629 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

Based on what exaclty? Kirkwall?

How about based on the fact that every mage is now being hunted by the templars for being mages, and either have to fight or die, in the war, right now. And the templars have rebelled against the chantry because the Divine wasn't anti-mage enough for them. Kirkwall was just a large catalyst leading up to this, but not the crux of the matter.

The circumstances shouldn't matter. Amalia's demon is in the world, Connor's is in the Fade, neither of them become the stock-standard abomination. So what is required for that to happen?

I have absolutely no clue.

Wasn't she dead when she got possessed?

Yes, but she still looked exactly the same...with blotches all over her skin.

Well, we know that. They don't care if people are alive either. Or trees.

It's in the Codex that many demons are wont to possess the first thing they possibly can once crossing over, maybe due to disorientation. That has nothing to do with Kitty, since she was quite aware of her surroundings and had been for many years.

And we see many examples of that, but we also see many examples of demons and spirits who had been cut off from the Fade, and can reason and figure things out before possessing anything? Like the Desire Demon found in Sebastian's quest in Act 2. Or the Pride Demon found in the Deep Roads in Origins quest, Asunder.

I don't know if the mage is forcibly mutated by the power of the Demon not completely in touch with the mages body, but Uldred looked perfectly normal as well at first. Demonology isn't exactly studied by Andrastian nations of the White Divine, and anything used to help combat blood mages like the Litany or anything that improves magical awareness and knowledge, comes from Tevinter.

Didn't David Gaider say somewhere on the forums long ago that the codexes aren't often the truth of the matter, (partly) because of bias?

I seem to recall that he did.

I recall he said something like that as well.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 14 mai 2012 - 02:28 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Based on what exaclty? Kirkwall?

How about based on the fact that every mage is now being hunted by the templars for being mages, and either have to fight or die, in the war, right now. And the templars have rebelled against the chantry because the Divine wasn't anti-mage enough for them. Kirkwall was just a large catalyst leading up to this, but not the crux of the matter.

I ask for proof, you tell me stories.

PROOF that the situation is the Circles was growing progressively worse only because of templars.
That they kill eachother in a WAR is not proof of anything.

[GavrielKay]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Gaider himself cleary stated that the wrold was a more dangerous place before the Cricles. Do oyu call Gaider biased?

I believe the quote read more like the entire world was a dangerous place.  A major war had just been fought, things were in turmoil.  I don't recall that it was based entirely on the fact that mages were still free.  And, yes, sometimes Gaider does come off a bit biased.  As any human does when something they are passionate about is discussed.

Cultures were mages arne't as numerous, cultures where conditions are completely different and cultures that accepted abominations/mages killing hunderds.
Not good examples.

We don't know how numerous they are.  As people keep pointing out, our knowledge of other game cultures is limited.  We do know that whatever is going on there isn't bad enough for them to invite the circle system as a whole into their culture or to spill out into neighboring areas.

What pointers? If those societies accept the danger of abominations ,doesnt' mean you have.

And why shouldn't the dangers of abominations be accepted?  Seriously, people accept all sorts of dangers in their day to day lives.  In a setting like the game, a simple cut can get infected and kill you.  Life is risky.  There are a thousand ways to die, and none of them leave you any less dead than being attacked by an abomination.

In the modern world, I know there is a non-zero chance that if I board a plane, I won't land safely at my destination.  There are a number of possible reasons for that, and one of them is misdeeds on the part of one or more of my fellow passengers.  However, even if I might be able to reduce that risk by having everyone who boards a plane be strip and cavity searched, I am not willing to go so far.  I don't want it to be done to me, and I have reason to believe one day I'll have to board a plane, so I vote 'no.'  There are privacies and freedoms that we simply cannot give up in the name of security.

