2177 réponses à ce sujet

[General User]

KainD wrote...

General User wrote...

KainD wrote...

Can you move from place to place without other peoples regulations upon you as a mage? No.

It's this one that sticks in my craw.  What is so unacceptable about regulating magic?

There are no problems with regulating magic, there are problems with regulating mages. Those two are different. 

Same as regulating drug use is different from having an ever watchful eye on every person at all times who MIGHT use drugs. That's invading privacy and human rights. 

Ok.  What's so unaccepatable about regulating mages?

[Xilizhra]

Ok. What's so unaccepatable about regulating mages?

They haven't done anything wrong by being mages. Protecting mages is acceptable, which may require some degree of confinement because of the demon thing, but the intent and primary focus arevery different.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 11 octobre 2012 - 09:47 .

[whogotsalami]

Cultist wrote...

Please, don't stop, Lotion! Not every day we see people on forums telling us that Chantry is good and merciful and in its beneficent grace should start a genocide of mages and all their supporters.
In fact every your post proves that mages' lives, human lives, could not be entrusted to the templars, because they may end under authority of people such as you, that treat them like animals, who should be caged, trained and slaughtered at their masters' whims.
Way to go, man! Way to go))

this^

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

Ok. What's so unaccepatable about regulating mages?

They haven't done anything wrong by being mages. Protecting mages is acceptable, which may require some degree of confinement because of the demon thing, but the intent and primary focus arevery different.

Would you agree that, in addition to protecting mages, the general public has a right to protection from dangerous mages and magic?

[Xilizhra]

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ok. What's so unaccepatable about regulating mages?

They haven't done anything wrong by being mages. Protecting mages is acceptable, which may require some degree of confinement because of the demon thing, but the intent and primary focus arevery different.

Would you agree that, in addition to protecting mages, the general public has a right to protection from dangerous mages and magic?

Yes, inasmuch as the public has the right to be protected from anyone dangerous, but not everyone potentially dangerous is locked up just for being that, or at least shouldn't be.

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ok. What's so unaccepatable about regulating mages?

They haven't done anything wrong by being mages. Protecting mages is acceptable, which may require some degree of confinement because of the demon thing, but the intent and primary focus arevery different.

Would you agree that, in addition to protecting mages, the general public has a right to protection from dangerous mages and magic?

Yes, inasmuch as the public has the right to be protected from anyone dangerous, but not everyone potentially dangerous is locked up just for being that, or at least shouldn't be.

Locking up dnagerous people is dependent on the nature and severity of the danger they represent.

[Xilizhra]

Locking up dnagerous people is dependent on the nature and severity of the danger they represent.

Which first needs to be proven by their behavior.

[BlueMagitek]

Xilizhra wrote...

Locking up dnagerous people is dependent on the nature and severity of the danger they represent.

Which first needs to be proven by their behavior.

There's a bit of a problem with that because with Mages, there really isn't a need to cause harm or anything.  All it takes is one bad day, one failed spell, one burst of overconfidence and suddenly everyone in the village is being assaulted by undead while you mutilate your elves.

Warrior Craess wrote...

It is not me that is missing the point. 
Magic is only dangerous when abused. Wynn is an abomination by the strictest definition. Is she in any need of being executed? She's of Moderate temper, heals people, and supports the chantry and the circle. Yet any templar would gladly kill her, becuase she's been tainted by a spirit. 

You want to focus on only th dangerous aspects of magic, but you fail to acknowledge the very dangerous aspects of people in general.  Anything a mage can do can be duplicated by a non mage. It might take more effort but it can still be done.  What if Dvorkin goes insane, and starts lobbing his little improved exposives around?  I've listed the history of some rather famous cities burning to the ground thousands dead, and tens or hundreds of thousands displaced. all becuase someone forgot to shutter a lamp, or dropped a lamp in a hay barn, or even because someone intentionally set a building on fire.  I've listed several serial killers who needed no magic to rack up some rather large body counts.  But still you persist in assuming that it's magic that makes people dangerous. 

You blind to the fact that you're a bigot. What you suggests for the mages is no different that treating someone differently due to their color, the gender, their race. 

