269 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

joacho wrote...

• Susceptibility of mages (even good, well meaning ones) to demons without any confrontations
• A sense of the potential for widespread disaster through use of magic (accidental or otherwise)
• More believable (and hence relatable) antagonist mages who haven't lost their minds or are crazy
• More personal losses (or betrayals) as a result of magical accidents or misuse
• An effectively communicated fear of magic in the commonfolk
• More encounters with templars who have nothing against mages and in fact want to better everyones lot through cooperation  

And:

• Mages actually being *better off* with Templar oversight.

The main problem is that the oversight has not once, in any way, been shown to produce beneficial results.  In part this is because it's hard to show things that DON'T happen, but it can be done.  In part this is also because there has to be something for the PC to do, and if the Templars are actually handling the problem on their own, there's no real reason for the PC to get involved.  We meet some Templars who are decent folks, but they're always quest-dispensors, not quest-partakers.  Which is another good reason why Cullen would make an excellent companion for DA3.

There are other problems--people effectively ignoring the PC as a mage (except in a very few encounters).  The PC being immune to demonic influence as a Mage (in fact, if you're a mage, you probably have a high Willpower so you resist the VERY FEW instances of it FAR BETTER than any of the other PC classes).

There's a disconnect here.  The concept that mages are *fundamentally* and *irrevocably* different is not supported by the way the games run, and without that there's no ultimate support for the idea that they *have* to be constrained. 

These waters need to be muddied up--or UN-muddied in such a way as to change the nature of the conflict. 

[the_one_54321]

PsychoBlonde wrote...
The concept that mages are *fundamentally* and *irrevocably* different is not supported by the way the games run, and without that there's no ultimate support for the idea that they *have* to be constrained.

The PC wears Plot Armor and because of this you cannot make this extrapolation.

The act of being a main protagonist renders the PC immune to some rules of existence in the game that definitively apply to everyone that is not a main protagonist.

Silfren wrote...
Personally I don't understand why people willingly ignore context.

The context is such that the current system cannot be said to definitively decrease risk. I responded to this several pages back when you first brought it up. Believe it or not, I was being entirely serious. There is no reason whatsoever for non-mages to treat mages fairly, if mages aren't willing to accept complete supervision and education. Therefore, the only proven method to drastically decrease risk is the Qunarri method. They don't have to deal with Cirlces or abominations, and, as Sten discusses, view the mages with pity for their unfair lives.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 14 avril 2012 - 06:50 .

[tankdogg937]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

The question whether you sympathise with the mages and/or templars boils down to how they are portrayed by the writers.

What lacked for me in DA2 was a less distinct point of view in both sides. Being pushed into one direction or the other was very obvious.

There were templars like Thrask who was pro mage and others who were anti mage. I missed "the inbetween" kind of views. Being anti and becoming pro because of some event for example. Same goes for the mages; either they liked being in the circle or they hated it and the templars.

I put it very black and white. There were NPC's that had a little bit of a combination of the two but overall it wasn't distinctive enough.

Hope what I wrote made any sense.

Cullen?

He is the epitome of an in-between as far as Templar's go. He wanted to destroy the Circle in Ferelden because of the whole abomination incident. Yet when it came down to the nitty gritty in DA2 he showed he wasn't exactly fanatical or cold-hearted.

[ianvillan]

Dragon Age Origins spoilers below

Its been a while since I played the mage origin in Dragon Age Origins so some information might be wrong but when you inform irving of Jowan's plot to run away he tells you to go along with it so you can prove that the chantry girl with Jowan is involved, because the templars would not believe a person from the chantry is in the wrong but would't hesitate if they heard a story about a mage.

This is Irving the first enchanter who has to go to these lengths just to get fair treatment from the templars.

How much right would Irving have if a lowly templar just made up a story about witnessing him do blood magic, would the templars take his word over one of there own and if so who can he plead his case to, the grand cleric weve seen how effective they are at controling the templars.

[Silfren]

tankdogg937 wrote...

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

The question whether you sympathise with the mages and/or templars boils down to how they are portrayed by the writers.

What lacked for me in DA2 was a less distinct point of view in both sides. Being pushed into one direction or the other was very obvious.

There were templars like Thrask who was pro mage and others who were anti mage. I missed "the inbetween" kind of views. Being anti and becoming pro because of some event for example. Same goes for the mages; either they liked being in the circle or they hated it and the templars.

I put it very black and white. There were NPC's that had a little bit of a combination of the two but overall it wasn't distinctive enough.

Hope what I wrote made any sense.

Cullen?

He is the epitome of an in-between as far as Templar's go. He wanted to destroy the Circle in Ferelden because of the whole abomination incident. Yet when it came down to the nitty gritty in DA2 he showed he wasn't exactly fanatical or cold-hearted.

