42 réponses à ce sujet

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

The Angry One wrote...

I'd point out that the Harrowing is unethical in the first place.
Subjecting apprentices to defeat a demon in the Fade on pain of death? Oh yes and I'm really amused as to how the demon CO-OPERATES with the whole thing.
That means SOMEBODY has to go around consorting with demons, telling them when there's fresh mage-meat undergoing a test.

Thank you. When I played the mage origin, all sorts of bells went off just in the harrowing phase. What you learn strongly suggests the circle, and, through extension, the Chantry, is involved a hell of alot more than is let on.

So basically, consorting with demons ok if it's Chantry sanctioned business, i.e. throwing a sacrificial lamb out there to face being possessed whether they like it or not, whether ready or not, just to see if it would happen.

The arguements for the harrowing are weak when taken in a broader context.

[cpip]

The Angry One wrote...

I'd point out that the Harrowing is unethical in the first place.
Subjecting apprentices to defeat a demon in the Fade on pain of death? Oh yes and I'm really amused as to how the demon CO-OPERATES with the whole thing.
That means SOMEBODY has to go around consorting with demons, telling them when there's fresh mage-meat undergoing a test.

I always figured it was more of a "Oh, hey, here's where we hang out for Fresh Meat to drop in" sort of thing, and rookie mages just ... LOOK new.  Young.  Wide-eyed and inexperienced.

Like hanging around just outside the New York City Port Authority Bus Terminal and watching the people who just STARE at all the lights.

[cutieyum]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I'd point out that the Harrowing is unethical in the first place.
Subjecting apprentices to defeat a demon in the Fade on pain of death? Oh yes and I'm really amused as to how the demon CO-OPERATES with the whole thing.
That means SOMEBODY has to go around consorting with demons, telling them when there's fresh mage-meat undergoing a test.

Thank you. When I played the mage origin, all sorts of bells went off just in the harrowing phase. What you learn strongly suggests the circle, and, through extension, the Chantry, is involved a hell of alot more than is let on.

So basically, consorting with demons ok if it's Chantry sanctioned business, i.e. throwing a sacrificial lamb out there to face being possessed whether they like it or not, whether ready or not, just to see if it would happen.

The arguements for the harrowing are weak when taken in a broader context.

Thank you for the posts. The Mage/Templar/Chantry relationship has bothered me as well. The control and exploitment in their relationship is not difficult to grasp and it is quite monstrous. I couldn't blame any mage trying to become powerful enough to separate themselves for those 3 groups to live apart, to be free and learn to own ethical compass. Mages, apart from Shale's former master, don't seem to reproduce/form families, so I guess the Chantry is weeding out magical genes from the human and city elves gene pool. Pair bonding or sex is a difficult thing to weed out and supress, how they manage that in Circle is not clearly addressed. Jowan's story didn't go into generalities. Even Cullen the Templar gets tempted by the sight of a female mage in the mage origin. History and literature is littered with wars and fights started by people trying to 'mate.'

I was surprised that City Elves allowed their children to be taken to the Tower, while Dalish sorcerers are able to practice magic freely, but I guess as a 'people' the City Elves are 'owned' by the humans and the human Chantry, and there's little reason for another Exaulted March on the few Dalish.

[bobsmyuncle]

cutieyum wrote...
Thank you for the posts. The Mage/Templar/Chantry relationship has bothered me as well. The control and exploitment in their relationship is not difficult to grasp and it is quite monstrous. I couldn't blame any mage trying to become powerful enough to separate themselves for those 3 groups to live apart, to be free and learn to own ethical compass. Mages, apart from Shale's former master, don't seem to reproduce/form families, so I guess the Chantry is weeding out magical genes from the human and city elves gene pool. Pair bonding or sex is a difficult thing to weed out and supress, how they manage that in Circle is not clearly addressed. Jowan's story didn't go into generalities. Even Cullen the Templar gets tempted by the sight of a female mage in the mage origin. History and literature is littered with wars and fights started by people trying to 'mate.'

