673 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

Removing the chantry might do more evil than good. Besides, if not for mages like Adrian and Anders, relations could already be going in a more hopeful direction with a Divine like Justinia in power.

The Chantry and templars have no one to blame for this but themselves, really. There'd be no need to rebel so fervently if there wasn't something so evil to rebel against.

[Captain Cornhole]

IanPolaris wrote...

Captain Cornhole wrote...

JSlither wrote...

Convince me that the Templars locking mages up in a tower is a better alternative than them being free and attending a school that teaches them about magic and being a mage.

Can you teach a sex offender to give up molesting inocent individuals? 

That's a horribly inaccurate and offensive comparison.  A mage apparely only has a VERY SMALL chance of ever going abomination (and even then it's not always violent per WoG),  A sex offender even if treated has a virtually 100% chance of harming someone in their lives.  The two are not a valid comparison, and frankly shame on you for even bringing it up.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  In addition, a Sex Offender CHOOSES to violate someone else.  They may have a psychological need, but they DO CHOOSE.  A mage doesn't get to choose being a mage.  It's also worth noting that we don't go around jailing sex offenders just because some test or genetics suggest they may be a sex offender.  One is jailed/incarcerated for what one has DONE.  Huge difference.

I beg to differ, based off the evidence in DA I would surmize that infact a decent if not large number of mages do turn abomination based off how many you encounter. And even then the amount of blood mages that that you have to deal with should also warrant concern.

That said, there are obvious similarites and differences between mages and sex offenders, but my original point was about rehabilitation. You can't cure sex offenders neither can you truely cure mages. Best thing to do is lock them up and make sure they can't harm anyone. Look at Merril, she had all the advice and teachings from Hawke and Keeper Mara-whatever her hame was, and she still tried to mess around with that mirror, as a result I had to murder her whole tribe.

I'm not saying the Templars should act like the gestapo, at least treat them kindly, but like individuals who are obviously working their way to sex offender status should we let mages (for the most part) run around on killing sprees?

[MisterJB]

The only thing that mages and templars needed to rebel against was Meredith who was commander of a single Circle.
She is dead and this war will bring nothing good. Either the mages win; which is doubtful, they are ridiculously outnumbered; and we witness a new Tevinter Imperium along with an increase of number of abominations, or the templars win and they will be even more strict with future generations of mages.

[IanPolaris]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Captain Cornhole wrote...

JSlither wrote...

Convince me that the Templars locking mages up in a tower is a better alternative than them being free and attending a school that teaches them about magic and being a mage.

Can you teach a sex offender to give up molesting inocent individuals? 

That's a horribly inaccurate and offensive comparison.  A mage apparely only has a VERY SMALL chance of ever going abomination (and even then it's not always violent per WoG),  A sex offender even if treated has a virtually 100% chance of harming someone in their lives.  The two are not a valid comparison, and frankly shame on you for even bringing it up.

-Polaris

Edit PS:  In addition, a Sex Offender CHOOSES to violate someone else.  They may have a psychological need, but they DO CHOOSE.  A mage doesn't get to choose being a mage.  It's also worth noting that we don't go around jailing sex offenders just because some test or genetics suggest they may be a sex offender.  One is jailed/incarcerated for what one has DONE.  Huge difference.

I beg to differ, based off the evidence in DA I would surmize that infact a decent if not large number of mages do turn abomination based off how many you encounter. And even then the amount of blood mages that that you have to deal with should also warrant concern.

That said, there are obvious similarites and differences between mages and sex offenders, but my original point was about rehabilitation. You can't cure sex offenders neither can you truely cure mages. Best thing to do is lock them up and make sure they can't harm anyone. Look at Merril, she had all the advice and teachings from Hawke and Keeper Mara-whatever her hame was, and she still tried to mess around with that mirror, as a result I had to murder her whole tribe.

I'm not saying the Templars should act like the gestapo, at least treat them kindly, but like individuals who are obviously working their way to sex offender status should we let mages (for the most part) run around on killing sprees?