BTW for those of you whom are american, the USA was founded on the principle that freedom was more important than safety. There is nothing in the bill of rights concerning a citizens safety. But there surely is a bunch of stuff mandating their freedom.  That the USA hasn't lived up to that ideal is almost beside the point. The reason it hasn't has been power hungry jack-wads who trumpeted public safety as their means to rise in power. 

Anyways, I'm done arguing a pointless argument. You have your game where you can side with the chantry and templars and be as repressive as you want to be. I have might game, where freedom is important, and criminals of any sort ,magic or otherwise, are held accountable.

You're avoiding my arguments now.

Yes, taking spirits into you is dangerous.  Look at Anders, he couldn't control Justice.  Wynne may be perfectly fine now, but there's no way of knowing if she's in control, or if she may accidently taint the spirit of Faith as Anders did with Vengence.  As a rule, this should not be encouraged.

Yes, people can be very dangerous.  Most people, however, the vast majority of people, don't actually have to go through temptation of nigh unlimited power like Mages do.  Once again, look at Connor; he had pure motives, he wanted to save his father.  And then people started dying horribly. 

Call me whatever you like; the Mages are dangerous, even when they don't mean to be, and should be handled with care.  Unless you're a dwarf. =D

[Xilizhra]

There's a bit of a problem with that because with Mages, there really isn't a need to cause harm or anything. All it takes is one bad day, one failed spell, one burst of overconfidence and suddenly everyone in the village is being assaulted by undead while you mutilate your elves.

I filed that under "protecting mages." Though it doesn't seem to be as bad as you make it out to be.

[Warrior Craess]

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ok. What's so unaccepatable about regulating mages?

They haven't done anything wrong by being mages. Protecting mages is acceptable, which may require some degree of confinement because of the demon thing, but the intent and primary focus arevery different.

Would you agree that, in addition to protecting mages, the general public has a right to protection from dangerous mages and magic?

Yes, inasmuch as the public has the right to be protected from anyone dangerous, but not everyone potentially dangerous is locked up just for being that, or at least shouldn't be.

Locking up dnagerous people is dependent on the nature and severity of the danger they represent.

only after they have been proven dangerous.  Not prior, not just becuase they could be dangerous. Anyone could be dangerous.

[Warrior Craess]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Locking up dnagerous people is dependent on the nature and severity of the danger they represent.

Which first needs to be proven by their behavior.

There's a bit of a problem with that because with Mages, there really isn't a need to cause harm or anything.  All it takes is one bad day, one failed spell, one burst of overconfidence and suddenly everyone in the village is being assaulted by undead while you mutilate your elves.

Warrior Craess wrote...

It is not me that is missing the point. 
Magic is only dangerous when abused. Wynn is an abomination by the strictest definition. Is she in any need of being executed? She's of Moderate temper, heals people, and supports the chantry and the circle. Yet any templar would gladly kill her, becuase she's been tainted by a spirit. 

You want to focus on only th dangerous aspects of magic, but you fail to acknowledge the very dangerous aspects of people in general.  Anything a mage can do can be duplicated by a non mage. It might take more effort but it can still be done.  What if Dvorkin goes insane, and starts lobbing his little improved exposives around?  I've listed the history of some rather famous cities burning to the ground thousands dead, and tens or hundreds of thousands displaced. all becuase someone forgot to shutter a lamp, or dropped a lamp in a hay barn, or even because someone intentionally set a building on fire.  I've listed several serial killers who needed no magic to rack up some rather large body counts.  But still you persist in assuming that it's magic that makes people dangerous. 

You blind to the fact that you're a bigot. What you suggests for the mages is no different that treating someone differently due to their color, the gender, their race. 

BTW for those of you whom are american, the USA was founded on the principle that freedom was more important than safety. There is nothing in the bill of rights concerning a citizens safety. But there surely is a bunch of stuff mandating their freedom.  That the USA hasn't lived up to that ideal is almost beside the point. The reason it hasn't has been power hungry jack-wads who trumpeted public safety as their means to rise in power. 

Anyways, I'm done arguing a pointless argument. You have your game where you can side with the chantry and templars and be as repressive as you want to be. I have might game, where freedom is important, and criminals of any sort ,magic or otherwise, are held accountable.

You're avoiding my arguments now.

Yes, taking spirits into you is dangerous.  Look at Anders, he couldn't control Justice.  Wynne may be perfectly fine now, but there's no way of knowing if she's in control, or if she may accidently taint the spirit of Faith as Anders did with Vengence.  As a rule, this should not be encouraged.

