269 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

Dakota Strider wrote...

Yes, killing the High Cleric, who was the only one keeping Meredith in check, made lots of sense. Why not just assassinate Meredith. Just as easy to do, And the death would have been seen as justified by far more people. Some of them even templars. And it probably been enough to cause the break in the Circle and the Chantry. That was the goal, right? Or was it just vengeance?

Anders wasn't looking to make life in the Circle better for the mages of Kirkwall.  He wanted to utterly destroy the Circle system throughout Thedas. Given that Meredith was more or less universally opposed in Kirkwall, assassinating her wouldn't have been seen as anything but a good thing, and another Knight Commander brought in.  Why do you think simply killing Meredith would have probably "caused a break" in the Circle and th Chantry?  It wasn't as if she was beloved by Kirkwall such that her death would have caused universal outrage.

[Dakota Strider]

So Anders merged with the Spirit of Vengeance (because thats what Anders admitted he had become) decided that they were going to be the ones to determine the fate of every mage in Thedas? How many were going to be slaughtered because of his decision, and his alone? Its not like he was even chosen or elected to speak for all other mages. I am not a psychiatrist, but I am pretty sure at this point Anders is suffering under several different psychosis, not to mention a bad case of possession.

[Silfren]

Dakota Strider wrote...

So Anders merged with the Spirit of Vengeance (because thats what Anders admitted he had become) decided that they were going to be the ones to determine the fate of every mage in Thedas? How many were going to be slaughtered because of his decision, and his alone? Its not like he was even chosen or elected to speak for all other mages. I am not a psychiatrist, but I am pretty sure at this point Anders is suffering under several different psychosis, not to mention a bad case of possession.

Anders merged with Justice, not Vengeance.  Neither of them knew at the time what would happen, or even that it could happen.  

I don't think Anders had any intention, when he first merged with Justice, of going down the road he ultimately did.  That's precisely what makes the story a tragedy.  Once the merger was done, things changed in ways that neither Anders nor Justice had anticipated. 

Besides all that, arguing whether Anders was right to claim his position as the Decider for mages is a different discussion.  My previous posts are focused on whether his actions were necessary and whether they constituted justifiable war and such, not whether Anders had the right to make a decision on behalf of all mages.

I also note that you didn't address my question at all but went down another topic.  So I'll ask again: why do you think that killing Meredith would have led to the same result of a break in the Circles and Chantry?

Modifié par Silfren, 22 avril 2012 - 04:25 .

[The Elder King]

Silfren wrote...




Firstly, I have to point out that there is no may in the question of whether innocents die in war.  Innocents DO die in war.  Always.  Always have and always will, world without end.  It is the very nature of war that innocent persons always die.  Which is not to say that I'm trying to be dismissive of those innocent deaths.  It always sucks balls when innocent people die, especially when they die merely because they had the supreme misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrongest possible time. 

I maintain, however, that if you believe that a war is necessary, then you also accept that innocent people are going to die as part and parcel of that acknowledgement. 

Yes, innocents die in war. I meant something different with my post (in modern war civilians are often targets of the armies, while before they weren't targets), but it's better to leave this topic, since it has nothing to with the discussion.
I don't think that war is necessary. I'm strongly against war (and the international law forbid war). I could justifiy the use of force only in defence (if a state invade another, I think that the other state is justified in defending itself), but they have to respect certain limits (for example, launching bombs in a city).
I think that war is necessary in the DA world. It's not against the law. Of course, in war innocents will die, so I have to accept this. But not every actions that lead to the death of innocents people. If a army conquer a village or a city and then kill every people in village/city, I can't accept or justifiy this massacre.

This is what I think Anders did.  He didn't believe the deaths he caused by blowing up the Chantry were justified, but he did believe his action was necessary for the larger question of mage freedom.  Whether something is just, or whether it is necessary...the two concepts are not always synonymous.

Indeed, he didn't think that their death were justified. He recognized that he should die for his act, even if he though that he was necessary.
But using logic, the deaths of those people weren't necessary. The death of Elthina would've been enough, since she was the only obstacle that prevent Meredith to declare the Annulment.

Bear in mind that none of us actually have a clue what Andraste did.  We know that she was a conquerer who led armies against the Imperium, and that history--much of which is written by the Chantry--claims she did it in the Maker's name, freeing slaves and breaking the power of the Magisters along the way.  But don't pretend that this means we have a clue how she went about it.  She may very well have blown up a few buildings.  She may have done any number of things that you would class as terrorism.  She may have had followers who did it while she looked the other way, endorsing their actions thereby.  It could be that she rallied the slaves by first giving them hope by blowing up a building full of Magisters.  Given that part of the institution of slavery involves breaking the will and spirit of slaves, I'd contend that such an action could be considered necessary in order to give slaves a concrete symbol of hope--a reason to rebel in the first place.  Pure speculation on my part, but it is entirely within the realm of possibility that Andraste was just as willing to blow up buildings as was Anders. 

Look into the actual, historical life of any number of heroic figures and in many cases you'll find that the reality is much darker and nastier than the legend. 

