271 réponses à ce sujet

[Herr Uhl]

I don't see circles independent from the chantry as a big problem, but getting something with the same range of influence as the chantry would be hard, as most monarchs would likely prefer to bolster their army with mages. Every nation would have their own circles and use mages in regular warfare (akin to Tevinter and Qunari) instead of in extremes like Blights or Exalted Marches.

[TCBC_Freak]

MisterJB wrote...

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...
Rights vary from country to country, but are you really trying to suggest that you have a right to drive on the wrong side of the street? I believe others' right to life trumps that, if you do. Also, trying to compare magic to a gun is a flawed analogy. It is a part of you, not like a gun. It would be more like being a master of martial arts. Do they round up the black belts in your country and lock them up in a tower? Even if they did, it wouldn't prove that such an action was ethically sound.

The destruction a black belt is capable of is much smaller to what a mage can do. Not to mention less insidious.
The right to life of mundanes trumps the right of freedom of mages. The fact that magic is born with them is irrelevant. It makes what needs to be done more tragic but no less necessary.
Mages are living nuclear bombs and you can imagine the state any government would be if they suddenly lost one. And you're suggesting we let nuclear bombs walk around freely. At least our nuclear bombs are not at risk of exploding if they get depressed.

So you consider the mere possibility that mages might become criminals and restrict their freedoms as a consequence? That's even worse. They're not even expected to commit crimes but are punished nonetheless.


it's not punishment, it's restricting their freedoms just like my freedoms are restricted. My right of freedom dictates i can go wherever I please inside my country. However, I also am not allowed to drive on the wrong side of the road because that endagers others.
"I'm an extremely good driver, I won't hit anyone trust me." Would you allow me to drive on the opposite side of the road after I said this? Somehow, I doubt it.
Then why do you expect me to accept that we should trust mages will never abuse their powers or cause a magical accident?

Don't we put paranoid schizophrenics in institutions because they are a danger to themselves and others? They are born that way, or become so do to trauma, but we still put them in a nice place were they get cared for and are protected form themselves and the outside world that might harm them or they might harm. And they are only one person who is only a small danger to others.

Edit: It also isn't lost on my that there are cruel people in mental homes too, just like there are in the Circle, I'm seeing a lot of the same from one to the other. But even with some orderlies and doctors being evil pricks we never have and never will condem the system on the whole.

Modifié par TCBC_Freak, 01 décembre 2012 - 09:28 .

[Rixatrix]

MisterJB wrote...
The right to life of mundanes trumps the right of freedom of mages.

Except those rights are not in direct conflict.  Crime, on the other hand, would trump the freedom of the mage committing it.

The fact that magic is born with them is irrelevant.

Magic is not, by its nature, evil.  It is the human capacity to commit evil which causes some mages to commit crime.  That they possess more power than the average man makes them more dangerous to apprehend is true, however, this does not justify mistreating all mages.  A man must committ a crime to be punished for one.

Mages are living nuclear bombs and you can imagine the state any government would be if they suddenly lost one.And you're suggesting we let nuclear bombs walk around freely. At least our nuclear bombs are not at risk of exploding if they get depressed.

Homogenizing a diverse group of individuals, yet again.  Tell you what, if you could show that people with certain inborn qualities, like race, were 90% more likely to committ murder, would that justify treating them like mages are treated?

No, because they are innocent until they commit a crime.

And really, comparing mages to nuclear bombs?  Prove that one using canon, please.

So you consider the mere possibility that mages might become criminals and restrict their freedoms as a consequence?  That's even worse.  They're not even expected to commit crimes but are punished nonetheless.

it's not punishment, it's restricting their freedoms just like my freedoms are restricted. My right of freedom dictates i can go wherever I please inside my country. However, I also am not allowed to drive on the wrong side of the road because that endagers others.
"I'm an extremely good driver, I won't hit anyone trust me." Would you allow me to drive on the opposite side of the road after I said this? Somehow, I doubt it.
Then why do you expect me to accept that we should trust mages will never abuse their powers or cause a magical accident?

