1194 réponses à ce sujet

[Windninja47]

The mage's power is so great that the only safe course of action is to lock them up. Many circle mages like the circle life.

[Urzon]

Windninja47 wrote...

The mage's power is so great that the only safe course of action is to lock them up. Many circle mages like the circle life.

It would be hard for them to compare it against anything, since they are been there usually since childhood.

[DKJaigen]

Lotion stop trying to look like an idiot. You know just as i do that the Templar gain magic resistance through the consumption of lyrium. So who will replace them is a moot point. Everybody can replace the Templar´s.Also the excesses occur because the Templar´s own religion. Put the guards under a secular ruler and 95% of the problems disappear. Since mages are usefull to any ruler they will make sure they are well treated

Godwood you have not read Asunder it seems. Their where templars that wanted to f7ck **** up

[DKJaigen]

Windninja47 wrote...

The mage's power is so great that the only safe course of action is to lock them up. Many circle mages like the circle life.

Perhaps but they dont like the templars. otherwise the massive would not have happend.

[GodWood]

DKJaigen wrote...
Godwood you have not read Asunder it seems. Their where templars that wanted to f7ck **** up

I have not however a quick skim of the wiki's summary makes me skeptical of your claims.

Can't be certain though.

DKJaigen wrote...
Perhaps but they dont like the templars. otherwise the massive would not have happend.

Conceptually I like the Templars and I've also met far more templar character's I've liked then templar characters I've hated.

[Lotion Soronarr]

DKJaigen wrote...

Lotion stop trying to look like an idiot. You know just as i do that the Templar gain magic resistance through the consumption of lyrium. So who will replace them is a moot point. Everybody can replace the Templar´s.Also the excesses occur because the Templar´s own religion. Put the guards under a secular ruler and 95% of the problems disappear. Since mages are usefull to any ruler they will make sure they are well treated
 

Stop trying to act smart when your'e not.

The problem won't "go away". You want magical solutions that don't exist.
Secular rules? What secular ruler? TheDas is a medieval-like fantasy world. Religion is everywhere.

And religion is not the cause of mages problem. Mages are the cause of mages problem.
You think putting someone else in charge will magicly make mages life better?
that that secular ruler would not abuse his power over mages? Would not turn a circle into his personal playground?

And lyrium is expensive. Who will supply it for your new guard force? Where does the money and euipment come from?


See, this is the problem. You completely ignore the underlying problems and implications of your solutions.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 15 mai 2012 - 11:22 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
He never said remove the Templars completely or at all. He said remove the power they hold over Mages.

How would that work?

He wants them to be a neutral party, rather then a biased one that controls the Mages. He never said make them unable to perform their abilities.

Neutral and unbiased? Impossible.

Because crap like this...

We have dominance over Mages by divine right. -- Cullen

Mages aren't people. They are weapons. -- Cullen

....is a sure sign of why the Templar Order in its current form is not how it should be. The Templars need to be an equal party with the Mages, neither beholden to the Chantry or the State but to the Circle itself (IMO).

But he is right.

Mages are weapons. Living wapons.
And he isn't wrong on the dominance bit either - depending on interpretation.

And I'm willing to bet that the common people of Thedas would accept Mages being free, if the right methods were used..

You don't know people very well, do you?
Once mages would be out of the tower, then the bad stuff that was previously mostly restriced to the tower would start happening in the neghbourhod. It doesn't take much for people to start scremaing bloody murder.

After 9-11, people were looking for someoen to lynch. Afghanistan and Iraq were practicly made possible because of that single event. Now what would happen if attacks like 9-11 were common?

[TEWR]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

How would that work?

I dunno, make it so that they're strictly guardians and there is no allowance for the line of thought of "We own you mages!"?

If the Templars hold an equal power to the Mages -- not in terms of literal power, but in terms of authority -- then it will work. Which means introducing and enforcing laws that protect the Mages, which would require divisions of Seekers present at every Circle who would then investigate any reported abuse the Templars cause.

It's hard to watch the watchmen when the watchers of those watchmen aren't at every Circle. That lack of supervision was the norm prior to the war and would hopefully be rectified if the war is resolved.

Neutral and unbiased? Impossible.

Hmmm... in retrospect, yes it is more then likely impossible. Allow me to rectifiy it to say "more morally and ethically conscious".

Recruiting from religious fanatics isn't a sound move, especially if you're not receptive to different interpretations of a doctrine.