First of all, a sex offender CHOOSES to offend.  Whatever the psychological drive, there is a choice here.  Moreover, we do NOT lock away people because they have deviant sexuality.  We lock away people for ACTING on it.

There is a huge difference and that right there destroys the comparison.

Moreover, if abominations were really as common as Kirkwall/Authors would like us to think, there wouldn't have been any civilizations at all.  The first abominations would have destroyed them.  In fact most societies have historically let mages live side by side with non mages and simply handled any rare issues.  The only society less fair, less human, and more anti-mage than the Chantry are the Qun.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

The only thing that mages and templars needed to rebel against was Meredith who was commander of a single Circle.
She is dead and this war will bring nothing good. Either the mages win; which is doubtful, they are ridiculously outnumbered; and we witness a new Tevinter Imperium along with an increase of number of abominations, or the templars win and they will be even more strict with future generations of mages.

Most mages don't want another Tevinter.  You seem to be buying the Chantry propaganda line.  There are plenty of examples of societies that don't lock away mages but aren't Tevinter.  Indeed, Androstian societies didn't lock away mages until at least a century after Andraste's death.  In fact I have yet to hear anything in the chant of light that remotely justifies any divine right over mages or justifies how mages are treated.

-Polaris

[Captain Cornhole]

Xilizhra wrote...

Removing the chantry might do more evil than good. Besides, if not for mages like Adrian and Anders, relations could already be going in a more hopeful direction with a Divine like Justinia in power.

The Chantry and templars have no one to blame for this but themselves, really. There'd be no need to rebel so fervently if there wasn't something so evil to rebel against.

No one is saying the Chantry and Templars are saints here. Some of templars abuses are unwarranted and entirely unessicary. And the Chantry wasn't doing it's job my mediating the two factions. But then again the templars wouldn't be acting like jerks in certain situations if it wasn't for the Knight Commander (who progrssively gets crazy), Orisino dragging his feet and primarly for the crimes commited by numerous mages. 

[MisterJB]

It's human nature. Right now, most mages just want an end to opression. Give them freedom and they will want more. They will want power and influence and they will abuse the hell out of their magic to obtain both.

We don't know enough about those societies, apart from the dalish clans, to make a judgement. The dalish don't lock their mages because they don't have them in enough number to be an issue. And, despite this, some clans have been destroyed by the abominations of their former Keepers.

Modifié par MisterJB, 11 juillet 2012 - 02:46 .

[Captain Cornhole]

IanPolaris wrote...
First of all, a sex offender CHOOSES to offend.  Whatever the psychological drive, there is a choice here.  Moreover, we do NOT lock away people because they have deviant sexuality.  We lock away people for ACTING on it.

There is a huge difference and that right there destroys the comparison.

Moreover, if abominations were really as common as Kirkwall/Authors would like us to think, there wouldn't have been any civilizations at all.  The first abominations would have destroyed them.  In fact most societies have historically let mages live side by side with non mages and simply handled any rare issues.  The only society less fair, less human, and more anti-mage than the Chantry are the Qun.

-Polaris

Do you not listen, first and formost the comparison was with rehabilitation. As you choose to ignore that point completely.

That said your right at some point offenders choose to offend. But what is "acting"? Should we not arrest someone for trailing a little kid home or too school? Wouldn't you say that is indeed acting on an intention to commit a crime, given there are previous steps taken to lead the would be offender to this point of trailing our supposed victim. Are you saying that we should arrest a terrorist after he/she blows someone up or prior? By your logic deliberatly takeing steps to make a bomb is "not acting" on an intention to blow someone to smitheroons. Carrying this over to dragon age, if a mage is clearly acting on an intention to do something blood magic related should he/she not be taken into custody? Lets say some mage is playing with the dragon age equivelent of a wegi-board, should steps be taken to prevent demon posession, or should we let things run it's course till someone gets hurt.

My comparison is entirely valid. 

Durr, exactly as civilization grows simple math will tell you that the more individuals there are the more likely there is that one would end up being a mage. Now when civilization was first starting out they wouldn't have this problem cause mages would be a rare thing. It's simple math. 