I maintain that Cullen's portrayal in DA2 made absolutely no sense.  I am fully capable of accepting that a person, after being subjected to extreme torment and developing full-blown PTSD-like symptoms as well as unreasoning hatred, as Cullen did, could later undergo another fundamental change and recover some extent of their previous non-fanatical perspective.

However, I would have liked to have actually SEEN this.  We see nothing at all from Cullen to make it in any way believable that he underwent a transformation out of his post-Broken Circle mentality.  Bear in mind that early in DA2, Cullen makes it abundantly clear that he hasn't let go of the anti-mage feelings he developed in Origins.  He even states, unequivocally, that mages aren't people. 

So his sudden attack of moderation and reason at the end of DA2 just doesn't make sense.  It could have if we had only been given scenes that demonstrated an evolution in his perspective, but we never did.

[The Elder King]

Silfren wrote...



I maintain that Cullen's portrayal in DA2 made absolutely no sense.  I am fully capable of accepting that a person, after being subjected to extreme torment and developing full-blown PTSD-like symptoms as well as unreasoning hatred, as Cullen did, could later undergo another fundamental change and recover some extent of their previous non-fanatical perspective.

However, I would have liked to have actually SEEN this.  We see nothing at all from Cullen to make it in any way believable that he underwent a transformation out of his post-Broken Circle mentality.  Bear in mind that early in DA2, Cullen makes it abundantly clear that he hasn't let go of the anti-mage feelings he developed in Origins.  He even states, unequivocally, that mages aren't people. 

So his sudden attack of moderation and reason at the end of DA2 just doesn't make sense.  It could have if we had only been given scenes that demonstrated an evolution in his perspective, but we never did.

He didn't have an "attack of moderation". He didn't stop Meredith for the mages.Cullen stripped Meredith of her power and then joined forces with Hawke, regardless of which side he supported,only because he realized that Meredith is completely insane (a bit late, I might add).

Modifié par hhh89, 14 avril 2012 - 06:57 .

[Silfren]

hhh89 wrote...

Silfren wrote...



I maintain that Cullen's portrayal in DA2 made absolutely no sense.  I am fully capable of accepting that a person, after being subjected to extreme torment and developing full-blown PTSD-like symptoms as well as unreasoning hatred, as Cullen did, could later undergo another fundamental change and recover some extent of their previous non-fanatical perspective.

However, I would have liked to have actually SEEN this.  We see nothing at all from Cullen to make it in any way believable that he underwent a transformation out of his post-Broken Circle mentality.  Bear in mind that early in DA2, Cullen makes it abundantly clear that he hasn't let go of the anti-mage feelings he developed in Origins.  He even states, unequivocally, that mages aren't people. 

So his sudden attack of moderation and reason at the end of DA2 just doesn't make sense.  It could have if we had only been given scenes that demonstrated an evolution in his perspective, but we never did.

He didn't have an "attack of moderation". He didn't stop Meredith for the mages.Cullen stripped Meredith of her power and then joined forces with Hawke, regardless of which side he supported,only because he realized that Meredith is completely insane (a bit late, I might add).

I was addressing the assertion above of Cullen as an in-between example of Templars.  In other words, a moderate one.  This is an opinion I see a lot on these forums, from people who played both Origins as well as DA2, and I reiterate that it does not make sense.  Cullen is hardly an example of a moderate templar.  But his behavior at the end of DA2 is held up as evidence of that very belief.

[The Elder King]

Silfren wrote...

hhh89 wrote...

Silfren wrote...



I maintain that Cullen's portrayal in DA2 made absolutely no sense.  I am fully capable of accepting that a person, after being subjected to extreme torment and developing full-blown PTSD-like symptoms as well as unreasoning hatred, as Cullen did, could later undergo another fundamental change and recover some extent of their previous non-fanatical perspective.

However, I would have liked to have actually SEEN this.  We see nothing at all from Cullen to make it in any way believable that he underwent a transformation out of his post-Broken Circle mentality.  Bear in mind that early in DA2, Cullen makes it abundantly clear that he hasn't let go of the anti-mage feelings he developed in Origins.  He even states, unequivocally, that mages aren't people. 

So his sudden attack of moderation and reason at the end of DA2 just doesn't make sense.  It could have if we had only been given scenes that demonstrated an evolution in his perspective, but we never did.

He didn't have an "attack of moderation". He didn't stop Meredith for the mages.Cullen stripped Meredith of her power and then joined forces with Hawke, regardless of which side he supported,only because he realized that Meredith is completely insane (a bit late, I might add).

I was addressing the assertion above of Cullen as an in-between example of Templars.  In other words, a moderate one.  This is an opinion I see a lot on these forums, from people who played both Origins as well as DA2, and I reiterate that it does not make sense.  Cullen is hardly an example of a moderate templar.  But his behavior at the end of DA2 is held up as evidence of that very belief.

