1194 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

And what if you were a mage? Would you be happy to be raped? Would you be happy to have all your emotions stripped from you because someone else says you are too dangerous to be around others, or they lack confidence in your ability to say no to a demon?

What about your mother, should she have been a mage, if you have children, what of your daughters?

Mages exist, nothing will get rid of them. Every day, more are born. Every day, more discover their power while in their adolescence, with preconceived notions on what magic is based on how they were raised up to that point. If you were among them in real life, would you believe yourself cursed, unfit for the freedoms you currently enjoy? Or would you use other cultures, and the lack of abominations running amok, as proof that what you've been told your entire life is a lie?

If magic did exist with all the risks, would you in good conscience, knowing how the templars can abuse their power over their charges, in good faith trust the well-being of yourself or any family member you have to their care?

Modifié par dragonflight288, 20 mai 2012 - 10:02 .

[Silfren]

John Renegade wrote...

So what is the available lore? Mage can get possessed in his sleep while being in the same pub, maybe catching his templar friends by even bigger surprise... it could theoretically happen to you if you failed your harrowing.

EDIT: Oh, and what is the point of harrowing then, if the mages cannot get possessed in unpredictable situations? What are those exact situations when a mage can get possessed? Where do you take that certainty? Any quotes?

Personally?  I think the point of the Harrowing is to terrorize mages.  It proves nothing.  No, seriously, it doesn't.  Surviving your Harrowing does not guarantee you won't fail possession next time, or won't become a thrall.

Wynne passed her Harrowing.  So did the Mage!Warden.  So did Uldred, presumably.  So the Harrowing doesn't certify a mage as being possession proof.  

Which is not to say I don't think mages need training, I do.  I just think that the current example of a mage's Final Exam falls horribly short.  

I also find it VERY telling that Morrigan, the swamp witch who wasn't raised in the Circle, and never internalized a lifetime of indoctrination over having been cursed, being guilty by virtue of birth, etc....was the only mage with the training and self-awareness to realize she was trapped in the Fade by a demon.  Even the Mage!Warden, badass though she's meant to be, started out that quest under the thrall of Sloth.

[Silfren]

Knight Commander wrote...

Ok, I never said I hated mages I just said that I could never trust one. I mean come on if a mage will use blood magic once they will most likely use it again. It's human nature to want power and blood magic gives you a ton of power. I talked about Tevinter since they're a big majority of mages (in the fantasy world) which I already said. They're also the only place that has a chantry and is controlled by mages. If mages are to escape the circle what do you think that they will do, most likely go to Tevinter since it is mage controlled. For Meredith I know she was disrepecting the mages but like I said she acted normal before that sword. By that I mean her normal mage disliking self but not her new insane self in act 3. It is obvious that she was paranoid and it is obvious that the sword made her snap. I mean when you fight her she is completly insane she even is red and looks like she is being controlled. There is a difference on how she acts between acts even though Hawke meets her at the end of act 2. Also I don't think she would have called the right at the end of the game if she was her normal self. With her new insane self in act 3 it made her more edgy and more likely to argue with Orisno. We never see them actually argue over who is right or wrong till after she gets the sword. Yes i'm sure they argued before and i'm sure they both had their own rights and wrong but it all comes down to if you like templars or mages more to actually pick a side. To be honest I don't think any of this would have happend if not for Hawke and Anders. I know this is a little of topic but did Anders really have to commit that terrorist crime at the end? Also I know people saying it wasn't a terroist act but it obviously was he killed many innocents that were in that chantry and caused the mage-templar war. Last thing we didn't see the whole chantry so there mostl likely more people in there and the explosion radius was larger than the chantry.

Firstly, a side remark: the more I consider it, the more I think it is quite likely that Rivain's Circle is autonomously controlled by mages.  It's the only way I've yet come up with to reconcile how Rivain can have a Circle while yet being heavily resistant to the Chantry itself.

I'm not going to condemn a mage just for using blood magic.  I'll consider their reasons for it first.  Using it once, then being "tempted" to use it again doesn't work with me, because I'm concerned more with motivations and intentions than with actions.  I don't view the use of blood magic as inherently wrong, or even inevitably fated to lead to demonic possession regardless of intent.  I'm not too impressed with the "come on if they do it once they'll do it again/it's human nature to want power" as if believing otherwise is naive.  If a mage used his or her own blood to save their own life, more power to 'em.  Same if they used their own blood to save someone else's life.  In a similar vein (ha), more power to a mage who, with the willing consent of someone, uses that person's blood to save someone.  (see Connor).  I don't condone mages keeping slaves on hand for a ready supply of blood, but if a person is willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, I see no issue at all.  I also see no issue with, say, a mage using their blood to further magical knowledge, if they were performing experiments that called for it. 

