523 réponses à ce sujet

[Plaintiff]

MisterJB wrote...
They were helping mages escape. That is anything but harmless.

Simply being free hurts nobody. Except maybe the Templars, who look incompetent as a result.

You know, those gold statues help keep people safe. Image is very important, it's why kings don't dress like peasants. The Chantry needs to inspire awe and respect or no one will listen to it.

I don't think anybody should be listening to the Chantry anyway. I think it's a gaping, festering wound in the land, and it needs to be cauterised.

Laws are, in fact, restrictions. It's their very point. Restrict everyone's freedoms so that society can exist.
For instance, in my country civillians can't have guns under any circunstance; the government can have as many as they want tough; the assumption here is not that everyone in the country has showed signs of past violent behavior and thus can't be trusted. We are not allowed guns because there is always a possibility that we might use them to harm others.
Same with magic. But, unfortunately, while you can take guns away from peope, you can't take magic away from a mage.

That doesn't make locking them up and dehumanizing them any more reasonable or acceptable.

[Silfren]

Sorry for the impending wall of text.  It's late and I'm bored and highly, highly overcaffeinated.

Seeing this come up again as so many times before, so gotta comment on the question of lyrium for Templar abilities: simply put, lyrium is necessary, and that's the end of the story. It may be a retcon, but it's an early one if so. I don't have the link, but I do remember reading a post by Gaider wherein he explicitly confirms that lyrium is required for Templar abilities. There are several references to lyrium being required within DA:O itself, suggesting that there might have been a slightly different story point on that question early on in the game's development, that got tossed in favor of the "lyrium required" version. It's unfortunate that Alistair's scene was apparently overlooked given how blatantly it contradicts the canon, but oh well. Even if it IS a retcon, well, between the actual lore within Origins, within DA2, and within Asunder, all on top of Gaider's own explanation, it is a fact that lyrium is required. Frankly, this makes far more sense than the other alternative, because otherwise where in the hell would Templar abilities come from? Templars are not mages, so if not lyrium, how would they, er, magically just acquire their powers?

Onward to the rest, though, I love how we've got discussions going about how people have to have legal restrictions placed on them because otherwise they just wouldn't behave, and the rather twisted logic using the fact that everybody has to have restrictions on their freedoms for society as a whole to function to explain and justify pre-emptory incarceration.

There's an argument to be made that laws don't exist to restrain people at all, but that they exist because only with codified laws against certain behaviors can we actually enact punitive responses. In other words, laws don't prevent people who WOULD commit murder from committing it, but by making murder illegal we have a means to punish murderers. If there's no law against murder, it doesn't necessarily mean that society will have an eruption of murderers, but it DOES mean that when someone commits murder, there's no legal recourse to capture and punish them.

But seriously, "most people are only as good as fear of reprisal forces them to be." Wow. That's an extremely negative and cynical view of people. It's also a load of bull that says far, FAR more about the person espousing this view than people in general. Specifically it says that THEY would behave in egregiously unsociable ways if only the law didn't force them to behave like a decent person is expected to. I'm sure that's veering rather close to a personal slam, but I don't know what else you'd call it. There's asswipes in every group, certainly, but history by and large demonstrates that the average person behaves decently toward their fellows. We're NOT all would-be thieves, rapists, and murderers being constrained from our native impulses merely because we're threatened with reprisals from our legal system otherwise. C'mon. If it were actually true that most people were so given to base urges to the extent that ONLY the law held them back...it wouldn't hold anyone back, because "most people" includes the people in charge of creating and enforcing that system.

Also, talking about how everyone experiences some degree of restrictions on their freedom, as if this somehow condones and corroborates the need for the Circle system is extremely fallacious. I experience restrictions on my freedom all the time that involve making sure my actions are neither injurious nor merely obstrusive or even just inconvenient to the people around me. NONE of these restrictions involve throwing my ass in jail and leaving me there for the rest of my life, with my ability to see my loved ones utterly dependent on the goodwill of my jailors, or the prospect of having any children born to me taken away and given to a church to raise.

I face that sort of scenario ONLY if I break certain specific laws, most of which involve bodily harm to other persons. In the case of drunk driving, I can even face a temporary version of that scenario for the POTENTIALITY of what I might do, but I have to first be caught engaging in activities that are known to be deadly to others.

Yes, it's true that Thedas mages pose a unique sort of threat that we don't have to deal with in the real world. But it's also true that Tevinter is a functioning, stable society. Probably not a very pleasant one for the average citizen, especially to our Western sensibilities, but it's also a fact that whatever Tevinter is, it is not a smoking ruin, and abominations are not pouring out of it to wreak havoc on surrounding areas. So clearly there IS a way to run a system where mages can live free while not causing grievous harm to their neighbors. And, since it has to be said again and again and again, none of us who are against the Circle system have every claimed to want mages to live with no restrictions and no oversights. But there is no reason at all to believe that the Circle system as it previously existed is the one and only viable means.

