272 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
You have shown no evidence that a properly trained/educated mage is so dangerous that they must be locked up and I (and others) have shown quite a lot of evidence that indicates that locking mages away is unnecessary at best.

Really? I like to see that evidence.

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
I consider Codex entires and other game lore to be evidence which is vastly more evidence than you've ever bothered to cite.  From this evidence I conclude that:

1.  Thedas functioned fine without the circle for most of recorded history with mages living alongside non-mages.

2.  The Circle was implemented by the Chantry to completely CONTROL magic (and break up a mages' strike) and protection of others was the least thing on the Chantry's mind when doing so.
-Polaris

1) Define "Fine". you got no proof of anytihgng other than humantiy nad the nations weren't wiped out. Which isn't saying much.

Both Tevinter and Arlathan were highly urbane and developered civilizations and neither one locked away mages.  Indeed if one believes the legends of Arlathan, everyone was a mage.  Also large tribes of Avvars, Chasind, and others have existed for thousands upon thousands of years and in no case was there ever a notion that mages were horribly dangerous.

Indeed even for more than a century after Andraste's death, mages continued to live alongside mundanes, and there was no drive to lock away mages.

All this is very compelling evidence that multiple societies with very different customs and mores (including the direct forbears to modern chantry nations) all had no issues with mages living alongside mundanes.

2) One sinlge codex entry from one single source focusing on one single aspect is hardly compeling. Not to mention that I can easily brush it away as "bad writing" just as you do wiht 99% of mages in DA2 being insane.

The codex entry is CANON and has been aknowledged as such, and clearly indicates how the circle system started and why, and protection had ZIP, NADA, ZERO to do with it.  As for the 99% mages in DA2 being insane as bad writing, the people that wrote the game have now admitted that it was bad writing.

Unless I'm mistaken, DG himself considers mages extreemly dangerous. If that isn't WoG then I don't know what is.

So is a sword.  So is a tanner that can easily poison an entire village.  You lack perspective.  As for what DG says or has said about mages, I recall he also said that many other things that I found rather offensive, but I'd rather not go into that especially because of the new forum rules.   I don't recall even DG ever saying the circle system was necessary even during the most heated of discussions, however. 

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
You have shown no evidence that a properly trained/educated mage is so dangerous that they must be locked up and I (and others) have shown quite a lot of evidence that indicates that locking mages away is unnecessary at best.

Really? I like to see that evidence.

We have, over and over and over again.  I'd like to see your evidence that there are fewer abominations and/or deaths/injuries/damage from abominations post circle system than pre-circle.  We have shown our evidence over and over again.  You claim "common sense".

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
I am interpreting nothing.  DG has publically and explicitly stated that Grey Warden mages are the only mages NOT legally under Chantry control, and thus can have children.  That means your Grey Warden mage in Redcliff is NOT an apostate under Chantry law.

You are wrong.  End of story.

Except you are wrong.
For one I never claimed a gray warden mage was legally an apostate.
He is outside of the circle system, but that is precisely it. Nothing more.

The Reverend mother is not part of the circle system, a free mage is still dangerous and any rules lawyer ccould easily jump into that rule gap.

You SAID that she might rile up the village against an Apostate Mage.  You are wrong because a Revered mother would know perfectly well that a Grey Warden mage acting as a Grey Warden is NOT an apostate.  That is direct WoG.   You did make that claim, so don't try to get out of it now.

I doesn't prove anything.
A Reveerend Mother can act on it's own violition. It doens't priove that "the Chantry" does anything.

It proves that the Chantry has a history and policy of inspiring/riling mobs against mages.  In every scene, the revered mother apologizes in some way for the Chantry's past misdeeds as a way of thanking you for what you are doing.  The only difference is what chantry misdeeds she is apologizing for depending on what sort of warden you are.

It proves NOTHING.
Try as you might, but you cannot ascribe the actions of one reverend mother to the whole Chantry.
Our own history has proven quite well that it doesn't work that way.

Yes it does.  It proves that under any other circumstance (by the Revered Mother's own admission) she would be gathering the lynch mob against you as a mage.  It also goes well beyond one Revered Mother.  During the games and fictional adjuncts to that game, we see a pervasive and overwhelming magical hatred at virtually all levels of the chantry....and Templars are picked for their religious devotion (which in large part involves hating mages).