Guns are the best analogy I can come up with.  For all that I hate guns myself and won't ever touch one, I know quite a few gun enthusiasts, however, who enjoy shooting guns for its own sake.  I also know people who have been victims of violence or nearly were victims of violence who carry guns for the sense of security and empowerment it imparts to them.
I'm happily secure in the knowledge that I can safely expect none of these people to ever decide they love guns and shooting so much that they'll go on a shooting spree.  I don't think it follows that all people, everywhere, have a secret, latent love of power that, once they taste it, will end up on a downhill slide into a crazed push for more and more power.  I think people who believe this have an extremely pessimistic viewpoint of humanity in general, whether derived from absolutist religious ideals that insist that humanity is fundamentally broken (in a fallen state) or whatever. 

Nor do I think that all mages will flock to Tevinter.  Many will, I'm sure, simply because they can have some assurance (at least before war breaks out in Tevinter or arrives on its doorstep) of peace and freedom.  Others, however, will not be willing to leave their homeland, for whatever reason.  Some mages simply won't leave their home because they don't feel they have anywhere else to go.  Others will simply prefer to fight and die on their native land.  Still others will be actively fighting for reform for their home, and will realize they can't do that by fleeing.

There will also be mages who want nothing to do with Tevinter because of its history of slavery, and because as devout Andrastians of the white Chantry, they won't want anything to do with people they've been taught to view as heretics.  These things WILL matter.  There seems to be a belief that all mages will stand together in solidarity, and that's just not true.  Mages who've been raised to see Tevinter mages as evil slavers are NOT going to be eager to go into the Imperium.  

Most people, in my experience, want only enough power to control their OWN life, their OWN destiny.  Not everyone has an innate desire for power to dominate others, which, let's be honest, is the kind of power really being discussed here.  I don't want it, and that right there shatters any hint that it's somehow an integral part of me for being human.

I'm well aware that as the story plays out, we have the lyrium sword to blame for Meredith's descent into madness.  Nevertheless I think it was poorly done.  We had all the tools in place for Meredith to be paranoid to the point of madness without the idol.  I think they introduced the idol because they need it for a future story element, and I also think that they wanted the idol to somehow convey a sense of ambiguity.  I think they failed miserably at it.  So no, had we played a game without lyrium sword, I think Meredith could have, and should have, gone down the same road.  It would have been a great way for conveying the madness of templars right alongside the madness of mages.  There was a great deal of potential there, and Bioware ****ing ruined it with that goddamn sword. 

[Silfren]

John Renegade wrote...

The mage sleeps every night, every night is a potential battle of wills. How can you be sure he'll succeed and not turn over his body to a demon without the templars knowing it? Maybe even the demon showing itself later - like in the case of Connor.

EDIT: Oh, and when I said the problems would be frequent, I ment (I must again use a car comparison) 'car crush frequent' - as in 'it happens often enough, but most of your car driving license owning friends probably still live'. That doesn't make the deaths by car accidents happen any less often.

If this is the argument, then there's no good reason at all to keep mages in Circles.  Car accidents happen all the time, but when you consider the numbers of people who have cars and drive them daily, the risk comes into greater perspective.  Cars are dangerous to people, those inside them and those not inside them.  But just try outlawing cars and see how much headway you make.

For all the danger that cars pose, most of us can still go about our lives with reasonable certainty that even if we are in an accident, it won't be a fatal one, and likely not even a terribly serious one.  That doesn't mean it doesn't happen or that precautions shouldn't be taken.  It means that the risk is not great enough to warrant extreme measures.

[Silfren]

John Renegade wrote...
You really think it works that way?

1) The demons can be very persuasive. You have no GUARANTEE that possessions won't happen.

There's more than a little bit of cognitive dissonance going on, though.  The Chantry insists that ALL mages are potentially dangerous by virtue merely of being mages.  Time and again the Chantry insists that it doesn't matter how well-intentioned a mage is.  The lure of temptation is a powerful and ever-present reality for mages, we hear.  Mages can destroy a building in a "fit of pique" we're told.  Indeed we're led to believe that a mage can accidentally blow up a building just for being in a pissy mood, even if they aren't a naturally violent/aggressive individual.  We're told that demons are always just around the corner, eager to tempt or trick a mage into possession.  

Yet the Chantry permits mages to go into the Grey Wardens.  It permits wealthy mages to live free.  It permits mages who have earned special status to live freely.  It doesn't have the clout to go raging into areas that permit mages to live free, and instill Circles.