But he is right.

Mages are weapons. Living wapons.

To call them living weapons would mean he was acknowledging their status as people.

He called them weapons, plain and simple. And he says that they aren't people.

And he isn't wrong on the dominance bit either - depending on interpretation

No one has any right to rule over another person's life.

By this sense of warped logic I could say Tevinter is right to be able to rule over people. Or I could say that Orlais is right in ruling over Fereldans or Elves -- seeing as we have firsthand accounts from an Orlesian woman that Elves have it much worse in Orlais as well as accounts that Orlais sold Elves like cattle.

I won't say those things, but I could.

To argue that if Mages are free they'll institute a repeat of Tevinter and saying that shouldn't happen because it's wrong and to then go on and say that Templars have the right to rule over the life of Mages is a curious double standard.

Never mind that the Chantry is a prettied up Tevinter.

No one, no matter the amount of power they wield, has the right to rule over peoples' lives and decide what happens to them.

You don't know people very well, do you?

Rhetorical this may be, I know people just fine.

They'll eventually come to accept mages, if the Chantry doesn't preach intolerance and hatred against Mages. It'll be a while, but it will eventually happen.

Once mages would be out of the tower, then the bad stuff that was previously mostly restriced to the tower would start happening in the neghbourhod. It doesn't take much for people to start scremaing bloody murder.

After 9-11, people were looking for someoen to lynch. Afghanistan and Iraq were practicly made possible because of that single event. Now what would happen if attacks like 9-11 were common?

This isn't really relevant in light of what I had said earlier.

The Mages' Collective -- a collection of self-policing Mages both free from the Chantry's grip and a part of it -- have increased pro-mage sentiments in Ferelden.

They are free, they report on maleficarum activity, and Ferelden hasn't expericenced "daily 9/11s" and gone to hell and back.

That alone is evidence that free mages does not automatically equal Abominations galore and Tevinter Imperium 2.0.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 mai 2012 - 12:37 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
I dunno, make it so that they're strictly guardians and there is no allowance for the line of thought of "We own you mages!"?[/quote]

So wait - thinking it's their duty (by devine mandate) to police mages is wrong?
Why exactly?


[quote]
If the Templars hold an equal power to the Mages -- not in terms of literal power, but in terms of authority -- then it will work. Which means introducing and enforcing laws that protect the Mages, which would require divisions of Seekers present at every Circle who would then investigate any reported abuse the Templars cause.[/quote]

Don't see that working.
And I don't see any proof there is no oversight and that templars don't get punished if caught doing things they shouldn't be doing.
We could argue if that oversight is enough, but again, looking at it from the perspective of modern times, NO organization or faction would pass that test.

[quote]
It's hard to watch the watchmen when the watchers of those watchmen aren't at every Circle. That lack of supervision was the norm prior to the war and would hopefully be rectified if the war is resolved. [/quote]

I was under impression the Knigh-Commander supervises a Circle and the templars there.
Gregoir and Irwing certanly seemed to have a nice working relationship.


[quote]
Hmmm... in retrospect, yes it is more then likely impossible. Allow me to rectifiy it to say "more morally and ethically conscious".

Recruiting from religious fanatics isn't a sound move, especially if you're not receptive to different interpretations of a doctrine.[/quote]

Morality and ethicness are debatable. And all templars fanatics? Not really.


[quote]
To call them living weapons would mean he was acknowledging their status as people.

He called them weapons, plain and simple. And he says that they aren't people.[/quote]

You are reading too much into it. He said they aren't like you or me. And he is right.
And note that Cullen is one of the good guys.


[quote][quote]
And he isn't wrong on the dominance bit either - depending on interpretation[/quote]

No one has any right to rule over another person's life.[/quote]

According to whom?
Dominance has specific meaning(s), and in many cases might makes right.

Does a soldier have the right to dictate how a person from a quaranteened are alives his life? After all, he can shoot that individual, keep him locked up, etc...


[quote]
To argue that if Mages are free they'll institute a repeat of Tevinter and saying that shouldn't happen because it's wrong and to then go on and say that Templars have the right to rule over the life of Mages is a curious double standard.[/quote]

It's not.
Circles exist out of necessity and practicialty. A second Tevinter? Hardly.
And the second Tevinter isn't what I'd be worried about.

