398 réponses à ce sujet

[Legori2010]

In order to carry a gun you have to have a specia llicensem, or you're thrown in jail.
Police are allowed to carry guns, but they usually don't carry it while off duty - not wihtout special permission.
And police offiers are usually either in hte police station, or on patrols.

Im not sure where this information came from, but without being ignorant, complete and utterly rubbish.

[Tirigon]

@Lotion: You have a point. But it depends on your Point of View. I think that the right to carry weapons is essential to ensure freedom and therefore guns should be legalized for everyone, so your comparison only proves me right that the mages should be free.

[Woman Warden 118]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Because people see the Templars as the symbol of the supposed Chantry oppression. That's why.

I personally do not see the Templars that way. There is something tragic in them. Taken as a youth, forced to be addicted to a substance that only the Chantry can provide you and ultimately losing your mind. But I think they serve a necessary function, and while they might be harsh most of the time, few of them actualy hate mages. Greagoir expresses genuine concern and sadness over the deaths of the mages and Irving. A Templar praying outside the tower praises the Templars and Mages who have died protecting the circle...etc.
The mage regulation thing is far from being perfect. But it is, for the present moment, better than the alternative of having mages unleashed.
Plus, the Templars look badass.

In game, it depends on the PC. My Libratarian Mage hates them and sees them as the symbol of tyranny over the mages and an obstacle to reaching their full potential.

Plus, the Templars look badass    lolz agreed

[FlintlockJazz]

Tirigon wrote...

@Lotion: You have a point. But it depends on your Point of View. I think that the right to carry weapons is essential to ensure freedom and therefore guns should be legalized for everyone, so your comparison only proves me right that the mages should be free.

I'll play along.  Let's say everyone has a handgun, but one group has access to assault rifles that no one else is able to get regardless of the law, and also have body armour that you are again not able to access, all due to their birth allowing them to be able to use these and not any law, and your own birth meaning that you can't use them even if you were to pick them up, would you say that you would not be comfortable with these people at least being monitored, especially if the inheritance the assault rifle power was random and so you had no way of knowing if some ganglander was going to get it, or some psychopath?

As to guns being made legal for everyone, I'm so glad you're not someone making the laws here (I hope), for one I would not want known criminals being allowed access to them.  It does not ensure freedom, those of us from countries without them are perfectly free thank you very much.

[FlintlockJazz]

Xandurpein wrote...

I think that you accuratly describe why the authorities in Fereldan wants to keep mages under control. And given the nature of Fereldan society it's not strange that the solution they have chosen, but there still remains issues about if it would be possible to protect the society in a way that feels less claustrophobic to the mages. Just as it may be bad to have "people born with a flame thrower in their head" run free as kids may be a bad thing, locking them up in prison where they can grow up frightened and resentful may not be the optimum solution either.

You can even have an end in the game where a new circle is rebuilt in Orzammar, free of chantry supervision, and it doesn't seem to end in disaster withinn the forseeable future at least. Even if it is a good thing to have people trained to dampen magic, like Templars tied to the Circle, why the obsession with keeping them separated? Why wouldn't a Templar bonding to mage be a nice idea?

If you control people through fear, then they'll grow up frightened and resentful, and frightened resentful people make bad decisions.

Ah but how would you go about setting up such a system in a medieval society?  How would you monitor them without constant surveilance?  Can you take the chance?  I doubt that Ferelden or any other country in Thedas has even considered the concept of a bill of rights, and the rights of the individual seem secondary if not completely disregarded in many situations in DA:O, so I doubt the society as a whole considers the comfort of an individual important when protecting it's safety.  While there are cases of some mages being fine, is it worth the risk that it will be fine this time, or that eventually some mages may rise up and start taking over and sacrificing people or turning others into abominations?  The reason why they keep templars and mages apart is due to the fact that you do not want them bonding to avoid conflicts of interest.  If a templar is buddies with a mage then he may overlook something he normally wouldn't or would hesitate when the mage turns into an abomination.

