177 réponses à ce sujet

[Vinkhor]

Dagr88 wrote...

Vinkhor wrote...

Dagr88 wrote...

Nizaris1 wrote...

But in DA, you must choose faction based on your own morality, and your morality is real world morality.

So... Is that a good or a bad thing? Are you afraid that some people in the real world might get morally sensitive and will start to light houses on fire whenever they see injustice? Or the ending is great because there is no red guy with horns who's favorite phrase is "I LUV TO EAT BABIES! JUM JUM" and you have to actually judge situation based on what you have seen through whole game and your real life moral standards.

There is no right choice but there are many excuses:
- My girl/boyfriend is a mage/anti-mage so I will support her/his side
- Meredith couldn't be my love interest so she and her order must die
- I think this choice will produce less corpses
- If I was born a mage I would want to be treated fairly
- I must protect the oppressed!
- Mages can't be trusted!
- And so on...

Yes, I know that it's just a game! So I'll give 2 answers for the question "why I choose templars every time":
- I think it will create less corpses (moral choice... maybe it means that I'm less emotional and more calculating type of person)
- I love to arrange political marriages, Grey Warden + Anora, Hawke + Sebastian (game choice... I usually never play female characters if I'm able to choose, and yes I do think that in DA3 1 of the plot lines will be about unification of Free Marches)

Actually mantaining a constant conflict between templars-mages will generate far more corpses in the end, than a few possessed mages will ever do it normally. (Just look at what Anders did. It`s obviously his fault, but if there wasn`t this conflict he wouldn`t have any reasons in the world to blow up the chantry. So, if this conflict can turn a peaceful healer into a terorrist, it can only lead to more corpeses in the end). 

About "few possessed mages":
1. Your peaceful healer who turned into a terrorist WAS a possessed mage. Before he merged with Justice (later Vengeance) he was a goofy Mage who wanted just to be free and didn't care about the "plight of mages". (DA:Awakening)
2. A bloodmage or demon can mind control other people (nobles, kings, guild masters). It's not about how often it happens but the fact that it CAN happen and usually it's impossible to trace back the puppet master. (DA: Legends)

The source of the conflict are not mages, but demons. If it was JUST mages then the templars would be enough to counterbalance their power and maybe at some point find solution that would not require constant drastic measures.

If I have to give example from ME3:
People (different races) vs Reapers.
Reapers can indoctrinate. You can't reason with indoctrinated person. It's ether kill them, make them brain dead or isolate them. There were some that were able to "resist" total indoctrination, but if I remember correctly they asked to kill them or they just killed themselves.
The main difference is that in ME anyone can be indoctrinated, but in DA targeted audience (99% of the time) are mages + mages posses high damage inborn abilities which can be further improved by a demon (who are most of the time are morally bankrupt .

1. First its not "my" peaceful healer, you don`t have to do this. But if you insist, let`s then talk about "your" templars and "your" chantry! Second, Justice turned into Vengance because of the injustice that happened to mages. Still, we are not discussing here if what Anders did with Justice was wrong or right, this is another matter. I simply said, that if there wasn`t this conflict, he had 0 reasons to blow up the chantry. No exploding chantry, no corpses, simple like that (you said you support the templars because, in this way, there will be less corpses and i argued that with my example).

2. About blood magic. You see, here, somehow i agree with you. Because i belive that blood magic is dangerous. But, locking up all the mages, just because the blood magic is dangerous, is  so very wrong ! (how would you like to be send to jail, just because you are a human and some humans are murderers?). So, my personal solution: ban JUST the practice of the blood magic, only the maleficarum are a real threat.  Free the rest of the mages(i would keep the circles only as an obligatory school to educate all mages, but: A) only temporary..a few years of study or something and with no armed men guarding it, so, ejecting all the templars). Again, very simple too me. The chantry propaganda wants us to belive that all the mages are either blood mages or maleficarum ...and this is not the case. 

3.It`s from another game so i don`t know.

[SeptimusMagistos]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

When I think about the final fight in the Gallows, picked both sides in several playthroughs, there were things going on that could have been more/better explained.

When I choose the templar side and fought the mages I entered a room with templars and mages that were worshipping a desire demon...still would like to know what that was all about. Feels like parts of the story were just left out and the lack of wrapping up things annoyed me..