Now to the game world:  you have a bunch of people who've decided they just don't want the extra risk of dealing with free mages.  Knowing this will never happen to them, they settle on locking the mages up for life as a solution.  Sacrificing someone else's dignity and freedom is just WAY easier than sacrificing your own.  But does that make it any more right?  What right do the "normals" have to decide that out of the thousands of risks they take every day, that ONE risk isn't one they wish to deal with.  That mages should all give up their freedom in order to make everyone else just that tiny bit safer is not justified.

And in any case, it doesn't work.  Everything we see in the game world happens despite the circle system.  Mages are still born, still come in to their power while out in the wide world living with their families.  Everyone is stil vulnerable.  There are free mages everywhere - legally or otherwise - already.  So Thedas at large has decided they are quite willing and feel quite justified in stealing the freedom of every mage they can in order to FEEL safer.

This was my idea when starting the thread...  might not socieities have come up with other ways to reduce their risks had simply locking mages up been impossible.  I think it was just too easy to run with such a simple solution.  Once people got used to not thinking about mages, they got to thinking that should be the way of things.  But so many of the techniques discussed in the thread so far might have been used and improved if it had been necessary to do so.

If you have a society that does nothing to prevent earthquake damage (because of their cultural beliefs), and yours does, does it mean you should learn from it? Why not let eqrthquakes kill peopel and destroy buildings? After all, ti's just message fom the spirits.

Build better buildings:  check.  Forbid everyone to live withing 100 miles of the last known earthquake:  not so much.  There are always limits on how far people are willing to go to be safer.

Spread them out?
That would not only make policing them 10 times harder, but would also make stopping them if they go on the ramapge 10 times harder.

There are already spread out.  They are born wherever and free mages are everywhere.

Any solution that lets mages out of hte Circle is deeply flawed.

Any solution that forcibly removes the rights of mages in order to make others feel marginally safer is deeply flawed.

Modifié par GavrielKay, 14 mai 2012 - 04:07 .

[Lazy Jer]

GavrielKay wrote...


This was my idea when starting the thread...  might not socieities have come up with other ways to reduce their risks had simply locking mages up been impossible.  I think it was just too easy to run with such a simple solution.  Once people got used to not thinking about mages, they got to thinking that should be the way of things.  But so many of the techniques discussed in the thread so far might have been used and improved if it had been necessary to do so.

I hate to seem like a pessimist, but I think it likely that there's two things that would happen in that case.  One is that mages would end up either accepted or quasi-accepted in some communities.  Unfortunately it's just as likely that some communities, knowing that mages couldn't be contained, would eliminate signs of magic early on.  Either through the method of dissuading mages to reproduce in their communities or throught the more direct method of eliminating a mages altogether.

Thus we see that there is a flip side to the circle.  It's stated goal, afterall, is to protect mages. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]GavrielKay wrote...

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Gaider himself cleary stated that the wrold was a more dangerous place before the Cricles. Do oyu call Gaider biased?[/quote]

I believe the quote read more like the entire world was a dangerous place.  A major war had just been fought, things were in turmoil.  I don't recall that it was based entirely on the fact that mages were still free.  And, yes, sometimes Gaider does come off a bit biased.  As any human does when something they are passionate about is discussed.[/quote]

And it is now you that wants to ignore the context of Gaiders post (which was in response to a direct question - how dangerous were mages before the Circles)...AND take a tiny stab at Gaider himself...
Are you so desperate for anything to use as an argument?



[quote]
We don't know how numerous they are.  As people keep pointing out, our knowledge of other game cultures is limited.  We do know that whatever is going on there isn't bad enough for them to invite the circle system as a whole into their culture or to spill out into neighboring areas.[/quote]

Actually, we do have a good idea. Dalish apparenlty only have 2-3 mages per clan.
Rivan - which you so like to mention - HAS it's own circle.
And jsut because there is a different system in culture X, doesnt' men you can transplant it to another culture.

After all, there are tribes today that still live according to very old customs (some that are rather harmfull for them). Do you really think modern poeple would just accept them?

So what if Rivians culture thought dragons are sacred and must not be fought. If it kills you, it was the will of the gods. Will you argue not fighitng dragons?


