673 réponses à ce sujet

[MisterJB]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Why not? If it's about how they're secretive, consider the fact that at that time they were apostates -- with connections in the Circle.

They can't really go around blabbing about who they are, as that runs detrimental to their cause.

They do police themselves, as we see that they want a cabal of maleficarum taken care of. They also abide by the Chantry's laws -- indeed, we never hear anything about any mage within the Collective practing blood magic and NOT being punished for it. Quite the opposite. -- and enforce them.

They also make it a point to deal with problems before the Chantry gets involved, thereby increasing pro-mage sentiments in Ferelden.

All of that, plus a regiment of Templars helping them, while remaining hidden from the non-friendly Chantry authorities.... that seems to point to them being good at what they do.

If they didn't have to stay hidden, they'd probably do a helluva job.

Because of the nature of their quests. For instance, the Scrolls of Banastor are quite sinister. Joined with "Careless Acusations" and "Blood of Warning" makes me questions if they really are not practicing blood magic.
There there is the bribing templars with Lyrium which suggests they don't help the Collective because they believe in their ideals.

[Xilizhra]

I really, really don't see anything wrong with finding information on blood magic. And there's no evidence that they actually use it, certainly not for evil. As for bribing templars, well, most templars will probably be dicks regardless.

[TEWR]

MisterJB wrote...

Because of the nature of their quests. For instance, the Scrolls of Banastor are quite sinister

The Mage himself makes mention that he wishes to understand the signs of some of the more darker parts of blood magic because blood mages are near his house, and the best way to do that is through those Scrolls.

The Scrolls themselves detail that if you want to learn mind control, you have to basically go Flemeth-style Abomination -- the legend of Flemeth, not the truth about her. The legend says that Flemeth merged with a Demon, but didn't become a usual Abomination.

That's basically what the Scrolls detail. Read them and you'll see that if you want to learn mind control, you have to welcome a demon into your body and master it, or else it'll master you.

Besides, Mages already practice Chantry sanctioned mind-****ing magic. Disorient and Horror deal with subtle influence over the mind.

I mean, I guess you can view him with some suspicion and be hesitant to believe said Mage's remarks about blood mages near his abode, but I don't really buy into that. I've seen ample evidence to suggest they take care of maleficarum rather then practice it.

The codex on the Collective itself notes that there's been nothing to suggest the members do practice blood magic.

Renold's journal even states that he went out to kill his foolish apprentice that got caught up in blood magic. He died and said apprentice was an Abomination, but still...

. Joined with "Careless Acusations" and "Blood of Warning" makes me questions if they really are not practicing blood magic.

Careless Accusations was dealing with a non-mage who saw what he labeled as blood magic. Indeed, through Chantry propagandist lies most common folk believe that any magic they are unfamiliar with -- which is a lot -- is blood magic.

Wynne and Alistair both label Morrigan a maleficar, despite her arts being those of a Shapeshifter.

Maleficarum is a word used with no real care to its meaning, due in part to ignorance on what truly warrants the term.

Blood of Warning was dealing with moments where the Templars aren't always fair in their treatment of Mage relatives. They usually are in Ferelden, but it was a "better safe then sorry" thing. Remember how Ser Mettin was about ready to kill a Mage's relative for giving her abused and starving cousin a meal and a roof?

There's no reason to assume this doesn't happen in Ferelden either.

All you were doing was warning families of inquiries about their relatives, and the Chantry is often comprised of fanatical zealots rather then morally sound people.

So I see no problem with the warning itself.

There there is the bribing templars with Lyrium which suggests they don't help the Collective because they believe in their ideals.

Well yea, the Templars needed to be bribed with lyrium in order for the Collective to stay free. But that doesn't mean they won't help the Collective if the Collective needs it. And Harrith seems to agree with their ideals, considering you can also hand him false reports and testimonies the Collective acquired for disposal.

Of course, you could chalk that up to being "Well, he still needs to help them to get his lyrium fix", but hey... I don't see anything that truly suggests he doesn't believe in their ideals. If he didn't, he'd probably play both sides. Get extra lyrium, but secretly sell out the Collective.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 12 juillet 2012 - 09:49 .

[Xilizhra]

Ah, yes, you make much better arguments then I do when I'm really too tired to do so. Though I forget a lot of Origins.

[MisterJB]

It seems to me Redux; and forgive me if I misunderstand you; that the both of us just have very different ways of viewing the world. You believe "Blood of Warning" is about being "better safe than sorry", I think they do practice blood magic and just want some sap to warn them.
You think that with the right upbringing, mages can be trusted to their own devices. I think that if you give someone power, they will abuse the hell out of it.

[TEWR]

MisterJB wrote...

It seems to me Redux; and forgive me if I misunderstand you; that the both of us just have very different ways of viewing the world. You believe "Blood of Warning" is about being "better safe than sorry", I think they do practice blood magic and just want some sap to warn them.

The Journal entry actually states that the relatives were warned, so you are warning relatives and not blood mages.

You think that with the right upbringing, mages can be trusted to their own devices. I think that if you give someone power, they will abuse the hell out of it.

I wouldn't say that I'd trust them to their own devices, if you mean that they and only they could watch themselves. That'd be a slippery slope back to Tevinter, more then likely if they had no oversight or restrictions at all. Working together between the Mages and the Templars is what I believe in, to sum it up -- as I'd have to go into a long rant on what I'd do, which I've done many times before.

Even the Dalish, the Avvar, the Chasind, and the Rivaini don't leave the Mages with no control over them. The Mages aren't in complete control -- indeed, the Keepers have very limited authority in the clan. A hahren's word more often then not supercedes what a Keeper wishes, as I recall being mentioned somewhere on the forums.

