523 réponses à ce sujet

[Hazegurl]

Sylvanpyxie wrote...

Look at it this way - A lot of Players felt that Hawke was put into a moronic position, forced to choose one side over the other when both sides had their failings and both sides had their share of blame. Between the increasing insanity of Meredith and the Blood Mages running rampant in the streets, it was quite obvious to Players that both sides were going loopy - A lot of Players just didn't want to get involved.

Having stood in Hawke's shoes(so to speak) I can safely say I would continue to claim neutrality for as long as humanly possible, because there was no way in the Nine Hells I was ever going to make the situation better.

Elthina was in the same boat - People claim she had a position of power, but the situation in Kirkwall was far beyond control. There was no possible way to police both sides of the conflict, and to support one side would mean supporting failures that were unacceptable.

Support Meredith and her Templars? Support Meredith's insanity to oppress the Circle.
Support Orsino and the Circle? Support the countless misuses of magic that have plagued Kirkwall for years.

We've been in Elthina's shoes and quite a few of us were happy to sit in neutrality until a choice was forced down our throats.

I didn't read the whole thread but this sums up a lot of how I feel. when I began this game I was mostly pro mage but I understood the need for Templars. I disagreed that mages should be locked away but I didn't believe they should be allowed to run the streets unchecked.  As the game progress I saw more and more the problems that were running rampant in the city and a lot of it was due to blood mages. On one hand I felt that they resorted to such extremes because of how hard it was for them at the gallows. On the other hand, does that give them free reign to to consort with demons and run around killing people? After a while I tried to remain neutral but I was becoming more and more a Templar supporter. Especally after Bethany was kidnapped and the chick I let go killed the Templar guy who was on their side and wanted to kill Bethany too. Then there was Anders allowing himself to be possessed by Justice (which i thought was weird since I killed him in awakening). Anders was just simply an unstable wreck of a man and after he killed that mage girl I was pretty much over him and his BS.

I didn't like how choosing one side meant accepting their flaws, but I am glad I had the option to spare the mages who begged for their lives and was able to tell Merideth that its over.

IMO, the best solution would have been to keep the circle and turn it into a boarding school and use the harrowing as a graduation ceremony. If they allow themselves to be taken over by a demon, they die. All mages should be required to sumbit phylacteries and any who don't should be hunted down. The Templars should act as more of a city guard and special task force that hunt down mages who have committed crimes. Any mage caught perfoming blood magic should be given an instant death as nothing good ever seems to come from it and it does nothing but change the user beyond redemption.

[DPSSOC]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[quote]DPSSOC wrote...
[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
I do not understand why you consider bloodmagic a vile tool.  The other things you listed causes unnecessary human suffering or kills indiscriminately and thats why people revile using such measures. Blood magic doesnt do that. In fact in can avoid conflict al together if a mage simply dominates the mind of his opponent and tell them to just leave.
[/quote]
Ok first off, you two are no longer allowed to say anything bad about the Rite of Tranquility.  You don't get to just casually suggest violently ripping a man's freewill from him and leave him caged inside his own mind and then turn around and talk about the horror of removing people's emotions.  I don't know if you've done it in the past (fairly certain Ian has) but you certainly can`t do it after this.
[/quote]

Oh get off your high horse.[/quote]

NEVER!!

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
You are suggesting that putting a person under dripping water for hours (or days) at a time until they talk, go insane, or die is better?  I am not saying that just anyone should do that to anyone, but there ARE times where people by their own actions forfeit certain rights (criminals) and have to be interrogated or restrained or both, and mind control magic seems to be a valid approach.[/quote]

No I'm suggesting that forcing a man to watch while he betrays everything he ever believed in screaming within the cage of his own mind is infinitely more cruel than simply removing a person's emotions but leaving their mind intact.

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[quote]
Second mind control through Blood Magic is neither gentle nor humane.  Maybe if the subject isn`t aware of it but the moment they start resisting, which in any of the instances you`ve cited they would it becomes at the very least uncomfortable and judging by the description we`re given I`d assume agonizingly painful.  We see from Hawke trying to resist Idunna that he/she is obviously in, at least, considerable discomfort.  Also from the description of Blood Control we know that controlling physical action against a subject's will is through manipulation of blood meaning any attempt to resist that is effectively your body trying to tear itself apart.
[/quote]

I an not suggesting using it against nice people.  Given the option of this or water torture (just as one example), I'd say that bloodmagic mind control most definately IS human and gentle by comparison.[/quote]

You honestly believe the sensation of having your entire body trying to rip itself apart is humane and gentle compared to medieval methods of torture or restraint?

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[quote]
Then there's Blood Wound which boils a person's blood, Hemmorhage, and Blood Slave which not only works the same as Blood Control, but kills the subject once the duration's up.  So yeah you wanna tell me again how these abilities don't cause unnecessary suffering when the option exists to kill them instantly with a bolt of lightning or instantly freeze them solid?[/quote]

But toasting a person alive, or causing his skin to boil and explode from the inside (Virulent Walking Bomb) is SOOO much better.....

-Polaris[/quote]

No but those aren't the only options.  Both Elemental and Spirit have other means of dealing damage, ones that don't involve causing unnecessary harm to the target.

[quote]DKJaigen wrote...
I consider unnecessary suffering to be in terms of hours not minutes.[/quote]

And I consider unnecessary suffering in terms of suffering that is unnecessary. If there is a means to achieve the same end with less pain/physical damage being inflicted on the target the use of any lesser method is inflicting unnecessary suffering.

[quote]DKJaigen wrote...
And obviously you do not know the effects of hypotermia or electrocution because being killed by that is not pleasant at all. [/quote]

Not when it takes hours or even minutes no. Chain Lightning doesn't expose the target to a continual stream of electricity it's one flash and then death. It's being struck by lightning as opposed to strapped into the electric chair. Same as Winter's Grasp or Cone of Cold, it's not death due to prolonged exposure it's death due to being instantly frozen solid.

[quote]LobselVith8 wrote...
[quote]DPSSOC wrote...
Ok first off, you two are no longer allowed to say anything bad about the Rite of Tranquility. You don't get to just casually suggest violently ripping a man's freewill from him and leave him caged inside his own mind and then turn around and talk about the horror of removing people's emotions. I don't know if you've done it in the past (fairly certain Ian has) but you certainly can`t do it after this. [/quote]

Using blood magic to stop someone trying to kill you, or a terrorist, isn't the same as the Rite of Tranquility removing the humanity and emotions from a person. If blood magic could be used to stop Vaughan from kidnapping and raping women from the Alienage, I would use it to stop him.[/quote]

Not it's far worse. Tranquility robs a person of their emotions but their mind and free will are still intact, the person is still able to act as they desire, though what that means to them now is admittedly vastly different from what it once was. Blood Magic reduces the target to a puppet dancing on the mages strings. The subject is helpless as they watch their body act against their desires and betray or even directly hurt the people they care about, and that's the kicker. The Tranquil are completely at peace with their situation, they do not suffer from their condition, there is no portion of their mind containing their former self railing at the walls of their invisible cage. Victims of mind control don't get that same mercy. They are aware of what they're being forced to do, and more importantly that they're being forced to do it.

[quote]Silfren wrote...
[quote]DPSSOC wrote...
I'm kind of part of both camps. I don't see blood magic as having any moral value (positive or negative) it's just a tool. However as I said it is a vile tool* in my opinion so you need a strong justification to warrant its use (mage conditions in Kirkwall do apply). My problem with the self defense argument is that we've only ever seen one mage using blood magic that could qualify as such, and that's Jowan. Every mage we encounter except Jowan (and Merril I suppose) who's using Blood Magic has gone on the offensive and isn't discriminating on who they hurt.

*When I say blood magic is a vile tool what I mean is that, for what it's meant to do it has a largely unecessary and excessively harmful/cruel quality.[/quote]

I find it hard to believe you actually consider blood magic a tool that is on its own devoid of positive or negative value when in the next breath you label it as vile. That's an awfully powerful negative connotation to apply to a tool you insist has no moral value at all. Just admit you think it's a terrible thing under any circumstance and go on. It'd make a lot more sense than trying to claim some neutral middle ground that's impossible to do while using terms like "vile."[/quote]

Which is the reason I mentioned what I meant by vile. Blood Magic, regardless of how it's used, is by and large unnecessarily harmful and in many cases (the Blood Magic spells) exceptionally cruel. Let's take a benign use of blood magic as an example. An injured person is brought in to a healer, now the healer could draw on his own mana reserves to heal the injury but leave himself exhausted, he could use some lyrium to bolster his reserves but his supply is limited, or he can use his own or someone elses blood to fuel the spell. Now nobody is going to argue that this isn't a good use of Blood Magic but it doesn't change the fact that to use it he's got to hurt somebody (even if it's just himself) he wouldn't have to with the other two alternatives.

And again there are circumstances that justify it's use, if for example the injury was to severe for the healing to fix it with just his reserves of mana and there was no lyrium available, but these are the exception rather than the rule.

[quote]Silfren wrote...
Claiming that only Jowan and Merrill have applied blood magic strictly in self-defense is simply false. Yes, many mages in DA2 use blood magic without provocation, but there are more than just the named two who don't. And yes, backing a mage into a corner so that they feel they have to go on the offensive to protect themselves does indeed count. So does creating a hostile us versus them environment, which the Chantry and its Templars absolutely have done.[/quote]

In which case you and I draw very different lines as to how far self defense goes. For me self defense ends once you've reasonably secured your immediate safety. Example; guy comes at you with a knife and in defending yourself you kill him because that was the only way you could subdue him, that's self defence, your only option to secure your immediate safety was to kill him.

If however you could have subdued him without killing him, but didn't because you were certain he'd just come at you and try to kill you again when he got up, that's not self defense anymore, because you've gone beyond securing your immediate safety and are now pre-meditatively killing someone for a threat they might pose in the future.