I see. I though that with the bolded part you meant that it doesn't make sense that Cullen had an attack of moderation in the final part of the game. I misread your post.
I agree hower. Cullen isn't exactly the example of a moderate templar. I don't think he's a cruel one (with that, I intend that he probably doesn't rape or torture mages, or tranquilizes them without reason), but it's not on the moderate side either.
Though I have to say, I can't blame him. He was tortured for days (maybe weeks) by Uldred. He saw many templars and mages die by blood mages and abominations. While what he passed isn't the same as Fenris, he still suffered on his body all the negative side of magic.

[tankdogg937]

Silfren wrote...

tankdogg937 wrote...

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

The question whether you sympathise with the mages and/or templars boils down to how they are portrayed by the writers.

What lacked for me in DA2 was a less distinct point of view in both sides. Being pushed into one direction or the other was very obvious.

There were templars like Thrask who was pro mage and others who were anti mage. I missed "the inbetween" kind of views. Being anti and becoming pro because of some event for example. Same goes for the mages; either they liked being in the circle or they hated it and the templars.

I put it very black and white. There were NPC's that had a little bit of a combination of the two but overall it wasn't distinctive enough.

Hope what I wrote made any sense.

Cullen?

He is the epitome of an in-between as far as Templar's go. He wanted to destroy the Circle in Ferelden because of the whole abomination incident. Yet when it came down to the nitty gritty in DA2 he showed he wasn't exactly fanatical or cold-hearted.

I maintain that Cullen's portrayal in DA2 made absolutely no sense.  I am fully capable of accepting that a person, after being subjected to extreme torment and developing full-blown PTSD-like symptoms as well as unreasoning hatred, as Cullen did, could later undergo another fundamental change and recover some extent of their previous non-fanatical perspective.

However, I would have liked to have actually SEEN this.  We see nothing at all from Cullen to make it in any way believable that he underwent a transformation out of his post-Broken Circle mentality.  Bear in mind that early in DA2, Cullen makes it abundantly clear that he hasn't let go of the anti-mage feelings he developed in Origins.  He even states, unequivocally, that mages aren't people. 

So his sudden attack of moderation and reason at the end of DA2 just doesn't make sense.  It could have if we had only been given scenes that demonstrated an evolution in his perspective, but we never did.

I think you confuse being firm in his beliefs with being anti-Mage. I would hardly consider him Ser Alrik or Kerras. He's a Templar who takes his job seriously to a point but even he can't sit idle while Meredith goes berserk. He knows there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. He can be reasonable unlike the majority.

Or perhaps it was all just a power play so he could become Knight-Commander. I rather doubt it considering there is no Chantry/Circle/Order in Kirkwall anymore.

Modifié par tankdogg937, 14 avril 2012 - 09:19 .

[GodWood]

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Circle mages only have certain privledges in the Circles of Magi, and even those vary depending on the particular Circle of Magi in question. Gaider even addressed that marriage is only permitted in some Circles, and some others forbid having any relationships. Travel is also forbidden except for a few cases, as with Wynne helping stop the Blight, or Ines researching a plant that was rumored to be able to grow in Blighted soil.[/quote]Alright, not really a rebuttle as all you did was reaffirm what I said.

Yes, mages can have pretty much all those priviledges you said they don't under the current Circle system. The only problem is these priviledges are not consistent with each Circle. As I said before this needs to be rectified.

Also, in regards to travel, you forgot even the harshest of all Circles, the Kirkwall circle, allowed Bethany to travel outside the Circle for whatever reason.

Personally I'm against such freedoms unless it's strictly Circle business.


[quote]That isn't remotely accurate for the reasons I stated earlier. That should also be obvious from the fact that there are characters who condemn the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery.[/quote]It is completely accurate.

Despite the necessary limitations put on the lives of mages they are still better off and have better opportunities then the majority of Thedas.

Those claimes of 'slavery' are simply the crys of pampered skirts ignorant of the true suffering outside their comfy walls.


[quote]"Immense power"?[/quote]Magic.
 
Magic is their immense power.


[quote]You keep trying to paint this picture of the Chantry controlled Circles as some idyllic paradise, but it's not remotely accurate.[/quote]I'm not trying to paint it as anything. I'm simply painting it as what it is.

A home where mages are free to practice their craft and are looked after with food, shelter, education, companionship, work and protection from the dangers and suffering of the outside world. 

Whether you like it all not, it is all those things.


[quote]It's a prison - as the VO for the Magi Origin confirms.[/quote]I don't really see Duncan's opinion as objective fact but it should be noted the line is

"It's as much a prison, as it is a refuge"


[quote]Considering that Kirkwall mages are being tortured, raped, and made tranquil against the law, I would respectfully disagree.[/quote]This only happened to a minority of mages.

Anyways, this is not even a fault with the Circle system but rather the Kirkwall circle (which I already stated needed fixing)

Not even sure why you brought it up.
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...[quote]GodWood wrote...[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
Who is going to punish them?[/quote]Whoever would normally punish a murderer. [/quote]In a society that condemns mages and views magic as a curse?[/quote]Yes.