The dangers we're led to believe constantly plague a mage just for being a mage...they don't disappear if a mage is wealthy, or becomes a Warden, or has earned renown.  If the dangers were that serious, then doesn't it make sense that the Chantry would forbid all these exceptions?  Doesn't it make sense that there would be tangible proof of these dangers such that secular rulers couldn't be persuaded or bought into letting mages live apart from the Circle?  Doesn't it make sense that if the secular rulers attempted to gain such favor for certain mages, the Chantry would fight them tooth and nail rather than begrudgingly allow it?  As it stands, we see that the Chantry does tend to allow these exceptions only begrudgingly.  I would argue that this means they don't have sufficient evidence to prove their stance that all and any mages are too dangerous to live free, even those that have gained reputations for proving their integrity and willpower. 

Modifié par Silfren, 20 mai 2012 - 11:27 .

[Knight Commander]

Silfren wrote...

Knight Commander wrote...

Ok, I never said I hated mages I just said that I could never trust one. I mean come on if a mage will use blood magic once they will most likely use it again. It's human nature to want power and blood magic gives you a ton of power. I talked about Tevinter since they're a big majority of mages (in the fantasy world) which I already said. They're also the only place that has a chantry and is controlled by mages. If mages are to escape the circle what do you think that they will do, most likely go to Tevinter since it is mage controlled. For Meredith I know she was disrepecting the mages but like I said she acted normal before that sword. By that I mean her normal mage disliking self but not her new insane self in act 3. It is obvious that she was paranoid and it is obvious that the sword made her snap. I mean when you fight her she is completly insane she even is red and looks like she is being controlled. There is a difference on how she acts between acts even though Hawke meets her at the end of act 2. Also I don't think she would have called the right at the end of the game if she was her normal self. With her new insane self in act 3 it made her more edgy and more likely to argue with Orisno. We never see them actually argue over who is right or wrong till after she gets the sword. Yes i'm sure they argued before and i'm sure they both had their own rights and wrong but it all comes down to if you like templars or mages more to actually pick a side. To be honest I don't think any of this would have happend if not for Hawke and Anders. I know this is a little of topic but did Anders really have to commit that terrorist crime at the end? Also I know people saying it wasn't a terroist act but it obviously was he killed many innocents that were in that chantry and caused the mage-templar war. Last thing we didn't see the whole chantry so there mostl likely more people in there and the explosion radius was larger than the chantry.

Firstly, a side remark: the more I consider it, the more I think it is quite likely that Rivain's Circle is autonomously controlled by mages.  It's the only way I've yet come up with to reconcile how Rivain can have a Circle while yet being heavily resistant to the Chantry itself.

I'm not going to condemn a mage just for using blood magic.  I'll consider their reasons for it first.  Using it once, then being "tempted" to use it again doesn't work with me, because I'm concerned more with motivations and intentions than with actions.  I don't view the use of blood magic as inherently wrong, or even inevitably fated to lead to demonic possession regardless of intent.  I'm not too impressed with the "come on if they do it once they'll do it again/it's human nature to want power" as if believing otherwise is naive.  If a mage used his or her own blood to save their own life, more power to 'em.  Same if they used their own blood to save someone else's life.  In a similar vein (ha), more power to a mage who, with the willing consent of someone, uses that person's blood to save someone.  (see Connor).  I don't condone mages keeping slaves on hand for a ready supply of blood, but if a person is willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good, I see no issue at all.  I also see no issue with, say, a mage using their blood to further magical knowledge, if they were performing experiments that called for it. 

Guns are the best analogy I can come up with.  For all that I hate guns myself and won't ever touch one, I know quite a few gun enthusiasts, however, who enjoy shooting guns for its own sake.  I also know people who have been victims of violence or nearly were victims of violence who carry guns for the sense of security and empowerment it imparts to them.
I'm happily secure in the knowledge that I can safely expect none of these people to ever decide they love guns and shooting so much that they'll go on a shooting spree.  I don't think it follows that all people, everywhere, have a secret, latent love of power that, once they taste it, will end up on a downhill slide into a crazed push for more and more power.  I think people who believe this have an extremely pessimistic viewpoint of humanity in general, whether derived from absolutist religious ideals that insist that humanity is fundamentally broken (in a fallen state) or whatever. 

Nor do I think that all mages will flock to Tevinter.  Many will, I'm sure, simply because they can have some assurance (at least before war breaks out in Tevinter or arrives on its doorstep) of peace and freedom.  Others, however, will not be willing to leave their homeland, for whatever reason.  Some mages simply won't leave their home because they don't feel they have anywhere else to go.  Others will simply prefer to fight and die on their native land.  Still others will be actively fighting for reform for their home, and will realize they can't do that by fleeing.

