373 réponses à ce sujet

[Pzykozis]

Razzandi wrote...

Valid point Lotion, I'm with you on this one.  Believe it or not, I used to support the mages, but after many of these threads (and Plaintiff in particular) I've become a staunch Templar supporter myself.

It's rather funny that most of those who support the Templars admit that the current system is broken and needs revision...but then we read the stories about how things used to be (and currently ARE) in the Tevinter Imperium and well...even the current situation is a hell of a lot better than lettinga large number of walking bazooka's run free without any guidance, training, or supervision.

But what you're arguing for there isn't the same at all, you morally object to the political system of Tevinter and so say that mages need the circles and templar oversight, but that's the political system in Tevinter and isn't an inherent moral system that mages are born with or share, it's a bit of a logic leap to suggest that a mage from Ferelden if in the unlikely event was allowed complete freedom from the circle would begin to scheme and plot about the overthrowing of said country and the imposition of a magical leadership.

[MisterJB]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
No, I mean in-story religious bigotry. Like Lambert, Mere-death, and Alrik.

Neither Lambert nor Meredith displayed all that religious bigotry, actually. They both seemed to simply be incredibly cynical/realist becaused of a past experience. For Lambert that was Tevinter, for Meredith the possession of her sister.
Alrik is just messed up but he also never so much as said the word "Maker" once.

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
No, I mean in-story religious bigotry. Like Lambert, Mere-death, and Alrik.

Neither Lambert nor Meredith displayed all that religious bigotry, actually. They both seemed to simply be incredibly cynical/realist becaused of a past experience. For Lambert that was Tevinter, for Meredith the possession of her sister.
Alrik is just messed up but he also never so much as said the word "Maker" once.

And there, you are wrong. Quoting from Ser Alrik's Letter:
"The Tranquil Solution is our answer. All mages at the age of majority must be made Tranquil.
They'll coexist peacefully, retain their usefulness—a perfect strategy!
It's simply the best way to ensure mages obey the laws of men and
Maker.
"
And from the Templar Letter to Ser Bardel:
"The Maker has given us a divine task, Bardel. We cannot fail Him."

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

MisterJB wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
No, I mean in-story religious bigotry. Like Lambert, Mere-death, and Alrik.

Neither Lambert nor Meredith displayed all that religious bigotry, actually. They both seemed to simply be incredibly cynical/realist becaused of a past experience. For Lambert that was Tevinter, for Meredith the possession of her sister.
Alrik is just messed up but he also never so much as said the word "Maker" once.

My mistake. The point is that they all... I won't say they overestimate the danger, but they're certainly inclined to go after such mages as don't deserve it. Meredith starts out remarkably well adjusted despite an understandable reason not to be, only to decide she needs more power for rather understandable reasons. This power then corrupts her. There's nothing to be done for that, except maybe making her Knight-Commander of a less insane posting.

Lambert, on the other hand... I think he was crazy when we met him. And Alrik, I think he probably would have showed some signs even at the time of recruitment. Maybe these people shouldn't be in charge. Maybe the people who put them in charge ought to be evalutated for leadership qualities themselves.

Edit: As for Xilizhra's post, yeah, he says he's doing it for the Maker, but I don't think religious zeal is his main motivation, and if it's second it's a distant one. (At least, that's my impression from the wiki.)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 23 novembre 2012 - 02:37 .

[Xilizhra]

Edit: As for Xilizhra's post, yeah, he says he's doing it for the Maker, but I don't think religious zeal is his main motivation, and if it's second it's a distant one. (At least, that's my impression from the wiki.)

He justifies himself with religious zeal. I'm sure he's a strong believer, he just expresses it in a certain way.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
What I meant was that they oversee each other, and each has the power to veto the others actions. I thought I'd made that clear. Yes, there's holes in this system. That is unavoidable. What I'm trying to do is think of ways this could be minimized.

If you want efficiency, you want a clear chain of command.
Vetos are for councils and senates.

For a military-style unit, two leaders don't sound efficient. Especially if they are rivas.

I'm not going for efficiency. Obviously, there'd have to be a provision for it in cases of emergency, but otherwise, what I'm trying to prioritize difficulty of abuse.