Yes, people can be very dangerous.  Most people, however, the vast majority of people, don't actually have to go through temptation of nigh unlimited power like Mages do.  Once again, look at Connor; he had pure motives, he wanted to save his father.  And then people started dying horribly. 

Call me whatever you like; the Mages are dangerous, even when they don't mean to be, and should be handled with care.  Unless you're a dwarf. =D

Yes, mages should be handled with care. that doesn't mean that they get locked away, with horror stories told about the bad people in the tower.  It doesn't mean that they should be terrified of their gift. It doesn't mean that if they don't follow your rules they should be killed, especially if all they have done try to live a normal life. 

If Isolde hadn't been terrified that she'd lose her only sun, If a qualified teacher was available, If Lord logain hadn't tried to kill off his political enemy, then it's entirely likely that the tragedy at redcliff would have never happened. 

laying the blame for all the bad things that have happened soley at the feet of mages is juvenile.  The Culture of Thedas is not at all healthy for magic.  There are lots of ways for magic to serve mankind, with out being looked at as evil. Or having to be enslaved to the whims of religious zealots. 

[General User]

Xilizhra wrote...

Locking up dnagerous people is dependent on the nature and severity of the danger they represent.

Which first needs to be proven by their behavior.

For determining a threat to the general welfare, only the severity and nature of the threat need be proven (or "demonstrated" rather).  If the threat is not behavior dependent, as it is not with mages, then I don't why mages shouldn't be interred, incarcerated, or otherwise restricted.

Modifié par General User, 11 octobre 2012 - 11:34 .

[Warrior Craess]

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Locking up dnagerous people is dependent on the nature and severity of the danger they represent.

Which first needs to be proven by their behavior.

For determining a threat to the general welfare, only the severity and nature of the threat need be proven (or "demonstrated" rather).  If the threat is not behavior dependent, as it is not with mages, then I don't why mages shouldn't be interred, incarcerated, or otherwise restricted.

Wrong, people, mages included can not be reasonably held responsible for what MIGHT happen. Are brilliant but absent minded people held responsible becuase someday they might blow up the chem lab? Or leave a bacteria culture unsecured? Are scientists held responsible for what weapon, or explosive that they MIGHT create? 

[BlueMagitek]

Xilizhra wrote...

There's a bit of a problem with that because with Mages, there really isn't a need to cause harm or anything. All it takes is one bad day, one failed spell, one burst of overconfidence and suddenly everyone in the village is being assaulted by undead while you mutilate your elves.

I filed that under "protecting mages." Though it doesn't seem to be as bad as you make it out to be.

Well, it does happen in game.  I'll give you that it is one of the rarer scenarios.

Warrior Craess wrote...

Yes, mages should be handled with
care. that doesn't mean that they get locked away, with horror stories
told about the bad people in the tower.  It doesn't mean that they
should be terrified of their gift. It doesn't mean that if they don't
follow your rules they should be killed, especially if all they have
done try to live a normal life. 

If Isolde hadn't been terrified
that she'd lose her only sun, If a qualified teacher was available, If
Lord logain hadn't tried to kill off his political enemy, then it's
entirely likely that the tragedy at redcliff would have never happened. 

laying
the blame for all the bad things that have happened soley at the feet
of mages is juvenile.  The Culture of Thedas is not at all healthy for
magic.  There are lots of ways for magic to serve mankind, with out
being looked at as evil. Or having to be enslaved to the whims of
religious zealots.

You're avoiding my arguments again.

No one says the system is perfect, but it's better than the alternatives tried so far.

We can play the "If..." game all day.  But Connor made a deal with a demon.  It happened, lots of people died and were mutilated.  And this can be any mage.

I'm not laying all of the blame on the mages.  But they're dangerous, even when they don't intend to be.  That's a fact.

[Xilizhra]

General User wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Locking up dnagerous people is dependent on the nature and severity of the danger they represent.

Which first needs to be proven by their behavior.

For determining a threat to the general welfare, only the severity and nature of the threat need be proven (or "demonstrated" rather).  If the threat is not behavior dependent, as it is not with mages, then I don't why mages shouldn't be interred, incarcerated, or otherwise restricted.