Just to be clear, I am not saying the Chantry is right, or that they are not trying to control the mages and templars, they clearly are like any organisation, it's just that it's also understandable why some people genuinely believe that it is necessary ingame, and that Bioware have deliberately engineered it to be morally ambiguous (damn them!), so that it's not a simple case of fighting the oppressors or defeating the demon spawn.

[Tirigon]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

@Lotion: You have a point. But it depends on your Point of View. I think that the right to carry weapons is essential to ensure freedom and therefore guns should be legalized for everyone, so your comparison only proves me right that the mages should be free.

I'll play along.  Let's say everyone has a handgun, but one group has access to assault rifles that no one else is able to get regardless of the law, and also have body armour that you are again not able to access, all due to their birth allowing them to be able to use these and not any law, and your own birth meaning that you can't use them even if you were to pick them up, would you say that you would not be comfortable with these people at least being monitored, especially if the inheritance the assault rifle power was random and so you had no way of knowing if some ganglander was going to get it, or some psychopath?

For the 1000000th time now: Control yes, oppression no.

As to guns being made legal for everyone, I'm so glad you're not someone making the laws here (I hope), for one I would not want known criminals being allowed access to them.  It does not ensure freedom, those of us from countries without them are perfectly free thank you very much.

Criminals get their guns anyways. Just look at all those cases of amok in school in Germany. The one who kills innocents always gets his gun, legal or not.
The innocent people who need to defend themselves don´t have them.

It is the most ridiculous and most stupid idea eva to forbid things because criminals abuse them. Criminals get them anyways, the innocents suffer.

[wizardryforever]

Tirigon wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

@Lotion: You have a point. But it depends on your Point of View. I think that the right to carry weapons is essential to ensure freedom and therefore guns should be legalized for everyone, so your comparison only proves me right that the mages should be free.

I'll play along.  Let's say everyone has a handgun, but one group has access to assault rifles that no one else is able to get regardless of the law, and also have body armour that you are again not able to access, all due to their birth allowing them to be able to use these and not any law, and your own birth meaning that you can't use them even if you were to pick them up, would you say that you would not be comfortable with these people at least being monitored, especially if the inheritance the assault rifle power was random and so you had no way of knowing if some ganglander was going to get it, or some psychopath?

For the 1000000th time now: Control yes, oppression no.

As to guns being made legal for everyone, I'm so glad you're not someone making the laws here (I hope), for one I would not want known criminals being allowed access to them.  It does not ensure freedom, those of us from countries without them are perfectly free thank you very much.

Criminals get their guns anyways. Just look at all those cases of amok in school in Germany. The one who kills innocents always gets his gun, legal or not.
The innocent people who need to defend themselves don´t have them.

It is the most ridiculous and most stupid idea eva to forbid things because criminals abuse them. Criminals get them anyways, the innocents suffer.

One person's control is another person's oppression.  I think just about everyone has agreed that the mages must have some form of prevention in place to deal with abominations and abuses of power (blood magic, etc).  The question is, how far is too far?  When do the ends not justify the means?  That is what this thread has become IMO.  It isn't about the Chantry, it's the popular in game belief that mages are dangerous, not just because they can kill someone with their mind alone, but because they are easily possessed.  Now that fear may be rational, maybe not.  There are people out there who are deathly afraid of flying because they fear the plane crashing, despite the fact that you are stastically more likely to be struck by lightning than to die in a plane crash.  Is that rational?  No, but that doesn't stop them from being afraid.  Fear can be a powerful thing, fear of the unknown especially.  My guess is that people in game are more afraid to die by magic than say, a sword, as if they will be more dead somehow.  Is that rational?  Of course not, but mob rule dicatates that the mages must be separated from the rest not only for society's sake, but for their own protection. 

Now the Chantry definitely play into people's perceptions, and they may or may not genuinely believe the same way.  The Chantry may have played on their fears to such an extent in order to further its own power, or to convert more reluctant heathens by including their beliefs.  (Look at the day we celebrate Christmas for a good example of this)  The Chantry isn't the cause of the problem, they just make it worse.