Jowan, when the Templars advance on Lily, uses Blood Magic to subdue the templars and then flees. Can you name any other mage who does that? One who deals with the immediate threat and then sets out to avoid future threats? Cause every mage I remember would have killed the Templars, raised their corpses, and set them out to kill the rest of the people in the tower.

Modifié par DPSSOC, 24 février 2013 - 04:59 .

[Silfren]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

Elthina did not cause the problem so is not truly to blame.
The only questions about her should be whether she was too passive and too resistant to change or if she was unable to change things for the better - she could not afterall make a fundamental change in Chantry policy if the Divine was opposed to it.

On the contrary.  Elthina obviously isn't responsible for the overall conflict between mages and Templars, but as for the situation in Kirkwall, she IS the cause of the problem.  She put Meredith in power, after all, and has turned a blind eye to Meredith's abuses.  That does actually make her responsible for the conflict within that city-state.

[MisterJB]

Silfren wrote...
For the love of all that's holy, can we please dispense with this idiotic notion that because mages have access to an education, that that makes their incarceration acceptable?  Being educated does not make it okay to be forcibly taken away from your family never to see them again, unless you're fortunate to have a powerful arl for a father.  Being ensured of three square meals a day doesn't make it okay that Templars police every moment of every day of your lives, to the extent that you're expect to live the entirety of your life celibate not because you took any vows or because you agreed to abstinence as a condition of living in the tower, but because sex for mages is highly frowned on if not strictly forbidden--and it often is forbidden, apparently.  Being clothed doesn't justify or make acceptable the fact that any children a mage does have will be taken away from them to be raised by the Chantry.  None of those things justify putting a young man in SOLITARY CONFINEMENT FOR A YEAR as punishment for running away. 

You're basically trying to tell me that giving mages food, clothing, and education somehow mitigates being locked away for the entirety of their life and not being able to see their families, much less possibly start new families of their own.  Obviously I think that's a load of nug sh!t.  My own opinion aside, it shouldn't need to be asked that those dubious privileges don't make up for that loss of freedom, otherwise we wouldn't have mages rebelling en mass in the first place. 

What we should dispense with is the ridiculous notion that because some people choose to do something, such as the mages rebelling, that it is the right or intelligent course of action. There are places in our world where "witches" are still being burned at the stake. Matter of fact is, humans beings can be incredibly stupid.

When analyzing the validity of the Circle System, we must take all factors into account, not just the unpleasant ones.
The way I see it, the demands of mages are both unrealistic considering the danger they pose and unresonable considering that they live much, much better than the great majority of people in medieval times. City elves in particular I expect would line up in droves to join a Circle if given but half a chance. There are millions if not billions of people in our world that would kill their mothers to be allowed entry.
So yes, in the context of Thedas, these privileges help justify the Circle System.
If Anders didn't want to be place din solitary, all he had to do was not run.

No we don't have to deal with the ramifications of DA-style magic in RL, but, again, there are plausible alternatives to the Circle system that don't involve lifetime pre-emptive imprisonment.

I've read many suggestions. I've yet to agree with one.

[dragonflight288]

What we should dispense with is the ridiculous notion that because some people choose to do something, such as the mages rebelling, that it is the right or intelligent course of action. There are places in our world where "witches" are still being burned at the stake. Matter of fact is, humans beings can be incredibly stupid.

People can be stupid, that is true.

When analyzing the validity of the Circle System, we must take all factors into account, not just the unpleasant ones.
The way I see it, the demands of mages are both unrealistic considering the danger they pose and unresonable considering that they live much, much better than the great majority of people in medieval times. City elves in particular I expect would line up in droves to join a Circle if given but half a chance. There are millions if not billions of people in our world that would kill their mothers to be allowed entry.
So yes, in the context of Thedas, these privileges help justify the Circle System.
If Anders didn't want to be place din solitary, all he had to do was not run.

City elves shun those who leave the alienages, and if you're a city elf warden, when you come back you are practically a pariah and an outcast because everyone blames the city elf for the purge. I don't think the city elves would want to go into a circle. In the alienage, they have the illusion of self-reliance. In the Circle, there is no illusion. Templars run thngs and the mages have to deal with it.

And while the mages DO have food, shelter, and education, there's not much in-game to suggest that is not the norm. And you're comparing a fictional world to real-life medieval society. But the mages are raped, lobotomized, their humanity and their emotions are stripped from them, sometimes without permission (and sometimes illegally) while being told every day that their existence in and of itself is a curse and are often blamed for bad things happening that they simply aren't involved with. Those circumstances would drive anyone to despair and desperation.

And the Circle provides those privileges themselves through enchantment services (which the tranquil provide in towns.) They don't get by on charity. The chantry only tolerates magic. They aren't going to help take care of mages if they can't help it. The templars and the chantry do everything they can to create a 'us or them' mindset, rather than deal with mages as individuals, and all mages tend to get painted with the same brush (with some exceptions of certain templars, but the order as a whole does this.)

The benefits are nowhere near enough to remove the problems with the current system...which has since exploded.

I've read many suggestions. I've yet to agree with one.

And you support a system that has failed miserably. The current system doesn't work. It's already established. If the mages are forced back into it, there will be a lot of bloodshed, and you'd likely have to kill every single man, woman, and child and start from scratch with new born mages. You have to effectively commit genocide if you wish to reestablish the status-quo. Since I find that absolutely morally repugnant, that means the templars (and templar supporters) have to make compromises and give up power, allow mages to help police themselves. Allow them to have families. Don't take their children away as chantry property. Allow them to visit family members or family members to visit them. At least let apprentices go on supervised vacations to cities or tournaments. Don't treat them as if they're abominations in the making, as the codex entry on abominations outright states that abominations are rare, and the situation in Asunder was an exceptional case. In almost every other case, the mage has to make a deal or gets overtaken while in the Fade.

If that's unacceptable to you, then you are thinking in demographics and don't hold individuals responsible for their own actions. You would punish an entire group for the actions of some.

[Silfren]

DPSSOC wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Claiming that only Jowan and Merrill have applied blood magic strictly in self-defense is simply false. Yes, many mages in DA2 use blood magic without provocation, but there are more than just the named two who don't. And yes, backing a mage into a corner so that they feel they have to go on the offensive to protect themselves does indeed count. So does creating a hostile us versus them environment, which the Chantry and its Templars absolutely have done.

In which case you and I draw very different lines as to how far self defense goes. For me self defense ends once you've reasonably secured your immediate safety. Example; guy comes at you with a knife and in defending yourself you kill him because that was the only way you could subdue him, that's self defence, your only option to secure your immediate safety was to kill him.

If however you could have subdued him without killing him, but didn't because you were certain he'd just come at you and try to kill you again when he got up, that's not self defense anymore, because you've gone beyond securing your immediate safety and are now pre-meditatively killing someone for a threat they might pose in the future.

Jowan, when the Templars advance on Lily, uses Blood Magic to subdue the templars and then flees. Can you name any other mage who does that? One who deals with the immediate threat and then sets out to avoid future threats? Cause every mage I remember would have killed the Templars, raised their corpses, and set them out to kill the rest of the people in the tower.

On the contrary, when you know that the person hunting you is not going to stop so long as they are alive, and that subduing them now will NOT prevent them from coming after you in the future, and you also know that in coming after you their intention is either to kill, imprison, or enslave you, it is quite understandable--and justified--to kill them, even if you are safe in the current moment.  It is not reasonable to expect someone to simply be on the run, always looking over their shoulder for the rest of their life, when they could solve the problem right here and now.  The justification is even greater when said mage has loved ones to worry about, especially if the person hunting them has demonstrated a willingness toward cruelty and targeting of innocents.  I think, between a mage who was willing to always attempt to use non-lethal means, and one who was quite happy to go further than that, I might LIKE the first mage better, but I won't hate the other one for their actions, because I believe a person has the right to live a life in peace without that kind of ever-present anxiety.

Most mages' experience with the Templars of the Chantry is such that they have every reason to believe that any Templars hunting for them WILL be a future threat so long as those Templars are alive.  This is somewhat different from, say, pre-emptively imprisoning a child mage because they MIGHT cause harm later, so don't even try to suggest a correlation. 

Jowan's chosen method of self-defense speaks only for Jowan, it does not indict the behavior of others who might be more willing to apply deadly force.  Jowan was desperate and didn't really think about what he was doing, he merely lashed out and ran like hell.  That kind of split-second, off-the-cuff reaction doesn't speak to what he might do in a situation where he has been hunted relentlessly for months by Templars intent on killing him, especially if he has cause to believe those Templars are prepared to target any people he has befriended in their efforts to bring him in.

Every mage you remember is an exaggerated, dramatized mustache-twirling villain for villainy's sake?  Hmm.  I remember a few mages who were genuinely wicked, but I also remember more than the odd occasional one who was either making a desperate bid for freedom, had been pushed into a corner, or had been TAUGHT to think of mages and mundanes in black and white us-versus-them terms by the Chantry itself.

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...

What we should dispense with is the ridiculous notion that because some people choose to do something, such as the mages rebelling, that it is the right or intelligent course of action. There are places in our world where "witches" are still being burned at the stake. Matter of fact is, humans beings can be incredibly stupid.

Right or wrong, intelligent or not is beside the point.  Mages rebelled en masse, strongly implying that they didn't find their living conditions acceptable, education, clothing, food and shelter be damned. 

When analyzing the validity of the Circle System, we must take all factors into account, not just the unpleasant ones.
The way I see it, the demands of mages are both unrealistic considering the danger they pose and unresonable considering that they live much, much better than the great majority of people in medieval times. City elves in particular I expect would line up in droves to join a Circle if given but half a chance. There are millions if not billions of people in our world that would kill their mothers to be allowed entry. So yes, in the context of Thedas, these privileges help justify the Circle System.
If Anders didn't want to be place din solitary, all he had to do was not run.

You seriously just blamed a person for his own victimization?  I actually can't believe you wrote that, given the high calibre of discussion from you up to this point.  Gee, how DARE anyone want to live life on their own terms, and not willingly accept lifelong incarceration because the people in power think they should be imprisoned.  How DARE he take issue with being locked up!