Relationships and sex aren't forbidden to mages, but any children resulting from such activities are confiscated and given to the Chantry. I assume if the child shows signs of magical aptitude they are sent to the Circle (obv. with no knowledge of their parents), and if not they become clergy. The reason why Cullen is beating himself up and why Jowan/Lily are forbidden is that mages and Templars/other clergy are not permitted to liaise with mages. In fact, I'd guess that all clergy are supposed to be celibate, like Catholic priests. What makes the Chantry ****ty is that being a priest/initiate isn't always voluntary. Catholic priests at least take vows voluntarily with full knowledge of what they're giving up, and even then not everyone is successful at keeping those vows. Buddhist monks similarly give up a lot to be what they are, but again it's voluntary and in this case you can even leave the monastic order without retribution or judgment.

This is a big reason why my mage's boon was to separate the Circle from the Chantry. The Chantry is so messed up and it will take the Circle a long time to recover as it is. I can see the reasons for some of the Circle's practices, like the Harrowing and even keeping mages apart from other people. However, I fault the Chantry for these practices being so extreme, such as apprentices being thrown to demons without any preparation, and only allowing full mages out of the tower on "Circle business." The way things are set up, it's like the Chantry is trying to create abominations. Rage, desire, pride - are mages being taught to resist such temptations, or are the conditions in the tower shaping them to be susceptible to these feelings?

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

bobsmyuncle wrote...

Relationships and sex aren't forbidden to mages, but any children resulting from such activities are confiscated and given to the Chantry. I assume if the child shows signs of magical aptitude they are sent to the Circle (obv. with no knowledge of their parents), and if not they become clergy. The reason why Cullen is beating himself up and why Jowan/Lily are forbidden is that mages and Templars/other clergy are not permitted to liaise with mages. In fact, I'd guess that all clergy are supposed to be celibate, like Catholic priests. What makes the Chantry ****ty is that being a priest/initiate isn't always voluntary. Catholic priests at least take vows voluntarily with full knowledge of what they're giving up, and even then not everyone is successful at keeping those vows. Buddhist monks similarly give up a lot to be what they are, but again it's voluntary and in this case you can even leave the monastic order without retribution or judgment.

This is a big reason why my mage's boon was to separate the Circle from the Chantry. The Chantry is so messed up and it will take the Circle a long time to recover as it is. I can see the reasons for some of the Circle's practices, like the Harrowing and even keeping mages apart from other people. However, I fault the Chantry for these practices being so extreme, such as apprentices being thrown to demons without any preparation, and only allowing full mages out of the tower on "Circle business." The way things are set up, it's like the Chantry is trying to create abominations. Rage, desire, pride - are mages being taught to resist such temptations, or are the conditions in the tower shaping them to be susceptible to these feelings?

My mage had the circle annulled and wiped out, because she saw it as a horrible prison that was more harmful to mages than beneficial. Mages are, like city elves, second class citizens with barely any rights. And the Chantry does their best to mentally break them and make them as ineffective as possible. Remember that one mage chick, forget her name, but she was in the chapel praying for the maker to remove her "curse" of magic, and how she believed magic was evil, mages were terrible, and the only way for everything to be good was to wipe the terrible mages from existance? How the Chantry "protects" everyone from "evil" mages. Hell she even thinks the idea of being made "tranquil" (i.e. magical lobotomization) is a wonderful idea. Better to be turned into a subservient robot than be an "evil" mage.

I imagine she is probably not the only Circle mage to be broken so. I imagine many other mages roam in a state of self-hatred and guilt due to Chantry brainwashing. Part of me thinks maybe the Chantry would like it that way, encourage more mages to become "tranquil" so they have more pliant, lobotomized drones who refuse to question authority or better themselves. As well as generate money. Tranquils are the best slave labor yet.

Chantry priests don't take vows of celibicy, and can have sex. What they cannot do is get married, since like Andraste, they are all "Married to the Maker". Mages can do what they like, so long as they do not entertain horrific ideas such as falling in love and having children. It is said if you control the basic instincts of reproduction, pair bonding, and family, you control society (Orwell's 1984 explained this nicely). The Chantry seeks control. They rip children from families, spread dogmas to make people think that magical children are "cursed" so families part with them more willingly, and when said children grow up and dare to aspire to reproduction, they once again exercise control and cut the family short before it begins.