So far, we've never seen anyone be possessed unwillingly outside of an outright demonic invasion or a generally veil-thin area. Mages could definitely require supervision to enter the latter areas, but in most places, they don't seem to generally be at risk for many non-behavior-related dangers. And Connor deliberately summoned a demon, so that's not an example of mages being accidental dangers.

I'm not laying all of the blame on the mages.  But they're dangerous, even when they don't intend to be.  That's a fact.

Connor did intend to be possessed. Willing possessees can garner a lot more power, but they're also remarkably rare, and Connor was just a badly trained kid in a unique set of circumstances.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 12 octobre 2012 - 12:21 .

[Warrior Craess]

BlueMagitek wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

There's a bit of a problem with that because with Mages, there really isn't a need to cause harm or anything. All it takes is one bad day, one failed spell, one burst of overconfidence and suddenly everyone in the village is being assaulted by undead while you mutilate your elves.

I filed that under "protecting mages." Though it doesn't seem to be as bad as you make it out to be.

Well, it does happen in game.  I'll give you that it is one of the rarer scenarios.

Warrior Craess wrote...

Yes, mages should be handled with
care. that doesn't mean that they get locked away, with horror stories
told about the bad people in the tower.  It doesn't mean that they
should be terrified of their gift. It doesn't mean that if they don't
follow your rules they should be killed, especially if all they have
done try to live a normal life. 

If Isolde hadn't been terrified
that she'd lose her only sun, If a qualified teacher was available, If
Lord logain hadn't tried to kill off his political enemy, then it's
entirely likely that the tragedy at redcliff would have never happened. 

laying
the blame for all the bad things that have happened soley at the feet
of mages is juvenile.  The Culture of Thedas is not at all healthy for
magic.  There are lots of ways for magic to serve mankind, with out
being looked at as evil. Or having to be enslaved to the whims of
religious zealots.

You're avoiding my arguments again.

No one says the system is perfect, but it's better than the alternatives tried so far.

We can play the "If..." game all day.  But Connor made a deal with a demon.  It happened, lots of people died and were mutilated.  And this can be any mage.

I'm not laying all of the blame on the mages.  But they're dangerous, even when they don't intend to be.  That's a fact.

LOL so we have the Qun, who are more repressive, but at least they are repressive to everyone. The Elves whose current system seems to work just fine, but we know nothing of what it was like before. Pretty sure I remember something about hedge mages in Revain, and nothing really bad happening there. Sadly though nothing really is explained about it. And the Tevinter empire. 

The Tevinter empire is as broke as the Chantry circile method, the Qun are just untolerable for everyone who likes freedom, 

Aside from those, we have no information about what other methods may have been tried. However the existance of the elven Keepers goes a long way toward demonstrating that other less severe systems can work. 

Lasty just beause no other alternative has been enacted (good luck over coming a 1000 years of Chantry PR btw) does not mean that the circle is acceptable.  This isn't a case of if it aint broke don't fix it. The Circle/Chantry/Templar system is definately broke. 

Modifié par Warrior Craess, 12 octobre 2012 - 12:26 .

[Vandicus]

Warrior Craess wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

There's a bit of a problem with that because with Mages, there really isn't a need to cause harm or anything. All it takes is one bad day, one failed spell, one burst of overconfidence and suddenly everyone in the village is being assaulted by undead while you mutilate your elves.

I filed that under "protecting mages." Though it doesn't seem to be as bad as you make it out to be.

Well, it does happen in game.  I'll give you that it is one of the rarer scenarios.

Warrior Craess wrote...

Yes, mages should be handled with
care. that doesn't mean that they get locked away, with horror stories
told about the bad people in the tower.  It doesn't mean that they
should be terrified of their gift. It doesn't mean that if they don't
follow your rules they should be killed, especially if all they have
done try to live a normal life. 

If Isolde hadn't been terrified
that she'd lose her only sun, If a qualified teacher was available, If
Lord logain hadn't tried to kill off his political enemy, then it's
entirely likely that the tragedy at redcliff would have never happened. 

laying
the blame for all the bad things that have happened soley at the feet
of mages is juvenile.  The Culture of Thedas is not at all healthy for
magic.  There are lots of ways for magic to serve mankind, with out
being looked at as evil. Or having to be enslaved to the whims of
religious zealots.

You're avoiding my arguments again.

No one says the system is perfect, but it's better than the alternatives tried so far.