If civilians were caught murdering a mage who was proven to be innocent they'd be punished. Why is this hard to comprehend? If the mage is innocent the Chantry is going to not want him killed otherwise they'd just kill all their mages outright.


[quote]You mean the many apostates we meet outside the Circle of Kirkwall? How does that condemn the hundreds of mages we never meet as Hawke? That would be like blaming all the dwarves for the actions of the few dwarves who are members of the carta.[/quote]The Kirkwall circle was infested with blood mages.
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]GodWood wrote...
[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
They live under a monarchy, but the people have freedoms that virtually no Circle mage will ever know.[/quote]Like what?

The freedom to starve? The freedom to sleep cold, alone and homeless? The freedom to be poor? The freedom to be mauled by the many monsters that plague the land? The freedom to be killed by bandits? The freedom to have no access to decent medical treatment?

Do I really need to go on? Yes, the life of a mage isn't the perfect paradise you seem to want it to be but but it's infinitely better then the hardships of the average commoner.

If my choices were Fereldan circle or life of the commoner, I'd pick Circle every time.[/quote]The freedom to pursue a romantic relationship, the freedom to marry, the freedom to find a job and make a home for themselves, the freedom to not be murdered simply for being a mage, the freedom to be able to walk down a street without worrying that someone would try to kill them simply for having magical ability, the freedom to travel without having armed and armored soldiers trying to murder them.[/quote]Again you blatantly mischaracterize the limitations put on the mages and again you choose to continue remainining completely ignorant of how well off mages are in comparison to the rest of Thedas.

As we both know mages ARE allowed to pursue a romantic relationship however it does depend on what circle they are apart of. As I said before this needs to be rectified by having all Circles follow one uniform set of 'privilidges'.

As for marriage, as far as I know it is true that they are simply not allowed, to which I honestly say "so what?" Marriage isn't some basic human right in this world or theirs, and frankly it's not all it's cracked up to be. (especially in a medieval setting) If they really do want marriage though they shouldn't be tearing down the Circle system or any nonsense like that. Rather they should have an organized diplomatic petition in order to achieve the freedom of marriage. Unlike the majority of Thedas, mages have luxury of having the intellect to do such things and thus should utilize it. NOT organize some violent revolution resulting in the deaths of thousands just to strip their rights down to that of the humble peasant.

The freedom to find a job is absolute nonsense. Mages DO have the freedom to find a job within the circle, they even have the luxury to choose what's better suited for them. The average peasant does not. Unlike the mage they do not have education nor do they have the ability to choose their career from a wide range of options. Instead they must toil away (likely where they were born - travel is expensive) and make what little they can to stay alive.

And finally the rest of your wants are things that are provided by the Circle itself. Only on the outside will you be  "murdered simply for being a mage" and "killed for having magical ability".

Or have you deluded yourself into thinkning the average peasant is going to be happy knowing that their neighbour could be possessed at any moment and kill everyone, or blow everyone up with his mind etc etc.

Modifié par GodWood, 14 avril 2012 - 09:27 .

[Arthur Cousland]

The writers should have put more mages in the game who actually seek power, like Tahrone.  Most simply want freedom and turn to blood magic as the only way to combat the templars who are pursuing them.

Enemies Among Us comes so early in the game, that by the time I met Ser Karras and Ser Alrik, I only had the tomes to remind me of Tahrone.  The other "evil" mages were all bandits and slavers, no one actually threatening to take over Kirkwall.

Most of the pro-mage quests have me rescuing apostates, while the pro-templar quests have me hunting them.  It's hard for me to do a pro-templar playthrough without me feeling like the bad guy.

Being born a mage is an accident of birth.  Yes, the circles are needed, but that doesn't mean that all mages should be treated like prisoners just for being what they are.  Meredith ran the Gallows like a prison warden.

[ianvillan]

GodWood wrote...

I'm not trying to paint it as anything. I'm simply painting it as what it is.

A home where mages are free to practice their craft and are looked after with food, shelter, education, companionship, work and protection from the dangers and suffering of the outside world. 

Whether you like it all not, it is all those things.

Do you think the chantry lets them practice out of the goodness of there heart, or is it that they view the mages as weapons against Tevinter and the Qunari. They want the mages to train to be powerfull so they can win the battles they send them into.

[berelinde]

Arthur Cousland wrote...

The writers should have put more mages in the game who actually seek power, like Tahrone.  Most simply want freedom and turn to blood magic as the only way to combat the templars who are pursuing them.

Enemies Among Us comes so early in the game, that by the time I met Ser Karras and Ser Alrik, I only had the tomes to remind me of Tahrone.  The other "evil" mages were all bandits and slavers, no one actually threatening to take over Kirkwall.

Most of the pro-mage quests have me rescuing apostates, while the pro-templar quests have me hunting them.  It's hard for me to do a pro-templar playthrough without me feeling like the bad guy.

