398 réponses à ce sujet

[borelocin]

The world needs more doped up bigots who like to set fire to people

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xandurpein wrote...
You really don't get it all do you? You only think about outcomes in terms of land and title and ascribe that to Isolde. It's not about title and nobility. I don't know if you cannot even account of a mother's love or just try to ascribe her reasons to make her look bad on purpose. The fact that she is afraid she will be separated from the child she loves doesn't even figure in your equation.

It does. But the "mothers love" doesn't excuse her. She was way too possesive. If you talk to her, you also see that the loos of title, loss of heir and the "shame" of having a mage also factored in.

wwwwowwww
Organized religions, wether in a fantasy setting or in real life seem
to have one constant. Controlling people via fear of the unknown.

Pfft. You fear organized religion because of the power it has, because of it's influence. But that influence is the product of the numbers of it's followers. The by-produict of it's size and importance in everyday life.

If insted of the church you had the "international atheist society" with just as much power, would you speak so loudly againt it? No, you wouldn't.

[Althernai]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Isolde was gambling with other peoples lives.

And lost, yes.

Given that in both worst cases you end up with Connor dead, only with the apostate one teh whole vilalge ends up dead...including the children in the village.

Definately a terrible choice to make. Personally I'd go for the Circel. I'd be devastated, but my child can still have a productive life. But for Isolde, the title and nobiltiy was too important.

You are not considering the effects of the Chantry's demonization of mages. Speak to Jowan and to Bann Teagan about Isolde. She was a very pious woman and while Connor remaining in the nobility player a part in her decision, the very fact of him becoming a mage would have been crushing to her even if she had been no more than a peasant. So as far as she is concerned, your "best" outcome of inaction is still awful. And she makes it very clear that she is willing to sacrifice anything and anyone (up to and including herself) for Connor's well-being. Not a nice position, but I suspect one that a lot of parents would take where there children are concerned.

The size of the tower in-game is smaller than it is - look at the model of the tower seen from the outside. It's HUMONGOUS. the size of hte tower is important to asses the number of mages, the living conditions and hte difficulty of actually clearing the tower.

While your point regarding media limitations is usually valid, in this case what you see is what you get:

David Gaider said:

There are no more than a few dozen mages in the Circle of Tower in Ferelden at any given time, of varying degrees of ability.

Link

Between the mages that were sent to Ostagar and died, the mages you find inside the tower and the ones that got turned to abominations, I'd say "a few dozen" is a very good description. So yes, the Tower is huge, but it's mostly uninhabited.

If mages existed in the real world, they would be treated pretty much the same.

No, they would not. The treatment of mages in Ferelden is a direct consequence of the origin of the Andrastean religion. I'm sure that some precautions would have to be taken since the mages are in fact dangerous, but the Chantry-Circle system with its permanent imprisonment and demonizing propaganda is not an inevitable outcome of that. In fact, I am absolutely certain that the Chantry makes things worse (for the reasons I've described above).

[Tirigon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
Templars killing demons and bloodmages
simply for being demons and bloodmages, and all the "imprison mages"
stuff in the tower: Bad. It´s a little like racism, just that it´s
directed against people with different skills instead of against people
with different skin color.

If mages existed in the real world, they would be treated pretty much the same.
You know why? Imagine if some people are born with a flame thrower grafted to their head, and can explode like a A-bomb if the loose control.
Would you ever feel safe if such people were to roam the streets unckecked? Would you even take walks with you children knowing that a person like that is in the park?

Nobody is saying that the resctrictions upon the mages are "good". But they are necessary.

You ignored the first part of my post. I CLEARLY stated that those mages committing crimes should be killed, but they can use their magic to do good, too. And yes, I WOULD feel save, knowing that most of the guys with Flamethrowers grafted to their heads are decent persons.

Btw, this reminds me of X-Men somehow. Needless to say that I think Magneto was right...

[Tirigon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

wwwwowwww
Organized religions, wether in a fantasy setting or in real life seem
to have one constant. Controlling people via fear of the unknown.

Pfft. You fear organized religion because of the power it has, because of it's influence. But that influence is the product of the numbers of it's followers. The by-produict of it's size and importance in everyday life.

If insted of the church you had the "international atheist society" with just as much power, would you speak so loudly againt it? No, you wouldn't.