The Mages are free, but not in complete control of everything where it's just a "Let's hope for the best" scenario.

[TEWR]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ah, yes, you make much better arguments then I do when I'm really too tired to do so. Though I forget a lot of Origins.

Recently on my latest Dwarf Noble run, I've been reading the entries of the Collective quests very carefully. I've also constantly been reading the updated journal entries on said quests.

So a lot of what I remember comes from that. Some of it also comes from previous discussions I remember having on here.

[Dave of Canada]

I'd like to imagine the Collective quests as being 50/50. Some of the accusations prove true and some prove false, you just can't tell which ones.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]MisterJB wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Yet this is precisely what the Chantry does with word and deed.  Support Lynch mobs against mages.  The Reverend Mother of Redcliff even admits this to a mage (human) warden.
[/quote]
I'm sure they preech magic is dangerous but I seriously doubt any Revered Mother actually says "Kill mage children."
If they do, it's something that needs to change.
[/quote]

Play a human mage in DAO and the Revered Mother will admit that the Chantry has in fact played a role in presecuting mages. She doesn't say "kill mage children" but does admit it nonetheless...and yes that has to change but the Chantry has shown no desire or inclination to do so.


[quote]
[quote]

The Chantry was very much on the side of the Orlesian occupiers per Stolen Throne and most Fereldans have not forgotten it. 
[/quote]
I can't speak for the Chantry in Orlais but what the Grand Cleric of Denerim says to Maric is that he should submit because too may fereldens had died due to the civil war.
I won't fault a woman for attempting to save the lives of her people. Even if she supported a tyrant.
[/quote]

Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.  The Orlesian occupation was brutal.  When Logain talked about the Chevaliers flattening fields and raping wives, he was speaking the literal truth, and the Chantry supported this all down the line.  Don't pretend the Chantry wasn't a tool of the Orlesian occupation.  It most definately was in Stolen Throne.  The usurper king finally went over the line that even the chantry would tolerate, but Maric and Loghain very nearly banned the Chantry for good reason.  Also the Chantry as an institution (rather than a religion) is looked at most negatively of all the Andrastian nations for exactly this reason. It's one thing that is giving the kIng (or queen) of Fereldan the political lattitude to be as openly pro-mage as they are.

[quote]
[quote]
And you think that they and their pet Inquisitors (that was the original name of the Templars btw) deserve total control over mages to treat them as subhuman why?[/quote]

I have often said mages deserve more freedoms than they have. Certainly much more than they had in Kirkwall.
What I oppose is the idea that we should let people who have so clear and gigantic natural advantages to the common men police themselves.
Mages and templars should work together to protect mundanes from mages, mages from mundanes and everyone from demon.
[/quote]

Others can tell you that I have long advoced a JOINT order of knighthood run and policed by the crown that would have templar-like warriors and mages alike that did nothing but police magic and enforce magical education.  You are once more committing (what seems to be a common with templar supporters) a false dichotomy.  I am NOT saying that magic should be totally unregulated or that mages should be permitted to do as they like with magic.  I AM saying that mages should be an intrinsic part of society and have a voice in that regulation....or at the very least be treated as the human beings they are rather than monsters to be feared and hated.

[quote]
[quote]
That's nice, but the Chantry has proven over and over again that they not only are unable but UNWILLING to watch the Templars.  Indeed the Seekers seem to be even more anti-magic and anti-mage (and inhuman) than the Templars themselves (see Lambert) 
[/quote]
Lambert? One person makes the Seekers anti-magic? Cassandra's mentor and the High Seeker from "Dawn of the Seeker" were both reasonable men with friends inside the Circle.
Do you remember how Lambert became anti-mage? Because he witnessed the Magisters take back power in Tevinter.
[/quote]

Lambert is the latest in a longstanding pattern of openly anti-mage Chantry practices.  Look at DA2.  Who needed to compromise? Orisino if you believed the Grand Cleric.   Who was the real source of the problem?  Meredith.  Meredith shouldn't have been in charge of a girl scout troop let alone Knight Commander and her actions prove it.  It's just one of a long litany of example of how the Chantry doesn't care about mages and outright hates mages (or seems to) except when that magic is actually needed or useful to the Chantry.

[quote]
[quote]This isn't about equality. It's about treating human beings AS human beings and not some exotic animal to be caged and feared....because shocker...if you treat anyone like an animal, many will indeed act like animals...and when such a person has great intrinsic power, the result is....unfortunate.

In short almost all the problems the Chantry lies at the feet of magic and mages are self-inflicted....by the Chantry and the Inquisitors...I mean Templars.[/quote]
It is about equality. Do not act as if the mages are somehow a morally superior group that would never opress anyone. They are human and prone to the same abuses of power as any other.
[/quote]

You need to stop putting words in my mouth.  I have never said that all mages are morally superior.  What I am saying is that the Templars and Chantry have proven that they are incapable of handling magical regulation in a human way, and as such that power needs to be taken away from the Chantry...by force if necessary.

[quote]
Unfortunately, mages have the power to imolate people with their minds. How can the mundanes expect to be treated as equals if there is no system to prevent the rise of another Tevinter?
[/quote]

And the Chantry for mages is SO much better?  Is Orlais that treats it's elves like slaves so much better?  You have too much Tevinter on the mind.  Given that the potential for abuse exists, there needs to be groups that act as checks on that, and the best way to check a criminal mage is with an honest bonded mage along with specialized anti-magic fighters (using many of the Templar techniques).  There is no way one can prevent a mage from being a criminal any more than you can prevent a mundane from being a criminal.  You CAN set up a system that polices and holds those that to accountable, however.

The Chantry, however, isn't interested in that.  They care only about controlling magic for their own end.