[quote]
And why shouldn't the dangers of abominations be accepted?  Seriously, people accept all sorts of dangers in their day to day lives.  In a setting like the game, a simple cut can get infected and kill you.  Life is risky.  There are a thousand ways to die, and none of them leave you any less dead than being attacked by an abomination.[/quote]

Life is risky, so let's make it more risky?
I'd accept abominations...if you accept not locking up murders, rapists, drunk drivers and if you support avoiding any natural disaster detection/prevention.



[quote]
Now to the game world:  you have a bunch of people who've decided they just don't want the extra risk of dealing with free mages.  Knowing this will never happen to them, they settle on locking the mages up for life as a solution.  Sacrificing someone else's dignity and freedom is just WAY easier than sacrificing your own.[/quote]

Better than to sacrifice other people LIVES. Which would happen.
How hte heck do you efficently monitor and police mages if they run around free? It is a logistical nightmare and it would, beyond doubt, end up with more dead than the current system.


[quote]
But does that make it any more right?  What right do the "normals" have to decide that out of the thousands of risks they take every day, that ONE risk isn't one they wish to deal with.  That mages should all give up their freedom in order to make everyone else just that tiny bit safer is not justified.[/quote]

Because that one risk if far bigger in scope and probability.
What right do you have to lock up a desesed man in quarantene?


[quote]
And in any case, it doesn't work.  Everything we see in the game world happens despite the circle system.  Mages are still born, still come in to their power while out in the wide world living with their families.  Everyone is stil vulnerable.  There are free mages everywhere - legally or otherwise - already.  So Thedas at large has decided they are quite willing and feel quite justified in stealing the freedom of every mage they can in order to FEEL safer.[/quote]

But it does work. The VAST majority of mages is in Circles. Abominations nad blood mages generally get contained fast, without collateral damage.

You think things are bad now? Well, if mages roam around free, you can expect the bodycount to be at least 10 times larger.




[quote]
[quote]Spread them out?
That would not only make policing them 10 times harder, but would also make stopping them if they go on the ramapge 10 times harder.[/quote]

There are already spread out.  They are born wherever and free mages are everywhere.[/quote]

A minority.



[quote]
[quote]Any solution that lets mages out of hte Circle is deeply flawed.[/quote]Any solution that forcibly removes the rights of mages in order to make others feel marginally safer is deeply flawed.
[/quote]

No, it is the only sane, WORKABLE and PRACTICAL solution. and evne in hte worst-case scenario is still LESS flawed than your dreams.

[Silfren]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Depends on the nature of the Codex.  Just like in real life, information that comes from biased sources needs to be evaluated in light of that bias.  "Know your source," as it were.  So it is perfectly valid to argue against a codex, depending on what the codex says, what its listed subject is, and the author thereof. 

In other words, you can easily dismiss anything that doesn't suit your vieww by claiming artificial bias.
How do you coutner a devs post then? Gaider himself cleary stated that the wrold was a more dangerous place before the Cricles. Do oyu call Gaider biased?
Adn what if I claim that any codex entry that favors mages is written by a secret mage supporter?

Uh, no, not in other words at all.  "Easily dismissing anything that doesn't suit my view" is patently not even close to what I wrote; you're just trying to twist my words in order to discredit my point.  When a codex is written by a Chantry scholar concerning an event, people, or situation that we know the Chantry has a vested interest in maintaining a specific position on, and we see that viewpoint clearly reflected in the scholar's writing, bias is obvious.  It isn't artificial at all.  When we see a Chantry scholar offering a postive or neutral perspective on the same event, people, or situation, that gives us reason to consider that the information is likely accurate, since it does not reflect the expected Chantry perspective.  This is the way people looking for accurate information need to approach any source of information.  I find that the Bioware writing team did an excellent job of imparting this little bit of realism into its DA-based sources of history. 

I don't call Gaider biased, no.   But if something he says contradicts something he says elsewhere, or something within the game, in such a way as to create a glaring inconsistency or outright contradiction, I'm damn well not going to pretend there isn't a problem.