A year-long sentence of solitary confinement is not a reasonable punishment under any circumstance.  Unless driving a person literally insane is actually your goal.  Indeed it would be far more humane to just kill someone outright. 

I could as easily say, "If Oliver didn't want to be put in prison, all he had to do was not steal that bread.  Never mind that he was starving, that six months' jail time for a loaf of bread is inhumane.  Stealing is stealing, always wrong, never justified, people who don't want to go to jail should just starve. 

While I'm on this subject, Dragon Age is NOT the real world medieval period.  We DON'T see that mages "live much, much better than the great majority of people" within the fictional setting of Thedas.  There is as far as I know exactly one reference to mages having it better than others in general terms, and that is a singular reference by one mage character in Asunder on the question of mages' being more educated than the average Thedosian.  I don't recall any mention anywhere else of mages' lives being considered exceptionally better than others in any other respect.  Funnily enough, the game is mostly silent on that point.  Seems to me if it were an arguable point, it would be raised within the game, because if mages' did actually live better lives, stands to reason that Templars would make the point in defense of the system.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any such occurrence.  As for the elves of the alienage, I think their living conditions are more an argument that their lot is just as dire and in as much need of improvement as the mages', not an argument that mages have it so great.  But I doubt that alienage elves would be as happy living in the Circle as you believe, given that they already deal with constant suspicion and racism, and going into the Chantry-operated Circle would face the same, only far, far worse.

I don't think that alienage elves like the reality of having their children forcibly taken away from them any more than humans do, actually (apart from those people who internalize Chantry-led fear and hatred of magic).  One, parents rarely appreciate losing their children because the Church has the unchallengeable right to do so, and two, alienage elves are especially more community and family oriented, as marginalized, ghettoized people tend to be.  It's just another way of the State to say "your lives don't belong to you, ever, and we can take your children at any time, without warning."  That phenomenon is going to be more deeply affecting of the alienage elves than humans, for reasons I'd hope are obvious.

MisterJB wrote...

Silfren wrote...
No we don't have to deal with the ramifications of DA-style magic in RL, but, again, there are plausible alternatives to the Circle system that don't involve lifetime pre-emptive imprisonment.

I've read many suggestions. I've yet to agree with one.

That's fair, albeit a bit vague.  Care to elaborate?


Edited: To fix misattributed quotes and clear up some screwy formatting.

Modifié par Silfren, 24 février 2013 - 09:26 .

[DPSSOC]

Silfren wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Claiming that only Jowan and Merrill have applied blood magic strictly in self-defense is simply false. Yes, many mages in DA2 use blood magic without provocation, but there are more than just the named two who don't. And yes, backing a mage into a corner so that they feel they have to go on the offensive to protect themselves does indeed count. So does creating a hostile us versus them environment, which the Chantry and its Templars absolutely have done.

In which case you and I draw very different lines as to how far self defense goes. For me self defense ends once you've reasonably secured your immediate safety. Example; guy comes at you with a knife and in defending yourself you kill him because that was the only way you could subdue him, that's self defence, your only option to secure your immediate safety was to kill him.

If however you could have subdued him without killing him, but didn't because you were certain he'd just come at you and try to kill you again when he got up, that's not self defense anymore, because you've gone beyond securing your immediate safety and are now pre-meditatively killing someone for a threat they might pose in the future.

Jowan, when the Templars advance on Lily, uses Blood Magic to subdue the templars and then flees. Can you name any other mage who does that? One who deals with the immediate threat and then sets out to avoid future threats? Cause every mage I remember would have killed the Templars, raised their corpses, and set them out to kill the rest of the people in the tower.

On the contrary, when you know that the person hunting you is not going to stop so long as they are alive, and that subduing them now will NOT prevent them from coming after you in the future, and you also know that in coming after you their intention is either to kill, imprison, or enslave you, it is quite understandable--and justified--to kill them, even if you are safe in the current moment.

And here is where we're just never going to agree.  Once you've subdued your assailant you are no longer acting in self defense, you've defended yourself and are now taking excessive action.  I'm working off the legal definition of self defense where I live, only in very extreme circumstances do our courts except killing in self defense as justified.  If it can be determined that you reasonably could have subdued an assaillant without killing him the law is not on your side.  Which frankly is a stance I agree with, there are remarkably few cases where the only way you can protect yourself is to end somebody's life.

Silfren wrote...
Jowan's chosen method of self-defense speaks only for Jowan, it does not indict the behavior of others who might be more willing to apply deadly force.  Jowan was desperate and didn't really think about what he was doing, he merely lashed out and ran like hell.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your position that all mages who turn to blood magic to defend themselves are motivated by desperation?  However Jowan's behaviour does condemn the behaviour of other mages because it demonstrates that their measures are unnecessary.  Jowan, a mage of limited power and not a great amount of skill, was able to overpower and subdue 6 Templars, including the Knight Commander, as well as the First Enchanter. for long enough to get out through a door that takes 6 people to open if I'm not mistaken.  If he can achieve that than it is reasonable to assume most individual mages could, and definitely any group of mages.

Silfren wrote...
Every mage you remember is an exaggerated, dramatized mustache-twirling villain for villainy's sake?

Pretty much yes.  There may have been others I've forgotten because they don't stand out as much because I didn't have to kill them for simply walking by.

Silfren wrote...
Hmm.  I remember a few mages who were genuinely wicked, but I also remember more than the odd occasional one who was either making a desperate bid for freedom, had been pushed into a corner, or had been TAUGHT to think of mages and mundanes in black and white us-versus-them terms by the Chantry itself.

Can you name names, or at least point out when they show up?  Is this all in the end game because certainly in those circumstances I'd actually recognize the need to kill.  (kill or be at that point).

Silfren wrote...

When analyzing the validity of the Circle System, we must take all factors into account, not just the unpleasant ones.
The way I see it, the demands of mages are both unrealistic considering the danger they pose and unresonable considering that they live much, much better than the great majority of people in medieval times. City elves in particular I expect would line up in droves to join a Circle if given but half a chance. There are millions if not billions of people in our world that would kill their mothers to be allowed entry. So yes, in the context of Thedas, these privileges help justify the Circle System.
If Anders didn't want to be place din solitary, all he had to do was not run.

You seriously just blamed a person for his own victimization?

When a man repeatedly swats the nose of a bear and get's mauled do you blame the bear? Yes Anders had a legitimate gripe with the Circle, I get him wanting to get out, but he knew every time what was going to happen. Hell in Awakening he gloats about how, since he's not a Blood Mage, the Templars couldn't do anything to him except lock him up again.

[IanPolaris]

[quote]DPSSOC wrote...

In which case you and I draw very different lines as to how far self defense goes. For me self defense ends once you've reasonably secured your immediate safety. Example; guy comes at you with a knife and in defending yourself you kill him because that was the only way you could subdue him, that's self defence, your only option to secure your immediate safety was to kill him.

If however you could have subdued him without killing him, but didn't because you were certain he'd just come at you and try to kill you again when he got up, that's not self defense anymore, because you've gone beyond securing your immediate safety and are now pre-meditatively killing someone for a threat they might pose in the future.
[/quote]

I completely disagree with you, and the courts where I live (Texas) disagree with you as well.  It is not up to the victim to know when he or she "could have reasonably subdued an assailent".  If a person attacks you with lethal force, that person forfeits all legal protection to their own life by your hand.  That is especially true after dark and in your own domocile.  In fact, theft on your property after dark (where I live) is justification enough for lethal self-defense.

The way I see it, if someone tries to take your life, they forfeit any protection to their own life.

[quote]
Jowan, when the Templars advance on Lily, uses Blood Magic to subdue the templars and then flees. Can you name any other mage who does that? One who deals with the immediate threat and then sets out to avoid future threats? Cause every mage I remember would have killed the Templars, raised their corpses, and set them out to kill the rest of the people in the tower.[/quote]


No many other people do that period, mage or not.  In fact, even the kindest hearted people think you are completely justified if you decide to kill Zevran (since he did just try to kill you).

[quote]
[quote]
On the contrary, when you know that the person hunting you is not going to stop so long as they are alive, and that subduing them now will NOT prevent them from coming after you in the future, and you also know that in coming after you their intention is either to kill, imprison, or enslave you, it is quite understandable--and justified--to kill them, even if you are safe in the current moment.[/quote]

And here is where we're just never going to agree.  Once you've subdued your assailant you are no longer acting in self defense, you've defended yourself and are now taking excessive action.  I'm working off the legal definition of self defense where I live, only in very extreme circumstances do our courts except killing in self defense as justified.  If it can be determined that you reasonably could have subdued an assaillant without killing him the law is not on your side.  Which frankly is a stance I agree with, there are remarkably few cases where the only way you can protect yourself is to end somebody's life.
[/quote]

That differs from place to place.  My take on it is this:  If the person is going to try to kill you, then you make sure he never gets a second opportunity.  I'll take my chances with a Jury (esp in Texas).

[quote]
[quote]Silfren wrote...
Jowan's chosen method of self-defense speaks only for Jowan, it does not indict the behavior of others who might be more willing to apply deadly force.  Jowan was desperate and didn't really think about what he was doing, he merely lashed out and ran like hell.[/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your position that all mages who turn to blood magic to defend themselves are motivated by desperation?  However Jowan's behaviour does condemn the behaviour of other mages because it demonstrates that their measures are unnecessary.  Jowan, a mage of limited power and not a great amount of skill, was able to overpower and subdue 6 Templars, including the Knight Commander, as well as the First Enchanter. for long enough to get out through a door that takes 6 people to open if I'm not mistaken.  If he can achieve that than it is reasonable to assume most individual mages could, and definitely any group of mages.
[/quote]

Strawman.  I don't belief that Sifren ever said ALL mages turned to bloodmagic due to desperation, only that desperation fueled a lot of mages turning to bloodmagic.  Trying to universalize something in this way is less than honest.  It is true that a lot of mages turn to bloodmagic out of desperation, and who's to blame for that?  Well the chantry to be honest.