We can play the "If..." game all day.  But Connor made a deal with a demon.  It happened, lots of people died and were mutilated.  And this can be any mage.

I'm not laying all of the blame on the mages.  But they're dangerous, even when they don't intend to be.  That's a fact.

LOL so we have the Qun, who are more repressive, but at least they are repressive to everyone. The Elves whose current system seems to work just fine, but we know nothing of what it was like before. Pretty sure I remember something about hedge mages in Revain, and nothing really bad happening there. Sadly though nothing really is explained about it. And the Tevinter empire. 

The Tevinter empire is as broke as the Chantry circile method, the Qun are just untolerable for everyone who likes freedom, 

Aside from those, we have no information about what other methods may have been tried. However the existance of the elven Keepers goes a long way toward demonstrating that other less severe systems can work. 

Lasty just beause no other alternative has been enacted (good luck over coming a 1000 years of Chantry PR btw) does not mean that the circle is acceptable.  This isn't a case of if it aint broke don't fix it. The Circle/Chantry/Templar system is definately broke. 

The method used pre-Circle was simply killing the mages it would appear. That was the original Inquisition's task, protecting the people over Thedas from the remnants of the Tevinter Imperium. Then the Inquisition was made a part of the Chantry by Emperor Drakon, and renamed the Templar order. At this point, mages were relegated to simply keeping candles lit. Understandably frustrated with this very boring task, the mages then proceeded to engage in peaceful protest by refusing to light the candles and barricading themselves inside a Chantry. After which, the Circles, an educational center allowing the Chantry to oversee the mages while they pursued the magical arts, were formed.

[Xilizhra]

After which, the Circles, an educational center allowing the Chantry to oversee the mages while they pursued the magical arts, were formed.

And imprisoned. It's so far been highly inadequate and continually repressive.

[Vandicus]

Xilizhra wrote...

After which, the Circles, an educational center allowing the Chantry to oversee the mages while they pursued the magical arts, were formed.

And imprisoned. It's so far been highly inadequate and continually repressive.

But the Circles are progress attained by peaceful means. Up till the age of 18, they are(in theory) no more repressive(in that attendance is forced) than a mandatory public education system. It would be desireable to have a set standard at which mages could be allowed to travel and live more freely(as exhibited by senior enchanters and the like), which at the moment appears to be on a case by case basis.



Also in response to your comments about mages and it being impossible for them to be an accidental danger, difference between a mage and a normal person, a normal person gets desperate and pulls a knife or a gun, might lead to a single death or two deaths. A mage gets desperate, and pulls a demon. Leads to the possible destruction of a village or town.

[Xilizhra]

But the Circles are progress attained by peaceful means. Up till the age of 18, they are(in theory) no more repressive(in that attendance is forced) than a mandatory public education system. It would be desireable to have a set standard at which mages could be allowed to travel and live more freely(as exhibited by senior enchanters and the like), which at the moment appears to be on a case by case basis.

Yeah, that "in theory" is a major problem. And mandatory public education systems don't cut off all access to one's family or other friends. In addition to the imprisonment inflicted upon adults.

Also in response to your comments about mages and it being impossible for them to be an accidental danger, difference between a mage and a normal person, a normal person gets desperate and pulls a knife or a gun, might lead to a single death or two deaths. A mage gets desperate, and pulls a demon. Leads to the possible destruction of a village or town.

This is comparable to someone, threatened by force, just shooting themselves to make it easier on the attacker. Demonic possession is effectively death, and no sane mage would ever try that route (it happened once or twice in Kirkwall, but that's one of the places I believe mages probably shouldn't be).

[Vandicus]

Xilizhra wrote...

But the Circles are progress attained by peaceful means. Up till the age of 18, they are(in theory) no more repressive(in that attendance is forced) than a mandatory public education system. It would be desireable to have a set standard at which mages could be allowed to travel and live more freely(as exhibited by senior enchanters and the like), which at the moment appears to be on a case by case basis.

Yeah, that "in theory" is a major problem. And mandatory public education systems don't cut off all access to one's family or other friends. In addition to the imprisonment inflicted upon adults.

Also in response to your comments about mages and it being impossible for them to be an accidental danger, difference between a mage and a normal person, a normal person gets desperate and pulls a knife or a gun, might lead to a single death or two deaths. A mage gets desperate, and pulls a demon. Leads to the possible destruction of a village or town.

