EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Another was a young girl who had lived most of her life as a free apostate, and still liked the Circle more... What's your point?
dragonflight288 wrote...
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Another was a young girl who had lived most of her life as a free apostate, and still liked the Circle more... What's your point?
My memory may be a bit fuzzy, but could you please remind me about that one? What's her name and where she appears in the story?
Did she, or did she not, enjoy living in the Circle?The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Bethany really only liked the Circle more because she was with other Mages, not because of the system itself.
DarthLaxian wrote...
so yes, most mages (except for the chantry apologists (i count wynne among them, as she thinks the circle is "good")) do not like being locked up just for being born...hell that is like say locking every child up that is born with hereditary illnesses...would you want that in reality?
DarthLaxian wrote...
mages can police themselves (and templars can still be trained, they just do not stand by to kill all and every mage for breathing wrongly!!!)
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Did she, or did she not, enjoy living in the Circle?The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Bethany really only liked the Circle more because she was with other Mages, not because of the system itself.
No she wouldn't. She would still be on the run then. She would still be a liability for her family. Being on the run, and a danger to her family, is what she hated, not that she didn't know any other mages. Once she joined the Circle, she knew her family was safe, and she even felt safe herself, for a change. Of course the fact that she lived with others like her only added to her overall increase of life enjoyment. Bottomline: Bethany enjoyed life at the Circle. You can twist, turn, ****, and whine about it all you want, it wont change the fact. She liked it.The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Did she, or did she not, enjoy living in the Circle?The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
Bethany really only liked the Circle more because she was with other Mages, not because of the system itself.
She enjoyed living with other Mages. That only happened to coincide with her living in the Circle. Did she enjoy living there? Only because she was with other Mages, not because she approved of the system as it was.
Had she known dozens of Mages and still been free, she would've been just as happy.
If it was lethal and highly contagious? Yes.DarthLaxian wrote...
so yes, most mages (except for the chantry apologists (i count wynne among them, as she thinks the circle is "good")) do not like being locked up just for being born...hell that is like say locking every child up that is born with hereditary illnesses...would you want that in reality?
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
No she wouldn't. She would still be on the run then. She would still be a liability for her family. Being on the run, and a danger to her family, is what she hated, not that she didn't know any other mages
Possibly. Enchanter Ilana, despite having certain perks, was still a part of the Circle. And the only reason that Hawke gets to live as a free mage is because of plot-armor.The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
No she wouldn't. She would still be on the run then. She would still be a liability for her family. Being on the run, and a danger to her family, is what she hated, not that she didn't know any other mages
I meant if she had been free after the Deep Roads Expedition. She would've been able to live free from the Templars due to the money the Hawke family would've acquired. Rich Mages, after all, can have perks that regular mages can't.
Like Enchanter Ilana.
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Possibly. Enchanter Ilana, despite having certain perks, was still a part of the Circle. And the only reason that Hawke gets to live as a free mage is because of plot-armor.The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
No she wouldn't. She would still be on the run then. She would still be a liability for her family. Being on the run, and a danger to her family, is what she hated, not that she didn't know any other mages
I meant if she had been free after the Deep Roads Expedition. She would've been able to live free from the Templars due to the money the Hawke family would've acquired. Rich Mages, after all, can have perks that regular mages can't.
Like Enchanter Ilana.
But in my mind, at least from my own personal playthrough, it wasn't so much that she liked living in the Circle so much as she liked being around other mages and a great sense of relief that her family wouldn't have to hide anymore because of her.
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Enchanter Ilana -- despite having perks -- was still a part of the Circle
EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Oddly enough, Carver didn't like living in the Circle...
Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 09 octobre 2012 - 03:25 .
Warrior Craess wrote...
I really hadn't paid much attention to this conversation aside from my little part in it. But are people really advocating that mages be kept as second class citizens with out the basic freedoms that others have? That simple because they could do something that they are all inherently untrustworthy and should be kept in a prison?
Yet the ruler of a nation who wields much more temporal power than a mage, is not only allowed to do whatever, but his scions are also deemed worthy to rule (without question)? The Divine who as no checks or balance to her power, is simply chosen from the ranks of the Chantry with only the requirement that she maintain Chantry law? Or a Knight-Commander of the Templar's is chosen for her zealotry?
So you can be born into a position of power of others, you can be chosen for your religious knowledge to be in power over others, and you can be placed in command of others based on your zeal. But heaven forbid you be born with a power not limited by the above (which themselves have no limits)... I'm confused. So which power hungry madman/woman though up that system and convinced everyone it was a good idea.
DPSSOC wrote...
Warrior Craess wrote...
I really hadn't paid much attention to this conversation aside from my little part in it. But are people really advocating that mages be kept as second class citizens with out the basic freedoms that others have? That simple because they could do something that they are all inherently untrustworthy and should be kept in a prison?