One thing I note that comes up a lot are people pointing to "and what happens when X loses control and accidentally kills X." The thing is, there is NO system that will ever be so foolproof that nothing bad will ever happen. It galls me that people seem to think there is. You see it in real life, in the states right now with regards to gun violence, and also in regards to terrorism. The simple fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no method which will eliminate any and all acts of violence, ever. The most restrictive measures in existence will only REDUCE it, they'll never end it, no matter what. Taking each new act of violence and terror and using it to become ever more restrictive won't eventually lead to a paradise where those bad things never happen.

A far better way is to impose a system that balances individual freedoms with societally necessary restrictions, and accepting that sometimes, bad ****'s gonna happen regardless. A system that has abominations forming left and right is, obviously, not working. But a system wherein abominations only happen on occasion is just as obviously doing something right. Since you're not ever going to eliminate them entirely, no matter how punitively restrictive you make the system, it's more sensible and certainly more humane to find that balance of freedoms and restrictions, and just deal with the problems that occasionally happen...since you'd have to do that anyway.

And no, the Ferelden system wasn't an example of that nice, acceptable balance. A properly working system is NOT one which simply contains the horde of abominations it creates, but one which only has to contain the odd occasional abomination because its system is fair and just such that mages don't usually feel compelled to extremes. Any system which oppresses its citizens to the point of pushing them into BECOMING abominations, however, is as much a part of the problem as the mages' potential for becoming abominations in the first place.

Modifié par Silfren, 19 février 2013 - 05:08 .

[Silfren]

LobselVith8 wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Considering that we know some Kirkwall Circle mages were being tortured, raped, made tranquil illegally, and killed, I can see why some mages would turn to blood magic - the only school of magic that can't be nulified by templars.

I can understand why people do a lot of things, but simply having reason to do something does not make it right.

Wait, what? Seriously?

Someone mentions that mages were being tortured, raped, illegally made Tranquil, and even murdered, and your response is that even though this gives mages a reason to use blood magic, it doesn't make it right? You do realize that you're saying precisely that people don't have the right to defend themselves against murder, rape, torture, etc., because you find their means of self-defense distasteful?  Seriously?

Lob's point is that since blood magic is the only form of magical power that can't be countered by a Templar, its a mage's only reliable means of self-defense when facing torture, death, or psychic castration. 

I suppose a mage facing torture and psychic castration could simply seek legal recompense after the fact.  Assuming they aren't killed first.

This is an example of the school of thought that says its better for a person to sacrifice their life in the name of virtuous living rather than to fight in the defense of their own life.  Basically its "X is always wrong/two wrongs don't make a right" intertwined into a rather screwy worldview.  It's unreasonable in the extreme to expect anyone to adhere to such a standard.

Modifié par Silfren, 19 février 2013 - 05:08 .

[TEWR]

Mages might not even have to resort to blood magic if they were allowed to study weaponry, exercise inside the Circles, and so on.

Mages are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Blood magic? Proof things need to become harder on the Mages. No blood magic? Well, the Mage died.

[dragonflight288]

A far better way is to impose a system that balances individual freedoms with societally necessary restrictions, and accepting that sometimes, bad ****'s gonna happen regardless. A system that has abominations forming left and right is, obviously, not working. But a system wherein abominations only happen on occasion is just as obviously doing something right. Since you're not ever going to eliminate them entirely, no matter how punitively restrictive you make the system, it's more sensible and certainly more humane to find that balance of freedoms and restrictions, and just deal with the problems that occasionally happen...since you'd have to do that anyway.

Where were you when the debate got heated? lol

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...
Simply being free hurts nobody. Except maybe the Templars, who look incompetent as a result.

Mages are far too dangerous to allow unrestricted freedom. Especially if they are fugitive because in that case, they will use whatever means available to evade justice.

I don't think anybody should be listening to the Chantry anyway. I think it's a gaping, festering wound in the land, and it needs to be cauterised.

Well, I disagree. I believe that the Chantry is the very ballwark of mundane human civilization in Thedas. That without it, the southern portion of the continent would still be divided in city states warring with each other while abominations and blood mages roam the land freely which would make them easy picking for when Tevinter decided to make everything Tevinter again.

That doesn't make locking them up and dehumanizing them any more reasonable or acceptable.

Yes, it does. If you look at it in an objective manner.
Normal citizens have restrictions upon their freedoms to ensure society can exist. This occurs not because we have given indications of being dangerous but because the possibility exists that we might be.
If a portion of the population is capable of becoming living cannons; which citizens are not allowed to own, BTW; or controling the minds of others, it makes sense that their restrictions should be stricter to reflect the greater danger they pose.

