1194 réponses à ce sujet

[Lynata]

LobselVith8 wrote...
You seem to have misunderstood me. I addressed that the Dalish claim that the war started because the Chantry sent in templars after the elves kicked the Chantry missionaries out of the Dales. Simply because Orlais and the Chantry claim that the war started because of the attack on Red Crossing doesn't mean that is the case - the elves could have attacked the town in response to a prior attack made against them.

Yet given that neither side actually claims that Red Crossing was a response to anything it just sounds like an attempt to absolve the Dalish of their responsibility.

The version of history you are referring to does not even claim that the war started because the Chantry sent in templars. It jumps straight from missionaries kicked out of the Dales to templars razing Halamshiral. No mention of Red Crossing anywhere, omitting the Chantry's actual reason for war. That is historical revisionism. Note that the Keeper this account stems from is also not the same guy who talks about Red Crossing as the incident that sparked the war:

"But you already know that something went wrong. A small elven raiding party attacked the nearby human village of Red Crossing, an act of anger that prompted the Chantry to retaliate and, with their superior numbers, conquer the Dales."

LobselVith8 wrote...
You seem to claim that Merrill is naive because she did research on a two thousand year old elven relic that her Keeper didn't seem to bother putting any effort into researching herself.

Nope. I claim Merrill is naive because of the behaviour she displays throughout the entire game - which, to me, disqualifies her research. Not due to the research itself, but because her conduct casts a bad light on it. The Keeper comes across as more professional and seasoned, which is why I put my trust in her judgment rather than Merrill's "I've found a really nice demon and he tells me how I can fix this".
Which, frankly, is "research" about as reliable as looking something up on wikipedia instead of the actual sources.

It's not really something worth argueing about, though. We've simply reached different conclusions from how she behaved. 

GavrielKay wrote...
Individuals make up communities.  If individual rights aren't preserved, then there aren't really any rights.

Individuals also have a right to be kept safe from harm, though. Mage freedom increases the risk these communities and their individual members are subjected to.

What about the rights of people murdered in a blood magic ritual? What about the rights of villagers torn apart by some abomination? What about the rights of the merchant or noble who gets his mind brainwashed by an ambitious mage? I could go on.

As you see, the issue isn't as clear-cut as you may have thought.

GavrielKay wrote...
I'd gladly scrounge for my own food rather than wonder which Templar was going to rape me or one of my friends on any given night.

Because all templars are rapists and all mages are innocent good-doers? Got it.

I'm fairly sure there are a number of poor beggars in Thedas who would give a lot to be allowed to live in the gilded cage of a Circle tower, being afforded the best education as well as fine food and clothing. And really, what exactly is the difference between being raped by a templar and being raped by the city watch or a noble?

GavrielKay wrote...
Even the Qunari were allowed to roam freely around Kirkwall.  Clearly they are dangerous, and should one decide to, he could cut down plenty or ordinary folks before being stopped. They have a history of conquest and physical strength that makes them far more formidable than your average merchant.  Yet, they weren't rounded up and imprisoned.

Because they still weren't as dangerous as mages. And because the Qunari generally don't turn into raging berserkers when they don't want to - unlike mages who are susceptible to demonic possession.

In short: Even when a mages doesn't want to he can cause harm. Though this doesn't even have to come in the form of an abomination. You'd be surprised how many farms burn down because some kid accidentally sets it on fire when they cast their first spell.
I've never seen a Qunari accidentally stick his sword into someone's face, otherwise they might be treated differently.

GavrielKay wrote...
When faced with a group of people who can cause you harm, there are many options.  Lifelong incarcertion can't possibly be the best one.

As Meredith said: "If you cannot tell me a better way, do not brand me a tyrant!"

It is easy to campaign for change, it is harder to come up with an alternative that is just as safe as the established system. Which is a mistake that a lot of mages from the Libertarian faction make - they just see their own freedom and don't care what else would happen. "Anything is better than now" just doesn't work as well as one might think.

GavrielKay wrote...
Tevinter is one example, trotted out repeatedly, of what can happen when people abuse power.  The Chantry is another good example of what can  happen when people abuse power.  Turning the tables and subjugating mages isn't morally any better than the reverse.

When I can choose between a minority oppressing a majority out of lust for power and lack of morality, and a majority oppressing an arguably dangerous minority out of fear - is it really wrong to believe the latter option is the better one?

There is no in-between, no perfect solution; the way magic works simply prevents any full equality and balance. The Circles already are a compromise, and whilst I agree that they can be improved (more safeguards preventing abuse + better PR for mages in the public), I strongly disagree with total mage freedom.
Divine Justinia was on the right path. A pity the mages couldn't wait. A pity for Thedas as a whole.

Modifié par Lynata, 02 avril 2012 - 04:26 .

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

You seem to have misunderstood me. I addressed that the Dalish claim that the war started because the Chantry sent in templars after the elves kicked the Chantry missionaries out of the Dales. Simply because Orlais and the Chantry claim that the war started because of the attack on Red Crossing doesn't mean that is the case - the elves could have attacked the town in response to a prior attack made against them.[/quote]

Yet given that neither side actually claims that Red Crossing was a response to anything it just sounds like an attempt to absolve the Dalish of their responsibility. [/quote]

That is because the Dalish claim that hostilities began because of the elves refusal to convert to the Chant of Light, which is why the Dalish Warden's history of the Dales contrasts with the history of the Dales that is instructed to the Wardens who received the Orlesian version of events. Addressing that the fall of the Dales began when the Chantry sent in missionaries, and then templars (when the missionaries were kicked out), already dismisses the idea that the attack on Red Crossing had started the war. If the Dales elves had to deal with armored soldiers from the Chantry, then I don't see how it's an issue of trying to absolve the elves if they are providing a different account of events.

There are at least two different accounts of how the war started, based on the actual lore about the fall of the Dales, and even the Ages article addresses that there were hostilities between Orlais and the Dales prior to the elves taking over Red Crossing.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

The version of history you are referring to does not even claim that the war started because the Chantry sent in templars. It jumps straight from missionaries kicked out of the Dales to templars razing Halamshiral. No mention of Red Crossing anywhere, omitting the Chantry's actual reason for war. That is historical revisionism. Note that the Keeper this account stems from is also not the same guy who talks about Red Crossing as the incident that sparked the war:

"But you already know that something went wrong. A small elven raiding party attacked the nearby human village of Red Crossing, an act of anger that prompted the Chantry to retaliate and, with their superior numbers, conquer the Dales." [/quote]

It addresses that the Dalish claim that hostilties began because of the elves refusal to convert to the Chant of Light. Let's not pretend that the Orlesian version is the only possible scenerio here. It's not historical revisionism if the Dalish are addressing that the war started because the Chantry sent templars onto sovereign soil. If the elves kicked out the missionaries, and then the Chantry sent in armed and armored soldiers into the Dales, then it isn't as black and white as you are trying to make it out to be.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

You seem to claim that Merrill is naive because she did research on a two thousand year old elven relic that her Keeper didn't seem to bother putting any effort into researching herself.[/quote]

Nope. I claim Merrill is naive because of the behaviour she displays throughout the entire game - which, to me, disqualifies her research. Not due to the research itself, but because her conduct casts a bad light on it. The Keeper comes across as more professional and seasoned, which is why I put my trust in her judgment rather than Merrill's "I've found a really nice demon and he tells me how I can fix this". [/quote]

How is the Keeper more professional when it's inferred that she has done no actual research on the Eluvian? When she lets Audacity loose and becomes an abomination, endangering Merrill, Hawke, and the entire Dalish clan on Sundermount? This makes no sense to me.