Yet the ruler of a nation who wields much more temporal power than a mage, is not only allowed to do whatever, but his scions are also deemed worthy to rule (without question)? The Divine who as no checks or balance to her power, is simply chosen from the ranks of the Chantry with only the requirement that she maintain Chantry law? Or a Knight-Commander of the Templar's is chosen for her zealotry?
So you can be born into a position of power of others, you can be chosen for your religious knowledge to be in power over others, and you can be placed in command of others based on your zeal. But heaven forbid you be born with a power not limited by the above (which themselves have no limits)... I'm confused. So which power hungry madman/woman though up that system and convinced everyone it was a good idea.
Here's the fundamental flaw with your reasoning, and in fact with many people's reasoning who bring up this argument. The non-mages you bring up have influence and people at their command that they require to be dangerous. If nobody follows them they have no more power than anyone else. A mage has no such limitations. What a lord or a Knight Commander can do with soldiers a single mage can do by themself.
More over a mage can cause massive devastation by accident. Let's look at Shale for a moment. Now Wilhelm was tinkering in things he didn't fully understand, it went bad, and Shale killed him. Now what if everyone else hadn't been that lucky? Could anybody in Honleath have stopped her? Would anybody have survived if instead of killing Wilhelm and shutting down she'd just moved on to the next available target? Or the apprentice in the magi Origin who's trying to control a flame and it engulfs him? Imagine that happening in a place like Redcliffe where most everything's made of wood. Then there's the possibility of splitting the Veil, which Jowan points out Connor could have done by accident.
It's not just the belief that mages will always be evil if given freedom, it's that if they mess up it can get people killed. Best to keep such activities restricted to a location where there are an abundance of people who can deal with the situation on hand wouldn't you agree? We don't let people build explosives in their garages, not because we think they'll do something criminal with the explosives (well not just that) but because what they're doing puts everybody around them at risk.
A mage, by their mere existence, endangers everyone around them. It sucks but those are the breaks. So do we let the public face that risk with no means of protecting themselves from malicious or accidental magical harm, or do we keep a small portion of the population confined for their protection?
dragonflight288 wrote...
If you look at mages like Merrill, you can't deny they're dangerous in battle, but when they're not in battle, the most they'll do is make frowny faces at you.
dragonflight288 wrote...
DPSSOC wrote...
Warrior Craess wrote...
I really hadn't paid much attention to this conversation aside from my little part in it. But are people really advocating that mages be kept as second class citizens with out the basic freedoms that others have? That simple because they could do something that they are all inherently untrustworthy and should be kept in a prison?
Yet the ruler of a nation who wields much more temporal power than a mage, is not only allowed to do whatever, but his scions are also deemed worthy to rule (without question)? The Divine who as no checks or balance to her power, is simply chosen from the ranks of the Chantry with only the requirement that she maintain Chantry law? Or a Knight-Commander of the Templar's is chosen for her zealotry?
So you can be born into a position of power of others, you can be chosen for your religious knowledge to be in power over others, and you can be placed in command of others based on your zeal. But heaven forbid you be born with a power not limited by the above (which themselves have no limits)... I'm confused. So which power hungry madman/woman though up that system and convinced everyone it was a good idea.
Here's the fundamental flaw with your reasoning, and in fact with many people's reasoning who bring up this argument. The non-mages you bring up have influence and people at their command that they require to be dangerous. If nobody follows them they have no more power than anyone else. A mage has no such limitations. What a lord or a Knight Commander can do with soldiers a single mage can do by themself.
More over a mage can cause massive devastation by accident. Let's look at Shale for a moment. Now Wilhelm was tinkering in things he didn't fully understand, it went bad, and Shale killed him. Now what if everyone else hadn't been that lucky? Could anybody in Honleath have stopped her? Would anybody have survived if instead of killing Wilhelm and shutting down she'd just moved on to the next available target? Or the apprentice in the magi Origin who's trying to control a flame and it engulfs him? Imagine that happening in a place like Redcliffe where most everything's made of wood. Then there's the possibility of splitting the Veil, which Jowan points out Connor could have done by accident.
It's not just the belief that mages will always be evil if given freedom, it's that if they mess up it can get people killed. Best to keep such activities restricted to a location where there are an abundance of people who can deal with the situation on hand wouldn't you agree? We don't let people build explosives in their garages, not because we think they'll do something criminal with the explosives (well not just that) but because what they're doing puts everybody around them at risk.
A mage, by their mere existence, endangers everyone around them. It sucks but those are the breaks. So do we let the public face that risk with no means of protecting themselves from malicious or accidental magical harm, or do we keep a small portion of the population confined for their protection?
Lyrium, by its very existence, threatens everyone around it unless you're a dwarf, and even then there are risks.