[quote]
Never mind that the Chantry is a prettied up Tevinter.[/quote]

So the Chantry kills thousands in sacrifices and sick experimetns, summons deamons and such?
Can't say I noticed.

[quote]
No one, no matter the amount of power they wield, has the right to rule over peoples' lives and decide what happens to them.[/quote]

Tell that to your local govenment.



[quote]
Rhetorical this may be, I know people just fine.

They'll eventually come to accept mages, if the Chantry doesn't preach intolerance and hatred against Mages. It'll be a while, but it will eventually happen.[/quote]

No it won't.
You keep comparing mages to blacks/jews (insert some persecuted minority). But they are not.


[quote]
[quote]Once mages would be out of the tower, then the bad stuff that was previously mostly restriced to the tower would start happening in the neghbourhod. It doesn't take much for people to start scremaing bloody murder.

After 9-11, people were looking for someoen to lynch. Afghanistan and Iraq were practicly made possible because of that single event. Now what would happen if attacks like 9-11 were common?
[/quote]

This isn't really relevant in light of what I had said earlier.[/quote]

It is. When s*** happens, people blame someone.
When a lot of s*** happens, a lot of blame is thrown around. 99% will fall at the feet of the mages.


[quote]
The Mages' Collective -- a collection of self-policing Mages both free from the Chantry's grip and a part of it -- have increased pro-mage sentiments in Ferelden.
They are free, they report on maleficarum activity, and Ferelden hasn't expericenced "daily 9/11s" and gone to hell and back.[/quote]

Their methods are terrible, they rely on odd meconaries and contracts that have no guarantee of even being taken and there's still few of them. Give it time.

[quote]
That alone is evidence that free mages does not automatically equal Abominations galore and Tevinter Imperium 2.0.[/quote]

It is not.

[DKJaigen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

Lotion stop trying to look like an idiot. You know just as i do that the Templar gain magic resistance through the consumption of lyrium. So who will replace them is a moot point. Everybody can replace the Templar´s.Also the excesses occur because the Templar´s own religion. Put the guards under a secular ruler and 95% of the problems disappear. Since mages are usefull to any ruler they will make sure they are well treated
 

Stop trying to act smart when your'e not.

The problem won't "go away". You want magical solutions that don't exist.
Secular rules? What secular ruler? TheDas is a medieval-like fantasy world. Religion is everywhere.

And religion is not the cause of mages problem. Mages are the cause of mages problem.
You think putting someone else in charge will magicly make mages life better?
that that secular ruler would not abuse his power over mages? Would not turn a circle into his personal playground?

And lyrium is expensive. Who will supply it for your new guard force? Where does the money and euipment come from?


See, this is the problem. You completely ignore the underlying problems and implications of your solutions.

That solutions doesnt exist yet doesnt mean they cannot ever be. And in previous note lotion you failed to name a single improvement the circles have made over 1000 years. So it clear that all improvement in magic is outside the chantry. So its clear the templars prohibit magical research . For that reason alone the templars should not exits.

And religion is the problem. Explain to me why other societies work and the chantry does not ( or have you forgotten the civil war). And no, a secular ruler would not make a circle his playground because mages are useful. Either as military resource or more mundane things like healing. And sane people do not destroy a resource only religious idiots do.

And if you have forgotten we are talking about the nations themselves. They have plenty of resources to support an army not to mention that the rulers will demand that the chantry hands over the lyrium trade if the templars cease to exist.

And for last part lotion have you forgotten that the templars are just doing whatever they want in the last book? a rogue army is far more dangerous then some abomination. Look upon the history of armies with to much religious fervor and no master like the teutonic knights.

[TEWR]

I'm a bit exhausted, so my posts may be a bit.... Jack Sparrow-ish in terms of logic or in terms of how much they make sense, running the risk of people having to go "Wait..... what?" for a few minutes.

[quote]So wait - thinking it's their duty (by devine mandate) to police mages is wrong?
Why exactly?[/quote]

Policing Mages and claiming ownership of Mages are two different things.

Please don't conflate the two.

Never mind that nowhere in the Chant of Light does it state that Templars own Mages, considering they were formed hundreds of years after the Chantry and Chant of Light was formed.

There is no divine mandate that grants the Templars the right to rule over the Mages in such a way that they control them. There's a divine mandate that says they should protect the Mages from themselves and the populus and the populus from the dangers of magic.