And we see the price that people end up paying in personal terms (Cullen, Wynne and her child, Jowan, ect). So I agree, if anything, the Chantry's iron fist probably encourages blood magic, abominations, ect since they force people to such breaking points that they are willing to resort to extreme measures to be free and live a normal life that every other human being is entitled to (or elf, for that matter, though for elves, the Circle is probably the only place in Ferelden where they are on equal terms with humans for a change. Why I can understand prohibiting mages from holding office or titles (old fears of Tevinter magister lords), to deny a mage the pleasures of family, non-mage friends, love, marriage, children, and some property of their own is simply downright cruel.

[Vegielamb]

The Angry One wrote...

I'd point out that the Harrowing is unethical in the first place.
Subjecting apprentices to defeat a demon in the Fade on pain of death? Oh yes and I'm really amused as to how the demon CO-OPERATES with the whole thing.
That means SOMEBODY has to go around consorting with demons, telling them when there's fresh mage-meat undergoing a test.

God I have to make another mage. I really have to play one hell bent on destroying all the existing systems.

Anyway, the only reason to allow the circle to exist is to mediate the trouble that would be caused by careless, arrogant mages turning themselves into abominations and summoning demons. I supose they justify any "evil" deeds by telling themselves it's to keep the results of such evil under control.

Modifié par Vegielamb, 16 décembre 2009 - 07:43 .

[cutieyum]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

And we see the price that people end up paying in personal terms (Cullen, Wynne and her child, Jowan, ect). So I agree, if anything, the Chantry's iron fist probably encourages blood magic, abominations, ect since they force people to such breaking points that they are willing to resort to extreme measures to be free and live a normal life that every other human being is entitled to (or elf, for that matter, though for elves, the Circle is probably the only place in Ferelden where they are on equal terms with humans for a change. Why I can understand prohibiting mages from holding office or titles (old fears of Tevinter magister lords), to deny a mage the pleasures of family, non-mage friends, love, marriage, children, and some property of their own is simply downright cruel.

The Chantry Maker / Blood magic and demons is an interesting duality, by believing in one system (the Chantry), those who wish to rebel resort to what the Chantry professes to hate the most, Demons and Blood Magic, and ignoring all other possible methods of rebellion and magical arts. The usual rebels are so inculcaded in the Chantry worlview that they don't see how their repression works and how to outmanuver the Chantry in order to gain satsifaction for their base human instincts (pair bonding, family, community). Sort of what happened in Europe during the 18th century, the formation of Sanatic cults as entretainment or intellectual clubs due to the lack of imagination and the desire to find 'social values' outside Christianism. Thankfully, not everyone during the Enlightment took the lazy way out, and thought up, wrote and lived possibilities outside main Christian dogma. It will be amusing how the peeps in Ferelden will deal with their 'magical' problems in future games.

Modifié par cutieyum, 17 décembre 2009 - 01:00 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

cutieyum wrote...


The Chantry Maker / Blood magic and demons is an interesting duality, by believing in one system (the Chantry), those who wish to rebel resort to what the Chantry professes to hate the most, Demons and Blood Magic, and ignoring all other possible methods of rebellion and magical arts. The usual rebels are so inculcaded in the Chantry worlview that they don't see how their repression works and how to outmanuver the Chantry in order to gain satsifaction for their base human instincts (pair bonding, family, community). Sort of what happened in Europe during the 18th century, the formation of Sanatic cults as entretainment or intellectual clubs due to the lack of imagination and the desire to find 'social values' outside Christianism. Thankfully, not everyone during the Enlightment took the lazy way out, and thought up, wrote and lived possibilities outside main Christian dogma. It will be amusing how the peeps in Ferelden will deal with their 'magical' problems in future games.

Very interesting comparison and valid. Turning to demons and blood magic would be the Chantry equivilant of dabbling in Satanism. A disgruntled mage in the extreme, being completely disgusted and dis illusioned by the chantry and its Maker would think that since Chantry/Maker=slavery and oppresion, then blood magic/demon consorting=freedom and independance. For a young, impulsive mage, or a very bitter one, such a conclusion would make sense.