As off topic as gun control is, I happen to agree with Tirigon.  Laws making guns illegal won't stop criminals any more than making pot illegal stops potheads from getting it.  The only difference is that now the average citizen can't defend themselves adequately against someone with a gun.  If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Just my two cents.

[Tirigon]

wizardryforever wrote...

As off topic as gun control is, I happen to agree with Tirigon.  Laws making guns illegal won't stop criminals any more than making pot illegal stops potheads from getting it.  The only difference is that now the average citizen can't defend themselves adequately against someone with a gun.  If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Just my two cents.

Thanks. You would not by any chance be German? I wish there were more Germans thinking like me.

[wizardryforever]

Tirigon wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

As off topic as gun control is, I happen to agree with Tirigon.  Laws making guns illegal won't stop criminals any more than making pot illegal stops potheads from getting it.  The only difference is that now the average citizen can't defend themselves adequately against someone with a gun.  If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Just my two cents.

Thanks. You would not by any chance be German? I wish there were more Germans thinking like me.

No, unfortunately not.  I happen to be American, from the South actually, where my moderate views butt heads frequently with the conservative majority.

[Duncan Hills Coffee]

Templars aren't bad people, they just have a crappy duty.

[Althernai]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Probably not. That said, the templars you run across seem pretty sane. Either the Lyrium isn't that dangerous, or they aren't using enough of it (altough that one in Denerim probably snorted a bit TOO much).

I think at one point you meet an elderly one that is not quite sane anymore (is that the one you're talking about?). I suspect it accumulates in their organism so they go crazy when they're old. Of course, different people react to drugs differenly so I suspect some of them never go mad and some go mad much sooner. Withdrawal also looks very unpleasant (see the brother of one of the nobles in Arl Howe's dungeon).

Note that I do not like excessive use of lyrium myself, but it's not like it's forced upon the templars.

Are you sure? I got the impression that the constant intake of lyrium wasn't optional. Some of them take extra (and you can make around 50 sovereigns off of that), but even the ones that don't are addicted. This is how the Chantry maintains control of them.

I dont' see the system as monstrous. What's so monstrous about it?

A religious organization drugging its followers with something that will eventually cause them to go insane doesn't seem monstrous to you?

[robertthebard]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

I have read some people pointing out the Dalish as an example of how magic should be run. Well let's not forget what Zathrian did. Opened up the veil, summoned a fade spirit and bound it to the body of a wolf, created a curse and through it became immortal (pseudo blood magic as the Lady tells us). So I am not sure the Dalish are a good example, since the only mage we really know from the game is Zathrian.
@ Draxynnus. Good ideas. Allowing Mages specialised in mana manipulation to become Templars will help a great deal in leading an inclusionary policy vis a vis mages. The jury should be held by Chantry and Circle officials.

No, Zathrian did not summon a Fade spirit, nor did he sunder the veil.  The wars fought there sundered the veil, and as the Lady of the Forest tells you, he ripped her from the forest itself.  However, in so doing, he did not become an Abomination.  His curse most certainly was one, but he himself did not become one.  All of this information is readily available from simply playing the game.  Talking to the Poet Tree will give you a lot of insight into the nature of the Forest itself, and how the curse started.

"Perhaps the were's are the ones to blame, for the day she left is the day they came".  This after he explained that the Forest once had a spirit of it's own.  Zathrian is no less a monster because of that, but he is not an Abomination.  Do you see the Abomination formerly known as Uldred willing to end his own existence to end what he's doing?

[Deldarian]

As a response to the whole Abomination Lore Argument, which may have been pages back and already addressed. Uldred and the Sloth Demon are, in my opinion, two good examples of a true powerful abomination. The others seemed to be inhabited by very low level demons, even though the abominations were possessed by even desire demons and such, every demon of the same type is not the same strength.

[Realmzmaster]

We are talking about mediveal society which is largely ran by monarchies. A good king (or even a bad one) is going to protect the majority of the citizenry, even if that means oppressively supervising the minority. It it fair? No. Could it be necessary, Yes.