-Polaris

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...
Both Tevinter and Arlathan were highly urbane and developered civilizations and neither one locked away mages.  Indeed if one believes the legends of Arlathan, everyone was a mage.  Also large tribes of Avvars, Chasind, and others have existed for thousands upon thousands of years and in no case was there ever a notion that mages were horribly dangerous.

Indeed even for more than a century after Andraste's death, mages continued to live alongside mundanes, and there was no drive to lock away mages.

All this is very compelling evidence that multiple societies with very different customs and mores (including the direct forbears to modern chantry nations) all had no issues with mages living alongside mundanes.

And as I said before - nations and civilizations survived even in areas hit frequently by great disasters that claimed many lives. The resilience of humans and nations does not prove mages arne't dangerous, and them not having issues proves nothing other than they were resigned to their fate. To their lot in life. For all you know, they might have regarded being killed by a mage as divine punishent or as natural as you consider an avalanche.

2) One sinlge codex entry from one single source focusing on one single aspect is hardly compeling. Not to mention that I can easily brush it away as "bad writing" just as you do wiht 99% of mages in DA2 being insane.

The codex entry is CANON and has been aknowledged as such, and clearly indicates how the circle system started and why, and protection had ZIP, NADA, ZERO to do with it.  As for the 99% mages in DA2 being insane as bad writing, the people that wrote the game have now admitted that it was bad writing.

You are proving my point here.
Alos canon not equal correct when it comes to codex entries written from a specific POV.

Unless I'm mistaken, DG himself considers mages extreemly dangerous. If that isn't WoG then I don't know what is.

So is a sword.  So is a tanner that can easily poison an entire village.  You lack perspective.  As for what DG says or has said about mages, I recall he also said that many other things that I found rather offensive, but I'd rather not go into that especially because of the new forum rules.   I don't recall even DG ever saying the circle system was necessary even during the most heated of discussions, however. 

Offenses agaisnt a non-existent people?
Seriously you are so swet up by your righteous cause that I can't decide if it's funny or tragic.

I recall DG clearly saying that the fear of mages was well-founded and that beforeh te circles the lands were a more dangerous place.

We have, over and over and over again.  I'd like to see your evidence
that there are fewer abominations and/or deaths/injuries/damage from
abominations post circle system than pre-circle.  We have shown our
evidence over and over again.  You claim "common sense".

No, you haven't. You think you did. That's the difference.
I have presented m evidence over and over again, in many threads like this one.

But yeah...we'll never agree on this.
You'll continue dismissing everything I say, and I'll do the same to you. Which begs the question as to why you are even bothering, if I am so beyond reason as you claim.

[Fallstar]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
I recall DG clearly saying that the fear of mages was well-founded and that beforeh te circles the lands were a more dangerous place.

Do you have a link for this statement please. I agree that the fear of mages is well founded, but despite asking numerous times I am yet to receive a single example of an abomination that wasn't directly caused by Templars, the Circle system or fear of the Circle.

If there are no abominations except those caused by the above three reasons, that is irreconcilable with mages making the lands more dangerous before the circles existed.

In addition, Polaris has backed his arguments up well with examples of civilisations where mages are not locked up in towers, yet the mages didn't all turn into abominations or whatever else it is you fear. Instead of saying that you have "explained it all before", the common sense you are so fond of would suggest that you find one of those posts and copy paste from it to explain your position.

[dragonflight288]

Lotion, the burden of proof is on you. Prove that the Circles make things better. Prove they aren't responsible for most of the abominations we see. Prove that the codex that says mages living next to mundanes for 170 years after Andraste's death is wrong. Prove that the templars police themselves. Prove that the seekers actually do their jobs as Internal Affairs agents.

We have all provided evidence over and over. You have dismissed it because it proves you wrong and then say you didn't see any evidence. The burden of proof is now on you. If you fail to provide any, then you are essentially admitting you are wrong, even if your words say otherwise. You make a claim, you back it up. You keep mentioning Word of Gaider but offer no links to these conversations. We have invited you to post the conversations, or IanPolaris has, and those invitations have gone ignored. We have provided evidence to support our arguments and you dismiss them out of hand.