But of course you ingore all the evidence laid out over the games of all the crimes that mages/abominations have comitted. How the hell do you justify those crimes?

Modifié par Captain Cornhole, 11 juillet 2012 - 03:05 .

[dragonflight288]

MisterJB,

I would like to say it's been fun debating with you and passing points back and forth civilly. Instead of going to the previous page and copying everything and then address them point by point, I was thinking if you and I could possibly instead take hypotheticals (we can't work with much more than that until DA3 comes out and we see more choices/events that happen) and try to work out our own system.

Example: Hypothetically, keeping templars running the circle, what would you do to try and appease mages so they aren't desperate, and what would you also do to keep templars or dissuade them from abusing their powers? How would you punish mage criminals and corrupt templars?

That sort of thing. You up for it? You can even go first (whether forming an answer or asking me what I would do, your choice.)

[MisterJB]

dragonflight288 wrote...
Example: Hypothetically, keeping templars running the circle, what would you do to try and appease mages so they aren't desperate, and what would you also do to keep templars or dissuade them from abusing their powers? How would you punish mage criminals and corrupt templars?

That sort of thing. You up for it? You can even go first (whether forming an answer or asking me what I would do, your choice.)

Alright, let's see:
 
First, I would attempt to turn the Circle into a more welcoming and humane instution for both mages and mundanes. Mages would be allowed to receive visits both parental and conjugal so as to desmitify much of the mistery and fear that surrounds the Circle. Recreational visits to cities would be allowed so long as the mages are accompanied by experienced templars. Marriages and procreation with other mages and mundanes (met during the aforementioned visits, I imagine) would be allowed so long as the mage understand the hardships of mantaining relationships from inside the circle and that mundane childs would have to be given to someone from outside of the Circle to look after. Mages sending letters to the exterior would be permitted but those letters would be opened and read to ensure no plan of escape is being fomented.
The weakest of mages could choose to not go through the Harrowing but they would also not have acess to the same privileges of other mages.
Under no circunstances would I allow a mage to live outside of the Circle. Shale's owner, for instance, was allowed and his grandchild was in risk of being possessed by a demon.

There would be a zero tolerance to abuses of power from both templars and mages. A templar that, say, raped a mage would be expelled from the Order and arrested. A mage practicing forbidden magic outside of experiments permitted by the Chantry would be made Tranquil. No exceptions.

Hypothetically, mages win their freedom. Attendance to a Circle School is mandatory for a certain number of years but, beyond that, they have no more special duties than any other regular person.
How do you keep mages from abusing this freedom? How do you keep order in the country against the people who don't want to live with mages? How do the templars respond to Abominations?

[TEWR]

MisterJB wrote...

Shale's owner, for instance, was allowed and his grandchild was in risk of being possessed by a demon.

Ah, but would you allow demonology, so as to better learn about ways to protect mages? And be careful with your response, because you don't want to fall into the Chantry's web of trying to conflate demonology with blood magic.

[MisterJB]

Blood magic, invariably, comes from demons. While it should be possible to study demonology without the use of blood magic, you can't use blood magic without having accepted a demon's offer. So, it's inevitable the two are often tought of as one.

"A mage practicing forbidden magic outside of experiments permitted by the Chantry would be made Tranquil."
So, the answer is yes. I would allow experiments in controled environments with trusted mages and templars to not only discover better ways to protect people, mages and mundanes, from demonic possession but other useful things as well. For instance, a viable process to remove magic from those who wish it or those deemed too dangerous to possess it without destroying their minds.

Modifié par MisterJB, 11 juillet 2012 - 03:59 .

[IanPolaris]

Captain Cornhole wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
First of all, a sex offender CHOOSES to offend.  Whatever the psychological drive, there is a choice here.  Moreover, we do NOT lock away people because they have deviant sexuality.  We lock away people for ACTING on it.

There is a huge difference and that right there destroys the comparison.