Religion in and of itself is not evil. People can be either evil or good. People make up an organization. As long as organizations are composed of people there is the chance of abuse. The organization does not have to be religious to be evil.



Many people think owning a gun is a determent. In my neighborhood if the criminal thinks you have a gun it simply means the criminal will shot you dead first, rob you and take your gun. Lest people think I joke. I still have the police report from when my wife and I were robbed. We were walking down the street. The criminal walk past my wife and pointed the gun in her face.

What good would a gun or any weapon do me in that instance? None. I used the best weapon I had my brain. We handed over our valuables and he let us go. After filing the police report, I got a call from a detective a week later. They had caught the guy. He was now charged with murder. He had shot a man to death that same night. He told the man to reach into his pocket and give him his wallet. The man reach for his pocket, the criminal notice a gun in the man's waistband. He shot the man dead and proceeded to rob the corspe. Now the criminal has two guns.

Yes, I know of stories where the gun saved people's lives, but I am speaking from my experience.

A gun like any weapon is only good if you get to use it.

[Xandurpein]

@Realmsmazter

I was going to write that if I ever got robbed, I sure hope the prepetrator is convinced that I am unarmed so he won't kill me just to make sure, but you said it more powerfully.

Normal people don't go around hands twitching to shoot at first sign of danger, that means that whoever really wants you harm will likely surprise you and shoot first. If you are armed with a gun it just means that they'll use more force, unless you are one of those who attack first, and then YOU are the problem. Either way, more guns don't solve problems.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 19 janvier 2010 - 10:49 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

David Gaider

Lotion

One question if you don't mind David - are abominations any more or less frequent in Daelish camps than in the Circle? How do the daelish deal with them?

They do have them -- the Dalish don't avoid spirits like the Circle does, however, and that allows them to be better able to handle malevolent spirits when they appear. But it does happen. Magic is scary stuff, even to the Dalish.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Tirigon wrote...

@Lotion: You have a point. But it depends on your Point of View. I think that the right to carry weapons is essential to ensure freedom and therefore guns should be legalized for everyone, so your comparison only proves me right that the mages should be free.

Except that you carrying a handgun won't help you agaisnt a select few who are the ONLY ones to drive tanks.

[wwwwowwww]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

wwwwowwww wrote...

Anyone who cannot see that the Chantry uses fear to control and seize power is not paying attention.
In basic terms they are the puppet masters and the Templars are there puppets.

Aren't you now trying to use fear of templars to control people and have some power?


Fear will always be present in the world - but attributing everything to it and some nefarious desire to control is really laughable. Yes, you CAN use fear to control people, but that doesn't mean you're actually doing it.

Isn't the PC using the fear of Darkspawn to gain power?

Ok apparantly you feel the need to constantly single me out. So I'll respond to please you.

1) No I'm not trying to use the fear of templars to control people. Magic is reletively not understood by the average person. What they know they have learned from the Chantry. Which has taught them that Magic is bad  bad and must be controlled. Thus the creation of Templars, what the Chantry deems the protectors and controllers of that powerful magic. Because the Chantry deems them this  and magic bad the people across Fereldon see Templars as heroes and protectors from the bad magic weilding people. This sort of power gives the Templars many libreties to do what they wish with mages.
Now how is it possible for the Templars to do this? Because the Chantry used people misunderstanding of something to make them fear it and look to the Templars as saviors from it.

2) What the PC does is quite irrelevant to the OP's question, but I shall answer you. My PC didn't try to scare anyone into helping, in fact most didn't want to help because of their own issues, I invocted the Treaty's to make them help me. I played on their sense of honor not fear.
I was also not looking to gain power, I was looking for help against an upcoming blight because that was a duty I was charged with.

[Lotion Soronarr]

So you say..I don't believe you. You are just trying to grab power...







See the problem? It doesn't matter what you are trying to do or what you think - it's what people think you are doing or are capable to do. Same thing with religion. You see the fear aspect of it and overblow it's importance. Do some religious people follow out of fear? Yes, but they are in minority.