That's just what Desire demons do. They make people worship them and slowly drain them of energy.

[Renmiri1]

In Skyrim mages are also feared and sent to a tower but they are the ones controlling the tower and no mage is raped / beaten or lobotomized. There are no Templars.

I think that eventually this will happne in the natural evolution of Thedas. Mages just have to earn enough trust and respect to be considered capable of policing their own.

Modifié par Renmiri1, 01 septembre 2012 - 05:34 .

[Foolsfolly]

ReggarBlane wrote...

I think they did a poor job of showing how both sides were wrong. It ends up being one party getting backed into a corner and panicking, making it largely the fault of the other party overreacting (due to insanity as we find out later) to some solitary revolutionary extremist.

I think they messed up by trying to show how both sides are wrong. You should strive to show both sides as right. If you thought both sides are wrong (they are, btw) then you dislike both sides. The Templars are right in that the people need to be protected and to do that they need to keep an eye on mages. The Mages are right in that they shouldn't all be viewed as demon worshiping blood mages.

However too much of the game focuses on how mages are monsters because mages are monsters. Templars are shown as monsters mirroring the ****s with their 'Tranquil Solution's and institutionalized rape.

If they'd shown Templars helping and protecting the public and mages being shown as honest good people instead of crazies that go abomintion or blood magic-y at the drop of a hat. You'd have a tougher decision on who's right.

And yeah. In the end they throw that all out as Anders (lone extremist) does something stupid and then Meredeth (crazy idol crazed) wants to slaughter all mages for one person's crime. She hilariously doesn't do **** against Anders. That has nothing to do with the themes they were building on.

It's a new argument. Should you slaughter a third party for a crime they didn't commit?

The answer to most people is 'No.' But don't worry. Regardless of your answer the game responds exactly the same.

[Renmiri1]

Foolsfolly wrote...

** snip **

And yeah. In the end they throw that all out as Anders (lone extremist) does something stupid and then Meredeth (crazy idol crazed) wants to slaughter all mages for one person's crime. She hilariously doesn't do **** against Anders. That has nothing to do with the themes they were building on.

It's a new argument. Should you slaughter a third party for a crime they didn't commit?

The answer to most people is 'No.' But don't worry. Regardless of your answer the game responds exactly the same.

Anders gave her an excuse to do what she had been trying to do since the start of Act 3. I don't think she cares if you kill Anders or not at the start of Last Straw because she fully intends to kill you and nay mage left alive later. So she lets  you think she is on your side 

[Get Magna Carter]

Craverguy wrote...

Having played the game through twice now, I believe I have put my finger on what, precisely, bothers me about the ending.

This is a game that's all about moral ambiguity and gray vs. grey morality (the templars are dictatorial, but then again the mages are quick on the draw with blood magic, etc.), but to me, the ending just sort of tosses all that out the window. Reasonable people can disagree over whether the Circle system is a necessary sacrifice of liberty to ensure security, or whether freedom for all is worth the potential cost of abandoning it, but that's not the choice that "The Last Straw" presents you with.

After Anders blows up the Chantry, Meredith decides to invoke the Right of Annulment and have every mage in the Kirkwall Circle executed. Now, Anders acted alone; the Circle had nothing to do with his crime. Meredith knows that and so does Hawke. But she's going to massacre them all simply because the people will want blood and she's going to give it to them (this is the actual argument she makes to persuade you to join her).

Now, I hate to break it to BioWare, but there's nothing morally ambiguous going on here. Collective punishment is wrong. Slaughtering dozens of innocent people to punish someone else's crime is wrong. This isn't justice, it's a pogrom. If Hawke is willing to go along with it, he/she is not a good person. And that royally screws the whole "morality kitchen sink" angle they were going for.

I have to agree that the arguments to side with the templars were not morally justifiable which is why I sided with the mages...I'm not certain what I would have done if the argument had instead been about problems with the circle (the head mage's dubious research and association with a serial killer and the number of circle mages turning to blood magic and rebelling) - it's quite clear there were problems at that circle and that is why the rite exists - though ultimately the problem was 2 people - Meredith and Orsino (3 [or 4] people if count Anders/Justice) - get rid of them and get better first enchanter and knight commander and the situation could be normaliksed

[Fiacre]

The problem wasn't just Meredith and possibly Orsino, the problem were people like Karras and Alrik. Unless you don't see raping a young boy / turning mages tranquil to get your own sex slaves as a problem.