There will also be mages who want nothing to do with Tevinter because of its history of slavery, and because as devout Andrastians of the white Chantry, they won't want anything to do with people they've been taught to view as heretics.  These things WILL matter.  There seems to be a belief that all mages will stand together in solidarity, and that's just not true.  Mages who've been raised to see Tevinter mages as evil slavers are NOT going to be eager to go into the Imperium.  

Most people, in my experience, want only enough power to control their OWN life, their OWN destiny.  Not everyone has an innate desire for power to dominate others, which, let's be honest, is the kind of power really being discussed here.  I don't want it, and that right there shatters any hint that it's somehow an integral part of me for being human.

I'm well aware that as the story plays out, we have the lyrium sword to blame for Meredith's descent into madness.  Nevertheless I think it was poorly done.  We had all the tools in place for Meredith to be paranoid to the point of madness without the idol.  I think they introduced the idol because they need it for a future story element, and I also think that they wanted the idol to somehow convey a sense of ambiguity.  I think they failed miserably at it.  So no, had we played a game without lyrium sword, I think Meredith could have, and should have, gone down the same road.  It would have been a great way for conveying the madness of templars right alongside the madness of mages.  There was a great deal of potential there, and Bioware ****ing ruined it with that goddamn sword. 

That last paragraph I agree with you 100% they really did a bad job with the red lyrium idol.

[dragonflight288]

There's something we all agree on. The idol was implemented poorly.

[Urzon]

There is no battle of wills and wits if the mage just says "No".

Do you want to be rich?
"No."

Do you want to be a powerful lord/lady?
"No."

Do you want a beautiful lover to make a perfect family?
"No."

The demon may try and trick a mage into an agreement, but it still needs a "Yes" to possess the mage. If the mage trusts nothing in the Fade (like they should), that "Yes" will never be given.

Modifié par Urzon, 21 mai 2012 - 04:41 .

[TEWR]

**** I had a nice post worked out and then my computer just randomly closed the page.

*sigh*

John Renegade wrote...

You really think it works that way?

1) The demons can be very persuasive. You have no GUARANTEE that possessions won't happen.

And you have no guarantee that they will happen when you assume they will. Will they happen? Yea sure, but that doesn't mean that steps can't be taken to prevent it from happening, rather then doing what the Circle does: keeping it hidden.

It's a blatant sign that demonology should be taken up, studied, refined, and taught at all Circles. It's a sign that the Circle system should make overtures of kindness towards societies with free mages and ask those mages how they train their mages.

Perhaps a little quid pro quo could go on. In exchange for the Dalish teaching Circle Mages how to defend themselves in the Fade, the Dalish could gain access to some of the Circle's archives. We know that the Circles sometimes hold tomes on Elven history and lore, so it would be a valuable exchange.

Demonology is not the same thing as blood magic, despite what the Chantry tries to claim. Studying it should happen in all Circles.

Hell, one of the best places to study up on Demonology would be in Tevinter. Their magical archives in Minrathous are extensive and even Wynne was giddy at the thought of traveling there, for that exact reason. Tevinter's a horrid place certainly, but their magical knowledge is unparalleled. 

Having a personal demon in that moment of your life, a moment when you don't think clearly and want to kill someone desperately, that can be invaluable. Or what about a demon actually willing to get your family out of their poor status and saving the starving little sister of yours, who each day begs for a piece of bread? The demon would actually do it, it would save your little sister and your crying baby brother. It would maybe even allow you a few years of life with your whole family in peace - and then, one day, it would consume you.

Yea, that's not how possession normally works.

You're deliberately twisting the facts of the Connor situation in regards to a similar -- yet different enough -- incident to suit your own claims. Connor's possession is nothing like what you're trying to claim all possessions act like.

The Demon in Connor had already possessed him and strikes a bargain with the Warden in exchange for its life. It will leave Connor in control temporarily, but it still retains the foothold in its brain. The possession is still there. It's only concealed.

That is not how possessions normally work.

And besides, once the circumstances of just how a demon saves a person's life come into light -- say Connor saying that the demon locked his father into a coma, "saving" him -- then that's even more evidence of "Just say no."

Demons can be tricked. Demons are not as smart as they would like you to believe. And with evidence in both games where we see how making deals with demons is a bad thing -- both in terms of what it does to the dealmaker and to the deal itself -- then it's grounds for Mages being taught these things.

The Dalish know how to deal with the Fade. You don't trust anything in there other then yourself, because you are the only constant in there.