It's on you. Prove it.

[Xilizhra]

Which misses my point, because I never said improvements cannot be made (up to a point). Certanly modern prisons have far more options than middle-aged ones.
Doesn't matter how good a prison system is at putting rioters down, it will never get rid of the resentment - and that is exactly the point of many pro-mage supporters. Mages will never like it in there. But that was never the point of prisons, is it?

No. No, I rather think it's the Circle's duty to give mages as high a quality of life as possible.

Bollocks.
Almost all the mages are in the circles. The few that are out are causing one hell of a trouble (Connor-demon, Baroness). Increase the number of mages outside by an arder of magnitude, you icrease the trouble they casue by the same amount.

Except for all the ones living in societies that don't have the Circle...

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xilizhra wrote...
Except for all the ones living in societies that don't have the Circle...

Which are a handfull at most, and the societies being primitive and small?

No. No, I rather think it's the Circle's duty to give mages as high a quality of life as possible.

Duty? Not really. Not anymore than it's the Chantries duty togive every pesant a high quality of life.
Wise( within practical limiations of course)? Sure.

DuskWarden  wrote...
Do you have a link for this statement please. I agree that the fear of
mages is well founded, but despite asking numerous times I am yet to
receive a single example of an abomination that wasn't directly caused
by Templars, the Circle system or fear of the Circle.

That's because no example I give would satisfy you. You consider every abomination the Temaplrs fault.
I certnaly don't. Connor? Baroness? Uldred? You wil lsay "templars". I will say "bollocks".

In addition, Polaris has backed his arguments up well with examples of
civilisations where mages are not locked up in towers, yet the mages
didn't all turn into abominations or whatever else it is you fear.
Instead of saying that you have "explained it all before", the common
sense you are so fond of would suggest that you find one of those posts
and copy paste from it to explain your position.

And as I said before, it doesn't prove what you think it does. And I never said all mages would instantly turn into abominations and end all life. Just because some backwater society accepts mages wiping out entire tribes as normal doesn't mean all societies should.

dragonflight288
Lotion, the burden of proof is on you.

I disagree. And we've been over this before. you wont' be swayed by my arguments and I won't be swayed by yours.

We have provided evidence to support our arguments and you dismiss them out of hand.

You have provided what oyu THINK is HARD evidence. In reality it's circumstantial at best.

And regarding DG's quotes - I can't even remember the names of the threads in which he said that. You have any idea how many threads like this there were? You honestly expect me to spend hours of my time searching for those quotes to satisfy you? Forget it. I know what I know, wather you belive it or not is not my problem. If you can't be arsed to look, I can't be either.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 18 juillet 2012 - 01:54 .

[Xilizhra]

Which are a handfull at most, and the societies being primitive and small?

Define "primitive." The Dalish and Chasind don't seem to be behind Ferelden technologically so much as having a nonexistent industrial base, and nothing about Rivain suggests that it's at all primitive, or particularly small. A minority, mayhaps, but more than a handful. However, this is ultimately a red herring because the problem at hand isn't whether mages shouldn't be regulated at all, but whether the Chantry should do it, which it shouldn't.

Duty? Not really. Not anymore than it's the Chantries duty togive every pesant a high quality of life.
Wise( within practical limiations of course)? Sure.

The Chantry isn't the office in charge of running every aspect of peasants' lives.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]Lotion Soronnar wrote...

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
Both Tevinter and Arlathan were highly urbane and developered civilizations and neither one locked away mages.  Indeed if one believes the legends of Arlathan, everyone was a mage.  Also large tribes of Avvars, Chasind, and others have existed for thousands upon thousands of years and in no case was there ever a notion that mages were horribly dangerous.

Indeed even for more than a century after Andraste's death, mages continued to live alongside mundanes, and there was no drive to lock away mages.