[quote]
[quote]
Actually per capita the Dalish and apparently Avvars seem to have many more mages than Andrastian societies do.  In the case of the Dalish, lore states that all elves were once mages which does a lot to change one's perspective (and makes it harder to fear monger).  Just because you FEAR something does not give you the right to select a group that's done nothing to you and declare them to be sub-human.  Instead, deal with the fear and mitigate the real issues of magic in a human but just manner.[/quote]
Yes, I'm sure the elves would like to think they were all once immortal too. It is as doubtful as the existence of the Maker.

Do you have a proposition on how to mitigate what you view as the real issues of magic?
[/quote]

I have posted at length about very real and achievable ways given enough time and goodwill police magic like it has to be policed while allowing mages to be treated as human beings.  It's actually not that hard.

[quote]
[quote]
Indeed, they promote it by the Admission of the Revered Mother of Redcliff.  Why?  The Codex Entry "History of the Circle" tells us why.  Power.  The Chantry wants total control of all magic and any magic they don't control they want wiped out.  Safety has bupkis to do with it.  That's just convenient pap for the idiots in the pews.[/quote]
It may be so they want a monopoly but remember how a group of mages took over the Grand Cathedral because they felt their talents were being wasted? Or how only seven mages were sent to Ostagar?
[/quote]

Only seven mages were sent when BOTH the Crown and Grey Wardens wanted at least one if not two mages in every unit.  Why?  Because the darkspawn have about that many mages (emissaries) and it's a disaster waiting to happen if the darkspawn have more magic.  Why did the Chantry refuse?  FEAR that mages might decide they don't want to be controlled.

It all comes down to control over magic.  If the Chantry can't control magic, they want it destroyed.  That has been the persistant pattern for almost a thousand years.

[quote]
The Chantry doesn't actually abuse it's control over magic. Thet prohibition is well enforced, there are no secret blood mages serving the Divine.
So, I think you are wrong. I think it truly is more about fear and safety than anything else.
[/quote]

Phylacteries are bloodmagic.  Adralla was a bloodmage.  The Chantry abuses it's control over magic all the time.

[quote]
[quote]
The Dalish tell a somewhat different tale.  In any event, the Dalish were given their lands by Andraste herself.  That is a little factoid the Chantry would like you to forget, and since it was their lands, they have every right to do with foreigners and missionaries as they saw fit including execution.  Orlais proved (per the Dalish) that they wouldn't be good neighors and wouldn't leave them be (a PoV supported by other Orlesian actions) and so decided to get rid of the problem...and would have too had the chantry not intervened to save Orlais (and I doubt they would have so intervened with any other nation).

I also find it "interesting" that the Chantry rewrote the Chant of Light to justify the Exalted March ex-post facto.
[/quote]

It's true that there are always two sides to a war but I find it interesting how you give the Chantry hell for imprisioning people because they might be dangerous but now you are defending the right of the elves to destroy Orlais because the nation might not respect borders.
[/quote]

Orlais is getting judged by it's ACTIONS just as any criminal should be.  Orlais is a criminal nation that takes over other nations at the slightest pretext.  Quite honestly Orlais was getting nothing less than it deserved.

[quote]
[quote]
Mages should be held accountable for their power like anyone else.  That does NOT mean being punished and imprisoned (or worse) just for being a mage.  The same arguments used against mages were used by the US Govt agains the Japanese-Americans during WWII.  I know that DG hates that comparison, but it's accurate and apt (including the danger aspect since SOME Japanese-Americans living in Hawaii really were Japanese spies and really did do a lot of damage at least in terms of intelligence).  It was wrong in WWII to slander all Japanese-Americans for their ethnicity and imprison them.  It is wrong today, and it is wrong in Fereldan.  Fear doesn't make a wrong action into a right one.
[/quote]
Who said anything about it being right? It is necessary. Mages and mundanes are not born equal so, equality between them is almost impossible. If there is to be lasting peace, both sides must be willing to make concessions.
[/quote]

It is NOT necesary.  Many societies both currently and historically functioned just fine without locking away mages.  Tevinter was an evil nation and it's mages acted accordingly but not all nations and cultures are Tevinter.  You seem to think that mages are the only ones that need to make concessions.

[quote]
But just like mages shouldn't be expected to give up their children at birth to the Chantry, mundanes can't be expected to not be fearful of living next door to someone who can slit his wrists, force you to kill your family and no one will ever know.[/quote]

They shouldn't fear a mage for being a mage.  They should respect the power of a magic for what it can do.  How do you not fear it?  Make those that abuse magic accountable while treating all people as people.  We don't fear a gun that a neighbor has in his house (at least I don't) as long as I am reasonable sure that neighbor is a safe and sane person.  Same with magic.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

The Baroness is actually a good example of how dangerous a mage in positions of power can be. A mundane baroness could opress the people but when they went to burn her mansion, all she could do was send soldiers.
This magical Baroness, however, imprisioned the souls of her subjects in the Fade for dozens of years.

You do realize that the Baroness was modeled off a REAL and very mundane person and that crimes had to be toned down to make it suitable for even a rated M game?  In short, it's not nearly as good an example as you think.

-Polaris

[Chun Hei]

Strange thing is that I role play. Some of my Hawkes hate mages or at least side with the Templars as the lesser of two evils. Most of my Hawkes side with the mages though even one who romanced Fenris.

[MisterJB]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Play a human mage in DAO and the Revered Mother will admit that the Chantry has in fact played a role in presecuting mages. She doesn't say "kill mage children" but does admit it nonetheless...and yes that has to change but the Chantry has shown no desire or inclination to do so.[/quote]
I believe you but could you write exactly what she says? Because I don't have any save with a mage.
Divine Justinia seems to be looking towards creating some changes within the Chantry. Give her some time.

