155 réponses à ce sujet

[Phatose]

It's still interesting, but mostly due to the blatant hypocrisy of the Chantry. The mages are imprisoned for being a danger to society - and we are shown repeatedly and in great detail that your typical guy with a sword is every bit as dangerous as a mage. Being a walking weapon of mass destruction is open to everyone, yet only the mages get locked up.

[dragonflight288]

MisterJB wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...
On the question of reformation, you might have a point. I think allowing them to organize into self-governed Circles, making them in essence like the Jedi Order in Star Wars, could work. Allowing mages to deal with their own kind who've gone bad in the same way the Jedi deal with Sith and other dark-siders by creating an enforcement organization within theCircles could work rather than having religious fanatics like the Templars holding a sword at their throats at all times.

Please, ask the elves of Denerim or Kirkwall how allowing humans to police their own kind has worked out for them.

But also ask the Circles how the templars being the only police force worked out for them.

Not "but", "and". That example works equally well.
If the mages are allowed to police themselves, many will ignore crimes commited against mundanes or commit those crimes themselves.

And the templars have already proven to have no oversight whatsoever of themselves in the grand scheme of things. They abuse the mages horribly and committ atrocities just the same as any mage, and then the mages grow desperate, and the templars use that desperation as evidence that their 'guidance and advice' is justified.

The templars as of now, horribly abuse mages and they get away with it. They commit crimes and nothing is done about it. The mages can't go report it to the nobles or the guard....they're locked up in their towers and are never allowed to leave, save for the very rare outside circle business. Even war isn't a big enough reason to let several mages out. Gregoir in origins thought sending seven mages was too many.

The templars can't be the police force, they've proven over time they can't be trusted. And you're also right that the mages can't police themselves either, that's bound to be corrupted given enough time. So we need both, having equal authority, or a completely un-biased new party to police both groups as well. And the Seekers do not count as Lord High Seeker Lambert has proven to side with the templars and overextended his own authority when the mages and First Enchanters had permission from the Divine to meet and council on their own.

Ultimately, the Chantry cannot be involved at any level. The most unbiased source you'll probably find in Thedas, given the political climate, would be the indivdual crowns of each individual country.

You won't find a system that won't be abused, no such system will ever exist, so you have to limit the power of all groups, have checks and balances, and that's something the Chantry and the Templars both as of this moment, will never allow.

[Shadow Fox]

Plaintiff wrote...

Zardoc wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

It's interesting to me. All problems related to bigotry and oppression are interesting to me.

I will stop discussing them when all such issues are resolved in real life and in fiction. So, never.

I think there's already a realistic alternative to depriving the mages of their freedom, and that's to stop damn well doing it.

There's no "solution", at least, not the kind you're looking for. Even if mages could find an effective way to ward off possession, magic would still be dangerous. People would still want to imprison mages for that fact. Not that humans have ever actually needed an excuse to be jerks.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. As much as I loathe the way some mages are treated, there is no good alternative to the Circles.

Says who? Not me. If the many can't survive without being oppressive bigots, then they don't deserve to live.

Everyone has the right to defend their lives and their freedom with all the tools at their disposal. If the mages have the best tools, then that's just tough luck for everyone else.

So basically the Templars should have the right to exterminate mages to protect the general populance cause they can?

[AshenShug4r]

I don't think the circles do the job they set out to do. Education for mages is important, but locking them all up in a tower is oppression of a minority and oppression will always lead to revolt on a long enough time line.
I do find the situation interesting and I definitely think the circles need to change or be abolished.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

Tiger Ace 32 wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...
On the question of reformation, you might have a point. I think allowing them to organize into self-governed Circles, making them in essence like the Jedi Order in Star Wars, could work. Allowing mages to deal with their own kind who've gone bad in the same way the Jedi deal with Sith and other dark-siders by creating an enforcement organization within theCircles could work rather than having religious fanatics like the Templars holding a sword at their throats at all times.

Please, ask the elves of Denerim or Kirkwall how allowing humans to police their own kind has worked out for them.

That and jedi or sith do not risk demonic possessio, and thus unleashing even more demons into the world. The mages of Thedas are more similar to the psykers of 40k, and that setting is far worse.

The universe is indeed quite the example of a crapsack world. You are right that Force-sensitives don't risk demonic possession. However look at the damage one very intelligent, powerful scheming Sith Lord can do with an entire political system. Of course your mileage may vary on how bad the Empire's authoritarianism really is. They do provide law and order in the galaxy, at the cost of personal liberty. The Death Star, does however cross the moral event horizon.