Choosing to drive on the opposite side of the road is an action.  Being a mage is a quality.  The analogy is flawed.  The appropriate parallel would have been a mage choosing to commit a crime, in which case, I would say, by all means, lock him up if it is proven and that is what the law provides.


@TCBC

The mentally ill, however, have a diminished capacity.  Magic is an ability, not an illness, so I disagree that mental hospitals and the Circle compare.

Modifié par BlueMoonSeraphim, 01 décembre 2012 - 09:33 .

[TCBC_Freak]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

@TCBC

The mentally ill, however, have a diminished capacity. Magic is an ability, not an illness, so I disagree that mental hospitals and the Circle compare.

You are characterizing a whole slew of people incorrectly. Most paranoid schizophrenics, delusional psychotics, sociopaths, multiple personality suffers, and the like are fully functional in their mental faculties unless they have an "outbreak" for lack of a better term. Even more functional when they can take the proper medication, but even then they can have resurgence of their illness (A Beautiful Mind is a great film where you can see this). Just as a non-possessed mage would be a perfectly reasonable person but just like the mental ill they can't control when an "outbreak" might happen.

Honestly I think I've just found the only comparable thing in our world to what the mages are.

[MisterJB]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...
Except those rights are not in direct conflict.  Crime, on the other hand, would trump the freedom of the mage committing it.

Considering the numberless of ways mages can hurt mundanes with or without wanting, I'd say they are very much in conflict.

Magic is not, by its nature, evil.  It is the human capacity to commit evil which causes some mages to commit crime.  That they possess more power than the average man makes them more dangerous to apprehend is true, however, this does not justify mistreating all mages.  A man must committ a crime to be punished for one.

Magic might not be evil but sentient beings are very much inclined towards evil. When you give a specific class of people abilities that place them above others, to expect them to not abuse it is quite naive.
I've commited no crime yet my own freedoms are restricted. For instance, my freedom to own a firearm. I can't own one not because I've given any indication of being dangerous, but because the possibility exists that I might be dangerous. It's no punishment, it's simply common sense.

If the danger some pose is so tremendously great; which magic is; then isolating them for the safety of others is easily justifiable.

Homogenizing a diverse group of individuals, yet again.  Tell you what, if you could show that people with certain inborn qualities, like race, were 90% more likely to committ murder, would that justify treating them like mages are treated?

No, because they are innocent until they commit a crime.

If they had abilities that allowed them to commit these crimes as easily as I snap off a twig, then yes.
I've not claimed that all mages are the same or that they are more inclined to commit crimes than the average person. I've said that their abilities make commiting crimes extremely easy and that, thus certain preventive measures must be taken. Any mundane would commit those very same abuses were they mages.

And then of course, we must take into account situations where the mage doesn't even want to harm anyone, it just happens. Or situations where normal circunstances, such as the death of a loved one, could incite an extreme response from a mage (see Quentin and Connor).

And really, comparing mages to nuclear bombs?  Prove that one using canon, please.

"13 years have passed since a group of warriors led by the
Templar Ravi banded together to prevent an abomination from destroying
the Free Marches city of Kaiten in a hedonistic orgy of narcissism and
opulence."


"Abominations have been responsible for some of the worst cataclysms in history"

"A greater pride demon, brought across the veil, would threaten the entire world."

Redcliff is another example of a town that can be destroyed by an abomination.

Then
there is "Dawn of the Seeker" where a Pride Abomination gains control
of dragons through Blood Magic and almost destroys Val Royeaux.

Meredith's younger sister that killed over 70 people before being stopped. And she was a little peasant child.

There's blood magic which gives a mage a power to control others and even make them forget it ever happened.

Darkspawn which were, undoubtedly, created by magic even if it not because of the magisters.

There are also spells like "Storm of the Century"

Choosing to drive on the opposite side of the road is an action.  Being a mage is a quality.  The analogy is flawed.  The appropriate parallel would have been a mage choosing to commit a crime, in which case, I would say, by all means, lock him up if it is proven and that is what the law provides.