[quote]
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.[/quote]
Some would disagree. Their opinions are valid.


[quote]The Orlesian occupation was brutal.  When Logain talked about the Chevaliers flattening fields and raping wives, he was speaking the literal truth, and the Chantry supported this all down the line.  Don't pretend the Chantry wasn't a tool of the Orlesian occupation.  It most definately was in Stolen Throne.  The usurper king finally went over the line that even the chantry would tolerate, but Maric and Loghain very nearly banned the Chantry for good reason.  Also the Chantry as an institution (rather than a religion) is looked at most negatively of all the Andrastian nations for exactly this reason. It's one thing that is giving the kIng (or queen) of Fereldan the political lattitude to be as openly pro-mage as they are.[/quote]
The Chantry is not solely Ferelden. The Grand Cleric of Denerim supported the side she believed would bring less suffering to the people, she repeteadelly attempted to advise Meghren on how make peace in Ferelden.
I don't agree with what she did but I won't blame her for it. I also do not recall the Cleric ever mentioning the Divine ordering her to support the Orlesian occupation.

[quote]
Others can tell you that I have long advoced a JOINT order of knighthood run and policed by the crown that would have templar-like warriors and mages alike that did nothing but police magic and enforce magical education.  You are once more committing (what seems to be a common with templar supporters) a false dichotomy.  I am NOT saying that magic should be totally unregulated or that mages should be permitted to do as they like with magic.  I AM saying that mages should be an intrinsic part of society and have a voice in that regulation....or at the very least be treated as the human beings they are rather than monsters to be feared and hated.[/quote]
You used the same dichotomy when you claimed I believed templars should have complete control over a mage's lives.
We can have a respectful and pleasant debate or we can continue acting as if our opinions offend each other. Personally, I would prefer the former.

Ironically, I agre with you that the templars and mages should form a join order to deal solely with magic, its dangers and uses. I do, however, disagree that it should be run by the crown.
From there to templars and mages fighting to subdue other nations is a small step. It could be an independent organization like the Grey Wardens.

[quote]
Lambert is the latest in a longstanding pattern of openly anti-mage Chantry practices.  Look at DA2.  Who needed to compromise? Orisino if you believed the Grand Cleric.   Who was the real source of the problem?  Meredith.  Meredith shouldn't have been in charge of a girl scout troop let alone Knight Commander and her actions prove it.  It's just one of a long litany of example of how the Chantry doesn't care about mages and outright hates mages (or seems to) except when that magic is actually needed or useful to the Chantry.[/quote]
You pointed Lambert as evidence of how the Seekers are more anti-magic than any other part of the Chantry which is not true. Cassandra, Byron and the High Seeker murdered by a templar are(were) all reasonable Seekers who treat(ed) mages with dignity and respect.
The Chantry IS anti-magic but that doesn't mean all within it are. I've see no evidence of the Seekers being more or less.

[quote]
You need to stop putting words in my mouth.  I have never said that all mages are morally superior.  What I am saying is that the Templars and Chantry have proven that they are incapable of handling magical regulation in a human way, and as such that power needs to be taken away from the Chantry...by force if necessary.[/quote]
You acused the Chantry of causing the problems it combats and while that might be partially true, it is an exageration.
You need only to look at Tevinter to see that some mages will take any opportunity to use blood magic to gain power. People like Uldred might claim they do it in the name of freedom but don't believe them.
That is not to say that desperation doesn't, sometimes, drive mages to use blood magic but the issues the templars exist to fight are very real.

[quote]
Only seven mages were sent when BOTH the Crown and Grey Wardens wanted at least one if not two mages in every unit.  Why?  Because the darkspawn have about that many mages (emissaries) and it's a disaster waiting to happen if the darkspawn have more magic.  Why did the Chantry refuse?  FEAR that mages might decide they don't want to be controlled.

It all comes down to control over magic.  If the Chantry can't control magic, they want it destroyed.  That has been the persistant pattern for almost a thousand years.

[/quote]
FEAR. Yes, that is the core of it. It's all about fear. It's not about the Chantry hating mages or believing they are sub-human like some nobles think of elves.
It's all about fear. The Chantry is terrified of mages and they want to see them controlled so they can't hurt them. This fear has lead to much pain and suffering for mages and mundanes alike but it is not, at it's core, wicked.
If the Chantry was as cruel as you say, they would just follow the example of the Qunari but they don't.


[quote]Phylacteries are bloodmagic. Adralla was a bloodmage. The Chantry abuses it's control over magic all the time.[/quote]
Does it? A little blood in a jar, a few words in a page to dissipate mind control. That is hardly abuse.
Unlike Tevinter, the Chantry actually enforces its prohibitions. Blood magic is not taught in the Circles, it is not used in Secret by the Divine, no peasants are fed to mages to fuel their powers and help destroy Tevinter.
The Chantry is genuinelly afraid of magic.

[quote]
Orlais is getting judged by it's ACTIONS just as any criminal should be.  Orlais is a criminal nation that takes over other nations at the slightest pretext.  Quite honestly Orlais was getting nothing less than it deserved.[/quote]
I'm sure the people of Red Crossing were very involved in all wars waged by Orlais.
Yes, Orlais is an expansionist nation so but does that justify a preemptive war against them? Mages should not be judged by the actions of the Magisters but Orlais must be judged by the policies of its previous emperors? They were not even involved in the Fall of Arlathan, Andraste helped free the elves and they attacked her people?