To quote from Alain's wiki entry:

If Hawke subsequently talks to Alain in the Gallows courtyard, he tells that the Starkhaven Circle was never like this. The templars beat the mages and no one says a thing. They won't let him send mail out, and he found a letter to his parents that they burned in the furnace. Finally, Ser Karras promised to make him Tranquil if Alain told anyone he has been in Alain's chambers.

I mean, really? Can anyone honestly argue that that isn't wrong? Or that it isn't a big part of why the mages turn to blood magic and demons? That Alain manages to never fall for it (the only time we see him using blood magic is to free whomever was kidnapped during Best Served Cold) is actually quite surprising.

[dragonflight288]

Nizaris1 wrote...

So... Is that a good or a bad thing? Are you afraid that some people in the real world might get morally sensitive and will start to light houses on fire whenever they see injustice? Or the ending is great because there is no red guy with horns who's favorite phrase is "I LUV TO EAT BABIES! JUM JUM" and you have to actually judge situation based on what you have seen through whole game and your real life moral standards.

There is no clear line of morality of DA universe, not like in TES. I mean your morality in DA world is real world mortality. The things you mentioned is based on your intuitive mirrored your real life. If you are a mage, if your boyfriend a mage, if your family a Templar and so on, your judgment is based on your own, not what DA world provide you.

In TES, when you kill Goblin, it have nothing to reflect real world morality because in Tamriel you can kill Goblins as many as you like. There is no right or wrong based on real world right or wrong here. In TES, you can trap anyone soul into a gem to recharge your weapon, it is not wrong at all in TES morality.

In DA, when you kill a Mage or a Templar, you have your reason based on what you perceive on both faction. When you support Meredith it is because in your perspective Meredith is right, when you support Mages, in your perspective the Templar is wrong. Right and wrong here is based on real world right and wrong.

In TES, you can join any faction with no real world right or wrong decision. it is all based on TES standard morality.

In DA, you are not given the standard DA morality, the game forced you to choose faction based on your own standard morality, in which real world morality.

That is why we can make comparisons DA with real world...many fans did no matter Templar supporter or Mage supporter, both have own view based on their own experience and phylosophy of what is morality. it is not DA world morality, but player world morality

Well, I'm glad you have strong opinions on morality. That's a good thing in my book. Someone who knows what is or isn't moral, or has moral guidelines, is less likely to stray from those. Morals are pretty rigid.

I guess, comparing TES to DA, they are different games with different universes. In Elder Scrolls, I generally know I'm being evil, making evil choices, and I can get away with it mentally because I know these are actions I would never take otherwise. When I join the Dark Brotherhood in Skyrim, and I'm plotting to kill the emperor, I know I'm killing an innocent woman on her wedding day, I'm killing a young military man whose only crime was doing his job, and a couple of  cooks. I can sit back and say 'this is horrible stuff, if it happened in real life, I'd be apalled by this individual."

In Dragon Age, the developers go out of their way to make a morally grey area. We know that mages get possessed by demons. Some are forcibly possessed, some go to demons willingly, either in pursuit of power or desperation. We know mages turn to blood magic, and this gives them tools that the average joe would never hope to have (mind control being an example.) We also have templars abusing their power, whether out of a sadistic pleasure or because of religious zealotry. Meredith, for the most part, acted because she cared about the mages in a warped way, but she absolutely refused to listen to any other person's perspective, and was way too heavy handed.

The two games are separate entities. The moralities in The Elder Scrolls are pretty easy to pick up on, even if we're fee to choose whatever we want to do anyway. The moral decisions in Dragon Age aren't so clear cut. The deal with templars and mages is pretty much liberty vs security. And that doesn't even include the racism, religious wars (Qun vs Chant of Light) and societal injustices (City Elves and Casteless.)

Magic in the College of Winterhold is dangerous, conjuration is my favorite school, so I routinely summon daedra, which is the equivalent of summoning demons. But I am not in any real danger of being possessed. Just run through by the daedric servant. Magic in Dragon Age is a lot more complex when dealing with the Fade, spirits and demons (being the same thing in reality, just different virtues or not caring one bit about mortals vs wanting to experience the mortal world,) abominations and blood magic having the capability to control a person's mind, wheras the school of illusion can influence an npc's emotions.