I don't think it would be perfect or that anything in Thedas would be solved overnight, but under the right sort of leadership the mages could be organized in such a way that I believe could minimize the risk of things going awry, although it would likely mean living cloistered, monastic lives fairly isolated from the general populace. However I doubt that a demon once unleashed is going to be much restrained by such things as physical distance from mortal population centers.

Elaborating on my idea of self-policing, the mages would need to create an elite force within their ranks specially trained to combat demons, abominations, demonic possession, and demonic incursions into the world. Using the Tranquil would probably not be the best idea, since their lack of emotion leads to an absence of self-preservation instinct.

In any case self-policing wouldn't be perfect but it would be better than nothing and certainly better than slaughtering innocents with the Rite of Annulment.

[Accipitrifa]

 It's very interesting to me! 

[Kileyan]

Phatose wrote...

It's still interesting, but mostly due to the blatant hypocrisy of the Chantry. The mages are imprisoned for being a danger to society - and we are shown repeatedly and in great detail that your typical guy with a sword is every bit as dangerous as a mage. Being a walking weapon of mass destruction is open to everyone, yet only the mages get locked up.

The sword guy and bow guy thing, being able to do the same damage as a mage is just a gameplay balance mechanic.

Bioware doesn't do a good enough job of depicting mages as much more than big explosions, demon forms and lightning storms, but I think the reason people fear magic is the unknown. We can say blood magic is extremely rare, but the abilitiy to control minds seeds great fear. Nothing could be more dreaded and feared than knowing if your kings ire being guided by friggin demon magic, or hell if even what you think are your own thoughts, or are the decisions you are making being decided for you by mages.

Mages able to control minds are extremely rare, but the seed of fear is planted, always in the back of a person mind when they meet a seemingly well meaning mage............you never know for sure. What can he do, would I even remember what he did?

I"m basing this on the blood magic control, I assume it can be used subtely as well as the only way we are every allowed to use any magic..........in combat.

As for the original question, I found the style of magic in DA an interesting and somewhat unique take on magic. I do occasionally get tired of the heavy handed way of beating me over the head with this conflict, but I'm hoping it wil pay off with an interesting ending that does include a bit or MOrrigan, Flemeth and Sandahls ramblings.

Modifié par Kileyan, 20 novembre 2012 - 02:55 .

[Inquisitor Arc]

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...
Elaborating on my idea of self-policing, the mages would need to create an elite force within their ranks specially trained to combat demons, abominations, demonic possession, and demonic incursions into the world. Using the Tranquil would probably not be the best idea, since their lack of emotion leads to an absence of self-preservation instinct.

In any case self-policing wouldn't be perfect but it would be better than nothing and certainly better than slaughtering innocents with the Rite of Annulment.

Yes I do agree, but I think an Inquisition composed of both mages and templars working together to protect Thedas might work. It reminds me how the Imperial Inqusition in 40k is composed of both Psyker inquistiors and normal inqusitors. Along with an army of elite Inquisitorial Stormtroopers and Grey Knights. I kinda get the feeling this is where DA 3 is headed. A game where you can decide how to run the Inquisition, and who you include in it. Working with mages, templars, grey wardens, etc.

About the tranquil though. Didn't Owain from the circle tower during DA:O say that he wanted to stay alive? Still even if the tranquil had adequate self-preservation instincts I would never use them because I want to abandon the practice of making a person tranquil in the first place.

Even if theres no Inqusition and we have self policing mages. Who watches the watchmen?

[Varus Praetor]

DA2 made me want to form my own faction and completely and utterly exterminate both the mages and the templars.  They've both been made too stupid to live.  The only thing in DA that can possibly interest me is the Qunari.  If DA3 is even remotely based on the mage/templar conflict, the game will be a complete pass as oppossed to the bargain bin pick up that it is now.

[Drasanil]

Plaintiff wrote...

Drasanil wrote...

Yeah, maybe if black men had the ability to control your thoughts or literally turn people inside out by looking at them funny.

And why should I assume that any mage is going to do those things?

Actually the point wasn't that you should assume they would do such a thing. Rather it is that when someone holds a gun to your face, regardless of race or sexual preference, you damn well know it. The problem with mages is that any remotely intelligent mage wouldn't threaten to throw a fireball in your face like a common criminal holding you up with a pistol. Rather, they would use their abilities to get you to do what they wanted you to do without you even knowing it.