[quote]
[quote]Silfren wrote...
Every mage you remember is an exaggerated, dramatized mustache-twirling villain for villainy's sake?[/quote]

Pretty much yes.  There may have been others I've forgotten because they don't stand out as much because I didn't have to kill them for simply walking by.
[/quote]

DA2 did this delibertately by the developer's own admission.  They didn't want to give you a more balanced look at mages because they wanted people to side with the Templars more.  In short, the evidence we see in DA2 is deliberately skewed to be anti-mage.

[quote]
[quote]Silfren wrote...
Hmm.  I remember a few mages who were genuinely wicked, but I also remember more than the odd occasional one who was either making a desperate bid for freedom, had been pushed into a corner, or had been TAUGHT to think of mages and mundanes in black and white us-versus-them terms by the Chantry itself.[/quote]

Can you name names, or at least point out when they show up?  Is this all in the end game because certainly in those circumstances I'd actually recognize the need to kill.  (kill or be at that point).
[/quote]

The Developers already admitted that they "went overboard" with the insane-bloodmage angle because they were trying to get more people to side with the Templars (vice DAO).

[quote]
[quote]Silfren wrote...
[quote]When analyzing the validity of the Circle System, we must take all factors into account, not just the unpleasant ones.
The way I see it, the demands of mages are both unrealistic considering the danger they pose and unresonable considering that they live much, much better than the great majority of people in medieval times. City elves in particular I expect would line up in droves to join a Circle if given but half a chance. There are millions if not billions of people in our world that would kill their mothers to be allowed entry. So yes, in the context of Thedas, these privileges help justify the Circle System.
If Anders didn't want to be place din solitary, all he had to do was not run.[/quote]

You seriously just blamed a person for his own victimization?[/quote]

When a man repeatedly swats the nose of a bear and get's mauled do you blame the bear? Yes Anders had a legitimate gripe with the Circle, I get him wanting to get out, but he knew every time what was going to happen. Hell in Awakening he gloats about how, since he's not a Blood Mage, the Templars couldn't do anything to him except lock him up again.[/quote]

Wrong.  Anders says that the Templars would have branded him a malificar, true or not, and then executed him on the spot.  Rylien actually goes against chantry law AND against the direct order of the King (or Queen) of Ferelden when she tries to arrest an ACTIVE Warden (in DAA).  By Chantry law, Grey Warden mages are completely outside Templar Jurisdiction. 

We also have the example of Aneiren (and likely many others) where the Templars kill the apostate and "label malificar" later.

Nice.

-Polaris

[Silfren]

DPSSOC wrote...

And here is where we're just never going to agree.  Once you've subdued your assailant you are no longer acting in self defense, you've defended yourself and are now taking excessive action.  I'm working off the legal definition of self defense where I live, only in very extreme circumstances do our courts except killing in self defense as justified.  If it can be determined that you reasonably could have subdued an assaillant without killing him the law is not on your side.  Which frankly is a stance I agree with, there are remarkably few cases where the only way you can protect yourself is to end somebody's life.

There's the rub, then.  I wasn't going by any legal definition of self-defense, but by my personal moral take on whether you have the right to kill someone when you know for certain that if left alive they will continue to hunt you.  I find it very unjust to argue that a person is obligated to let live someone who has no intention of ever letting their quarry alone, especially when their intention is not to "merely" harass, but to imprison or kill.  By your logic, you might as well claim that killing in self-defense is never acceptable and that a person has an obligation to always go out of their way to subdue without killing.  You've yet to justify why it is necessary to do this when the person in question knows without doubt that their attacker will NEVER leave them alone.  As long as someone who intends to injure or imprison you lives to try again, why should their victim be required to simply live with this situation rather than act to protect themselves AND their loved ones by dealing with the threat permanently?

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your position that all mages who turn to blood magic to defend themselves are motivated by desperation?  However Jowan's behaviour does condemn the behaviour of other mages because it demonstrates that their measures are unnecessary.  Jowan, a mage of limited power and not a great amount of skill, was able to overpower and subdue 6 Templars, including the Knight Commander, as well as the First Enchanter. for long enough to get out through a door that takes 6 people to open if I'm not mistaken.  If he can achieve that than it is reasonable to assume most individual mages could, and definitely any group of mages.

No, that is not my position.  I'm not blind to the fact that mages exist who use blood magic for malign purposes that don't involve self-defense.  However, I maintain that the Chantry is culpable in no small part for cultivating a societal us-versus-them mentality that contributes significantly to the problem.

No, Jowan's behavior does not condemn the behavior of others, this is absurd.  One set of circumstances cannot be applied to all, especially when I beg to differ that Jowan was as weak in power and skill as is commonly asserted.  Never mind that he had the element of surprise on his side--that scene plays out as if the Templars apparently believed confronting Jowan was enough, and nobody was prepared for the prospect of his lashing out, even though the whole freakin' point of the confrontation was because they suspected him of blood magic.  Granted, blood magic can't be countered the way that other magic can, but it appears from that cutscene that nobody was even prepared for the possibility, which was idiotic, but I digress...

Where is it said that Jowan went through a door that normally takes six people to open?

But again, this says nothing about why people are expected to always subdue their attackers, even if this means a lifetime spent always looking over their shoulder and hoping that this isn't the time that the Templars get lucky, or that one of their friends or relatives gets caught in the crossfire.  You've yet to offer an explanation, reasonable or otherwise, as to why you think people should be forced to live this way.

Can you name names, or at least point out when they show up?  Is this all in the end game because certainly in those circumstances I'd actually recognize the need to kill.  (kill or be at that point).

Offhand, no. It's been months and months since I played either Origins, Awakening, or DA2.  I could offer up some examples, given time to think about it.  One that does come immediately to mind is the blood mage woman you meet in Origins during the Broken Circle quest.  She states that the blood magic was a means to an end to achieve greater freedom, but that she didn't mean for all the death and destruction.  Noteworthy for her situation is that for all her resentment of the Chantry's anti-mage laws, she actually is an Andrastian. 

The obvious objection to that is that she could be lying to save her own skin.  I'll concede this point, but the fact is, I don't think she was lying.  I think she genuinely intended only to use blood magic as a tool, on the grounds that it was the one avenue of magic ability open to her that the Templars couldn't nullify with their own powers.  In any case, I think she's a decent example of a mage forced into her position because of the "us or them" mentality created by the Chantry's dictates.

When a man repeatedly swats the nose of a bear and get's mauled do you blame the bear? Yes Anders had a legitimate gripe with the Circle, I get him wanting to get out, but he knew every time what was going to happen. Hell in Awakening he gloats about how, since he's not a Blood Mage, the Templars couldn't do anything to him except lock him up again.

That's a sh!t analogy, I have to say.  Unless, of course, you note that the MAGES are the bear, and the Templars the idiot swatter.  You might try applying it to the above conversation about self-defense. 

Having said that, I'm not sure it can be said that Anders knew his punishment was going to be solitary confinement.  But even so, knowing what is going to happen in the event you get caught hardly means that you bring the punishment on yourself.  Anders wasn't committing a crime for the pure sake of acting out, here.  HE WAS TRYING TO BE FREE. Try using that argument in terms of real world slavery and see how it sounds to claim said slave was to blame for their own punishment when they got caught trying to escape to freedom.

[DPSSOC]

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[quote]DPSSOC wrote...
In which case you and I draw very different lines as to how far self defense goes. For me self defense ends once you've reasonably secured your immediate safety. Example; guy comes at you with a knife and in defending yourself you kill him because that was the only way you could subdue him, that's self defence, your only option to secure your immediate safety was to kill him.

If however you could have subdued him without killing him, but didn't because you were certain he'd just come at you and try to kill you again when he got up, that's not self defense anymore, because you've gone beyond securing your immediate safety and are now pre-meditatively killing someone for a threat they might pose in the future.
[/quote]

I completely disagree with you, and the courts where I live (Texas) disagree with you as well.  It is not up to the victim to know when he or she "could have reasonably subdued an assailent".  If a person attacks you with lethal force, that person forfeits all legal protection to their own life by your hand.  That is especially true after dark and in your own domocile.  In fact, theft on your property after dark (where I live) is justification enough for lethal self-defense.

The way I see it, if someone tries to take your life, they forfeit any protection to their own life.

[quote]
Jowan, when the Templars advance on Lily, uses Blood Magic to subdue the templars and then flees. Can you name any other mage who does that? One who deals with the immediate threat and then sets out to avoid future threats? Cause every mage I remember would have killed the Templars, raised their corpses, and set them out to kill the rest of the people in the tower.[/quote]


No many other people do that period, mage or not.  In fact, even the kindest hearted people think you are completely justified if you decide to kill Zevran (since he did just try to kill you).

[quote]
[quote]
On the contrary, when you know that the person hunting you is not going to stop so long as they are alive, and that subduing them now will NOT prevent them from coming after you in the future, and you also know that in coming after you their intention is either to kill, imprison, or enslave you, it is quite understandable--and justified--to kill them, even if you are safe in the current moment.[/quote]

And here is where we're just never going to agree.  Once you've subdued your assailant you are no longer acting in self defense, you've defended yourself and are now taking excessive action.  I'm working off the legal definition of self defense where I live, only in very extreme circumstances do our courts except killing in self defense as justified.  If it can be determined that you reasonably could have subdued an assaillant without killing him the law is not on your side.  Which frankly is a stance I agree with, there are remarkably few cases where the only way you can protect yourself is to end somebody's life.
[/quote]

That differs from place to place.  My take on it is this:  If the person is going to try to kill you, then you make sure he never gets a second opportunity.  I'll take my chances with a Jury (esp in Texas).[/quote]

Like I said it's just a point we're never going to agree on.  I grew up in a culture where we do expect the victim to know how far is too far.  If somebody kills someone in self defense 9 times out of 10 it's deemed manslaughter (you didn't actually mean to kill the person) at best.  Little window into the culture I grew up in, if somebody injures themselves trying to break into my house I can be sued.