Also, Merrill has already addressed that all spirits are dangerous. Taking one sarcastic line out of context doesn't really change all the times she has made that clear to both Hawke and Anders.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

Which, frankly, is "research" about as reliable as looking something up on wikipedia instead of the actual sources.

It's not really something worth argueing about, though. We've simply reached different conclusions from how she behaved. [/quote]

When you're professing that the Keeper who did no research is more informed than the person who did put the time to actually research the technology that she believed could benefit elves across Thedas, and all because you continually ignore every serious comment Merrill has ever made about the dangers spirits pose in order to keep bringing up one clearly sarcastic line from Merrill, it's going to be an issue.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]GavrielKay wrote...

Individuals make up communities.  If individual rights aren't preserved, then there aren't really any rights.[/quote]

Individuals also have a right to be kept safe from harm, though. Mage freedom increases the risk these communities and their individual members are subjected to.

What about the rights of people murdered in a blood magic ritual? What about the rights of villagers torn apart by some abomination? What about the rights of the merchant or noble who gets his mind brainwashed by an ambitious mage? I could go on.

As you see, the issue isn't as clear-cut as you may have thought. [/quote]

What about the rights of the men, women, and children who were ordered to be executed by templars in the Kirkwall Circle, simply because they were mages? What about the rights of the enchanters, mages, and apprentices all across the continent who are oppressed under a system that gives "divine right" to templars over their very lives? What about the rights of mages who are being abused, raped, and tortured because they have no basic rights?

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]GavrielKay wrote...

I'd gladly scrounge for my own food rather than wonder which Templar was going to rape me or one of my friends on any given night.[/quote]

Because all templars are rapists and all mages are innocent good-doers? Got it.

I'm fairly sure there are a number of poor beggars in Thedas who would give a lot to be allowed to live in the gilded cage of a Circle tower, being afforded the best education as well as fine food and clothing. And really, what exactly is the difference between being raped by a templar and being raped by the city watch or a noble? [/quote]

You claim that all templars shouldn't be condemned for the actions of a few, but isn't that precisely what you're doing with the mages - condemning every single man, woman, and child for the actions that a few commit? Justifying what's done to mages because a few abuse their abilities?

And - in response to your comment about beggars - while some might prefer subjugation, we see that every single Circle of Magi across the continent has risen up to emancipate themselves from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars. It looks like most of the mages have decided that it's better to die on their feet, than live on their knees.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]GavrielKay wrote...

Even the Qunari were allowed to roam freely around Kirkwall.  Clearly they are dangerous, and should one decide to, he could cut down plenty or ordinary folks before being stopped. They have a history of conquest and physical strength that makes them far more formidable than your average merchant.  Yet, they weren't rounded up and imprisoned.[/quote]

Because they still weren't as dangerous as mages. And because the Qunari generally don't turn into raging berserkers when they don't want to - unlike mages who are susceptible to demonic possession.

In short: Even when a mages doesn't want to he can cause harm. Though this doesn't even have to come in the form of an abomination. You'd be surprised how many farms burn down because some kid accidentally sets it on fire when they cast their first spell.
I've never seen a Qunari accidentally stick his sword into someone's face, otherwise they might be treated differently. [/quote]

I'm certain that stripping mages of their basic rights and dehumanizing them isn't the ideal situation to prevent the occurance of abominations, but that's simply my opinion.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]GavrielKay wrote...

When faced with a group of people who can cause you harm, there are many options.  Lifelong incarcertion can't possibly be the best one.[/quote]

As Meredith said: "If you cannot tell me a better way, do not brand me a tyrant!"

It is easy to campaign for change, it is harder to come up with an alternative that is just as safe as the established system. Which is a mistake that a lot of mages from the Libertarian faction make - they just see their own freedom and don't care what else would happen. "Anything is better than now" just doesn't work as well as one might think. [/quote]

People tell Meredith alternative solutions all the time: Hawke even recommends that he can step into the role as Viscount, if the people elect him, and Meredith dismisses it to maintain her control as the de facto Viscount and dictator of Kirkwall in spite of telling her a better way.

As for your dismissal of the Libertarian alternative, it's precisely what the Hero of Ferelden proposes when he asks for the Magi boon when he asks for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its independence, and the new ruler of Ferelden publicly agrees with him.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]GavrielKay wrote...

Tevinter is one example, trotted out repeatedly, of what can happen when people abuse power.  The Chantry is another good example of what can  happen when people abuse power.  Turning the tables and subjugating mages isn't morally any better than the reverse.[/quote]

When I can choose between a minority oppressing a majority out of lust for power and lack of morality, and a majority oppressing an arguably dangerous minority out of fear - is it really wrong to believe the latter option is the better one?

There is no in-between, no perfect solution; the way magic works simply prevents any full equality and balance. The Circles already are a compromise, and whilst I agree that they can be improved (more safeguards preventing abuse + better PR for mages in the public), I strongly disagree with total mage freedom.
Divine Justinia was on the right path. A pity the mages couldn't wait. A pity for Thedas as a whole. [/quote]

The Avvar, the Chasind, the Dalish, and even the Kingdom of Rivain demonstrate that free mages do not equal Tevinter.

The Chantry controlled Circles that put mages under the heel of the templars are not a compromise: as Wynne admits, the Chantry would rather murder every mage in Thedas than see them free. That isn't a compromise, it's an attempt to prevent a continential genocide.

In response to your dig at the end against mages who wanted their freedom after a millennia of subjugation and oppression, maybe the mages felt the same way as Patrick Henry: "Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!"

Modifié par LobselVith8, 02 avril 2012 - 05:10 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Avvar, the Chasind and the Dalish are all ruled by their mages.... Rivain is the only example of a nation with free mages, that havn't eneded up being ruled by them. But without more details into RIvaini society, we can't really say how their society used to be, and what it is now.

[gabrien]

As a mage and also once the sister of a mage (bethany.. obviously) I have to agree with the op. I didn't mind the templars so much in origins, but I also didn't pay much attention to anything not happening to 'me'.

But this one really brings everything to light. Well.. obviously.. Often I find myself outraged and kill any templar I have the option to. Then again.. If those templars knew the horrible things I have done, they would wanna kill me too and not just for being a ****y blood mage.

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Avvar, the Chasind and the Dalish are all ruled by their mages.... Rivain is the only example of a nation with free mages, that havn't eneded up being ruled by them. But without more details into RIvaini society, we can't really say how their society used to be, and what it is now.

None of those societies are trying to emulate the Tevinter Imperium, where Magisters rule over mages and non-mages alike. Saying that mages are in leadership positions is like pointing out how non-mages are Emperors and Kings in the Andrastian nations; there is no democracy in Thedas.