Moreover, if abominations were really as common as Kirkwall/Authors would like us to think, there wouldn't have been any civilizations at all.  The first abominations would have destroyed them.  In fact most societies have historically let mages live side by side with non mages and simply handled any rare issues.  The only society less fair, less human, and more anti-mage than the Chantry are the Qun.

-Polaris

Do you not listen, first and formost the comparison was with rehabilitation. As you choose to ignore that point completely.

The entire comparison is INVALID and designed to equate mages with the worst of humanity.  I have every right to call you out on this.  It's a vile debating technique.  It is true that sex offenders are generally irrredeemable, but they aren't treated as a 'criminal class' UNTIL they do something wrong.  That's the difference you are willfully overlooking. 

That said your right at some point offenders choose to offend. But what is "acting"? Should we not arrest someone for trailing a little kid home or too school? Wouldn't you say that is indeed acting on an intention to commit a crime, given there are previous steps taken to lead the would be offender to this point of trailing our supposed victim. Are you saying that we should arrest a terrorist after he/she blows someone up or prior?

We have answers to that question and the answer is NO.  You know this.  At most and only IF there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence can you detain a person, but even that is strictly temporarily.  You do not get to convict a person of a crime for what they are rather than what they have done.  Your examples willfully overlook this essential difference.

By your logic deliberatly takeing steps to make a bomb is "not acting" on an intention to blow someone to smitheroons. Carrying this over to dragon age, if a mage is clearly acting on an intention to do something blood magic related should he/she not be taken into custody? Lets say some mage is playing with the dragon age equivelent of a wegi-board, should steps be taken to prevent demon posession, or should we let things run it's course till someone gets hurt.

Wrong.  Making a bomb requires a willful act.  Being a mage does not.  Please learn the difference.  Even if you are making a bomb, the prosecutor has to show that you are going to use it for an act of terrorism for that charge to stick.  Otherwise you just get the charge of illegal use of explosives/controlled substances.  See the difference here.

My comparison is entirely valid. 

If it not only invalid but reprehensible.  You are equating an entire group of people to the worst criminal elements in our society for being what they are rather than what they have done.  It's slander of the worst sort.

Durr, exactly as civilization grows simple math will tell you that the more individuals there are the more likely there is that one would end up being a mage. Now when civilization was first starting out they wouldn't have this problem cause mages would be a rare thing. It's simple math. 

If a single abomination were as common as the chantry wants you to think (and as the authors did too based on DA2...unless you carefully read the hidden codex entries), then there wouldn't be any civilization.  The first abomination would wipe out any primitive tribe...yet we KNOW this is not true.  In fact primitive tribes live alongside mages with few apparently negative consequences.

But of course you ingore all the evidence laid out over the games of all the crimes that mages/abominations have comitted. How the hell do you justify those crimes?

In DA2 most of that evidence was badly and horribly slanted (Kirkwall is a Helmouth).  If you go by the lore and the more reasonable example of DAO, you find that the evidence doesn't prove what you think it does.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

Blood magic, invariably, comes from demons. While it should be possible to study demonology without the use of blood magic, you can't use blood magic without having accepted a demon's offer. So, it's inevitable the two are often tought of as one.

False.  Bloodmagic may have originated from Demons but the lore and gameplay makes it extremely clear that Bloodmagic can be taught as a skill from mage to mage...no demons required.  You can even learn it from books.  Jowan was a bloodmage, but he had no contact with demons.  He learned it from the Circle library.

"A mage practicing forbidden magic outside of experiments permitted by the Chantry would be made Tranquil."
So, the answer is yes. I would allow experiments in controled environments with trusted mages and templars to not only discover better ways to protect people, mages and mundanes, from demonic possession but other useful things as well. For instance, a viable process to remove magic from those who wish it or those deemed too dangerous to possess it without destroying their minds.

Did you read the letter that Mage Wilhelm wrote to the First Enchanter.  There was a mage that was trying to help his fellow mages by learning how possession worked and had the Chantry try to block him at every turn.  Heck the Chantry is hypocritical on these issues by the admission of WoG.  For example, we know that the heroic Adralla had to have been a bloodmage......and that phylacteries are a form of bloodmagic.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Shale's owner, for instance, was allowed and his grandchild was in risk of being possessed by a demon.

