673 réponses à ce sujet

[Chun Hei]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

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.

So that is where Willy Wonka's Chocolate Factory comes from. Oompa Loompas are from the Dark City.

[TEWR]

DaerogtheDhampir wrote...

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.

We're all mad here.

[LobselVith8]

MisterJB wrote...

The Circles worked fine for 900 years and now because of an insane Knight-Commander and a mage terrorist, everyone is talking about rebellion.

The Chantry controlled Circles have been fought against historically - Anders is not the first, and he won't be the last. Do you think mages like Aldenon who view the Chantry controlled Circles as slavery would say they worked fine? The numerous Rights of Annulment that killed countless people? The mages who were made tranquil, and lost their humanity for the rest of their lives? I don't think mages have sought their freedom for centuries against this oppressive system, and gave their lives to see their people free, would say that it "worked fine."

[IanPolaris]

[quote]DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

[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.[/quote]

If you want to say that most people are fundamenally cowards both morally and physically, I won't argue.  That is plainly true, but the drive of humanity to be 'free' is as old as humanity itself...just as the darker drive to subjegate all those that aren't like yourself (I mean in the general sense not directed to a specific person).  Just because most people cowards doesn't make cowardice a moral virtue.

As for how DA3 will end, I think that the writers have learned from DA2 and we will have three four options:

1.  All magic is destroyed along with all mages and anyone with blue eyes....but magic may come back.
2.  You talk with the maker and he allows you to sit on his throne in the new golden city and all being of magic are under your personal control.
3.  The Fade and the Mundane world are fused into one and all spirits, mages, and mundanes become essentially the same thing.

Or you could refuse and have all of Thedas be destroyed.

-Polaris

[Daerog]

The Rights of Annulment didn't kill countless people. I'm pretty sure the Templars and the College of Enchanters had a count.

While Aldenon may view it as bad, not all mages do.
If Heshir (part of the Collective) can just suddenly become an abomination without any Chantry or Templars involved, just experimentation with magic, then the Circles are necessary. They could use some changes here and there, yes, but the danger can't just be ignored, it needs to be regulated somehow.

[Xilizhra]

Regulated, yes. By the Chantry, no.

[Daerog]

IanPolaris wrote...

As for how DA3 will end, I think that the writers have learned from DA2 and we will have three four options:

1.  All magic is destroyed along with all mages and anyone with blue eyes....but magic may come back.
2.  You talk with the maker and he allows you to sit on his throne in the new golden city and all being of magic are under your personal control.
3.  The Fade and the Mundane world are fused into one and all spirits, mages, and mundanes become essentially the same thing.

Or you could refuse and have all of Thedas be destroyed.

-Polaris

[Xilizhra]

You know what's odd? That actually sounds better and more in keeping with the franchise than the ME3 endings.

[Daerog]

Xilizhra wrote...

Regulated, yes. By the Chantry, no.

Sure, but that begs the question of who else can?

They are the only internation organization with funding. Edit: Woops, forgot the Wardens... wait, how do they get money and resources?

If there is to be another to support the Circles, it won't get as much funding or resources, unless it is initially supported by the Chantry or a collection of nations. Or the Formari expand operations.

I guess I can see it happening, a third international organization with its own laws and governing that all other nations respect to a point. The Grey Wardens born from the First Blight, another faction can be born of this war as well. Just have to see how the leaders of different nations will react.

Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 13 juillet 2012 - 02:09 .

[dragonflight288]

Sure, but that begs the question of who else can?

They are the only internation organization with funding. Edit: Woops, forgot the Wardens... wait, how do they get money and resources?

If there is to be another to support the Circles, it won't get as much funding or resources, unless it is initially supported by the Chantry or a collection of nations. Or the Formari expand operations.

I guess I can see it happening, a third international organization with its own laws and governing that all other nations respect to a point. The Grey Wardens born from the First Blight, another faction can be born of this war as well. Just have to see how the leaders of different nations will react.

Isn't it obvious?