"To protect and serve" is their mandate, not "to do as we please to the Mages because we own them".

And yet (the majority of) Templars still believe the latter is what their duty is. That they are, by fault of serving the Chantry as its militant arm, the owners of Mages.


[quote]
Don't see that working.[/quote]

And why? You can say "Nope, won't work" all you want but without pointing out why it won't work this is not only pointless, but seems like it's saying "I'm right, you're wrong. Deal with it."

Not trying to be a douche, but that's simply how it is.

[quote]
And I don't see any proof there is no oversight and that templars don't get punished if caught doing things they shouldn't be doing.
We could argue if that oversight is enough, but again, looking at it from the perspective of modern times, NO organization or faction would pass that test.
[/quote]

It's there, but it's not there in sufficient quantity to make a difference. If it was, Kirkwall would never have happened.

If it was, Starkhaven's Circle might still be around.

If it was, Mages wouldn't commit suicide because they're being raped and tortured, as Anders tells us happened in Ferelden's Circle. That we never saw it happen doesn't mean it never did.

Additionally, since Seekers are another part of the Chantry they are automatically biased. An arbiter should be impartial during matters of judiciary action against someone. And when he finds it impossible to be impartial, he should make note of such a thing and find someone else willing to be impartial.

That is why on the last page or two in my proposed system of reform I said that the Seekers need to be under the direct authority of the State. Not the Chantry. And they need to have a presence in every Circle. Not just on the whim when they hear rumors about stuff.


[quote]
I was under impression the Knigh-Commander supervises a Circle and the templars there.
Gregoir and Irwing certanly seemed to have a nice working relationship.
[/quote]

It's supposed to be a joint thing. The KC and the FE are supposed to work hand in hand with one another to make the system at the Circle they reside in work. They're supposed to decide what happens to the Mages. You see this to an extent in the Fereldan Circle, but some of the logic they employ is still flawed.

Sadly for Kirkwall, this wasn't the case.Meredith changed all that when she became KC. We know for a fact that she became the Knight-Commander a few years prior to Orsino having become the First Enchanter.

And we also know that when Meredith became KC, she changed the rules and became less mage-friendly to them, removing more and more of their rights.

Orsino is the First Enchanter all Circles should have. The game's Gregoir is -- at the very least -- the Knight-Commander that all Circles should have. Orsino is not against working with the Templars. He's for it. What he is against is when the Mages are punished so much not only for the actions of apostates, but for a select few mages within the Circle. So much so that their rights are removed.

I say the game's Gregoir because I'm not a fan of what the comics depicted him as (a woman-beater). It's canon unfortunately, but I feel the need to differentiate between DAO's Gregoir and the comic's Gregoir.





[quote]Morality and ethicness are debatable. And all templars fanatics? Not really.[/quote]

All? No. Certainly not.

But I'd argue -- and have done so in the past -- that the majority are, based on experience from the games and the codex on how Templars are recruited.

[quote]
You are reading too much into it.[/quote]

I am not.



[quote]He said they aren't like you or me. And he is right.[/quote]

No one is like anyone else. That much is a fact of life. And we have hints that at one point, all people were Mages.

Hints, vague as they are, are merely that.

At any rate, they're still people. People with more power then anyone else -- but this power is easily severed by Templar abilities -- but they are still people. They think, they feel, they love, they mourn, they eat, they sleep, etc.

If they're not going to have freedom to live where they want, they should have the freedom to live how they want within the Circles. But they don't.

And Cullen seems in favor of lessening Mage rights believing falsely that squeezing harder will solve problems.

If his views have changed after he slaughtered an entire Circle for an act they didn't commit, I don't know.

[quote]
And note that Cullen is one of the good guys.[/quote]

Among Kirkwall's Templars, sure.

But that's not saying much.

[quote]So the Chantry kills thousands in sacrifices and sick experimetns, summons deamons and such?
Can't say I noticed.[/quote]

The Chantry and Orlais are so deeply intertwined it's sickening. What one does is met with the approval of the other, as history has shown us.

One need only review Thedas' Chantry history to see that this is the case.



[quote]Tell that to your local govenment.[/quote]

The government doesn't rule over me. It represents me.

[quote]No it won't.
You keep comparing mages to blacks/jews (insert some persecuted minority). But they are not.[/quote]

They are.