You do have the equvilant of the intellectual/philisophical opposition to the Chantry. In the Mage's circle, when you learn about factions, you learn about a group within the Circle called the Libertarian faction, which believes in and tries to work for greater self rule for mages and independance from the Chantry. There is also the Mage's Collective, who function in secrecy completely outside of the Chantry's rule. Neither group resorts to blood magic or demon worship, and, if anything, actually oppose such methods. But, as with all peaceful, rational methods, neither provide quick, certain resolution and the immediate satisfaction of direct, harsh change. Some people might be so angry and bitter, they will turn to much darker methods for the satisfaction of directly striking at the heart of their enemy.

I myself, if I was in the situation, would not be interested in blood magic. It eats up your own life force, and worse, it is used to control other people, which is the whole reason I hate the Chantry in the first place. But, neither could I really blame someone who turned to such extreme measures, because unlike peaceful, more solid change, you would have direct and instant results, though not with out great, and horrific costs in the long run.

[AntiChri5]

The Chantry are idiots if they think mages are not going to resort to blood magic when they take each mage and say: "Alright! Now i am in charge of your life from now on! I am assigning you a drug addict, i control his dosage, and he thinks your kinda evil so if you disagree with us hell kill you! Your not allowed to marry or have kids or go for a walk. Oh! and Blood Magic is very powerfull but we think its evil."

[Herr Uhl]

AntiChri5 wrote...

The Chantry are idiots if they think mages are not going to resort to blood magic when they take each mage and say: "Alright! Now i am in charge of your life from now on! I am assigning you a drug addict, i control his dosage, and he thinks your kinda evil so if you disagree with us hell kill you! Your not allowed to marry or have kids or go for a walk. Oh! and Blood Magic is very powerfull but we think its evil."

There is a small garden in the center of the tower or something where they send the magi for recess. And the rest is easily explained by making the populace, thus the mages parents and thus the mage think that s/he is evil.

[bobsmyuncle]

Herr Uhl wrote...
There is a small garden in the center of the tower or something where they send the magi for recess. And the rest is easily explained by making the populace, thus the mages parents and thus the mage think that s/he is evil.

We had the same rules back in high school, nobody's allowed off-campus and all the local store owners were told to call the truancy officer if they saw us.

We still cut school and loitered in their parking lots. Nobody tells us what to do, right Teagan?

[AntiChri5]

But there will always be those who question what they are taught. Locking the mages up is the best way to prevent that but leads to them hating the chantry. Not everyone is going to agree when their captors say they are evil and mistreats them.

[dtking3]

You! Cake or Death! I'll take Tranquility, please.

[Zenon]

Interesting arguments here, but some points I don't take or think differently about than the presented views.

Why are relationships between priests and mages forbidden?
Nothing to do with weeding out magic genes or making mages extinct. Mages could well have a relationship with other mages. It's also not clear, if priests or templars have a rule forbidding them a relationship with a partner. But since the chantry is sworn to watch over magi, a relationship between members of both causes a conflict of interest. Such a relationship would mean losing control. Like it happened the mage (Jowan) took advantage of the relationship with the lay sister (Lily) to destroy his phylactery. That's why.

Is the harrowing unethical?
Hard question. To be forced into a life and death situation is tough. But the mage undergoing a harrowing is usually well prepared and knows at least the basics about the Fade and demons, even when unaware of what happens in the harrowing itself before it happens. Mages are said to be the primary targets for demons. If a mage loses against the demon, he/she becomes an abomination. We see with Connor what just one powerful abomination can do. So it makes sense to have a mage being confronted by demons in a secured environment. Survival of the fittest I'd call that. Very harsh, but when wielding such power as a mage control is vital. If you don't feel up to the responsibility coming with magic, you can chose to be severed from it... for a very high price. But if you talk with the tranquil attending the magic repository during the origin, he'll tell you, that he wanted/preferred to be tranquil. As all in this game it's not merely black and white.

Is there cooperation between mages and demons?
Not directly, I'd say. The mages lure demons with information of a mage entering the Fade into a part of the Fade they know they can enter. The demon feels like taking a chance to win the confrontation. If the mage succeeds, the demon loses and the mage comes out of the harrowing unscathed. If the demon wins, the mage becomes an abomination and is slain. The only mystery is, that the last demon choses to let the mage go without battle. But probably destroying the mage in the fade will not enable the demon to take over. Or perhaps some demons need some kind of invitation to control a human and use their powers in the world of the living while more simpler ones don't. Besides also another demon encountered doesn't fight and even keeps its word after made an agreement. So it seems demons are not entirely evil and deceptive by default. But still they'll try to gain power over you, if you let them.