Furthermore, the history of the Dalish teaches that all elves used to be mages, which is why magic is important to all the Dalish, and the Keepers govern the clans; Merrill leaving the clan of her own choice is an example that elves can leave the clan of their own choice (as Zevran's and Feynriel's mothers did).

Also, the Avvar and the Chasind are governed by their shamans, but neither society is trying to emulate the brutal regime of oppression and slavery that exists in Tevinter.

In case you forgot, the Kingdom of Rivain was cited by David Gaider (along with the Chasind) as one of two examples of societies where mages weren't controlled. The idea that free mages = Tevinter is simply false, especially when societies outside the rule of the Andrastian nations demonstrate otherwise.

[GavrielKay]

Lynata wrote...
What about the rights of people murdered in a blood magic ritual? What about the rights of villagers torn apart by some abomination? What about the rights of the merchant or noble who gets his mind brainwashed by an ambitious mage? I could go on.

What about the people who die in a fire?  Or get swept away in a hurricane?  Or get knifed in a back alley by a thief?  Or die of an infection because there was no healer around?  I could go on too.

Life is dangerous.  No one gets out alive.  There is no "right" to safety, only prudence in not increasing your risks beyond the background level.  There is no moral right to feel safer by locking up other innocent people.  Unless you want to suggest that anyone who gets proficient with a sword should also be locked up just in case they decide to go on a rampage?

I say again, it is just too easy to point to mages and say they are different in some special way that makes it ok to deny them basic rights.

As you see, the issue isn't as clear-cut as you may have thought.

You don't think I've ever thought of that?  Come on.  I've thought of it and dismissed it, because it is wrong.  The majority does not have the right to feel safer by denying basic rights to a minority.  Should a mage actually commit a crime, that's different.  But so long as they merely possess the ability to do so, they are still innocent and deserve the same rights as everyone else.

Because all templars are rapists and all mages are innocent good-doers? Got it.

Why should anyone submit to incarceration by people who consider them less than human?  There is an excellent real life experiment that shows when a group of people is given absolute authority over another group, bad things happen.  See http://www.prisonexp.org/

If DA were truer to real life, I would expect mages to be summarily executed upon detection.  Because there is no way a group of people would submit for 900 years to subjugation as we see in the game.  They would fight back; there would be constant rebellion, to the point where the majority would give in and just start killing mages to prevent them getting sufficient numbers to overthrow the system.  Or, possibly, they could become more enlightened and find ways to co-exist with mages.  Like the Dalish, or Rivaini or Chasind...

I'm fairly sure there are a number of poor beggars in Thedas who would give a lot to be allowed to live in the gilded cage of a Circle tower, being afforded the best education as well as fine food and clothing. And really, what exactly is the difference between being raped by a templar and being raped by the city watch or a noble?

Trading your freedom willingly for shelter is different from having it stolen from you.  And I doubt that most people would end up thinking they'd made the right choice 20 years on when they've been allowed no family or fulfillment of other basic desires.  The difference between being raped by your jailor or a city guardsman...  well, first off, if I were raped by the city guard, I'd have at least a chance at justice.  Or, I could move away so as to escape that person. 

Because they still weren't as dangerous as mages. And because the Qunari generally don't turn into raging berserkers when they don't want to - unlike mages who are susceptible to demonic possession.

The Qunari seem to have done plenty of damage by the end of Act 2. 

And mages becoming unwilling abominations appears to be an exaggerated threat put out by the Chantry.  Most of what we read in codices or see in gameplay is mages willingly giving in to demons - due to lack of training like Connor or a desire to escape Chantry imprisonment like Uldred.  The continued existance of civilizations which have free mages makes it hard to believe this is as big a risk as the Chantry wants people to believe.

I've never seen a Qunari accidentally stick his sword into someone's face, otherwise they might be treated differently.

Sten?  Did you listen to his story about how he woke up and upon finding his sword gone and just lashed out at the farmers who found him and cut them down without a rational thought?

As Meredith said: "If you cannot tell me a better way, do not brand me a tyrant!"

Any number of better options have been suggested by myself and other posters.  People who have gotten used to the idea that it is ok to just lock up mages and let the Templars deal with them might have a hard time thinking anything else feels quite as safe, but that doesn't mean there aren't better options.

It is easy to campaign for change, it is harder to come up with an alternative that is just as safe as the established system. Which is a mistake that a lot of mages from the Libertarian faction make - they just see their own freedom and don't care what else would happen. "Anything is better than now" just doesn't work as well as one might think.

On the other hand, thinking, gee, life isn't too bad for the majority right now, why bother to change?  seems to be what's happening in the game world.

When I can choose between a minority oppressing a majority out of lust for power and lack of morality, and a majority oppressing an arguably dangerous minority out of fear - is it really wrong to believe the latter option is the better one?

It is really wrong.  It is wrong to think any kind of oppression is good.  It may not be wrong to think some kind of oppression is necessary, but other cultures surviving with free mages makes that argument difficult to make.

Divine Justinia was on the right path. A pity the mages couldn't wait. A pity for Thedas as a whole.

I read the book too.  She didn't make much progress against the entrenched fear and loathing of mages.  And...  it's a bit hard for me to feel the mages were obligated to wait for anything.  900 years is quite long enough.

[Mustang678]

It's easy to support the templars when you take into account that every mage in Kirkwall is a dangerous blood mage or abomination

[slashthedragon]

Quick question--if places like Rivain allow mages to be free. why don't the other countries deport their mages to such countries? Would that be an issue of the other countries not wanting/not able to take more, or that places like Kirkwall don't want the other countries to have a strong mage population in case there ever was a world war?

[EmperorSahlertz]

It is a misunderstanding that Rivain let mages live freely. They don't let apostates live freely around themselves for instance. They only let their Seers live outside Circles. ALL other mages are subjected to the same prejudices and fears, that mages everywhere else are.

[GavrielKay]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Avvar, the Chasind and the Dalish are all ruled by their mages.... Rivain is the only example of a nation with free mages, that havn't eneded up being ruled by them. But without more details into RIvaini society, we can't really say how their society used to be, and what it is now.

None of those societies are trying to emulate the Tevinter Imperium, where Magisters rule over mages and non-mages alike. Saying that mages are in leadership positions is like pointing out how non-mages are Emperors and Kings in the Andrastian nations; there is no democracy in Thedas.

Exactly.  Benevolent rule by mages because they are respected by their communities is hardly a problem.  In fact, it is arguably better than hereditary rule by non-mages who abuse the populace.  There are plenty of people in human history who've been treated worse by their rulers than Dalish clan members are treated by their Keepers.

Mages raised in societies where they are respected and given great responsibility shouldn't be any worse rulers than the first born son of any random noble.

[Dave of Canada]

Mustang678 wrote...

It's easy to support the templars when you take into account that every mage in Kirkwall is a dangerous blood mage or abomination

Well, I killed Ferelden's circle. Has nothing to do with Kirkwall, has everything to do with mages pretty much being the most dangerous thing on Thedas.

[GavrielKay]

Mustang678 wrote...

It's easy to support the templars when you take into account that every mage in Kirkwall is a dangerous blood mage or abomination

Except for the bit where we hardly see every mage in Kirkwall.  There are hundreds of mages in the circle, including children and elderly presumably.  We have no idea what they get up to and no reason to believe they are all monsters.