....now that I think about it, the magic system isn't all that different.  ..................

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

when I read the title I thought I was in the Mass Effect 3 section.

[SeptimusMagistos]

Foolsfolly wrote...
It's a new argument. Should you slaughter a third party for a crime they didn't commit?

That's not a new argument at all. It's just the extension of the old argument over whether you shoul imprison a third party for a crime they didn't commit.

[dragonflight288]

Nizaris1 wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
-snip-
Magic in the College of Winterhold is dangerous, conjuration is my favorite school, so I routinely summon daedra, which is the equivalent of summoning demons. But I am not in any real danger of being possessed. Just run through by the daedric servant. Magic in Dragon Age is a lot more complex when dealing with the Fade, spirits and demons (being the same thing in reality, just different virtues or not caring one bit about mortals vs wanting to experience the mortal world,) abominations and blood magic having the capability to control a person's mind, wheras the school of illusion can influence an npc's emotions.

....now that I think about it, the magic system isn't all that different.

yeah, but the different in both games is the morality standard. In TES, it already have the morality standard, while in DA no such thing, the players judging based on their own morality standard. That make the difference.

In TES, using Illusion to toying someone mind is not wrong, i mean if you can use it to anyone, freely. You can buy Illusion spells at shops or guilds. There is a standard morality of TES world for the player to live in.

But in DA toying with someone mind is arguably totally an evil deed. I said arguably because only one faction saying that, the Chantry, while Grey Warden doesn't mind about it. So to control people mind condition is put on the player to decide it is evil thing or not. And the player judging based on real world morality..."what if someone toying with my mind? so it is evil"...or "if using it robbers why not? so it is just a tool"

That makes the different on both games.

This reminds me of a movie. "A Clockwork Orange." It is EXTREMELY controvercial, and horrifying on many levels.

I can't tell you how to feel about things. I can tell you how I feel about the situations we find ourselves in in Dragon Age, but in the end, you have to decide what is appropriate within those circumstances.

[Renmiri1]

On Dragon Age Asunder a mage gets possessed by a demon without him noticing. Worse yet SPOILER









The demon himself has no idea he is a demon and he is possessing the mage. (Cole / Rhys)

[DrAmazingAwesome]

You do realize that there's no way anyone could've avoided reading your spoiler, right? And my copy of Asunder hasn't arrived yet? Gee, thanks. <_<

The problem many people have with the ending of DA2 is the reason I like it--the moral grayness, the lack of a "good choice" and the fact that the conflict is inevitable. In particular, I love the last one.

A player character DOES things. That's what they are, that's the point of a video game. Hawke is, IMO, a deconstruction of that (TV Tropes definition). He/she is ultimately a catalyst for change, but whose to say it's a good change? Your actions (getting the Lyrium Idol, fighting off the Qunari, helping Anders gather materials for the bomb) end up hastening a conflict that's been brewing for centuries. (And yes, I think the war was inevitable--the system is broken, and I doubt it could've been peacefully fixed by the time of DA:O). The fact that they make you choose a side and there is no easy third option (coughcoughMassEffect) impressed me when I first played it, even though the gameplay didn't.

Meredith is awful and insane, and it's ultimately your fault. Why would you want to side with her? The Circle of Magi have become corrupt and turned to the dark arts, and the Tevinter mages of the past used those very powers to rule the world. Why would you want to risk something like that happening again?

Flemeth herself comments on Hawke's nature, though I can't quite remember what she says.

I don't know. I guess I'm just sick of there always being an easy way out in video games. Reality doesn't work like that. But in games like Mass Effect (even though I love that series), you often have some third choice that saves everyone, even if it feels forced. DA2's ending was bold and bleak, and though it had its problems, I applaud it.

[dragonflight288]

DrAmazingAwesome wrote...

You do realize that there's no way anyone could've avoided reading your spoiler, right? And my copy of Asunder hasn't arrived yet? Gee, thanks. <_<

The problem many people have with the ending of DA2 is the reason I like it--the moral grayness, the lack of a "good choice" and the fact that the conflict is inevitable. In particular, I love the last one.