The point is that we should not give people the freedom to do something if that threatens others.
For someone like me, that's driving on the different side of a road. For a mage, that is living outside of a Circle.

Once again, it doesn't matter from a practical viewpoint if magic is gained or born with. It is dangerous, period.

Modifié par MisterJB, 01 décembre 2012 - 09:55 .

[Xilizhra]

Edit: It also isn't lost on my that there are cruel people in mental homes too, just like there are in the Circle, I'm seeing a lot of the same from one to the other. But even with some orderlies and doctors being evil pricks we never have and never will condem the system on the whole.

Actually, we have condemned the system as a whole, back it was just a glorified series of torture chambers, leading to tremendous reforms. And even now, there are serious systemic problems riddling the system in general. It's certainly not something that needs no improvement.

I've commited no crime yet my own freedoms are restricted. For instance, my freedom to own a firearm. I can't own one not because I've given any indication of being dangerous, but because the possibility exists that I might be dangerous. It's no punishment, it's simply common sense.

You're not American, are you? I'm totally free to own one, would be free to have a concealed one with the right license, and in my own state, there's a possibility in the future of us being allowed to carry the things openly.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 01 décembre 2012 - 10:27 .

[MisterJB]

European and yikes.

[Rixatrix]

[quote]MisterJB wrote...

[quote]BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...
Except those rights are not in direct conflict.  Crime, on the other hand, would trump the freedom of the mage committing it.[/quote]
Considering the numberless of ways mages can hurt mundanes with or without wanting, I'd say they are very much in conflict.[/quote]
You were comparing rights.  "Hurting mundanes" is not a right.
[quote]
Magic might not be evil but sentient beings are very much inclined towards evil.[/quote]
Yes!
[quote]When you give a specific class of people abilities that place them above others, to expect them to not abuse it is quite naive.[/quote]
You can expect what you want.  The choice is theirs.  They are punished if they make the wrong one.
[quote]
I've commited no crime yet my own freedoms are restricted. For instance, my freedom to own a firearm.[/quote]
You keep bringing this up, yet you only prove you are equal to everyone else in your country.  It is my understanding that the military and law enforcement can only carry handguns... so, basically, you are equal to every other person in your country, regardless of natural qualities, on this point.

[quote]I've not claimed that all mages are the same or that they are more inclined to commit crimes than the average person.[/quote]
Thank you.
[quote]I've said that their abilities make commiting crimes extremely easy and that, thus certain preventive measures must be taken. Any mundane would commit those very same abuses were they mages.[/quote]
The first statement presupposes that it is not extremely easy to commit crimes for everyone else.  It is.  The second statement is purely speculative.
[quote]And then of course, we must take into account situations where the mage doesn't even want to harm anyone, it just happens. Or situations where normal circunstances, such as the death of a loved one, could incite an extreme response from a mage (see Quentin and Connor).[/quote]
Ah, accidents, right?  Sometimes, without intending to do so, an individual can kill someone or even several people.  They should be locked up, right?  Tell me, what do you do with people who own and drive cars?
[quote]
[quote]And really, comparing mages to nuclear bombs?  Prove that one using canon, please.[/quote]"13 years have passed since a group of warriors led by the Templar Ravi banded together to prevent an abomination from destroying the Free Marches city of Kaiten in a hedonistic orgy of narcissism and opulence." [/quote]
This compares to the effect of a nuclear bomb how?  Look up Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
[quote]
"Abominations have been responsible for some of the worst cataclysms in history"[/quote]
How many died?  Comparable to a nuclear bomb?
[quote]"A greater pride demon, brought across the veil, would threaten the entire world."[/quote]
"Threaten" but not "destroy."  And this is speculation.
[quote]Redcliff is another example of a town that can be destroyed by an abomination.[/quote]
A "nuclear bomb" as an accident like Connor?  How many died in Redcliffe?  Accidents happen and people die, true, but comparable to a "nuclear bomb"?
[quote]Then there is "Dawn of the Seeker" where a Pride Abomination gains control of dragons through Blood Magic and almost destroys Val Royeaux.[/quote]
Nuclear bombs destroy, they don't "almost destroy."
[quote]Meredith's younger sister that killed over 70 people before being stopped. And she was a little peasant child.[/quote]
A serial killer =/= nuclear bomb

Need I go on?  Just keep the hyperbole out of the discussion, unless you can actually prove the two are equal.