[LobselVith8]

slashthedragon wrote...

Quick question--if places like Rivain allow mages to be free. why don't the other countries deport their mages to such countries? Would that be an issue of the other countries not wanting/not able to take more, or that places like Kirkwall don't want the other countries to have a strong mage population in case there ever was a world war?

Why would the Chantry of Andraste give up having control over all the mages in the Andrastian nations? If you read Genitivi's account of the New Exalted Marches, he notes that the Circles of Magi were an asset to the Chantry forces fighting against the Qunari armies. "The greatest advantage of the Chantry-led forces was the Circle of Magi. For all their technology, the Qunari appeared to harbor great hatred for magic. Faced with cannons, the Chantry responded with lightning and balls of fire."

Also, the Circle mages have also fought in every battle against the Blight (which is noted again in Asunder). Duncan noted in the Magi Origin that mages were exceptional fighters against darkspawn because of their magical abilities.

[Lynata]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
It addresses that the Dalish claim that hostilties began because of the elves refusal to convert to the Chant of Light. Let's not pretend that the Orlesian version is the only possible scenerio here.[/quote]What you seem to be ignoring is that this wasn't from the Orlesian version, this IS from the Dalish version.

The templars did not show up until -after- Red Crossing, an event which is omitted entirely in that one paragraph you're clinging to. The war wasn't over in just a single day, which is how that line makes it sound: Missionaries are kicked out, templars show up, elven city is razed, Dales dissolved. This simply is not how it happened. Red Crossing happened in-between ... and when it happened is clarified in another Dalish account.

We don't even have to look to Orlesian history at all - just pull out those Dalish texts which tell the whole story and not just half of it!

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
If the elves kicked out the missionaries, and then the Chantry sent in armed and armored soldiers into the Dales, then it isn't as black and white as you are trying to make it out to be.[/quote]I'm not trying to make it black and white, you are. The account of the Keeper I am referring to makes it clear that both sides made mistakes whereas you seem to be interested in letting the Chantry appear as the sole responsible party and the elves as an entirely innocent party which was pushed to Red Crossing in an act of defense. Influenced by your opinion on how the Chantry is treating the mages, I presume.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
When you're professing that the Keeper who did no research is more informed than the person who did put the time to actually research the technology that she believed could benefit elves across Thedas, and all because you continually ignore every serious comment Merrill has ever made about the dangers spirits pose in order to keep bringing up one clearly sarcastic line from Merrill, it's going to be an issue.[/quote]Not one I feel like it warrants further discussion, as both of us have made it clear they will not budge from their established opinions. The Keeper does have the knowledge of her predecessors and Merrill does have what a demon told her. If the latter qualifies as "proper research" for you, I can at least understand your position on the issue of what to do with mages though.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
What about the rights of the men, women, and children who were ordered to be executed by templars in the Kirkwall Circle, simply because they were mages? What about the rights of the enchanters, mages, and apprentices all across the continent who are oppressed under a system that gives "divine right" to templars over their very lives?[/quote]Did I not address this with that very paragraph? Every single right withheld from this dangerous minority is withheld to preserve the rights of the innocent majority.

To quote a famous Vulcan: "The good of the many outweighs the good of the one."

Regardless of how much you want to dismiss this, magic -is- a curse as much as it is a gift. This isn't D&D. Arcane power comes with a lot of strings attached in this setting.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
What about the rights of mages who are being abused, raped, and tortured because they have no basic rights?[/quote]You are either displaying a lack of knowledge or are actively dismissing inconvenient facts from your perception; the latter is probably worse. Mages DO have rights and it IS against the law to abuse or rape them, or torture them without reason.

I won't say they wouldn't be tortured at all, but no more than any prisoner in a Thedan dungeon withholding important information would be tortured. Case in point: Knight-Captain Evangeline commenting on how the torture chambers in the White Spire haven't been used ever since the templars took over the building - but that this might change if the mages push them too far.

David Gaider also commented on mages being protected by law.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
You claim that all templars shouldn't be condemned for the actions of a few, but isn't that precisely what you're doing with the mages - condemning every single man, woman, and child for the actions that a few commit? Justifying what's done to mages because a few abuse their abilities?[/quote]Nope, it's not that easy. 

Unlike with templars, the active abuse of their abilities makes mages more powerful, in turn putting them into positions of influence. So it is less the actions of a few condemns mages as a whole, it is that these very actions make these few mages more dangerous - which in turn creates an incentive for the rest. This is just how humanity works. Power corrupts, and magical one even moreso. Entitlement and opportunities, amply represented in a number of mages throughout all Dragon Age media.

Furthermore, however, as I have stated mages can even become a threat to everyone around them when they do not wish to. Daemonic possession is a risk that every single mage has to deal with, and so weeding out the weak in order to lower the amount of mages turning into abominations on an open marketplace does seem feasible. Once again, the few have to suffer for the many to remain unharmed. A sad but necessary truth in this setting.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
And - in response to your comment about beggars - while some might prefer subjugation, we see that every single Circle of Magi across the continent has risen up to emancipate themselves from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars. It looks like most of the mages have decided that it's better to die on their feet, than live on their knees.[/quote]Yes, as I said, campaigning for change without thinking about what should come after is very popular - in fictional settings just as much as in real ones.

That the majority doesn't always come to the smartest conclusion should be obvious - a glance at the news or a history book should provide ample proof.

This is not to say that the Chantry is entirely free of faults. Far from it. Dissolving the College of Enchanters after the mages voted against independence was clearly a mistake, as was the templar crackdown after Kirkwall which only served to destabilize the situation further instead of achieving its intended effect.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
People tell Meredith alternative solutions all the time: Hawke even recommends that he can step into the role as Viscount, if the people elect him, and Meredith dismisses it to maintain her control as the de facto Viscount and dictator of Kirkwall in spite of telling her a better way.[/quote]And what does that have to do with the issue of mages? Because not even Orsino knew what to answer her on that one, despite his constant complaints.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
As for your dismissal of the Libertarian alternative, it's precisely what the Hero of Ferelden proposes when he asks for the Magi boon when he asks for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its independence, and the new ruler of Ferelden publicly agrees with him.[/quote]Actually, if such a choice is selected in the game, the new ruler of Ferelden agrees with putting the Circle under state authority. This is not mage freedom, it merely means that the mages are now working for the local nobility instead of a transnational spiritual organization sworn to use mages only against the darkspawn or enemies of the faith instead of the more regular disputes between squabbling kings and lords.

If it does include mage freedom, however, I'd be curious how things work out for the common people of Ferelden. Unfortunately, I don't think this will ever be addressed; it doesn't seem to be the "canonized" option.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
The Avvar, the Chasind, the Dalish, and even the Kingdom of Rivain demonstrate that free mages do not equal Tevinter.[/quote]The Avvar, the Chasind and the Dalish also demonstrate that their cultures do not equal that of any of the Andrastean nations; their mages are not as "tainted by civilization" as those of Tevinter, Orlais, Ferelden etc are. As for Rivain, we do know that their mages engage in voluntary possession - and from what I've seen of this stuff so far, I feel inclined to point out this is a lot more trouble than it's worth.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
The Chantry controlled Circles that put mages under the heel of the templars are not a compromise: as Wynne admits, the Chantry would rather murder every mage in Thedas than see them free. That isn't a compromise, it's an attempt to prevent a continential genocide.[/quote]The Chantry would also rather put every mage into a Circle where they can live their lifes and practice their arts without endangering anyone rather than murder them. What kind of argument are you trying to make of this?