A player character DOES things. That's what they are, that's the point of a video game. Hawke is, IMO, a deconstruction of that (TV Tropes definition). He/she is ultimately a catalyst for change, but whose to say it's a good change? Your actions (getting the Lyrium Idol, fighting off the Qunari, helping Anders gather materials for the bomb) end up hastening a conflict that's been brewing for centuries. (And yes, I think the war was inevitable--the system is broken, and I doubt it could've been peacefully fixed by the time of DA:O). The fact that they make you choose a side and there is no easy third option (coughcoughMassEffect) impressed me when I first played it, even though the gameplay didn't.

Meredith is awful and insane, and it's ultimately your fault. Why would you want to side with her? The Circle of Magi have become corrupt and turned to the dark arts, and the Tevinter mages of the past used those very powers to rule the world. Why would you want to risk something like that happening again?

Flemeth herself comments on Hawke's nature, though I can't quite remember what she says.

I don't know. I guess I'm just sick of there always being an easy way out in video games. Reality doesn't work like that. But in games like Mass Effect (even though I love that series), you often have some third choice that saves everyone, even if it feels forced. DA2's ending was bold and bleak, and though it had its problems, I applaud it.

I respect your view on that. I actually agree with it. But the ending was rushed and poorly implemented. And those time skips. Couldn't there have been a few side quests in-between them to show Hawke isn't sitting on his bum? Like making business deals, investing, making trade agreements, helping Ferelden refugees?

[Renmiri1]

DrAmazingAwesome wrote...

You do realize that there's no way anyone could've avoided reading your spoiler, right? And my copy of Asunder hasn't arrived yet? Gee, thanks. <_<

I'm so sorry.. It is a pretty big spoiler 

I thought tha ammount of blank lines was enough to give you time to avert your eyes.

[Lasien]

DrAmazingAwesome wrote...

You do realize that there's no way anyone could've avoided reading your spoiler, right? And my copy of Asunder hasn't arrived yet? Gee, thanks. <_<

The problem many people have with the ending of DA2 is the reason I like it--the moral grayness, the lack of a "good choice" and the fact that the conflict is inevitable. In particular, I love the last one.

A player character DOES things. That's what they are, that's the point of a video game. Hawke is, IMO, a deconstruction of that (TV Tropes definition). He/she is ultimately a catalyst for change, but whose to say it's a good change? Your actions (getting the Lyrium Idol, fighting off the Qunari, helping Anders gather materials for the bomb) end up hastening a conflict that's been brewing for centuries. (And yes, I think the war was inevitable--the system is broken, and I doubt it could've been peacefully fixed by the time of DA:O). The fact that they make you choose a side and there is no easy third option (coughcoughMassEffect) impressed me when I first played it, even though the gameplay didn't.

Meredith is awful and insane, and it's ultimately your fault. Why would you want to side with her? The Circle of Magi have become corrupt and turned to the dark arts, and the Tevinter mages of the past used those very powers to rule the world. Why would you want to risk something like that happening again?

Flemeth herself comments on Hawke's nature, though I can't quite remember what she says.

I don't know. I guess I'm just sick of there always being an easy way out in video games. Reality doesn't work like that. But in games like Mass Effect (even though I love that series), you often have some third choice that saves everyone, even if it feels forced. DA2's ending was bold and bleak, and though it had its problems, I applaud it.

I believe the quote was something along the lines of "Your nature is to spread your wings and ride the winds of change." Also, "You could never be a dragon."

I assume the whole point was a dragon is huge, it's an event in and of itself, and it changed things in a huge way. But a hawke (heh) doesn't so much fly as glide on wind currents, and is just big enough to make small but significant changes to it's immediate surroundings.

[Renmiri1]

The word is a bit overused lately but I view Hawke as a Catalyst... He/ She is there to make sure all the other elements react, and quickens their interactions and reactions. He / She is at the center, without Hawke the "chemical reaction" - the war starting - would occur much slowly or not at all..

[The Night Haunter]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Craverguy wrote...
Collective punishment is wrong.

Yes it is. That's what the mages have been saying. Imprisoning all of them because a few of them might abuse their power or go insane is wrong. Killing everyone regardless of guilt or innocence is just one step down from imprisoning them all for life.