We do know that there are codices which hint at natural disasters, spinning it as the Maker showing his support for Andraste and her armies by using his divine powers against her enemies.  Considering there is also lore hinting that some groups believe that Andraste was an unusually powerful mage, well....  There's a rather strong case to be made that Andraste herself used her mage abilities to cast down the Imperium, and that either she, or her later followers, re-cast the entire thing into the Chantry mythology we have in the present day.  I would argue that a mage using that scope of power to rain death down upon her enemies is something akin to a terrorist under your definition.  Because there's no way that innocent people didn't get caught up in that.

In the case Andraste massacrated innocent people, well, I would say Andraste was wrong. On this topic, as you say, we don't know what happened, so I think it's better to not talk about it.
About the theory that she was a mage, I don't know. Even if she never said that the mages should be put in the Circles, she said that magic should not rule over men. Unless Bioware in a game will not make Andraste a mage (which could be very well possible), I'll think she' wasn't a mage.

Anders DID start the war.  It was precisely his action that led Meredith to hers.  Yes, she had already sent for the Right of Annulment previously, but the fact remains that she was denied.  It was Anders act of killing the Grand Cleric that paved the way for Meredith to declare the Right necessary without needing the Grand Cleric's consent and also having a convenient excuse to explain her actions later on, should the Divine investigate the matter.  So it cannot be said that Anders actions were divorced from the entire affair.  He blew up the Chantry specifically because he knew it was that action that would lead to the war.  The conflict had been smoldering for a while, but it was Anders that finally created the spark that started the blaze going.  You're saying that he didn't start a war, he killed innocent people.  What you're overlooking, deliberately or not, I can't tell, is that he killed those people for the purpose of starting his war.  You can't look at those things as separate.  Anders wasn't looking to just kill people out of hate.  He wanted to start a war, and he went about it through exploding the Chantry.  The people inside the building were incidental to that action, excepting the Grand Cleric herself.

Yes, Anders did know how Meredith would've reacted. He didn't kill those people out of hate. His purpose was to start a war. Still, have the templar in charge be a differen person. The war might not have started in Act 3.
Anders would've blow up the Chantry regardless of Meredith's desire of declaring the Annulment. Even if Meredith never declared the Annulment in the past, Ander would've blown up the Chantry.

I assert that he wasn't actually targeting those people, but targeting the Chantry itself.  The Chantry, after all, is a symbol of religious, political, and military power.  I firmly believe that Anders' only actual human target was the Grand Cleric.  His actions would not have netted the same effect had he blown up any other building with innocent people, and they wouldn't have had the same effect had he isolated the Grand Cleric and killed her without hurting anyone else.  The other people in the Chantry and anyone who got Chantry debris rained down on their heads weren't targets, just people that Anders accepted would die as an unfortunate result of his targeting of the Chantry.

I disagree, Elthina's death would've been enough to trigger the war. Meredith would've declared the Annulment even if the only person ot die was Elthina.
Thouhg I agree that the only human target was Elthina.

Anders did not want a localized rebellion.  He did not want to wage a personal rebellion for his own freedom.  He wanted mages throughout Thedas to rise up in open rebellion, and this is why he blew up the Chantry.  Attacking the templars of Kirkwall would not have had a world-wide effect. 

Nor was he in a position to simply spread sedition.  It is rather difficult to do that when the bulk of the world's mages are locked up behind stone walls, watched closely, and only permitted limited freedom of movement and correspondence under closely scrutinized circumstances.  This is why he blew up the Chantry: there was no other way to trigger the war he wanted.  He'd already seen the lackluster efforst of mages attempting to reform the Chantry through non-violent channels.  He understood that more of this was simply going to result in another thousand years of the same thing.  And since the system of locking mages away and closely watching them already gelded the aforementioned attempt at spreading sedition through other means was far too inefficient, he chose a method that would guarantee instant results. 

As far as I know, it's not the destructon of the Chantry that triggered the rebellion of the mages. It's the fact that the Templars wanted to wipe out  (or effectively wipe out) the Circle that triggered the rebellion. Again, if the K-C executed Anders, and not declared the Annulment, the rebellion woudl've not start.
Though of course, Anders knew what the Templars would've done.

I'm not arguing whether the deaths of those people he killed were justified, though I WILL state right up that I do believe the death of the Grand Cleric was.  I am arguing that Anders blowing up of the Chantry was necessary.  Horrible, sure.  But necessary regardless.

As I said before, I think that the death of Elthina would've been "necessary". We obviously disagree on the point, as on the fact that that the death of the Grand Cleric was justified (though I think we already discussed this in one of the previous pages).
I don't think that what Anders did was necessary. I supported the mages in DA2 because the Circle wasn't responsible of what happened to the Chantry. They were innocents. I couldn't stand with the Templars, because they wanted to kill innocent people.
If for the plan of destroy the Chantry the Circle was responsible, I'd have supported the templars. Np matter if the mages were right (and I'd say that in Kirkwall both mages and templars were wrong), I cant' defend an organization that blew up people.

[Dakota Strider]

Silfren wrote...

I also note that you didn't address my question at all but went down another topic.  So I'll ask again: why do you think that killing Meredith would have led to the same result of a break in the Circles and Chantry?