Ah, but would you allow demonology, so as to better learn about ways to protect mages? And be careful with your response, because you don't want to fall into the Chantry's web of trying to conflate demonology with blood magic.

Actually his experiments were done in defiance of the Chantry.  First Enchanter Arlen know but both complained that the Chantry didn't seem to want to learn how to learn how to control/prevent possession.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

It's human nature. Right now, most mages just want an end to opression. Give them freedom and they will want more. They will want power and influence and they will abuse the hell out of their magic to obtain both.

By the same logic Templars should be locked up.  They use magic too after all and are definately powerhungry (and yes WoG has confirmed that Templar abilities ARE magic).

We don't know enough about those societies, apart from the dalish clans, to make a judgement. The dalish don't lock their mages because they don't have them in enough number to be an issue. And, despite this, some clans have been destroyed by the abominations of their former Keepers.

Actually there are multiple people with Talent in each clan.  Lanaya even says she had to compete and beat out several other canditates to be Zathrien's first, and if you side with the Werewolves you find out that there is at least one other mage besides the Keeper and First (the Halla Herder).

Not only that but there is no evidence that actual clans have been destroyed by Abominations.  The two cases we have are both "death by Darwin (with the Warden acting as Darwin)" and not from actual abomintations.  The only thing that Merill says is that sometimes (rarely) the clan has to hunt down and kill their former keeper but that IS doing something about it.

-Polaris

[TEWR]

IanPolaris wrote...

Actually his experiments were done in defiance of the Chantry.  First Enchanter Arlen know but both complained that the Chantry didn't seem to want to learn how to learn how to control/prevent possession.

-Polaris

Oh I know they were done in defiance of the Chantry. But I'm reasonably sure that the Chantry has tried to conflate the two as meaning virtually the same thing, which is why I asked MisterJB if he would allow it in his reformed Circle system.

Divine Justinia V seems willing to authorize demonology though, if the events in Asunder are anything to go off in regards to Pharamond.

[Gallimatia]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

You're thinking that all they care about is winning. That's only part of it. What use is winning the lands of an entire country if its citizenry have been reduced to piles upon piles of corpses?

You're assuming they don't care about people, when that's definitely not the case. Talk to Sten about Tal-Vashoth... Talk to him about why he was in that cage...

To assume the Qunari don't care about life -- or to assume they only care about it because it's useful -- is a gross misrepresentation of the Qunari themselves.

Retreating and letting the enemy rebuild can only be expected to increase the overall amount of casualities if, like Sten, you take it as a given that you are coming back to finish the job.

Not if they prepare their armies. They've faced Tevinter incursions for decades beyond counting, and Fenris himself believes they're saving up their strength for when they truly want to invade.

Thedas was driven to near-bankruptcy during the Qunari Wars. The Qunari don't really have to worry about that, because everything in their lands is distributed evenly.

Also, they have a presence in Rivain still I think. I'm certain that they know of the Chantry's massacre of the Qunari there, but chose not to act on it immediately.

Remember, they also have spies hidden throughout the land. Some have defected, some haven't.

I did not assume they do not care about people. What I assumed was that people have to die for them to take over a region.

there's no getting around people dieing in droves when you show up to turn their lives upside down, compel them to denounce their gods and take up a life of mandatory labour.

I don’t see how preparing your army and spying changes that. The other side is doing the same thing. As for resources if distributing them evenly prevented bankruptcy while waging war the world would look plenty different.

I also suggested that they might not care about life per se. I wasn’t sure but now you pointed me to Sten's banter and well if it’s a gross misrepresentation that the Qunari don't care about life -- or only care about it because it's useful then he really needs that reschooling.

Sten: There is worth in your life, Shale. There is value, but only if it is used.