Being born a mage is an accident of birth.  Yes, the circles are needed, but that doesn't mean that all mages should be treated like prisoners just for being what they are.  Meredith ran the Gallows like a prison warden.

+10 Internets

That was the big problem I had with DA2. In DA:O, I found sympathetic templars aplenty. I met few (if any) that elicited anything other than friendship or sympathy from me. Ser Otto was my particular favorite, although I also felt a lot of compassion for Irminric, the templar driven mad by lyrium withdrawl.

In DA2, all the templars I met were loathsome, inept, or Cullen. The persecuted, tortured mages jerked my heartstrings, even the evil ones, but Thrask and Emeric were the only templars I actually respected. (Emeric's line after sarcastic Hawke talks about deboned women is priceless). As a result, I consider my pro-templar Hawkes to be loathsome human beings worthy only of a swift, unmourned death. I depsised them and only ran them for the achievement.

As much as I would love to see mages portrayed in a sympathetic light in DA3, I would also like to rekindle my affection for templars. I want to see templars who understand the nature of their charge. They were charged with the protection of those who society would persecute, given half the chance, and they responded with cruelty and avarice. I would like to see that remedied in DA3, with templars who are actually decent human beings, not rapists, torturers, or ineffective buffoons.

See, I do like templars. Just not pathetic, one-sided ones.

[The Elder King]

ianvillan wrote...

GodWood wrote...

I'm not trying to paint it as anything. I'm simply painting it as what it is.

A home where mages are free to practice their craft and are looked after with food, shelter, education, companionship, work and protection from the dangers and suffering of the outside world. 

Whether you like it all not, it is all those things.

Do you think the chantry lets them practice out of the goodness of there heart, or is it that they view the mages as weapons against Tevinter and the Qunari. They want the mages to train to be powerfull so they can win the battles they send them into.

As far as I know, the Circle system was created before the arrival of the Qunari in Thedas. And the Tevinter doesn't have the power to invade the other nations anymore (though they had enough power to survive against the Exalted Marches).
I'm not saying that the Chantry doesn't the mages as useful for a war, but this is not related with the Circle system.

[the_one_54321]

ianvillan wrote...
Do you think the chantry lets them practice out of the goodness of there heart, or is it that they view the mages as weapons against Tevinter and the Qunari.

Maybe it's because they view mages as dangerous.

[ianvillan]

the_one_54321 wrote...

ianvillan wrote...
Do you think the chantry lets them practice out of the goodness of there heart, or is it that they view the mages as weapons against Tevinter and the Qunari.

Maybe it's because they view mages as dangerous.

Mages are dangerous we hear that every day from the Templars, so why let them practice their craft to get even more dangerous. The only reason has to be so they have magic in case of an invasion by another country, not so mages can improve themselves.

It just doesnt make sence with what is being said by the chantry and templars because a better trained mage would be even more dangerous if they were to make a deal with a demon, so why dont they stop mages from learning any magic if they are so worried about possesion.

[the_one_54321]

Once again, the Qunarri clearly have it all figured out. Weapons, controlled, and pitied for their unpleasant place in life.

[Pasquale1234]

ianvillan wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

ianvillan wrote...
Do you think the chantry lets them practice out of the goodness of there heart, or is it that they view the mages as weapons against Tevinter and the Qunari.

Maybe it's because they view mages as dangerous.

Mages are dangerous we hear that every day from the Templars, so why let them practice their craft to get even more dangerous. The only reason has to be so they have magic in case of an invasion by another country, not so mages can improve themselves.

It just doesnt make sence with what is being said by the chantry and templars because a better trained mage would be even more dangerous if they were to make a deal with a demon, so why dont they stop mages from learning any magic if they are so worried about possesion.

More dangerous than an untrained mage who doesn't know how to safeguard against possession?

See:  Connor Guerrin

[The Elder King]

ianvillan wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

ianvillan wrote...
Do you think the chantry lets them practice out of the goodness of there heart, or is it that they view the mages as weapons against Tevinter and the Qunari.

Maybe it's because they view mages as dangerous.

Mages are dangerous we hear that every day from the Templars, so why let them practice their craft to get even more dangerous. The only reason has to be so they have magic in case of an invasion by another country, not so mages can improve themselves.

It just doesnt make sence with what is being said by the chantry and templars because a better trained mage would be even more dangerous if they were to make a deal with a demon, so why dont they stop mages from learning any magic if they are so worried about possesion.

Because not all of them are (completely, depending on the person's opinion) sadistic bastards? The only way to stop a mage to learn magic is killing him, or keeping him restrained. Even qunari mages could probably learn magic and become stronger. Their tounge is cut off only if they'll do blood magic (or suspected to do so).
The qunari weren't even present at the time the Circles were created. And I don't know the date when the Seekers and the Chantry created the Circle system, but it might be before the schism, so the Tevinter wasn't an enemy of the Chantry back then.
EDIT: and what Pasquale said. An untrained mage is even more dangerous, because a demon will have more chance to possess him/her.