You can't just "claim" whether a codex entry favoring mages is written by a secret mage supporter.  It'll either be clearly marked as to who wrote it, or it won't.  If the former, then you have to accept where the source came from.  If the latter, you can't make any claims at all.  Now, getting back into the original question, you CAN evaluate it in light of what it says, the bias it reflects, if any, who wrote it, if known, and how it compares with other sources of lore, and form whatever conclusions you may. 

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Silfren wrote...
The Chantry and templars would have us believe that even one mage is a potential catastrophe, and we have lore that suggests the templars won't hesitate to go after mages they feel are within their reach.

You saying it isn't?
The DA flash game proves you wrong. In it's backstory, a single abomination almost brigns down a entire kingdom.
Don't use crappy gameplay mechanics to jsutifiy the abomination = not dangerous idea. Just because in-game, the player can slaughter abomination left and right doesn't mean that abominations are pushovers in "rela fluff".
Or do you want me to start arguing how brigands fall from the sky in the world of Dragon Age and explode into chunks when hit?

I know nothing about the DA flash game, so I cannot comment on it.  

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Maybe instead of defaulting to the belief that all mages, even lone ones, are too dangerous to be allowed to live free, they should look at the practices of the socities within which those mages live and take some pointers.

What pointers? If those societies accept the danger of abominations ,doesnt' mean you have.
If you have a society that does nothing to prevent earthquake damage (because of their cultural beliefs), and yours does, does it mean you should learn from it? Why not let eqrthquakes kill peopel and destroy buildings? After all, ti's just message fom the spirits.

Try using a valid comparison.  I'll try again, spelled out more clearly.  If mage are indeed as dangerous as the Chantry and templars would have us believe, even as individuals alone, then it follows that since Rivain is still standing, Rivain has methods to deal with the problem and does so successfully.  Which means they have a working system that the templars could learn from.  Your earthquake analogy is not a valid comparison, because it features a scenario I very specifically did not allow for.  I do not believe that people living with free mages just accept that occasionally those mages will wreak havoc, and don't have any safeguards in place to prevent it, or deal with it if it happens, and I didn't say anything to that effect.  No, other cultures should not "learn from" societies that make no effort to deal with natural catastropes, but this is a straw man argument you dredged up out of nowhere.  I haven't made this argument, and it is not a valid scenario to be drawn from the argument I did make.  

So, either mages are as dangerous as templars would have us believe, in which case we have to wonder what things Rivain is doing to prevent or defend against those dangers, since we have no reason to believe that Rivain is a bloody, smoking ruin...or mages are not in fact that dangerous. 

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Any solution that lets mages out of hte Circle is deeply flawed.

This belief requires that the attempt not even be made.  I reject it in its entirety.

Modifié par Silfren, 14 mai 2012 - 09:04 .

[dragonflight288]

I ask for proof, you tell me stories.

PROOF that the situation is the Circles was growing progressively worse only because of templars.
That they kill eachother in a WAR is not proof of anything.

I gave you where the history of the world is at, at this very moment, when DA2 ended. I gave the status quo. There are no honest circles anymore. Now if DA3 comes out and disproves that, then fine, if Gaider said that some Circles still operate under the Chantry, I'll believe him. But there's NOTHING that says things are better or the same from the beginning of Origins. All evidence points to things being worse than ever for mages with the whole war.

I'm not giving you stories, I'm giving you where the game is at.

[Silfren]

dragonflight288 wrote...

I ask for proof, you tell me stories.

PROOF that the situation is the Circles was growing progressively worse only because of templars.
That they kill eachother in a WAR is not proof of anything.

Mages tolerated the Circle system for over nine hundred years, and suddenly rose up in open rebellion.  I'd say that right there strongly points toward the Circle system growing more and more and more intolerable until finally you had a generation of mages pissed off and fed up enough to go to war rather than continue. 

[Ivucci]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ivucci wrote...