[EmperorSahlertz]

LobselVith8 wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Avvar, the Chasind and the Dalish are all ruled by their mages.... Rivain is the only example of a nation with free mages, that havn't eneded up being ruled by them. But without more details into RIvaini society, we can't really say how their society used to be, and what it is now.

None of those societies are trying to emulate the Tevinter Imperium, where Magisters rule over mages and non-mages alike. Saying that mages are in leadership positions is like pointing out how non-mages are Emperors and Kings in the Andrastian nations; there is no democracy in Thedas.

Furthermore, the history of the Dalish teaches that all elves used to be mages, which is why magic is important to all the Dalish, and the Keepers govern the clans; Merrill leaving the clan of her own choice is an example that elves can leave the clan of their own choice (as Zevran's and Feynriel's mothers did).

Also, the Avvar and the Chasind are governed by their shamans, but neither society is trying to emulate the brutal regime of oppression and slavery that exists in Tevinter.

In case you forgot, the Kingdom of Rivain was cited by David Gaider (along with the Chasind) as one of two examples of societies where mages weren't controlled. The idea that free mages = Tevinter is simply false, especially when societies outside the rule of the Andrastian nations demonstrate otherwise.

I don't care wether they are trying to emulate Tevinter or not (yet anyway). I care about leadership being held exclusively by a minority, with which the majority can never hope to become a part of. So far only Rivain has shown a society where free mages don't rule. And since we know so very little about Rivain, it is hard to say what their society is like.

[GavrielKay]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I don't care wether they are trying to emulate Tevinter or not (yet anyway). I care about leadership being held exclusively by a minority, with which the majority can never hope to become a part of. So far only Rivain has shown a society where free mages don't rule. And since we know so very little about Rivain, it is hard to say what their society is like.

Err...  the majority of the people of other nations are ruled by nobility.  A group which you also have to be born into and who also have varying degrees of caring for everyone else.  The vast majority of people will never be anywhere near having actual power, which is true even in the real world.  It might make people feel a bit better to think if they really wanted to they might possibly end up with power, but for the most part that is just a reassuring dream.

It appears that the Dalish practice something of a meritocracy where even among the mages, certain ones are selected to actually be the leaders.  Other mages exist in the clans without leadership roles.

[Lynata]

GavrielKay wrote...
What about the people who die in a fire?  Or get swept away in a hurricane?  Or get knifed in a back alley by a thief?  Or die of an infection because there was no healer around?  I could go on too.

And when you could have prevented that fire or the hurricane or that murder, wouldn't you?

Comparing magic to swords just showcases a massive underestimation of the problem. Swordfighters don't kill people by accident, mages do. Swordfighters don't get possessed, mages do. Swordfighters can be killed by any
farmer with a pitchfork ... putting down a corrupt mage capable of shielding himself with arcane energy and setting your entire village on fire without an army at his back is a much more dangerous task.

I say again, it is just too easy to point to freedom and say everyone should have it when this means endangering the common good of the majority. There's a reason that "contemporary" Tevinter is slowly transforming back into the Imperium of old, you know.

GavrielKay wrote...
Why should anyone submit to incarceration by people who consider them less than human?  There is an excellent real life experiment that shows when a group of people is given absolute authority over another group, bad things happen.  See http://www.prisonexp.org/

You are aware that the very same thing goes for mages, too? Only that mages can just take this absolute power over other people every single day in their life. Many are tempted.

Also, templars do not have absolute authority over mages. As I said, there are rules and regulations, just like in any other prison. In fact, calling a Circle tower a prison is somewhat misleading to begin with, given that mages who have proven themselves are occasionally let out, not to mention that they have it much, much, much, much better than "real" Thedan prisoners or even modern day criminals.

Would you really abolish any and all prisons just because they all come with the potential for abuse? Together with the police force, while we're at it?

GavrielKay wrote...
If DA were truer to real life, I would expect mages to be summarily executed upon detection.  Because there is no way a group of people would submit for 900 years to subjugation as we see in the game.

Contrary to popular belief, there actually are a lot of mages who are quite okay with how things turned out. Because they understand the dangers posed by magic and by mages. Wynne, for example. I'm sure you know of the Fraternities - then you must also be aware of the Loyalist faction within the Circles. That said, of course faith does play a role as well. Some mages will stick with the Circles because they genuinely feel it is the best solution to deal with the risks, others will stick to them because they believe in the Maker (and thus the Chantry)... *shrugs*

GavrielKay wrote...
And I doubt that most people would end up thinking they'd made the right choice 20 years on when they've been allowed no family or fulfillment of other basic desires.

Define basic desires?

I don't think I'm too far off when I propose that a large part of beggars in Thedas doesn't even reach the age of 20.

GavrielKay wrote...
The difference between being raped by your jailor or a city guardsman...  well, first off, if I were raped by the city guard, I'd have at least a chance at justice.  Or, I could move away so as to escape that person.

If a templar rapes you, you tell your First Enchanter. The First Enchanter goes to the Knight-Commander, who then launches an investigation into the conduct of said templar.

People need to stop pulling Kirkwall as a prime example for your average templar garrison, really.

GavrielKay wrote...
The Qunari seem to have done plenty of damage by the end of Act 2.

Which was when the templars moved out against them. And I'm sure Kirkwall will be more wary of the Qunari in the future.

GavrielKay wrote...
And mages becoming unwilling abominations appears to be an exaggerated threat put out by the Chantry.  Most of what we read in codices or see in gameplay is mages willingly giving in to demons - due to lack of training like Connor or a desire to escape Chantry imprisonment like Uldred.

I have already cited "out-of-character" descriptions regarding the threat of possession from the RPG books. In fact, the pen&paper even includes a neat mechanical rule for this, potentially turning player mages into abominations. So I don't know at all where you get these "appearances" from.

GavrielKay wrote...
Any number of better options have been suggested by myself and other posters.

"Better" obviously lies in the eye of the beholder. I have seen a few, and was able to find flaws in all of them. Of course, said flaws were instantly downplayed by those supporting them, so this too is a never-ending debate.

GavrielKay wrote...
It is really wrong.  It is wrong to think any kind of oppression is good.  It may not be wrong to think some kind of oppression is necessary, but other cultures surviving with free mages makes that argument difficult to make.

See, if human or city-elven mages would think like Dalish Keepers, I would have less of an issue with this opinion. But they don't.

Modifié par Lynata, 02 avril 2012 - 07:25 .

[Shadowvalker]

Nobody can be surprised if - The one who has to die for the greater good do fight back.
And mages don't seem to get at lot of combat training with convensional weapons.

A selfsacrifice I can relate to due to the fact it is the persons own decision - a sacrifrice I must list as murder wether it be done through use of a sword, bloodmagic etc.