Modifié par hhh89, 16 avril 2012 - 04:39 .

[the_one_54321]

What do you do if a person is born with a time-bomb in his head? There's a chance that this time-bomb will never explode, but unless the person is thoroughly educated on how to control it, and watched for signs that it's about to, there's a decent chance that it will. And if this time-bomb does explode, it'll wipe out a quarter mile radius area or more.

Then take it farther and say that lots of people are randomly born this way.

[LobselVith8]

[quote]GodWood wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Circle mages only have certain privledges in the Circles of Magi, and even those vary depending on the particular Circle of Magi in question. Gaider even addressed that marriage is only permitted in some Circles, and some others forbid having any relationships. Travel is also forbidden except for a few cases, as with Wynne helping stop the Blight, or Ines researching a plant that was rumored to be able to grow in Blighted soil.[/quote]

Alright, not really a rebuttle as all you did was reaffirm what I said.

Yes, mages can have pretty much all those priviledges you said they don't under the current Circle system. The only problem is these priviledges are not consistent with each Circle. As I said before this needs to be rectified.

Also, in regards to travel, you forgot even the harshest of all Circles, the Kirkwall circle, allowed Bethany to travel outside the Circle for whatever reason.

Personally I'm against such freedoms unless it's strictly Circle business. [/quote]

You said the Circle mages have those rights, I pointed out that only some Circles of Magi permit mages having relationships, and only some permit mages to ask for permission to marry someone. I'm not certain how that confirms your statement when it addresses that such privledges only exists for a select few.

Also, it's addressed that Hawke pulled a lot of strings to get Circle mage Bethany attached as a companion.

[quote]GodWood wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

That isn't remotely accurate for the reasons I stated earlier. That should also be obvious from the fact that there are characters who condemn the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery.[/quote]

It is completely accurate.

Despite the necessary limitations put on the lives of mages they are still better off and have better opportunities then the majority of Thedas.

Those claimes of 'slavery' are simply the crys of pampered skirts ignorant of the true suffering outside their comfy walls. [/quote]

Aldenon the Great addressed it as slavery, and his people fought against the Chantry and the Order of Templars. A pro-mage Hawke can address it as slavery, and he's an apostate already living outside the Circle Tower. The codex entries continually address that mages are "controlled" by templars, and that a mage left the Chantry controlled Circle because he didn't want to remain a "servant of the Chantry" anymore. Cullen explicitly says that templars have "dominion over mages by divine right." I don't see how you can seriously claim that only those mages ignorant of outside life would label the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery.

[quote]GodWood wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

"Immense power"?[/quote]

Magic.
 
Magic is their immense power. [/quote]

You claimed the Chantry controlled Circles offered positions of power, but how is that true when mages are subjugated by the Order of Templars and the Chantry of Andraste? When the Chantry and the templars are the ones with the power, then I'm not seeing how mages can achieve any real power within the Chantry controlled Circle.

[quote]GodWood wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

You keep trying to paint this picture of the Chantry controlled Circles as some idyllic paradise, but it's not remotely accurate.[/quote]

I'm not trying to paint it as anything. I'm simply painting it as what it is.

A home where mages are free to practice their craft and are looked after with food, shelter, education, companionship, work and protection from the dangers and suffering of the outside world. 

Whether you like it all not, it is all those things. [/quote]

You leave out a lot in an attempt to get your point across, but the context changes everything. Mages live under the rule of the templars, under the regime of the Chantry. They live in prisons, they only have some privledges in certain Circles, and they run the risk of being made tranquil. Abuses can happen, and it's a threat because templars have religious authority over the mages. 

Where I'm standing, mages are oppressed by a religious order that claims that it has "divine right" over their lives, leading to mages living in an enviornment where they lack the same freedom as the people who aren't forced to live in a prison simply for being a mage. Mages live under the threat of rape, the threat of tranquility, the threat of physical and emotional abuse, and the possibility of being killed, as we saw with the Chantry controlled Circle of Kirkwall. The Circle of Kirkwall stands as an example of how bad it can get, because mages are under thumb of the Chantry and its templars.

Even the mage protagonist of Origins can address that the Circle of Ferelden was a "prison" and an "oppressive place" to Senior Enchanter Wynne, who never contests his statements, and even says (in response to The Warden addressing that it's oppressive) that she believes he can change that aspect of the Chantry controlled Circle (if he returned to the Circle of Ferelden), given time.

[quote]GodWood wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

It's a prison - as the VO for the Magi Origin confirms.[/quote]

I don't really see Duncan's opinion as objective fact but it should be noted the line is

"It's as much a prison, as it is a refuge" [/quote]

It's the narrator's words to the player, not Duncan. Simply because the same voice actor provides the narration doesn't change that the narrator is speaking to the player.