[IanPolaris]

MisterJB wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
Simply being free hurts nobody. Except maybe the Templars, who look incompetent as a result.

Mages are far too dangerous to allow unrestricted freedom. Especially if they are fugitive because in that case, they will use whatever means available to evade justice.

You keep saying that but I am still waiting for proof of this.  So far I haven't seen any objective quantative evidence that shows that allowing mages "unresistred" freedom is actually more dangerous than allowing anyone "unrestricted" freedom.  I note that all (the reasonable ones anyway) pro-mage posters here all agree that magic and mages should be regulated and fall under the law, but that such laws and regulations need not be inhumane.   You treat a person inhumanely (as the Chantry does with mages) and of course they will try to 'evade justice'.  So would I.  So would anyone rational and resonable.

I don't think anybody should be listening to the Chantry anyway. I think it's a gaping, festering wound in the land, and it needs to be cauterised.

Well, I disagree. I believe that the Chantry is the very ballwark of mundane human civilization in Thedas. That without it, the southern portion of the continent would still be divided in city states warring with each other while abominations and blood mages roam the land freely which would make them easy picking for when Tevinter decided to make everything Tevinter again.

Oh bollocks.  Fereldan and much of southern Thedas was conquered by Old Tevinter very late (and not for long and much of Fereldan was never pacified).  When Fereldan was dominated by the Almarri and Avvar tribes, it was a violent and warlike place to be sure, but it was not a wasteland dominated by bloodmages and abominations.  In fact mages in such tribes lived along side non-mages in both cases.  As for "easy pickings", Tevinter had a very difficult time with dealing with "such a barbaric wasteland" and was never able to pacify it completely.

In short, what you just wrote is bad Chantry propaganda that falls apart under any kind of scrutiny.

That doesn't make locking them up and dehumanizing them any more reasonable or acceptable.

Yes, it does. If you look at it in an objective manner.
Normal citizens have restrictions upon their freedoms to ensure society can exist. This occurs not because we have given indications of being dangerous but because the possibility exists that we might be.
If a portion of the population is capable of becoming living cannons; which citizens are not allowed to own, BTW; or controling the minds of others, it makes sense that their restrictions should be stricter to reflect the greater danger they pose.

Those laws and restrictions exist from mutual consent (yes even ultimately in a feudal society).  If enough people don't consent, then there isn't any law and no way to enforce the law.  Basically laws exists because people agree they need them and agree to abide by them for the common good.    One of the key aspects of such laws is that you are judged by what you DO not by who are ARE.

Not only has the Chantry not shown that mages are 'dangerous' in the way that they claim, but they then deny an entire group of people the opportunity to shape such laws that directly affect them, and then lock them up and treat them as prisoners.

And then the Chantry wonders why the Circles have revolted.....

-Polaris

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
There's an argument to be made that laws don't exist to restrain people at all, but that they exist because only with codified laws against certain behaviors can we actually enact punitive responses. In other words, laws don't prevent people who WOULD commit murder from committing it, but by making murder illegal we have a means to punish murderers. If there's no law against murder, it doesn't necessarily mean that society will have an eruption of murderers, but it DOES mean that when someone commits murder, there's no legal recourse to capture and punish them.

Also, talking about how everyone experiences some degree of restrictions on their freedom, as if this somehow condones and corroborates the need for the Circle system is extremely fallacious. I experience restrictions on my freedom all the time that involve making sure my actions are neither injurious nor merely obstrusive or even just inconvenient to the people around me. NONE of these restrictions involve throwing my ass in jail and leaving me there for the rest of my life, with my ability to see my loved ones utterly dependent on the goodwill of my jailors, or the prospect of having any children born to me taken away and given to a church to raise.

I face that sort of scenario ONLY if I break certain specific laws, most of which involve bodily harm to other persons. In the case of drunk driving, I can even face a temporary version of that scenario for the POTENTIALITY of what I might do, but I have to first be caught engaging in activities that are known to be deadly to others.

The difference lies in the inherent potential for destruction of a mage compared to that of a normal person like you or me.
Common citizens are not allowed to own tanks or raw uranium. Taking it away violates the principle of personal property but it's still done. Why?
Because the owner has been caught using the tank to harm others? Or simply because should the owner one day decide to use the tank for whatever reasons; hey, maybe he caught is wife in bed with another man; the potential for destruction is simply unnaceptable? In this sort of situation, we choose to take pre-emptive action.
The problem being, of course, that in Thedas people are the tanks. Mages are born with that potential for destruction that our own society considers unnaceptable and we can also add demons to the mix.

In this situation; with circunstances that do not match those we face in our world; should we follow our own western views to a fault? I don't believe so.