The mages aren't imprisoned because they might turn to blood magic or go power hungry. They are imprisoned for their own protection.

Picture this:
In your free mage universe, Mr. Mage lives with his family in Denerim, just a normal joe. One night he is out shopping late and takes a shortcut through an alleyway. Unfortunately a pair of muggers decide he would make easy prey (not knowing he is a mage). Now Mr. Mage isn't the most strong willed person in the world, if there was a Harrowing in this universe he would have barely passed it. So when the muggers attack him, he panics and unfortunately allows a demon to possess him when he loses control.

Now we have a demon possessed mage running around Denerim, when if there had been Circles not only would there be no demon, the mage himself would still be alive.
End Scenario.

Now that isn't guarenteed, or potentially even likely, but it would happen. Proof is Ser Thrasks daughter who you find when looking for Feynriel, she is running from slavers and her panic loosens her control and allows a demon to possess her.

Many people seem to think all mages can just resist Demons, but that isn't true. The issue of the Circles is far more complex than most people seem to realize. The Circles were created to protect mages from themselves and from others, as well as to protect others from mages.

[Fiacre]

Mages don't need protection from themselves. I do agree that they need to be taught how to use their powers and keep control, yes, we've seen what happens when a mages isn't properly taught with Connor, for example.

I'm all for Circles that are a place where mages can study. But that's not what the current Circles are. It is *not* for anyone's protection when Templars beat, rape and otherwise abuse their charges. It is certainly not for the mages' protection when Templars slaughter them for no reason. It is not their protection when Templars turn mages tranquil to get new sex slaves.

The current Circles system is broken and there is simply no point in supporting it. It can only lead to more violence, because as long as Templars have such absolute control over their charges and as long as mages are as badly oppressed and imprisoned as they are, there will *always* be rebellions, and rightly so. What is needed is a safe -- and actually safe, not the mockery of the current Circles -- place for mages to come into their powers and learn how to use and control them. Once they've done that, everything is fine. The Templars can still go after them if they do get possessed or turn to blood magic. And I'd wager there'd be a lot less of that in a system that didn't practically force mages to do so in an attempt to protect themselves from the Templars' abuse.

And somehow I doubt that Olivia got the education she needed to keep control of herself. And she'd likely never even gotten in that situation if it weren't for the system.

[The Night Haunter]

Fiacre wrote...

Mages don't need protection from themselves. I do agree that they need to be taught how to use their powers and keep control, yes, we've seen what happens when a mages isn't properly taught with Connor, for example.

I'm all for Circles that are a place where mages can study. But that's not what the current Circles are. It is *not* for anyone's protection when Templars beat, rape and otherwise abuse their charges. It is certainly not for the mages' protection when Templars slaughter them for no reason. It is not their protection when Templars turn mages tranquil to get new sex slaves.

The current Circles system is broken and there is simply no point in supporting it. It can only lead to more violence, because as long as Templars have such absolute control over their charges and as long as mages are as badly oppressed and imprisoned as they are, there will *always* be rebellions, and rightly so. What is needed is a safe -- and actually safe, not the mockery of the current Circles -- place for mages to come into their powers and learn how to use and control them. Once they've done that, everything is fine. The Templars can still go after them if they do get possessed or turn to blood magic. And I'd wager there'd be a lot less of that in a system that didn't practically force mages to do so in an attempt to protect themselves from the Templars' abuse.

And somehow I doubt that Olivia got the education she needed to keep control of herself. And she'd likely never even gotten in that situation if it weren't for the system.

You are under the assumption that all Circles work like Kirkwall's. A false assumption since we saw that Feredlen's Circle had a fairly friendly Knight-Commander.

Also your point that the Templars could go after mages after they are possessed results in civilian casualties. Meredith said sixty innocents died when her sister was possessed.

Real World Example:
If someone was diagnosed as a carrier of a deadly desease they would be quarentined, They aren't asked if they want to be quarentined, they are forcibly put into isolation if necessary because they are a threat to people around them. The situation with mages isn't the same of course but it is similiar. Mages unknowingly are a threat to those around them, trained or untrained. Many abominations we've seen have been trained mages. Just as a carrier for a deadly virus is quarentined so must mages be. For their own protection.