When I say same result, I meant what I expect what Anders was hoping would happen in the distant future, after all the killing of mages, templars and innocents had come to a stop, after blowing up the cathedral.  Hopefully killing Meredith would have skipped over all that slaying of innocents first, though.  Killing the Knight Commander of any Circle/Chantry, would have created almost as much attention as blowing up a cathedral.  It certainly would have led to investigations, the way Meredith ran the Gallows would have leaked out.  It is possible that it may have actually led to a peaceful change, if the Chantry acknowledged what was happening was wrong, especially if you combine that to the Mage Circle in Ferelden's efforts to defeat the Blight. 

Or it may have caused a Rite of Annullment, which means that Anders would have gotten the war he wanted. 

However, the contortions of logic that it would take to for the Templars to declare war on the mages, whether the cathredral blew up, or whether Meredith was killed instead, are awe-inspiring:

An apostate, abomination mage killed the Chantry/Templar leader, so now we are going to kill all the mages that are in the Circle, which is dedicated to preventing mages from being apostates and abominations.

Now, I attempted to answer your question.  You seemed to skip over my "mage solution" that I described in some detail, when you first thought I was saying the solution was to remove magic from all mages.  Now that I clarified what I meant, I would appreciate it you gave your opinion. 

[Silfren]

hhh89 wrote...

In the case Andraste massacrated innocent people, well, I would say Andraste was wrong. On this topic, as you say, we don't know what happened, so I think it's better to not talk about it.
About the theory that she was a mage, I don't know. Even if she never said that the mages should be put in the Circles, she said that magic should not rule over men. Unless Bioware in a game will not make Andraste a mage (which could be very well possible), I'll think she' wasn't a mage.

The question is certainly up in the air as to whether or not she was a mage, true.  I will note however that Andraste saying that magic is meant to serve man and never to rule over him does not stand as evidence against it.  There's no reason why a mage could not or would not have made that same statement.  She was a slave, after all.  She could have easily believed that magic was a gift from the Maker to serve his children, and not to be used to dominate them.  Her having been a mage doesn't at all mean that she wouldn't have believed that.

And we DO know that she didn't say anything about imprisoning mages in Circles.  That was something that came about later, and there's no indication that it was prompted by any statement from Andraste that mages should be locked up. 

The Ethereal Writer Redux pointed this out to me once:  there are several images of Andraste (statues built in her likeness) that depict her as holding out her hand, palm up, positioned such that the light from a candle rises from it.  It looks for all the world like a mage wielding a fireball that she's about to toss.  It's such an obvious image of a person casting a spell that I don't think it's purely coincidence.

Yes, Anders did know how Meredith would've reacted. He didn't kill those people out of hate. His purpose was to start a war. Still, have the templar in charge be a differen person. The war might not have started in Act 3.
Anders would've blow up the Chantry regardless of Meredith's desire of declaring the Annulment. Even if Meredith never declared the Annulment in the past, Ander would've blown up the Chantry.

I'm not sure it can be said with any certainty that Anders explicitly knew that Meredith would invoke the Right of Annulment for his exploding of the Chantry, though that's obviously possible, but that he just knew that it would create enough of a firestorm to force the mages into fighting a full-scale war of self-defense.  He might've simply thought that the general populace would go on the rampage against the mages.  Either way, he definitely knew that his action would force a world-changing confrontation.

Whether the templar in charge was a different person is, in my mind, irrelevant.  Even if the templar in charge had been someone else, they still might have called for Annulment.  There certainly IS some reason to suggest that they might've believed Anders had an accomplice inside.  Or they might've tried to contain Anders and found themselves facing an angry mob that wanted mage blood.  Speculation on things we don't know because there is no evidence one way or the other, or speculation on things for which there is evidence to support more than one theory, is one thing.  But an "alternate history" scenario based on what-ifs such as what if there'd been a different Knight Commander...those I don't find to be especially helpful.  What DID happen is that Anders' act of blowing up the Chantry led Meredith to invoke Annulment.  So it follows that Anders' action is what started the war.  Claiming that it was not Anders who started the war on the idea of what MIGHT have happened if we play with what-ifs that plainly did NOT happen...that's just silly.  Meredith WAS the Knight-Commander, she DID invoke the Right, and she did it BECAUSE of what Anders did.

I disagree, Elthina's death would've been enough to trigger the war. Meredith would've declared the Annulment even if the only person ot die was Elthina.
Thouhg I agree that the only human target was Elthina.

I don't think so.  I think that the extremely public and dramatic nature of the explosion were part and parcel of what gave Anders' execution of the Grand Cleric the power it had.

As far as I know, it's not the destructon of the Chantry that triggered the rebellion of the mages. It's the fact that the Templars wanted to wipe out  (or effectively wipe out) the Circle that triggered the rebellion. Again, if the K-C executed Anders, and not declared the Annulment, the rebellion woudl've not start.
Though of course, Anders knew what the Templars would've done.

I think Anders also believed that the people in general would have risen up against mages, and that news of his daring action would have inspired other mages.  Now that I'm thinking about it, I should revise my earlier statement.  Probably Anders did guess rightly at how the Knight-Commander would have reacted.  Again, though, I think he had other ideas about what his destruction might lead to as well.  Either way, it remains that Meredith had the opportunity to invoke Annulment and carry it out because of what Anders did, not in spite of it.  So it cannot be said that he did not start the war.