[TEWR]

MisterJB wrote...

Because gunpowder can be used by anyone and magic only by a class of people who will take advantage of this fact.

Anders. 

A mage took the ingredients for gunpowder. I'd say Thedas isn't as far behind the Qunari/Dwarves anymore.

Granted, he also combined them with magical reagents -- which do not require a Mage to use, as we see plenty of non-Mages using items magical in nature to create things -- to amplify the potency of it... but still.

And if gunpowder were to be developed... well... that would start to even out the danger level between mundane and Mage. Completely? Arguable. But certainly, mundanes would be able to do a lot more damage to the populus then before.

Plaintiff wrote...

If magic already provides a perfectly viable, possibly better alternative, then why the hell is gunpowder required

Self-reliance, for one. 

Plaintiff wrote...

Morals are conceptual, and not relevant to the physical composition of Thedas.

Indeed. Thedas is closer to our moral level then it is to Medieval level morals. Wynne notes that if the Mages were to break free from the Chantry, it would lead to the genocide of them. 

We see a few Mages -- like Bethany -- refer to other Mages as their "people", which from a cultural standpoint matters.

Thedas also abhors slavery -- though Orlais seems content to hide it beneath a mask to preserve their image -- and it's outlawed almost everywhere.

Rawgrim wrote...

I`ve been underground too, and in caves. Never saw any fuel. i am sure there could be oil off the coast of Ferelden, though. I did notice oil lamps in both games too, so they do have fuel...

One of the brothers in the Lothering Chantry will tell the Warden that the Dwarves offered the Chantry fuel for their braziers.

The Chantry politely refused, citing the lighting of the braziers as needing to be performed by themselves as an act of faith. Or something along those lines.

In addition, Branka became a Paragon for inventing a smokeless coal that reduced deaths from the black lung by 3/4.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Xilizhra wrote...

Edit: As for Xilizhra's post, yeah, he says he's doing it for the Maker, but I don't think religious zeal is his main motivation, and if it's second it's a distant one. (At least, that's my impression from the wiki.)

He justifies himself with religious zeal. I'm sure he's a strong believer, he just expresses it in a certain way.

I just looked it up on Youtube. Okay, yeah, its looks like religious zeal after all. Or just control issues.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 23 novembre 2012 - 02:49 .

[In Exile]

Xilizhra wrote...
And there, you are wrong. Quoting from Ser Alrik's Letter:
"The Tranquil Solution is our answer. All mages at the age of majority must be made Tranquil.
They'll coexist peacefully, retain their usefulness—a perfect strategy!
It's simply the best way to ensure mages obey the laws of men and
Maker."

To be fair, we can't know if Ser Rapist wasn't just angling to increase his harem a hundred-fold.

But it was pretty obvious he felt he was entitled to abuse mages in virtue of his position as a templar.

[Razzandi]

Pzykozis wrote...

But what you're arguing for there isn't the same at all, you morally object to the political system of Tevinter and so say that mages need the circles and templar oversight, but that's the political system in Tevinter and isn't an inherent moral system that mages are born with or share, it's a bit of a logic leap to suggest that a mage from Ferelden if in the unlikely event was allowed complete freedom from the circle would begin to scheme and plot about the overthrowing of said country and the imposition of a magical leadership.

Right, that actually does look like a large leap in logic, blame my poor phrasing of the issue on that one.

What I'm actually trying to say is while the current system is...well rather buggy to put it euphemistically.  It has valid points and measures.  Mages are like a class of people being born who have access to weapons that the average joe wouldn't.

Now while that doesn't inherently make them a sociopath who'll end up trying to summon demons and posses others, it does make them dangerous, especially untrained and unsupervised. 

[Lotion Soronarr]

Plaintiff wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Then start acting that way.

The rethoric you use, the zeal of your approach - nothing of it sez "temepred, reasoned approach".

And to make it even more apprent, you openly and cleary state (and show) your hatered for the templars and the Chantry. Interestingly enough, none of us templar supporters here hate mages.

So when you say you're not biased...Yeah, no one is buying it.