If you start talking again about issues like poverty or family, I would like to remind you that those are problems of a whole society, not just mages. Oh, and by the way, wouldn't treating mages preferably to the common folk be a discrimination? What an irony...

 
Strawman.

[Dave of Canada]

Forceful possession exists, else there wouldn't be a couple of mentions of how abominations created willfully are different.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 21 mai 2012 - 05:54 .

[TEWR]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Forceful possession exists, else there wouldn't be a couple of mentions of how abominations created willfully are different.

Forceful possession does exist yes. I haven't claimed otherwise (see the previous page). But it only happens when a demon is in the physical realm, either from crossing a thin Veil or being summoned through blood magic.

I believe Gaider himself has stated that an Abomination can only be created through a willing and verbal agreement if the two other scenarios listed aren't applicable.

Ah, found it.

http://swooping-is-b...om/1286233.html

DG: They have to agree, but agree doesn't necessarily mean a conscious "Yes, please, please come in my body and turn me into a twisted abomination." Agreeing can be a moment of weakness. If you're unwilling or unable to resist being possessed then you'll be possessed. There are mages who make an intelligent bargain with a demon. Sometimes, the tricky part, something we haven't been able to show very well, is sometimes they're not aware that's what they're doing. I don't know how many people have read Asunder, the last Dragon Age novel. That does show a bit of how it's possible for a mage to be in contact with a demon and not even be aware that that's what's happening, and agreeing to things that they don't know that they're agreeing to. To say that a mage must agree is both true and false in the sense that a lot of it relates to the will of the mage and their strength to resist a very determined demon, but I think you can also see from the games and the novels that there are levels of possession as well. Not everybody who becomes possessed by a demon immediately turns into an abomination and starts attacking everything in sight. It depends on the type of demon that's attempting to take possession, how powerful they are, how intelligent they are, and the mage in question. As is typical of Dragon Age, the answer is never [typical].

So my response to John Renegade -- and his response that I was replying to -- was both true and false in some aspects.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 21 mai 2012 - 06:30 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

About the idol: If you are a mage you can talk to her about her sister and her childhood. That talk gave me the impression that Meredith was already lost long before she got her function and long before the idol came into play. The idol is just there for dramatic purposes.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 21 mai 2012 - 06:21 .

[John Renegade]

Abomination willing or unwilling, the mage will start to kill all in his reach, immediately or later - it makes no difference.

If my mother was a mage? Well, that's to bad. I can't let my emotions decide what is right and what is wrong. You see, emotions are just bad in that sort of thing - they tend to result in rationally unjustifiable selfish actions. Mages are a minority, common people a majority. You have to choose to restrict one of them => you logically choose to restrict the minority.

And for car accidents 'just happening' - you haven't red my earlier post carefully, have you? Every driver chooses to take that risk. On the other hand, I'm not aware of the commoners in thedas being willing to accept the risk of being torn apart by an insane mage - willingly possessed or not. I have to say it again - drivers, not the car companies; commoners, not mages - get to decide whether to risk or not.

There are many variables which decide whether a demon possesses the mage or not: Strength of will of both, the demon and the mage; type of demon; state of mind the mage is in at that given moment, etc... that's why letting a mage roam free is so dangerous.

Circle tower exists to minimize the damage done to the surrounding area - tower (especially a tower specifically designed for situations like abomination outbreak, with templars at every corner) =/= city full of defenseless people.


I have to agree on the idol though - poorly written 'indoctrination' device. And despite my opinion on mages, I hate how they handled Orsino as well.

P.S.: I'm not biased against mages. I can't really be for I play one myself.

[Silfren]

[quote]John Renegade wrote...

Abomination willing or unwilling, the mage will start to kill all in his reach, immediately or later - it makes no difference.

If my mother was a mage? Well, that's to bad. I can't let my emotions decide what is right and what is wrong. You see, emotions are just bad in that sort of thing - they tend to result in rationally unjustifiable selfish actions. Mages are a minority, common people a majority. You have to choose to restrict one of them => you logically choose to restrict the minority.[/quote]

Riiiight.  What you're able to say in an internet forum when the question is entirely hypothetical and requires nothing but an intellectual exercise, it's easy to say "if my mother was a mage, that's just too bad."  I'd like to see you be able to make a cool, completely unemotionally-involved decision without any internal struggles at all, if you actually had to face that situation. 

Even moreso if YOU are the mage.  I'd like to see you rationalize your own imprisonment then. Being the minority and all.