Flemeth can! It's not like she and morrigan had any problems with abominations running around and templars raping and tranquilizing mages (yes, I'm deliberately using the extremes of both sides here, and I know both extremes don't account for most or many)

[IanPolaris]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

The Rights of Annulment didn't kill countless people. I'm pretty sure the Templars and the College of Enchanters had a count.

While Aldenon may view it as bad, not all mages do.
If Heshir (part of the Collective) can just suddenly become an abomination without any Chantry or Templars involved, just experimentation with magic, then the Circles are necessary. They could use some changes here and there, yes, but the danger can't just be ignored, it needs to be regulated somehow.

A tanner can poison an entire village by mistake.  Does that mean we should lock away all Tanners?  The fact is that abominations tend to be RARE, far rarer than the Chantry wants to admit or have you believe, and we know that many other societies (in fact ALL societies up until less than 1000 years ago) did just fine with mages living next to non-mages.  The evidence suggests that circles are NOT necessary and only the chantry apologists think that the circles are necessary as they are.  Does that mean that magic should be unregulated?  No, but that is the false dichotomy that Templar supporters are using as a fear tactic.

There are many ways the danger could be contained without treating mages as non-people, but the chantry refuses to listen or even consider any alternative that doesn't leave them in total control.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

DaerogTheDhampir wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Regulated, yes. By the Chantry, no.

Sure, but that begs the question of who else can?

They are the only internation organization with funding. Edit: Woops, forgot the Wardens... wait, how do they get money and resources?

If there is to be another to support the Circles, it won't get as much funding or resources, unless it is initially supported by the Chantry or a collection of nations. Or the Formari expand operations.

I guess I can see it happening, a third international organization with its own laws and governing that all other nations respect to a point. The Grey Wardens born from the First Blight, another faction can be born of this war as well. Just have to see how the leaders of different nations will react.

The answer is obvious and one that Fereldan is already doing.  The CROWN (state) should regulate magic.  Mages should have a voice in that regulation, but ultimately such power and the ultimate of high justice should belong to the state and not any overspanning organization with it's own agenda.

-Polaris

[Daerog]

IanPolaris wrote...


The answer is obvious and one that Fereldan is already doing.  The CROWN (state) should regulate magic.  Mages should have a voice in that regulation, but ultimately such power and the ultimate of high justice should belong to the state and not any overspanning organization with it's own agenda.

-Polaris

That's probably what will end up happening. Some good and bad in that, though. The Chantry doesn't have as much conflict as nations do with each other, and even during Exalted Marches, mages are used sparingly. With the crown having control of mages, just seems like wars will end up being more devastating.

But, there are up sides to it. Just have to be careful to not have a full company of mages fight another full company of mages, may end up weakening the Veil in that area with so much death and magic, would make the place uninhabitable.

Abominations may happen more often in villages if mages are allowed to live in the villages, but could argue that it's no different from local nobles raiding rival's lands and terrorizing peasants.

Edit: Abominations still being rare, just more often as people can do stupid stuff, like being allowed to dabble in dangerous magic. Like an alchemist blowing up his labs, more alchemists and labs, more labs are likely to blow up than if there are fewer labs overall.

Modifié par DaerogTheDhampir, 13 juillet 2012 - 03:22 .

[dragonflight288]

That's probably what will end up happening. Some good and bad in that, though. The Chantry doesn't have as much conflict as nations do with each other, and even during Exalted Marches, mages are used sparingly. With the crown having control of mages, just seems like wars will end up being more devastating.

There are goods and bads for every system. Nothing created by man will ever be perfect. No system thought up by fans, no game made by developers, heck, even modern political systems can suck.

From what I can tell, most templar supporters and the Chantry in general oppose any kind of system change because of the cons of suggested systems. In the end, every system has problems, and the Chantry/templar order is perfectly fine with reform so long as they dictate what everything is and they maintain their divine rights over magic. Anything else must be heretical or stupid. (comment on in-game characters, not people on the forum....unless it applies to you. hahahaha)

[cactusberry]

My mage sides with the templars. Both are horrible and wrong, really. Most of it is because my mage is avidly anti-blood mage. Since most of the mages in kirkwall are involved in blood magic, including Orsino, and Meredith is one of the few truly psychotic and mean templars in Kirkwall, I think the templars are the lesser evil here.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
A tanner can poison an entire village by mistake.  Does that mean we should lock away all Tanners?