[quote][quote]
Choosing to drive on the opposite side of the road is an action.  Being a mage is a quality.  The analogy is flawed.  The appropriate parallel would have been a mage choosing to commit a crime, in which case, I would say, by all means, lock him up if it is proven and that is what the law provides.[/quote]
The point is that we should not give people the freedom to do something if that threatens others.[/quote]
It is not about the freedom to "do" something.  It is about being punished for being who you are from birth.

Magic is an inborn weapon.  A weapon is not evil, it simply is.  Just as a weapon can be used to save someone or kill someone, so can magic - it all depends on the intent of the person wielding it.  Is it a police officer saving a hostage or a criminal killing a victim?  Unlike your country, in which weapons like guns can simply be legislated away (and I'm sure criminals still have them), magic can't.  It is a part of the person.  The problem isn't this inborn weapon, but the good or evil intentions of the individual.  Yet in some views, we should take both the criminal and the police officer and lock them up in the Circle.

Is it really so radical to believe that a person should give cause to be punished?  Magic is a weapon of potential, the potential to do good or evil, and yet by persecuting all who possess it, you give them righteous cause to rebel and unfortunately turn to the commission of evil acts to fight for their freedom from oppression.

The OP is correct in asking about alternatives because the current state of affairs has been proven, time and again, to be too problematic.  Rather than ensuring the safety of the mundanes, as some assert, it actually creates more problems because the oppressed mages believe their cause is just and turn to evil to rebel.  Is there not some other way that does not punish these people for qualities beyond their control, but for the actions they do have control over?  Perhaps an outlet, like creating branches of the police force or healthcare that can be a constructive outlet for mages?  Give them choices other than imprisonment or rebellion?

Modifié par BlueMoonSeraphim, 01 décembre 2012 - 10:53 .

[Xilizhra]

MisterJB wrote...

European and yikes.

I'm not saying I endorse it, but I will say that "common sense" is by no means universal on this point.

[Herr Uhl]

Xilizhra wrote...

I've commited no crime yet my own freedoms are restricted. For instance, my freedom to own a firearm. I can't own one not because I've given any indication of being dangerous, but because the possibility exists that I might be dangerous. It's no punishment, it's simply common sense.

You're not American, are you? I'm totally free to own one, would be free to have a concealed one with the right license, and in my own state, there's a possibility in the future of us being allowed to carry the things openly.

I know this is off-topic, but why is openly any different from concealed?

[Xilizhra]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I've commited no crime yet my own freedoms are restricted. For instance, my freedom to own a firearm. I can't own one not because I've given any indication of being dangerous, but because the possibility exists that I might be dangerous. It's no punishment, it's simply common sense.

You're not American, are you? I'm totally free to own one, would be free to have a concealed one with the right license, and in my own state, there's a possibility in the future of us being allowed to carry the things openly.

I know this is off-topic, but why is openly any different from concealed?

I'm not a gun person and I don't really get it myself. Though some are against it because they see it as only working as a means of intimidation or provocation.

[BlueMagitek]

MisterJB wrote...

European and yikes.

What Xil fails to mention are that there are restrictions on firearms, even if you are registered and have concealed carry you cannot take it wherever you want with you, you don't have access to an armory and it seems that given some of the recent shootings,  bulk ammo orders are going to be under some surveillance now.

Guns really aren't comparable to magic because they can be taken away without leaving the owner in a rather horrid condition (Tranquility).  Guns are also available to most people (in the US), and not something you're born with.