And before I'm accused of applying modern or real world methods again, this was just to say that the requirement to interpret the information according to the context of its origin is perfectly valid. If we were real historians, we would be required to be true to ourselves and unbiased and nonjudgmental. Which I admit certainly isn't true about this forum members - we often come here with premade and biased opinions.

But you are forgetign that you interpret according to your own bias.

Entry X was written by a Chantry schoolar - therefore he must hate mages and everything he writes must be taken with a grain of salt.
but of any anti-mage writing is subject to that, then any pro-mage writing must be approached the same (and you have to assume it was written by a militant pro-mage zealot)

I'm not sure what are you talking about now and why are you being so categorical. None of what you say is necessarily true and anyway Silfren beat me to it.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ivucci wrote...
So, if David Gaider said the world was a more dangerous place, ok, he might as well be the highest authority in regards to the lore.

But  - and this has been my argument all along - who's to say the world hasn't made some progress since then? Why should "a fact" about how the world looked 1000 years ago be so super relevant to how it should look now?

Becasue the discussion was abotu teh danger of mages. So the "danger" reffered to mages running around freely, and not brigands. 
And the mages havn't changed in those 100 years, now have they?

Of course they have changed.
1000 years of being denied freedom have now become part of their collective experience, collective self image, their history, and this collective experience forms a new world view, likely different from the one they'd had back then. It affects their decisions, maybe makes them more resolute, more desperate, more I don't know what.
The Circles might have been a good solution back then, or the best - or the first - they could come up with, doesn't mean it's the only and best solution forever in its current form, especially seeing as it is degenerating.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ivucci wrote...
You will say "it's because the demon threat hasn't changed and the mages are just as prone to the demon possession as they were". That's a fair point. I'll say: first off, it seems the conditions within the Circles have got much worse and the system seems to be malfunctioning.

Based on what exaclty? Kirkwall?

Based on the game.

I see mages turning to illegal blood magic out of desperation, frustration and anger. I see both sides locked in an escalating conflict that surely couldn't arise out of nowhere.

Modifié par Ivucci, 14 mai 2012 - 10:48 .

[Lazy Jer]

Silfren wrote...

Mages tolerated the Circle system for over nine hundred years, and suddenly rose up in open rebellion.  I'd say that right there strongly points toward the Circle system growing more and more and more intolerable until finally you had a generation of mages pissed off and fed up enough to go to war rather than continue. 

Well, truth be told it's only sudden in comparision to the oft mentioned 900 years or so.  Like so many other things (from why I can tell, anyway, I'm only halfway into DA:Asunder) it's a domino effect.  Domino one: the rebellion in Kirkwall, domino two: increased tension between Chantry-faithful and circle mages, domino three: crackdown on rights that circle mages have come to expect (for example the removal of the fraternities) making angry mages, etc. etc. etc).

[GavrielKay]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And it is now you that wants to ignore the context of Gaiders post (which was in response to a direct question - how dangerous were mages before the Circles)

You could link to the post if you think I am misinterpreting it.

Are you so desperate for anything to use as an argument?

It's an internet forum about a game.  I long ago accepted that no-one wanted to change their mind about whatever they decided during game play.  If you feel there is no value in speculating about alternatives to incarcerating mages, then my "what if" thread probably isn't very exciting for you.  There are plenty of threads already talking about how right the Chantry is and how all mages must submit or die.

And no one is totally unbiased.

And jsut because there is a different system in culture X, doesnt' men you can transplant it to another culture.

Directly transplant, maybe not.  Learn from and adapt, maybe so.  Lothering had up to 3 free mages (that we know of) living in it for quite a while.  It survived until the Blight came along.  It can work.

Do you really think modern poeple would just accept them?

Discussing how long it would take to integrate mages into the populace without riots is different than saying it can never work.

Life is risky, so let's make it more risky?
I'd accept abominations...if you accept not locking up murders, rapists, drunk drivers and if you support avoiding any natural disaster detection/prevention.