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[quote]
[quote]Silfren wrote...
Jowan's chosen method of self-defense speaks only for Jowan, it does not indict the behavior of others who might be more willing to apply deadly force.  Jowan was desperate and didn't really think about what he was doing, he merely lashed out and ran like hell.[/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your position that all mages who turn to blood magic to defend themselves are motivated by desperation?  However Jowan's behaviour does condemn the behaviour of other mages because it demonstrates that their measures are unnecessary.  Jowan, a mage of limited power and not a great amount of skill, was able to overpower and subdue 6 Templars, including the Knight Commander, as well as the First Enchanter. for long enough to get out through a door that takes 6 people to open if I'm not mistaken.  If he can achieve that than it is reasonable to assume most individual mages could, and definitely any group of mages.
[/quote]

Strawman.  I don't belief that Sifren ever said ALL mages turned to bloodmagic due to desperation, only that desperation fueled a lot of mages turning to bloodmagic.  Trying to universalize something in this way is less than honest.  It is true that a lot of mages turn to bloodmagic out of desperation, and who's to blame for that?  Well the chantry to be honest.[/quote]

Hence why I started with "Correct me if I'm wrong," also why I specifically stated that they turned to blood magic to defend themselves as opposed to people like Tarohne or Quentin.  Sifren's argument was that Jowan was desperate and not thinking, so that's why he didn't use lethal force, he just lashed out, which differs greatly from every other mage we see acting out of desperation in DA2.  Actually thinking back Jowan seemed rather collected durring the whole event.  He might have been desperate but he seemed to have clearly known what he was doing.

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[quote]
[quote]Silfren wrote...
Every mage you remember is an exaggerated, dramatized mustache-twirling villain for villainy's sake?[/quote]

Pretty much yes.  There may have been others I've forgotten because they don't stand out as much because I didn't have to kill them for simply walking by.
[/quote]

DA2 did this delibertately by the developer's own admission.  They didn't want to give you a more balanced look at mages because they wanted people to side with the Templars more.  In short, the evidence we see in DA2 is deliberately skewed to be anti-mage.

[quote]
[quote]Silfren wrote...
Hmm.  I remember a few mages who were genuinely wicked, but I also remember more than the odd occasional one who was either making a desperate bid for freedom, had been pushed into a corner, or had been TAUGHT to think of mages and mundanes in black and white us-versus-them terms by the Chantry itself.[/quote]

Can you name names, or at least point out when they show up?  Is this all in the end game because certainly in those circumstances I'd actually recognize the need to kill.  (kill or be at that point).
[/quote]

The Developers already admitted that they "went overboard" with the insane-bloodmage angle because they were trying to get more people to side with the Templars (vice DAO).[/quote]

So if I'm reading this right, again correct me if I'm wrong, I'm correct in my assessment of mages in DA2, but the devs went overboard on purpose so it doesn't count.  Fair enough I suppose, can we say the same about all the crazy evil, mustache twirling Templars?

[quote]IanPolaris wrote...
[quote]
[quote]Silfren wrote...
[quote]When analyzing the validity of the Circle System, we must take all factors into account, not just the unpleasant ones.
The way I see it, the demands of mages are both unrealistic considering the danger they pose and unresonable considering that they live much, much better than the great majority of people in medieval times. City elves in particular I expect would line up in droves to join a Circle if given but half a chance. There are millions if not billions of people in our world that would kill their mothers to be allowed entry. So yes, in the context of Thedas, these privileges help justify the Circle System.
If Anders didn't want to be place din solitary, all he had to do was not run.[/quote]

You seriously just blamed a person for his own victimization?[/quote]

When a man repeatedly swats the nose of a bear and get's mauled do you blame the bear? Yes Anders had a legitimate gripe with the Circle, I get him wanting to get out, but he knew every time what was going to happen. Hell in Awakening he gloats about how, since he's not a Blood Mage, the Templars couldn't do anything to him except lock him up again.[/quote]

Wrong.  Anders says that the Templars would have branded him a malificar, true or not, and then executed him on the spot.[/quote]

Yes, those particular Templars, because they believed he was responsible for murdering the Templars who were escorting him.  Had that not happened he would have simply been taken back to the Circle.  Like the 6 times before.

[Silfren]

DPSSOC wrote...


Hence why I started with "Correct me if I'm wrong," also why I specifically stated that they turned to blood magic to defend themselves as opposed to people like Tarohne or Quentin.  Sifren's argument was that Jowan was desperate and not thinking, so that's why he didn't use lethal force, he just lashed out, which differs greatly from every other mage we see acting out of desperation in DA2.  Actually thinking back Jowan seemed rather collected durring the whole event.  He might have been desperate but he seemed to have clearly known what he was doing.

Actually, I was NOT arguing that Jowan didn't use lethal force only because he was desperate and not thinking. I don't believe that Jowan would EVER have used lethal force, actually, clear-headed or not. 

What I WAS trying to say was that Jowan didn't think, he simply lashed out, then turned and ran.  What he was planning to do, or what he might have done otherwise, doesn't enter into my take on what he DID do under the circumstances.

Jowan wasn't what I'd call "rather collected," at least not once he realizes that Lily is about to face punishment for her part in trying to help him escape.  He starts yelling, whips out a knife and slices his hand open.  Nothing about that scene indicates that he was planning to do it from the moment he realizes they've been caught.  He reacts in the spur of the moment ONLY when he tries to protect his girlfriend.

[IanPolaris]

DPSSOC wrote...

So if I'm reading this right, again correct me if I'm wrong, I'm correct in my assessment of mages in DA2, but the devs went overboard on purpose so it doesn't count.  Fair enough I suppose, can we say the same about all the crazy evil, mustache twirling Templars?

We don't see any crazy, evil, mustache twirling Templars (the closest is Ser Alrik but we don't actually see him in the act).  We DO see the crazy, evil, mustache twirling mages in actions even going so far as to railroad Hawke's mother's own death for that cheap emotionalism so it could be blamed on magic.

That's what I mean when I say that the presentation of DA2 was completely slanted against the mages.  We get to see depraved mages acting in devpraved ways.  We only hear about depraved Templars.


{SNIP}

Yes, those particular Templars, because they believed he was responsible for murdering the Templars who were escorting him.  Had that not happened he would have simply been taken back to the Circle.  Like the 6 times before.

Those templars were acting outside the law, and the Templars have a bad habit of not following the law and Anders in DAA says as much (they will eventually brand me a Malificar true or not).  This wasn't talking about one particular set of Templars but all of them, and given Anarien and other examples, I daresay Anders is right about that.

Also remember that Anders was in the Fereldan circle and had Irving looking out for him.  Most mages aren't nearly so lucky (read Anarien who was run through on the assumption he was a Malificar...he wasn't).

-Polaris

[Silfren]

DPSSOC wrote...

Yes, those particular Templars, because they believed he was responsible for murdering the Templars who were escorting him.  Had that not happened he would have simply been taken back to the Circle.  Like the 6 times before.

Wrong.  Completely wrong.  Anders wasn't referring to any particular Templars in the scene you refer to, nor was he referring to the incident of his being found standing over those dead Templars in the Vigil. 

He was talking about his various escape attempts, and his exact words are ""Eventually, I'm sure they would have branded me a maleficar, true or not, and executed me."  He isn't referring to his most recent escape at all, but saying that he believes eventually the Templars would have gotten sick of simply dragging him back and labeled him a maleficar just to have the excuse of executing him, absent of any actual crimes he'd committed that actually would qualify him as a maleficar.

Look it up on youtube or replay that scene from Awakening if you want proof.  His statement was nothing to do with being suspected of killing Templars at Vigil, but was commentary on the general attitude of Templars toward mages who have an issue with being locked up.

[DPSSOC]

[quote]Silfren wrote...


[quote]Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't your position that all mages who turn to blood magic to defend themselves are motivated by desperation?  However Jowan's behaviour does condemn the behaviour of other mages because it demonstrates that their measures are unnecessary.  Jowan, a mage of limited power and not a great amount of skill, was able to overpower and subdue 6 Templars, including the Knight Commander, as well as the First Enchanter. for long enough to get out through a door that takes 6 people to open if I'm not mistaken.  If he can achieve that than it is reasonable to assume most individual mages could, and definitely any group of mages.[/quote]
No, that is not my position.  I'm not blind to the fact that mages exist who use blood magic for malign purposes that don't involve self-defense.  However, I maintain that the Chantry is culpable in no small part for cultivating a societal us-versus-them mentality that contributes significantly to the problem.[/quote]

Fair enough then.

[quote]Silfren wrote...
No, Jowan's behavior does not condemn the behavior of others, this is absurd.  One set of circumstances cannot be applied to all, especially when I beg to differ that Jowan was as weak in power and skill as is commonly asserted.[/quote]

Actually yeah they can, that's how the legal system works in most places.  An incident occurs, establishes a precident, all similar incidents are judge according to that precident.  Now this can be overruled but I see no reason to do so here.  Now perhaps I'm noit giving Jowan enough credit, but if the Warden is believed to be exceptional let's agree that Jowan is average.  He manages to overpower the Templars rather easily, which would seem to indicate it's something most mages could achieve.  So we've established that non-lethal action is viable, meaning every mage who does use lethal force chooses to do so, thus going from self defense to murder (IMO).

[quote]Silfren wrote...
Where is it said that Jowan went through a door that normally takes six people to open?[/quote]

There is exactly one door out of the Tower, if memory serves you can talk to the Templar guarding it and he'll mention it takes 6 men to open it.

[quote]Silfren wrote...
But again, this says nothing about why people are expected to always subdue their attackers, even if this means a lifetime spent always looking over their shoulder and hoping that this isn't the time that the Templars get lucky, or that one of their friends or relatives gets caught in the crossfire.  You've yet to offer an explanation, reasonable or otherwise, as to why you think people should be forced to live this way.[/quote]

Honestly I don't have an explanation I can put in words, it's just how I was raised.  Somebody comes after you you beat them down, they keep coming back you keep beating them down until they stop.  It's just how you're supposed to do things.

