1297 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

[Auintus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Bethoven? He was gifted, but his abiltiy is hardly extraordinary. Or dangerous.

And there is no "trained hands". There is no training that makes mages safe.

Extraordinary, definately, though not magical. I couldn't do that, nor could most people. Most people are not mages, some are. Though I will agree that it is not dangerous.

Sure there are. If a mage can control his powers, they can be exercised without backfiring. A mage is shown being taught that in the Circle in DA:O. Most mages are only a great threat as abominations. Demons can be resisted.

[Fredward]

Plaintiff wrote...

Legatus Arianus wrote...

I hope we will see more reasonable people like Lotion Soronnar, BlueMagitek and Dave of Canada in this thread.

"Reasonable" being anyone who agrees with you, naturally.

QFT. (QUICK! Someone mention the irony!) XD

[Auintus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Auintus wrote...

I...That was a parallel. Slave uprisings because they did not like their treatment. The mages are no different.

And you know what happenes in such cases? The uprising is crushed and life goes on as usual.

Usually, yes. Is that right?

True, but many people are not like other people. It's called being unique. It comes with good and bad.
Agreed. We simply draw different lines for "too dangerous."

Different kinds of being unique. A distinction you fail to relize and refuse to see.

And I'm curious as what you think would be "too dangerous".
Having been on these forums for a while, I ran into people arguing that reapers aren't really that dangerous.

I don't close my eyes to anything. Magic is a unique dose of power that can be exercised to any end. Show me how I'm wrong.

An untrained mage is too dangerous to wander on their own. A known maleficar or demon-dealer is too dangerous to let loose. A mage trained in resisting demons and obeying the Chantry's "Magic is meant to serve man and never rule over him," something you see being taught to children in the Circle, is not dangerous, not to the common folk.

[Dave of Canada]

Auintus wrote...

Most mages are only a great threat as abominations.

They don't need to be an abomination to raise the dead, control minds, burn down villages and summon demons.

They don't need to be an abomination to be recognized as a powerful war asset by monarchs who'd begin forcing conscription of them to serve in their armies so they'd have an advantage in wars against other nations (and thus forcing them into confinement of another kind)

They don't need to be an abomination to be capable of making wars far more devastating than normal men.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 26 novembre 2012 - 02:18 .

[Auintus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

And here I though you were a person that values morals and the well-being of others above all else...

Sure, but what about the well-being of the mages? Is that worth nothing?
If I know how to defend myself against demonic influences, I wouldn't be a threat to anyone. Well, darkspawn and whatever-have-you, but not common people.
I don't think one should suffer simply because they are perceived as dangerous.

[Auintus]

Dave of Canada wrote...

They don't need to be an abomination to raise the dead, control minds, burn down villages and summon demons.

They don't need to be an abomination to be recognized as a powerful war asset by monarchs who'd begin forcing conscription of them to serve in their armies so they'd have an advantage in wars against other nations (and thus forcing them into confinement of another kind)

They don't need to be an abomination to be capable of making wars far more devastating than normal men.

Quite true, but note that necromancers, demon-dealers, and blood mages are most often apostates to begin with and mages are already used in war.

[Auintus]

FaWa wrote...

How does it feel knowing the Templars have some of the most boring (Cullen) and vile (Carver, Fenris, Meredith) characters in the game?

You discredit mages supporters everywhere.
Cullen is a voice of reason among the templars(as of DA2), Carver is certainly not vile, and both Fenris and Meredith have personal reasons for not trusting mages.

[Fredward]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Most mages are only a great threat as abominations.

They don't need to be an abomination to raise the dead, control minds, burn down villages and summon demons.

They don't need to be an abomination to be recognized as a powerful war asset by monarchs who'd begin forcing conscription of them to serve in their armies so they'd have an advantage in wars against other nations (and thus forcing them into confinement of another kind)

They don't need to be an abomination to be capable of making wars far more devastating than normal men.

And the mages who do those things should be punished. Those that don't
shouldn't. Punished after the crime is how it goes for everyone else
yes?

You really think it'd be that easy to conscript free mages after this war? Any monarch who does such would be a fool, they'd just organize again and take over. Which seems like a smart thing to do if the country you live in is suddenly persecuting you. Offering huge incentives make MUCH more sense. Like biotics get in ME.

And I just love how people keep on pointing out how negative mages can be, it follows that, should they be allowed to, they could be just such a force for good, no? Anders and his clinic are the only example we have but this is only because mages aren't allowed to contribute to their society in a beneficial way.

And you don't have to be a mage to start a war. Most wars have been started by mundanes.

[Auintus]

Adanu wrote...

