortals -- ElthinaIgnoring how mages are also mortals, this is
exactly the justification for the Circles.
And yes I would. Because of the Benjamin Franklin quote I cited above. At the very least I would make it so that the Circles provide enough freedom that both freedom and security can exist together, while the world still maintains being safe.
And I would argue how safe the world is, given that the Circles seem to create more problems then they really prevent. All the Templars seem to do is take care of the problem the Circle system -- bred by the Chantry itself -- created in the first place.
[quote]In essence, we both condone "collateral damage" - I for cases like Alain, and you for cases like Leandra, which are simply bound to happen, their frequency depending on the system in place. It boils down to how "comfortable" we feel with the various side-effects, as I cannot imagine a system reliably eliminating all these side effects. Mages go bad either way, and have done so long before the Chantry existed, so it comes down to what we regard as the best solution for the community as a whole.[/quote]
You're correct in that the world cannot be rid of all of the problems mages pose. But that doesn't mean the answer is to lock them away.
Tell you what. You give me a list of problems on both sides of the conflict -- Mages
and Templars -- and I'll tell you how I'd reform the system. Because we're just doing this piece-by-piece, and inevitably some of what's said will get lost in the shuffle.
[quote]But that'd be the next step, wouldn't it? Just like the mages were not satisfied with just being allowed to cast spells of light at first, mages are not satisfied living in a golden cage now. And tomorrow, mages will not be satisfied being barred from positions of power ... just because they were born this way.[/quote]
Not really. This is the only time the Tevinter Imperium would be a good case to present, because the Imperium went from "Mages ruling like pricks" to "Mages not ruling at all" to "Mages ruling like pricks" again.
[quote]The way things are, there can be no equality - one group will always try to lord over the other. Either because it has superior powers and thus feels it has a "right" to do so, or because they fear the other and thus feel they have a "need" to do so.[/quote]
And how is this any different from the rest of Thedosian society, where monarchs and nobles rule throughout the land?
[quote]It's a human thing.[/quote]
Indeed.
[quote]What is the alternative to the Right of Annulment, anyways? Would people rather prefer a host of Abominations breaking out into the countryside?[/quote]
Regarding this quote to Lob, in those situations that we're presented with akin to Ferelden's situation, then the RoA becomes something that should be contemplated.
I did take issue with how the "saving the mages" choice ruined the moral ambiguity of the situation, making it the "ideal" choice.
I also took issue with how we couldn't see very many additional mages from the Circle once we were done. We only saw about 7 or 8, not counting Wynne and the 3 you meet on the road.
Also, the corpses. It doesn't take 2.5 years for a Circle to be rid of all of its corpses, especially when reinforcements were on their way to assist the remaining Templars in the Tower anyway.
Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 23 mars 2012 - 03:58 .
[/quote]They are an inherent danger to the community - that is the whole point and why virtually every human in these nations except the mages thinks they require "special handling". And it's not just the danger that comes with a lack of control over their own abilities or daemonic corruption, but also the aforementioned lure of power. The means to level an entire village if they don't do what you say? Being able to dominate other peoples' mind without anyone noticing? That's just scary.
Retour en haut