All this is very compelling evidence that multiple societies with very different customs and mores (including the direct forbears to modern chantry nations) all had no issues with mages living alongside mundanes.[/quote]

And as I said before - nations and civilizations survived even in areas hit frequently by great disasters that claimed many lives. The resilience of humans and nations does not prove mages arne't dangerous, and them not having issues proves nothing other than they were resigned to their fate. To their lot in life. For all you know, they might have regarded being killed by a mage as divine punishent or as natural as you consider an avalanche.
[/quote]

In that case evidence would be nice.  Show some evidence, any evidence, that the damage/death/injury rate of abominations in society were greater pre-circle in those places than post circle.  Your assertions are meaningless.

[quote]
[quote][quote]
2) One sinlge codex entry from one single source focusing on one single aspect is hardly compeling. Not to mention that I can easily brush it away as "bad writing" just as you do wiht 99% of mages in DA2 being insane.
[/quote]

The codex entry is CANON and has been aknowledged as such, and clearly indicates how the circle system started and why, and protection had ZIP, NADA, ZERO to do with it.  As for the 99% mages in DA2 being insane as bad writing, the people that wrote the game have now admitted that it was bad writing.[/quote]

You are proving my point here.
Alos canon not equal correct when it comes to codex entries written from a specific POV.
[/quote]

I have always aknowledged that the Codex Entries are written from a PoV.  However, in this case "History of the Circle" is written by Sister Petrine and thus from the Chantry Point of View.  Given what it says about why the circles were founded, the fact it is written from the Chantry PoV is actually very illuminating.  What it means is that if there is any bias it would be against (not for) th mages.

[quote]
[quote][quote]
Unless I'm mistaken, DG himself considers mages extreemly dangerous. If that isn't WoG then I don't know what is.

[/quote]

So is a sword.  So is a tanner that can easily poison an entire village.  You lack perspective.  As for what DG says or has said about mages, I recall he also said that many other things that I found rather offensive, but I'd rather not go into that especially because of the new forum rules.   I don't recall even DG ever saying the circle system was necessary even during the most heated of discussions, however. 
[/quote]

Offenses agaisnt a non-existent people?
Seriously you are so swet up by your righteous cause that I can't decide if it's funny or tragic.
[/quote]

I don't wish to go into specifics with the new forum rules because those specifics could be easily be misconstrued as open attacks on Bioware Staff, and you are not worth getting banned over.  Suffice it to say that some of DG's moral reasoning and his criticism of moral reasoning of those who are critics of his work have at least to me been rather insulting.  A quick look through the archives will be sufficient I think.  I would be happy to post and link some examples, but I'd rather not given that much harsher new official policy.  Suffice it to say there is very good reason why DG and I are not exactly on each other christmas card lists and leave it at that.

[quote]
I recall DG clearly saying that the fear of mages was well-founded and that beforeh te circles the lands were a more dangerous place.
[/quote]

Even if this statement were precisely true the way you said it, it STILL doesn't prove what you think it does.  IIRC DG has never said the circle system was either necessary or justified.

[quote]
[quote]
We have, over and over and over again.  I'd like to see your evidence
that there are fewer abominations and/or deaths/injuries/damage from
abominations post circle system than pre-circle.  We have shown our
evidence over and over again.  You claim "common sense".[/quote]

No, you haven't. You think you did. That's the difference.
I have presented m evidence over and over again, in many threads like this one.

But yeah...we'll never agree on this.
You'll continue dismissing everything I say, and I'll do the same to you. Which begs the question as to why you are even bothering, if I am so beyond reason as you claim.
[/quote]

That's because you never PROVE anything.  Yes a lot of our evidence is circumstantial because of the nature of the lore we have, but at least we are presenting it in the best and most logical framework you have.  You, OTOH, have offered no evidence whatsoever, and even when I specifically asked refused to post your so-called private convo with DG.  Without that, we can only go by his public  statements.

-Polaris


[/quote]

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Bollocks.
Almost all the mages are in the circles. The few that are out are causing one hell of a trouble (Connor-demon, Baroness). Increase the number of mages outside by an arder of magnitude, you icrease the trouble they casue by the same amount.

Can you quantify that with a percent?  If both DAO and DA2 are any indication, a large percentage of mages get "missed" and aren't in the circle at all.  Not only that, but you assume a 1:1:1 relationship between number of mages and abominations and troubles caused by abominations, and if there is anything we know, that is not the case.