Edited to protect the guilty innocent.

Modifié par Silfren, 23 avril 2012 - 12:50 .

[TEWR]

The Evil Writer Redux pointed this out to me once:

Wait, I'm evil?

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 23 avril 2012 - 12:31 .

[Silfren]

Dakota Strider wrote...

Silfren wrote...

I also note that you didn't address my question at all but went down another topic.  So I'll ask again: why do you think that killing Meredith would have led to the same result of a break in the Circles and Chantry?

When I say same result, I meant what I expect what Anders was hoping would happen in the distant future, after all the killing of mages, templars and innocents had come to a stop, after blowing up the cathedral.  Hopefully killing Meredith would have skipped over all that slaying of innocents first, though.  Killing the Knight Commander of any Circle/Chantry, would have created almost as much attention as blowing up a cathedral.  It certainly would have led to investigations, the way Meredith ran the Gallows would have leaked out.  It is possible that it may have actually led to a peaceful change, if the Chantry acknowledged what was happening was wrong, especially if you combine that to the Mage Circle in Ferelden's efforts to defeat the Blight. 

Or it may have caused a Rite of Annullment, which means that Anders would have gotten the war he wanted. 

However, the contortions of logic that it would take to for the Templars to declare war on the mages, whether the cathredral blew up, or whether Meredith was killed instead, are awe-inspiring:

An apostate, abomination mage killed the Chantry/Templar leader, so now we are going to kill all the mages that are in the Circle, which is dedicated to preventing mages from being apostates and abominations.

Now, I attempted to answer your question.  You seemed to skip over my "mage solution" that I described in some detail, when you first thought I was saying the solution was to remove magic from all mages.  Now that I clarified what I meant, I would appreciate it you gave your opinion. 

I don't think killing Meredith would have had that much of an effect.  At best, I think it would simply have been that another Knight Commander was brought in.  They might have been more moderate, or they might have not been.  But part of the problem was that Grand Cleric Elthina KNEW what was going on with Meredith and had not taken steps to have her removed.  There is simply no way that Elthina was unaware of the extremity of the abuses that Meredith and her templars were indulging in.  No way at all, and Anders knew this, and knew that Elthina did nothing at all to do anything about it.  In light of all that, he had no reason to believe that simply killing Meredith would lead to any positive change.  Moreover, again, it stands to reason that the best that would have happened is that higher ups would have agreed that the mages of Kirkwall had it really bad under Meredith, and brought in someone better suited to the job.  That wasn't what Anders wanted.  He didn't want a "moderate" Commander to make Circle life tolerable, he wanted the Circles abolished altogether. 

Your mage solution is, to be blunt, overly simplistic.  I personally would be extremely disappointed if the entire solution to the problem could be so easily resolved by, of all things, drinking a potion or wearing an amulet.  It's the kind of pat, juvenile answer one finds in happy-ending children's stories.  It's cheap, disappointing, and insulting to people who appreciate the moral complexity of the story that the writers have given us.  It hasn't been suggested before because it would ruin the point of the entire storyline, which is that the conflict exists because there are no easy answers.  Surely you really don't think this is a good idea? 

Also I do have to say that "where there's a will there's a way" doesn't cut it.  If an easy, quick, and painless solution does not exist, it is not going to be found, no matter how determined or intuitive a person is.

Seriously, after a thousand years of enslavement and starting a war over the question of whether mages should live free, the answer turns out to be THAT simple?  No thank you.  I'm not interested in a Disney ending.

Modifié par Silfren, 23 avril 2012 - 12:49 .

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The Evil Writer Redux pointed this out to me once:

Wait, I'm evil?

.....Whatever are you talking about? 

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

The Evil Writer Redux pointed this out to me once:

Wait, I'm evil?

.....Whatever are you talking about? 

Clever little sneak!

Silfren wrote...

So it cannot be said that he did not start the war.

It can actually. The war had been going on for centuries behind closed doors. A secret war is still a war.

What can't be said is that Anders' actions as well as Meredith's didn't bring the war's occurence to the public's eye. Their actions ultimately brought it to the public's mind, in places beyond Kirkwall where it was already recognized by the nobility.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 23 avril 2012 - 01:21 .

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
It can actually. The war had been going on for centuries behind closed doors. A secret war is still a war.

What can't be said is that Anders' actions as well as Meredith's didn't bring the war's occurence to the public's eye. Their actions ultimately brought it to the public's mind, in places beyond Kirkwall where it was already recognized by the nobility.

I'm not sure I'd call several hundred years' worth of festering resentment a war, but certainly I don't think the mages would have risen up quite so dramatically as they did had the pot not been boiling steadily away at the time.

Modifié par Silfren, 23 avril 2012 - 01:41 .

[TEWR]

Silfren wrote...

I'm not sure I'd call several hundred years' worth of festering resentment a war, but certainly I don't think the mages would have risen up quite so dramatically as they did had the pot not been boiling steadily away at the time.

Remember that Uldred launched a rebellion of his own on the premise of a liberated Circle -- one that went horribly awry when he started adding demons into the equation.