Also, mages being dangerous is not something that is Chantry propaganda - it's TheDas historical truth.

[wwwwowwww]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

So you say..I don't believe you. You are just trying to grab power...



See the problem? It doesn't matter what you are trying to do or what you think - it's what people think you are doing or are capable to do. Same thing with religion. You see the fear aspect of it and overblow it's importance. Do some religious people follow out of fear? Yes, but they are in minority.

Also, mages being dangerous is not something that is Chantry propaganda - it's TheDas historical truth.

Pretty sure if you go through the Thedas historical books you'll find just as many dangerous non mages as well.

I also have no clue what the historical Thedas archives say since from the very start of the game before you even start character creation, it starts with "THE CHANTRY TEACHES US" and it goes into what the Chantry says mages did and how the darkspawn started.

I'm not overblowing it's importance, I think your under emphasizing it. It is because of the FEAR that the Chantry has instilled why people feel the Templars are needed. They may not be needed at all, no one knows this because people are fearful of not having the Templars there to protect them. So yeah according to the Chantry mages did something bad long ago, the masses are being judged on the actions of the few. Hmmmmm I believe in the real world we have laws against that sort of thing

[draxynnus]

Regarding the thing about weapons licensing:



Mages of the Circle ARE licensed. I doubt that there are any weapons licensing laws in the world that are as harsh as the Harrowing, nor any means of tracking license-holders as potent as the phylactories held by the Circle. Excessive interference in the Circle's affairs and observation of bathing Mages isn't necessary (and the latter doesn't seem to be effective, since Jowan and others certainly seem to have managed to learn blood magic despite this supervision.



Second, ultimately, all the licensing in the world is simply administration underpinned by a simple fact: the main thing controlling psychopaths and other despots from overthrowing civilisation is that there are others with equal or greater firepower that serve as defenders of society. The criminal with a gun is controlled by the knowledge that if they're caught by the police (or, in extremely well-armed cases, the military...) they're going to lose. The same can be true of mages - the rogue mage has Templars and other mages to fear. Oppression of the mages that are following the rules doesn't help this.



Of course, this could indeed raise the possibility of the mages staging a coup - but the same is true of any group that holds enough power. As long as the mages aren't powerful enough that they can beat everyone else on their own, would it really be a bad thing for the mages to be one more power base in the land? What if, in the case of the mages revolting against the king, they're right - and by siding with the arls and banns that agree with them, the revolution is successful with less deaths than it might otherwise have caused? The "mages in charge" spectre could still be avoided by maintaining the tradition that mages can only rule over other members of the magical community - something which, as long as they don't grow too powerful, other power bases will maintain.



Finally, on the effects of lyrium - it's strongly hinted that Cullen's behaviour, including his post-ending psychotic break, is contributed to by reacting "especially bad" to his lyrium addiction.

[Sabriana]

Althernai wrote...

A religious organization drugging its followers with something that will eventually cause them to go insane doesn't seem monstrous to you?

It is monstrous, and also shows a disdain for others' well being, and even others' lives. Simply because they are not only followers, but heavily armed forces that are allowed to rule as they see fit in their addled minds.

A good queen/king will use what she/he sees as the best weapon available to her/him in cases of power-struggles, invasions and war. The mages are powerful weapons, no doubt about it.

The chantry uses something that happened long ago, and might or might not be true, against a segment of the population, regardless whether they are innocent or guilty, good or bad. True, back in Andraste's time the mages have gotten out of control, were allowed to use magic in whatever form, and had strong political power. However, that doesn't excuse the way the mages are treated now.

Yes, they do need schooling, and training, perhaps even rigidly so, something the Tevinter mages likely never had to undergo. But to tear them away from their families? To treat them with disdain and dislike?

The disaster at the tower shows that they are ineffective, to say the least. They are also quite easy to possess, at least as easy as the mages are. The low level abominations were far, far easier to deal with for my PC than the possessed templars. In the game itself, it is also made quite clear that the blood mages were around in great numbers before the disaster occured, yet, only Jowan was found out.