There you have it straight from the horse’s mouth. For the qunari life has no intrinsic value. Naturally many kossith that try to live by the Qun will fail to live up to this ideal as they are social creatures that nature has endowed with altruistic preferences. An example is Sten who if befriended does not want to kill the Warden should they end up fighting over Ferelden. He should readily kill a Warden that is resisting a qunari invasion but he has strayed from the path. That's what happens when people get to roam free. Had Morrigan gotten her way he might have strayed even further.

The instrumental value of life comes up regarding mages:

Shale: Why not put them [mages] out of their misery? Crush their skulls and be done with it. Fast. Efficient. Fun.
Sten: You have been offended by such men, so your bloodlust can be forgiven. But these ones you speak of are to be pitied. Even so, they must serve, just as any other must serve. All must find their place within the Qun.

As expected, everyone must serve and to do that they must live. That is why you are supposed to avoid killing when possible. That is why you are not supposed to kill farmers for no reason. That kossith are not evil goes without saying (after playing two games). The Qun however is vile. It’s like a Templar system except everyone is a mage other than the mages who are animals.

Modifié par Gallimatia, 11 juillet 2012 - 06:22 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
Moreover, if abominations were really as common as Kirkwall/Authors would like us to think, there wouldn't have been any civilizations at all.

Teh game is not an acurate representation of abominations. Neither in terms of numbers nor in terms of power.
And no, abominations happening often does not mean the world would get destroyed any more than frequent natural disasters destroyed the world.

We have answers to that question and the answer is NO.  You know this.  At most and only IF there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence can you detain a person, but even that is strictly temporarily.  You do not get to convict a person of a crime for what they are rather than what they have done.  Your examples willfully overlook this essential difference.

Technicly you can as a precaution if the danger is big enough.
Quarantene is one example.
Or shoting down a terrorist-hihjacked plane.
It's clear there's plenty of innocents that will die in both cases, yet both actions are accepted.

Wrong.  Making a bomb requires a willful act.  Being a mage does not.  Please learn the difference.  Even if you are making a bomb, the prosecutor has to show that you are going to use it for an act of terrorism for that charge to stick.  Otherwise you just get the charge of illegal use of explosives/controlled substances.  See the difference here.

The possesion of a bomb is still illegal and still gets you locked up.
Mage = bomb. So mages get locked up.

If it not only invalid but reprehensible.  You are equating an entire group of people to the worst criminal elements in our society for being what they are rather than what they have done.  It's slander of the worst sort.

Mages aren't real.
Slandering of fictional characters? .....

If a single abomination were as common as the chantry wants you to think (and as the authors did too based on DA2...unless you carefully read the hidden codex entries), then there wouldn't be any civilization.  The first abomination would wipe out any primitive tribe...yet we KNOW this is not true.  In fact primitive tribes live alongside mages with few apparently negative consequences.

No we don't. Quit lying your ass off.
Unless the dissaperance of an enitre tribe is "no negative consequence"

In DA2 most of that evidence was badly and horribly slanted (Kirkwall is a Helmouth).  If you go by the lore and the more reasonable example of DAO, you find that the evidence doesn't prove what you think it does.

-Polaris

Well, it doesn't prove what YOU think it does either.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
It is a fundamental point in modern morality (and Thedas IS a modern world in DnD-like trappings...thoroughly modern) that you punish people for what they DO rather than what they ARE.

We never had to deal with people with ridiculous natural advantages over most. Preemptive measures must be taken to minimize the risks of magics. Not wait to act until there is an Abomination or Blood Mages on the loose.

That line has been used to excuse the imprisonment and enslavement of minorities since the start of civilization, and yes from the start of civilization people HAVE been born with "ridiculous" advantages over others.  A nobleman had such advantages (admittedly from society rather than ability), but it doesn't make the effect any less valid.

You start pointing at another human being that is different and yell "Fear him, protect us" and you are one small step away from concentration camps....or worse.   EIther mages are human beings or they are not.  If they are (and I would say they are), then if you can not treat them as such, you deserve all the bad things that come to you if you preemptively treat them otherwise.

Seriously?
Nope. That line wasn't used. Especially not in this context.