Back to the point about Circles not being safe, we know little about any Circle besides Kirkwall and to a lesser extent Ferelden. So assuming other Circles are like Kirkwall, a city where Tevinter rituals purposely tore the fade causing a higher than normal incidence of blood mage/abomination possession, is like assuming a stastic about a California shopping center would also apply to a Texan store.

[Fiacre]

What I've heard of Asunder doesn't sound too promising. And some of the Starkhaven mages tell us the Circle there was pretty bad as well. And Anders tells us that he was *lucky* not to be raped -- and he was in the Fereldan Circle. Aneirin, a fourteen year old, gets run through and left for dead for trying to run away, without any proof that he was actually a maleficar. Anders was kept in solitary confinement for a year (which is pretty damn terrible, no matter how many times he may have tried to escape). Cullen tells us in the mage origin that he knows Templars that talk with glee about slaughtering mages. We know that there's a relatively high suicide rate in Circles. The mages in the Ferelden Circle still feel that their treatment was bad enough to warrant a rebellion -- Uldred screwed up and was possessed, true, but what actually happened wasn't the initial plan and the blood mage we meet tells us that they just wanted freedom. Irving himself tells us that if you want to survive, you have to learn the rules and is very cynical and disillusioned regarding the system and the Chantry.

And a lot of of the abominations we meet are either appostates who may very well have insufficient training (like Olivia) or turn under situations of extreme duress -- situations that might or definitely would not exist if it weren't for the current system.

And your example fails because mages *don't* carry a deadly, contagious disease. They might be infected in the future, but they don't already carry it.. The correct reaction is to prevent an actual infection as well as possible, which the current system doesn't do, because the current system creates *more* abominations.

[dragonflight288]

Fiacre wrote...

What I've heard of Asunder doesn't sound too promising. And some of the Starkhaven mages tell us the Circle there was pretty bad as well. And Anders tells us that he was *lucky* not to be raped -- and he was in the Fereldan Circle. Aneirin, a fourteen year old, gets run through and left for dead for trying to run away, without any proof that he was actually a maleficar. Anders was kept in solitary confinement for a year (which is pretty damn terrible, no matter how many times he may have tried to escape). Cullen tells us in the mage origin that he knows Templars that talk with glee about slaughtering mages. We know that there's a relatively high suicide rate in Circles. The mages in the Ferelden Circle still feel that their treatment was bad enough to warrant a rebellion -- Uldred screwed up and was possessed, true, but what actually happened wasn't the initial plan and the blood mage we meet tells us that they just wanted freedom. Irving himself tells us that if you want to survive, you have to learn the rules and is very cynical and disillusioned regarding the system and the Chantry.

And a lot of of the abominations we meet are either appostates who may very well have insufficient training (like Olivia) or turn under situations of extreme duress -- situations that might or definitely would not exist if it weren't for the current system.

And your example fails because mages *don't* carry a deadly, contagious disease. They might be infected in the future, but they don't already carry it.. The correct reaction is to prevent an actual infection as well as possible, which the current system doesn't do, because the current system creates *more* abominations.

Well said.

[SeptimusMagistos]

ghostmessiah202 wrote...
Picture this:
In your free mage universe, Mr. Mage lives with his family in Denerim, just a normal joe. One night he is out shopping late and takes a shortcut through an alleyway. Unfortunately a pair of muggers decide he would make easy prey (not knowing he is a mage). Now Mr. Mage isn't the most strong willed person in the world, if there was a Harrowing in this universe he would have barely passed it. So when the muggers attack him, he panics and unfortunately allows a demon to possess him when he loses control.

Now we have a demon possessed mage running around Denerim, when if there had been Circles not only would there be no demon, the mage himself would still be alive.
End Scenario.

Well, that's an unfortunate set of circumstances. But even if we assumed that the Circles were 100% effective at preventing demonic possession, which is not remotely the case Mr. Mage might still find that set of circumstances preferrable to the one where he's taken away from his family at the age of eight, shoved into a tower where he'll never have a family of his own and taught that his magic is a curse from the Maker.

Not to mention that even in a free universe some reasonable precautions might be taken. Someone might come by to check on Mr. Mage at the end of the month or the year to make sure that he's still himself.