[TCBC_Freak]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I've commited no crime yet my own freedoms are restricted. For instance, my freedom to own a firearm. I can't own one not because I've given any indication of being dangerous, but because the possibility exists that I might be dangerous. It's no punishment, it's simply common sense.

You're not American, are you? I'm totally free to own one, would be free to have a concealed one with the right license, and in my own state, there's a possibility in the future of us being allowed to carry the things openly.

I know this is off-topic, but why is openly any different from concealed?

Concealed is like having it in a purse, open is like having it in a holster at your belt ready to use

[Rixatrix]

Xilizhra wrote...
You're not American, are you? I'm totally free to own one, would be free to have a concealed one with the right license, and in my own state, there's a possibility in the future of us being allowed to carry the things openly.

It varies state by state.  Some states allow open carry.

The illegal gun trade is so hard to control in the U.S., I can't imagine the whole country being restricted from having guns.  The issue, however, is multi-layered, and even the courts haven't sorted it out, whether it is a right to a militia, the right for individuals in the militia to bear arms, or for individuals to bear arms, or some combination of any/all of the above.

[MisterJB]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...
You were comparing rights.  "Hurting mundanes" is not a right.

It's an inevitable conquence of giving mages the right of freedom.
And don't tell me it isn't. Even if not all mages become dangerous, it's inevitable that some will. Which could have been avoided had they been inside the Circle.

You can expect what you want.  The choice is theirs.  They are punished if they make the wrong one.

Not only is it much hard to punish a criminal mage; it is also little consolation to their victims.
It is preferable to avoid them becoming victims in the first place.

You keep bringing this up, yet you only prove you are equal to everyone else in your country.  It is my understanding that the military and law enforcement can only carry handguns... so, basically, you are equal to every other person in your country, regardless of natural qualities, on this point.

We are equal, yes, which means that everyone has their freedoms restricted in order to fuction as a society. But these restrictions are only equal because we all pose, reasonably, the same danger to one another.
None of us have natural abilities that makes us impossibly dangerous to our peers. If we did then, obviously, our restrictions would have to be harsher so that others wouldn't be threatened.

The first statement presupposes that it is not extremely easy to commit crimes for everyone else.  It is.

 
Not of the same magnitude. A mundane can't raise an army of undead, for instance.

The second statement is purely speculative.

It's human nature. We are greedy; we are selfish; we look out for number one regardles of who gets hurt.

Ah, accidents, right?  Sometimes, without intending to do so, an individual can kill someone or even several people.  They should be locked up, right?  Tell me, what do you do with people who own and drive cars?

The potential for destruction of a car is nowhere near comparable to that of magic.

Need I go on?  Just keep the hyperbole out of the discussion, unless you can actually prove the two are equal.

Shall I say rocket launcher, natural disaster? Would you be happier then?
The point is mages have a capability for destruction unmatched by anything else in Thedas.

It is not about the freedom to "do" something.  It is about being punished for being who you are from birth.

Magic is an inborn weapon.  A weapon is not evil, it simply is.  Just as a weapon can be used to save someone or kill someone, so can magic - it all depends on the intent of the person wielding it.  Is it a police officer saving a hostage or a criminal killing a victim?  Unlike your country, in which weapons like guns can simply be legislated away (and I'm sure criminals still have them), magic can't.  It is a part of the person.  The problem isn't this inborn weapon, but the good or evil intentions of the individual.  Yet in some views, we should take both the criminal and the police officer and lock them up in the Circle.

Crimimals and police officers can be disarmed, their weapons taken from them. A mage can't. 
We are not on the same page and I doubt we will ever be. It IS about freedom such as freedom to live outside of the Circle. However, if this simple freedom is granted to a mage, it threatens everyone around him, regardless of his moral character. There are simply far too many instances in day to day life that can ellicit an extreme response from people. Sadness, greed, justice, need, anger. All of these emotions can lead to a mage using his powers uncaring of who he hurts or it can lead to Abominations.
For instance, Quentin and Connor who, due to something so simple as the loss of a loved one, cause great destruction and death. They are nit Tarohnes or Danarius but they are still dangerous.
Is it so radical to believe the freedoms one is granted should be determined by the danger he or she poses to others?