[quote]And for car accidents 'just happening' - you haven't red my earlier post carefully, have you? Every driver chooses to take that risk. On the other hand, I'm not aware of the commoners in thedas being willing to accept the risk of being torn apart by an insane mage - willingly possessed or not. I have to say it again - drivers, not the car companies; commoners, not mages - get to decide whether to risk or not.[/quote]

The Dalish accept that risk.  So do the Rivaini.  So do the Magisters of Tevinter.  Clearly the risk is not THAT great, but rather is something that the people accept as a possibility, but not one which is so very likely that they're willing to go to extremes to counter it.  
[/quote]

[John Renegade]

The Dalish and others are different cultures - maybe the fellow members of the tribe think differently to accept the mage in their midst, maybe they are willing to risk their lives - the citizens of Ferelden and Olrais sure as hell aren't - can you blame them? And don't get me started on Tevinter - lives of ordinary people do not appear to be held in high regard there.

So your only counterargument is: 'You are heartless, and even so, you couldn't make the right choice because your emotions would get in the way - especially when it would come to yourself.'

Sorry, sister, but with all due respect you appear not to know people. Not everyone is like you or many other "mages' freedom supporters", who only really try to justify their emotionally charged actions with reason. Some people are able to distance themselves from the problem well enough to make an unbiased and rational decision - often even at the cost of their own freedom of choice or really anything.

And to sacrifice something of themselves - especially if it is a concept like freedom... many people are unable to process that anyone could make that kind of decision. Maybe because it is the ultimate example of being selfless, without ego. And most people tend to be at least a bit selfish - especially when the issue is about themselves.

So, I take it that you don't really have any other counter-argument?


EDIT: But I think that your response summed up the reason of majority of mage supporters really nicely: The mages MUST be allowed to be free, because any other option is... is just bad. Well thought through and rational response.

Modifié par John Renegade, 21 mai 2012 - 06:35 .

[DKJaigen]

John you cannot prove to me that mages are prone to possession so all your arguments are not valid. Until i have the actual numbers i will simply dismiss this reasoning. Until then i will simply say that the circle system is in need of improvements.

[Silfren]

John Renegade wrote...

The Dalish and others are different cultures - maybe the fellow members of the tribe think differently to accept the mage in their midst, maybe they are willing to risk their lives - the citizens of Ferelden and Olrais sure as hell aren't - can you blame them? And don't get me started on Tevinter - lives of ordinary people do not appear to be held in high regard there.

The relevant fact is that mages clearly are not that great a risk, because if they were, then even the one or two mages (not that it is explicitly stated that there are always and only ever just the two) would be too dangerous to be allowed to roam freely.  After all, danger is danger regardless of culture.  So either the Dalish don't consider the risk to so monumentally great that they aren't willing to chance it, or they have safeguards in place to deal with it.   Yes, the citizens of Ferelden and Orlais are of a different mindset, but it is the direct result of Chantry indoctrination.  It cannot be said that if we had a different system in place to safeguard against magical dangers, AND PEOPLE WEREN'T TAUGHT TO FEAR AND HATE MAGES, that things would not change on a fundamental level. But to do that, to get there, requires an initial period of change and growing pains.  To quote from Star Trek, "If there is to be a brave new world, our generation is going to have the hardest time living in it."  There's a world of truth in those words, but that some people will find change hard to cope with hardly means that change should not come about.

"Can I blame them?"  Well, yes, I can.  If the Dalish are willing to risk the dangers, that tells me either that the danger is not significant or that there are working methods available to contain the risk when the worst happens.  So if the Dalish and other peoples are willing to live with this risk, I damn well can and do blame other cultures for their failure to even consider attempting a different way. 

As for Tevinter, the question of everyday people is somewhat different from what I was getting at.  The Tevinter Magisters apparently don't worry about abominations running amok, and if magic is as dangerous as we're expected to believe, then magisters are no less at risk than anyone else--unless they have ways to prevent it or fight against it, which just supports my argument.  Tevinter is a stable society, and that right there has volumes to say about Tevinter's ability to deal with magical dangers.

John Renegade wrote...
So your only counterargument is: 'You are heartless, and even so, you couldn't make the right choice because your emotions would get in the way - especially when it would come to yourself.'

No, that's not what I said, but good attempt at trying to twist my words.  I don't think the decision would be as cut-and-dried for you or as easy for you to make if you actually had to deal with the emotional connection.  It's damned easy to make a completely rational argument when it is purely an intellectual exercise and you don't have to worry about it ever being personal.

John Renegade wrote...
Sorry, sister, but with all due respect you appear not to know people.

Keep it civil.  I don't appreciate the "sorry sister" snark.  And I know people extremely well.  I always make a point of acknowledging that everyone will not act from the same motivations, etc.  Nevertheless I stand by my previous statement.  I don't think the decision would be nearly so easy for you to make in such cooly distant, removed manner if you actually lived the reality of having a mage relative or being a mage yourself.