Is blood magic evil by default?
Well, if the mage learns blood magic and uses it to end the blight, then it seems just another tool or technique used to defeat the enemy. With very few Grey Wardens around the situation is desperate enough to call for unusual methods. Also Grey Wardens don't condemn blood magic. Alistair is a templar, so with this background he is biased against it. If Jowan uses blood magic to save Connor, is it good or evil? Considering that if you go to the circle Connor would have the chance to lay waste to the entire rest of the living population of the castle and the village meanwhile, one victim seems not too much. Besides Isolde is quite responsible for the situation and innocents killed. If the Maker exists in this game and really created all in the DA universe, then either he created also blood magic, or it was a side effect coming from abusing a link between life energy and magic power not intended. I tend to the latter. So a blood mage seems to wield more power than a mortal "should have" according to the chantry. Probably because blood magic seems to corrupt the moral standards of a mage making him more vulnerable to demonic influence is a major reason to forbid it. Interesting enough the mages used to have an entire book section devoted to the theory of blood magic before the First Enchanter removed it. I simply think blood magic is most easily be used to abuse power against others, by even allowing to control the will of the other or stealing life energy, etc. That's something I'd rather call unethical.

Ok, these are my comments so far.

Modifié par Zenon, 18 décembre 2009 - 07:26 .

[Rainen89]

Relationships are discouraged between mages in general. Wynne comments on this a lot about how unions between even mages is heavily discouraged. Probably due to unions causing emotional turmoil quite often. How would you have reacted if after being dumped you could set his/her head on fire?

Ethics is not universal, you could just as easily argue that it's unethical to let one persons individual liberty trump the lives of the people he/she may destroy if he/she becomes an abomination, or a corrupt maleficar mages are capable of some fairly devastating things. It's not good but how would you empathize with the liberties of a people who could destroy your home with a wave of their hands.

I think there's something there, the energy has to come from something and demons/spirits do seem to be the origin of magic.

Blood magic is viewed as evil because of a great deal of things that could fill up a research paper. It is not inherantly evil, the only evil thing about blood magic is that it can be used by evil people, but anything can be applied to that. It's more likely just a scape goat and rationale for being cautious about magic.

[Zenon]

Rainen89 wrote...

Relationships are discouraged between mages in general. Wynne comments on this a lot about how unions between even mages is heavily discouraged. Probably due to unions causing emotional turmoil quite often. How would you have reacted if after being dumped you could set his/her head on fire?

Strong relationships come with strong feelings. Strong feelings are likely to cause a mage lose control. Probably that's why. But then again, if you pick a female mage and seduce Alistair, who should know as a candidate for the templars... It's a little parallel here between magi here and Jedi there, where passion is also seen as a road to darkness.

Ethics is not universal, you could just as easily argue that it's unethical to let one persons individual liberty trump the lives of the people he/she may destroy if he/she becomes an abomination, or a corrupt maleficar mages are capable of some fairly devastating things. It's not good but how would you empathize with the liberties of a people who could destroy your home with a wave of their hands.

I differentiate ethics from morale. From my point of view there is a universal ethic, while morale is local. You may interpret morale as a more detailed and local ethics. But then morale is based usually on mutual agreement of a group, a set of rules accepted within a certain society. The basic ethics I see for mages could be summarized in: "With a lot of power comes a lot of responsibility." There is no way to make sure a mage will never hurt an innocent. Most of non-mages hurt other humans without magic most of the time. Mages are just more powerful. Someone destroying your home with a torch or a magical cone of fire making so much of a difference? The solution in DA is to allow the mages to live within a golden cage and even go out of the tower as long as they behave. For that they have a "leash" to hunt them down, if they go rogue. Makes sense to me.

I think there's something there, the energy has to come from something and demons/spirits do seem to be the origin of magic.

The Fade, which is the spirit realm/plane, is the source of magic. All living beings are connected to it. Mages simply learned how to tap the powers conciously and use it to perform magical spells. Wynne is a special case.