[quote]Silfren wrote...


[quote]Can you name names, or at least point out when they show up?  Is this all in the end game because certainly in those circumstances I'd actually recognize the need to kill.  (kill or be at that point).[/quote]Offhand, no. It's been months and months since I played either Origins, Awakening, or DA2.  I could offer up some examples, given time to think about it.  One that does come immediately to mind is the blood mage woman you meet in Origins during the Broken Circle quest.  She states that the blood magic was a means to an end to achieve greater freedom, but that she didn't mean for all the death and destruction.  Noteworthy for her situation is that for all her resentment of the Chantry's anti-mage laws, she actually is an Andrastian.[/quote]

You aren't honestly using the mage whose justification for using blood magic was that Uldred said they could use it to grab power.  Please tell me there's another blood mage who begs for her life that I've missed in every playthrough. 

[quote]Silfren wrote...


[quote]When a man repeatedly swats the nose of a bear and get's mauled do you blame the bear? Yes Anders had a legitimate gripe with the Circle, I get him wanting to get out, but he knew every time what was going to happen. Hell in Awakening he gloats about how, since he's not a Blood Mage, the Templars couldn't do anything to him except lock him up again.[/quote]That's a sh!t analogy, I have to say.  Unless, of course, you note that the MAGES are the bear, and the Templars the idiot swatter.[/quote]

No the Templars are the bear.  The analogy could be applied to the Templars treatment of Mages but in this instance it's not the case.  Anders ran away knowing it would cause problems with the Templars, repeatedly, and they punished him for it.  He kept doing it, and the punishments became more severe.  He called it on himself.

[quote]Silfren wrote...
But even so, knowing what is going to happen in the event you get caught hardly means that you bring the punishment on yourself.[/quote]

Isn't that exactly what it means?  If you commit an act, knowing the punishment for that act, which you could normally avoid, you bring the punishment on yourself.

[quote]Silfren wrote...
Anders wasn't committing a crime for the pure sake of acting out, here.  HE WAS TRYING TO BE FREE. Try using that argument in terms of real world slavery and see how it sounds to claim said slave was to blame for their own punishment when they got caught trying to escape to freedom.[/quote]

Ok.  Let me ask you this when prisoners, real world convicts, try to escape should they not be punished because they're just trying to be free?  Of course not, whether you agree with it or not mages exist in a society that views them being locked up as just, much like real world convicts.  Whatever his reason for committing it trying to escape was a crime, he knew he'd be punished for it, his decision to act was acceptance of that punishment in the event he got caught.

[Silfren]

DPSSOC wrote...

Silfren wrote...
No, Jowan's behavior does not condemn the behavior of others, this is absurd.  One set of circumstances cannot be applied to all, especially when I beg to differ that Jowan was as weak in power and skill as is commonly asserted.

Actually yeah they can, that's how the legal system works in most places.  An incident occurs, establishes a precident, all similar incidents are judge according to that precident.  Now this can be overruled but I see no reason to do so here.  Now perhaps I'm noit giving Jowan enough credit, but if the Warden is believed to be exceptional let's agree that Jowan is average.  He manages to overpower the Templars rather easily, which would seem to indicate it's something most mages could achieve.  So we've established that non-lethal action is viable, meaning every mage who does use lethal force chooses to do so, thus going from self defense to murder (IMO).

Well, I was not referring to legal precedents, but life in general.  And I hold to this for both: it is not appropriate to assume that one person's abilities according to their circumstances should set some kind of standard for everyone else, because not everyone's situation is equal, much less identical.  Also, I'm aware of the system of legal precedents; but it hardly means that I AGREE with how that works.  I have read of plenty of instances where a previous case was used as precedent for a current one in ways I felt to be invalid.  But going forward, I think it needs to be clarified that I don't get my personal brand of morality from any legal system.  When I've discussed what I think is acceptable or at least justifiable behavior in this thread, I've been going off what I personally consider to be moral, or immoral, NOT what any legal system, including those of my own state and nation, has to say.  I don't CARE what any given legal system says as far as this discussion goes, especially since we don't have a single, universal one that applies to citizens of all the world, as demonstrated by your comments with Polaris.  There is NO law which is the final arbiter of what is morally just.  Or don't you realize that many laws can be, and historically often HAVE been, extremely unfair and unjust and unequal?

Honestly I don't have an explanation I can put in words, it's just how I was raised.  Somebody comes after you you beat them down, they keep coming back you keep beating them down until they stop.  It's just how you're supposed to do things.

Obviously I disagree, but this is a fair enough response.  Thank you.  Part of my issue with this is that a person can never know how a future situation might go.  It's one thing when you are the only target, and the only weapons are, say, fists (though of course fists can be applied with lethal force).  But when actual weapons are involved, you never know when a future situation might result in you being slow to react, or the other person getting off a lucky shot, as it were.  Beating someone down now is no guarantee that they won't manage to kill or imprison you in the future.  This is why I maintain that a person has the right to defend themselves with lethal force if they have every reason to believe they'll be hounded for the rest of their life otherwise.  It's even more the case when you believe your tormentor might target your loved ones to get to you. 

You aren't honestly using the mage whose justification for using blood magic was that Uldred said they could use it to grab power.  Please tell me there's another blood mage who begs for her life that I've missed in every playthrough.

Yes, I am.  And to answer you, I think the mage was probably naïve or gullible or just plain stupid, whichever you'd like to call her, but I don't think she was interested in Uldred's actual plans, only what he told his followers initially--which, by the way, according to this mage, was to "help us be free of the Chantry," NOT to "grab power."  This is mostly from memory, but I recall that Uldred used the discontent of that mage, and others, to convince them to back his effort to free the Circle, without fully disclosing the extent to which he was planning to go.  (Though it COULD be, and has been, argued that Uldred himself didn't mean things to go the way they did...but that's not my argument and nothing to do with what I'm saying here, so let's not digress).  In this case, I think the mage was so sick of the conditions at the Circle that she was already primed to listen to any plan that Uldred, or anyone, had to offer for freedom.  These things may make her reckless and stupid, but they don't make necessarily make her evil or power-hungry, and the Chantry IS to blame for the environment that led to her wanting so badly to be free that she was eager to take Uldred's offer. 

Again, I'm aware that this is a somewhat subjective matter, as she could be said to be lying.  I simply don't think she was.

Isn't that exactly what it means?  If you commit an act, knowing the punishment for that act, which you could normally avoid, you bring the punishment on yourself.

There are probably some situations in which this is applicable, but for the most part, it's victim-blaming, and it's not justifiable. I will reject any and all attempts at victim-blaming when a person gets punished for the "crime" of wanting to live their life freely.  Yes, you could argue the literal fact of this from a purely cause-and effect standpoint, but we're talking about people here, not logical equations, and I'm hardly going to tell someone they brought their punishment on themselves when they were trying to escape a brutal oppressor.  I suppose you actually ARE going to tell me that if a real world slave tried to escape their owner, that they brought punishment on themselves because they knew the consequences of trying to flout the law.  Never mind that it's human nature to want to try your damnedest to get away from cruelty and oppression, and there's NOTHING whatsoever wrong about trying to escape unjust and inhumane laws.

There's a certain kind of person who seriously believes that the victim of a punishment is to blame for its infliction simply because they knew it was a possible consequence of their behavior.  As I said, I suppose there are situations in which this mindset is morally neutral, but for the most part, it really is nothing more than blaming the victim, and I don't like it or the people who espouse it, in the least tiniest little bit.  It's abhorrent.  We ain't talking about kids getting punished for staying out past their curfew even though they knew what would happen if they got caught, after all.

No, I put the blame for the punishment on the people carrying out the punishment.  

Ok.  Let me ask you this when prisoners, real world convicts, try to escape should they not be punished because they're just trying to be free?  Of course not, whether you agree with it or not mages exist in a society that views them being locked up as just, much like real world convicts.  Whatever his reason for committing it trying to escape was a crime, he knew he'd be punished for it, his decision to act was acceptance of that punishment in the event he got caught.

I cannot simply answer this at face value, because again I don't consider law itself to necessarily be the measurement of what is appropriate or just.  Yes, on the face of it, reducing things to a technical cause-and-effect equation does work out the way you claim.  But I don't reduce people to technicalities.  Part of the issue here seems to be that you insist on talking about the law as if obedience or disobedience to it is the sole question at play here, i.e. one either obeys the law or rebels against it, but the law itself is unquestioned.  I reject this.  Whether or not a law is a JUST law, a humane law, is a relevant part of the question, and I DO insist that there's a moral difference between a convict imprisoned for, say, murdering someone to take their stuff, and someone imprisoned because they MIGHT hurt someone, even if they've so far shown no inclination to such.  I am NOT going to talk about their situations as if they are morally equivalent simply because both are subject to laws that require their incarceration and require punishment for trying to escape it.

Modifié par Silfren, 25 février 2013 - 06:49 .

[LobselVith8]

andrew252 wrote...

i was under the impression she was in between a rock and a hard place considering that no matter with side she picked it would of back fired.

If she sided with the templars the mages might have rebelled much sooner

If she sided with the mages the civilians of kirkwall might have been pissy and maybe take the law into there own hands

Why would the civilians "fight back" if Meredith was forced to back down from her illegal actions? I don't think that the civilians or the nobles would have risen up if Grand Cleric Elthina stopped Meredith from acting as the de facto Viscount, and reigned in her templars. Even Cullen notes that some of the people in Kirkwall were starting to act more sympathetic towards mages.

As for rebellion, the mages didn't rebel during the seven year storyline of Dragon Age II - the mages of the Circle of Kirkwall fought back when Meredith ordered their execution for the actions of one single man - who happened to be standing right in front of her, and confessing that he was acting alone when he destroyed the Kirkwall Chantry. It was an act of self-defense against a Right of Annulment that was morally unjust.

