629 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

Emzamination wrote...


Incorrect, the devs have to keep the lore consistent or risk... well I'm sure we've all seen the me3 forums.

...You're joking, right?  DA lore is absolutely riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies, major and minor both.  My aforementioned reference to whether lyrium does or doesn't create templar abilities is only one of many. 

[Silfren]

Cigne wrote...

"It simply cannot be true..."? Do you even accept it as a possibility? And you're ignoring the rest of Silfren's post:

Silfren wrote...

One thing I don't think gets brought up a lot is that based on the lore we have, if magic is being practiced openly and often in Tevinter, and slaves are routinely murdered to fuel blood magic, then the Veil would have to be all but non-existent, or perhaps it IS non-existent there.  

Excuse me.  I'll thank you not to attempt to call someone out for ignoring a portion of my post when YOU then attempt to use my post to support some claim of your own that requires ignoring the original intent of mine. 

Gav didn't ignore my post.  She got it in its original context and my intended meaning just fine.

My point that Tevinter MUST have an extremely thin or non-existent Veil was to point out that even though that must be the case, Tevinter clearly is operating just fine.  We don't have an ocean of demons or spirits spilling out onto the rest of Thedas from the Imperium, and we've gotten no reports that Tevinter is under siege from the Veil's denizens.  What little we do hear out of Tevinter pretty strongly indicates that the Imperium is functioning just fine.  

Ultimately that means that Tevinter clearly has a means of controlling magic to the extent that a magical apocalypse is NOT an omnipresent danger.

Modifié par Silfren, 08 mai 2012 - 04:01 .

[GavrielKay]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Ferelden fought their freedom not because man is born free or men are created equal but to change the current ruler with a better ruler

From what I read and heard in the game Ferelden fought to throw off a very cruel Orlesian occupation.  They understood just fine that raping and other abuses by the Chevaliers were particularly bad and wanted out from under that oppression.

The mages? Only Anders,  Anders sympathizer, The isolonist and extremist Chantry opposition view that way. Some mages don't feel they're being oppresed.

I think there were quite a few mages who felt oppressed.  Most of them weren't violent, but they felt oppressed enough that a fair few of them joined Uldred in his rebellion.  And if you read Asunder, it shows that the mages really do feel their lack of freedom.  We actually meet only a few mages who seem satisfied with Chantry domination.

Very few? I see every mages in Kirkwall succumb to demon in DA 2. Every apostate turn to maleficar except Morrigan in DAO.

We see only a relative handful of the entire mage population in Kirkwall.  From the codex, we know there are hundreds of mages in the circle.  Most of the abominations we see are the product of a last ditch effort on the part of the mage to take out a few of the enemy before being struck down.

And you think rebellion caused by terroism could fix it? You have read yourself players themselves are divided to support the mages cause. Anders's action is not received well among the players. What make you thinks it would solve anything?

Actually, if you go back to the post that I started the thread with, I am attempting to construct an alternate history. 

How might things have been different minus the Chantry domination of mages?  My thought is that other means of safeguarding the populace might have been created (those mentioned in several previous posts) thus competeley avoiding the mages feeling that violence was necessary and saving Thedas from a messy war entirely.

It is other posters, supporting the Chantry, who have been calling for violence.  I will say though, that under the circumstances set out in the game, I do not fault the mages for staging a violent revolution.  I believe that anyone in that situation would have a right to band together and resist oppression.

[GavrielKay]

Cigne wrote...
"It simply cannot be true..."? Do you even accept it as a possibility?

I do not accept that gameplay supports the Chantry dogma that mages must be contained or else. 

Because many mages aren't contained and there hasn't been an apocolypse.  Take Kirkwall for an example:  We wander about the city for 9 years, seeing crazed blood mages on almost every corner.  And the city still goes about its business.  The market opens every day, the ships come in, the people still visit the local tavern and brothel.  If one blood mage or a dozen abominations were enough to wipe out a whole city...  well, Kirkwall would be in ruins.  If blood magic leads inevitably to possession, then Tevinter would be a wasteland roamed by hordes of abominations.

So on one hand, we have a religious organization that feels it has a divine mandate to protect the world from magic and gains quite a bit of worldly power by preaching the dangers of magic - and on the other hand we have lots of evidence that, well, life goes on.  Blood mages don't take over cities using mind control.  Abominations don't destroy civilization.  They get dealt with and everyone continues about their business.

From what I see the dangers of magic being overstated by an organization that directly benefits from overstating it is more supported in game play than their actual claims are.

[Silfren]

Cigne wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

Silfren wrote...
So it does rather stand to reason that Tevinter mages have a much broaded repertoire of knowledge at hand about magic, the Fade, and how to deal with problems.  The Veil HAS to be extremely thin or completely gone there, otherwise we have to throw basic DA lore about the Veil away.  But if demons and spirits are roaming about freely in Tevinter, clearly they aren't spilling out into the rest of Thedas and we haven't gotten any news that Tevinter has been wiped off the map.

Yeah, I think it is clear from gameplay that the dangers of mages are overstated.  From the fact that Tevinter still exists to the fact that Kirkwall, overrun with crazed mages as it was, also still exists.  Circles shoudn't be able to survive if mages really are so thoroughly corruptible either - with so many mages in one place, certainly they would manage to wipe themselves out if the percentage of abominations was anywhere near high enough to justify mass imprisonment (or extinction as some posters would have).

It simply cannot be true that free mages will lead to the enslavement of all and the downfall of civilization as Thedas knows it - or the mages that were currently free should be well on their way to achieving such ends.

There are several cultures that have always had at least some free mages.  And of course apostates and maleficar in Andrastian countries.  There are just too many mages freely wandering about the place for them to truly be ticking time bombs waiting to destroy the world when they don't get their favorite cookie.

"It simply cannot be true..."? Do you even accept it as a possibility? And you're ignoring the rest of Silfren's post:

Silfren wrote...

One thing I don't think gets brought
up a lot is that based on the lore we have, if magic is being practiced
openly and often in Tevinter, and slaves are routinely murdered to fuel
blood magic, then the Veil would have to be all but non-existent, or
perhaps it IS non-existent there.  