Blood magic research within the circle is iffy, but this implies blood magic would be unacceptable outside the circle. Is that what you are saying?

Secondly, the definition of 'abuse' would have to be cleared up a bit. It is a subjective term sometimes, but some ground rules would be good.

A mage/Templar Council has merit, but you carry the issue of mages feeling threatened by Templars from history. This comes back to the need for effective IA. You also carry the risk of Phylacteries being abused by Templars.

For most, yes. Blood magic has a little too much temptation for the average mage.

True. I'm thinking an overarching baseline of "using one's magic to benefit oneself, at the expense of others." Needs more refining, but I think it's a good start.

Irving felt no concern arguing with Gregoir. Orsino stood up against Meredith. Both knew that, in the end, the Knight-commander's descision would be the one that mattered. Once they had an official say, I doubt too many would be cowed to silence.
Phylacteries just track mages. I am unsure as to how they can be abused.

[Fredward]

Have we ever had official word on whether blood magic is INHERENTLY evil? Like if you use it you WILL become some raving lunatic? Or do people just assume that because, well... blood. xp

[Dave of Canada]

Auintus wrote...

Quite true, but note that necromancers, demon-dealers, and blood mages are most often apostates to begin with

Mages are restricted in learning, they're under a constant vigilant eye by an entire army of Templar in an enclosed area which doesn't have much room for them to do things in secret. Give them freedom and the rights of other men and they're suddenly much more open for abuse.

How many times does someone think "God, I wish I could do X"? What would occur if you could actually do that? Perhaps it starts simple enough, maybe you're starving and the temptation to use your magic to make the merchant "give" you what you need but how long until it becomes more personal?

I've always thought to myself "I'd do anything to have them back" in grief after family died, what if I could? We'd be looking at scenarios like Connor all over again. What if Loghain had magic at his potential, would he have used it to control Cailan? Mages are far too dangerous by virtue of potential and human nature.

and mages are already used in war.

They're not used against other nations. Orlais took over Ferelden and had mostly no mages under their command, it was a war outside of the Chantry's influence (although they did favor Orlais) because the only wars they'd involve themselves in are those with heretics or those with Darkspawn.

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

You really think it'd be that easy to conscript free mages after this war? Any monarch who does such would be a fool, they'd just organize again and take over. Which seems like a smart thing to do if the country you live in is suddenly persecuting you. Offering huge incentives make MUCH more sense. Like biotics get in ME. 

Any attempt to take over would instantly lose all sympathy from any mage sympathizers. Monarchs won't involve themselves in the war unless they have something to gain and the commonfolk will join out of sympathy but that only goes so far.

They'd be defeated with or without the Templar hounding them.

And I just love how people keep on pointing out how negative mages can be, it follows that, should they be allowed to, they could be just such a force for good, no? Anders and his clinic are the only example we have but this is only because mages aren't allowed to contribute to their society in a beneficial way. 

Aside from the poor and the elves, mages can already be accessed as medics--the human noble's mother mentions it.

And you don't have to be a mage to start a war. Most wars have been started by mundanes.

They're far less devastating. A man can only run through another man, a mage can do so much more.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 26 novembre 2012 - 02:55 .

[TobiTobsen]

Dave of Canada wrote...

TobiTobsen wrote...

Fuggyt wrote...

Freedom is indivisible.  You either have it or you don't.  It's also non-negotiable.  Never settle for anything less.

Typhoid Mary would have loved some pro-mage people as lawyers.

I'm sure the plague victims of ages past would have loved it too.

Either pro-Mage extremists or Mel Gibson as William Wallace. If you scream "FREEDOM!" loud enough somebody will listen to you.

Maybe they should build a Liberty Prime abomination. It'll scream "FREEDOM IS NON-NEGOTIABLE!" while shooting blood magic spells from its fingers.

Modifié par TobiTobsen, 26 novembre 2012 - 03:36 .

[Fredward]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

You really think it'd be that easy to conscript free mages after this war? Any monarch who does such would be a fool, they'd just organize again and take over. Which seems like a smart thing to do if the country you live in is suddenly persecuting you. Offering huge incentives make MUCH more sense. Like biotics get in ME. 

Any attempt to take over would instantly lose all sympathy from any mage sympathizers. Monarchs won't involve themselves in the war unless they have something to gain and the commonfolk will join out of sympathy but that only goes so far.

They'd be defeated with or without the Templar hounding them.

And I just love how people keep on pointing out how negative mages can be, it follows that, should they be allowed to, they could be just such a force for good, no? Anders and his clinic are the only example we have but this is only because mages aren't allowed to contribute to their society in a beneficial way. 