John Renegade wrote...
Not everyone is like you or many other "mages' freedom supporters", who only really try to justify their emotionally charged actions with reason. Some people are able to distance themselves from the problem well enough to make an unbiased and rational decision - often even at the cost of their own freedom of choice or really anything.

And I'm one of those people, quite capable of looking an an issue from several sides, because I understand people extremely well and have empathy in spades.  I've argued from the position of pro-templar and anti-mage peasant on more than one occasion.  Let's stable the thinly-veiled personal digs, please.  I'll do the same, as I can see the phrasing of my initial remark that set this off could be interpreted the same way.

So, I take it that you don't really have any other counter-argument?

How many arguments does a person need?  The ones I have are sound and supported by game lore. 

John Renegade wrote...
EDIT: But I think that your response summed up the reason of majority of mage supporters really nicely: The mages MUST be allowed to be free, because any other option is... is just bad. Well thought through and rational response.

I think mages should be allowed to live free because it is inhumane to imprison people for something they MIGHT do, and I have not seen any compelling reasons why mages, in Cullen's words, "can't be seen as people, too."  If I actually did believe that mages were the ever-present danger the Chantry insists they are, I would view things otherwise.  But there is too much lore that suggests far more humane alternatives.  

Edited to clarify a point of potential confusion.

Modifié par Silfren, 21 mai 2012 - 07:15 .

[John Renegade]

There is another alternative when it comes to different cultures: Maybe the Dalish are risking too much - how can you be so sure that if dalish are willing to risk it, that the danger is not 'significant'. Whether something is significant might be argued to be culturally subjective in this case.

The mages are, of course, people. However, they are dangerous people. You keep dangerous people under a close watch and make sure they can't hurt others - which can hardly be done if a mage is standing two meters from the nearest group of bystanders.

You again forgot one of your angles of view when it comes to Tevinter: That maybe the magisters don't care what happens to common people when abomination appears - after all, they are strong in magic and probably can destroy any abomination - with some collateral damage. But who would care for a few slaves, right?

Modifié par John Renegade, 21 mai 2012 - 07:18 .

[John Renegade]

DKJaigen wrote...

John you cannot prove to me that mages are prone to possession so all your arguments are not valid. Until i have the actual numbers i will simply dismiss this reasoning. Until then i will simply say that the circle system is in need of improvements.

I think that the comparison at one point of DA:O was that demons are attracted to mages 'like moths to the flame' or something like that. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

[Silfren]

John Renegade wrote...

There is another alternative when it comes to different cultures: Maybe the Dalish are risking too much - how can you be so sure that if dalish are willing to risk it, that the danger is not 'significant'. Whether something is significant might be argued to be culturally subjective in this case.

The mages are, of course, people. However, they are dangerous people. You keep dangerous people under a close watch and make sure they can't hurt others - which can hardly be done if a mage is standing two meters from the nearest group of bystanders.

You again forgot one of your angles of view when it comes to Tevinter: That maybe the magisters don't care what happens to common people when abomination appears - after all, they are strong in magic and probably can destroy any abomination - with some collateral damage. But who would care for a few slaves, right?

I didn't forget anything about Tevinter.  I assert that the Magisters do give a damn about what happens in Tevinter because 1) abominations slaughtering the general populace makes it difficult to keep slaves around for your own magical workings, 2)abominations wreaking havoc in the city makes society untenable, regardless of one's personal feelings toward the general population. 

The Tevinter Magisters don't have to care one whit about the general populace to find it prudent not to have hordes of abominations running amok in the streets. 

The Chantry tells us that one abomination can level an entire city, and that any mage, regardless of circumstances, is an ever-present danger of this happening. 

IF that is true, then it's true everywhere, and it can lead to only two conclusions: societies with free mages don't implement safety measures, and those societies have mages that get turned into abominations--or mages that freely use blood magic to the domination and destruction of their fellows...OR, those societies have safeguards to deal with the problem such that their communities are safe.  

Since we do NOT hear or see anything about abominations pouring out of any community known to let its mages live free, well...

[John Renegade]

The problem is that you're making a lot of conclusions about how the magisters feel and behave regarding their subjects. The old tevinter existed for a long time as a 'stable society'.

'They don't have to care about the general populace.' So, what exact way of protection you propose, that could protect all civilians from harm? And I vould like a clear description, nothing vague, please. Also, you should mind the resources available, many people forget to consider them.