Is it really so radical to believe that a person should give cause to be punished?  Magic is a weapon of potential, the potential to do good or evil, and yet by persecuting all who possess it, you give them righteous cause to rebel and unfortunately turn to the commission of evil acts to fight for their freedom from oppression.

The OP is correct in asking about alternatives because the current state of affairs has been proven, time and again, to be too problematic.  Rather than ensuring the safety of the mundanes, as some assert, it actually creates more problems because the oppressed mages believe their cause is just and turn to evil to rebel.  Is there not some other way that does not punish these people for qualities beyond their control, but for the actions they do have control over?  Perhaps an outlet, like creating branches of the police force or healthcare that can be a constructive outlet for mages?  Give them choices other than imprisonment or rebellion?

I've considered how to improve the Circle but never would I allow a single mage to live outside of it.

Modifié par MisterJB, 01 décembre 2012 - 11:07 .

[Rixatrix]

MisterJB wrote...
It's an inevitable conquence of giving mages the right of freedom.  And don't tell me it isn't. Even if not all mages become dangerous, it's inevitable that some will. Which could have been avoided had they been inside the Circle.

We keep dancing around this same issue.  You believe all should be punished for the future danger of the few, and I believe the few should be punished for their crimes when they commit them.  No amount of back and forth is going to convince either of us of the other's view.  

Agree to disagree?  /Handshake

I've considered how to improve the Circle but never would I allow a single mage to live outside of it.

You know that I would. 

How would you improve the Circle?

[Auintus]

BlueMoonSeraphim wrote...

Auintus wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
snip

I know it goes against your nature, but try to avoid insulting people. We are discussing possibilities of a new Circle system, one that will not be so volatile. If you have a recommendation, post it. If you're just going to insult everyone who suggests a system that you don't approve of, please leave. I think this is an interesting topic and would not like this thread locked because you are incapable of controlling yourself.

Thank you.  I think if everyone in the thread treated others as they would like to be treated and argued concepts rather than each other, it'd go a lot more smoothly.

I've got my fingers crossed.

[Auintus]

MisterJB wrote...

It's an inevitable conquence of giving mages the right of freedom.
And don't tell me it isn't. Even if not all mages become dangerous, it's inevitable that some will. Which could have been avoided had they been inside the Circle.

Of course it's inevitable. The odds of every single mage being good are about as good as the odds of every single person being good. Should we put everyone in the Circle?

Not only is it much hard to punish a criminal mage; it is also little consolation to their victims.
It is preferable to avoid them becoming victims in the first place.

If you actually allowed mages to help track and capture/kill maleficar, it isn't really. There's a whole tree dedicated to anti-magic spells. Punishment is little consolation to any victim. The fact the the criminal is a mage changes nothing. Repeat: All into the Circle?

It's human nature. We are greedy; we are selfish; we look out for number one regardles of who gets hurt.

You and Soronnar get along well, I take it? Most people are above such base impulses, at least to a considerable degree. That's how society functions. Otherwise, it'd be anarchy.

Shall I say rocket launcher, natural disaster? Would you be happier then?
The point is mages have a capability for destruction unmatched by anything else in Thedas.

And just like any other weapon, they can be taught to control it.

I've considered how to improve the Circle but never would I allow a single mage to live outside of it.

If you treat someone as a monster, a threat by their mere existence, it is only a matter of time before they become exactly that.
But perhaps you can do better. The entire point of this thread is to see new ideas. Let us hear yours.

[zenrockoutkast]

Do something akin to what the Elves do with keepers, pair an apprentice with a master, move extra mages around, station Templars in major cities, and respect the mages as leaders. Things would be so much better if humans acted more like elves in general.

[HiroVoid]

zenrockoutkast wrote...