Yes, it's true that Thedas mages pose a unique sort of threat that we don't have to deal with in the real world. But it's also true that Tevinter is a functioning, stable society. Probably not a very pleasant one for the average citizen, especially to our Western sensibilities, but it's also a fact that whatever Tevinter is, it is not a smoking ruin, and abominations are not pouring out of it to wreak havoc on surrounding areas. So clearly there IS a way to run a system where mages can live free while not causing grievous harm to their neighbors.

Except most free mages in Tevinter tend to cause grievous harm to their neighbors. Just not accidentally.
The fear of mages has more basis than simply abominations.

The thing is, there is NO system that will ever be so foolproof that nothing bad will ever happen. It galls me that people seem to think there is. You see it in real life, in the states right now with regards to gun violence, and also in regards to terrorism. The simple fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no method which will eliminate any and all acts of violence, ever. The most restrictive measures in existence will only REDUCE it, they'll never end it, no matter what. Taking each new act of violence and terror and using it to become ever more restrictive won't eventually lead to a paradise where those bad things never happen.

Yes, that is true. However, by containing all mages in a tower guarded by templars, we reduce their exposure to innocents and increase the speed of templar response. Therefore, should a mage become an abomination, the number of casualties will be much less than should an abomination be born in the middle of a market.
And by increasing the chance of punishment, the number of blood mages is also reduced.
It's all very logical.

But seriously, "most people are only as good as fear of reprisal forces
them to be." Wow. That's an extremely negative and cynical view of
people. It's also a load of bull that says far, FAR more about the
person espousing this view than people in general. Specifically it says
that THEY would behave in egregiously unsociable ways if only the law
didn't force them to behave like a decent person is expected to. I'm
sure that's veering rather close to a personal slam, but I don't know
what else you'd call it. There's asswipes in every group, certainly, but
history by and large demonstrates that the average person behaves
decently toward their fellows. We're NOT all would-be thieves, rapists,
and murderers being constrained from our native impulses merely because
we're threatened with reprisals from our legal system otherwise. C'mon.
If it were actually true that most people were so given to base urges to
the extent that ONLY the law held them back...it wouldn't hold anyone
back, because "most people" includes the people in charge of creating
and enforcing that system.

Human beings are social creatures who require communities to exist. It's our need for these communities that enables most of us to repress more primal urges. Even the power of our leaders rests on his fellows, on those willing to obey him.
But of course, to compete and look our for number one it's also in our nature and it's something we do in our societies as far as the system allows us. It's what happen in, to avoid using real world examples, Tevinter. Does it require every mage in there to be like Danarius in order for it to be what it is? No, it only requires those who are willing to do anything for power. Those are the ones who become the Magisters.
Likewise, we have seen what happens when cultures clashe. People suddenly find themselves with a safe net to fall back into and...well, it's not pretty.
It may be an extremely cynical thing to say but give people the ability to hurt others, to take what s/he wants without fear of reprisal from anyone, and most will take it.

[DPSSOC]

Silfren wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
Considering that we know some Kirkwall Circle mages were being tortured, raped, made tranquil illegally, and killed, I can see why some mages would turn to blood magic - the only school of magic that can't be nulified by templars.

I can understand why people do a lot of things, but simply having reason to do something does not make it right.

Wait, what? Seriously?

Someone mentions that mages were being tortured, raped, illegally made Tranquil, and even murdered, and your response is that even though this gives mages a reason to use blood magic, it doesn't make it right? You do realize that you're saying precisely that people don't have the right to defend themselves against murder, rape, torture, etc., because you find their means of self-defense distasteful?  Seriously?

Not quite.  I'm saying that simply having reason to take an action does not in and of itself make the action moral.  Also I mention in a later post (my very next one if I remember correctly) that there's a line at which simply being the most effective means no longer justifies something.  The use of blood magic in order to defend themselves from torture, rape, etc. is morally justifiable as long as you restrict it to the people who've actually done you harm or threaten you with harm.  For the record that would be exactly NONE of the mages who turn to blood magic over the course of DA2.

Silfren wrote...
This is an example of the school of thought that says its better for a person to sacrifice their life in the name of virtuous living rather than to fight in the defense of their own life.  Basically its "X is always wrong/two wrongs don't make a right" intertwined into a rather screwy worldview.  It's unreasonable in the extreme to expect anyone to adhere to such a standard.

Again my issue with it doesn't come up until mages cross the line from justifiable defense of one's life to homocide (mass or otherwise).  A group of people attack me and I kill them in self defense, fine.  I then proceed to kill people close by for not helping me, not fine.  The minute a mage turns blood magic on innocent people they've lost any moral justification for it, which again would be every mage that turns to blood magic in DA2.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 19 février 2013 - 11:16 .