One can logically assume that at least some of the previous 19 RoAs in the past were similar -- rebellions were launched, maybe some went awry as well -- and by doing which would be convinced to say the war was ongoing.

And obviously, I fall into that category.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 23 avril 2012 - 02:00 .

[Silfren]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Silfren wrote...

I'm not sure I'd call several hundred years' worth of festering resentment a war, but certainly I don't think the mages would have risen up quite so dramatically as they did had the pot not been boiling steadily away at the time.

Remember that Uldred launched a rebellion of his own on the premise of a liberated Circle -- one that went horribly awry when he started adding demons into the equation.

One can logically assume that at least some of the previous 19 RoAs in the past were similar -- rebellions were launched, maybe some went awry as well -- and by doing which would be convinced to say the war was ongoing.

And obviously, I fall into that category.

I would very much like to know the circumstances behind those previous Annulments.  

[BroBear Berbil]

I think they could have done a much better job fleshing out the mage/templar issue in DA2. The tensions just didn't seem that organic to me because the story relies on certain people simply being crazy to progress it to open hostility.

I know Kirkwall is supposed to be a particularly harsh Circle but it seems like it painted an overly dire picture of the mages' situation. Somehow Kirkwall is the catalyst for rebellion in every Circle in Thedas? Where are the Aequitarians and Loyalists? There have to be mages who want to keep the status quo.

I also didn't find Anders a very sympathetic character. He was whiny and preachy and always trying to convince you to care. Compare this to a character like Iorveth who doesn't care if you support him, is a real leader, and knows he does monstrous things. He's also hateful and racist and yet I like him and can sympathize with him.

I actually don't find the Circle system to be that bad. Putting it into perspective the DA setting is a feudal one where you'd imagine most people are serfs and live in poverty and squalor. This certainly seems to be the case in Origins and DA2. Mages get dressed in fine clothes, are fed, are provided good living conditions, are trained, and can attain high positions within the Circle or courts. What's the tradeoff? They have to take a trial of willpower at the end of apprenticeship to prove they can do what they'll need to do for the rest of their lives -- resist demons. They're also under supervision by an order of elite knights. Incidentally this order, aside from killing them if needed also protects them. The Chantry doesn't even seem to use them for war very often and proven mages get more leeway and can travel freely.

And for mages demons are a real threat not to just themselves. Every mage encounter in DA2 reinforced that to me as did Uldred. Heck, go back further and see what damage a mage like Remile could do, not with the aid of a demon but because of his own ambition. Mages are dangerous, no way around it. I just don't see how Ander's free mage world would work in a setting with demonic possession.

So, overall I don't see what the mage's plight is. It seems throwing a wrench in it relies heavily on introducing a bat**** insane character like Meridith.

Modifié par OnionXI, 24 avril 2012 - 12:49 .

[TJX2045]

OnionXI wrote...

I actually don't find the Circle system to be that bad... (1)

And for mages demons are a real threat not to just themselves. Every mage encounter in DA2 reinforced that to me as did Uldred. Heck, go back further and see what damage a mage like Remile could do, not with the aid of a demon but because of his own ambition. Mages are dangerous, no way around it. I just don't see how Ander's free mage world would work in a setting with demonic possession. (2)

So, overall I don't see what the mage's plight is. It seems throwing a wrench in it relies heavily on introducing a bat**** insane character like Meridith.

1) That's the thing.  In the Original Dragon Age, the Circle wasn't bad.  The system itself ISN'T BAD.  However, the ones who run the Circle in Kirkwall are much more oppressive, especially since the Tevinter Mages and all that.  They clearly go out hunting for mages, and when they have not found mages doing anything wrong, they freak out over little things like a mage wanting to see their family or just walking around the Gallows.

In DAO, they knew the mages were dangerous, but they also knew that they understood their danger and in order to test their resilience, the mages came up with "The Harrowing," where one of two things happened.  Either the mage confronted demons that would tempt them face to face and they would DEFEAT THEM, or they would confront them, fail, and then the Templars would kill them.  The mages who clearly felt they were too weak to go against the demons after their extensive training could just ask to become Tranquil.

What happens in DA2 is not only are the mages tested in the Harrowing (if they even still do that, which according to lore I'm assuming they are still doing it;  It would go against all kinds of established plot if they didn't in DA2), but they're also being tested AND oppressed by the very people who are supposed to be there to help protect them against themselves and help them keep their powers in check.  To me, the conflict in DA2 was too black and white, and the only grey area for the mages were the apostates who were not in the circle (because the ones who were in the circle were oppressed and driven insane, which caused them to turn to blood magic).

Even Orsino wasn't a grey area.  Even after the end game, it was all because of Templar oppression.  Anyone constantly oppressed for something they had no control over being would lose their mind too.  Meredith was paranoid and saw all mages the same: as blood mages and monsters.  This is no different from the prejudice that minorities face as being stereotyped as violent and crime ridden or druggies.

2)  I agree with you here.  I am not saying it wouldn't work, but it is pretty unlikely in the state of things now.  What would work is a Circle where the Templars do not oppress ALL of the mages.  They take action on the ones who resort to blood magic or who are apostates.  They should just keep an eye over the ones who are in the Circle and who are doing what they are supposed to do.  I don't think they realize that being removed from their families simply because they are born mages makes it harder for them to not go insane.  Add that with the fact that being a Mage is seen with shame, and it just all goes downhill from there.  Anders makes mention of these conditions numerous times.