Take the Baroness.  She did not become one in her lifetime and the evidence suggests that while she was a foul and evil woman, the Orelesian occupiers (and thus the circle) didn't have any issue with her magic (which she seemed to have practiced quite openly) and didn't care about her cruelty.  She only went abomination when she was burned inside her own villa by her own angry subjects.  Had the Baroness not destroyed Blackmarch, the Orlesians most certainly would have for the termerity to revolt against an Orlesian noble.

As for Conner, that entire situation was CAUSED by the nature of the circles and his mother's understandable urge to protect her son.

The point is the game and lore evidence strongly suggests that the very existance of the circle as it is being used now actually greatly increases the rate of abomintions by making it harder for a mage to have a normal life and acceptance without society AND by making it so that it is harder for a mage to get a good education (to be SAFE around others) without subejcting themselves to chantry inspired imprisonment (and often torture or worse).  Thus those mages that aren't inside the circle (which seem to be significant) both have much greater rates of abomination (I'd guess at least ten times the pre-circle rate) AND are much more likely to be anti-socially violent when they do (greatly increasing the impact).

Thus I'd argue that the circle even in absolute numbers has actually made the problem worse.

-Polaris

[GavrielKay]

The simple fact is that mages are people, and as such they should have the same rights as any other person. It is wrong to criminalize being alive. It just is.

I honestly feel exactly the same way about a mage accidentally becoming an abomination and wiping out a village as I do about a lightning strike setting fire to that village and wiping it out. Both are tragedies, both are sad for the survivors.

People have just learned to think of lightning as this random thing that can happen but can't be controlled. And they've been taught by the Chantry to think of mages and magic as things that can be controlled.

Mages are a natural occurrence. Just because it is physically possible to lock up a mage doesn't make it right.

I firmly believe that everyone else's desire to be somewhat safer (which still isn't even proven) does NOT give them the right to imprison an entire class of people. I don't believe the Chantry has any more right to "protect" people by locking up mages than it has to "protect" people by forbidding them living near the sea where a hurricane can kill them.

[Kali073]

I think part of the problem with the circle is that it separates mages from the rest of society. By isolating mages like that, mages fail to form a connection to non-mages. If a mage escapes from the tower out into the world they have very little reason to care about the people who hate and fear them, the people that are the indirect (or direct) cause for their imprisonment. If a mage grows up in society, surrounded and accepted by ordinary people they'll have a much more personal/emotional connection to non-mages.

Quite honestly I think mages have difficulty having a connection to ordinary people. It's like if we hear about a tragic death of one woman literally hundreds and hundreds of miles away it won't impact our lives or emotions much because the distance (emotionally and geographically) is too large but our reaction will probably be much bigger if it's the neighbour we talk to every morning. Mages need more incentives to care about other people and that's not something they'll acquire locked in a tower where the only people they have a positive connection to are other mages.

Ok, so I'm rambling a bit but I hope I got my point across .

Also, it's natural for any animal (including humans) to lash out when backed into a corner. Mages are no different and most of the time it seems like that's all Templars manage to do. Perhaps mages wouldn't be so quick to resort to blood magic if they didn't feel so desperate. Alright so there will always be the occasional sadist willing to do it just for the evulz or an idiot who doesn't know what he's doing. I'm not saying mages shouldn't have restrictions because everyone has restrictions. They're called laws.

As an example, if the police found out ten people living in Brooklyn were murderers they shouldn't arrest the whole area as if they were all guilty. Because that is what the chantry is doing to mages.

I think mages need a Circle like structure, though, a place where they can learn to control their powers and use them responsibly - not a prison. Think Hogwarts, not Alcatraz. Templars and mages together could act as police toward the mages to go rogue and break the law.

That said I agree with GavrielKay, being alive shouldn't be a criminal offence.

Hopefully I wasn't too incoherent... =)

[MisterJB]

Kali073 wrote...
As an example, if the police found out ten people living in Brooklyn were murderers they shouldn't arrest the whole area as if they were all guilty. Because that is what the chantry is doing to mages.