[quote]
It is NOT necesary.  Many societies both currently and historically functioned just fine without locking away mages.  Tevinter was an evil nation and it's mages acted accordingly but not all nations and cultures are Tevinter.  You seem to think that mages are the only ones that need to make concessions.[/quote]
I think that if you give power to someone, he is likely to abuse it, regardless of culture or upbringing. That goes for both mages and mundanes.
A common mage is just much more powerful than a common mundane.

[quote]
They shouldn't fear a mage for being a mage.  They should respect the power of a magic for what it can do.  How do you not fear it?  Make those that abuse magic accountable while treating all people as people.  We don't fear a gun that a neighbor has in his house (at least I don't) as long as I am reasonable sure that neighbor is a safe and sane person.  Same with magic.

-Polaris[/quote]
Of course they will fear mages. Now and forever. This isn't a simple gun we are talking about, this is the power to incinerate your house with a tought, immobilize you if you try anything against him, mind control.
And even the noblest of mages can fall victim to temptation. Avelina was a good, kind woman who presented herself to Circle in exchange for someone to look after her children. The templars refused; and yes, they shouldn't have; and she was possessed out of Rage of seeing her children starve and Desire to give them a better life.

I think mages should have more rights like parental and conjugal visits, recreational visits to cities, marriage and procreation.
But I draw the line at them living amongst mundanes. It places that mage too close to potential victims and slows down any Templar response.

Modifié par MisterJB, 12 juillet 2012 - 11:38 .

[MisterJB]

IanPolaris wrote...
You do realize that the Baroness was modeled off a REAL and very mundane person and that crimes had to be toned down to make it suitable for even a rated M game?  In short, it's not nearly as good an example as you think.

-Polaris

Elizabeth Bathory, yes. A monstruous woman.
That still doesn't counter my point. Had the Baroness not been a mage, she wouldn't have been able to trap the souls of her subjects in the Fade when they rebelled.

[Xilizhra]

Divine Justinia seems to be looking towards creating some changes within the Chantry. Give her some time.

There is no time. Perhaps she was just unlucky enough to be born in the wrong era, but she's much too little, much too late. Although I have to wonder what she was doing in the seven years of DA2, ending in her plan to crush Kirkwall if the mages there achieved independence... not exactly the most reformist attitude possible, there.

You acused the Chantry of causing the problems it combats and while that might be partially true, it is an exageration.
You need only to look at Tevinter to see that some mages will take any opportunity to use blood magic to gain power. People like Uldred might claim they do it in the name of freedom but don't believe them.
That is not to say that desperation doesn't, sometimes, drive mages to use blood magic but the issues the templars exist to fight are very real.

There's no proof, if I recall correctly, that Uldred did anything wrong aside from erring in tearing the Fade too much, allowing him to be possessed by a pride demon who was responsible for all the actual evil going on in Broken Circle. Also, the conflict in DA2 was solely desperation-fueled, and Uldred's Libertarian faction was also run by desperation. In fact, outside of Tevinter, most blood mages that we actually see seem to run on desperation/desire for freedom.

FEAR. Yes, that is the core of it. It's all about fear. It's not about the Chantry hating mages or believing they are sub-human like some nobles think of elves.
It's all about fear. The Chantry is terrified of mages and they want to see them controlled so they can't hurt them. This fear has lead to much pain and suffering for mages and mundanes alike but it is not, at it's core, wicked.
If the Chantry was as cruel as you say, they would just follow the example of the Qunari but they don't.

Tranquility. They frequently do follow the example of the qunari, but their culture recognizes the use of mages too much to crush them completely. And many Chantry supporters do indeed consider mages foul, lowly and cursed, and not just objects of fear. All bigotry is wicked and this is no exception.

Does it? A little blood in a jar, a few words in a page to dissipate mind control. That is hardly abuse.
Unlike Tevinter, the Chantry actually enforces its prohibitions. Blood magic is not taught in the Circles, it is not used in Secret by the Divine, no peasants are fed to mages to fuel their powers and help destroy Tevinter.
The Chantry is genuinelly afraid of magic.

A fear that has led to hatred. But yes, the Chantry does suppress anything that might allow it to lose power, blood magic being the most prominent.

I'm sure the people of Red Crossing were very involved in all wars waged by Orlais.
Yes, Orlais is an expansionist nation so but does that justify a preemptive war against them? Mages should not be judged by the actions of the Magisters but Orlais must be judged by the policies of its previous emperors? They were not even involved in the Fall of Arlathan, Andraste helped free the elves and they attacked her people?

The government of Orlais needs to fall, which would be better accomplished by a coup, but I don't think the elves were capable of doing such at the time. Defeating Orlais right then could have saved a lot of grief later on.

Of course they will fear mages. Now and forever. This isn't a simple gun we are talking about, this is the power to incinerate your house with a tought, immobilize you if you try anything against him, mind control.
And even the noblest of mages can fall victim to temptation. Avelina was a good, kind woman who presented herself to Circle in exchange for someone to look after her children. The templars refused; and yes, they shouldn't have; and she was possessed out of Rage of seeing her children starve and Desire to give them a better life.

Also because Kirkwall has a terrible Veil and having a Circle there to begin with was a terrible idea. So yes, the Chantry bears the brunt of the responsibility for that, along with the vast majority of the rest of the demon-based goings-on.

Elizabeth Bathory, yes. A monstruous woman.

A monstrous legend, at any rate, but I think a lot of the stuff about her, like with Dracula, was written by her enemies. So it should be looked at skeptically.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 13 juillet 2012 - 12:01 .

[IanPolaris]

[quote]MisterJB wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Play a human mage in DAO and the Revered Mother will admit that the Chantry has in fact played a role in presecuting mages. She doesn't say "kill mage children" but does admit it nonetheless...and yes that has to change but the Chantry has shown no desire or inclination to do so.[/quote]
I believe you but could you write exactly what she says? Because I don't have any save with a mage.
Divine Justinia seems to be looking towards creating some changes within the Chantry. Give her some time.
[/quote]

I don't have a human mage game saved up, but it is in there.  (If you play an elven mage, you get the elven response instead.)  Perhaps someone else has those lines readily available?