Get Magna Carter wrote...

Elthina did not cause the problem so is not truly to blame.
The only questions about her should be whether she was too passive and too resistant to change or if she was unable to change things for the better - she could not afterall make a fundamental change in Chantry policy if the Divine was opposed to it.

Grand Cleric Elthina was the highest ranking member of the Chantry in Kirkwall - she was Meredith's superior. The Grand Cleric's refusal to reign in the Knight-Commander when Meredith was illegally seizing power, having death squads kill people in broad daylight, and having cases of templars under Meredith's authority abusing and torturing mages, are sufficient enough for people to condemn Elthina.

[w0lfam0da1s]

LobselVith8 wrote...

andrew252 wrote...

i was under the impression she was in between a rock and a hard place considering that no matter with side she picked it would of back fired.

If she sided with the templars the mages might have rebelled much sooner

If she sided with the mages the civilians of kirkwall might have been pissy and maybe take the law into there own hands

Why would the civilians "fight back" if Meredith was forced to back down from her illegal actions? I don't think that the civilians or the nobles would have risen up if Grand Cleric Elthina stopped Meredith from acting as the de facto Viscount, and reigned in her templars. Even Cullen notes that some of the people in Kirkwall were starting to act more sympathetic towards mages.

As for rebellion, the mages didn't rebel during the seven year storyline of Dragon Age II - the mages of the Circle of Kirkwall fought back when Meredith ordered their execution for the actions of one single man - who happened to be standing right in front of her, and confessing that he was acting alone when he destroyed the Kirkwall Chantry. It was an act of self-defense against a Right of Annulment that was morally unjust.

Get Magna Carter wrote...

Elthina did not cause the problem so is not truly to blame.
The only questions about her should be whether she was too passive and too resistant to change or if she was unable to change things for the better - she could not afterall make a fundamental change in Chantry policy if the Divine was opposed to it.

Grand Cleric Elthina was the highest ranking member of the Chantry in Kirkwall - she was Meredith's superior. The Grand Cleric's refusal to reign in the Knight-Commander when Meredith was illegally seizing power, having death squads kill people in broad daylight, and having cases of templars under Meredith's authority abusing and torturing mages, are sufficient enough for people to condemn Elthina.

so to the things i underlined

I've said it once I'll say it again. Just because she holds that title it doesn't give her the athority to just do away with Meredith all together. There are steps she has to take and the last word comes from the Devine herself.

Think of the Chantry in the terms of the Catholic Chirch. The Pope is the highest and he comands the Swiss Guard and his personal soldigers that watch the Swiss Guard. Just like the Devine commands the Seekers to watch the Templars.
I only say this because to me the Chantry works on the similuar lines as the Catholic Chirch
So not to get to deep into it lets break it down simply.
Devine=Pope
Grand Cleric=Bishiop or even lower depending on size of Chirch

Now here is where it gets tricky.
Normaly the Bishop doesn't have armys to controle. Not now at least.
When (middle ages) there was a need for a army that the Bishop had some command over and something like with Meredith happened. The Bishop would send word to the Pope or the Cardnel in that region. An ivestigtion wou be held.
The Cardnel would send someone to investigate.
(Just like Leliana was sent to investigate.)
The role of the Bishop is to mainly give service and prayer and so on. Just like Grand Cleric is suspose to do. They are to keep nutural at all times unless otherwise told to step in. That has to come form the Pope himself.
In this case it would be the Devine.

Now lets look at what she says to Hawke when the argument between Meredith and Orsino happens.(i prob. spelled his name wrong)
She tells Hawke that she isn't as powerful as people think.
Hawke_"Why do you do nothing when you are in charge of the templars and chantry"
Elthina_"You have quite the estimation of her abilities"

She also state during one of the the following during a quest called justice.
 1) that she can not take side we are all the makers creatures but magic allows abuse beyond the scope of mortals ( this is if you did the quest )
2)  i can not turn on my templars on the very words of Andraste for fear no matter how justifided that fear might be ( if the quest wasn't done)

Both answers are the same in the fact that she has to remain nutrual for the time being.
So know you all know. The other thing is that she says similar things to Hawke when it comes to the Qunari.

[IanPolaris]

Except we DO know by the lore that Meredith is Elthina's direct subordinate. Meredith became Knight-Commander in the first place entirely on Elthina's say-so as Grand Cleric, and the prior Viscount was tried on Grand-Cleric Elthina's say so.

That means Elthina really does have the right to hire and fire the local knight commander superceded only by the Divine herself or perhaps (in the case of the Templars) the Knight-Vigalant who commands all the Templars.

It would be one thing had Elthina tried and for some reason failed to use the powers she should have had as Grand CLeric, but the old bat didn't even try! (And there is at least one conspiracy theory that has a suprisingly strong amount of evidence within DA2 that suggests that Elthina was manipulating Hawke, Meredith,and the Qunari situation to benefit the Chantry all along....remember that Elthina does not know about the idol).

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

w0lfam0da1s wrote...

so to the things i underlined

I've said it once I'll say it again. Just because she holds that title it doesn't give her the athority to just do away with Meredith all together. There are steps she has to take and the last word comes from the Devine herself.

Think of the Chantry in the terms of the Catholic Chirch. The Pope is the highest and he comands the Swiss Guard and his personal soldigers that watch the Swiss Guard. Just like the Devine commands the Seekers to watch the Templars.
I only say this because to me the Chantry works on the similuar lines as the Catholic Chirch
So not to get to deep into it lets break it down simply.
Devine=Pope
Grand Cleric=Bishiop or even lower depending on size of Chirch

Being Grand Cleric gives Elthina the authority to keep her subordinate in check, and override her commands when she exceeds her authority and violates the law. I condemn Elthina for not doing her job, and expecting the Maker to intervene.

w0lfam0da1s wrote...

Now here is where it gets tricky.
Normaly the Bishop doesn't have armys to controle. Not now at least.
When (middle ages) there was a need for a army that the Bishop had some command over and something like with Meredith happened. The Bishop would send word to the Pope or the Cardnel in that region. An ivestigtion wou be held.
The Cardnel would send someone to investigate.
(Just like Leliana was sent to investigate.)
The role of the Bishop is to mainly give service and prayer and so on. Just like Grand Cleric is suspose to do. They are to keep nutural at all times unless otherwise told to step in. That has to come form the Pope himself.
In this case it would be the Devine.

It took three years for the Divine to investigate the Knight-Commander illegally seizing power over the people of Kirkwall when she isn't legally permitted to hold political power, and Leliana didn't even do a proper investigation when she finally arrived. That's a serious problem.

w0lfam0da1s wrote...

Now lets look at what she says to Hawke when the argument between Meredith and Orsino happens.(i prob. spelled his name wrong)
She tells Hawke that she isn't as powerful as people think.
Hawke_"Why do you do nothing when you are in charge of the templars and chantry"
Elthina_"You have quite the estimation of her abilities"

Which is incredibly disingenious of Elthina to say when Elthina is Meredith's direct superior, and she has already demonstrated her authority by this time when she ordered the templars to escort Orsino back to the Gallows. The templars nodded in recognition and directly followed her orders, not even waiting for the Knight-Commander's approval as Meredith screamed and ranted that Orsino should be brought back in chains. She told Meredith to be a "good girl", so Elthina can clearly exorcise her authority over Meredith when she feels like it; the problem is, she didn't while Meredith became a dictator.

w0lfam0da1s wrote...

She also state during one of the the following during a quest called justice.
 1) that she can not take side we are all the makers creatures but magic allows abuse beyond the scope of mortals ( this is if you did the quest )
2)  i can not turn on my templars on the very words of Andraste for fear no matter how justifided that fear might be ( if the quest wasn't done)

Both answers are the same in the fact that she has to remain nutrual for the time being.
So know you all know. The other thing is that she says similar things to Hawke when it comes to the Qunari.

Yeah, I remember how Elthina didn't do anything about Petrice, either, even when Hawke pointed out that her seal was being used to incite a religious war with the Qunari. Elthina was incompetent about a lot of issues during the storyline of Dragon Age II.

[Silfren]

w0lfam0da1s wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Grand Cleric Elthina was the highest ranking member of the Chantry in Kirkwall - she was Meredith's superior. The Grand Cleric's refusal to reign in the Knight-Commander when Meredith was illegally seizing power, having death squads kill people in broad daylight, and having cases of templars under Meredith's authority abusing and torturing mages, are sufficient enough for people to condemn Elthina.

so to the things i underlined

I've said it once I'll say it again. Just because she holds that title it doesn't give her the athority to just do away with Meredith all together. There are steps she has to take and the last word comes from the Devine herself.

The Chantry is clearly meant to evoke impressions of the Catholic Church, yes, but that doesn't mean the hierarchy or the breakdown of power is identical.  That said, Grand Cleric Elthina DOES have the authority to remove Meredith.  I've seen no indication anywhere that she has to get permission from the Divine before she can do that.

Remember, the Grand Cleric is the person who appointed Meredith to the post of Knight Commander in the first place.  It only stands to reason that if she can do that on her own authority, she can remove Meredith as well.

However, this has ZERO to do with Elthina's lack of action.  Even if Elthina was required to seek the Divine's approval before she took any action at all.....she, um, DIDN'T, and that's a serious failing on her part.  I'm not interested in what she has to say AFTER it apparently seems that the Divine is planning a march on Kirkwall, because Elthina had several opportunities to act BEFORE that, and did not.

Elthina saying "My, you have quite the estimation of my abilities" is meaningless.  The damned woman has all the authority she needs.  So if she lacks the power, she can bloody well appeal to the Divine to provide it.  What's so difficult about this?  Elthina is, at BEST, making excuses with that statement out of laziness or weakness, and at worst using this excuse to hide DELIBERATE inaction under the cover of frailty.

Edited to fix misattributed quotes...something I'm damned good at, apparently.

Modifié par Silfren, 25 février 2013 - 09:03 .