My problem is I want MORE GREY AREA.  I want to struggle on that final decision.  During my entire playthrough of DA2, after seeing people like Meredith, Fenris, and Cullen, Nothing could sway my decision to side with the Mages when the Templars decided to PUNISH THEM ALL for something a few bad apples in the bunch did throughout the storyline.

Modifié par TJX2045, 24 avril 2012 - 01:47 .

[LobselVith8]

OnionXI wrote...

I think they could have done a much better job fleshing out the mage/templar issue in DA2. The tensions just didn't seem that organic to me because the story relies on certain people simply being crazy to progress it to open hostility.

I agree that templars and mages should have been fleshed out more. I've been going through Skyrim, and I really like the dichotomy between the Stormcloaks and the Legion. Neither faction is perfect, as both sides are flawed, and both leaders (Ulfric and Tullius) are imperfect leaders, although both men want what they think is best for Skyrim. Even if the protagonist opposes them, neither leader goes insane or turns into a monster; they both retain their dignity and their reasons for fighting the other side, despite becoming an antagonist to the protagonist.

I really wish the mages and the templars were handled in a similar fashion. They come off as caricatures to me in Dragon Age II.

OnionXI wrote...

I know Kirkwall is supposed to be a particularly harsh Circle but it seems like it painted an overly dire picture of the mages' situation. Somehow Kirkwall is the catalyst for rebellion in every Circle in Thedas? Where are the Aequitarians and Loyalists? There have to be mages who want to keep the status quo.

It's addressed in Asunder, although I personally think the issue should have been addressed in the actual game, rather than a novel. I shouldn't have to read Asunder to make sense of the ending of Dragon Age II.

OnionXI wrote...

I also didn't find Anders a very sympathetic character. He was whiny and preachy and always trying to convince you to care. Compare this to a character like Iorveth who doesn't care if you support him, is a real leader, and knows he does monstrous things. He's also hateful and racist and yet I like him and can sympathize with him.

I don't really see Anders the same way, and given what happened to Karl (who he had history with), I can understand his reasons for seeing the emancipation of the mages as an important issue.

OnionXI wrote...

I actually don't find the Circle system to be that bad. Putting it into perspective the DA setting is a feudal one where you'd imagine most people are serfs and live in poverty and squalor. This certainly seems to be the case in Origins and DA2. Mages get dressed in fine clothes, are fed, are provided good living conditions, are trained, and can attain high positions within the Circle or courts. What's the tradeoff? They have to take a trial of willpower at the end of apprenticeship to prove they can do what they'll need to do for the rest of their lives -- resist demons. They're also under supervision by an order of elite knights. Incidentally this order, aside from killing them if needed also protects them. The Chantry doesn't even seem to use them for war very often and proven mages get more leeway and can travel freely.

Mages don't know what the Harrowing is; if you go through the Magi Origin, you realize that when Jowan explicitly asks what the Harrowing is about, in addition to Irving telling the protagonist not to tell his Harrowing to anyone. Apparently, no mage knows it's a trial to see whether you can resist a demon or not. Even Greagoir has to admonish Irving when he tries to warn the protagonist to be wary about the Fade, so it's difficult to genuinely know how prepared mages are.

Also, I don't buy into the idea that stripping people of their basic rights and freedom is all right so long as they are given clothes and food. The mage protagonist can state that the Circle of Ferelden is a "prison" and an "oppressive place" to Wynne, who counters that the protagonist can change that it's an oppressive place if he returns to take a leadership position there, and that she thinks he can change the situation with time. She makes it clear that this is her dream, and she doesn't think she will live long enough to see it happen.

Wynne has the freedom to travel because she is aiding The Warden in stopping the Fifth Blight. Ines is studying a plant that is rumored to grow in Blighted soil. Finn is aiding the Warden-Commander. Wynne is specifically offered a position with the court by the new ruler of Ferelden. It's not quite true that "proven" mages can travel freely, as Senior Enchanter Wynne needed permission to aid The Warden.

Furthermore, as Cullen states, templars "have dominion over mages by divine right."

OnionXI wrote...

And for mages demons are a real threat not to just themselves. Every mage encounter in DA2 reinforced that to me as did Uldred. Heck, go back further and see what damage a mage like Remile could do, not with the aid of a demon but because of his own ambition. Mages are dangerous, no way around it. I just don't see how Ander's free mage world would work in a setting with demonic possession.

It could work the same way it works with the free mages among the Dalish, the Avvar, the Chasind, and in the Kingdom of Rivain, where we know there are free mages who aren't controlled by the templars. We hear Bethany marvel at the idea of the free mages among the Dalish clans when she speaks to Merrill. Is magic dangerous? Of course. Are the Chantry controlled Circles the solution? That's the question that divides people, as we see disagreement on the forums and in the narrative over this.

As for the mages in Dragon Age II, all but two of the mage antagonists were insane and stupid. Having mentally unstable people abuse magic isn't really much of an argument for the Chantry controlled Circles any more than having rapists like Alrik and Kerras condemns templars like Thrask and Emeric by association.