You say "mages are either human begins or not" and DELIBERATELY ignore the bigger picture. I can do that too.
"Mages are dangerous living weapons". You seem to forget that part - which also happens to be true - and that stinks of intellectual dishonesty.

To tream mages exactly the same as a normal human is the apex of non-logic. They are NOT like normal humans. It makes no sense to treat them exactly like normal humans in every way.

Mages form their own social group by their accounts and by others.  Read the UN Statutes.  It's genocide.  Wynne in the game even uses the word w/r/t the mage-templar question.  It's a very reasonable thing to compare to.

No, it's not.


 

It's called collective punishment and it's a human rights violation not to mention a war crime.  Nice.

It's called common sense. Look it up.

ORLY?  The evidence we have suggests that the circles do a terrible job at both (other than making the Chantry monopolize all magic which I think always was the real point).  Compare the circle societies to those that don't use circles.

Circles seenm to do a good enough job to me.
And the societies you point at? Not very advanced or powerfull. Clan-based wanderers. Backward and primitive. Small in numbers (hmm..guess why?)

Saying that all societies should be like that is like saying that the people ofUS should go back to the lifestyle of the african tribes. I'm sure people would jump at such a social, political and economical change....for the better?

Evidence would be nice.  So far we have no evidence that the circle makes anyone safe and a lot of circumstantial evidence that strongly suggests the opposite.

Wrong. Other way around.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 11 juillet 2012 - 06:33 .

[Plaintiff]

People who are saying that characters like Anders and Adrian should've been making a greater effort to compromise are being very unrealistic in their expectations.

We are talking about individuals with no rights in a disenfranchised minority that has zero poltiical clout. Any attempt at peaceful protest or what have you will be met with violence by the Chantry and Templars, who have all the power. If it had been Anders making a speech in front of the Viscount's Keep, Meredith could've had him executed outright.

With things in the state they were during DA2, there was never any hope of compromise. Any "compromise" in Kirkwall resulted in Meredith gaining an inch while Orsino lost one. The Divine might well be willing to increase mage rights, but she does jack-all about it because she's cowed by her own subordinates. Even if she was mage-friendly, the Templars and the Seekers are not, and they derive their authority from the Chantry and the Divine, who is too cowardly to take any effective action against them.

The only way a real compromise can be reached is if the scales of power are levelled, and the only bargaining chip the mages have is their superior firepower. The Chantry, Templars and Seekers all need to be brought down to an equal level wth the mages before any true discussion can begin, and that can only be acheived through violence.

[Lotion Soronarr]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Pfft... if you believe humanity is a race of monsters then magic was responsible for that, assuming you follow Christianity to the letter.

* SNIP *

Really, your post simply reminded me of this image.

Your'e walking a thin line there...
Don't post crap like that if you don't want to start a flame war.

There is no "kinda-sorta". David Gaider flat out stated the
phylacteries were blood magic in one of his most recently transcribed
interviews, in regards to the Chantry's claims on what's magic and what
isn't -- specifically Templar abilities.

Regardless the magic the Templars
use doesn't involve mind control, it's not forbidden magic, there's
nothing about it--especially since it can only work against
mages--there's nothing about it that would make the Chantry step in and
go "Wow, that's bad." But then we're talking about a Chantry that also
has phylacteries in every Circle, which is a type of blood magic, so there's definitely an element of hypocrisy there

There is kinda-sorta.
It's a TYPE of blood magic, but it's very different for regular blood magic.

Blood is used to track. That's it.
It's not used to draw power or to control. It's blood magic only in the widestst sense that it involves blood.

[dragonflight288]

First, I would attempt to turn the Circle into a more welcoming and humane instution for both mages and mundanes. Mages would be allowed to receive visits both parental and conjugal so as to desmitify much of the mistery and fear that surrounds the Circle. Recreational visits to cities would be allowed so long as the mages are accompanied by experienced templars. Marriages and procreation with other mages and mundanes (met during the aforementioned visits, I imagine) would be allowed so long as the mage understand the hardships of mantaining relationships from inside the circle and that mundane childs would have to be given to someone from outside of the Circle to look after. Mages sending letters to the exterior would be permitted but those letters would be opened and read to ensure no plan of escape is being fomented.
The weakest of mages could choose to not go through the Harrowing but they would also not have acess to the same privileges of other mages.
Under no circunstances would I allow a mage to live outside of the Circle. Shale's owner, for instance, was allowed and his grandchild was in risk of being possessed by a demon.