And given Anders portrayal in Awakening, before Justice, I wouldn't claim it was the system that drove him mad.

I'm not arguing that the Chantry Circles aren't flawed. But the place where there is the most ongoing research into magic, the go-to place if you want answers, seems to be Tevinter. And I find it reasonable to think that thier breakthroughs, thier advances, are linked to what I would consider the abuse of magic.

I don't see a stable society arising where mages and normals live side by side, but if a change happens, if a way is found to give everyone magic, then the playing field would be equal again.

...would one be onboard with that, even if it meant forcing it onto normals, as with Fenris?  (I was going to suggest some form of synthesis, but-)

It does actually seem that there have been attempts to study ways to deal with the negative aspects to magic without injury to others.  Wilhelm makes references to such, and of course we have the excellent example of Adralla; I already linked to the codex that lists the extent of her research into defending against blood magic and demonic summons.  But what also gets mentioned time and again is that the Chantry flat out forbids any kind of research.  I don't think we know where Adralla did her research, but it is telling that she was a native of Tevinter, which suggests that she lived in a place where she was able to do her research freely.  It makes sense, given that we're told several times that the Chantry refuses to permit research even in the defense of magic it condemns as evil. 

It does rather look as though the Chantry fears that if actual practical methods of defending against magic were made accessible, that it would lose its relevance as an institution, dunnit?  For the institution that at best condemns mages as cursed, I wouldn't consider it a disinterested move to forbid research into methods for defending against abominations and mind control.

Tevinter may be a place where the magisters in power have little interest in practicing humane methods of research, but it hardly follows that this means the only methods of research can only involve unethical means.  We can't come to any conclusions along those lines.  The only thing we know is that Tevinter freely permits the practice of magic, and the Chantry outside of Tevinter does not.  It's clear from that that only in Tevinter can even ethical methods of research be conducted.

[GavrielKay]

Silfren wrote...

Emzamination wrote...


Incorrect, the devs have to keep the lore consistent or risk... well I'm sure we've all seen the me3 forums.

...You're joking, right?  DA lore is absolutely riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies, major and minor both.  My aforementioned reference to whether lyrium does or doesn't create templar abilities is only one of many. 

Very true.  I believe it has also been said by the devs that many of the codex entries are merely their fictional author's opinions and may or may not be taken as true in the game itself.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

GavrielKay wrote...
From what I read and heard in the game Ferelden fought to throw off a very cruel Orlesian occupation.  They understood just fine that raping and other abuses by the Chevaliers were particularly bad and wanted out from under that oppression.

Sure. You heard that from Loghain and Rendon Howe supporters. Most Common folks just rally behind Marric because they felt Marric was a better leader. Example Teryn Bryce Cousland who married  Leandra, an Orlesian woman in case you haven't noticed or Arl Eamon who married Isolde.

GavrielKay wrote...

The mages? Only Anders,  Anders sympathizer, The isolonist and extremist Chantry opposition view that way. Some mages don't feel they're being oppresed.

I think there were quite a few mages who felt oppressed.  Most of them weren't violent, but they felt oppressed enough that a fair few of them joined Uldred in his rebellion.  And if you read Asunder, it shows that the mages really do feel their lack of freedom.  We actually meet only a few mages who seem satisfied with Chantry domination.

The Aequitarians are the dominant faction in the College of Magi and in the Ferelden's Circle. The Loyalist have no problem with the Chantry's teaching. It's the Libertarians and  Isolationists who seek to separate themselves from the Chantry. There is 0 evidence that suggest mages in Ferelden are subjected to rape, inhuman injustice etc. And please don't quote Jowan. He's a weak fool like Orsino. His incomptence had been proven when he tutored Connor and cause the death of many lives. I would had killed him myself if I didn't reconsider that he was once my best friend.  

GavrielKay wrote...


We see only a relative handful of the entire mage population in Kirkwall.  From the codex, we know there are hundreds of mages in the circle.  Most of the abominations we see are the product of a last ditch effort on the part of the mage to take out a few of the enemy before being struck down.

And we see none of them survive. Thanks to Orsino There're only Cullen and his men at the end of game. No mages stand behind me to fight Meredith. The mages in Kirkwall had been effectively wiped out along with Meredith and her extremist templars.

GavrielKay wrote...

And you think rebellion caused by terroism could fix it? You have read yourself players themselves are divided to support the mages cause. Anders's action is not received well among the players. What make you thinks it would solve anything?

Actually, if you go back to the post that I started the thread with, I am attempting to construct an alternate history. 

How might things have been different minus the Chantry domination of mages?  My thought is that other means of safeguarding the populace might have been created (those mentioned in several previous posts) thus competeley avoiding the mages feeling that violence was necessary and saving Thedas from a messy war entirely.

It is other posters, supporting the Chantry, who have been calling for violence.  I will say though, that under the circumstances set out in the game, I do not fault the mages for staging a violent revolution.  I believe that anyone in that situation would have a right to band together and resist oppression.

I read. And I think you're speculating. You have little information with Lithany and the Rite of Tranquility. Until we understand more about the nature of magic, you can't rely on special conditioning like the Lithany.  . 

And as for the Chantry. I couldn't comment. The concept of Chantry is too similar to Roman Catholic chruch in dark age. Therefore, my input may be biased due to my prejudice. So I won't comment about the Chantry,  their conduct and how people received them. It's obvious to me that majority of Thedas's monarchs bow to the chantry. And common folks just follow what their leaders do.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 08 mai 2012 - 05:03 .

[Cigne]

Silfren wrote...

Cigne wrote...

"It simply cannot be true..."? Do you even accept it as a possibility? And you're ignoring the rest of Silfren's post:

Silfren wrote...

One thing I don't think gets brought up a lot is that based on the lore we have, if magic is being practiced openly and often in Tevinter, and slaves are routinely murdered to fuel blood magic, then the Veil would have to be all but non-existent, or perhaps it IS non-existent there.  

Excuse me.  I'll thank you not to attempt to call someone out for ignoring a portion of my post when YOU then attempt to use my post to support some claim of your own that requires ignoring the original intent of mine. 