You mean by poisoning the well? Technicly, anyone can. Assuming the entire village gets is water from a single source...

The fact is that abominations tend to be RARE, far rarer than the Chantry wants to admit or have you believe, and we know that many other societies (in fact ALL societies up until less than 1000 years ago) did just fine with mages living next to non-mages.

Your definition of "just fine" is suspect. For you, as long as a nation/society survives it's "just fine".
The worst countries/nations in the world, stricken by poverty, famine, natural disasters and deseases are still here. According to you, everything is just fine.
So no.

The evidence suggests that circles are NOT necessary and only the chantry apologists think that the circles are necessary as they are.

The circels are necessary and only mage apologists think they aren't.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I'm gonna re-post this in this thread for refference:

Had a quick PM discussion with David.

According to him, templars do have rules and regulations and abuse of mages is NOT allowed.

"The Seekers provide oversight when the Templar hierarchy is insufficient. The Seekers are sort of the IA (Internal Affairs) of the Templars."

So the whole argument of "templars can do whatever they want and mages have no rights" is incorrect. Templars are no more free to abuse mages than police is to abuse suspects. Of couse, some will get away with it here and there (and in the case of templars, more often given the oversight limitations of the era).

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
A tanner can poison an entire village by mistake.  Does that mean we should lock away all Tanners?

You mean by poisoning the well? Technicly, anyone can. Assuming the entire village gets is water from a single source...

Actually that is pretty normal in a pre-industrial society so you are actually making my point for me.  Anyone can mass murder a village. It's not that hard actually.

The fact is that abominations tend to be RARE, far rarer than the Chantry wants to admit or have you believe, and we know that many other societies (in fact ALL societies up until less than 1000 years ago) did just fine with mages living next to non-mages.

Your definition of "just fine" is suspect. For you, as long as a nation/society survives it's "just fine".
The worst countries/nations in the world, stricken by poverty, famine, natural disasters and deseases are still here. According to you, everything is just fine.
So no.

For all it's vile nature, Tevinter functioned just fine without a circle.  Abominations didn't create continual strife without circles.  In ancient Arlathan all elvees were supposedly mages (or at the very least mages were exceedingly common).  Was that society strife ridden and awash with abominations?

No.

The point is that compared with past societies, the circles is in most respects a step BACKWARDS and no one has presented any objective and analyatic evidence that the circles actually reduce deaths/damage from abominations as compared with what happened before the circles.  If you are going to deny an entire group of human beings their basic civil rights, you should at least TRY to come up with some analystic and objective justification beyond, "Well of course circles are safer."

I challenge this.

The evidence suggests that circles are NOT necessary and only the chantry apologists think that the circles are necessary as they are.

The circels are necessary and only mage apologists think they aren't.

Evidence would be nice.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'm gonna re-post this in this thread for refference:

Had a quick PM discussion with David.

According to him, templars do have rules and regulations and abuse of mages is NOT allowed.

Regulations which aren't enforced may as well not exist.  Laws that aren't followed may as well not exist.   The chanty and the Templars in particular have persistantly refused to honor and follow their own laws which means those laws may as well not exist at all.

"The Seekers provide oversight when the Templar hierarchy is insufficient. The Seekers are sort of the IA (Internal Affairs) of the Templars."

Like in Kirkwall?  Sarcasm fully intended.  The Seekers are incompetant if what you claim is true. 

So the whole argument of "templars can do whatever they want and mages have no rights" is incorrect. Templars are no more free to abuse mages than police is to abuse suspects. Of couse, some will get away with it here and there (and in the case of templars, more often given the oversight limitations of the era).