I never once used the word 'hate', except to say that the Chantry perpetuates it through its religious dogma.

Go ahead. Search this entire thread. I dare you.

I don't really care exactly what word you used. That is beside the point.


Honestly, that soung from Southpark? Blame Canada? I can immagine you singing it (just replace Canada with Chantry).

[Lotion Soronarr]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
What I meant was that they oversee each other, and each has the power to veto the others actions. I thought I'd made that clear. Yes, there's holes in this system. That is unavoidable. What I'm trying to do is think of ways this could be minimized.

If you want efficiency, you want a clear chain of command.
Vetos are for councils and senates.

For a military-style unit, two leaders don't sound efficient. Especially if they are rivas.

I'm not going for efficiency. Obviously, there'd have to be a provision for it in cases of emergency, but otherwise, what I'm trying to prioritize difficulty of abuse.

We ARE talking about a system whose goal is to prevent the deaths of thousands.
I kinda think efficency should be paramount.

[DarthLaxian]

Zardoc wrote...
It's not that they could be a danger, it's that they are a danger if not properly trained. Not just because they can't control their abilities, but rather because they are easy prey for demons. It's reason enough to "lock them up". Trying the old "well, if they might be a danger you might be a danger so why aren't you locked up" card is also rather dumb, seeing how a mundane can't a) accidentally set someone on fire, or worse, be possessed by a demon or c) do all of the above, but intentionally.

And let me just say that it is absolutely retarded to try and bring modern day morals and /or values and regulations into this debate. For one, they don't even properly apply to mages in the first place. Second, mages are not slaves. At all. They have homes, education, safety, food, friends and a soft bed. A slave has none of those.

May I remind you that Anders ran from the Circle !seven! times, without any consequences? A slave tries to run once and he's done.

hey - have i EVER argued against training them (in a certain location, but after they are full mages they should have the same rights as everybody else...as for the circle (location for training), i would have several smaller circles in the countryside (as to not force mages to live parted from the normal population!))

greetings LAX
ps: anders was LUCKY - other mages were killed for running away ONCE (one time) anders was just lucky that the Knight-Commander at his circle was lenient, probably because he understood what imprisoning someone really means...even more because freedome is (and should be) a right no one should be able to take from you for any reason (except if you commit crimes against the general population - and even then your freedom is only taken for a time...exceptions are murder charges in countries with capital punishment!))

[DPSSOC]

MisterJB wrote...

Having recently replayed Anders' starting quest in DA2 and having picked both options offered to me that allowed me to argue against Anders' viewpoint, I noticed that they both mentioned the risk of possession.
Now, while this is a very valid argument, I couldn't help but wish I could counter Anders' comparison of magic with a sword or a bow by pointing out that magic is capable of much greater destruction in the hands of a inexperienced child than a sword is in the hands of a trained adult.

I did not create this thread to fuel more Templar vs Mage flamewars; tough I fear that may be inevitable; but simply to humbly request for the writers of Bioware to create arguments for Pro-Templars players in DA3 that are not restricted to "Demons and Tevinter".

Agreed.  Admittedly this is a major constraint of the medium more than anything (devs can't write every possible argument we could think of) but I would like to be able to present more arguments.  One in particular is the accident argument.  3 of the biggest magical disasters in DA:O were accidents (Redcliffe, Broken Circle, Warden's Keep), and 2 of them were by seasoned practitioners who knew what they were doing.  Think of the scope of those events and all because one mage made a mistake.

I'd also like to see more arguments for the Pro-Mage side as well.  It'd be nice if we could see an argument that didn't hinge on modern sensibilities of how people ought to be treated.

[Lotion Soronarr]

DarthLaxian wrote...
hey - have i EVER argued against training them (in a certain location, but after they are full mages they should have the same rights as everybody else...as for the circle (location for training), i would have several smaller circles in the countryside (as to not force mages to live parted from the normal population!))

Mages walkign free and having the exact same right is no solution.
Just training them isn't enough. It never will be.

ps: anders was LUCKY - other mages were killed for running away ONCE (one time) anders was just lucky that the Knight-Commander at his circle was lenient.

Actually, you got it backwards.