Gav didn't ignore my post.  She got it in its original context and my intended meaning just fine.

My point that Tevinter MUST have an extremely thin or non-existent Veil was to point out that even though that must be the case, Tevinter clearly is operating just fine.  We don't have an ocean of demons or spirits spilling out onto the rest of Thedas from the Imperium, and we've gotten no reports that Tevinter is under siege from the Veil's denizens.  What little we do hear out of Tevinter pretty strongly indicates that the Imperium is functioning just fine.  

Ultimately that means that Tevinter clearly has a means of controlling magic to the extent that a magical apocalypse is NOT an omnipresent danger.

Excuse me. I interpreted your meaning/intent as: Tevinter successfully researches magic, and (or 'yet') said research is associated with slave sacrifices to blood magic.

Whether or not a means to control magic that is humane, and more suitable than the current systems the Chantry and Imperium uses, will be decided by the writers (of course).

But as has been pointed out, in lands where the Chantry hold power, research is being done (Wilhelm, the Litany, etc).  A push for even more research may be more desirable, but bear in mind that a solution that is acceptable from an individual rights point of view may not exist. And if so, it may be that the only protection/control may be the solution that the Tevinter mages have come up with.

To be clear: I find neither the Chantry or Imperium acceptable, but I've yet to see a better alternative. Given the advantages magic grants its users, I'd say that a disproportonate number of mages will always end up at the top of any society that does not actively seek to control them. And having mages be an aristocracy of sorts is not a bad thing (imo) if the mind control aspect was gone; an aristocracy randomly replenished from any level of society strikes me as rather democratic.

But since the Imperium is the only example I'm aware of so far--

Eh, I'm starting to repeat myself, which is a sure sign I should bow out of this discussion.

[GavrielKay]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Sure. You heard that from Loghain and Rendon Howe supporters. Most Common folks just rally behind Marric because they felt Marric was a better leader. Example Teryn Bryce Cousland who married  Leandra, an Orlesian woman in case you haven't noticed or Arl Eamon who married Isolde.

I think I got most of my impression of the Ferelden liberation movement from the book actually...  The Stolen Throne?  I think that was it.  Anyway, it seemed to be before Loghain went a bit nuts.  As to Cousland and Eamon taking Orlesian brides, I confess I don't understand that one.  Isolde especially was one of the characters I hated most in DA:O.

The Aequitarians are the dominant faction in the College of Magi and in the Ferelden's Circle. The Loyalist have no problem with the Chantry's teaching. It's the Libertarians and  Isolationists who seek to separate themselves from the Chantry.

I know the Loyalists actually favor the Chantry.  But from the wiki:

Aequitarians are the dominant faction in the College of Magi and in the Ferelden's Circle.
They promote a moderate and popular viewpoint that mages must use their
abilities in a responsible and ethical manner, regardless of the Chantry law.

Which isn't the same as saying they want or approve of Chantry domination.  One can feel oppressed without being willing to revolt.

And we see none of them survive. Thanks to Orsino There're only Cullen and his men at the end of game. No mages stand behind me to fight Meredith. The mages in Kirkwall had been effectively wiped out along with Meredith and her extremist templars.

Actually if you support the mages against the Templars, Varric says many lived to tell the tale.  Orsino was a class A idiot, I'll grant you that, but the question remains how much blame is on him vs. the system that created him.

I read. And I think you're speculating. You have little information with Lithany and the Rite of Tranquility. Until we understand more about the nature of magic, you can't rely on special conditioning like the Lithany.  .

We know from DA:O that the Litany works.  Modifying the Tranquility ritual...  well who knows.  But I didn't get the impression that much effort was going into trying.

The problem for me is that in the game as presented, the Chantry appears to think their way is just fine - or at least close enough to fine - and that no changes need to be made.  When the new Divine appears more sympathetic to the mages, they get upset rather than taking an opportunity to evaluate their system.

So the idea behind my speculative question is just...  what if the Chantry hadn't been able to create their tidy little system and say whatever they want about mages to a populace that will end up with little counter evidence.  After all, if only the law breaking mages are free, one would expect them to make a generally bad impression. 

Were all mages free, and most people had a chance to be healed or helped in some way by a mage, they might be more tolerant of the occasional bad apple.  As it is, they only see the bad apples and like the player roaming the Kirkwall streets at night, could get the skewed impression that they've seen a representative set of mages.  When clearly the law abiding ones are all locked up out of sight. 

It isn't fair to say "all mages are bad, just look at Kirkwall!"  when all the good mages in Kirkwall are unavailable for comment.

Modifié par GavrielKay, 08 mai 2012 - 07:30 .

[TEWR]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Sure. You heard that from Loghain and Rendon Howe supporters. Most Common folks just rally behind Marric because they felt Marric was a better leader. Example Teryn Bryce Cousland who married Leandra, an Orlesian woman in case you haven't noticed or Arl Eamon who married Isolde.

Considering it's a known fact that Orlais sold Elves like cattle during the occupation and no one in the Landsmeet disputes that people were raped and beaten, I'd say the occupation was definitely not something that was a paradise.

Fact: The Baroness sacrificed the villagers of the Blackmarsh to feed her vanity.

Fact: Eamon will tell the Warden of what transpired during the Orlesian occupation

Fact: Sister Petrine recounts of how Orlais sold the Elves.

And Bryce didn't marry Leandra. He married Eleanor Cousland. They share the same VA, but that's irrelevant really. And I'm positive that she isn't an Orlesian, like you're trying to call her.

The only thing that links the Couslands to Orlais is that they traveled there. But lots of nobles go to Orlesian events since Ferelden regained its independence. Bann Teagan goes to Prosper's hunt, as do a few other Fereldan nobles.

Eamon may have fallen in love with an Orlesian, but I think that's talked about in the Stolen Throne a bit. But Eamon falling in love with Isolde doesn't mitigate nor negate the crimes Orlais committed.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 08 mai 2012 - 07:50 .

[goofyomnivore]

Example Teryn Bryce Cousland who married Leandra, an Orlesian woman in case you haven't noticed or Arl Eamon who married Isolde.