[quote]Their methods are terrible, they rely on odd meconaries and contracts that have no guarantee of even being taken and there's still few of them. Give it time.[/quote]

You're assuming handing out contracts is the full extent of what they do. That's a falsehood. It's only part of it.

They submit requests, yes. Who takes care of those requests is not limited to any one group by what we know of them. Being a self-policing force of Mages implies they will take care of their own matters if they need to.

And they take care of some of them, given the quest that deals with Renold trying to stop his foolish apprentice that dabbled in blood magic. Given that we know they have some Templars on their side, it stands to reason that they also petition those Templars for aid when they need it.



[quote]
It is not.
[/quote]

It is.

Is Ferelden up to their elbows in Abominations? No.

Is Ferelden another Imperium? No.

Is the Mages' Collective allowing mages that might seek to do one of those two things to roam free? No.

The Circle caused more Abominations to be present in Ferelden then apostates ever did. Uldred launched a rebellion because the Mages didn't have rights and his only poor choice was turning to summoning demons through the blood magic he kept secret.

You're arguing that if Mages are free, Abominations will roam the streets. Yet an Abomination invasion happened within a Circle due to a lack of rights the Mages had and it was only kept at bay because of Wynne's barrier.

And this was in Thedas' most liberal Circle.

Abominations are only created when a Demon forcibly possesses a Mage, creates an agreement with a Mage, or is summoned into a Mage by blood magic. There was another I believe, but I honestly can't recall what it was.

At any rate, Mages have more often then not become Abominations when they were so pressed for survival that they would allow their mind, body, and soul to be destroyed in the process. At other times, it was due to forced possession. Some of those other times had motivations that stem back to the lack of rights.

Lack of rights has created more chaos then giving rights ever would. Considering the Mages' Collective has greater rights at the cost of maintaining a tighter watch on their own activities and Ferelden is not Abomination central, that's an argument for greater rights.

Not against.

Considering Malcolm Hawke had a family -- one with two mage children, at most -- and a very nice life in a quiet village and Lothering neither fell to Abominations nor was destroyed by power-hungry mages, that's an argument for greater rights.

Not against.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 15 mai 2012 - 08:38 .

[dragonflight288]

Lotion, I offer you a challenge. Whenever you dispute our claims, use things from the game or novels itself, and point out the flaws in our arguments and why they won't work, not merely tell us it won't. Use in-game evidence, codexes, events that happened or were observed by Hawke or the Warden, use events from the novels. Instead of telling us we're wrong, show us how we're wrong.

If you can't do that, this entire debate becomes rather pointless as it's turning into "I said this,-no you didn't, you said this and I said this."

[Lazy Jer]

The circle needs reform, but maybe not as much as previously thought. If the wikia entry is believeable at all it would seem that the First Enchanter has quiet a bit of power. Though appointed by the Knight Commander, the first enchanter has a lot of say in what happens to mages in a circle of magi, or at least is supposed to.

The problem, as I see it, was illustrated in the events of Kirkwall. First we had a Knight-Commander who overstepped her authority. Thus we see that the power the First Enchanter has is absolutely unenforceable since the knight-commander has the Templars at his disposal and the First Enchanter only has the Circle Mages at his disposal. If the Circle Mages fight back against the Templars, it can be considered justification for calling for the Rite of Annulment.

In short, the Templars do need to change. If the goal of the Templar Order is to protect the outside world from magic and protect mages from the outside world, then perhaps it is time to allow Mages to join the Templar Order, at least within the circles. That way the Templar Order might have more of it's members who had a genuine interest in keeping order and protecting mages and non-mages alike.

Perhaps, too, there needs to be a way to address conflict between the First Enchanter and the Knight-Commander. Keep one of the reasons things came to a boiling point in Kirkwall was because First Enchanter Orsino was being denied a right to contact the Grand Cleric to air his grievences with Knight-Commander Meredith. I can't help but think that there needs to be a third party appointed in the Circles to allow for a system of checks and balances to prevent any one person from having absolute power, or close to it.

...or make the whole dang lot of them, mages AND Templars, Grey Wardens and prepare to sack the Deep Roads once and for all.

[dragonflight288]

...or make the whole dang lot of them, mages AND Templars, Grey Wardens and prepare to sack the Deep Roads once and for all.

Now that's how we interrupt the bureaucratic process and the war! I'm all for it. As a dwarf, I cannot help but want anything less than the extermination of the darkspawn. The surface can suffer without mages and templars both for awhile. INTO THE DEEPROADS! Glory awaits!