It is perfectly correct.  The templars are under no pressure from the Chantry to actually follow their own laws (see Meredith and Alrik!) and the chantry offers absolutely NO accountability against the Templars that fail to follow the rules (again see Kirkwall along with other examples).  The Seekers are either incompetant or are really a whitewash designed to make others think the Templars are accountable when they in practice are not.

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
Actually that is pretty normal in a pre-industrial society so you are actually making my point for me.  Anyone can mass murder a village. It's not that hard actually.

And to say it's uncommon would be a understatement of hte centruy. For one, the poisoner needs to drink too. And he also needs a potent enough poison. And even then it's unliekly he would get the entire village.
Point is - you have no point.

Your definition of "just fine" is suspect. For you, as long as a nation/society survives it's "just fine".
The worst countries/nations in the world, stricken by poverty, famine, natural disasters and deseases are still here. According to you, everything is just fine.
So no.

For all it's vile nature, Tevinter functioned just fine without a circle.  Abominations didn't create continual strife without circles.  In ancient Arlathan all elvees were supposedly mages (or at the very least mages were exceedingly common).  Was that society strife ridden and awash with abominations?
No.

The point is that compared with past societies, the circles is in most respects a step BACKWARDS and no one has presented any objective and analyatic evidence that the circles actually reduce deaths/damage from abominations as compared with what happened before the circles.  If you are going to deny an entire group of human beings their basic civil rights, you should at least TRY to come up with some analystic and objective justification beyond, "Well of course circles are safer."

Again, your idea of "just fine" is without any merit. What proof you have for it? None.
Arlathan? We know nothing about it other than old legends. It's ZERO proof of anything. ZERO.

The circles are a step backwards? Yeah right... the only ones NOT using circles are backwards and primitive poeple, weak and underdeveloped. Hunter-gatherers roaming in small tribes.


Circles are safer because logic dictates so. With mages confined to a single location everyone is by definiton safer, because any trouble from the mages is contained and localized.
Try arguing against that.

Evidence would be nice.

Then provide some for your case.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'm gonna re-post this in this thread for refference:

Had a quick PM discussion with David.

According to him, templars do have rules and regulations and abuse of mages is NOT allowed.

Regulations which aren't enforced may as well not exist.  Laws that aren't followed may as well not exist.   The chanty and the Templars in particular have persistantly refused to honor and follow their own laws which means those laws may as well not exist at all.

Changing the goalpost now?
Weather you like it or not, regulations do exist and they are inforced.

The fact that abuse happens is expected, as no rules or no enforcement is absolute.

Replace tempalrs with any other force. Replace their regulations with any others. You will have just as many cases of broken regs.

"The Seekers provide oversight when the Templar hierarchy is insufficient. The Seekers are sort of the IA (Internal Affairs) of the Templars."

Like in Kirkwall?  Sarcasm fully intended.  The Seekers are incompetant if what you claim is true. 

I'm not claiming that. That is a direct quote from DG.

Kirkwall, as you said before, is a "special case".
Maybe the Seker in question was incompetent. So what? Does one incompetent official prove anything?
You consider internal investigations something simple and trivial? Especially in a middle-aged society?

So the whole argument of "templars can do whatever they want and mages have no rights" is incorrect. Templars are no more free to abuse mages than police is to abuse suspects. Of couse, some will get away with it here and there (and in the case of templars, more often given the oversight limitations of the era).

It is perfectly correct.  The templars are under no pressure from the Chantry to actually follow their own laws (see Meredith and Alrik!) and the chantry offers absolutely NO accountability against the Templars that fail to follow the rules (again see Kirkwall along with other examples).  The Seekers are either incompetant or are really a whitewash designed to make others think the Templars are accountable when they in practice are not.

You are wrong. But I know that arguing wiht you is pointless at this point.
Everything to you is proof of templar wrongoings.
Any anything mages do is an "anomaly" or "someonelse else is to blame"

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 13 juillet 2012 - 07:56 .

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Actually that is pretty normal in a pre-industrial society so you are actually making my point for me.  Anyone can mass murder a village. It's not that hard actually.