Eleanor is a Fereldon. She even mocks the idea of being an 'Orelsian wallflower wife' when you ask if she is capable of fighting.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

GavrielKay wrote...
I think I got most of my impression of the Ferelden liberation movement from the book actually...  The Stolen Throne?  I think that was it.  Anyway, it seemed to be before Loghain went a bit nuts.  As to Cousland and Eamon taking Orlesian brides, I confess I don't understand that one.  Isolde especially was one of the characters I hated most in DA:O.

I don't read The Stolen Throne. It's not in the game. 
The nobles don't hate the Orlesian as much as you think it is. Loghain and Rendon Howe just used anti-Orlesian as their propaganda to draw support. You cannot trust anything come out from Rendon Howe. He wanted power for himself. Not freedom for his people. See how he twisted the story behind his murder of Cousland family? He used the Orlesian as the excuse. Loghain has his own agenda but I doubt it's about people freedom.  Common people just follow their leaders whether their leaders are right or wrong. 
 

GavrielKay wrote...

The Aequitarians are the dominant faction in the College of Magi and in the Ferelden's Circle. The Loyalist have no problem with the Chantry's teaching. It's the Libertarians and  Isolationists who seek to separate themselves from the Chantry.

I know the Loyalists actually favor the Chantry.  But from the wiki:

Aequitarians are the dominant faction in the College of Magi and in the Ferelden's Circle.
They promote a moderate and popular viewpoint that mages must use their
abilities in a responsible and ethical manner, regardless of the Chantry law.

Which isn't the same as saying they want or approve of Chantry domination.  One can feel oppressed without being willing to revolt.

It never said anything about  Aequitarians felt oppresed by Chantry Law. They are just moderate mages who couldn't care less about the Chantry Law.  Not like the extremist who believe terrorism could swing public support for their cause.

GavrielKay wrote..

And we see none of them survive. Thanks to Orsino There're only Cullen and his men at the end of game. No mages stand behind me to fight Meredith. The mages in Kirkwall had been effectively wiped out along with Meredith and her extremist templars.

Actually if you support the mages against the Templars, Varric says many lived to tell the tale.  Orsino was a class A idiot, I'll grant you that, but the question remains how much blame is on him vs. the system that created him.

That's  not an evidence that those mages are free from misusing forbidden art or being possessed by demon.
How much blame is on Orsino? You can't use Kirkwall sitution to make any meaningful conclusion.. Kirkwall mages and Templar are lunatic unreasonable people that no logic can be applied to them. None of mages convinced me that they are truly capable to resist blood magic temptation and demon possesion. There is one scenario where I came across group of Templars abusing a mage girl only to find out this mage turn into abomination. If the mages don't help themselves then who else can help them?. Forbidden art is forbidden. No amount of excuse could make it right. Abomination doesn't has any reasoning. They just attack you.

GavrielKay wrote..

I read. And I think you're speculating. You have little information with Lithany and the Rite of Tranquility. Until we understand more about the nature of magic, you can't rely on special conditioning like the Lithany.  .

We know from DA:O that the Litany works.  Modifying the Tranquility ritual...  well who knows.  But I didn't get the impression that much effort was going into trying.

The problem for me is that in the game as presented, the Chantry appears to think their way is just fine - or at least close enough to fine - and that no changes need to be made.  When the new Divine appears more sympathetic to the mages, they get upset rather than taking an opportunity to evaluate their system.

So the idea behind my speculative question is just...  what if the Chantry hadn't been able to create their tidy little system and say whatever they want about mages to a populace that will end up with little counter evidence.  After all, if only the law breaking mages are free, one would expect them to make a generally bad impression. 

Were all mages free, and most people had a chance to be healed or helped in some way by a mage, they might be more tolerant of the occasional bad apple.  As it is, they only see the bad apples and like the player roaming the Kirkwall streets at night, could get the skewed impression that they've seen a representative set of mages.  When clearly the law abiding ones are all locked up out of sight.

One question to you. Why do religion exist in the first place? Why do so many people embrace faith blindly in dark age?  What happen if there is no christianity or any religion at all? What would happen to Earth back then and now?

GavrielKay wrote..


It isn't fair to say "all mages are bad, just look at Kirkwall!"  when all the good mages in Kirkwall are unavailable for comment.

That why Kirkwall's sitution is nonsense to me.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 08 mai 2012 - 08:28 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Sure. You heard that from Loghain and Rendon Howe supporters. Most Common folks just rally behind Marric because they felt Marric was a better leader. Example Teryn Bryce Cousland who married Leandra, an Orlesian woman in case you haven't noticed or Arl Eamon who married Isolde.

Considering it's a known fact that Orlais sold Elves like cattle during the occupation and no one in the Landsmeet disputes that people were raped and beaten, I'd say the occupation was definitely not something that was a paradise.

Fact: The Baroness sacrificed the villagers of the Blackmarsh to feed her vanity.

Fact: Eamon will tell the Warden of what transpired during the Orlesian occupation

Fact: Sister Petrine recounts of how Orlais sold the Elves.

The elves insist on taking back their land even after independance. The elves believed the land rightly belong to them alone. No other races should stay in their land. Therefore, they received the worst treatment of all. Had they submitted peacefully I doubt the Orlesian treated them badly. Also few man action doesn't represent the nation policy. The orlesian may be ruthless but I doubt common folks would do anything. It's the leader like Marric and Loghain who took the initiative. The common folks just follow their leader regardless whether the leader is right or wrong. The concept of freedom isn't  the same that the mages are seeking. The Ferelden war happen because  Marric want to retake what's rightful belong to him.  The mages however seek to live equally among men. 

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote..

And Bryce didn't marry Leandra. He married Eleanor Cousland. They share the same VA, but that's irrelevant really. And I'm positive that she isn't an Orlesian, like you're trying to call her.
The only thing that links the Couslands to Orlais is that they traveled there. But lots of nobles go to Orlesian events since Ferelden regained its independence. Bann Teagan goes to Prosper's hunt, as do a few other Fereldan nobles.