[IanPolaris]

DPSSOC wrote...

Again my issue with it doesn't come up until mages cross the line from justifiable defense of one's life to homocide (mass or otherwise).  A group of people attack me and I kill them in self defense, fine.  I then proceed to kill people close by for not helping me, not fine.  The minute a mage turns blood magic on innocent people they've lost any moral justification for it, which again would be every mage that turns to blood magic in DA2.

That doesn't make the bloodmagic at fault.

-Polaris

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...
and in fact have often acted for the obvious benefit of the Chantry and Thedas as a whole, like when their magic was the deciding factor in the conflict with the Qunari.

Life under the Qun is much worse for mages than under the Chantry. They were helping themselves.

If they side against Tevinter in DAI, now that might actually be something.

[Plaintiff]

MisterJB wrote...
Life under the Qun is much worse for mages than under the Chantry. They were helping themselves.

So was the Chantry, so was everybody. But they would've failed if it weren't for the mages.

And I'd bet money that the mundanes who died in the conflict were memorialized in a public manner.

If they side against Tevinter in DAI, now that might actually be something.

A good number of them obviously already did that at least once.

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...
So was the Chantry, so was everybody. But they would've failed if it weren't for the mages.

Therefore they don't deserve any special recognition.
And the mundane armies had managed to fight the qunari to a standstill. The mages helped push them back but the war might have still be won; or at least not lost; without the mages.

A good number of them obviously already did that at least once.

When?
Under Andraste? There is no mention of any mages in her army.
The Second Exalted March? The only mention of the mages in that war actually has them fleeing to the Tevinter side.

[Plaintiff]

MisterJB wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
So was the Chantry, so was everybody. But they would've failed if it weren't for the mages.

Therefore they don't deserve any special recognition.
And the mundane armies had managed to fight the qunari to a standstill. The mages helped push them back but the war might have still be won; or at least not lost; without the mages.

A good number of them obviously already did that at least once.

When?
Under Andraste? There is no mention of any mages in her army.
The Second Exalted March? The only mention of the mages in that war actually has them fleeing to the Tevinter side.

Of course it's not mentioned. it doesn't benefit the Chantry in the least to acknowledge that magic might ever be helpful.

But there's no serious way that Andraste's army could be devoid of mages. Statistically, it's impossible. Realisitically, logically, they must've been present, and in a significant enough number to combat the mages of Tevinter. Mages were and still are slaves in Tevinter. Plenty of them had just as much reason to hate Tevinter as Andraste. Assuming she wasn't a mage herself, which is far more likely than her being favoured by a deity who has never been proven to exist.

[dragonflight288]

Plaintiff wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
So was the Chantry, so was everybody. But they would've failed if it weren't for the mages.

Therefore they don't deserve any special recognition.
And the mundane armies had managed to fight the qunari to a standstill. The mages helped push them back but the war might have still be won; or at least not lost; without the mages.

A good number of them obviously already did that at least once.

When?
Under Andraste? There is no mention of any mages in her army.
The Second Exalted March? The only mention of the mages in that war actually has them fleeing to the Tevinter side.

Of course it's not mentioned. it doesn't benefit the Chantry in the least to acknowledge that magic might ever be helpful.

But there's no serious way that Andraste's army could be devoid of mages. Statistically, it's impossible. Realisitically, logically, they must've been present, and in a significant enough number to combat the mages of Tevinter. Mages were and still are slaves in Tevinter. Plenty of them had just as much reason to hate Tevinter as Andraste. Assuming she wasn't a mage herself, which is far more likely than her being favoured by a deity who has never been proven to exist.

And there's enough background information that suggests, doesn't prove, but suggests that Andraste herself was a mage.

There's the book in Orzammar that you can give to Wynne that reflects it. And there's the temple of Andraste in Haven, built by her followers and those who knew her personally.



https://encrypted-tb...C4wvJn55D4Dc7k3

Kind of an interesting place to put the flame. Isn't it?

The Chantry didn't rise until over 100 years after her death, and it was merely one of many Andrastian cults. This one simply got the backing of Drakon, and they exalted marched everyone else until they were top dog. It could easily be said that they're interpretation of the chant of light is dead wrong, because there were dozens of others, all of them believed differently regarding the chant.

And we have two examples of two completely different places having Revered Fathers. Haven and Tevinter. Graned, Tevinter abuses its power likecrazy and the Andrastian Cult in Haven lost faith in the Maker and became a dragon cult, but both predate the Chantry.

It's not unlikely that the current Chantry gets a lot of its information wrong.

Modifié par dragonflight288, 19 février 2013 - 01:15 .

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...
Of course it's not mentioned. it doesn't benefit the Chantry in the least to acknowledge that magic might ever be helpful.