Aside from the poor and the elves, mages can already be accessed as medics--the human noble's mother mentions it.

And you don't have to be a mage to start a war. Most wars have been started by mundanes.

They're far less devastating. A man can only run through another man, a mage can do so much more.

We have no reason to believe any monarchs have thrown their support at the mages now either. And while I do believe there are SOME commoners that would help mages lets not suddenly forget that most mundanes still soil themselves and cry when mages are mentioned. Really, the mages wouldn't need all that much support. Against non-templars the casualties would be like a 100 soldiers for every mage, especially if they're fighting in groups. No, monarchs would be fools to try forcing mages to do anything after this really.

Actually if you scratch poor (ie commoners) and elves out of the equation you are left with just the nobles and high ranking clergy I'd assume. And then minus the ones who wouldn't have a mage heal them anyway because DEMONS. Which is an unjustified stereotype perpertrated by the Chantry but w/e.

As for wars. Mages are really good at killing people, this is true, it's a benefit of being able set fire to the rain and making the sky fall (BOOYAH! Two Adele references that both pertain to mages, Adele is clearly on our side. xp) but they're only dangerous in war time if they're provoked. Like they are now. Yes a lot of people will die as the mages fight for their freedom but they ain't the ones who started this war. Mundanes, or templars anyway, did.

[MartialArtsMaster]

May I add my two cents, everyone?

Greetings! I usually post only in the Mass Effect forums, so this is my first Dragon Age related post.

In my particular case, I can see where both sides are coming from, but there were two additional factors that pushed me in the "mage" direction as opposed to "templar".

The first factor was the fact that the teachings of Andraste keep telling mages that they are sinful in the eyes of the Maker, and they must spend their whole lives in repentance to make up for their "magic".

THAT, for me, was completely inexcusable, and that's why I ultimately decided to back the mages.

I could understand forcibly taking mages away from their families, if there's a danger that the mages might invite a demon to kill those families by accident.

I could understand treating mages as potentially dangerous considering how many went bugf***.

I could understand the blood phylacteries, the templars hunting down apostates, etc.

But in my opinion, it is completely inexcusable to tell a five-year-old child, or six-year-old, or whatever, that he/she is a sinful and repulsive creature because of how he/she was born. I mean, couldn't we instead say something like, "You were born with a gift, but unfortunately that gift also makes you dangerous to your mommy and daddy unless we teach you how to use it properly, so please say good-bye to your loved ones for their sake?"

No, instead it's, "We have to put you in the Circle because you were born with the magic that makes you tainted in the eyes of the Maker." God, if someone told MY (hypothetical future) kid something like that, I'd hug my kid to pieces and tell my kid how much I love him/her.

The second factor that pushed me over to the mages' camp is the fact that it places the Templars in a position of DE FACTO (if not de jure) unlimited power over the mages' lives. That is extremely dangerous. Nobody should have a position of unlimited power. Give a left-wing person unlimited power and you find yourself put in mental hospitals for disagreeing with the system, like when a certain Russian seminary clerk was put in power. Give a right-wing person unlimited power and you essentially get your right to even peacefully EXIST taken away from you, like when a certain German amateur painter was put in power.

Also, I'd like to add a comment to the gentleman known as Lotion Soronnar, lest I be misunderstood:

I do not support unlimited power for mages, either. I am not an advocate of the Tevinter Magisters, because that was the same problem in reverse; there, the mages were granted unlimited power instead of the templars. I am certainly not in favor of allowing mages to wreak havoc over innocent people. I would probably support the Circle, if it weren't for the fact that essentially it means mages have no (real) power to speak up if there's a problem. That does not mean I think all templars are like Sir Alrik. It DOES, however, mean that if you were a mage and you got someone like Alrik watching over you, there's nothing you can really do about it. You could speak to Elthina or Meredith about it, but if they don't fix the problem then you're stuck.

So before I'm labeled a mage extremist, let me point out that I might support a modified Circle where the templars have some checks and balances on their power, and where there's some possibility of penalizing a templar who abuses his power.

With someone like Meredith in charge, however, that will not happen, so out of the desire to make sure no one has unlimited power over anyone, I reluctantly support the dissolution of the circles.

Thank you in advance, gentleman and ladies, for hearing me out.

[Auintus]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Have we ever had official word on whether blood magic is INHERENTLY evil? Like if you use it you WILL become some raving lunatic? Or do people just assume that because, well... blood. xp

Yes, actually. Gaider said that blood magic is only as corruptive as any other power. "Power corrupts" and all that, and blood magic is very, very powerful.