[quote]
[quote]
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.[/quote]
Some would disagree. Their opinions are valid.
[/quote]

Some would, but most would not.  The impetetous to die on one's feet rather than live on one's knees is as old as humanity itself.


[quote]


[quote]The Orlesian occupation was brutal.  When Logain talked about the Chevaliers flattening fields and raping wives, he was speaking the literal truth, and the Chantry supported this all down the line.  Don't pretend the Chantry wasn't a tool of the Orlesian occupation.  It most definately was in Stolen Throne.  The usurper king finally went over the line that even the chantry would tolerate, but Maric and Loghain very nearly banned the Chantry for good reason.  Also the Chantry as an institution (rather than a religion) is looked at most negatively of all the Andrastian nations for exactly this reason. It's one thing that is giving the kIng (or queen) of Fereldan the political lattitude to be as openly pro-mage as they are.[/quote]
The Chantry is not solely Ferelden. The Grand Cleric of Denerim supported the side she believed would bring less suffering to the people, she repeteadelly attempted to advise Meghren on how make peace in Ferelden.
I don't agree with what she did but I won't blame her for it. I also do not recall the Cleric ever mentioning the Divine ordering her to support the Orlesian occupation.
[/quote]

The Chantry backed Orlais.  If you look at the past thousand years, the Chantry has ALWAYS backed Orlais.  It might have something to do with the Grand Cathedral being in Val Royaleux, no?  Ask a Nevarran how "impartial" the Chantry really is let alone a Fereldan that remembers the occupation.

The chantry was a tool used by the Orelesian occupiers. Bottom line.  King Maric and Gen Logain seriously considered banning the Chantry for very good reason.

[quote]
[quote]
Others can tell you that I have long advoced a JOINT order of knighthood run and policed by the crown that would have templar-like warriors and mages alike that did nothing but police magic and enforce magical education.  You are once more committing (what seems to be a common with templar supporters) a false dichotomy.  I am NOT saying that magic should be totally unregulated or that mages should be permitted to do as they like with magic.  I AM saying that mages should be an intrinsic part of society and have a voice in that regulation....or at the very least be treated as the human beings they are rather than monsters to be feared and hated.[/quote]
You used the same dichotomy when you claimed I believed templars should have complete control over a mage's lives.
We can have a respectful and pleasant debate or we can continue acting as if our opinions offend each other. Personally, I would prefer the former.
[/quote]

I have not.  I oppose the Chantry having any control over mages given their theology.  That is not the same as saying that magic should be unregulated and uncontrolled.  Do you even know what a false dichotomy is?

[quote]
Ironically, I agre with you that the templars and mages should form a join order to deal solely with magic, its dangers and uses. I do, however, disagree that it should be run by the crown.
From there to templars and mages fighting to subdue other nations is a small step. It could be an independent organization like the Grey Wardens.
[/quote]

Such an organization needs to be accountable to someone, and the best option seems to be the crown if only because there are many heads of state.  Putting all magic regulation into a super-national super-order is just asking for trouble.

[quote]
[quote]
Lambert is the latest in a longstanding pattern of openly anti-mage Chantry practices.  Look at DA2.  Who needed to compromise? Orisino if you believed the Grand Cleric.   Who was the real source of the problem?  Meredith.  Meredith shouldn't have been in charge of a girl scout troop let alone Knight Commander and her actions prove it.  It's just one of a long litany of example of how the Chantry doesn't care about mages and outright hates mages (or seems to) except when that magic is actually needed or useful to the Chantry.[/quote]
You pointed Lambert as evidence of how the Seekers are more anti-magic than any other part of the Chantry which is not true. Cassandra, Byron and the High Seeker murdered by a templar are(were) all reasonable Seekers who treat(ed) mages with dignity and respect.
[/quote]

They are persistantly small minorities though.  The chantry as a whole is what it is. Don't pretend otherwise.  Meredith was actually (pre Red Lyrium) far close to "mainstream" chantry thinking than Gregoire ever was just to name one example.  The point is that the reasonable people are NOT the ones in control, and a thousand years is proof enough that nothing is going to change in the Chantry on it's own.
 
[quote]
The Chantry IS anti-magic but that doesn't mean all within it are. I've see no evidence of the Seekers being more or less.
[/quote]

Read the Codex entry on Seekers.  They started as and are "super-inquisitors" and are rigidly anti-magic.

[quote]
[quote]
You need to stop putting words in my mouth.  I have never said that all mages are morally superior.  What I am saying is that the Templars and Chantry have proven that they are incapable of handling magical regulation in a human way, and as such that power needs to be taken away from the Chantry...by force if necessary.[/quote]
You acused the Chantry of causing the problems it combats and while that might be partially true, it is an exageration.
[/quote]

I wish it were, but it's the hard truth.  What caused Conner?  Fear inspired by the Chantry that made a mother put her own son in danger rather than letting him get the education he needed.  Uldred?  The Chantry caused that too if only because it gave Uldred a cause in which to rally his followers about.  Meredith/Orsino/Anders?  Again, had the Grand Cleric got off her lazy backside and did her job, it never would have happened.  Shall I go on?  Pretty much EVERY example we are given of a blow up is either directly or nearly directly connected to abuses by the Chantry and/or failure of the Chantry to have oversight over it's own Templars.