Mages have complained they are told they are only kept alive because they are useful. The Chantry acknowledges magic can be useful, it's the whole point behind the idea of it being a gift as well as a curse.
Besides, this information comes from the official game guide which I believe is written from a neutral viewpoint much like the to be released "World of Thedas".

But there's no serious way that Andraste's army could be devoid of mages. Statistically, it's impossible. Realisitically, logically, they must've been present, and in a significant enough number to combat the mages of Tevinter. Mages were and still are slaves in Tevinter. Plenty of them had just as much reason to hate Tevinter as Andraste. Assuming she wasn't a mage herself, which is far more likely than her being favoured by a deity who has never been proven to exist.

It's hardly impossible. Mages are a minority and with the entire continent being opressed by the magisters, the tribes that would become Ferelden were not likely to be welcoming to mages born in their midst.
As for Andraste, if she was a mage powerful enough to make fire rain from the sky, dry or flood the land at will, she wouldn't have been a slave, which we know she was. She would have become a magister; maybe even the Archon; in which case why would she care about the plight of non-mages?

Modifié par MisterJB, 19 février 2013 - 01:22 .

[MisterJB]

Honestly, Andraste could have been a mage but I really hope she was not. As if mages don't have enough spotlight in the game, now mundanes were freed by a mage as well.
Can't warriors and rogues just be self sufficient for once, seesh.

Well, one way or the other, this war is a good excuse to take a step back and ask yourself: "What Would Andraste Do?"

Modifié par MisterJB, 19 février 2013 - 01:47 .

[Plaintiff]

MisterJB wrote...
Mages have complained they are told they are only kept alive because they are useful. The Chantry acknowledges magic can be useful, it's the whole point behind the idea of it being a gift as well as a curse.
Besides, this information comes from the official game guide which I believe is written from a neutral viewpoint much like the to be released "World of Thedas".

What the Chantry tells mages and what it preaches "officially" in the Chant of Light are irrelevent. How they actually treat mages is extremely disparate from that, and the only thing that matters. The common people have little to no interaction with mages at all, and their attitude towards them is going to be dictated by the information they get from the supposedly reputable authorities, ie; their lords and their religion.

It's hardly impossible. Mages are a minority and with the entire continent being opressed by the magisters, the tribes that would become Ferelden were not likely to be welcoming to mages born in their midst.
As for Andraste, if she was a mage powerful enough to make fire rain from the sky, dry or flood the land at will, she wouldn't have been a slave, which we know she was. She would have become a magister; maybe even the Archon; in which case why would she care about the plight of non-mages?

The tribes that would become Ferelden would've needed all the help they could get, and making fire rain from the sky is a spell that mages can use in-game.

We don't know that Andraste was a slave, the Chant of Light is an ancient document, known to have had sections redacted, and thus hardly reliable. The best we can say, given all current evidence is that she probably existed. She might have been a magister, but funnily enough, as charitable organizations in the real world prove every day, just because you personally benefit from a system doesn't mean you don't care about the people who suffer under it.

If I had to guess, I'd say she either came into her powers late, by which time she'd already hate Tevinter and its magisters, or her powers were weak/non-existent until she encountered a person or object or event that gifted her with them.

Honestly, Andraste could have been a mage but I really hope she was not. As if mages don't have enough spotlight in the game, now mundanes were freed by a mage as well.
Can't warriors and rogues just be self sufficient for once, seesh.

Obviously they can be, since the vast majority of the world of Thedas gets by without magic all day, every day.

But Andraste was obviously not self-sufficient. If she was not a mage, and did not have mages on her side, then she either a) benefitted from a remarkable series of circumstances or was genuinely favoured by the Maker, or some other immensely powerful being.

But if you want to argue that a mundane army comrpised mostly of former slaves was able to overwhelm the vast magical might of Tevinter, not to mention its regular, better-equipped armies, then magic cannot possibly be the danger you claim it to be. It's one or the other.

Well, one way or the other, this war is a good excuse to take a step back and ask yourself: "What Would Andraste Do?"

And why should anyone care? She did one remarkable thing that most people would agree was morally correct, that does not make her the last word on just rebellion.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 19 février 2013 - 02:05 .

[Insaner Robot]

dragonflight288 wrote...

The Chantry didn't rise until over 100 years after her death, and it was merely one of many Andrastian cults. This one simply got the backing of Drakon, and they exalted marched everyone else until they were top dog. It could easily be said that they're interpretation of the chant of light is dead wrong, because there were dozens of others, all of them believed differently regarding the chant.

And we have two examples of two completely different places having Revered Fathers. Haven and Tevinter. Graned, Tevinter abuses its power likecrazy and the Andrastian Cult in Haven lost faith in the Maker and became a dragon cult, but both predate the Chantry.

