1082 réponses à ce sujet

[DKJaigen]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

DKJaigen wrote...

I've already pointed out that this is also to prevent the abuse of
magic. That's something no statistics can argue away: a mage versus the
vast majority of non-mages isn't a fair fight. If a mage wants to take
something from a non-mage, including his child, that mage can't really
be stopped. Having a Circle doesn't completely solve this problem
either, but it mitigates it a lot.

Besides which, you're leaving
out my argument that when a mage goes abomination in a Circle, they're
surrounded by Templars and other mages. Who is a mage surrounded by when
they go abomination in the middle of a city? Town guards at best, and
they're really not capable of taking down abominations.

Templars are about as usefull as city guards in that regard. They cannot handle demons and abominations. look at the fereldan tower and see how easily the templars where slaughterd or the many other cases the templars fail when demons and abominations are involved. this is logical of course because simply put most templars are only trained to deal with circle mages but anything outside that narrow specialisation is something they cannot handle.

Mages are of course better at this but if they get overwhelmed as well then your in some deep ****. because the demons suddenly have plenty of mages or mage corpses they can possess. an abomination army is far worse then a couple of death civilians each year it simply a risk you need to deal with.

Uhm, if you take into account the Pride Demon codex entry, all Templars do get trainning on how to fight demons and abominations. They don't however get trainning, at fighting an entire army of abominations, who unexpectedly attacks. The Ferelden Circle is not an example of Templar failure, since they did manage to contain the situation.
Mages on the other hand, are the absolute worst thing you can send to fight a demon or abomination, since if they fail, you will just have empowered the demon or abomination. There is also the fact that the mage got no specialized spells, that are extra effective against demons or anything like that.

Nope Wynne contained the situation. And if they cannot handle an abomination army thats their problem. 

[Shadowvalker]

Kirkwall's Chantry and Templar work ethic:

We alienate magic - though it flourishes in Thedas and is a commonly occurring phenomenon.

We break into people's homes. Steals their children and drags them off to the circle. Threatening families and prohibits them from all contact with their children.

We demean people with magical abilities - put them in jail but calls it a "school".

We invoke us divine right to protect the people - but mages are not part of the people.

We claim mages are dangerous - that's why we condemn them unreservedly and evidence of actual crimes are not necessary.

We do this because we fear the unknown

Maker Command we follow


PS. Do not visit "The Blooming Rose" - a waste of money. There are so many "cute" magicians here in the circle - all for your pleasure!

[Asdrubael Vect]

Shadowvalker wrote...

Kirkwall's Chantry and Templar work ethic:

We alienate magic - though it flourishes in Thedas and is a commonly occurring phenomenon.

We break into people's homes. Steals their children and drags them off to the circle. Threatening families and prohibits them from all contact with their children.

We demean people with magical abilities - put them in jail but calls it a "school".

We invoke us divine right to protect the people - but mages are not part of the people.

We claim mages are dangerous - that's why we condemn them unreservedly and evidence of actual crimes are not necessary.

We do this because we fear the unknown

Maker Command we follow


PS. Do not visit "The Blooming Rose" - a waste of money. There are so many "cute" magicians here in the circle - all for your pleasure!

this is time for retribution and Orlais with their Chantry and Templars will fall

Qun would be the next...

Modifié par Dark Korsar, 01 juin 2013 - 12:36 .

[Permoras]

I can only hope that developers won't take any plot related insinuations, speculations and wishes of their "fans" and that they will keep their artistic integrity. Nowadays people seems to think that they are allowed to impose their ideas and beliefs on everyone (developers included) just because they have money. Don't get me wrong, ideas and suggestions are nice, but not when it comes to the plot. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Bye.

[Lotion Soronarr]

IanPolaris wrote...

The child is being taken away from a mage group to (presumably) a non-mage group.  That's genocide.  For that matter the practice of taking away children as young as six away from their families (generally non-mages) to be with the mages is also genocide.

-Polaris

Genocide is an attempt to stomp out of kill memebers of a specific ethnicity.

Circles definately arne't that and mages aren't a ethnicity to begin with. I don't think one can stomp mages out, given that being born a mage seems random-ish.

[In Exile]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Genocide is an attempt to stomp out of kill memebers of a specific ethnicity.

Well, yes and no. What the Chantry does with the Circles certainly can make out the actus reus of the offence of genoicide. 