This is not at all what I've said.  I've said there are limits.  You don't prevent murders by locking everyone up before they are committed.  You don't prevent drunk driving by banning cars.  You don't protect against natural disaters by forbidding everyone from living anywhere near where they might happen.  You accept that there are reasonable things to be done about all the bad things that could possibly happen, and then you just live as best you can. 

Just because something bad can happen, doesn't mean that it can be prevented, or that what it would take to do so is reasonable.

Better than to sacrifice other people LIVES. Which would happen.

Most people do think it's better that someone else suffer rather than them.  That doesn't make it the moral choice.  And in any case, I still think there are better ways to protect people, including the mages.

How hte heck do you efficently monitor and police mages if they run around free? It is a logistical nightmare and it would, beyond doubt, end up with more dead than the current system.

Well, the current system just devolved into a war, so I'd have to say that the current system will probably lead to more deaths than a more moderate system that didn't treat mages like beasts.  This is detailed in Asunder, though it is hinted at in DA2 by Cassandra.

You think things are bad now? Well, if mages roam around free, you can expect the bodycount to be at least 10 times larger.

Actually, I think minus the Chantry treating magic as a curse and mages as dogs to be brought to heal that a much better system could be developed.  One that combines mandatory training with community education programs to reintegrate mages into society.  One that opens the Templar (or some secular adaptation of the Templars) ranks to people who aren't religious zealots.  Something that encourages research into such things as the Litany of Adralla and dweomer runes, dwarven magic resistance and how to gain Templar like abilities without lyrium addiction.  I think there are many possible ways to both protect normal people and give the mages back their basic rights.  I think it is a cop-out to say, nope, nothing to be done but lock them up.

No, it is the only sane, WORKABLE and PRACTICAL solution. and evne in hte worst-case scenario is still LESS flawed than your dreams.

Is there a codex where they detailed all the alternatives that were attempted?  I don't buy into the assumption that incarceration is the only or best solution at all.

Modifié par GavrielKay, 15 mai 2012 - 01:54 .

[Silfren]

Lazy Jer wrote...

Silfren wrote...

Mages tolerated the Circle system for over nine hundred years, and suddenly rose up in open rebellion.  I'd say that right there strongly points toward the Circle system growing more and more and more intolerable until finally you had a generation of mages pissed off and fed up enough to go to war rather than continue. 

Well, truth be told it's only sudden in comparision to the oft mentioned 900 years or so.  Like so many other things (from why I can tell, anyway, I'm only halfway into DA:Asunder) it's a domino effect.  Domino one: the rebellion in Kirkwall, domino two: increased tension between Chantry-faithful and circle mages, domino three: crackdown on rights that circle mages have come to expect (for example the removal of the fraternities) making angry mages, etc. etc. etc).

I agree about the domino effect.  That's what I meant by the "growing more and more and more intolerable" bit.  If we go with Gavriel's interpretation that harmonizes the two bits of lore concerning the formation of the Circles, it does seem that at some point mages were okay with the status quo, and over time as conditions have worsened grew more and more discontent.  Certainly it's true that mages don't simply flip out one day and decide to tell the maintainers of the status quo to go f*ck themselves unless the pot has been bubbling for a while and finally boils over.  But I do think we can point to a relatively solid line of demarcation between when the time when mages were discontent and agitating for reform and even outright rebellion, to the time after when they took matters into their own hands and started a war in earnest.

[Silfren]

Gav,

This is your thread, after all.  What do you think would be some workable solutions if imprisoning mages were simply not an available option?

[Plaintiff]

If they can't be contained, then they can't feasibly be killed, either.

Thedas would just have to learn how to cope.

[Plaintiff]

Whoops, dp.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 15 mai 2012 - 04:25 .

[GavrielKay]

Silfren wrote...

Gav,

This is your thread, after all.  What do you think would be some workable solutions if imprisoning mages were simply not an available option?