It's not unlikely that the current Chantry gets a lot of its information wrong.

It could also be said their interpretation was the most right and the maker allowed them to win, I wouldn't say that as I'm not in any way religous but in game it could be an argument.

The Tevinter chantry seperated from the main body of the chantry in the schism in towers 3:87, nearly three hundred years after Justinia I was ordained in divine 1:1. So that interpretation doesn't predate the chantry but instead was altered to allow magi to rule, which caused the schism.

And as for Haven does anybody know when it was founded?

[dragonflight288]

Insaner Robot wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

The Chantry didn't rise until over 100 years after her death, and it was merely one of many Andrastian cults. This one simply got the backing of Drakon, and they exalted marched everyone else until they were top dog. It could easily be said that they're interpretation of the chant of light is dead wrong, because there were dozens of others, all of them believed differently regarding the chant.

And we have two examples of two completely different places having Revered Fathers. Haven and Tevinter. Graned, Tevinter abuses its power likecrazy and the Andrastian Cult in Haven lost faith in the Maker and became a dragon cult, but both predate the Chantry.

It's not unlikely that the current Chantry gets a lot of its information wrong.

It could also be said their interpretation was the most right and the maker allowed them to win, I wouldn't say that as I'm not in any way religous but in game it could be an argument.

The Tevinter chantry seperated from the main body of the chantry in the schism in towers 3:87, nearly three hundred years after Justinia I was ordained in divine 1:1. So that interpretation doesn't predate the chantry but instead was altered to allow magi to rule, which caused the schism.

And as for Haven does anybody know when it was founded?

Well, by the same argument that allows the Chantry to rise with the Maker's approval (remarkable as they teach he's absent) then that would also mean that every one of the exalted marches that they had against Tevinter that Tevinter successfully repelled would mean they have the Maker's favor.

As for Haven, if your cunning is high enough, when talking to the Guardian he says he knew Andraste personally. He and several others brought her ashes to the mountain as a resting place and founded Haven as a place to protect the ashes and to guide pilgrims who sought her out. And it was over time that they forgot the Maker and started revering the High Dragon.

But good job on the timeline with the Chantry and the Imperial Chantry's schism.

[dragonflight288]

MisterJB wrote...

Honestly, Andraste could have been a mage but I really hope she was not. As if mages don't have enough spotlight in the game, now mundanes were freed by a mage as well.
Can't warriors and rogues just be self sufficient for once, seesh.

Well, one way or the other, this war is a good excuse to take a step back and ask yourself: "What Would Andraste Do?"

As if Andraste being a mage would be such a bad thing. The only ones who would be hurt by that would be the White Chantry as it would make them complete and total hypocrites and destroy all credibility for how they treat mages while revering Andraste.

Her husband Maferath was a warrior and the greatest general of her armies. Without him, Andraste would likely have no chance at all. The Warden could be a warrior or a rogue. To quote Wynne at the end of Origins, when the warden said they had help. "Most heroes do." Andraste, be she mage, warrior or singer, statistically couldn't face down an entire empire ruled by mages, free the entire southern continent, without having mages help.

As for what would Andraste do? I don't know. She started a war for religion, citing a chant that takes weeks to sing all the way through, calling for a return of the Maker. But the chantry didn't rise until over a century after her death, and the Circles didn't rise until even after that.

Unless of course we sing the Chant like that one elderly sister in Denerim who kept switching in food for other words.

EDIT: Responding to this question in more depth.

Can't warriors and rogues just be self sufficient for once, seesh.

Maric, Loghain, Paragon Aeducan, Dane and the Werewolf, Bards, Zevran, and many others. Does the list need to go on?

Modifié par dragonflight288, 19 février 2013 - 03:28 .

[Insaner Robot]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Well, by the same argument that allows the Chantry to rise with the Maker's approval (remarkable as they teach he's absent) then that would also mean that every one of the exalted marches that they had against Tevinter that Tevinter successfully repelled would mean they have the Maker's favor.

Absolutely true.

As for Haven, if your cunning is high enough, when talking to the Guardian he says he knew Andraste personally. He and several others brought her ashes to the mountain as a resting place and founded Haven as a place to protect the ashes and to guide pilgrims who sought her out. And it was over time that they forgot the Maker and started revering the High Dragon.

I did not know that.
However it's vague enough fot it to be possible for the cult to bo be younger as well as older than the chantry.

[IanPolaris]

Insaner Robot wrote...

I did not know that.
However it's vague enough fot it to be possible for the cult to bo be younger as well as older than the chantry.

Actually I have heard the high-cunning version, and to be honest it didn't sound all that vague to me.  The Guardian clearly is (by one means or another) one of Andraste's original disciples, and he does talk about a group of followers that took Andraste's ashes to this place to be protected and honored, and he does speak about how Kolgrim and his followers have "lost their way".