Also, considering that Andrastian society has painted mages so negatively, it's a refugee from a civilization where magic and mages are viewed with disdain. Wynne points this out when she addresses how mages are killed for things that are outside their control. We hear Andrastians in multiple games refer to magic as a "curse," and we see the effect this anti-mage religious teaching has on Andrastian mages like Keili and Bethany.

[quote]GodWood wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

Considering that Kirkwall mages are being tortured, raped, and made tranquil against the law, I would respectfully disagree.[/quote]

This only happened to a minority of mages.

Anyways, this is not even a fault with the Circle system but rather the Kirkwall circle (which I already stated needed fixing)

Not even sure why you brought it up. [/quote]

I brought it up because it happened as a result of mages living in a prison where they live under the threat of tranquility or death, and where they have no recourse to contest it, as we saw with the Magi Origin. Irving never even saw or knew the evidence against Jowan, but he signed the Rite of Tranquility because Greagoir said so. Irving laments that it's an issue of survival.

[quote]GodWood wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

In a society that condemns mages and views magic as a curse?[/quote]

Yes.

If civilians were caught murdering a mage who was proven to be innocent they'd be punished. Why is this hard to comprehend? If the mage is innocent the Chantry is going to not want him killed otherwise they'd just kill all their mages outright. [/quote]

Because you aren't backing up the claims with any codex entry or character dialogue to support it. This is pure speculation on your part.

Wynne addresses that mages are killed for being mages, and that's apparently the danger of living in Andrastian society where magic and mages are viewed with disdain, as we see in Origins and Dragon Age II. There's no evidence that civilians are punished for harming mages, or even for killing them. You are simply assuming that they would be punished, but we have no evidence to support that conclusion. The fact that Mother Hannah has to go out of her way to assure an Amell mage that he won't be attacked by a mob for being a mage leaves me with the impression that this happens all too often in Andrastian society, as Wynne's recounting of how the mages are treated (and sometimes killed) outside the Chantry controlled Circle supports.

[quote]GodWood wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean the many apostates we meet outside the Circle of Kirkwall? How does that condemn the hundreds of mages we never meet as Hawke? That would be like blaming all the dwarves for the actions of the few dwarves who are members of the carta.[/quote]

The Kirkwall circle was infested with blood mages. [/quote]

The Circle of Kirkwall had hundreds of mages living there, and that was prior to the influx of Starkhaven mages who were transferred. Did you ever meet the hundreds of men, women, and children in the narrative? Since you didn't, I don't see where you are claiming that the Circle of Kirkwall was infested, because we are relatively ignorant about how the Chantry controlled Circle actually was. Addressing the criminal apostates, and the few Circles mages, who we actually met, doesn't change this reality.

[quote]GodWood wrote...

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...

The freedom to pursue a romantic relationship, the freedom to marry, the freedom to find a job and make a home for themselves, the freedom to not be murdered simply for being a mage, the freedom to be able to walk down a street without worrying that someone would try to kill them simply for having magical ability, the freedom to travel without having armed and armored soldiers trying to murder them.[/quote]

Again you blatantly mischaracterize the limitations put on the mages and again you choose to continue remainining completely ignorant of how well off mages are in comparison to the rest of Thedas. [/quote]

I disagree with you because I don't think mages are better off living under oppressive system that gives templars "dominance over mages by divine right." As we see from the end of Dragon Age II and the events of Asunder, I'm not alone in having that view.

[quote]GodWood wrote...

As we both know mages ARE allowed to pursue a romantic relationship however it does depend on what circle they are apart of. As I said before this needs to be rectified by having all Circles follow one uniform set of 'privilidges'. [/quote]

Only some Circles of Magi permit relationships, as we know from Gaider and see in Dragon Age II. Only some Circles of Magi permit mages to ask for permission to marry, as we know from Gaider.

[quote]GodWood wrote...

As for marriage, as far as I know it is true that they are simply not allowed, to which I honestly say "so what?" Marriage isn't some basic human right in this world or theirs, and frankly it's not all it's cracked up to be. (especially in a medieval setting) If they really do want marriage though they shouldn't be tearing down the Circle system or any nonsense like that. Rather they should have an organized diplomatic petition in order to achieve the freedom of marriage. Unlike the majority of Thedas, mages have luxury of having the intellect to do such things and thus should utilize it. NOT organize some violent revolution resulting in the deaths of thousands just to strip their rights down to that of the humble peasant. [/quote]

It's not "nonsense" for men and women to fight for their freedom from a system they find to be oppressive and unjust.

[quote]GodWood wrote...

The freedom to find a job is absolute nonsense. Mages DO have the freedom to find a job within the circle, they even have the luxury to choose what's better suited for them. The average peasant does not. Unlike the mage they do not have education nor do they have the ability to choose their career from a wide range of options. Instead they must toil away (likely where they were born - travel is expensive) and make what little they can to stay alive.