In essence when someone with a gun/weapon is a threat, you recognise it for what it is and you can fight back even if your odds are incredibly small. Mages on the other hand can simply strip you of your free will and you won't even know it's happening to you.  That's a fairly large difference.

You defend freedom at all cost, but imagine one in every twenty people had the ability to arbitrarily and callously
strip you of your free will on a complete whim. Could you honestly say you'd be cool with that and that such people should just be allowed to walk around as they please and do whatever they want without any meaningful sort of supervision or oversight?

I'm perfectly capable of recognising the difference. The comparison is no less apt.

No it really isn't and this is where it falls apart given that you argue that treating one differently is the same as treating the other differently. There are real practical differences; one is a group with a different skin pigmentation and/or sexual preference that is in every other way equal as a whole to the general populace. The other is a group that not only has the ability to strip others of their free will on a complete whim or wantonly cause horrific carnage only rivaled by a modern day person with access to the most lethal and controlled weaponry on the market. 

That you would think to equate the two is not only naive but bordering on childish in its silliness. 

If the writers didn't want the comparison made, then they shouldn't have marketed the game to a modern audience.

Leaving aside that the game was largely marketed to RPG fans, as opposed to flagrantly self righteous 'free thinkers' .... I thought modern audiences were supposed to be able to discuss things in a rational manner, without resorting to the most extreme sorts of arguments and fallacy laden parables. 

Modifié par Drasanil, 20 novembre 2012 - 05:02 .

[Vexille]

Aolbain wrote...

If some people goes of like a tactical nuke in a moment of weakness they need to controlled. The Circles needs to be reformed but are unfortunately necessary.

so much this...

its ugly but... the safety of the many outweighs the freedom of the few.

this isnt bigotry or any of the other nonsense people use to push "free the poor oppressed mages!" THe circles are the most humane way that mages can be dealt with. In all honesty It would be FAR safer to just execute all mages. Circles are clearly the only option outside of killing all mages.

The ideal solution would be a reformed and secular templar like institution to watch over circles.


Anyne arguing that circles should be removed and mages freed is just a naive idealist (or a huge fan of the tevinter imperium ).


Circles arethe worst solution... except for all the others

[Gibb_Shepard]

The concept, no. The execution, **** yes.

[Sable Rhapsody]

I'm mostly interested to see when/how/if it'll be resolved. At this point, both parties are so hellbent on killing each other and anyone who gets in their way that almost anything getting them to stop will be a story worth telling.

[cindercatz]

The best way is really very near the way the elves do it, despite DA2 telling us otherwise.

Mages are powerful, and with their power must come responsibility to those around them. Mages are vulnerable, and so need education and support. Mages are potentially dangerous, and so must have a counterbalance.

The Dalish elves promote mages into responsible positions in their society, but are not ruled by them the way that mages rule Tevinter. The Dalish teach and nurture their mages to protect themselves from demonic possession and master their magic heritage. The Dalish, perhaps not well enough, counterbalance this with force should a mage become an abomination. So the Dalish mages are free and supported, with the counter of the rest of the clan should the mage turn. The mage can also choose to just exile themselves and go off into solitude, where they have less support but are not an immediate danger to the clan.

So in the Chantry system, this would entail a less centralized, more visible education process, personal freedom of the mage, and a strong Templar type force to bring them down should they turn. Some loss of life would be inevitable when one turns, the way any maniac with an arsenal is likely to cause casualties when they flip. The greater problem is the power of human feudal lords, and the bloodmage's ability to mind control. Solving that would require dismantling the feudal and imperial systems of government in favor of a highly egalitarian democracy. That democracy could of course vote itself into problems like any real one can.

I think that's interesting, but to answer the OP, I also think the current status quo is interesting, except that the last game beat us over the head with it in mostly a one sided way (or side and a half). I don't want any game to focus solely or primarily on one facet of this great setting they've built to the exclusion of all the other cool stuff. Anything gets old if that's all you focus on when you know there's so much more ground to cover.

So for now, I'm tired of the mage/templar divide, but I'm looking forward to DA3 because of the ripple effect and how that could play out. I don't think we'll get a 80% single issue game like we got with DA2. I'm also interested in the perspective(s) of an Inquisitor and what sorts of different story elements and systems we'll get involved with, all the political intrigue (with enough branching in the plot).