IN MY EXPERIENCE:
Atheists are - usually, at least - decent people with the ability to think. Religious people are  - usually - stupid and don´t think on their own. So there is reason to fear and hate religions, but no reasons to fear atheists.
And yes, I´m aware that there are ****** atheists and intelligent religious people, too. That´s why I said "usually".

Modifié par Tirigon, 18 janvier 2010 - 09:16 .

[Xandurpein]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...
You really don't get it all do you? You only think about outcomes in terms of land and title and ascribe that to Isolde. It's not about title and nobility. I don't know if you cannot even account of a mother's love or just try to ascribe her reasons to make her look bad on purpose. The fact that she is afraid she will be separated from the child she loves doesn't even figure in your equation.

It does. But the "mothers love" doesn't excuse her. She was way too possesive. If you talk to her, you also see that the loos of title, loss of heir and the "shame" of having a mage also factored in.

Her motherly concerns don't excuse her actions, but it explains them, and the whole argument was if the chantry/templar system is so restrictive that it creates problems too. If the system had been more humane and not forced a mother to give up her child, then maybe mothers won't try to hide their child from the system like Isolde did. Something you simply dismissed as inconsequential, because Isolede was just "stupid".

Modifié par Xandurpein, 18 janvier 2010 - 12:19 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Althernai wrote...

You are not considering the effects of the Chantry's demonization of mages. Speak to Jowan and to Bann Teagan about Isolde. She was a very pious woman and while Connor remaining in the nobility player a part in her decision, the very fact of him becoming a mage would have been crushing to her even if she had been no more than a peasant. So as far as she is concerned, your "best" outcome of inaction is still awful. And she makes it very clear that she is willing to sacrifice anything and anyone (up to and including herself) for Connor's well-being. Not a nice position, but I suspect one that a lot of parents would take where there children are concerned.

"Becoming"? He already is a mage. She was denying reality.
Many young mages get killed because they don't know how to control the megic they wield, get killed by angry mobs or get possesed. Is this a "better" outcome you speak off?

I could understand her action if it was a sudden discovery and she had to make a decision instantly. But she had plenty of time to think it trough. Even when Connor gets possesed and kills half the village she still keep endangering more people by keeping quiet.

No, they would not. The treatment of mages in Ferelden is a direct consequence of the origin of the Andrastean religion. I'm sure that some precautions would have to be taken since the mages are in fact dangerous, but the Chantry-Circle system with its permanent imprisonment and demonizing propaganda is not an inevitable outcome of that. In fact, I am absolutely certain that the Chantry makes things worse (for the reasons I've described above).

The treatment of mages is a direct consequence of mages trying to take over the world.
The Tevinter Imperium and it's slavery and tyranical ways are not a Chantry fabrication.

[Tirigon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The treatment of mages is a direct consequence of mages trying to take over the world.
The Tevinter Imperium and it's slavery and tyranical ways are not a Chantry fabrication.

If the mages are trying to take over the world, so is the Chantry. Andraste was not really better than Tevinter, afaik.

[Xandurpein]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The treatment of mages is a direct consequence of mages trying to take over the world.
The Tevinter Imperium and it's slavery and tyranical ways are not a Chantry fabrication.

This is probably a correct description of what happened. It doesn't make it any more humane, viewed from modern elightened view, but it makes sense within the historical setting in Fereldan.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Tirigon wrote...
You ignored the first part of my post. I CLEARLY stated that those mages committing crimes should be killed, but they can use their magic to do good, too. And yes, I WOULD feel save, knowing that most of the guys with Flamethrowers grafted to their heads are decent persons.

Btw, this reminds me of X-Men somehow. Needless to say that I think Magneto was right...

Just remind me to stay far away when one of those "decent persons" gets drunk and burns the whole bar down or nukes the whole city.
Being burnt alive is a terrible way to go. Being stabbed to death by your own blood-controlled child is also a terrible way to go.


I find it funny that hte X-Men were supposed to be a alegory of homosexuality, yet the mutant there and the homosexuals raise completley different questions and concerns.

[Tirigon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Just remind me to stay far away when one of those "decent persons" gets drunk and burns the whole bar down or nukes the whole city.
Being burnt alive is a terrible way to go. Being stabbed to death by your own blood-controlled child is also a terrible way to go.


I find it funny that hte X-Men were supposed to be a alegory of homosexuality, yet the mutant there and the homosexuals raise completley different questions and concerns.

Apparently you don´t know anything about magic. Magic is ALL about control, self-control included. A mage would be unable to cast while drunk.

Of course a mage COULD decide to use his powers for murdering others, but then......