The "other mages" is the exception, not the norm.
Fleeing mages are brought back alive, if possible.

[MisterJB]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
Lambert, on the other hand... I think he was crazy when we met him.

Lambert never displayed any signs of insanity. He is extremely distrustal but I'd argue that is a reasonable position to take when dealing with opposing factions and it's quite undesrtandable after spending ten years in Tevinter.
However, during the book, he is shown putting some real effort into stopping the muder of mages in the tower by Cole and is the first to discover his true nature and the manner in which he had been using Rhys to murder.
I admit that he might be too extreme; for instance, I don't think Re-Tranquilizing Parhamond was really necessary, just keep him locked 24/hours per day with 10 powerful templars at door at all times until he recovers and if he recovers, even if he turns into an Abomination, he isn't going far; but Adrian was the one who murdered Parhamond exactly to incite violence. Neither side came out of Asunder with their hands clean.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
What I meant was that they oversee each other, and each has the power to veto the others actions. I thought I'd made that clear. Yes, there's holes in this system. That is unavoidable. What I'm trying to do is think of ways this could be minimized.

If you want efficiency, you want a clear chain of command.
Vetos are for councils and senates.

For a military-style unit, two leaders don't sound efficient. Especially if they are rivas.

I'm not going for efficiency. Obviously, there'd have to be a provision for it in cases of emergency, but otherwise, what I'm trying to prioritize difficulty of abuse.

We ARE talking about a system whose goal is to prevent the deaths of thousands.
I kinda think efficency should be paramount.

And here I thought we were trying to prevent the abuse of both magic and mages.

Even the Chantry doesn't feel like having a mage capable of vetoing templar actions will interfere with that overmuch. The main change I'm advocating is find some way to give the First Enchanter some recourse if they're being henpecked, and for that matter, extending that to the Knight-Commander to prevent a new Tevinter.

And of course, it's important to pick two people who like each other somewhat, so that they won't butt heads at exactly the wrong time.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

MisterJB wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
Lambert, on the other hand... I think he was crazy when we met him.

Lambert never displayed any signs of insanity. He is extremely distrustal but I'd argue that is a reasonable position to take when dealing with opposing factions and it's quite undesrtandable after spending ten years in Tevinter.
However, during the book, he is shown putting some real effort into stopping the muder of mages in the tower by Cole and is the first to discover his true nature and the manner in which he had been using Rhys to murder.
I admit that he might be too extreme; for instance, I don't think Re-Tranquilizing Parhamond was really necessary, just keep him locked 24/hours per day with 10 powerful templars at door at all times until he recovers and if he recovers, even if he turns into an Abomination, he isn't going far; but Adrian was the one who murdered Parhamond exactly to incite violence. Neither side came out of Asunder with their hands clean.

The fact remains that I don't think there will be peace with Lambert involved. Or Adrian, for that matter.

[MisterJB]

Well, we agree on that.

[Rawgrim]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

DarthLaxian wrote...
hey - have i EVER argued against training them (in a certain location, but after they are full mages they should have the same rights as everybody else...as for the circle (location for training), i would have several smaller circles in the countryside (as to not force mages to live parted from the normal population!))

Mages walkign free and having the exact same right is no solution.
Just training them isn't enough. It never will be.

ps: anders was LUCKY - other mages were killed for running away ONCE (one time) anders was just lucky that the Knight-Commander at his circle was lenient.

Actually, you got it backwards.

The "other mages" is the exception, not the norm.
Fleeing mages are brought back alive, if possible.

Quite right. Loads fo quests in DA2 involved bringing mages back. Everytime i chose to spare them, though, they attacked me in the next chapter and tried to kill me.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
And here I thought we were trying to prevent the abuse of both magic and mages.

Even the Chantry doesn't feel like having a mage capable of vetoing templar actions will interfere with that overmuch. The main change I'm advocating is find some way to give the First Enchanter some recourse if they're being henpecked, and for that matter, extending that to the Knight-Commander to prevent a new Tevinter.

And of course, it's important to pick two people who like each other somewhat, so that they won't butt heads at exactly the wrong time.