 
My mistake.  I get mixed up with their names because I can't remember Eleanor name correctly. I only remember her voice.I get the impression that she was an Orlesian by her mock, "I'm no Orlesian willflower," I took that she is capable to fight . Also, I remember Rendon Howe accused Cousland as the Orlesian traitor just before the Landsmeet.  .

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote..


Eamon may have fallen in love with an Orlesian, but I think that's talked about in the Stolen Throne a bit. But Eamon falling in love with Isolde doesn't mitigate nor negate the crimes Orlais committed.

I don't read Stolen Throne.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 08 mai 2012 - 09:52 .

[Ivucci]

[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
[quote]Ivucci wrote...
I'm not gonna play a what's-more-evil game. More importantly, I completely and utterly fail to see the point of taking children away from their mothers and how does it help anything.[/quote]

You are only seeing things from one side. I guess you never talk to people who lost their love ones at Redclift due to Isolde's selfishness. A village almost destroyed had my Warden didn't arrive there in time. Does it worth it to risk so many lives just for a child mage to be free?
[/quote]

I happen to think that Mother and Child is one of the most sacred bonds ever. Selfishness? A mother who protects and loves her child is the epitome of self-sacrifice and unselfishness. You step between a mother and her child, things start happenng. That's what mothers are, and thanks for that.

[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
People cannot fight against something they never think about. They fight for survival. They fight to defend themselves. They fight to food. They fight for power and land. They fight for wealth. They fight for their religion.They fight for pure violence That's what middle age people do. They don't fight for equality to live among men. Only pre-industrialization and modern people do that.
[/quote]

I'm not gonna comment on your ready-made interpretations of history.
But - the first point you have right there is the key.

Because people in the game do think about it. Anders, Fenris, Justice, the Dalish, plenty of characters from DA2 understand the abstract concepts of "freedom", "oppression", "enslavement", "losing the culture". They actively use these words and give them meaning. Many of them understand their lives have been ruined by the system, so much so that they don't know how to build a future. They understand their life could have been different had it not been affected the way it was. 

Listen to Justice x Anders Awakening banter - Anders is perfectly aware of what it is that Justice talks about.

I don't find your Middle Ages equivalents relevant, give me evidence from the game. Give me evidence that people in the game don't understand the abstract concept of "freedom".

[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Average mage don't have the will to resist demon and blood magic. That's why they need to undergo Harrowind to proof themselves. Until they can proof themselves, it's safe to leave the study of demonology to those who qualified.
[/quote]

How exactly does "average mage" equal "no will to resist"? Who is an "average mage"? Is "average mage" the same as your "common folk", which you constantly throw in my face telling me I should try to view the world from their point of view?

Why excatly is it logical to undergo Harrowing first and study later? Why is it not logical to do it the other way round, if it can help save innocent lives?

[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
[quote]Ivucci wrote...
First Enchanters are still just dogs on a leash.[/quote]
That's your opinion. As far as I can see. The chantry didn't say much how the First Enchanter should run his Circle. Knight Commander interfere sometime for security but even then he/she doesn't have much authority other than the right of annulment if demon outbreaks happen. Not all Knight Commander are irrational like Meredith.
[/quote]

"Much authority other than the right of annulment" - that's one damned hell of an authority!

[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
[quote]Ivucci wrote...
Err... not sure what is expected of me now, shall I applaud your Amell for being amazing?[/quote]

Every player's Amell is amazing. Not just mine. Have you played mage in DAO? You sound like someone who never been in a Circle before and play as mage.
[/quote]

I was being sarcastic.
Yes I happen to have played the game that made us visit this forum in the first place.

[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
You are only viewing things from Ander's short sighted point of view. I suggest you start viewing the world from common folk and Templar point of view. And don't try to insert your modern society evolution theory about basic right. It doesn't work that way in sword and dragon fantasy.

The practise of Harrowind isn't perfect but it's solution to ensure the mage's free-will are  safe from demon possesion and blood magic temptation. Only strong will mage can self control themselves and live among men. Until you have a better solution which is none, you either have to take Harrowind's test or perform the rite of transquility or be killed. It's your choice.
[/quote]

I said in my previous post that I don't want "complete" freedom for mages so clearly I do take the "common folk" point of view into account.

"Basic human rights" are relevant wherever people recognize them, whether or not they have a modern term for it.

[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
Until you have a better solution which is none, you either have to take Harrowind's test or perform the rite of transquility or be killed. It's your choice.
[/quote]

To use your own figure of speech, "I suggest you read" the posts above by Silfren and GavrielKay. You will see there are plenty of ways to go about it, *IF ONLY* the Chantry were willing to give it a go.

Harrowing isn't a solution - it's a disgusting, atrocious practice forced upon people who haven't committed any crime. Any human practice that assumes the right to separate the strong from the weak, the right ones from the wrong ones, is disgusting.

Also, sometimes it's the little, the weak, the doubting, the fearful who change the world and who show the strongest will of all. Loads of examples out there. No one has the right to mark people as strong or weak.

I have shivers every time I hear Cullen say to Amell that he was the one to slain her had she failed the Harrowing - the mere fact that Templars are forced to do this is horrible as well. He was apparently ready to do it, even though he has a crush on her - terrible. See, I try to view the world from a Templar point of view.


[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

[quote]GavrielKay wrote...
Connor was only in a position to do such great harm because his mother was mortified about having a mage child.  The shame of magic itself and the thought of losing her son to the system were caused by the Chantry.  So, if the circle system caused the problem in Redcliffe, that's what we should be fixing.[/quote]
It's the parents who think safe magic can be studied without proper education that need fixing. The Circle has done it's job in teaching young mages how NOT to abuse their gift and resist blood magic temptaion.[/quote]

No, we have seen plenty of cases showing that the Circle failed tremendously. Maybe the Harrowing isn't such an effective practice after all? Maybe it's just all wrong?

[quote]Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
And you think rebellion caused by terroism could fix it? You have read yourself players themselves are divided to support the mages cause. Anders's action is not received well among the players. What make you thinks it would solve anything?
[/quote]

That the players are divided is completely fine and I applaud the devs for creating a game that, with all its flaws, provokes such a strong reaction.
However, I'm in the camp with those who say "Yes, now we fight."