[EmperorSahlertz]

GavrielKay wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I don't care wether they are trying to emulate Tevinter or not (yet anyway). I care about leadership being held exclusively by a minority, with which the majority can never hope to become a part of. So far only Rivain has shown a society where free mages don't rule. And since we know so very little about Rivain, it is hard to say what their society is like.

Err...  the majority of the people of other nations are ruled by nobility.  A group which you also have to be born into and who also have varying degrees of caring for everyone else.  The vast majority of people will never be anywhere near having actual power, which is true even in the real world.  It might make people feel a bit better to think if they really wanted to they might possibly end up with power, but for the most part that is just a reassuring dream.

It appears that the Dalish practice something of a meritocracy where even among the mages, certain ones are selected to actually be the leaders.  Other mages exist in the clans without leadership roles.

And in what I just said, lead you to believe I condone nobility or even the way power is held in our world? I'm pretty sure I not once mentioned either of those....

[LobselVith8]

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

It addresses that the Dalish claim that hostilties began because of the elves refusal to convert to the Chant of Light. Let's not pretend that the Orlesian version is the only possible scenerio here.[/quote]

What you seem to be ignoring is that this wasn't from the Orlesian version, this IS from the Dalish version.

The templars did not show up until -after- Red Crossing, an event which is omitted entirely in that one paragraph you're clinging to. [/quote]

I'm addressing the codex entry that explicitly mentions that the Dalish claim that, after the elves kicked the missionaries out of the Dales, the Chantry sent in templars.

The Orlesians claimed the elves started the war; the Dalish claim that it was the Orlesians. There are two sides to this story, whether you're willing to admit it or not.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

The war wasn't over in just a single day, which is how that line makes it sound: Missionaries are kicked out, templars show up, elven city is razed, Dales dissolved. This simply is not how it happened. Red Crossing happened in-between ... and when it happened is clarified in another Dalish account.

We don't even have to look to Orlesian history at all - just pull out those Dalish texts which tell the whole story and not just half of it! [/quote]

The Dalish don't claim it was over in a single day, they claim the war started over their refusal to convert to the Chant of Light, and that started the hostilities between the two. Even the Ages article addresses that hostilities existed between the nations prior to the takeover of Red Crossing.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

If the elves kicked out the missionaries, and then the Chantry sent in armed and armored soldiers into the Dales, then it isn't as black and white as you are trying to make it out to be.[/quote]

I'm not trying to make it black and white, you are. The account of the Keeper I am referring to makes it clear that both sides made mistakes whereas you seem to be interested in letting the Chantry appear as the sole responsible party and the elves as an entirely innocent party which was pushed to Red Crossing in an act of defense. Influenced by your opinion on how the Chantry is treating the mages, I presume. [/quote]

I presume you're dismissing the Dalish claim because it puts the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars in a bad light, then?

Also, how does addressing that the Orlesians and the Dalish elves have contrary claims villify the Chantry? Maybe you can enlighen me about that accusation. I'm addressing there's more than one side to this story by pointing out that the Orlesian version isn't the only one that accounts for how the Exalted March against the Dales started. You're the one claiming that only the Chantry's version is accurate.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

When you're professing that the Keeper who did no research is more informed than the person who did put the time to actually research the technology that she believed could benefit elves across Thedas, and all because you continually ignore every serious comment Merrill has ever made about the dangers spirits pose in order to keep bringing up one clearly sarcastic line from Merrill, it's going to be an issue.[/quote]

Not one I feel like it warrants further discussion, as both of us have made it clear they will not budge from their established opinions. The Keeper does have the knowledge of her predecessors and Merrill does have what a demon told her. If the latter qualifies as "proper research" for you, I can at least understand your position on the issue of what to do with mages though. [/quote]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that Gaider said Merrill extrapolated information from a shard and researched the lore around the Eluvian. Audacity taught her blood magic because she couldn't perform the ritual she previously knew about with standard magic - as she lacked the sufficient amount of lyrium to cleanse the shard otherwise. She ended up turning to Audacity several years later when she exhausted all her other possibilities, but Marethari already became an abomination before she could converse with the entrapped demon.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

What about the rights of the men, women, and children who were ordered to be executed by templars in the Kirkwall Circle, simply because they were mages? What about the rights of the enchanters, mages, and apprentices all across the continent who are oppressed under a system that gives "divine right" to templars over their very lives?[/quote]

Did I not address this with that very paragraph? Every single right withheld from this dangerous minority is withheld to preserve the rights of the innocent majority.

To quote a famous Vulcan: "The good of the many outweighs the good of the one."

Regardless of how much you want to dismiss this, magic -is- a curse as much as it is a gift. This isn't D&D. Arcane power comes with a lot of strings attached in this setting. [/quote]

Regardless of how many times you openly dismiss it, the men, women, and children of the Circles of Magi are innocent. They aren't guilty simply because they have magical abilities.

And we have seen where the Chantry controlled Circles have lead to: a continential rebellion by every single Circle of Magi. It looks like the people are going to be caught in the middle of a war between the mages and the templars.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

What about the rights of mages who are being abused, raped, and tortured because they have no basic rights?[/quote]

You are either displaying a lack of knowledge or are actively dismissing inconvenient facts from your perception; the latter is probably worse. Mages DO have rights and it IS against the law to abuse or rape them, or torture them without reason.

I won't say they wouldn't be tortured at all, but no more than any prisoner in a Thedan dungeon withholding important information would be tortured. Case in point: Knight-Captain Evangeline commenting on how the torture chambers in the White Spire haven't been used ever since the templars took over the building - but that this might change if the mages push them too far.

David Gaider also commented on mages being protected by law. [/quote]

When mages can be turned into emotionless slaves who will do anything they are told to (as we see with Alrik), it's hard for me to seriously consider that they are protected by the law. When hundreds of men, women, and children can be executed because of the actions of a man who has no official ties to any of them, then it's hard for me to take it seriously when you're telling me that they are protected by the law. When a mage can't even reveal that he's getting raped by templars because he's threatened with the Rite of Tranquility, then what basic rights do mages have?

When mages are beaten simply for talking to civilians or when the tranquil proprietor says she will be beaten if someone steals from her, then I already know that mages are being tortured.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

You claim that all templars shouldn't be condemned for the actions of a few, but isn't that precisely what you're doing with the mages - condemning every single man, woman, and child for the actions that a few commit? Justifying what's done to mages because a few abuse their abilities?[/quote]

Nope, it's not that easy. 

Unlike with templars, the active abuse of their abilities makes mages more powerful, in turn putting them into positions of influence. So it is less the actions of a few condemns mages as a whole, it is that these very actions make these few mages more dangerous - which in turn creates an incentive for the rest. This is just how humanity works. Power corrupts, and magical one even moreso. Entitlement and opportunities, amply represented in a number of mages throughout all Dragon Age media.

Furthermore, however, as I have stated mages can even become a threat to everyone around them when they do not wish to. Daemonic possession is a risk that every single mage has to deal with, and so weeding out the weak in order to lower the amount of mages turning into abominations on an open marketplace does seem feasible. Once again, the few have to suffer for the many to remain unharmed. A sad but necessary truth in this setting. [/quote]

The Chasind, the Avvar, the Dalish, and even the Kingdom of Rivain stand to provide a contrast to what is done in the Andrastian nations. Societies that have had free mages for centuries. And denying mages their basic rights has lead to revolution in the Andrastian societies.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

And - in response to your comment about beggars - while some might prefer subjugation, we see that every single Circle of Magi across the continent has risen up to emancipate themselves from the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars. It looks like most of the mages have decided that it's better to die on their feet, than live on their knees.[/quote]

Yes, as I said, campaigning for change without thinking about what should come after is very popular - in fictional settings just as much as in real ones.