It doesn´t matter if you are killed by a spell or by a bullet or a knife. So if you think this is a reason to fear mages you really need to fear everyone.

[Xandurpein]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
You ignored the first part of my post. I CLEARLY stated that those mages committing crimes should be killed, but they can use their magic to do good, too. And yes, I WOULD feel save, knowing that most of the guys with Flamethrowers grafted to their heads are decent persons.

Btw, this reminds me of X-Men somehow. Needless to say that I think Magneto was right...

Just remind me to stay far away when one of those "decent persons" gets drunk and burns the whole bar down or nukes the whole city.
Being burnt alive is a terrible way to go. Being stabbed to death by your own blood-controlled child is also a terrible way to go.


I find it funny that hte X-Men were supposed to be a alegory of homosexuality, yet the mutant there and the homosexuals raise completley different questions and concerns.

That is your interpretation of X-men, but personally I don't see how homosexuality raises any concern at all. Bigotry against homosexuality is a concern, but not homosexuality itself, or was that just a poor choice of words on your behalf?

[draxynnus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Someone mentioned the Circle policing themselves. Possible, but very risky. {snip}

Which is why I wasn't suggesting disbanding the Templars - I specifically stated that one reason for keeping the Templars around was to have a fallback defense if the Circle as a whole did go corrupt.

However, you don't need to have the Templars dictating policy regarding individual apprentices to the Circle, to the point of demanding that individual apprentices be Tranquilised on the mere suspicion of possibly being involved in blood magic. If you dob Jowan in to Irving, you'll find that even though he largely cooperates with the Templars, he too chafes under their interference - he hints that he already knows about Jowan's plans (although I'm not convinced he was convinced that Jowan was guilty of blood magic), but he's allowing them to go along so as to implicate Lily as well. Since Irving feels he can do nothing to help Jowan, he wants to get a measure of revenge by making sure that one of the Chantry's own shares Jowan's fall. This is the sort of politicking that the system leads to - and may in fact be one of the milder consequences of the system. More autonomy would likely to lead to less mages who are resentful of the system or who are driven to take desperate actions, leading to less problems overall.

I repeat - keep Templars around, both to support the mages in fighting malificar and other magical threats and to ensure that someone can take on the Circle if they did go bad. However, this can be a matter of having checks and balances between equal powers, rather than putting the Templars in a position of power over the mages.

Tirigon wrote...

Atheists are - usually, at least - decent people with the ability to think. Religious people are  - usually - stupid and don´t think on their own. So there is reason to fear and hate religions, but no reasons to fear atheists.
And yes, I´m aware that there are ****** atheists and intelligent religious people, too. That´s why I said "usually".

As an agnostic myself, that statement just made me cringe. Most people I know who are religious are no more (or less) intrinsically intelligent or bigotted then those who aren't. Yes, there are a few bad apples and yes, the scum has a tendency to float to the top, but isn't that true in pretty much any group of people?

Modifié par draxynnus, 18 janvier 2010 - 01:13 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

Tirigon wrote...

Atheists are - usually, at least - decent people with the ability to think. Religious people are  - usually - stupid and don´t think on their own. So there is reason to fear and hate religions, but no reasons to fear atheists.
And yes, I´m aware that there are ****** atheists and intelligent religious people, too. That´s why I said "usually".

Incorrect. I find the reality is actually the opposite...or is it?
Your caling religious peopel stupid is offensive and inflamatory. I've got a good mind to report your post, but I won't.
Must be because I'm a stupid religious person, no?

[Tirigon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Incorrect. I find the reality is actually the opposite...or is it?
Your caling religious peopel stupid is offensive and inflamatory. I've got a good mind to report your post, but I won't.
Must be because I'm a stupid religious person, no?

It´s neither offensive nor inflamatory, it´s simply what I have experienced so far.

Besides, most terrible things in human history would not have happened without religion.  So this sort of proves my point: Without religion the world would definitely be off better.

[Tirigon]

draxynnus wrote...

As an agnostic myself, that statement just made me cringe. Most people I know who are religious are no more (or less) intrinsically intelligent or bigotted then those who aren't. Yes, there are a few bad apples and yes, the scum has a tendency to float to the top, but isn't that true in pretty much any group of people?

Well, if they are NOT bigotted then they are not truly religious, probably. A firm faith DEMANDS intolerance towards others and a lack of thinking.
Take the Catholic church as example: They regard their fate as the only true faith ( that is, if you accept other religions you are unfaithful) and think the Pope was highest authority in religious matters (so having an opinion that differs from his is forbidden = no own thinking allowed).