Blood magic is viewed as evil because of a great deal of things that could fill up a research paper. It is not inherantly evil, the only evil thing about blood magic is that it can be used by evil people, but anything can be applied to that. It's more likely just a scape goat and rationale for being cautious about magic.

Indeed, it's VIEWED as evil, because it's so easy to abuse power with it and infringe the free will of others or suck out their life energy like a vampire for the sake of more power. To enter the fade the normal way requires a couple of mages and a considerable amount of lyrium. A blood mage can send another into the fade alone with one human sacrifice involved. So blood magic can multiply the power of a mage by at least three or more while it calls for a (human) sacrifice. The sacrifice is generally seen as evil, so the blood magic is considered evil as well. But what do you do, if you have a willing participant? What if your blood magic can save many at the cost of one? For the greater good so to speak. (I just love Bioware's stories here.)

Basically before defining something as good or evil, a good definition of good and evil themselves is necessary. In DA there is no absolute good or evil, just interpretations by characters based on their own views, background, "education" and experience.

[Rainen89]

Ehitcs by your definition can very well mean morale, the two are often synonomous. The point being that you can't just say one's individuality supercedes others, yes taking a torch to a home is no different, but a torch is a controlled source of energy. A mage is by definition uncontrolled and can only direct the energy elsewhere, but is hardly 100% stable.

On the topic of the fade however, I was referring to demons being the source of say blood magic, spirits seem to be the origin of "creation" magic, as wynne reveals if your approval is high enough. The point being that while the fade may serve as the energies source, it is by no means the thing that enables it. Primal magic could have just as easily been taught by demons. Having a connection to something does not give you some innate ability to control or even use it, without being taught how first.

[Zenon]

Well, often ethics and morale are being used synonymous, but that's not entirely correct. While ethics is basically is a branch of philosophy which seeks to address questions about morality; that is, about concepts like good and bad, right and wrong, justice, virtue, etc. morality is a set of values stemming from an ethical concept based on decision. There are various branches of ethical philosophies, which have different views and priorities on what is good or bad. Is it good to suffer yourself for the sake of others is such a question. Even if you do good to others in this moment, you do bad to yourself. Tricky, isn't it? That's why I said good and evil depend heavily on personal views and often enough on cultural background. An indoctrinated templar will always overemphasize the danger of magic, mostly out of fear.

How do you come to the conclusion, that a mage is uncontrolled by definition? If you consequently do so, that would mean to kill every child showing signs of magic to prevent any accident from happening. Is it in the codex or your interpretation of some statements there?

My mage knew magic before encountering demons or spirits. A blind man may come to the conclusion, that a person with eye vision can do so because of some light-spirit giving him visions. I stand by my concept, that magic is merely a talent, a skill of mortals, which is independent of spirits or demons. At the same time communing with spirits and demons can greatly enhance the power of a mage. Why would a demon want to teach blood-magic to a mage? I think sacrificing your own blood, wielding unnatural powers, breaking other's will makes a mage so much more corrupted, that it is easier for demons to possess him. But that doesn't automatically create an abomination, otherwise Jowan should have turned into a monster before Redcliffe, right?

Right, having a connection with the Fade doesn't automatically make you a mage. In fact everybody is connected to the Fade, but only very few mages can use it conciously. Most can't control their powers well without teaching, which calls for the need of a mentor. I think the master doesn't teach the apprentice how to tap into their magical powers, but how to control them, focus the energy on a goal, concentration, willpower, how to avoid dangers. I just remember when on my first walk to the First Enchanter after the harrowing how a master was giving an apprentice lessons on how to control fire. As soon as the master mentioned about the dangers of fire the inexperienced unfocused student turned his attention to danger, to getting hurt, to fear losing concentration and control causing the fire to blaze high almost burning the student and the books in the shelf nearby. If the student was a master, he would have been in control. That's what it is all about.

The Chantry was actually just a organization formed to control mages and protect normal beings from abuse of power by overambitious mages. I just come to think of the X-Men series, where normal humans also felt they needed protection from the mutants. In fact most mutants were not acting hostile, but were treated in a discriminating way. In a way mages are also discriminated. They are just humans with special talents, which are viewed as dangerous by others.

Modifié par Zenon, 18 décembre 2009 - 09:28 .