That the majority doesn't always come to the smartest conclusion should be obvious - a glance at the news or a history book should provide ample proof.

This is not to say that the Chantry is entirely free of faults. Far from it. Dissolving the College of Enchanters after the mages voted against independence was clearly a mistake, as was the templar crackdown after Kirkwall which only served to destabilize the situation further instead of achieving its intended effect. [/quote]

A glance at the history book has shown me that the downtrodden will often fight against tyranny, whether it's a dictatorship (as one of the developers referred to the Chantry controlled Circles) or slavery (which is how Anders, Aldenon, and a pro-mage Hawke view the Chantry controlled Circles).

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

People tell Meredith alternative solutions all the time: Hawke even recommends that he can step into the role as Viscount, if the people elect him, and Meredith dismisses it to maintain her control as the de facto Viscount and dictator of Kirkwall in spite of telling her a better way.[/quote]

And what does that have to do with the issue of mages? Because not even Orsino knew what to answer her on that one, despite his constant complaints. [/quote]

What exactly was Orsino going to tell the Knight-Commander who became a dictator over the entire city-state, when she already ignored the Champion of Kirkwall? She cracked down on the mages, she had a death squad murdering people, she tried to wrestle control of the City Guard from Aveline, and she prevented any election for the new Viscount. This woman was not listening to any serious suggestions, and it's misleading of you to try to claim otherwise. 

Even when Orsino advised against murdering an entire population of people who were innocent of Anders' actions, Meredith ignored him.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

As for your dismissal of the Libertarian alternative, it's precisely what the Hero of Ferelden proposes when he asks for the Magi boon when he asks for the Circle of Ferelden to be given its independence, and the new ruler of Ferelden publicly agrees with him.[/quote]

Actually, if such a choice is selected in the game, the new ruler of Ferelden agrees with putting the Circle under state authority. This is not mage freedom, it merely means that the mages are now working for the local nobility instead of a transnational spiritual organization sworn to use mages only against the darkspawn or enemies of the faith instead of the more regular disputes between squabbling kings and lords.

If it does include mage freedom, however, I'd be curious how things work out for the common people of Ferelden. Unfortunately, I don't think this will ever be addressed; it doesn't seem to be the "canonized" option. [/quote]

First, there is no "canon" option. If the Magi boon is imported, it's already addressed that the Chantry said no, but King Alistair is still apparently fighting for it several years later. Second, it isn't state authority. Neither Queen Anora nor King Alistair even make such a claim. They say that mages have earned the right to govern themselves.

Even the moderate Irving thanks the Hero of Ferelden for freeing the mages from "their shackles," which seems to be an interesting analogy about how he views the relationship between the mages and the Chantry controlled Circle.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

The Avvar, the Chasind, the Dalish, and even the Kingdom of Rivain demonstrate that free mages do not equal Tevinter.[/quote]

The Avvar, the Chasind and the Dalish also demonstrate that their cultures do not equal that of any of the Andrastean nations; their mages are not as "tainted by civilization" as those of Tevinter, Orlais, Ferelden etc are. As for Rivain, we do know that their mages engage in voluntary possession - and from what I've seen of this stuff so far, I feel inclined to point out this is a lot more trouble than it's worth. [/quote]

"Tainted by civilization"? The Dalish clans are remnants of the nation of the Dales, which are the remnants of the Kingdom of Arlathan.

Also, the seers seem to become like Wynne, and this has been a practice in Rivain for over a millennia.

[quote]Lynata wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

The Chantry controlled Circles that put mages under the heel of the templars are not a compromise: as Wynne admits, the Chantry would rather murder every mage in Thedas than see them free. That isn't a compromise, it's an attempt to prevent a continential genocide.[/quote]

The Chantry would also rather put every mage into a Circle where they can live their lifes and practice their arts without endangering anyone rather than murder them. What kind of argument are you trying to make of this?[/quote]

You mean put every mage under their heel and under their direct control.

[GavrielKay]

Lynata wrote...
And when you could have prevented that fire or the hurricane or that murder, wouldn't you?

That depends on what would be required to prevent those things. 

We don't prohibit people from living along coasts.  We don't prohibit people from walking at night.  We don't wall up all dark alleys.  There are all sorts of things that could make people safer that aren't done because they would be too much an imposition on their freedoms and livelihoods.  Being a fisherman is pretty dangerous, but people need food, so some people make a profit catching fish.

That is why I say being safe isn't a right.  We all want to be as safe as possible, but there is always a non-zero risk.  Even if that risk is that the sun will go super-nova and vaporize the planet.  You cannot be perfectly safe.  Ever.

Taking away the freedoms of a minority to become incrementally safer just isn't right.  Especially when the majority takes zillions of other risks in the course of their daily lives.

When Spock said the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, he was explaining why he voluntarily put himself at risk.  I don't recall anyone saying you should pluck random dangerous individuals out of their lives and imprison them against their will.

[Lynata]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I presume you're dismissing the Dalish claim because it puts the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars in a bad light, then?

Alright, you're not even reading my posts, otherwise you'd have noticed that I have pointed out a Dalish accounts as likely being the most accurate version as it incorporates mistakes from both sides.

LobselVith8 wrote...
Also, how does addressing that the Orlesians and the Dalish elves have contrary claims villify the Chantry? Maybe you can enlighen me about that accusation. I'm addressing there's more than one side to this story by pointing out that the Orlesian version isn't the only one that accounts for how the Exalted March against the Dales started. You're the one claiming that only the Chantry's version is accurate.

No, I am not. You just aren't reading my posts. And to me it seems clear that your entire argumentation intends to suggest a templar attack provoking the elves to commit the Red Crossing massacre, when not even the Dalish history incorporates this conclusion (which would be a lie, as one of the accounts - the one mentioning the templars - merely omits Red Crossing entirely).

As for the rest of your post, I'm just going to let it stand as once again we've reached the point where perception clashes with perception and it becomes a matter of conflicting principles and priorities.

Just one more thing: The sober mindset of Arlathan elves and their way of life was not even remotely comparable to the greedy and thus easily corruptible lifestyle of modern human civilization. I had hoped this would not need further explanation, but if you must, then read their Codex entry.

Of course, you don't have to (indeed, likely won't) agree with my opinion that with such a mindset the elves are much less susceptible to the lure of demons, but that is just one more thing where we'll have to agree to disagree.

GavrielKay wrote...
We don't prohibit people from living along coasts.  We don't prohibit people from walking at night.  We don't wall up all dark alleys. There are all sorts of things that could make people safer that aren't done because they would be too much an imposition on their freedoms and livelihoods.

The difference being that all of this takes a conscious choice of the individual to put himself at risk. With mages, they put others at risk, so it isn't inherently comparable.