[quote]Cigne wrote...
And given Anders portrayal in Awakening, before Justice, I wouldn't claim it was the system that drove him mad.
[/quote]

Anders in Awakening is already a result of the life in the Circle, a tragic character that seems to be doomed from the beginning. He escapes the Circle only to become a Grey Warden with all its lovely consequences, including the calling. Everything went wrong in his life.

[quote]Cigne wrote...
I don't see a stable society arising where mages and normals live side by side, but if a change happens, if a way is found to give everyone magic, then the playing field would be equal again.
[/quote]

It's ok if you don't.

However, I still don't quite understand why so many people assume that if you're a mage, magic is what will define your life forever. It mostly defines your life if you're locked up in the Tower, constantly being reminded you're dangerous because you're a MAGE.

In this respect, the OP post makes a perfectly valid point. What if you give mages a chance to lead a more normal life and assume normal social roles - parent, healer, soldier, teacher, farmer, while adopting sensible - and strict, why not - safety measures - why should we think that magic automatically rewrites everything else?

I, for one, don't think that it has to.

Modifié par Ivucci, 08 mai 2012 - 12:17 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

[quote]Silfren wrote...

That said, speaking as someone who actually does work in the mental health industry, in a western nation, the mentally ill DO have rights, those rights ARE legally recognized, and in most cases ARE legally upheld.  It is NOT legal to simply declare someone dangerously insane and throw them behind bars.  Not only do you have to legally prove that someone is unstable, you also have to prove whether they are so unstable as to be dangerous around other people, and to what extent.  There are other options available besides merely locking them away and throwing away the key, and those options are legally required to be explored.[/quote]

In case of mages, ti's an open and shut case.


[quote]
You appear to be suggesting that we can simply point to someone, declare them dangerous, and on that basis have them thrown in a prison cell for life, and that ain't so.
[/quote]

Actually, we can..depending on which country you're in.




[quote]
We know there is something called the Litany of Adralla which protects
against mind control.  We know there are dweomer runes which protect
against magic.  We know there is a rite of Tranquility which can
completely sever a mage's link to the Fade.  There are Templars who
learn to resist and counter magic and spells which drain or counter
magic... 

Given all this, might not more research turn up more
and better protections against magic?  Why not discuss how the rite of
Tranquility might be modified to render a mage normal rather than
lobotomized.  Or a dweomer rune over every doorstep to protect
villages.  Or the Litany of Adralla read at every council meeting to
protect against mages ruling through mind control.

There are a zillion possible options in a fantasy world.  Is it so crazy
to brain storm over possibilities rather than declare the death penalty
or lifetime imprisonment against all mages? [/quote]

How do you know none of this was already attempted?
How do you know it is even possible to "modify" the right of tranquility.
You simply assume the Chantry and everyone else never tried anything else.

And no, there are not a zillion options because it's a fantasy wrold. Even a fantasy world has rules and constraints.


[quote]
Connor was only in a position to do such great harm because his mother
was mortified about having a mage child.  The shame of magic itself and
the thought of losing her son to the system were caused by the Chantry. 
So, if the circle system caused the problem in Redcliffe, that's what
we should be fixing.
[/quote ]

No, Connor was in position to do harm because he was a mage. Are you saiyng that he wouldnt' have made a deal with a demon if there were no Chantry? Don't be redicolous.

***

And no, Tevinter is not operating fine, unless you consider rampat slavery, sacrifices and opression fine.

Letting the mages roam free may not reuslt in armageddon, but it WOULD result in a far larger death toll then the Circle system has.


[quote]
I happen to think that Mother and Child is one of the most sacred bonds
ever. Selfishness? A mother who protects and loves her child is the
epitome of self-sacrifice and unselfishness. You step between a mother
and her child, things start happenng. That's what mothers are, and
thanks for that.
[/quote]

And that same bond can be abused by the demons.
Our society DOES take away children from unfit parents, or parents unable to take care of their children.
And a mage mother can become possesed and the next thing you know...nom nom nom.
A mage is a danger to EVERYONE around themselves. Willingly or not.
That is the problem.
I agree it's tragic to have to do that... but I don't think the Chantry does it for s*** and giggles.

In mages appeared in the real world, I can guarnatee you they wouldn't have it any better than in TheDas...or possible far worse.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 08 mai 2012 - 01:11 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Ivucci wrote...
I happen to think that Mother and Child is one of the most sacred bonds ever. Selfishness? A mother who protects and loves her child is the epitome of self-sacrifice and unselfishness. You step between a mother and her child, things start happenng. That's what mothers are, and thanks for that.

The same thing happened to dozens other people in that village. I see a guy broke down after he learn he has lost his daughter in castle redcliff. I see 5 guys fall right in front of me and I know they have wives and children. I talk to one villager who lost her husband. While you think only  a mother and her son, I had to deal with dozen other people outside Redcliff Castle. One mage kid is responsible for the death of dozens villagers. How many more people need to die before you can see what I see? You think mother bond and her mage son. What about mother who lost their non-mage son outside the castle? Did you ever consider them too? They died for what?

Ivucci wrote...

I'm not gonna comment on your ready-made interpretations of history.
But - the first point you have right there is the key.

Because people in the game do think about it. Anders, Fenris, Justice, the Dalish, plenty of characters from DA2 understand the abstract concepts of "freedom", "oppression", "enslavement", "losing the culture". They actively use these words and give them meaning. Many of them understand their lives have been ruined by the system, so much so that they don't know how to build a future. They understand their life could have been different had it not been affected the way it was.

I don't find your Middle Ages equivalents relevant, give me evidence from the game. Give me evidence that people in the game don't understand the abstract concept of "freedom".

The DA 2 companions are flaw characters written by modern writers who ignore what middle age world is suppose to be. They try to make the characters complex but they forget there is no formal education in Thedas and there is no mean for ideas and discovery to spread out globally. So how about you tell me where all this "man is born free and created equal" come from? The Tervinter? Nope. They believe in Slavery. The Qun? Nope. The believe in Slavery too. Ferelden? Nope. They treated the city elves as slave too.