The Chantry does not keep mages in the Circle because the Magisters were mages and all mages are thus guilty by association. The Chantry keeps mages in the Circle because all mages have the potential to become magisters and all are susceptible to demonic possession.

That's not to say I don't agree with you assertion that mages should be more integrated into mundane society tough I suspect we would disagree just on how much.

Think Hogwarts, not Alcatraz.

The different is that wizards in the HP universe are not that dangerous. Sure, they can control minds and kill with two words but muggles have guided missiles and nuclear bombs and numbers on their side. And there are no demons in the HP universe.

[dragonflight288]

dragonflight288
Lotion, the burden of proof is on you.

I disagree. And we've been over this before. you wont' be swayed by my arguments and I won't be swayed by yours.

*sigh* Very well then. You make statements but don't back them up with anything. I'll make statements and back it up with codex entries and gameplay events and we have equal credibility...is that right?

Ah well, you are free to have your own opinions. Instead of arguing over it, let's agree to disagree and go to the elves section or start one on dwarves and discuss something different.

[Kali073]

MisterJB wrote...

The Chantry does not keep mages in the Circle because the Magisters were mages and all mages are thus guilty by association. The Chantry keeps mages in the Circle because all mages have the potential to become magisters and all are susceptible to demonic possession.

That's not to say I don't agree with you assertion that mages should be more integrated into mundane society tough I suspect we would disagree just on how much.

The different is that wizards in the HP universe are not that dangerous. Sure, they can control minds and kill with two words but muggles have guided missiles and nuclear bombs and numbers on their side. And there are no demons in the HP universe.

While you do have a point, isn't that similar to looking up the whole up Brooklyn because some of them will become murderers in the future?

Also, I don't think total intergration is possible, I just also think mages need more of an incentive to say no when a demon comes along with an offer. If they don't care about the ordinary people outside the Circle walls (from whom they've been isolated from and know hate/fear them) they won't care as much about the consequences of their actions for those people.

And about Hogwarts, not all of them are dangerous. In fact a lot aren't. But some are, or will be. One of Harry's classmates could be the next Voldemort. Mages in Ferelden are imprisoned for that reason. The only reason to make an exception for Thedas mages is because an abomination can cause destruction on such a wide scale. However, having a circle doesn't seem to decrease the creation of abominations much.

Demons often work through temptation, of offering what you don't have or believe can't have on your own. For some mages that can be freedom, power etc. The less the demon has to offer, the less likely a mage is to accept. Some mages will accept a demons request no matter how well they're treated but those exist even though the Circle system is in play and some mages might not if their situation was different.

Changing the system would be difficult. Too many mages hold grudges against Templars, the chantry, and (perhaps) against the people that were being protected from them.  I don't think they would let go of that, just like I think the Templars/Chantry won't change their views on mages any time soon. That it would be difficult to create a new system doesn't mean I don't think it should be done. From what we've seen in the game, the old system no longer works.

[GavrielKay]

MisterJB wrote...
The Chantry does not keep mages in the Circle because the Magisters were mages and all mages are thus guilty by association. The Chantry keeps mages in the Circle because all mages have the potential to become magisters and all are susceptible to demonic possession.

Actually, according to the codex, the Chantry keeps mages in circles because the mages (shortsightedly) traded their freedom for being allowed to practice more magic.  The Chantry wanted to control all magic and only allow mages to do what was asked of them - like keeping the eternal fires burning in the cathedrals.  When the mages staged a peaceful protest, the Divine of the time had to be talked out of launching an Exhalted March on her own cathedral.

The circles were supposed to have been a compromise allowing both sides to get something and give something.  Some circles still function at least a little bit as a collaborative effort between mages and Templars.

In any case, from the codex, the circles came out of a desire for control more than fear.  It was not an emergency for which the only solution was locking up mages wholesale.

[azarhal]

GavrielKay wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
The Chantry does not keep mages in the Circle because the Magisters were mages and all mages are thus guilty by association. The Chantry keeps mages in the Circle because all mages have the potential to become magisters and all are susceptible to demonic possession.