Do something akin to what the Elves do with keepers, pair an apprentice with a master, move extra mages around, station Templars in major cities, and respect the mages as leaders. Things would be so much better if humans acted more like elves in general.

Being poverty-stricken and having to constantly worry about being on the move doesn't seem like a good move.

[zenrockoutkast]

HiroVoid wrote...

zenrockoutkast wrote...

Do something akin to what the Elves do with keepers, pair an apprentice with a master, move extra mages around, station Templars in major cities, and respect the mages as leaders. Things would be so much better if humans acted more like elves in general.

Being poverty-stricken and having to constantly worry about being on the move doesn't seem like a good move.

If by the poverty part you're referring to alienage elves, then that is not what I was suggesting.  If you're referring to the Dalish, I think the Dalish would see the human lifestyle as impoverished as compared to theirs, and theirs as impoverished compared to what it was before humans began interfering.  Where the Dalish are impoverished in coin, humans are impoverished in connection to nature.  As to them being constantly on the move, for one nomadic lifestyles aren't such a bad thing and two they're only on the move because they fear more human interference.  If humans respected their way of life more than the Dalish wouldn't have to move as much.

[HiroVoid]

Was more trying to respond like Sten's old response.

Warden: Elves have strange powers.
Sten: Being easily conquered doesn't constitute a power.

[Rixatrix]

Auintus wrote...

MisterJB wrote...
It's an inevitable conquence of giving mages the right of freedom.
And don't tell me it isn't. Even if not all mages become dangerous, it's inevitable that some will. Which could have been avoided had they been inside the Circle.

Of course it's inevitable. The odds of every single mage being good are about as good as the odds of every single person being good. Should we put everyone in the Circle?

Not only is it much hard to punish a criminal mage; it is also little consolation to their victims.
It is preferable to avoid them becoming victims in the first place.

If you actually allowed mages to help track and capture/kill maleficar, it isn't really. There's a whole tree dedicated to anti-magic spells. Punishment is little consolation to any victim. The fact the the criminal is a mage changes nothing. Repeat: All into the Circle?

It's human nature. We are greedy; we are selfish; we look out for number one regardles of who gets hurt.

You and Soronnar get along well, I take it? Most people are above such base impulses, at least to a considerable degree. That's how society functions. Otherwise, it'd be anarchy.

Shall I say rocket launcher, natural disaster? Would you be happier then?
The point is mages have a capability for destruction unmatched by anything else in Thedas.

And just like any other weapon, they can be taught to control it.

I've considered how to improve the Circle but never would I allow a single mage to live outside of it.

If you treat someone as a monster, a threat by their mere existence, it is only a matter of time before they become
exactly that.

But perhaps you can do better. The entire point of this thread is to see new ideas. Let us hear yours.

+1

Bravo, Aiuntus.  For what it's worth, I agree with your perspective.  You also have a very respectful manner and a great deal of patience, which is rare these days.

Modifié par BlueMoonSeraphim, 02 décembre 2012 - 02:00 .

[brushyourteeth]

This is probably my favorite discussion of this topic ever.

[Sir JK]

Auintus wrote...
If you actually allowed mages to help track and capture/kill maleficar, it isn't really. There's a whole tree dedicated to anti-magic spells. Punishment is little consolation to any victim. The fact the the criminal is a mage changes nothing. Repeat: All into the Circle?

However, this puts mundanes at the mercy of patron mages. Which I suspect is something the southern theodosian cultures have a strong aversion to. In essence, you cannot protect yourself but need a mage to protect you. It have a poor fit with the freedom and warrior ideals circulating in the south.

While normally they trust a templar to protect them, in theory any mundane can become a templar. But none can become a mage. So if they suffer a maleficar attack, then they have to beg the big powerful mages to come and save them. They cannot take matters into their own hands, they cannot really do anything if it is their own patron that's the maleficar. It'll turn into a big pot of miscontent that sooner or later will explode.

Any working solution have to involve a means in which mundanes can contribute with our without mage assistance to right percieved wrongs.