OnionXI wrote...

So, overall I don't see what the mage's plight is. It seems throwing a wrench in it relies heavily on introducing a bat**** insane character like Meridith.

Some mages don't want to live under the rule of the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars in the Circles of Magi. That's the premise of the Mages Collective, who help mages stay free from the templars. I suppose it comes down to whether you agree or disagree with the Chantry controlled Circles.

[Silfren]

LobselVith8 wrote...

OnionXI wrote...

I think they could have done a much better job fleshing out the mage/templar issue in DA2. The tensions just didn't seem that organic to me because the story relies on certain people simply being crazy to progress it to open hostility.

I agree that templars and mages should have been fleshed out more. I've been going through Skyrim, and I really like the dichotomy between the Stormcloaks and the Legion. Neither faction is perfect, as both sides are flawed, and both leaders (Ulfric and Tullius) are imperfect leaders, although both men want what they think is best for Skyrim. Even if the protagonist opposes them, neither leader goes insane or turns into a monster; they both retain their dignity and their reasons for fighting the other side, despite becoming an antagonist to the protagonist.

I really wish the mages and the templars were handled in a similar fashion. They come off as caricatures to me in Dragon Age II.

OnionXI wrote...

I know Kirkwall is supposed to be a particularly harsh Circle but it seems like it painted an overly dire picture of the mages' situation. Somehow Kirkwall is the catalyst for rebellion in every Circle in Thedas? Where are the Aequitarians and Loyalists? There have to be mages who want to keep the status quo.

It's addressed in Asunder, although I personally think the issue should have been addressed in the actual game, rather than a novel. I shouldn't have to read Asunder to make sense of the ending of Dragon Age II.

OnionXI wrote...

I also didn't find Anders a very sympathetic character. He was whiny and preachy and always trying to convince you to care. Compare this to a character like Iorveth who doesn't care if you support him, is a real leader, and knows he does monstrous things. He's also hateful and racist and yet I like him and can sympathize with him.

I don't really see Anders the same way, and given what happened to Karl (who he had history with), I can understand his reasons for seeing the emancipation of the mages as an important issue.

OnionXI wrote...

I actually don't find the Circle system to be that bad. Putting it into perspective the DA setting is a feudal one where you'd imagine most people are serfs and live in poverty and squalor. This certainly seems to be the case in Origins and DA2. Mages get dressed in fine clothes, are fed, are provided good living conditions, are trained, and can attain high positions within the Circle or courts. What's the tradeoff? They have to take a trial of willpower at the end of apprenticeship to prove they can do what they'll need to do for the rest of their lives -- resist demons. They're also under supervision by an order of elite knights. Incidentally this order, aside from killing them if needed also protects them. The Chantry doesn't even seem to use them for war very often and proven mages get more leeway and can travel freely.

Mages don't know what the Harrowing is; if you go through the Magi Origin, you realize that when Jowan explicitly asks what the Harrowing is about, in addition to Irving telling the protagonist not to tell his Harrowing to anyone. Apparently, no mage knows it's a trial to see whether you can resist a demon or not. Even Greagoir has to admonish Irving when he tries to warn the protagonist to be wary about the Fade, so it's difficult to genuinely know how prepared mages are.

Also, I don't buy into the idea that stripping people of their basic rights and freedom is all right so long as they are given clothes and food. The mage protagonist can state that the Circle of Ferelden is a "prison" and an "oppressive place" to Wynne, who counters that the protagonist can change that it's an oppressive place if he returns to take a leadership position there, and that she thinks he can change the situation with time. She makes it clear that this is her dream, and she doesn't think she will live long enough to see it happen.

Wynne has the freedom to travel because she is aiding The Warden in stopping the Fifth Blight. Ines is studying a plant that is rumored to grow in Blighted soil. Finn is aiding the Warden-Commander. Wynne is specifically offered a position with the court by the new ruler of Ferelden. It's not quite true that "proven" mages can travel freely, as Senior Enchanter Wynne needed permission to aid The Warden.

Furthermore, as Cullen states, templars "have dominion over mages by divine right."

OnionXI wrote...

And for mages demons are a real threat not to just themselves. Every mage encounter in DA2 reinforced that to me as did Uldred. Heck, go back further and see what damage a mage like Remile could do, not with the aid of a demon but because of his own ambition. Mages are dangerous, no way around it. I just don't see how Ander's free mage world would work in a setting with demonic possession.

It could work the same way it works with the free mages among the Dalish, the Avvar, the Chasind, and in the Kingdom of Rivain, where we know there are free mages who aren't controlled by the templars. We hear Bethany marvel at the idea of the free mages among the Dalish clans when she speaks to Merrill. Is magic dangerous? Of course. Are the Chantry controlled Circles the solution? That's the question that divides people, as we see disagreement on the forums and in the narrative over this.

As for the mages in Dragon Age II, all but two of the mage antagonists were insane and stupid. Having mentally unstable people abuse magic isn't really much of an argument for the Chantry controlled Circles any more than having rapists like Alrik and Kerras condemns templars like Thrask and Emeric by association.

OnionXI wrote...