[w0lfam0da1s]

Let us not forget that while all was going on in Kirkwall **** was also going on in Orlias with an uprising and trying to kill the Devine. So it taking so long for the Devine to step in is reasonable. Also Meredith obeying Elthina in the streets during the heated moment with Orisno was only a show.
It was like... fine I'll bowl down at your command because we don't want the people thinking all is lost.
Also lets not forget that Meredith and Elthina have been friends for a long time. So it wouldn't be susprising that was the reason wy Meredith was able to hold Knight-Commander title.
But yet must we forget that even so things was in place for this to happen way before Hawke got to Kirkwall.
Even so with all that has happened we know that people in Merediths rank are not easly removed reguardless of how they got there.
The game does say that Elthina was trying to do things but without upsetting the nobles and making herself look like she was taking sides is hard to do.
We also don't know what happened inbetween the time Hawke went into the Deep Roads. What was going on after the Qunari war. Because we jump strait to it ends and presto no mess to clean up and we are right back to walking the streets of Kirkwall like it never happened. There was alot left out of the story that Varrik didn't tell. So we can only specalate on how things was. Don't forget that King Alistair even tell Hawke that Meredith is a threat.
Also lets not forget that Elthina made sure to tell the templars not to hurt Orisno when taking him back. She knew her power was already being challanged by them. That is a dangerous place to be for anyone.
I don't see her as the blame and I can't say she didn't try. I can see that things aren't always what we think they are. Even if we see them with our own eyes.
Also everything that was put in place so long ago with magic and Kirkwall plays a big part of what happened. The strange codex that you find along the way shines light on that.

Did she do enough to stop it maybe not.
Did she try to keep the peace. In her own way yes.
Was the nobles satisfied she was doning her job. For the most part yes up intill the crap in the street with Orisno and Meredith. However it was already to late and she knew it the moment that Meredith questioned her actions about not exicuting Orisno right then.
That was why she said peoples estimation of he power is high.
She was trying to say she has lost her power with out the nobles knowing that was what she was saying.
If you ever played poker you would know that was a tale.
Even before the last bit of hell broke out in Kirkwall King Alistair tells you that things in Orlias is not good. He jokes about it because he doesn't want it know what really is going on.

All you have to do is pay attention.
Not just to the lore because we all know that it doesn't all fit together.

I'm not saying that what you all say is wrong. I'm just saying that not all is what we think and it doesn't all work the way it should if we go by the lore.

Pay attention to how Varrik tells the story. That gives so much away. Even Casandra knows he's hiding things. At the end however she knows that even if he would of told all it wouldn't help. He told the important parts and not much more.

[MisterJB]

Right or wrong, intelligent or not is beside the point. Mages rebelled en masse, strongly implying that they didn't find their living conditions acceptable, education, clothing, food and shelter be damned.

Once an Archon outlawed slavery. He was promptly assassinated by all other Magisters. Clearly, they didn’t find the freedom of their fellow man satisfying.
People are greedy; people are selfish, people are stupid. The sole fact that some people want something is not the ultimate determinant factor when analyzing the validity or worthiness of the request.

given the high calibre of discussion from you up to this point.

Mildly insulting but thank you. Same to you, at least the complimentary part.

how DARE anyone want to live life on their own terms, and not willingly accept lifelong incarceration because the people in power think they should be imprisoned. How DARE he take issue with being locked up!

A year-long sentence of solitary confinement is not a reasonable punishment under any circumstance. Unless driving a person literally insane is actually your goal. Indeed it would be far more humane to just kill someone outright.

The point here is not whether the security measures taken by the Chantry are acceptable or not; I’m sure we’ll reach that point eventually, no need to start pilling topics up; or whether a year long sentence of solitary confinement is an appropriated punishment.
The point here is that these so called abuses visited upon Anders are largely, if not entirely, self inflicted. He flaunted the rules of the Circle six times. And we’re not talking about minor transgressions like hiding erotic novels under your pillow but becoming an Apostate. Six times. Some were killed for far less.
Was the punishment cruel? Perhaps. But the Templars were not bored and decided to ruin a mage’s… year to amuse themselves. Anders gave them reasons.
Truthfully, Anders has done more to restrict the freedoms of mages than any blood mage I’ve seen.
Tower in Ferelden, templars allow mages outside for exercise. Anders take advantage of this, no more exercise.
White Spire, templars allow mages to visit Val-Royeaux and even buy personal property. Anders commits acts of terrorism, curfew in Orlais.
This is evidently a case of “Stop Helping Me!”

While I'm on this subject, Dragon Age is NOT the real world medieval period. We DON'T see that mages "live much, much better than the great majority of people" within the fictional setting of Thedas. There is as far as I know exactly one reference to mages having it better than others in general terms, and that is a singular reference by one mage character in Asunder on the question of mages' being more educated than the average Thedosian. I don't recall any mention anywhere else of mages' lives being considered exceptionally better than others in any other respect. Funnily enough, the game is mostly silent on that point. Seems to me if it were an arguable point, it would be raised within the game, because if mages' did actually live better lives, stands to reason that Templars would make the point in defense of the system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any such occurrence.

I actually made a thread about this very issue. I feel that Hawke is unnecessarily restricted to mentioning Tevinter or demons if s/he wishes to defend the position of the templars when there are many more things to fear about magic.
Thankfully, DAI might be different since this argument was used by Ser Evangeline in “Asunder”. She calls Adrian a “foolish girl who should be grateful she has the luxury to wonder just how free she is, who has no idea how much worse things can be in the real world and who believes that mages are the only people in the world who suffer.”
I agree with Evangeline on this, of course. I readily admit that Thedas is not, exactly Medieval Europe despite the fact it is strongly inspired by; try to turn the map of Thedas upside down, it’s almost identical to a map of Europe, true story. The truth is that few people would actually wish to play a game that faithfully depicts every aspect of the medieval period. Mostly, because it was quite unpleasant; that was actually one of the things that almost turned me off The Witcher 2; the army camp was ugly, the ruins were uglier and Flotsam was the ugliest of all.
However, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still inspired by life in Medieval Europe and that we can compare the lives of the thedosians we see as well as certain elements of our own history with the conditions of the Circle.
Shall we begin with education? We are told in Asunder that most peasants can only read dwarven runes; meanwhile, the letters are just basic learning for mages in the tower.
And this is in Orlais, the only place in Thedas with an actual university.
Housing is another factor where we can see the contrast between mages and most free mundanes. Circles are, more often than not, luxurious towers with much better living conditions than, say, Lowtown; never mind Darktown; or even Redcliff.
And what about medical conditions? In the Circle, should a mage be injured or sick, there are healers available down the corridor. But as far as non-magical medicine goes, we don’t see much evidence of it beyond apothecaries with salves and the such.
Bandits and Darkspawn raids and wars are other things normal people are subject to and mages are not.
And then there is the hard manual labor which should be the norm given the lack of technological advancement.
The World of Thedas also establishes how the Nevarran Circle is quite wealthy and influential and we know that a presence of a mage in a court is common.

As for the elves of the alienage, I think their living conditions are more an argument that their lot is just as dire and in as much need of improvement as the mages', not an argument that mages have it so great. But I doubt that alienage elves would be as happy living in the Circle as you believe, given that they already deal with constant suspicion and racism, and going into the Chantry-operated Circle would face the same, only far, far worse.

I don't think that alienage elves like the reality of having their children forcibly taken away from them any more than humans do, actually (apart from those people who internalize Chantry-led fear and hatred of magic). One, parents rarely appreciate losing their children because the Church has the unchallengeable right to do so, and two, alienage elves are especially more community and family oriented, as marginalized, ghettoized people tend to be. It's just another way of the State to say "your lives don't belong to you, ever, and we can take your children at any time, without warning." That phenomenon is going to be more deeply affecting of the alienage elves than humans, for reasons I'd hope are obvious.

The lot of most city elves is actually far more dire than that of the mages given both their terrible living conditions as well as; unlike the mages who are a valuable resource and quite capable of defending themselves; a distinct lack of interest from most human lieges to keeping elves alive.
In the Circle, there is equality between human and elven mages; mages elect their own representatives in the form of the Enchanters and the living conditions are simply much better. While it seems logical that some elven parents would grief over the loss of their child, I expect if given the option to move from the alienage to the Circle, they’d jump on it.

That's fair, albeit a bit vague. Care to elaborate?

Well, I can agree with suggestions such as greater cooperation between mages and templars; for instance, mages helping hunting down maleficars, the key word being helping and not policing which could ensure more fairness; but I can’t, under any circumstance, support the suggestion that mages should be allowed to live outside the Circles,

Modifié par MisterJB, 27 février 2013 - 02:29 .

[Silfren]

w0lfam0da1s wrote...

Let us not forget that while all was going on in Kirkwall **** was also going on in Orlias with an uprising and trying to kill the Devine. So it taking so long for the Devine to step in is reasonable. Also Meredith obeying Elthina in the streets during the heated moment with Orisno was only a show.
It was like... fine I'll bowl down at your command because we don't want the people thinking all is lost.
Also lets not forget that Meredith and Elthina have been friends for a long time. So it wouldn't be susprising that was the reason wy Meredith was able to hold Knight-Commander title.

The assassination attempt on the Divine didn't happen until well AFTER the events in Kirkwall.  I'm not too clear on the timeline of Orlais' civil troubles, but I don't think it be claimed that the Divine couldn't step in because of all that.  Anyway, the question was never that the Divine couldn't step in or that she took a while in doing so, but that Elthina made no effort to enlist her help in the first place.

I agree that it's quite likely that Elthina's purpose in allowing Meredith's actions to continue unabated had more to do with political machinations than true weakness or apathy...and sure as hell nothing to do with neutrality.

[MisterJB]

You're both wrong. Gaider confirmed Dawn of the Seeker happens six years before the start of DAO. That Divine was Beatrix, not Justinia, and the trouble in Kirkwall she was referring to was the Viscount's assassination of the Knight Commander.