[Auintus]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Quite true, but note that necromancers, demon-dealers, and blood mages are most often apostates to begin with

Mages are restricted in learning, they're under a constant vigilant eye by an entire army of Templar in an enclosed area which doesn't have much room for them to do things in secret. Give them freedom and the rights of other men and they're suddenly much more open for abuse.

How many times does someone think "God, I wish I could do X"? What would occur if you could actually do that? Perhaps it starts simple enough, maybe you're starving and the temptation to use your magic to make the merchant "give" you what you need but how long until it becomes more personal?

I've always thought to myself "I'd do anything to have them back" in grief after family died, what if I could? We'd be looking at scenarios like Connor all over again. What if Loghain had magic at his potential, would he have used it to control Cailan? Mages are far too dangerous by virtue of potential and human nature.

How many mages have turned to blood within the Circle, for the sake of securing their freedom? If not pushed to thhose desperate extremes, and even when it does happen, mages are more good than not. Many mages take "Magic shall not rule over man" to heart. Look at Malcolm.

Take that line of thought a little further. If I want to kill someone, I probably could. It would come out of the blue and be over in a moment. I'd be hunted as a criminal afterward, as would any criminal mage. With templars and good mages as a police force, in addition to phylacteries to aid in tracking, a mage would last only so long as your average criminal, perhaps marginally longer.

What about good potential? What about all the good mages that exist? Will you throw away all the good that they can do, treat them like criminals because of potential?

and mages are already used in war.

They're not used against other nations. Orlais took over Ferelden and had mostly no mages under their command, it was a war outside of the Chantry's influence (although they did favor Orlais) because the only wars they'd involve themselves in are those with heretics or those with Darkspawn.

Have you read The Stolen Throne? Cailen had Wilhelm and a golem at his side and the man put in charge of Fereldan had a mage at his right hand. Don't tell me that mages weren't used in war.

Modifié par Auintus, 26 novembre 2012 - 05:59 .

[MisterJB]

Mages are not "more good than not", And neither are mundanes.
Mages are people and thus they are greedy and selfish and unrepentant. It is only natural for them to look out for number one which we all do anyway. We all do things for our benefit at the expense of others. The difference is that mundanes don't have supernatural help. There is only so much damage a mundane can cause and get away with it.
For a mage, there are no limits to the horrors they can bring to life, the depravaties they can commit all in the name of "necessity".
For instance, let's say a mage uses blood magic to rape a mundane and then force him/her to forget it. There is little to no way of discovering the crime happened, let alone punish the culprit. Now, having seen s/he can do it without being punished, what is stoping this blood mage from raping a mundane whenever s/he feels the "need"?
And this is not even taking into account how a normal situation such as the loss of a loved one, can quickly turn catastrophic if a mage is involved.

Modifié par MisterJB, 26 novembre 2012 - 06:12 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Auintus wrote...
How many mages have turned to blood within the Circle, for the sake of securing their freedom? If not pushed to thhose desperate extremes, and even when it does happen, mages are more good than not. Many mages take "Magic shall not rule over man" to heart. Look at Malcolm.

Peopel in general are more good then that, and yet fall prey to their baser impulses so often.
Malcom? Meh.

Take that line of thought a little further. If I want to kill someone, I probably could. It would come out of the blue and be over in a moment. I'd be hunted as a criminal afterward, as would any criminal mage. With templars and good mages as a police force, in addition to phylacteries to aid in tracking, a mage would last only so long as your average criminal, perhaps marginally longer.

And coud kill 10 times more poeple in that timespan as an ordinary criminal. At least.

Sure there are. If a mage can control his powers, they can be exercised
without backfiring. A mage is shown being taught that in the Circle in
DA:O. Most mages are only a great threat as abominations. Demons can be
resisted.

No, there aren't. Mages are never considered secure.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Auintus wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And you know what happenes in such cases? The uprising is crushed and life goes on as usual.

Usually, yes. Is that right?

Depends on whom you ask, doesnt it?

I don't close my eyes to anything. Magic is a unique dose of power that can be exercised to any end. Show me how I'm wrong.

An untrained mage is too dangerous to wander on their own. A known maleficar or demon-dealer is too dangerous to let loose. A mage trained in resisting demons and obeying the Chantry's "Magic is meant to serve man and never rule over him," something you see being taught to children in the Circle, is not dangerous, not to the common folk.

Yes he is. He is always dangerous. He isn't prefectly trained. He isn't a brainwashed robot to obey your whims and always act as you want him to.