Darkspawn, by their very existence, are a threat to everything around them....and not just in tainting whatever's around them either. If they're not awakened, they're trying to gut you.
Mages, are not dangerous by existing. They are dangerous when provoked and feel the need to use thier power. A guardsman is dangerous when they feel the need to use a sword or a bow. A bandit is dangerous when he feels the need to rob a caravan.
If you look at mages like Merrill, you can't deny they're dangerous in battle, but when they're not in battle, the most they'll do is make frowny faces at you.
I can hold a gun. That'll make me very dangerous. Should I be locked up or my hands cut off on the off chance that I decide to go on a killing spree? A martial artist (Chuck Norris or Bruce Lee being examples) are deadly without needing ANY weapons at all. Anyone properly trained and with the knowledge, can kill you a hundred ways with just their bare hands. Maybe we should put a ban on studying self-defense and martial arts because some people may use those skills for crime?
And if we're talking about mages turning into abominations....the chances of that happening are very slim if the mage isn't in the Fade. When outside the Fade, a templar is in just as much danger as a mage is of being possessed (unless the mage is a somniari, which has been established as an exception to the rule.)
DPSSOC wrote...
Read the bold again. You cannot accidentally kill multiple people with a bow, or a sword, or even a gun (ok maybe with a gun but if you don't put it down after the first it's not an accident anymore). A martail arts expert can't accidentally kill you. All of these tools that make people dangerous require malicious intent to do so to any significant degree. A mage can accidentally set fire to a house, or unleash a demon, or tear the veil, and we see from Wilhelm and Avernus that seasoned mages still make mistakes, there are still accidents.
Any time a mage does magic they're putting people at risk because something could go wrong. I am not assuming malicious intent on the part of the mages, far from it, but malicious intent is not a requirement for a mage to be dangerous. A man with a sword is only dangerous if he wants to be, same with a bow, or a lord with an army; a mage is dangerous by the very nature of what they do.
DuskWarden wrote...
DPSSOC wrote...
Read the bold again. You cannot accidentally kill multiple people with a bow, or a sword, or even a gun (ok maybe with a gun but if you don't put it down after the first it's not an accident anymore). A martail arts expert can't accidentally kill you. All of these tools that make people dangerous require malicious intent to do so to any significant degree. A mage can accidentally set fire to a house, or unleash a demon, or tear the veil, and we see from Wilhelm and Avernus that seasoned mages still make mistakes, there are still accidents.
Any time a mage does magic they're putting people at risk because something could go wrong. I am not assuming malicious intent on the part of the mages, far from it, but malicious intent is not a requirement for a mage to be dangerous. A man with a sword is only dangerous if he wants to be, same with a bow, or a lord with an army; a mage is dangerous by the very nature of what they do.
Avernus's mistake was hardly a mistake though. He was driven to summon more and more demons from across the veil because his life, and the lives of his fellow Wardens, were in grave danger. That wasn't just an accident whilst tinkering around with something like Wilhelm's was. He was pushed and forced to do something he wasn't certain about. Remember that it was Sophia who cried for more demons, to do "whatever it takes".
So by all accounts, experienced mages making significant mistakes which cause harm are exceedingly rare. Also, men with swords and bows are perfectly capable of causing harm by accident too. In training you could put too much force behind the blow by accident and break your partner's neck. Or slip whilst drawing an arrow, which goes off in an unintended direction and kills someone.
Even if you disagree with all of that, surely the best people to deal with mages who mistakes are other mages? If a mage sets fire to the library by accident, another mage could use frost/ice magic to put it out. If a mage accidentally summons something too powerful from across the veil, then if mages are as dangerous as you claim, surely they are the most capable of destroying it or sending it back? Why exactly do the mages need to live in what is at best a gilded prison, and at worst abuse, when they are perfectly capable of looking after themselves?
This is another problem with blood magic. Right now, the study of blood magic is forbidden, meaning it is very difficult to extensively study the subject. Ever hear the saying "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"? I think that certainly applies to this situation. If mages were allowed to study blood magic freely, and better understand it's use - and the dangers - we would see far more responsible use of it. By forbidding it's study, the chantry is actually increasing the danger it poses. (As based on DAO and DA2, finding out the basics is apparently pretty easy)
Vandicus wrote...
Avernus would've done so anyways, as he admits.
You don't address the problem of mind control in your post, which I think is probably the highest concern regarding blood magic. Once a blood mage learns mind control the danger they present is substantially higher, as a single blood mage(with mind control) is capable of causing an entire Circle to fall apart. That's a lot of trust to put in a person.
Now I do believe that it ought to be studied, but simply allowing all mages to study blood magic freely strikes me as incredibly risky.
Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 09 octobre 2012 - 02:34 .
Retour en haut