And regarding my first sentence, don't call me hypocrite for my statements about possible tevinter magisters' attitudes earlier. I was just offering you a possible alternative to show you that magisters don't have to have only that kind of attitude that you think they have.

Modifié par John Renegade, 21 mai 2012 - 07:53 .

[GavrielKay]

John Renegade wrote...
There is another alternative when it comes to different cultures: Maybe the Dalish are risking too much - how can you be so sure that if dalish are willing to risk it, that the danger is not 'significant'. Whether something is significant might be argued to be culturally subjective in this case.

The mages are, of course, people. However, they are dangerous people. You keep dangerous people under a close watch and make sure they can't hurt others - which can hardly be done if a mage is standing two meters from the nearest group of bystanders.

You again forgot one of your angles of view when it comes to Tevinter: That maybe the magisters don't care what happens to common people when abomination appears - after all, they are strong in magic and probably can destroy any abomination - with some collateral damage. But who would care for a few slaves, right?

I don't know how it can be said much more clearly...  the Chantry would have us believe that free mages will destroy everything and that not one of them can be trusted almost ever, except under very special and revocable circumstances. 

The Dalish, Rivainni and Chasind have free mages.  They haven't been destroyed.  Tevinter has free mages, the society there is operating as they want it to (however horrible it may be).  Apostates are everywhere in Andrastian cultures.  They haven't destroyed everything there either.

So, the Chantry is wrong.  Free mages won't destroy everything.  They can co-exist without wrecking society.

Thus, the obligation is on everyone else to justify locking up the mages that can be found for life, when obviously the freedom of other mages hasn't wrecked society and left a smoking ruin of the world.

[John Renegade]

Do you have that good insight to the other cultures to know how often a mage gets possessed? Are you willing to decide for those innocent people whether or not to take that risk?

Even if only a few people died in each case of possession, do you have the right to decide for the potential victims, whether to take that risk or not?

And finally, I would like a concrete plan for how would you handle the abomination outbreak when it would happen, without any civilian casualties. No more 'but they can manage it in that country over there' - you don't know how they (particularly the tevinters) manage the outbreaks, so don't use them as an example.

By the way, a Dalish abomination would probably cause less damage than an, for example, Orlesian one - a tribe tends to be smaller than the city and a lot less closed - less people, who have the immediate option to ran in any direction they want.

[GavrielKay]

John Renegade wrote...
'They don't have to care about the general populace.' So, what exact way of protection you propose, that could protect all civilians from harm? And I vould like a clear description, nothing vague, please. Also, you should mind the resources available, many people forget to consider them.

Well, we know that a completely possessed mage is dead to himself.  The demon takes over, meat bag abomination shouldn't appeal to even the most power hungry blood mage in Tevinter.  We've never heard anything about them that suggests they have no self preservation instinct.  Even if they wouldn't care if abominations killed slaves (which, given Fenris' owner chases him around the world, we know they value at least some slaves), they would care about being personally put at risk of death by abomination -either from inside or outside themsevles.

So, if you concede that even Tevinter mages wouldn't want to actually become mindless meatbag abominations, then we proceed from there...

Tevinter appears not to have a huge problem wiht abominations.  It isn't mentioned by anyone who talks about Tevinter. Wynne is willing to go there.  Feynriel moves there and doesn't comment on it.  There isn't any lore about bordering districts having to constantly battle abominations coming out of Tevinter...  etc.

So, blood magic is rampant in Tevinter but abominations apparently aren't.  Thus, the mages there either have the self control to avoid possession or some other means...  be it a chant like the Litany of Adralla or an item like a dweomer rune.

I think it is constantly discounted by pro-Chantry posters that mages brought up to believe they are dangerous abominations-in-waiting will have a harder time learning to resist demons than mages who are brought up to believe they CAN resist.  When dealing with issues of the mind, the importance of growing up self confident cannot be underestimated.  The Chantry strips that away from mages in circles, reminding them daily of their danger and how no one trusts they will be able to resist for long.

I wouldn't be surprised if that is the biggest different between mages in other cultures apparently being stable and mages in Chantry dominated cultures going nuts.

[John Renegade]

Well, I'm not saying that chantry is or isn't correct about abominations, I never said I agree with them about everything. My point is that you don't know, what means the magisters use to kill the abominations. Tevinter may be safe, but at what cost? Even a few lives is too much.

You see, if the writers told us a concrete and viable procedure, which would allow for mages to be free AND not to endanger anyone else, I would agree with you on this issue. Problem is, there is no such procedure. You can't tell me any possible scenario, which has basis in the lore of the game, that would allow mages and everyone else to coexist peacefully next to each other. If you think you can, please, tell me. How exactly would you make a mage harmless?