So, overall I don't see what the mage's plight is. It seems throwing a wrench in it relies heavily on introducing a bat**** insane character like Meridith.

Some mages don't want to live under the rule of the Chantry of Andraste and the Order of Templars in the Circles of Magi. That's the premise of the Mages Collective, who help mages stay free from the templars. I suppose it comes down to whether you agree or disagree with the Chantry controlled Circles.

I don't understand why people saying "I don't see what the mages' plight is" insist on overlooking the other aspects of being a mage:  being ripped away from  your family and not allowed to see them again.  This isn't a Kirkwall practice, but TYPICAL Circle practice.  Or the fact that mages are so universally preached by the Chantry has being inherently cursed, that it is a widespread cultural practice for noble families not to intermarry with noble lines known to carry magic in their line, and that mothers like Jowan's despise their children for an accident of birth, or women like Isolde are both ashamed and embarrassed by the thought of having a mage child, and also so terrified of losing that child forever, that they go to lengths to hide that child's mageness from discovery.

None of those things are acceptable.  That mages in SOME Circles MAY receive plentiful food, education, and what-have-you does not mitigate the harm created by universally viewing mages as at BEST people to be pitied because they were born accursed.

There is SO MUCH MORE to the entire Circle system than just mages "merely" being locked away in containment centers for supervision and training.

[the_one_54321]

Yes, being born with magic is incredibly unfair.

[Silfren]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Yes, being born with magic is incredibly unfair.

It is when it means that you'll be taken from your family the moment your magic is discovered, never to see them again unless you happen to have special circumstances, such as being the child of a powerful noble, that you'll be discouraged, possibly even forbidden from having a relationship, the question of marrying is a privilege you'll have to HOPE you'll be granted should you desire it, and that regardless, any children you may have will be taken from you at birth. 

I'm not sure if your statement was meant as flippant sarcasm or not, but thanks to the systemic oppression, it is highly unfair.

Modifié par Silfren, 24 avril 2012 - 08:35 .

[the_one_54321]

I wasn't being flippant.

Being born a mage is unfair. Because the only way to secure the safety of those around you is to treat you unfairly. To demand fair treatment is to be unfair to those around you. There is no way to be free as a mage. You are either controlled, or a threat. Your life is rendered a disproportionate struggle from the  moment your tallents are discovered.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 24 avril 2012 - 08:38 .

[Silfren]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I wasn't being flippant.

Being born a mage is unfair. Because the only way to secure the safety of those around you is to treat you unfairly.

No, it is NOT the only way.  There is no reason at all why mages absolutely have to be locked away and treated as bombs looking for a place to explode.  Especially not when this very system is often precisely the catalyst for driving mages to extreme measures in the first place. 

You can't lock people up and then when people rebel against being locked up, say "this is why we lock them up!"  It doesn't work that way.

[the_one_54321]

Silfren wrote...
Especially not when this very system is often precisely the catalyst for driving mages to extreme measures in the first place. 

You can't lock people up and then when people rebel against being locked up, say "this is why we lock them up!"  It doesn't work that way.

I agree that locking them up doesn't seem to fix the problem.

However "does not fix" != "causes."

The cuase of the problem is that they are born mages.

[Silfren]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Also, I don't buy into the idea that stripping people of their basic rights and freedom is all right so long as they are given clothes and food.

I find it a little disturbing that so many people think that this alone makes the Circle system not so bad.  It ain't that far a leap from justifications for real world slavery, after all.  "Slaves get food, shelter, and clothing.  What's this lack of freedom they keep complaining about?"

And yes, since it apparently has to be said again and again, mages living in Circles ARE slaves.  They live their entire lives under someone else's sufference.

[Silfren]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Especially not when this very system is often precisely the catalyst for driving mages to extreme measures in the first place. 

You can't lock people up and then when people rebel against being locked up, say "this is why we lock them up!"  It doesn't work that way.

I agree that locking them up doesn't seem to fix the problem.

However "does not fix" != "causes."

The cuase of the problem is that they are born mages.

"Does not fix" = "causes" is NOT an assertion I made, so I'll thank you not to insinuate that I did. 

However, we DO see evidence in both Origins and DA2 that many mages go insane or resort to unsavory methods specifically because they don't want to live according to the Chantry's dictates, NOT because they are inherently dangerous.  

Pretending that the existence of the Circle does not cause many of the problems it purports to prevent requires a person to be blind to the evidence. 

[the_one_54321]

Silfren wrote...
It ain't that far a leap from justifications for real world slavery, after all.

Yes it is. There is a very important distinction here.

There is no real world parallel for the mage in Thedas. There is no equivilant. There is no example that really applies. Being born with magic is a definitively isolating occurrence. Mages are not unique, as there are many mages, but they are strictly unequal to non-mages.

That on its own renders the "deserves equal treatment argument" inapplicable. All humans in the real world are equal, and thus this would never apply in the real world.

Silfren wrote...
Pretending that the existence of the Circle does not cause many of the problems it purports to prevent requires a person to be blind to the evidence.

I engage in no such pretension. The lengthy conversation on this thread has lead me to beleive that there is no effective way to cooperate with mages. The Qunarri method is the only proven effective way to eliminate the threat.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 24 avril 2012 - 08:56 .