And then hopefully next game will focus on the unification of southern tribes (would be cool to found a new nation as the main plot), or the rise of the Dalish, or Antiva's assassination games or Rivain's piracy. I hope it won't be mage/Chantry centric again because I am tired of that issue being front and center, but it probably will be because we'll probably get Tevinter. And that'll still be interesting if we do.

[Navasha]

The "mage problem" though is completely a manmade problem. The mages are being oppressed and abused, which makes the often seek out darker paths to quick power to end their suffering.

Getting rid of the circles and allowing mages to train and educate themselves freely would lead to far fewer atrocities with mages.

I see no reason to ever side with the Templars myself. I have tried a couple different times to do a pro-templar playthrough, but am having a hard time being that amoral and oppressive.

[cindercatz]

Feudalism is a big issue though, and you've still got mages like Connor, so you have to at least have some support system and some way of responding when a disaster strikes.

I myself wouldn't ever side with the Templars, because I always support more liberty at the price of some inevitable chaos. I can play characters that do, however.

But none of my Hawkes will ever support the Templars in DA2, because it doesn't make sense to me that anybody would live their whole life in a well adjusted apostate mage family and then go "No, there are some crazy mages out there. Templars, I'm your man." I can't make that work.

[Tootles FTW]

Mages have declared independence, basically, and have forcibly removed themselves from Templar control. The templars, in response, are declaring holy war. We've never seen the mage/templar situation THIS fcuked up before, and I can't wait.

DA2 did an excellent job of evening the field when it came to the templar/mage ethical debate. I honestly see both sides of the argument as valid, and I think the writing team will continue to gray the subject matter in Inquisition which makes for an entertaining playthrough.

[Aolbain]

cindercatz wrote...

Feudalism is a big issue though, and you've still got mages like Connor, so you have to at least have some support system and some way of responding when a disaster strikes.

I myself wouldn't ever side with the Templars, because I always support more liberty at the price of some inevitable chaos. I can play characters that do, however.

But none of my Hawkes will ever support the Templars in DA2, because it doesn't make sense to me that anybody would live their whole life in a well adjusted apostate mage family and then go "No, there are some crazy mages out there. Templars, I'm your man." I can't make that work.

Indeed. I am generly pro-templar but in DA2 I always supported Orsino at the end,

[Gyrefalcon]

Zardoc wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

It's interesting to me. All problems related to bigotry and oppression are interesting to me.

I will stop discussing them when all such issues are resolved in real life and in fiction. So, never.

I think there's already a realistic alternative to depriving the mages of their freedom, and that's to stop damn well doing it.

There's no "solution", at least, not the kind you're looking for. Even if mages could find an effective way to ward off possession, magic would still be dangerous. People would still want to imprison mages for that fact. Not that humans have ever actually needed an excuse to be jerks.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. As much as I loathe the way some mages are treated, there is no good alternative to the Circles.

Really?  You couldn't have a mage work in outlying villages with a pair of templars to keep an eye on them?  The mage could heal villagers, help with illnesses, crops, animals, and fight with the templars/help evacuate the villagers when darkspawn scouting parties showed up.  They can actually serve man then instead of being locked up and not allowed to do anything for anyone until there is a Blight.  Can you imagine if we took people who showed a natural physical prowess and locked them up without training, telling them to never fight back or be a bother, and then expected them to fight a really dangerous foe on a moment's notice?  I can imagine a NUMBER of better solutions than the Circle. 

Modifié par Gyrefalcon, 20 novembre 2012 - 05:52 .

[Navasha]

I like the problem as it is essentially a perception problem. Slavery vs Free will is found in most of the conflicts we have seen.

The Chantry hates Tevinter for it freedom of magic and use of slaves, but has no problem enslaving mages itself. The Qunari are a collectivist society where everyone is essentially a slave to the demands of the Qun and detest everything about being free-willed.

The whole dragon age world is essentially groups hating other groups for doing the exact same thing as they are doing themselves, but they just perceive it differently.

I mean you have to see the irony in the templars imprisoning and enslaving mages because mages have the possibility of using power to enslave others. Tell me, what are the Tranquil if not willing slaves who have had their free-will stripped away from them?