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]DKJaigen wrote...
That solutions doesnt exist yet doesnt mean they cannot ever be. [/quote]

Nor does it mean they can be.

[quote]
And in previous note lotion you failed to name a single improvement the circles have made over 1000 years. So it clear that all improvement in magic is outside the chantry. So its clear the templars prohibit magical research . For that reason alone the templars should not exits. [/quote]

No, nothing si clear. I don't have to prove anything.

[quote]
And religion is the problem. Explain to me why other societies work and the chantry does not ( or have you forgotten the civil war). And no, a secular ruler would not make a circle his playground because mages are useful. Either as military resource or more mundane things like healing. And sane people do not destroy a resource only religious idiots do.[/quote]

How naive.
Since when do "other societies work and the Cahntry does not"? Becase of war? wars happen constatnly. War is not an indication of faliure.
And yes, a secular ruler is jsut as likely to abuse mages as a non-secula one. He's do it for his own gains and agendas.
And you equating being religios wiht being insane clearly shows your blinding hate towrds religion, and this irreprable bias. OR are all non-religious people sane? All religious people insane?

Keep chewing on your foot there....


[qutoe]
And if you have forgotten we are talking about the nations themselves. They have plenty of resources to support an army not to mention that the rulers will demand that the chantry hands over the lyrium trade if the templars cease to exist. [/quote]

Say hello to even more destructive internal wars, as mages will be used as peronal artilery/cannon fodder.


[quote]
And for last part lotion have you forgotten that the templars are just doing whatever they want in the last book? a rogue army is far more dangerous then some abomination. Look upon the history of armies with to much religious fervor and no master like the teutonic knights.
[/quote]

Religion is an excuse, not a cuse. Always has been. That argument will never get you anywhere with me.
Any time you attack religion you might as well be flinging poo, as it will be met by me with amused indifference and a sad head nod.

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Policing Mages and claiming ownership of Mages are two different things.

Please don't conflate the two.[/quote]

Funny, given that you do.

I don't recall anyone saying they own mages.
Rule over them? Yes. Tehy tell they have to (and not without reason)
Own? No.
Big difference.





[quote]
It's there, but it's not there in sufficient quantity to make a difference. If it was, Kirkwall would never have happened.

If it was, Starkhaven's Circle might still be around.

If it was, Mages wouldn't commit suicide because they're being raped and tortured, as Anders tells us happened in Ferelden's Circle. That we never saw it happen doesn't mean it never did.[/quote]

And that it happen doens't mean it's widespread.
And Kirkwall was very specific.
And, no, not sufficient for our standards. But for the standards fo middle-ages? When there was no such  thing as oversight?

I like it how people are just dropped into a middelage society an immediately want to implement modern solutions everywhere. Who cares about cultural and social factors?


[quote]
Additionally, since Seekers are another part of the Chantry they are automatically biased. An arbiter should be impartial during matters of judiciary action against someone. And when he finds it impossible to be impartial, he should make note of such a thing and find someone else willing to be impartial.[/quote]

EYERYONE is biased. Period.

Them being under the chantry or not does jack s***.
Police are part of the state. Internal Affairs is part of the state. The state-supplied attorney is part of the state.

And the Tempalrs don't like the Seekers


[quote]
Sadly for Kirkwall, this wasn't the case.Meredith changed all that when she became KC. We know for a fact that she became the Knight-Commander a few years prior to Orsino having become the First Enchanter.

And we also know that when Meredith became KC, she changed the rules and became less mage-friendly to them, removing more and more of their rights.[/quote]

Meredith was loony even before the whole statue thing.
And Kirkwall always seemed to have been the Circle with most abominations and blood mages, so it was always the most restrictive.





[quote]
[quote]He said they aren't like you or me. And he is right.[/quote]
No one is like anyone else. That much is a fact of life. And we have hints that at one point, all people were Mages.

Hints, vague as they are, are merely that.[/quote]

What hints? And who cares?
Dont' give me the "no one is alike" crap. You very well know its' a whole different level of difference.


[quote]
At any rate, they're still people. People with more power then anyone else -- but this power is easily severed by Templar abilities -- but they are still people. They think, they feel, they love, they mourn, they eat, they sleep, etc.[/quote]

And they are still weapons. Dangerous, dangerous weapons taht can go off without even wanting to.