And to say it's uncommon would be a understatement of hte centruy. For one, the poisoner needs to drink too. And he also needs a potent enough poison. And even then it's unliekly he would get the entire village.
Point is - you have no point.

That is not true and ANY amount of research into preindustrial societies would prove it.  Invading soldiers poisoned wells and salted fields for a reason if they wanted to wipe out the population (see Romans vs Cathage).   As for potent enough poisons, a single body dumped in a village well could pretty much decimate a village and that's not trying too hard.  There is a reason why "poisoning the well" became such a well known phrase in english.

I very much have a point.  Mass death is easy for anyone.  You don't need to be a mage.

Your definition of "just fine" is suspect. For you, as long as a nation/society survives it's "just fine".
The worst countries/nations in the world, stricken by poverty, famine, natural disasters and deseases are still here. According to you, everything is just fine.
So no.

For all it's vile nature, Tevinter functioned just fine without a circle.  Abominations didn't create continual strife without circles.  In ancient Arlathan all elvees were supposedly mages (or at the very least mages were exceedingly common).  Was that society strife ridden and awash with abominations?
No.

The point is that compared with past societies, the circles is in most respects a step BACKWARDS and no one has presented any objective and analyatic evidence that the circles actually reduce deaths/damage from abominations as compared with what happened before the circles.  If you are going to deny an entire group of human beings their basic civil rights, you should at least TRY to come up with some analystic and objective justification beyond, "Well of course circles are safer."

Again, your idea of "just fine" is without any merit. What proof you have for it? None.
Arlathan? We know nothing about it other than old legends. It's ZERO proof of anything. ZERO.

We know that Arthathan and Tevtiner existed, were highly developed and functioning civilizations, and neither one of them needed to use a circle system.  That pretty much shoots down your assertion that circles are necessary right there.  In fact both Arlathan and Old Tevinter were in most respects MORE advanced than modern Thedas.

That's proof enough right there.

The circles are a step backwards? Yeah right... the only ones NOT using circles are backwards and primitive poeple, weak and underdeveloped. Hunter-gatherers roaming in small tribes.

Both Arlathan and the old Tevinter Empire would like to have a word with you.  In fact during the period of the circles, techology and civilization has actually backslid (especially medicine).

Circles are safer because logic dictates so. With mages confined to a single location everyone is by definiton safer, because any trouble from the mages is contained and localized.
Try arguing against that.

That's easy:

1.  Evidence would be nice.  Just because something might SEEM to be so doesn't make it so.  If you are going to lock away people for being what they are, then you had better PROVE it is necessary.  You haven't even come close.

2.  As I explained many months ago, if the circle system itself actually generates more abominations than it contains, then it is a net minus.  There is strong reason to think this is so.

3.  The system is inherently unstable.  Lock away powerful people and treat them as sub-human, and you are tickling the Dragon so to speak.  Not only will these people break the system eventually (and this has been proven) but doing so makes it less possible for actual reasonable solutions to be worked out because of the bad blood generated.  Fault: Entirely the chantry's.

Evidence would be nice.

Then provide some for your case.

You are the one trying to prove the positive.  The burden of proof is on you.  PROVE that the circle system is needed.  Don't assert it's "logically" true.  Prove it.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'm gonna re-post this in this thread for refference:

Had a quick PM discussion with David.

According to him, templars do have rules and regulations and abuse of mages is NOT allowed.

Regulations which aren't enforced may as well not exist.  Laws that aren't followed may as well not exist.   The chanty and the Templars in particular have persistantly refused to honor and follow their own laws which means those laws may as well not exist at all.

Changing the goalpost now?
Weather you like it or not, regulations do exist and they are inforced.

The fact that abuse happens is expected, as no rules or no enforcement is absolute.

Replace tempalrs with any other force. Replace their regulations with any others. You will have just as many cases of broken regs.