This is comparable to someone, threatened by force, just shooting themselves to make it easier on the attacker. Demonic possession is effectively death, and no sane mage would ever try that route (it happened once or twice in Kirkwall, but that's one of the places I believe mages probably shouldn't be).

The Circles are nevertheless proof positive that progress can be made through peaceful means. As I pointed out earlier, in some circles the imprisonment could be virtually lifted for proven members, and in both the Kirkwall and Fereldan Circles it was apparently quite common for younger mages to "escape" from the Circle for brief periods of time.

Not all mages necessarily consider demonic possession akin to death. Admittedly something weird was going on in Kirkwall(as is apparent by the premise of DA3), but the cases in which it occurred did not seem irrational. When people panic or are feeling emotional they do stupid things.

[Xilizhra]

The Circles are nevertheless proof positive that progress can be made through peaceful means. As I pointed out earlier, in some circles the imprisonment could be virtually lifted for proven members, and in both the Kirkwall and Fereldan Circles it was apparently quite common for younger mages to "escape" from the Circle for brief periods of time.

This "proven" thing seems to be based largely on favoritism, and while it may have been a tiny shred of progress, it was grievously inadequate.

Not all mages necessarily consider demonic possession akin to death. Admittedly something weird was going on in Kirkwall(as is apparent by the premise of DA3), but the cases in which it occurred did not seem irrational. When people panic or are feeling emotional they do stupid things.

No one was willingly possessed in Kirkwall, except arguably Orsino and Marethari. You can tell the willing possessees because they don't mutate into bloated flesh-sacks, and all of the abominations we saw were of the unwilling variety, save Marethari.

[Vandicus]

Xilizhra wrote...

The Circles are nevertheless proof positive that progress can be made through peaceful means. As I pointed out earlier, in some circles the imprisonment could be virtually lifted for proven members, and in both the Kirkwall and Fereldan Circles it was apparently quite common for younger mages to "escape" from the Circle for brief periods of time.

This "proven" thing seems to be based largely on favoritism, and while it may have been a tiny shred of progress, it was grievously inadequate.

Not all mages necessarily consider demonic possession akin to death. Admittedly something weird was going on in Kirkwall(as is apparent by the premise of DA3), but the cases in which it occurred did not seem irrational. When people panic or are feeling emotional they do stupid things.

No one was willingly possessed in Kirkwall, except arguably Orsino and Marethari. You can tell the willing possessees because they don't mutate into bloated flesh-sacks, and all of the abominations we saw were of the unwilling variety, save Marethari.

Yes, the system needed dramatic reform. I think its premise is fairly sound though, and any future system would be rather similar in its foundations. My point on peaceful progress is in regards to Circles forming in the first place.

Also, there were willing posseees in Kirkwall, that one templar's daugher for instance.

[Xilizhra]

Yes, the system needed dramatic reform. I think its premise is fairly sound though, and any future system would be rather similar in its foundations. My point on peaceful progress is in regards to Circles forming in the first place.

But the foundations would have nothing to do with the Chantry in my own case.

Also, there were willing posseees in Kirkwall, that one templar's daugher for instance.

She wasn't willing. She just called for help and was grabbed by a passing demon. Again, the willing ones don't bloat like that.

[Vandicus]

Xilizhra wrote...

Yes, the system needed dramatic reform. I think its premise is fairly sound though, and any future system would be rather similar in its foundations. My point on peaceful progress is in regards to Circles forming in the first place.

But the foundations would have nothing to do with the Chantry in my own case.

Also, there were willing posseees in Kirkwall, that one templar's daugher for instance.

She wasn't willing. She just called for help and was grabbed by a passing demon. Again, the willing ones don't bloat like that.

What exactly is your objection to the Chantry's involvement? Its inception as manager of the system was in order to have civilian management of the militant Templar Order. Some international body could be formed if Fereldan and Orlais could get over their various differences, but what makes the Chantry particularly objectionable? It has held the advantage of maintaining the neutrality of Circles during war time(a benefit that the common man, who is forced to go to war, does not enjoy).

What would you define as a willing person then if not one who reaches for demonic aid? Also your statement on her unwillingness sort've reinforces the whole idea of mages being accidental threats.