[quote]
If they're not going to have freedom to live where they want, they should have the freedom to live how they want within the Circles. But they don't.[/quote]

Erm..not necessarily.




[quote]
[quote]So the Chantry kills thousands in sacrifices and sick experimetns, summons deamons and such?
Can't say I noticed.[/quote]

The Chantry and Orlais are so deeply intertwined it's sickening. What one does is met with the approval of the other, as history has shown us.

One need only review Thedas' Chantry history to see that this is the case.[/quote]

What does that have to do with my question?



[quote][quote]
You keep comparing mages to blacks/jews (insert some persecuted minority). But they are not.[/quote]

They are.[/qutoe]

They aren't. Last time I checked, a jew won't turn into a monster  against his will and destroy an entire town.
Neither can he mind control me or raise my corpse to serve as his army.



[quote]
It is.
Is Ferelden up to their elbows in Abominations? No.
Is Ferelden another Imperium? No.
Is the Mages' Collective allowing mages that might seek to do one of those two things to roam free? No.[/quote]

Fallacy. 90% of the mages are in the circles. Or course Ferelden won't be in elbows in abominations. And if it was,  it's not like you'd notice when a remote village dissapears. Not during the blight anyway. The Darkspawn did ti!
And again - anotehr Imperium? Antoher fallacy


[quote]
The Circle caused more Abominations to be present in Ferelden then apostates ever did. Uldred launched a rebellion because the Mages didn't have rights and his only poor choice was turning to summoning demons through the blood magic he kept secret.
You're arguing that if Mages are free, Abominations will roam the streets. Yet an Abomination invasion happened within a Circle due to a lack of rights the Mages had and it was only kept at bay because of Wynne's barrier.
[/quote]

Yes. I am arguming that. It would happen.
Human nature. Statistic.



[quote]
Lack of rights has created more chaos then giving rights ever would. [/quote]

Like you would know... You're comparing current (unknown) abomination numebrs with past (unknown) abomination numbers? Are you psychic or something?

[Lotion Soronarr]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Lotion, I offer you a challenge.

Your challenge is rejected.

I will structure my replies the way I see fit and within the time constraints I have. I do not have time to go quote-hunting for you. I do have my lore soruces just as you have yours, and plenty have been mentioned and quoted before.  And just as you don't repeat every single one a bajjilion time, I don't either.

[Lazy Jer]

dragonflight288 wrote...

...or make the whole dang lot of them, mages AND Templars, Grey Wardens and prepare to sack the Deep Roads once and for all.

Now that's how we interrupt the bureaucratic process and the war! I'm all for it. As a dwarf, I cannot help but want anything less than the extermination of the darkspawn. The surface can suffer without mages and templars both for awhile. INTO THE DEEPROADS! Glory awaits!

Well the statement was intended partially in jest, but let's face it the whole mage/templar war does bring light to the fact that the entire rest of Thedas suffers from the delusion that when a blight is over the darkspawn mysteriously go away.  There've certainly been enough blights for everyone to realize that isn't true and to say "Hey...mages may be debateably dangerous but at least they don't swarm the surface killing or corrupting every living thing in it's path."  In short the nations of Thedas need to start thinking about taking the fight to the darkspawn before we have another one of these blight thingies.

[dragonflight288]

Dragonflight, let me start by saying you're a reasonable guy, I like your posts, so I'm not trying to get persnickity with you.

But
there are other people in this discussion who aren't playing by those
rules.  One thinks because he's a police officer he knows everything
about micro and macro-social behaviour and draws on all kinds of things
unrelated to the DA universe.  Instead he draws from his perception of
the real world.  I myself had a debate with said individual in which I
pointed out people don't typically uprise in the face of superior force
even when said people have the numbers to overcome that force because . .
. y'know . . . most people don't want to die.  Again - real world
argument for an in-game debate.

And there are others.

My
point is I think the terms of the discussion you propose, if followed
"to-the-letter" are universally not followed by the forums.  Furthermore
I think it makes the discussion kinda bland.  Furthermore, as DA
attempts to be a more realistic, gritty game based on medeival history, I
actually think the discussion should extend beyond examples from the
game.  Real life examples apply.