The chantry also shows its true colors, meaning that they simply interpret Andraste's words how they see fit, when it becomes clear that they were the primary movers and shakers in destroying the elves' home-land. The elves marched with Andraste and were her allies in return for acquiring a home-land. However, when they refused to bow to the chantry, they fell upon the elves with violence and weapons, turning them into second class citizens in the process.

To me the words "The chantry teaches us that magic exists to be ruled by man, but never to rule over him," can be interpreted at least in three different forms.
One, the magic one mage possesses should be ruled by that mage, and not rule over that one individual mage.
Two, magic as a whole should be ruled by "the man" (chantry) and never rule over them.
Three, magic should be ruled by the chantry alone, and no mage should be able to rule over anyone, meaning no titles, or political powers.

Just like modern day religions and their origins, the writings and teachings are very ambigous, and religious leaders have always interpreted the words as it fits their own agendas.

[draxynnus]

Sabriana wrote...

The disaster at the tower shows that they are ineffective, to say the least. They are also quite easy to possess, at least as easy as the mages are. The low level abominations were far, far easier to deal with for my PC than the possessed templars. In the game itself, it is also made quite clear that the blood mages were around in great numbers before the disaster occured, yet, only Jowan was found out.

Personally, I have a suspicion that Jowan's "witness" was a blood mage, with standard practise among the bloodmage sub-Circle being to expose blood mages that refuse to subscribe to their agenda after being taught - thus serving both as a control mechanism, and to feed enough blood mages to the Templars that they don't get suspicious that there was a conspiracy in the Circle hiding the rest.

(Which is something where the no-trial system hurts the judicial system - such an arrangement would probably come out quickly if there were trials in which the witnesses had to give testimony, but won't come out at all if an accusation is an automatic death/Tranquility sentence as appeared to be the case.)

To me the words "The chantry teaches us that magic exists to be ruled by man, but never to rule over him," can be interpreted at least in three different forms.
One, the magic one mage possesses should be ruled by that mage, and not rule over that one individual mage.
Two, magic as a whole should be ruled by "the man" (chantry) and never rule over them.
Three, magic should be ruled by the chantry alone, and no mage should be able to rule over anyone, meaning no titles, or political powers.

A fourth interpretation is that it's a specific indictment against blood magic, which allows a person to be directly controlled by magic. A more general, but similar, interpretation may also cover the use of less overt forms of magical control such as the Sleep line.

Modifié par draxynnus, 20 janvier 2010 - 10:48 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

wwwwowwww wrote...
I also have no clue what the historical Thedas archives say since from the very start of the game before you even start character creation, it starts with "THE CHANTRY TEACHES US" and it goes into what the Chantry says mages did and how the darkspawn started.

The Tevinter Imperious is a Chantry fabrication?

I'm not overblowing it's importance, I think your under emphasizing it. It is because of the FEAR that the Chantry has instilled why people feel the Templars are needed. They may not be needed at all, no one knows this because people are fearful of not having the Templars there to protect them. So yeah according to the Chantry mages did something bad long ago, the masses are being judged on the actions of the few. Hmmmmm I believe in the real world we have laws against that sort of thing

Let me put it this way. David Gaider sez the templars are needed and that people aren't paranoid, because mages really are THAT dangerous.

Mages of the Circle ARE licensed. I doubt that there are any weapons
licensing laws in the world that are as harsh as the Harrowing, nor any
means of tracking license-holders as potent as the phylactories held by
the Circle. Excessive interference in the Circle's affairs and
observation of bathing Mages isn't necessary (and the latter doesn't
seem to be effective, since Jowan and others certainly seem to have
managed to learn blood magic despite this supervision.

Mages aren't guns, they are TANKS.
There is no tank licensing. There is a specific amount of firepower people are allowed to legally posses. Anything above that simply cannot be tolerated by any sane state.

[Lotion Soronarr]

What makes you think there were many blood mages in the tower?

You don't need many blood mages to start a riot - don't forget they can control others.