While it's not abolute proof that the Cult of Haven is older than the Chantry, it sure does strongly imply it.  That's especially true when you find religious artifacts in the same temple that date back to the very earliest days of the Chantry and use the earliest ciphers (when disciples had to hide from magisters), and this is verified by the Chantry itself....but these are artifacts (like the last writings of Malpherate) that were either considered lost or not known to exist!

Certainly Bros Genetivi is convinced that the Cult of Haven is very old, and he indicates this when you ask about the villagers and a "Reverend Father" and he speculates that this cult may have predated the all-female priesthood of the chantry.

-Polaris

[MisterJB]

Plaintiff wrote...
What the Chantry tells mages and what it preaches "officially" in the Chant of Light are irrelevent. How they actually treat mages is extremely disparate from that, and the only thing that matters. The common people have little to no interaction with mages at all, and their attitude towards them is going to be dictated by the information they get from the supposedly reputable authorities, ie; their lords and their religion.

You're changing subjects. I agree that actions speak louder than words but what was in question here was whether the chantry acknowledges the usefulness of magic. It clearly does, it's in the very Chant "Magic must serve man and never rule over him"
Likewise, the contributions mages played in wars such as the qunari invasions are acknowleged which raises the possiblity that the Chantry just did not trust mages to fight Tevinter.

The tribes that would become Ferelden would've needed all the help they could get,

The tribes would have liked not trusted the mages to help.
I usually prefer to avoid real world examples but the USA also didn't trust japanese-americans in World War II until later in the war when the need became too great.

 making fire rain from the sky is a spell that mages can use in-game.

So is stabbing yourself in the chest with a blunt staff. I would take it with a grain of salt.
Regardless, I was mistaken. What the Spirit ofAndraste's general says in the Gauntlet is that the Maker scorched the lands of Tevinter so they would have a bad harvest and then caused a flood. It doesn't actually mention fire from the sky.

We don't know that Andraste was a slave, the Chant of Light is an ancient document, known to have had sections redacted, and thus hardly reliable.

The Tevinter Imperium doesn't contest any of the historical "facts" proposed in the Chant and they would have records of their slaves. While the existence of the Maker has often been questioned ingame, the same can't be said for much of the Chant so, I think we are supposed to take it at face value.Especially since it's the only historical document of those times we have acess to.
Still, I won't say we know with absolute certainty she was a slave.

She might have been a magister, but funnily enough, as charitable organizations in the real world prove every day, just because you personally benefit from a system doesn't mean you don't care about the people who suffer under it.

From Minrathous to the most barbarian country of Thedas at the time to lead a rebellion? Who does that?
Besides, it would have made more sense to start it at home if she really was a magisters.
Personally, I'd say it's more likely she was a slave born and captured in Ferelden who escaped, somehow, and eventually came to lead an army either with supernatural means or not.

But Andraste was obviously not self-sufficient. If she was not a mage, and did not have mages on her side, then she either a) benefitted from a remarkable series of circumstances or was genuinely favoured by the Maker, or some other immensely powerful being.

Being intelligent enough to know when to take advantage of meteorological conditions to defeat her enemies would still impart a sense of worth in Andraste.
More even, than if she could call on the Maker for help, IMO .

But if you want to argue that a mundane army comrpised mostly of former slaves was able to overwhelm the vast magical might of Tevinter, not to mention its regular, better-equipped armies, then magic cannot possibly be the danger you claim it to be. It's one or the other.

Tevinter had been fighting thr First Blight for 200 years. It was severelly weakened.
And, of course, just because something can be defeated by trained soldiers; such as mages or demons; doesn't mean the more common population wouldn't be easy pickings.

And why should anyone care? She did one remarkable thing that most people would agree was morally correct, that does not make her the last word on just rebellion.

Because her actions have marked Thedas and its cultures in ways more profound than any other with the possible exception of the first Archon, Thalsian.

Modifié par MisterJB, 19 février 2013 - 09:44 .

[MisterJB]

dragonflight288 wrote...
As if Andraste being a mage would be such a bad thing. The only ones who would be hurt by that would be the White Chantry as it would make them complete and total hypocrites and destroy all credibility for how they treat mages while revering Andraste.

It would destroy the spirit of every human non mage in Thedas.
Suddenly, the Fall of the Emperium wasn't due to the Maker seeing the justice of our case or the mundane men and women of Thedas having had enough and rise up against opression.
No, it was just a really powerful mage who took pity on us and came to rescue us.

Honestly, if I could choose I would simply have Andraste be an incredibly charismatic leader. No Maker, no magic. Just bravery, charisma and intelligence.