More accurate would be: We do have laws against building and selling homes in areas at risk of natural disasters. We do have police officers stop and question suspicious individuals in the night. We do put fences  around dangerous construction sites. All of these things infringe on other peoples' freedom (the real estate investor, groups of young people out in the night, anyone wishing to take a shortcut through a building site), yet it is an accepted price to pay for safety.

The price for mages is higher, but so are the risks involved and the potential outcomes for everyone involved (including the mage) when something goes wrong.

Also, detainment of the innocent is fairly common even today when it comes to the mentally ill, as they are seen as a danger to themselves as well as to society. Same with quarantining infected populations.

But as with LobselVith8, I don't think this exchange actually leads to anything. I'm content with the fact that we have all established and explained our positions, so other readers can form their own opinions out of our arguments, should they still lack them.

Modifié par Lynata, 02 avril 2012 - 08:20 .

[LobselVith8]

Lynata wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

I presume you're dismissing the Dalish claim because it puts the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars in a bad light, then?

Alright, you're not even reading my posts, otherwise you'd have noticed that I have pointed out a Dalish accounts as likely being the most accurate version as it incorporates mistakes from both sides.

It can't be "most likely" when we have no idea what actually happened. All we have are two sides that claim the other started the war. I don't see what your problem is with that. The codex entry from the Dalish Warden about the Dales addresses the Dalish lore behind why the elves believe the war with Orlais started. All I'm doing is addressing that both sides blame the other for starting the war, because the Dalish Warden's codex entry exists as the basis for what the Dalish across Thedas believe was the cause of their war with Orlais and the Chantry of Andraste.

We don't know what really happened, because it transpired many, many years prior to the events in Origins and Awakening; all I'm doing is addressing that both sides are claiming that the other side started the war, because that is read from the Dalish lore.

Lynata wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Also, how does addressing that the Orlesians and the Dalish elves have contrary claims villify the Chantry? Maybe you can enlighen me about that accusation. I'm addressing there's more than one side to this story by pointing out that the Orlesian version isn't the only one that accounts for how the Exalted March against the Dales started. You're the one claiming that only the Chantry's version is accurate.

No, I am not. You just aren't reading my posts. And to me it seems clear that your entire argumentation intends to suggest a templar attack provoking the elves to commit the Red Crossing massacre, when not even the Dalish history incorporates this conclusion (which would be a lie, as one of the accounts - the one mentioning the templars - merely omits Red Crossing entirely).

I am reading your posts, but you seem to continue mistaking my statements and reading something entirely different. I'm not claiming to know what actually caused the war, I'm addressing that the Dalish lore specifically reads that they claim the war started because of their refusal to convert to the Chant of Light, when they kicked the Chantry missionaries out of the Dales, and the Chantry sent in armed and armored soldiers afterwards.

Both the Chantry and the Dalish entries are sparse, but the Chantry says the war started because of the attack on Red Crossing, while the Dalish claim it was their refusal to convert to the Chant of Light. All I'm doing is pointing out that both sides have a claim about what started the war.

Lynata wrote...

As for the rest of your post, I'm just going to let it stand as once again we've reached the point where perception clashes with perception and it becomes a matter of conflicting principles and priorities.

Just one more thing: The sober mindset of Arlathan elves and their way of life was not even remotely comparable to the greedy and thus easily corruptible lifestyle of modern human civilization. I had hoped this would not need further explanation, but if you must, then read their Codex entry.

Of course, you don't have to (indeed, likely won't) agree with my opinion that with such a mindset the elves are much less susceptible to the lure of demons, but that is just one more thing where we'll have to agree to disagree.

The Arlathan elves were different by virtue of the lore that reads how they were all mages, but I think my argument steams from the fact that the Chantry's views on mages and magic plays a part in why Andrastians view mages and magic so negatively, as compared to the Avvar, the Chasind, the Dalish, and even the Kingdom of Rivain, where mages and magic don't seem to be viewed with such disdain. In fact, Gaider addressed that abominations do happen in the places where mages aren't "controlled," but that it's viewed as a "natural disaster."

Lynata wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

We don't prohibit people from living along coasts.  We don't prohibit people from walking at night.  We don't wall up all dark alleys. There are all sorts of things that could make people safer that aren't done because they would be too much an imposition on their freedoms and livelihoods.

The difference being that all of this takes a conscious choice of the individual to put himself at risk. With mages, they put others at risk, so it isn't inherently comparable.

More accurate would be: We do have laws against building and selling homes in areas at risk of natural disasters. We do have police officers stop and question suspicious individuals in the night. We do put fences  around dangerous construction sites. All of these things infringe on other peoples' freedom (the real estate investor, groups of young people out in the night, anyone wishing to take a shortcut through a building site), yet it is an accepted price to pay for safety.

The price for mages is higher, but so are the risks involved and the potential outcomes for everyone involved (including the mage) when something goes wrong.

Also, detainment of the innocent is fairly common even today when it comes to the mentally ill, as they are seen as a danger to themselves as well as to society. Same with quarantining infected populations.

But as with LobselVith8, I don't think this exchange actually leads to anything. I'm content with the fact that we have all established and explained our positions, so other readers can form their own opinions out of our arguments, should they still lack them.

I don't think the Chantry controlled Circles are a productive means of helping mages, or even protecting people, but I think I'll simply agree to disagree here.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Your first mistake is to assume that somehow what some random Dalish storyteller says equates to the entire Dalish people's sentiment on the matter. Your second mistake is that by doing so, you completely dismiss a statement from a Dalish Keeper, who all but admits that it was the Elves who attacked Red Crossing first, but that it was renegade Elves, and not the Dalish governemnt who orchestrated the attack.

And to view Abominations as a natural disaster is not a good thing. The Abominations are viewed as natural disaster, because they feel like it is something inevitable and uncontrollable. The Andrastian nations knows this to be untrue, since they have foudnt eh means to prevent, and/or contain these so-called "natural disasters".

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 03 avril 2012 - 02:58 .

[LobselVith8]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Your first mistake is to assume that somehow what some random Dalish storyteller says equates to the entire Dalish people's sentiment on the matter.

You seem to be forgetting that the storytellers pass on Dalish history (as we see with the hahren Paivel). Don't you recall the Dalish Warden's Origin?

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Your second mistake is that by doing so, you completely dismiss a statement from a Dalish Keeper, who all but admits that it was the Elves who attacked Red Crossing first, but that it was renegade Elves, and not the Dalish governemnt who orchestrated the attack.

Which doesn't change the fact that Dalish lore stipulates that the Chantry sent in templars after the elves kicked out their missionaries, and even the Ages article addresses that hostilities existed between the Dales and Orlais prior to the attack on Red Crossing. There are two sides to this story, whether you want to admit it or not.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

And to view Abominations as a natural disaster is not a good thing. The Abominations are viewed as natural disaster, because they feel like it is something inevitable and uncontrollable. The Andrastian nations knows this to be untrue, since they have foudnt eh means to prevent, and/or contain these so-called "natural disasters".

It means they don't villify every single mage in existance simply for the actions of a few, like the Andrastian nations who preach such intolerance against mages and magic that we end up with innocent mages getting killed by non-mages for natural disasters that happen (such as droughts or a baby dying), as Wynne openly admitted.