[Althernai]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

"Becoming"? He already is a mage. She was denying reality.
Many young mages get killed because they don't know how to control the megic they wield, get killed by angry mobs or get possesed. Is this a "better" outcome you speak off?

He is a child with the potential to become a mage. If all he learns is that magic is dangerous and how to hide that he is capable of it and not do it, I don't think it makes sense to call him a mage. I also don't think angry mobs would be much of a problem in this case. Possession was what she was gambling with and lost, but that gamble could have gone her way if the external circumstances were different.

The treatment of mages is a direct consequence of mages trying to take over the world.

That was over a thousand years ago. There is no way it would even have been a factor if it had not become one of the cornerstones of the Chantry's worldview.

[Erakleitos]

No one likes religious freaks in heavy armor

[Lotion Soronarr]

Xandurpein wrote...
That is your interpretation of X-men, but personally I don't see how homosexuality raises any concern at all. Bigotry against homosexuality is a concern, but not homosexuality itself, or was that just a poor choice of words on your behalf?

What I mean is that mutans can level buildings, burn peopel and wipe their minds. Homosexuals can't. So the allegory fails since a critical aspect doesn't match.

However, you don't need to
have the Templars dictating policy regarding individual apprentices to
the Circle, to the point of demanding that individual apprentices be
Tranquilised on the mere suspicion of possibly being involved in blood
magic. If you dob Jowan in to Irving, you'll find that even though he
largely cooperates with the Templars, he too chafes under their
interference - he hints that he already knows about Jowan's plans
(although I'm not convinced he was convinced that Jowan was guilty of
blood magic), but he's allowing them to go along so as to implicate
Lily as well. Since Irving feels he can do nothing to help Jowan, he
wants to get a measure of revenge by making sure that one of the
Chantry's own shares Jowan's fall. This is the sort of politicking that
the system leads to - and may in fact be one of the milder consequences
of the system. More autonomy would likely to lead to less mages who are
resentful of the system or who are driven to take desperate actions,
leading to less problems overall.

Sicen Jowan realyl was a blood mage, then the tranquilization wasn't based on suspicions. There aren't really many tranqul in the Circle. That alone tells you that they don't tranquilize often.

Irwing was sloppy. How he didn't think to remove books on blood magic before is rather stupid.
AFAIK, Irwing thinks Lily is partilly reposnsible for Jowan trying to escape - and it is indeed her plan. So him not wanting her to get away unpunished is not surprising. After all, tehy got no evidence against her up to that point.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Althernai wrote...

The treatment of mages is a direct consequence of mages trying to take over the world.

That was over a thousand years ago. There is no way it would even have been a factor if it had not become one of the cornerstones of the Chantry's worldview.

The fact it happened thousands of years ago doesn't mean it couldn't happen again. So it should always be a factor to keep in mind.

@ Tirigon. I would love to tell you how wrong you are, but it's off-topic and I don't want to derail the thread more than it has already been derailed.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Tirigon wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...


Incorrect. I find the reality is actually the opposite...or is it?
Your caling religious peopel stupid is offensive and inflamatory. I've got a good mind to report your post, but I won't.
Must be because I'm a stupid religious person, no?

It´s neither offensive nor inflamatory, it´s simply what I have experienced so far.

Besides, most terrible things in human history would not have happened without religion.  So this sort of proves my point: Without religion the world would definitely be off better.

Are you now trying to start a flame war? Now I'm seriously pissed.

90% of all atheist I ran into the internet were biggoted, obnoxious morons. Do you see me going around, telling that most of tham are intelectual inferiors to the superior religious people? No. Because, unlike you, I realise that that would be incredibly inccorect and incredibly stupid.
The human history? Wrong. Wrong. Nothing you say can prove your point, since it's improvable. The terrible things in human history have been caused by human greed and stupidity, not religion.

So shut your piehole lest the flood of crap spewing forth from it dirties the whole thread.

[Tirigon]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Are you now trying to start a flame war? Now I'm seriously pissed.

90% of all atheist I ran into the internet were biggoted, obnoxious morons. Do you see me going around, telling that most of tham are intelectual inferiors to the superior religious people? No. Because, unlike you, I realise that that would be incredibly inccorect and incredibly stupid.