Didn't Reverend Mother Elthina serve that role in Kirkwall?
A First Enchanted DOES have a recourse.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...
And here I thought we were trying to prevent the abuse of both magic and mages.

Even the Chantry doesn't feel like having a mage capable of vetoing templar actions will interfere with that overmuch. The main change I'm advocating is find some way to give the First Enchanter some recourse if they're being henpecked, and for that matter, extending that to the Knight-Commander to prevent a new Tevinter.

And of course, it's important to pick two people who like each other somewhat, so that they won't butt heads at exactly the wrong time.

Didn't Reverend Mother Elthina serve that role in Kirkwall?
A First Enchanted DOES have a recourse.

In theory. Though it doesn't really seem to work quite the way I'm imagining, otherwise Meredith probably would have been removed when it looked like she was going off the deep end. It seems like the Chantry has already had all my ideas, they just don't always pay them more than lip service. Partially due to Templars who had to deal with traumatic experiences in their youth, and snapped. Partially due to mages who push too far. I'd argue that both are poor influences on the system and should be removed.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 23 novembre 2012 - 05:54 .

[MisterJB]

To bring things a little more on-topic, it bothers me when Sebastian has better arguments than my Hawke.

"Anders: I don't think it's a coincidence that the people the Chantry blames, are the same ones they are trying to oppress.

Sebastian: I think you're getting it backwards."

Thank you, Sebastian.

Modifié par MisterJB, 23 novembre 2012 - 05:56 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Didn't Reverend Mother Elthina serve that role in Kirkwall?
A First Enchanted DOES have a recourse.

In theory. Though it doesn't really seem to work quite the way I'm imagining, otherwise Meredith probably would have been removed when it looked like she was going off the deep end. It seems like the Chantry has already had all my ideas, they just don't always pay them more than lip service. Partially due to Templars who had to deal with traumatic experiences in their youth, and snapped. Partially due to mages who push too far. I'd argue that both are poor influences on the system and should be removed.

Why would Meredith be removed?
She was a good templar and KC beforeh the idol turned her crazy.
Even she was still relatively stable untill the very end.

You start form the assumption that stricter rules in the Cirlce (due to all the mage trouble) means Meredith should have been replaced. Obviously Elthina didn't agree or didn't see the full extent of the trouble.

And here's  the thing - no matter what system you have, there's always going to be someone on top. If that someone on top doesn't do as you want...tough luck.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Didn't Reverend Mother Elthina serve that role in Kirkwall?
A First Enchanted DOES have a recourse.

In theory. Though it doesn't really seem to work quite the way I'm imagining, otherwise Meredith probably would have been removed when it looked like she was going off the deep end. It seems like the Chantry has already had all my ideas, they just don't always pay them more than lip service. Partially due to Templars who had to deal with traumatic experiences in their youth, and snapped. Partially due to mages who push too far. I'd argue that both are poor influences on the system and should be removed.

Why would Meredith be removed?
She was a good templar and KC beforeh the idol turned her crazy.
Even she was still relatively stable untill the very end.

You start form the assumption that stricter rules in the Cirlce (due to all the mage trouble) means Meredith should have been replaced. Obviously Elthina didn't agree or didn't see the full extent of the trouble.

No I don't. I start from the assumption that ignoring the rules on Tranquility should have gotten her replaced and maybe imprisoned when and only when she started it up. My whole argument is that the Chantry is both pushing unreasonable rules (though I see the merit of the Circle system in general) and ignoring the rules meant to limit their own abuses. I don't believe Elthina did see the full extent of the trouble, but that's its own problem. It's also a problem that Meredith didn't take Ser Alrik out of commission, and this was either before the idol even entered the equation, or before it really took hold. (I'm not 100% on the timeline.) Or maybe not... maybe Meredith ignored his actions because she couldn't support them on record?

And I'm under the impression that Cole started with a problem that apparently wasn't investigated, though this is separate from anything that happened in Kirkwall.

And here's  the thing - no matter what system you have, there's always going to be someone on top. If that someone on top doesn't do as you want...tough luck.

It's a little bigger than merely being uncooperative. The Templars are literally trying to kill off the mages.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 23 novembre 2012 - 08:37 .