[MisterJB]

dragonflight288 wrote...
Ultimately, the Chantry cannot be involved at any level. The most unbiased source you'll probably find in Thedas, given the political climate, would be the indivdual crowns of each individual country.

While I acknowledge that some templars have indeed abused mages and that allowing some smages into their ranks might help solve this, I disagree with your assesment that the Chantry can't be involved and that the crown is preferable.
I say this because the Chantry has not abused its power. They control the single greatest force in Thedas and what do they do with it? Keep it locked. Send small groups of them and only when it's to fight threats against the entire human race such as the Qunari or the Blight. There are no secret squads of blood mages who serve the Divine and feeding on peasants.
For all the criticism it receives, the Chantry has proved time and again that they mean what they say, they stick by their ideals. "Magic is dangerous and must be contained." and that is what they do.
Place it in the hands of the crown and, suddenly, you have ferelden and orlesian squads of blood mages fighting against each other and using peasants and enemy prisioner to fuel their spells.

[CaptainBlackGold]

Personally, I think the way the conflict was handled in DA2 muddied the waters so that it is difficult to get a handle on the situation. Both sides were insane - Meredith, literally, and then that completely bizarre decision by the writers to have Orsinio turn into an abomination, immediately after my party had thoroughly defeated the Templars... "Oh, no, there is no hope, let me turn into a disgusting monster composed of dead body guards..." But I just killed all those people, dimwad!

By having him do that (as well as him supporting and encouraging the research into creating Franken-Mommie), made all the mages look like dangerous idiots. Throughout the game, he is presented as the voice or reason and justice for the mages, and then he involves himself in the worst kind of disgusting magic. He didn't just learn how to turn into an abomination in a moment of crises - clearly he had studied such things for quite some while.

So if this was intentional on the part of the writers (as opposed to some goofy plot decision on the part of someone higher up - "Hey, let's have TWO boss battles"), then it shows that they want us to see that there is no such thing as a "good" mage - that even the best can and will turn themselves into abominations whenever it suits their purposes to do so.

In effect, as presented, from the information we have, EVERY mage is a potential suicide bomber. If they do not get their way, they will either use blood magic to control minds, or blow themselves up by becoming an abomination.

Yeah, I know people are going to say, "But the mean, nasty Templars in Kirkwall forced them into it..." and I respond, what about the circle tower in Feralden? No oppression there, a lot of nice, civilized mages and concerned Templars working peacefully together and yet, just one insane mage was enough to bring numerous demons in to almost destroy the entire tower?

So as presented, mages either get what they want, when the want it and how they want it, or they do a Samson in the Temple and destroy everything.

And it all goes back to Orsinio where the game shows that the most reasonable mage is inherently unstable. I refused to allow the circle to be annulled by Meredith because killing mages for things Anders had done was gross injustice. But after Orsinio turned into an abomination, I was left thinking, "Maybe the old battle-axe was right after all..." That should not have happened, unless the writers want us to see that every mage is inherently dangerous.

[redneck nosferatu]

I never got the appeal of the mage issue, personally. Nor do I feel any particular sympathy toward the mages. It's a paper-thin excuse to justify an authoritarian group's mistreatment of a group of people, and the portrayed power and danger of said group doesn't really justify it. Not even blood magic, this supposedly uber-powerful and uber-evil tool of wickedness and doom, seems all that threatening. "ZOMG, he can control minds!" So what? You control minds with your propaganda, you're just marginally more subtle about it.

It's made worse by the Tevinter Imperium, which is a magocracy and yet conspicuously lacks the sort of problems Andrastian mages have. If they did have these problems, their entire nation would have been destroyed by rampaging abominations long before the qunari showed up. But the Tevinters are DA's Batarians, who we're "supposed" to hate, so they'll likely be all killed offscreen when the next big threat shows up.

Really, I think the entire thing overshadows far more interesting plots like the Blights and return of the dragons; which, well, you'd think a series called "Dragon Age" would care more about than this.

Modifié par redneck nosferatu, 20 novembre 2012 - 09:50 .

[Jonata]

redneck nosferatu wrote...

Really, I think the entire thing overshadows far more interesting plots like the Blights and return of the dragons; which, well, you'd think a series called "Dragon Age" would care more about than this.

I'm not against the whole mage conundrum as one of the main plot point of Inquisition once again, but I do admit that I'd like to hear more from dragons and Archdemons. I hope the whole "mage vs. chantry" plot points does not overshadow dragons and darkspawn too much.