Actually, according to the codex, the Chantry keeps mages in circles because the mages (shortsightedly) traded their freedom for being allowed to practice more magic.  The Chantry wanted to control all magic and only allow mages to do what was asked of them - like keeping the eternal fires burning in the cathedrals.  When the mages staged a peaceful protest, the Divine of the time had to be talked out of launching an Exhalted March on her own cathedral.

The circles were supposed to have been a compromise allowing both sides to get something and give something.  Some circles still function at least a little bit as a collaborative effort between mages and Templars.

In any case, from the codex, the circles came out of a desire for control more than fear.  It was not an emergency for which the only solution was locking up mages wholesale.

I'm pretty sure the Circles were created when the Chantry was able to stop the Inquisition (aka the Templars) form killing ALL of the mages. It was probably the deal they made: "lock the mages up and we won't kill them all.". The Chantry used promises of protection, learning and teaching to attract the mages there.

But I speculate that in truth, the Circles original ideas was of eridacating magics by performing eugenics (i.e. removing the "magical" gene from the population) by stopping the mage from having kids...Of course, with time that truth was lost.

I got the idea from Asunder and the Divine new "plan".

[dragonflight288]

azarhal wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
The Chantry does not keep mages in the Circle because the Magisters were mages and all mages are thus guilty by association. The Chantry keeps mages in the Circle because all mages have the potential to become magisters and all are susceptible to demonic possession.

Actually, according to the codex, the Chantry keeps mages in circles because the mages (shortsightedly) traded their freedom for being allowed to practice more magic.  The Chantry wanted to control all magic and only allow mages to do what was asked of them - like keeping the eternal fires burning in the cathedrals.  When the mages staged a peaceful protest, the Divine of the time had to be talked out of launching an Exhalted March on her own cathedral.

The circles were supposed to have been a compromise allowing both sides to get something and give something.  Some circles still function at least a little bit as a collaborative effort between mages and Templars.

In any case, from the codex, the circles came out of a desire for control more than fear.  It was not an emergency for which the only solution was locking up mages wholesale.

I'm pretty sure the Circles were created when the Chantry was able to stop the Inquisition (aka the Templars) form killing ALL of the mages. It was probably the deal they made: "lock the mages up and we won't kill them all.". The Chantry used promises of protection, learning and teaching to attract the mages there.

But I speculate that in truth, the Circles original ideas was of eridacating magics by performing eugenics (i.e. removing the "magical" gene from the population) by stopping the mage from having kids...Of course, with time that truth was lost.

I got the idea from Asunder and the Divine new "plan".

It was the templars who talked the Divine out of killing all the mages.

[GavrielKay]

azarhal wrote...
I got the idea from Asunder and the Divine new "plan".

As dragonflight said, the Divine was furious but her own people talked her out of a massacre.  The codex describes how it happened.  And it's a Chantry source, so if there were any bias, I'd expect it to be in favor of the Chantry.

http://dragonage.wik...y_of_the_Circle

[MisterJB]

Kali073 wrote...
While you do have a point, isn't that similar to looking up the whole up Brooklyn because some of them will become murderers in the future?

The inhabitants of Brooklyn don't have an enormous natural advantage over the rest of the world.

And about Hogwarts, not all of them are dangerous. In fact a lot aren't. But some are, or will be. One of Harry's classmates could be the next Voldemort. Mages in Ferelden are imprisoned for that reason. The only reason to make an exception for Thedas mages is because an abomination can cause destruction on such a wide scale. However, having a circle doesn't seem to decrease the creation of abominations much.

The discrepancy of powers between muggles and wizards is noty as ridiculously huge as the one that exists between mages and mundanes. Again, these are different eras we are talking about.

Doesn't seem to decrease? We don't exactly have the number of abominations that existed before thw Circle system was put in place. However, proper magical education coupled with the templars atent for any sign of mages consorting with demons should decrease the chances of any of them turning into abominations.
And, even if it didn't do so, it is an undeniable fact that if a mage is possessed inside the tower, he will claim much less victims than if he had been possessed inside a city due to not having as many potential victims nearby as well as faster templar response.