[quote]
You need only to look at Tevinter to see that some mages will take any opportunity to use blood magic to gain power. People like Uldred might claim they do it in the name of freedom but don't believe them.
That is not to say that desperation doesn't, sometimes, drive mages to use blood magic but the issues the templars exist to fight are very real.
[/quote]

Again, you have too much Tevinter on the brain.  Blood magic CAN be controlled and it CAN be combated (see Adralla).  However, the best way to do that is to have bonded and trusted bloodmages of your own (and yes Adralla was a bloodmage).

[quote]
[quote]
Only seven mages were sent when BOTH the Crown and Grey Wardens wanted at least one if not two mages in every unit.  Why?  Because the darkspawn have about that many mages (emissaries) and it's a disaster waiting to happen if the darkspawn have more magic.  Why did the Chantry refuse?  FEAR that mages might decide they don't want to be controlled.

It all comes down to control over magic.  If the Chantry can't control magic, they want it destroyed.  That has been the persistant pattern for almost a thousand years.

[/quote]
FEAR. Yes, that is the core of it. It's all about fear. It's not about the Chantry hating mages or believing they are sub-human like some nobles think of elves.
[/quote]

Cullen:  "Mages aren't people, they are weapons"  That attitude is typical in the Chantry I am sorry to say.

[quote]
It's all about fear. The Chantry is terrified of mages and they want to see them controlled so they can't hurt them. This fear has lead to much pain and suffering for mages and mundanes alike but it is not, at it's core, wicked.
If the Chantry was as cruel as you say, they would just follow the example of the Qunari but they don't.
[/quote]

Fear breeds wickedness and Fear allows wickedness and wicked men (like Alrik) to predate unchallenged.

[quote]


[quote]Phylacteries are bloodmagic. Adralla was a bloodmage. The Chantry abuses it's control over magic all the time.[/quote]
Does it? A little blood in a jar, a few words in a page to dissipate mind control. That is hardly abuse.
Unlike Tevinter, the Chantry actually enforces its prohibitions. Blood magic is not taught in the Circles, it is not used in Secret by the Divine, no peasants are fed to mages to fuel their powers and help destroy Tevinter.
The Chantry is genuinelly afraid of magic.
[/quote]

ORLY?  The Chantry enforces it's own regulations?  Kirkwall and the Champion of Kirkwall would like to have a word with you......


[quote]
[quote]
Orlais is getting judged by it's ACTIONS just as any criminal should be.  Orlais is a criminal nation that takes over other nations at the slightest pretext.  Quite honestly Orlais was getting nothing less than it deserved.[/quote]
I'm sure the people of Red Crossing were very involved in all wars waged by Orlais.
Yes, Orlais is an expansionist nation so but does that justify a preemptive war against them? Mages should not be judged by the actions of the Magisters but Orlais must be judged by the policies of its previous emperors? They were not even involved in the Fall of Arlathan, Andraste helped free the elves and they attacked her people?
[/quote]

Yes it does and that's assuming the Dalish even started the war which is by no means a given.  Basically I would say that Orelesian bad behavior pretty much justified whatever bad happened to them.

[quote]
[quote]
It is NOT necesary.  Many societies both currently and historically functioned just fine without locking away mages.  Tevinter was an evil nation and it's mages acted accordingly but not all nations and cultures are Tevinter.  You seem to think that mages are the only ones that need to make concessions.[/quote]
I think that if you give power to someone, he is likely to abuse it, regardless of culture or upbringing. That goes for both mages and mundanes.
A common mage is just much more powerful than a common mundane.
[/quote]

So common mages get to be locked away without cause?  Not buying it.  Not all people (even mundanes) are equal either.  Does that mean we lock away the most capable because they 'might' abuse their talents?

[quote]
[quote]
They shouldn't fear a mage for being a mage.  They should respect the power of a magic for what it can do.  How do you not fear it?  Make those that abuse magic accountable while treating all people as people.  We don't fear a gun that a neighbor has in his house (at least I don't) as long as I am reasonable sure that neighbor is a safe and sane person.  Same with magic.

-Polaris[/quote]
Of course they will fear mages. Now and forever. This isn't a simple gun we are talking about, this is the power to incinerate your house with a tought, immobilize you if you try anything against him, mind control.
And even the noblest of mages can fall victim to temptation. Avelina was a good, kind woman who presented herself to Circle in exchange for someone to look after her children. The templars refused; and yes, they shouldn't have; and she was possessed out of Rage of seeing her children starve and Desire to give them a better life.
[/quote]

Actually it's a very apt comparison.  Anyone with a weapon can use it against their neighbors.  If people started hating and fearing their neighbors, you'd have anarchy....no magic required.  A person shooting you with a gun is just as deadly as a mage hitting you with a fireball.  Also that example you gave is in Kirkwall which is a magical toxic waste dump and that makes it invalid as a general case.

[quote]
I think mages should have more rights like parental and conjugal visits, recreational visits to cities, marriage and procreation.
But I draw the line at them living amongst mundanes. It places that mage too close to potential victims and slows down any Templar response.
[/quote]

Mages have lived alongside mundanes for almost all the history of Thedas with no apparent ill effects.  Even for a full century or so after Andraste died, they did so.  The idea that it is somehow now impossible is simply illogical and unreasonable.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 13 juillet 2012 - 12:22 .

[Daerog]

I sense a KotOR 2 scenario coming up.

DLC for DA3, crazy mage wishing to turn the Veil into the Wall, completely cutting the Fade off from the mortal realm, or to destroy the Fade as it currently is... or... maybe turn everyone into a mage?

No matter what system is put in place, someone will mess it up. Mages completely free, have some wannabe magisters and abominations loose. Mages completely imprisoned or slain when discovered, just not nice.