Sure, but what about the well-being of the mages? Is that worth nothing?
If
I know how to defend myself against demonic influences, I wouldn't be a
threat to anyone. Well, darkspawn and whatever-have-you, but not common
people.
I don't think one should suffer simply because they are perceived as dangerous.

The Circle is there to keep the mages alive. How is that not well-beaing? And how are 100 mages more worth than 100000 mundanes?

And no, you don't know how to defend yourself agaisnt demonic influences. There is no sure-fire defense.
And even without demons, mages are still a danger to everyone.

[Augustei]

Even if resisted Demons can still take control, I remember it being mentioned a few times in DAO during the Redcliffe Questline. The fact that Conner made the deal with the demon is the reason they could reverse the process because if it forcefully took control of him they could not.

And why do people keep comparing mages to ordinary criminals or anybody with a sword? it makes no logical sense

Modifié par XxDeonxX, 26 novembre 2012 - 06:17 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

MartialArtsMaster wrote...
Also, I'd like to add a comment to the gentleman known as Lotion Soronnar, lest I be misunderstood:

I do not support unlimited power for mages, either. I am not an advocate of the Tevinter Magisters, because that was the same problem in reverse; there, the mages were granted unlimited power instead of the templars. I am certainly not in favor of allowing mages to wreak havoc over innocent people. I would probably support the Circle, if it weren't for the fact that essentially it means mages have no (real) power to speak up if there's a problem. That does not mean I think all templars are like Sir Alrik. It DOES, however, mean that if you were a mage and you got someone like Alrik watching over you, there's nothing you can really do about it. You could speak to Elthina or Meredith about it, but if they don't fix the problem then you're stuck.

If you can speak to Elthina or Meredith then you CAN do something about it...or does that not count as "something"?

Also, in any system you will eventually reach a dead end and can get stuck, so I fail to see the horriblnesss of the cirlce system compared to any other system.

So before I'm labeled a mage extremist, let me point out that I might support a modified Circle where the templars have some checks and balances on their power, and where there's some possibility of penalizing a templar who abuses his power.

The tempalrs do have checks and balances.
They are not terribly effecive - BUT NO SUCH SYSTEM IS EFFECTIVE IN THEDAS. It's the reality and limitations of the world.

[Dave of Canada]

MartialArtsMaster wrote...

*snipping your first point for length*

That's mostly religious dogma. Serves many reasons but basically allows the commonfolk to fear the presence of a mage and more likely report it to the Chantry. It's not only die-hard hatred, the Chantry's dogma also says magic is a gift from the Maker--something which Anders won't shut up about.

MartialArtsMaster wrote...

So before I'm labeled a mage extremist, let me point out that I might support a modified Circle where the templars have some checks and balances on their power, and where there's some possibility of penalizing a templar who abuses his power.

Templar are already under supervision and watched incase of abuse, they're the only enforcement group which are technically punished for any abuse on Thedas. Most of the Templar abuse being undealt with in Kirkwall was due to them doing in secret or Elthina's incompetence.

Post-Kirkwall--had Meredith survived--she'd have been punished by the Divine.

With someone like Meredith in charge, however, that will not happen

Meredith was quite reasonable pre-insanity, she allowed Grace and the gang to come back to the Circle witohut executing them all despite their "no blood mages" rule. Hell, she allows Alan to come back a second time in act 3 even when she's full-blown insane.

In addition, I doubt everyone has a red lyrium sword.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 26 novembre 2012 - 06:49 .

[MartialArtsMaster]

If I may make a polite confession, I am not usually persuaded by "appeals to human nature". Of course we are naturally greedy and selfish.

But 2,000 years of philosophy, literature, and even religion itself, was devoted to the idea that we were capable of getting PAST that. We can make better choices. We can live up to higher ideals. If we could not, there would be no point in even having a civilization.

There's a lot of robbers out there, but there's also a lot of people who work in homeless shelters, for example.

The idea that something is acceptable because it is "natural" is usually called the "Hard, Cruel World" fallacy, the idea that something that would "normally be considered unethical" is suddenly acceptable because the world happens to be a cruel place. The idea isn't a good one, because people who are capable of being mean are also capable of being nice.

In fact, those of you who support the templars believe the same thing, or you wouldn't be so hard on the mages for what you view as evil choices. So am I to believe that templar actions can be excused by the fact that humans are "naturally" selfish, but if mages behave selfishly, their actions are NOT excused?

I must confess I am slightly confused at what I see as a contradiction. Unless I have misunderstood someone's argument? In that case, please correct me. Thank you very much in advance.

[Auintus]

MisterJB wrote...

Mages are not "more good than not", And neither are mundanes.

I see. That's all I needed to know. Thank you.