Demons often work through temptation, of offering what you don't have or believe can't have on your own. For some mages that can be freedom, power etc. The less the demon has to offer, the less likely a mage is to accept. Some mages will accept a demons request no matter how well they're treated but those exist even though the Circle system is in play and some mages might not if their situation was different.

Demons will always have ways to tempt mankind due to the sad fact that greed is in our nature.
It is true that many mages have turned to blood magic out of desperation. In the name of "freedom".
However, as the Tevinter Imperium proved and continues to prove, even if the templars didn't exist, mages would still find reasons to use blood magic.  

GavrielKay wrote...
Actually, according to the codex, the Chantry keeps mages in circles because the mages (shortsightedly) traded their freedom for being allowed to practice more magic. The Chantry wanted to control all magic and only allow mages to do what was asked of them - like keeping the eternal fires burning in the cathedrals. When the mages staged a peaceful protest, the Divine of the time had to be talked out of launching an Exhalted March on her own cathedral.

The circles were supposed to have been a compromise allowing both sides to get something and give something. Some circles still function at least a little bit as a collaborative effort between mages and Templars.

In any case, from the codex, the circles came out of a desire for control more than fear. It was not an emergency for which the only solution was locking up mages wholesale.

And why did the Chantry seek to limitate the power of mages so? Because magic is increadibly easy to abuse.

If the Chantry abused of the mages under their control; and by this I don't mean beating or raping mages, I mean that the Chantry doesn't have a secret squad of blood mages serving the Divine, for instance nor do they use immense batallions of mages during wars of conquest (even during the Blight, only seven mages were sent to Ostagar); I might believe fear was not the main motivator of their actions.

You can wish to control something because it is simply too dangerous otherwise.

[azarhal]

GavrielKay wrote...

azarhal wrote...
I got the idea from Asunder and the Divine new "plan".

As dragonflight said, the Divine was furious but her own people talked her out of a massacre.  The codex describes how it happened.  And it's a Chantry source, so if there were any bias, I'd expect it to be in favor of the Chantry.

http://dragonage.wik...y_of_the_Circle

I'm based my understanding of the Templar/Chantry/Circles association on this codex entry:
http://dragonage.wik...eekers_of_Truth

:/ One cheer for conflicting lore!

Although, The History of the Circle entry seem to explain a reform of the "Circles" to become what they are today and not really how it started on day one...

[GavrielKay]

MisterJB wrote...
You can wish to control something because it is simply too dangerous otherwise.

Sure, but before the circles, the control was based on rules, not on incarceration.  There is no indication that the Chantry and people in general felt that the only solution to the mage "problem" was kidnapping them as children and locking them all up.  They wanted to control magic and use it only for their own purposes, but they apparently didn't take any steps to segregate mages until the events described in the codex.

If rules were working before then, but mages were dissatisfied with what the rules allowed them to do, that's not the same as having a general problem with abominations running rampant and mages simply being too dangerous to be allowed personal freedom.  Apparently, even in the aftermath of a war against the Tevinter, it was not considered necessary to lock up mages.  Which makes it sound odd that now people want to argue that it's the only way to keep mundane's safe.

The circles were presented as a compromise so mages could learn and practice magic more freely and the Chantry could still control magic and mages.

[dragonflight288]

azarhal wrote...

GavrielKay wrote...

azarhal wrote...
I got the idea from Asunder and the Divine new "plan".

As dragonflight said, the Divine was furious but her own people talked her out of a massacre.  The codex describes how it happened.  And it's a Chantry source, so if there were any bias, I'd expect it to be in favor of the Chantry.

http://dragonage.wik...y_of_the_Circle

I'm based my understanding of the Templar/Chantry/Circles association on this codex entry:
http://dragonage.wik...eekers_of_Truth

:/ One cheer for conflicting lore!

Although, The History of the Circle entry seem to explain a reform of the "Circles" to become what they are today and not really how it started on day one...

One codex entry says the templars talked the Divine out of an exalted march on the mages, and this one is told by a member of the Chantry. And this led to the Circle of Magi.

Another codex says the templars weren't formed until the Circle of Magi, and were the inquisition up to that point. And this one is told by an anonymous letter found in a chantry, its author unknown.

It must have been Osund the Bard, lover of Flemeth!