Oh I think there's been tons of interesting discussion about alternatives and why there should be some.  I was just baffled by some posters who kept saying there's no alternative, they have to be caged...  on a thread where the idea was "what if" they couldn't be.

I thought you mentioning the Litany was awesome.  If that could exist, there's no reason to think that it couldn't be improved and distributed.  There are anti magic wards, runes, spells, talents and natural resistance...  all of that makes it seem possible to brainstorm better solutions than kidnapping children and locking them away for life.

[GavrielKay]

Plaintiff wrote...

If they can't be contained, then they can't feasibly be killed, either.

Thedas would just have to learn how to cope.

I like the "learn how to cope" idea, but I guess there could be situations where you could kill a mage but not keep them long term.  Someone mentioned shape shifting into something that could sneak out etc.  One could even imagine something totally off the hook like a new prophet from the Maker coming to tell the Chantry they got it all wrong and Andraste never meant for them to enslave the mages either.  How magic should serve man by having mages throughout the world healing and protecting their communities.  I'm a dreamer I guess

[Lotion Soronarr]

Ivucci wrote...
Based on the game.

I see mages turning to illegal blood magic out of desperation, frustration and anger. I see both sides locked in an escalating conflict that surely couldn't arise out of nowhere.

How come I come to the opposite conclusion based on eh same game?

Sorry, but that's not proper evidence. The idea that conditions in the Circels have been globaly getting worse does nto have a single fact supporting it. All speculation.

And while the situation in Kirkwalls Circle did get worse, t twas a special case (veil VERY torn ,Circle corrupted, Meredit bonkers) and it was ONE circle.

[Lotion Soronarr]

GavrielKay wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And it is now you that wants to ignore the context of Gaiders post (which was in response to a direct question - how dangerous were mages before the Circles)

You could link to the post if you think I am misinterpreting it.

I would if I could find it.
There has been so many templar/mage torpics and I don't recall in whihc one it was. And I don't have several hours to spare jsut to look for it.

I long ago accepted that no-one wanted to change their mind about whatever they decided during game play.  If you feel there is no value in speculating about alternatives to incarcerating mages, then my "what if" thread probably isn't very exciting for you.

There's always alternatives. However, it doesn't mean they are better.
For example - tranqulity. Or letting all mages free.

Of course, your What If question can only have two answers - either they'd have to accept it (together with all the deaths and problems that come from it) or they'd kill every mage on sight.

This is not at all what I've said.  I've said there are limits.

And people tend to disagree where those limtis are, depending on percieved danger and many other factors.

Just because something bad can happen, doesn't mean that it can be prevented, or that what it would take to do so is reasonable.

works both ways. Jsut becasue something appears moral, doesn't mean it is, or that it is reasonable.

How hte heck do you efficently monitor and police mages if they run around free? It is a logistical nightmare and it would, beyond doubt, end up with more dead than the current system.

Well, the current system just devolved into a war, so I'd have to say that the current system will probably lead to more deaths than a more moderate system that didn't treat mages like beasts.  This is detailed in Asunder, though it is hinted at in DA2 by Cassandra.

You're assuming mages roaming free wouldn't end up with a war.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 15 mai 2012 - 08:16 .

[Urzon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Ivucci wrote...
Based on the game.

I see mages turning to illegal blood magic out of desperation, frustration and anger. I see both sides locked in an escalating conflict that surely couldn't arise out of nowhere.

How come I come to the opposite conclusion based on eh same game?

Sorry, but that's not proper evidence. The idea that conditions in the Circels have been globaly getting worse does nto have a single fact supporting it. All speculation.

And while the situation in Kirkwalls Circle did get worse, t twas a special case (veil VERY torn ,Circle corrupted, Meredit bonkers) and it was ONE circle.

Because you are a templar supporter, you would have a different perspective on the subject. Two people can look at the same thing and think two different thoughts. That's common sense, and human nature.