To your credit, I do agree that
it does help to back claims up with something from the game a moderate
amount of the time.  All the time is welcome too, of course.  But I
agree with Lotion that folks get carried away with diggin DA information
when they could be doing other real life stuff.  I'm not saying quotes,
codexes, and video are not interesting and helpful.  Even the comics,
which I personally get irritated by, have to be considered fair game as
it's not my place to say what sources count.

Good job trying to frame the discussion so it doesn't become what it is.  A muckabout.

When
I came to this thread it was specific to The Gallows in Kirkwall in DA2
and look at how far it has expanded.  I think it's great that folks get
to come here and expand on their ideas, even if some of them are dills!



edit - spelling and skipped words.  I often think faster than I type.

Right.. At the time I wrote that post, I was having a very rough day at work and finals at college, got on, saw his most recent post and simply let my frustrations out. I had no intention of singaling him out.

My fault.

And yes, I apologize for singaling you out Lotion, but if I am to debate someone, honestly debate and discuss, I'd prefer using lore and in-game evidence. That way everyone knows what's on the table and we can dscuss the merits on what works and doesn't. I can't have a friendly discussion when the person I'm talking to is picking apart everything I said, turns it into something I didn't, and only uses personal opinions as a basis for refuting me.

Everyone on this board is entitled to their own opinions, and in the end it's just a video game we all enjoy.

But yeah, thanks for that. I try to be civil and fair minded, so I'll issue my challenge to everyone.

If we are going to say someone's argument is wrong or flawed in some way, we need to have some lore from the novels, or games taken in-context to the subject matter (I admit there are multiple ways to interpret a code entry, but if we quote it, use the whole quote so everyone knows what's there, and so we know if someone is missing something or not) or at least refer to the codex or moment of gameplay so we can look it up and possibly catch something originally missed.

I recognize that we can waste a lot of time going lore searching to make an argument, so how about if we seek to disprove an argument instead? Or make one, or something...

The development team at Bioware did a wonderful job creating a complex world where what is seemingly black and white has created such shades of grey that we are still debating mages and templars over a year later.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 16 mai 2012 - 11:27 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Since DA is trying to be realistic (to a point)in it's portrayl of the world, then the social, political and behavioral aspects of the middle ages are part of the context.

To simply look at every piece of lore trough just the lens of modern times is deeply flawed.

But ultimatively, this "discussion" (and I use the term loosely) boils down to two very different perspectives.

One that postulates that mages really aren't that dangerous, that the Chantry is evil, corrupt and inflates the danger, and that letting a thousand mages roam free would end great for everyone.
This view is rather popular, in no small part due to humanities leanings to root for the underdog and the rather negative view on religion (and the Catholic church in general) and many misconceptions about it. Also a factor is our modern push for Political Correctnes (gonw wild) and the idea that any and all limitations on anyones freedom is eeeeevil.

The second postulates that mages really are dangerous. Exceptionally so.
Plenty of lore backs this up (with a single mage razing vilalges) as well as dev quotes.


Ultimately, since the basic starting premises (which formes the core of all that follows) of these two views are so fundamentally different, there can be no reconciliation.

We know you won't be convinced.
We know I won't change my mind either.

[Urzon]

Must be nice to be able to boil down everything to two perspectives, then overly dramatize (and over explain) the point you don't agree with. All the while, you keep your opinion short and sweet, but never go into details about the downsides.

Then when people try and push for a compromise between the two side, it is always written off as "you don't understand the dangers".

Which always seems to boil down to, "Mages bad, go in Circle" or "Mage evil, die!".

Modifié par Urzon, 17 mai 2012 - 09:19 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Urzon wrote...

Must be nice to be able to boil down everything to two perspectives, then overly dramatize (and over explain) the point you don't agree with. All the while, you keep your opinion short and sweet, but never go into details about the downsides.

Then when people try and push for a compromise between the two side, it is always written off as "you don't understand the dangers".

Which always seems to boil down to, "Mages bad, go in Circle" or "Mage evil, die!".

After so many pages, you really expect me to write essays?
"Mages dangerous, lock in circles" is an apt simplification.

And the downsides? Everyone knows the downsides of the Circle system. We've seen the downsides. No one is happy with the downsides.
But at least the Circle supporters acknowledge the downsides. Most mage supporters are blind to the downsides of mages roaming free.

Also, I am a moderate.
Do you think I like mage abuse? Yes, I'd like better oversight as well, but the issue and it's solution is hardly as simple as many think.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 17 mai 2012 - 11:51 .