But since you insist,. let's play it your way then. Let's assume Thedas people are as enlightening as our modern day society, ignoring several key factors and necessary natural selection like mass media, secular education, established factual philsophy, society level of exposition and all those that make our society as complex as today...   
 

Ivucci wrote...

How exactly does "average mage" equal "no will to resist"? Who is an "average mage"? Is "average mage" the same as your "common folk", which you constantly throw in my face telling me I should try to view the world from their point of view?

Why excatly is it logical to undergo Harrowing first and study later? Why is it not logical to do it the other way round, if it can help save innocent lives?

How exactly?

Just look at what happen to mages in Kirkwall. Tell me, are they turning into Santa Claus?.

Do you even know why a mage being possessed by a demon?

Replay your Amell, take your Harrowind test, face the demon yourself  If it's still not good enough, enter the fade and face another demon through Connor.  Then we can discuss. I fear you have no clue at all the danger of demon's trickery and demon possesion. 

Ivucci wrote...



"Much authority other than the right of annulment" - that's one damned hell of an authority!

Then you better make sure you don't tear the veil and let loose all the demons. Because it's the hell with your damn magic when thousand people dies innociently. You don't care for other people lifes. I do..

 

Ivucci wrote...

 
I said in my previous post that I don't want "complete" freedom for mages so clearly I do take the "common folk" point of view into account.

"Basic human rights" are relevant wherever people recognize them, whether or not they have a modern term for it.

What about the basic right of non mages? What about their right to live peacefully?


 

Ivucci wrote...

 

To use your own figure of speech, "I suggest you read" the posts above by Silfren and GavrielKay. You will see there are plenty of ways to go about it, *IF ONLY* the Chantry were willing to give it a go.

I have. And I already response what I thought about it.


 

Ivucci wrote...

 


Harrowing isn't a solution - it's a disgusting, atrocious practice forced upon people who haven't committed any crime. Any human practice that assumes the right to separate the strong from the weak, the right ones from the wrong ones, is disgusting.

No one said it's pleasant. We lock up mentally unstable and violent people anyway. Why don't you condemn our society for doing that too ?


 

Ivucci wrote..

Also, sometimes it's the little, the weak, the doubting, the fearful who change the world and who show the strongest will of all. Loads of examples out there. No one has the right to mark people as strong or weak.

Lots of example from Kirkwall that prove  most mages are incapable to resist blood magic's temptation and unable to resist demon possession. If Kirkwall is not enough than just look at Uldred in Ferelden. So I don't see where you get that conclusion. It's obvious not from DA.


 

Ivucci wrote..
 
No, we have seen plenty of cases showing that the Circle failed tremendously. Maybe the Harrowing isn't such an effective practice after all? Maybe it's just all wrong?

Harrowing is your only key to live freely among men. And it's proven to be effective Otherwise why would Irving allow Wynne to leave the Circe? 

Would there be any other alternatives? That for the writers to decide. Until then we just speculating unknown factors that may or may not workable,

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 08 mai 2012 - 01:41 .

[whykikyouwhy]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

The DA 2 companions are flaw characters written by modern writers who ignore what middle age world is suppose to be. They try to make the characters complex but they forget there is no formal education in Thedas and there is no mean for ideas and discovery to spread out globally. So how about you tell me where all this "man is born free and created equal" come from? The Tervinter? Nope. They believe in Slavery. The Qun? Nope. The believe in Slavery too. Ferelden? Nope. They treated the city elves as slave too.

The events in Thedas are not meant to mirror real world history. They draw influence and inspiration from it, yes, but Thedan history and the evolution of its peoples does not run parallel to our own.

Also, there is formal education in Thedas. There's a lovely university in Val Royeaux, in fact.

So if you find flaws in the characters/companions, that's your opinion, but I don't think it's fair to claim that the flaws come from their supposed "modern' mindset, especially when you're trying to compare a fantasy world that is not Earth with real historical context.

[Ivucci]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
The DA 2 companions are flaw characters written by modern writers who ignore what middle age world is suppose to be.

I'm quite lost for words. Is this amazing statement going to be your argument against every in-game evidence? Or only against in-game evidence that doesn't suit you?

Modifié par Ivucci, 08 mai 2012 - 01:59 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Ivucci wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
The DA 2 companions are flaw characters written by modern writers who ignore what middle age world is suppose to be.

I'm quite lost for words. Is this amazing statement going to be your argument against every in-game evidence? Or only against in-game evidence that doesn't suit you?

Then why don't you answer my questions?
The Tervinter believe in Slavery. Yes or No?
The Qunary believe in Slavery. Yes or No? 
The Ferelden also treated The elves as slaves. Yes or No?
The Orlesian also Practise slavery. Yes or No?
Slavery exist in Thedas. Yes or No?

[Ivucci]

Why don't you answer mine first?
Also, shall I respond with what I see in the game, or with what I think should have been in the game, or with what I think was in the Middle Ages?

We all know the game lore isn't consistent, yet we try to discuss the DA series using as much material and evidence found in the game as possible (with others being 100x better at this than me). You try to dismiss that by using real world equivalents, plus you state that the game is not what it should be because the writers got it wrong? That's unfair and it makes this discussion impossible. What are you discussing, DA or Middle Ages?

Edit: I also don't wish to get this thread locked and I hope I'm not close to doing so...

Edit 2: I thought about it a bit more, and there just have to be some modern concepts used in the game, even if it's a typical Middle Ages/fantasy combo setting, simply to make it understandable and interesting for the players. The settings might resembe Middle Ages, but the major conflicts must be understandable to a modern player.

Modifié par Ivucci, 08 mai 2012 - 03:09 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Ivucci wrote...

Why don't you answer mine first?
Also, shall I respond with what I see in the game, or with what I think should have been in the game, or with what I think was in the Middle Ages?

We all know the game lore isn't consistent, yet we try to discuss the DA series using as much material and evidence found in the game as possible (with others being 100x better at this than me). You try to dismiss that by using real world equivalents, plus you state that the game is not what it should be because the writers got it wrong? That's unfair and it makes this discussion impossible. What are you discussing, DA or Middle Ages?