There would be a zero tolerance to abuses of power from both templars and mages. A templar that, say, raped a mage would be expelled from the Order and arrested. A mage practicing forbidden magic outside of experiments permitted by the Chantry would be made Tranquil. No exceptions.

Nice system. Strict on the rules for all sides so kudos there. My only contention would be that Amalia wasn't in any more danger than if her father or some other random villager went in there. That demon posing as a cat was already outside the Fade and sealed within a room. She was just as much a danger to anyone going in there as she was to Amalia.

Only Amalia was the first one to enter the room, and possessing her straight away would serve no purpose as she was still sealed within the room.

Hypothetically, mages win their freedom. Attendance to a Circle School is mandatory for a certain number of years but, beyond that, they have no more special duties than any other regular person.
How do you keep mages from abusing this freedom? How do you keep order in the country against the people who don't want to live with mages? How do the templars respond to Abominations?

Well, I personally wouldn't give mages total freedom. The templar order must remain existing because the danger of blood mage criminals and abominations will always exist. To that end, I will want to know with absolute certainty if lyrium truly is required for a templar to have his/her abilities OR to amplify them. Some say we should ignore Alistair never taking his vows, never ingesting lyrium, yet still being able to use templar abilities.

If lyrium is not a requirement, I will immediately get rid of the lyrium addiction. People will still be trained as templars, but they will be in service to the crown, not the Chantry.

If a mage is performing research that requires a constant draw on the fade, delving into it, or summoning of spirits, it is absolutely paramount that such research MUST be watched, because it can easily blow up in the mage's face, to the tragedy of everyone around them.


Considering that these problems exist. I would say that a mage, having graduated from the Circle and have shown they are capable of controlling their power, can be given a choice. They can choose to stay within the Circle if they so wish, researching magic under supervision of the templars and other senior enchanters, go into service for the crown directly, or agree to check in with the templars weekly.

But if a mage is to serve in the palace, they must be investigated thoroughly to make sure they are NOT blood mages.

Templars would respond to abominations as they do already. With extreme prejudice. An abomination is a very serious threat that cannot be discounted.

Mages who do not check in with the templars (or templar equivalent) will be investigated. If they are engaging in research without supervision, the research will be immediately shut down, or, depending on the nature of the research, will be transferred to the Circle to be carried out if the potential gains are greater than the risks.

All mages found practicing blood magic on someone else will be tranquilized. No exceptions. All templars who are found raping a mage will be removed from the order and imprisoned. If lyrium is required for their abilities, they will not serve life in prison, but they will be cut off from lyrium entirely, and they'll suffer lyrium withdrawal for the rest of their life.

If a templar is discovered illegally tranquilizing a mage, he too will be tranquilized. And shall then serve in the Circle as assistants to the mages. No exceptions.

Any mage found committing a crime will also be punished. Due to their extra power and how much more damage they can do in an instant, the punishments will be harsh and swift. They will be held to a higher standard than the average criminal due to the extra power.

All people, should they also have mage children, must make it clear that the child must be fully trained. Hiding children from the Circle will result in children still going there, but family visitation rights would be reduced. Still present, but allowed less often so the child can focus on training.

Any mage found using blood magic, even if just using their own blood to power spells, will be required to live within the circle and under supervision. Any mage who uses blood magic to control the mind of another will be put to death. No exceptions.

....Hmmm, best I can think of for now as it's 2 in the morning where I live and I'm tired. I might think of something better tomorrow. Feel free to point out any flaws I may have with my system.

[sickserb]

Feynriel also sends a note saying how bad the chaos and fighting is in Tevinter without proper regulation, if there were to be no circle people would go wild, its definitely necessary.