And finally the rest of your wants are things that are provided by the Circle itself. Only on the outside will you be  "murdered simply for being a mage" and "killed for having magical ability". [/quote]

Considering that even the First Enchanter says he has to make certain choices as a matter of "survival," I don't see why you find my statement to be "absolute nonsense," aside from the fact that I disagree with your pro-templar and pro-Chantry point of view. In addition to the fact the events at the end of Dragon Age II and Asunder, I really can't agree with your opinion on the Chantry controlled Circles.

[quote]GodWood wrote...

Or have you deluded yourself into thinkning the average peasant is going to be happy knowing that their neighbour could be possessed at any moment and kill everyone, or blow everyone up with his mind etc etc.[/quote]

Considering that it's addressed that alternative societies to Andrastian civilization have mages who aren't "controlled" living among non-mages, I suppose part of the reason that mages have such a hostile reaction from Andrastians is how negatively the Andrastian Chantry views mages and magic, and preaches that to the Andrastian people in their nations. It's why we have such a stark contrast between how Andrastians treat mages, and how many non-Andrastians treat mages.

[Zkyire]

esper wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Arguably, possession very definitively robs you of your free will. And has been specifically described to actively seek to spread to other mages. It's in the codex.

But mages are not possessed by automatic.

And without the Circle most mages wont get any formal training and will be far, far more likely to get possessed.

Hence the Circles exist.

Modifié par Zkyire, 17 avril 2012 - 01:54 .

[Lynata]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I don't see how you can seriously claim that only those mages ignorant of outside life would label the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery.

You're quite the little Anders. You know that there are a number of mages who would disagree with your opinion, right?

LobselVith8 wrote...
Because you aren't backing up the claims with any codex entry or character dialogue to support it. This is pure speculation on your part.

He is right, and I am quite certain that I've already delivered sources for this as well. In fact, several people did, but you either forgot it or simply chose to ignore it in favor of your extremist opinion. Here, in another thread you've actually quoted it yourself:

http://social.biowar...812/72#11364213 

Also, regardless of your attempts to paint them as a bunch of rapists and sadistic torturers, the Templar Order's official purpose includes protecting the mages from the common folk, just as they protect the common folk from magic, in essence forming a barrier between the two - and indeed often finding themselves as a buffer between outraged commoners and unlucky mages, as also thematized in David Gaider's latest novel "Asunder", where Knight-Captain Evangeline intervenes on behalf of Wynne, Rhys and Adrian.

Sheesh, you should at least be capable of accepting that the situation isn't as "black and white" as you paint it to be, but apparently it's easier to cling to hearsay, Anders' propaganda and some half-truth legends about your ancient rebel mage hero who has never actually seen a Circle from the inside.

Is it so hard to see that every side has valid points - and that it is exactly this that makes the situation so complicated? Apparently.

Modifié par Lynata, 17 avril 2012 - 02:20 .

[esper]

Zkyire wrote...

esper wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Arguably, possession very definitively robs you of your free will. And has been specifically described to actively seek to spread to other mages. It's in the codex.

But mages are not possessed by automatic.

And without the Circle most mages wont get any formal training and will be far, far more likely to get possessed.

Hence the Circles exist.

Funny thing is amongst the apostate and the abormination we have encounted the mages being abormination have just as much from the circle as without. (Ulred and co in da:o (there were a lot of possessed mages in the broken circle), Anders, Wynne, Eveline (she was a circle mage), Grace, Quintin (to be fair he mostly possessed others), vs. Connor (cureable) and Maratheri and perhaps Fenryiel) .

Says a lot about how effective the Circle training is to prevent abormination. And I have never stated that mages don't need training. Just that they don't need the circle system.

[Lynata]

esper wrote...
Says a lot about how effective the Circle training is to prevent abormination.

Considering how few human non-Circle mages we meet throughout the games, I'd guess it says more about how efficient the Circles are at recruiting people who possess magical potential.

It should be kept in mind that most mages will face temptation - just like any other human - regardless of where they are. All the Circles can do is try to limit their exposure and prevent research into forbidden topics. That this kind of limitation instills another kind of temptation (resistance against this kind of oppression) is, it seems, a price regarded by many as necessary to pay for the safety of all. It's why the Right of Annulment was invented, and fortunately it did not have to be evoked that many times throughout the centuries.

On further note: Advocating mage training without enforcement is a noble ideal, but realistically, few people would show up for a Harrowing voluntarily, and the fact remains that there are indeed mages who won't ever be ready to resist a demon due to a lack in willpower and confidence. It is these cases that are condemned to the Rite of Tranquility by the Circle enchanters themselves. Not to mention that few mages would turn into well-meaning good-doers out of their love for humanity. History has shown time and time again that many people who have access to great power will use it to further their own goals, and the fictional countries we are talking about are cultivating a society that works on the very same dog-eat-dog basis.
It starts with people feeling superior to others (based on their unique abilities) and finishes with the demand for acknowledgement of their status including special rights and privileges. This is unfortunately how humans work.

In other words: "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"