I have other experiences, but if this is  true, feel free to say so. I don´t mind.

The human history? Wrong. Wrong. Nothing you say can prove your point, since it's improvable. The terrible things in human history have been caused by human greed and stupidity, not religion.

Inquisition.
Crusades.
Jihad.

Want me to continue?
Sure, all of that is caused by greed and stupidity, too. But it would be impossible if religion didn´t give the excuses for it.

So shut your piehole lest the flood of crap spewing forth from it dirties the whole thread.

I think YOU are trying to start a flamewar, not me. But if you like, ok. I play DotA, I´m experienced in flamingB)



@KnightofPhoenix: Feel free to PM me. I think unlike Lotion you might even have valid arguments, though I can´t imagine which that might be.

[draxynnus]

Sicen Jowan realyl was a blood mage, then the tranquilization wasn't based on suspicions. There aren't really many tranqul in the Circle. That alone tells you that they don't tranquilize often.

Irwing was sloppy. How he didn't think to remove books on blood magic before is rather stupid.
AFAIK, Irwing thinks Lily is partilly reposnsible for Jowan trying to escape - and it is indeed her plan. So him not wanting her to get away unpunished is not surprising. After all, tehy got no evidence against her up to that point.

As I recall, the evidence against Jowan was pretty flimsy, and Irving states it in a matter that suggests he believes it's flimsy (One unnamed witness not subjected to cross-examination? Could just be someone bearing a grudge...), but the Templars have made their decision and there's nothing he can do about it. The fact that he turned out to have studied blood magic after all may have been coincidence, or we may have got cause and effect turned around (he may have learned blood magic as a last resort when realised he was being held back from his Harrowing).

Plus, Word of God is that there's nothing intrinsically evil about blood magic - and unlike the PC, Jowan seems to have acquired it without dealing with a demon.

[robertthebard]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Althernai wrote...

The treatment of mages is a direct consequence of mages trying to take over the world.

That was over a thousand years ago. There is no way it would even have been a factor if it had not become one of the cornerstones of the Chantry's worldview.

The fact it happened thousands of years ago doesn't mean it couldn't happen again. So it should always be a factor to keep in mind.

@ Tirigon. I would love to tell you how wrong you are, but it's off-topic and I don't want to derail the thread more than it has already been derailed.

People have also freely elected men into office that the world views as irredeemably evil, so perhaps people shouldn't be allowed to vote?  What I really find amusing is the contradiction here about autonomous mages, despite the fact that Anora or Alistair will build a Circle named for the PC, and make it autonomous.  Yes, mages policing mages.  I am already reading "but that's not wise".  Well, either it's wise, or Alistair is as big a fool as I imagine him to be.  It's one or the other.

The arguement that the Templars exist to prevent what happened to the Circle falls flat, since they were unable to prevent it, and as somebody mentioned previously, it's happened 14 other times in history.  (Citation needed, both for number of times, and why.)  However, they were an abysmal failure at it in the one event that we have readily available.  Since saying that the Tevintar Imperium is the motivation for the control, despite it being centuries ago, then the fact that it fails miserably means that it's not effective, other than for a method to put all the eggs in one basket so an army of Templars can wipe them out at will.  The fact that we have Dalish mages with no reports of Dalish Abominations means that the Chantry really isn't needed to prevent them.  Especially considering that the Chantry can't prevent them.

Regarding the derail of Religious Bigotry going on, I do know religious people that fit that stereotype, and non religious people that do too.  However, religion is created by man as a means to control people.  Faith is of the God of one's understanding.  Religion cannot exist without Faith, but Faith most certainly can exist without Religion.  Note here that all Religions are organized, by definition.  There are good and bad people in everything, regardless of what religion they may profess to belong to.  It is still true, however, that more blood has been spilled in the name of one God or another than for any other reason.

Article

[Tirigon]

robertthebard wrote...


Regarding the derail of Religious Bigotry going on, I do know religious people that fit that stereotype, and non religious people that do too.  However, religion is created by man as a means to control people.  Faith is of the God of one's understanding.  Religion cannot exist without Faith, but Faith most certainly can exist without Religion.  Note here that all Religions are organized, by definition.  There are good and bad people in everything, regardless of what religion they may profess to belong to.  It is still true, however, that more blood has been spilled in the name of one God or another than for any other reason.

Tirigon approves.

I´d even go a step further and question the need for a god, but as faith is, unlike religion, not bad by itself and a private matter, I´ll spare us the discussion.