That and, the mages breaking away from the Chantry is evidence that something is going on in the Circles, between the mages and templar. It might be speculation, but we forum dwellers are allowed to speculate all we what on the matter. Since neither side, the mage or templar supporters, know of the full stories behind the growing tensions.

That's all we are doing on these forums, is speculating. Because neither side has 100% facts (WoG) on the subject matter, and we probably won't until DA3..... or beyond.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Urzon wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
How come I come to the opposite conclusion based on eh same game?

Sorry, but that's not proper evidence. The idea that conditions in the Circels have been globaly getting worse does nto have a single fact supporting it. All speculation.

And while the situation in Kirkwalls Circle did get worse, t twas a special case (veil VERY torn ,Circle corrupted, Meredit bonkers) and it was ONE circle.

Because you are a templar supporter, you would have a different perspective on the subject. Two people can look at the same thing and think two different thoughts. That's common sense, and human nature.

Fact are facts, assumptions are assumptions.

That and, the mages breaking away from the Chantry is evidence that something is going on in the Circles, between the mages and templar.

Not really. Mages aren't happy. What's so surprising? Nothing but total freedom will make them happy (and probably not even that).
So they jumped on the opportunity to break away, got caught in the moment, pulled by others or something.

It might be speculation, but we forum dwellers are allowed to speculate all we what on the matter. Since neither side, the mage or templar supporters, know of the full stories behind the growing tensions.

Speculate all you want, but don't call it fact.

[Urzon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Fact are facts, assumptions are assumptions.

So do you have facts that the situations in all the Circles isn't getting worse? Because if you do, please do show them to the rest of the forum. Though, i doubt you do. All we have on the situation in the Circles is what happened in the Ferelden and Kirkwall Circles, and what we read in Asunder.

If you don't have facts yourself, to prove that the situation isn't worsening in all the Circles; all you are doing is speculation that the situtation is the same has it has always been. That all the mages are just angry, bitter, and finding for freedom they don't deserve.

As i said before, everyone on this forum is just speculating. That includes who as well, since you don't know anymore on the matter than we do.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Expect unlike you I wan't making definitive statments (nothing changed) but I coutnered other pepels definitive statmeents (something defiantely changed)

I wasn't saying that nothing ever changed, I said that we have no evidence it did.
Notice the difference?

[MichaelFinnegan]

GavrielKay wrote...

Actually, I think minus the Chantry treating magic as a curse and mages as dogs to be brought to heal that a much better system could be developed.  One that combines mandatory training with community education programs to reintegrate mages into society.  One that opens the Templar (or some secular adaptation of the Templars) ranks to people who aren't religious zealots.  Something that encourages research into such things as the Litany of Adralla and dweomer runes, dwarven magic resistance and how to gain Templar like abilities without lyrium addiction.  I think there are many possible ways to both protect normal people and give the mages back their basic rights.  I think it is a cop-out to say, nope, nothing to be done but lock them up.

I guess the important thing for me is whatever it is that comes up in the stead of the Chantry - Templar hegemony ought not to become a monopoly, with its own self-serving goals and rigid, unevolving methods. As long as the community as a whole devises methods that could serve the best interests of everyone concerned, with trade-offs, sure, it ought to work, in the very least, better. The long term goal ought to be centered around solving everyones' problems, and not just imposing arbitrary restrictions and pretending that best possible solutions have been attained.

Of course, all that is easier said than done. Such broad initiatives never seem to work in practice...

[GavrielKay]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Expect unlike you I wan't making definitive statments (nothing changed) but I coutnered other pepels definitive statmeents (something defiantely changed)

I wasn't saying that nothing ever changed, I said that we have no evidence it did.
Notice the difference?

The evidence that things changed is that after 900 years of the system being in place, now it fell apart.  Whether it got worse because the Templars got harsher overall or because a new generation of mages wondered why they were being punished for deeds 900 years old is less clear.

But, it is logical to infer that the sudden outbreak of war, all mages declaring themselves free of the circles and the Seekers splitting from the Chantry rather than work with a sympathetic Divine shows that something is worse.