It's not like a nation solely for mages can be made as it can be random. Can't end mages being born, unless you give every household a lyrium statue in the middle of the house and lyrium pendants that everyone will wear for some generations until they become like the dwarves. Could make every mage tranquil, but even that is controversial and problematic (haven't read Asunder yet, but read some about it).

Maybe if mages were allowed to roam free, a stronger phylactery could be made that can disable or kill the mage if things get out of hand, or just have more phylacteries handed out to local government... I'm not very supportive of the idea, just writing thoughts.

I like the cities/towns specifically for mages... but that can just be viewed as concentration camps. There would also need to be more templars (or trusted mages to help templars) to escort mages if they wish to travel to a "mundane" town. Mages can just be mayors in their own cities,

Still, it is just harder and harder to regulate mages, even Cullen says that people in general are not being as supportive to the templars. So, the town idea would be difficult, unless a faction of mages specifically trained in Spirit was set up, just be an internal affairs type thing. All of this is open to abuse of course.

As for Sylvius mentioning that either mages get wiped out or mages rule, the former is impossible unless people are okay with killing children every generation or cut everyone off from the Fade... so, lets all welcome our new overlords.

[Xilizhra]

Personally, I think it'd might work best if everyone became a mage. Maybe that can be the end of DA3?

[Dave of Canada]

Dragon Age 2 has plenty of hints that everyone used to be mages and those capabilities disappeared over time, Sandal hints that--if you've done the Dark Ritual--this time might return, which might be Flemeth's ultimate goal.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 juillet 2012 - 12:33 .

[Daerog]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...

[quote]
[quote]
Better to die on your feet than live on your knees.[/quote]
Some would disagree. Their opinions are valid.
[/quote]

Some would, but most would not.  The impetetous to die on one's feet rather than live on one's knees is as old as humanity itself.




-Polaris[/quote]
[/quote]

Seems like most people through history would rather live on their knees than die on their feet, otherwise I don't see how feudalism (nobles attacking own peasants or nearby lord's peasants) or empires (being conquered and subjugated) would work. It's a nice idea, to die rather than be, let's say "enslaved," but seems most people value life more than pride/honor/freedom.

Just a thought.

I hope they bring up good points on both sides in DA3, I wonder if the writers even bother looking at the whole mage vs. templar threads, there have been a lot since DA2 was released.

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...
There is no time.

No time? Is magic going somewhere that I don't know about?
The Circles worked just fine for 900 years and now because of an insane Knight Commander and a mage terrorist, everyone is talking about rebellion.

[Daerog]

I kind of hope they don't turn everyone mage, that would just make the world closer to happiness (I guess?), rather than "dark" fantasy.

Besides, what will people argue about on the forums? The dwarven caste system? Elf rights?

[Dave of Canada]

Wouldn't be close to happiness provided abominations are still an issue, I'd imagine world collapse as demons plague everyone equally and the rise of the Circle as becoming the prominent power as they'd need to teach commoners, nobility and even the monarchs themselves about magic at a cost.

Or they'd be bitter and leave the demons to their feast, they'd assume power as they'd be the only ones capable of controlling their magic.

Warfare would be much more disastrous, possibly leaving entire nations devastated.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 juillet 2012 - 12:58 .

[Xilizhra]

No time? Is magic going somewhere that I don't know about?
The Circles worked just fine for 900 years and now because of an insane Knight Commander and a mage terrorist, everyone is talking about rebellion.

It's never just about that. There have, so far as I can tell, been plenty of both over the past years. The Templar Order has never worked fine; it's inherently evil and corrupt, and the relationship between the mages and the Chantry has been grinding down all that time. True war was only a matter of time, and that time is now.

Wouldn't be close to happiness provided abominations are still an issue, I'd imagine world collapse as demons plague everyone equally and the rise of the Circle as becoming the prominent power as they'd need to teach commoners, nobility and even the monarchs themselves about magic at a cost.

Or the demonic issue could be solved somehow, with such a massive change taking place in the fabric of the world to begin with.

[Chun Hei]

What about meta-gaming vs. role-playing?

What if DA3 has you start out as a low level Orleasian citizen who has NO positive view of mages? Or the Chantry. All s/he would know since mages move in secret is that the Chantry treats them as dangerous or that s/he may have seen an apostate turn into an abomination. The player will remember the adventures of Hawke and the Warden but would that player expect Bioware to give the new hero the ability to pro-mage right off the bat even though the character would "realistically" not know about Flemeth or Meredith or Orsino except what some town crier may have been reporting?

And then you discover to your horror that your loved one is a mage.

I suppose that if the character is a mage we can see the the other side where s/he would have no "realistic" knowledge of good Chantry members since they have always been adversaries but I would rather role-play a mage character who just discovers that s/he is a mage and has to rectify that realization with what s/he was raised to believe.

In Hawke's family they have known about Bethany or mage Hawke for years so the player could "realistically" be pro-mage or resentful of magic right off the bat. But in my senario the hero (at first) may not have any pro-mage wheel options save perhaps express sympathy of a mage being roughed up "more than necessary."

Modifié par Chun Hei, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:28 .

[Daerog]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Wouldn't be close to happiness provided abominations are still an issue, I'd imagine world collapse as demons plague everyone equally and the rise of the Circle as becoming the prominent power as they'd need to teach commoners, nobility and even the monarchs themselves about magic at a cost.

Or they'd be bitter and leave the demons to their feast, they'd assume power as they'd be the only ones capable of controlling their magic.

Warfare would be much more disastrous, possibly leaving entire nations devastated.

Well, I would think with so much magic being done, the Veil may just tear, fusing the world with the Fade, and the world just becomes Wonderland. Demons, spirits, talking trees, and maybe Johnny Depp will be in there. See? Happiness.