That is actually not true.  While corruption does exist and sometimes people in authority do get away with what they shouldn't, the expectation is that acountability works.  A cop that uses his gun in an excessive way is virtually assured of having to answer very hard questions with IA and very likely fact prosecution.  The times a cop can get away with it is rare.

That reverse is true for the Templars.  The persistant pattern for almost a thousand years is a Templar can quite literally get away with murder, whether it is technically against the chantry rules or not (ask Anerin who is NOT a malificar) because the Chantry covers up for the Templars because both hate and fear mages....and that is the problem.  The moment the Chantry and Templars honestly feel that mages aren't really people (as Cullen in DA2 outright says!), then there is no accountability no matter what the rulebook says.

"The Seekers provide oversight when the Templar hierarchy is insufficient. The Seekers are sort of the IA (Internal Affairs) of the Templars."

Like in Kirkwall?  Sarcasm fully intended.  The Seekers are incompetant if what you claim is true. 

I'm not claiming that. That is a direct quote from DG.

Then DG's Seekers are imcompetant.  An internal investigation force that doesn't do it's job is worse than useless, and I don't care WHO is claiming otherwise.

Kirkwall, as you said before, is a "special case".
Maybe the Seker in question was incompetent. So what? Does one incompetent official prove anything?
You consider internal investigations something simple and trivial? Especially in a middle-aged society?

It's not just Kirkwall, but if any case demanded Seeker intervention and the removal of Meredith BEFORE things blew up (and even five minutes of real investigation would show this), Kirkwall would have been the case.  However, sexual abuse within ALL circle towers is rampant (confirmed by several sources).  Templars kill runaway mages for being "malificar" true or not (see Anerin) and much, much more.  The Seekers if they were supposed to police the Templars have a longstanding proven track record of either incompetance, collusion, or both.

So the whole argument of "templars can do whatever they want and mages have no rights" is incorrect. Templars are no more free to abuse mages than police is to abuse suspects. Of couse, some will get away with it here and there (and in the case of templars, more often given the oversight limitations of the era).

It is perfectly correct.  The templars are under no pressure from the Chantry to actually follow their own laws (see Meredith and Alrik!) and the chantry offers absolutely NO accountability against the Templars that fail to follow the rules (again see Kirkwall along with other examples).  The Seekers are either incompetant or are really a whitewash designed to make others think the Templars are accountable when they in practice are not.

You are wrong. But I know that arguing wiht you is pointless at this point.
Everything to you is proof of templar wrongoings.
Any anything mages do is an "anomaly" or "someonelse else is to blame"

Rights that are not enforced and not honored don't really exist.  I don't know how to make it plainer than that.

-Polaris

[Fallstar]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I'm gonna re-post this in this thread for refference:

Had a quick PM discussion with David.

According to him, templars do have rules and regulations and abuse of mages is NOT allowed.

"The Seekers provide oversight when the Templar hierarchy is insufficient. The Seekers are sort of the IA (Internal Affairs) of the Templars."

So the whole argument of "templars can do whatever they want and mages have no rights" is incorrect. Templars are no more free to abuse mages than police is to abuse suspects. Of couse, some will get away with it here and there (and in the case of templars, more often given the oversight limitations of the era).

That might be the seekers' role. But the seekers were completely absent from Kirkwall. Now, they might have had other more important Seeker business to attend to, but really? Over the course of seven years of increasing Templar pressure on the mages, with more and more abuses of power, not one seeker showed up? 

That's if the Seekers even have more balanced views than the Templars. Cassandra is an unkown at the moment, but she doesn't seem like an extremist. Lord Seeker Lambert on the other hand, seems to be harsh, but not completely insane. That is until the end of Asunder, where he ignores the divine and does a Meredith. And I doubt he suddenly came into possession of a corrupted lyrium idol to explain it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The circles are necessary and only mage apologists think they aren't.

Only if you value the freedom and security of non-mages over that of mages.  By supporting the circles, you're choosing to oppress the mages.

By opposing the circle, you're choosing to increase the risk to which everyone in society (including mages) is exposed.

I value freedom over security, so I oppose the circle.