Edit: I also don't wish to get this thread locked and I hope I'm not close to doing so...

Here's what I want discuss.

Every common NPCs believes that "magic should serve man, not rule over him." This is what the Chantry teaches them. hence the Circle was establised. The Aequaitarian believe this regardless of the Chantry Law. The Loyalist fully embrace on the idea. The Isolationists  want a complete separation from everyone. The Libertarians want self regulation without the Chantry's supervision. The right to live among common people equally  has never been an issue. And suddenly out of nowhere a character called Ander said, "We are created equally, It's our right to fight for our freedom to live like other people do." No one knows where he gets that idea. It's obvious it's something new. But that's not all, he goes further and create a nuke wihouth any explanation how he did that. Obviously the dwarves have never bomb anything that huge. 

And slavery? Every nations I know practise slavery. No monarchs or Chantry condemn that. It's a society norm for Thedas. And you know what, a character called Fenris suddenly step up and said, "Man is born free." It amuse me where he gets that idea.   I have try to point out that people in Thedas don't think like you do. Their have different way of viewing their society. But it seem pointless to me now.

So  Let's just focus about Anders and mages basic right according to your argument.

Define what is basic right for the mages? Why do you think mages deserve such basic right?

Define what is freedom for the mages? Why do you think such freedom is necessary? 


 
 

 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 08 mai 2012 - 03:56 .

[Reznore57]

Slavery isn't something well accepted in Ferelden .Doesn't mean there isn't any or that elves are treated fairly.
But the concept of freedom exist in Thedas , slavery is illegal in many countries , actually ( in Kirkwall , you kill slavers on behalf on the guard sometimes.It is in Orlais , but the nobles have slaves anyway.

And I don't think the Qun "believe " in slavery .They believe everyone as a special role within their society.Fenris talked about "qamek" (don't remember the word exactly) when if you refuse the qun ,then they force you to be a mindless laborer .You do have a choice .They treat their mages badly , but because they fear them.And their mages still have a place in the Qun in a twisted way.



"magic should serve man, not rule over him." People should read that sentence differently , I think.
The word is MAGIC , not MAGES.It can also mean that power shouldn't rule a man's heart...

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Reznore57 wrote...

Slavery isn't something well accepted in Ferelden .Doesn't mean there isn't any or that elves are treated fairly.

There was a slave master at Denerim Market trading his goods freely without consequences. And the elves sell themselve at alienage

 

Reznore57 wrote... 
And I don't think the Qun "believe " in slavery .They believe everyone as a special role within their society.Fenris talked about "qamek" (don't remember the word exactly) when if you refuse the qun ,then they force you to be a mindless laborer .You do have a choice .They treat their mages badly , but because they fear them.And their mages still have a place in the Qun in a twisted way.

They enslave their mages to me. But I never understand the Qunari's thinking. I.free the mages believeing he would has his freedom at last. Instead he take his own life. 



 

Reznore57 wrote... 

"magic should serve man, not rule over him." People should read that sentence differently , I think.
The word is MAGIC , not MAGES.It can also mean that power shouldn't rule a man's heart...

I agree but we're discussing about the mages spesifically. 

[GavrielKay]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
The nobles don't hate the Orlesian as much as you think it is.

None of that matters to the basic claim that people in Thedas understand the concepts of freedom and oppression.  Only in Tevinter is slavery legal and it is rejected by other nations.  At the Landsmeet the other notbles are surprised and unhappy that Loghain has been selling elves to pay for his efforts.  You simply cannot decide that the characters in this game have the same knowledge and morality as the Earth's Middle Ages.  It isn't true and doesn't need to be true.  Where the writers leave gaps in the story we can try to fill in with what we think people would be like in that setting, but where the writers provide us actual dialogue and lore, it must be taken as true whether it reflects real history or not.

It never said anything about  Aequitarians felt oppresed by Chantry Law.  They are just moderate mages who couldn't care less about the Chantry Law.

It sounded as though you were trying to make a point that they didn't feel oppressed.  There is a big difference in thinking that you have an obligation to do good no matter what and wanting a group of religious zealots watching your every move.

None of mages convinced me that they are truly capable to resist blood magic temptation and demon possesion.

Which is lovely given you met only a handfull out of hundreds and most of them only when they were being cut down arbitrarily by a crazy woman and her goons.

There is one scenario where I came across group of Templars abusing a mage girl only to find out this mage turn into abomination. If the mages don't help themselves then who else can help them?. Forbidden art is forbidden. No amount of excuse could make it right. Abomination doesn't has any reasoning. They just attack you.

You see this scene and your take home lesson from it is that mages are bad?  Not that Templars have been given so much authority over mages for so long that they now have a hard time resisting the urge to rape and abuse mages.  And then when the mages decide to take in a demon and go out with a roar instead of a whimper, you want to fault the mage?

One question to you. Why do religion exist in the first place? Why do so many people embrace faith blindly in dark age?  What happen if there is no christianity or any religion at all? What would happen to Earth back then and now?

Those questions are both off topic and irrelevant.

That why Kirkwall's sitution is nonsense to me.

And finally we agree on something.  You have to wonder why Hawke or anyone else would stay in that crazy place.

[GavrielKay]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
The elves believed the land rightly belong to them alone. No other races should stay in their land. Therefore, they received the worst treatment of all. Had they submitted peacefully I doubt the Orlesian treated them badly.

You seem to have a general dislike for anyone standing up for themselves and their rights.  Why should the elves be OK with someone taking their lands?  Why should they submit to Orlesian rule whether it is kind or (more likely) not?

The common folks just follow their leader regardless whether the leader is right or wrong.

Uh no.  People throughout the game rebel against leaders they don't agree with.  Loghain starts a civil war by trying to take over.  There are people in Kirkwall actively subverting the Templars and helping mages.  The townsfolk in Awakenings will storm Vigil's Keep and demand protection.  I really think you need to give up on imagined parallels between the Middle Ages and the game.  And I'm not even convinced that you're entirely right that the Middle Ages were that way.