For example, "causing serious bodily or mental harm", "prevention of births" and "forcible transfer of children" all would fall under the act of genocide. It also needn't be an ethnic group - it could also be national groups (e.g. all Tevinters), racial groups (which is what mages probably would fall under) or religious groups (which is what all the anti-Chantry types are guilty of). 

The problem is the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part", i.e., the mens rea. But you could argue the "in part" aspect of the definition. It also depends what kind of mens rea you need for genocide. 

At any rate, I would say calling the RoA at least qualifies as genocide, even if the transfer of children isn't done with intent to destroy or the Circle system itself fails to meet the definition. 

Modifié par In Exile, 01 juin 2013 - 02:21 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

MisterJB wrote...
If the child proves to be a mage, then they are returned to the mages, their group. If they are not mages, they belong with the non-mages in the first place.
Any child taken to the Circle was a mage, meaning s/he did not belong with his/her non-mages parents.

A page ago, you were arguing mages represented a different group than non-mages. Now, conveniently, they are the same thing.

Indeed.

Polaris also forgets that there are systems in palce where people are contained.

Quaranteens. Camps for POW's. Mental institutions (some still work the old way).


Also, in ANY system, even in the most democratic and advanced countries, if you read tje newspapers you will find stories of abuse and corruption. It happens today...in our "advanced and enlightened" societies. With our modern survailance and oversight methods...our modern judicial system... our science.

And then some people act shocked - SHOCKED - when such things happen in TheDas.
Templars are continously being held up to impossible and unreasonable standards.

[Lotion Soronarr]

In either case the evidence presented doesn't even come close to justifying a gross loss of basic civil rights to a group of people that (inherently) have done nothing wrong. That's the basic problem with the entire conflict, and that's why the issue isn't nearly as 'morally grey" as Bioware wants us to think (and why they've had to cheat to make it seem so).

-Polaris

Good.
Then you agree BioWare should present us with more evidence of how mages are dangeours in DA:I



Also, you dont buy anything without proof? Good, we don't buy aqnything you say either.

And your logic on Circles is basicly: "mother doens't want to give up child - PROOF THAT THE CIRCLES DON'T WORK!"
It's so hirribly broken it's not even funny.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 01 juin 2013 - 02:32 .

[IanPolaris]

Sir JK wrote...

Also... remember that even if the circles cannot be objectivibly defended, there's also a burden of proof on advocating dismantling it to prove that it's removal won't have negative consequences. So really, both sides have a burden of proof on them.

If this were right after DAA or even DA2, I'd agree.  In fact if you'll recall my posts from a couple of years ago, I never advocating removing the circle system all at once.  Instead I advocated phasing it out while increasing magical regulation and security and phasing that responsibility to the various states.

However, right now the question of whether or not the circle system should be eliminated is moot and it has been since the events of Asunder.  The old Chantry circle system is dead.  Thus there is no longer any burden of proof for removing it.  It's a fait accompli.

The real question is what system should be put in place to regulate magic and mages afterwards.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The child is being taken away from a mage group to (presumably) a non-mage group.  That's genocide.  For that matter the practice of taking away children as young as six away from their families (generally non-mages) to be with the mages is also genocide.

-Polaris

Genocide is an attempt to stomp out of kill memebers of a specific ethnicity.

Circles definately arne't that and mages aren't a ethnicity to begin with. I don't think one can stomp mages out, given that being born a mage seems random-ish.

Taking away children from a group and putting them into other groups is specifically laid out by the UN as a form of genocide.  Look it up.

-Polaris

[LobselVith8]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

kinderschlager wrote...

why i will never support the templars (that and as a dalish elf, i have an axe to grind over the destruction of our second home) can you say tainted ashes? 

Funny, my Dalish Elf with an axe to grind took her pinch and left the rest be. She killed Genitivi so that the Chantry couldn't profit by him, of course, but why does being Dalish merit defiling the Ashes of someone who was actually good to the elves?

My Surana Warden commented to Velanna that Andraste used their people, so I don't think everyone has a positive opinion on Andraste or her decision to ally with Shartan and his people, and there are more than a few reasons why someone might decide to destroy the Ashes.

The choices provided in the "Urn of the Sacred Ashes" were okay, even if it didn't make much sense for certain Wardens to look for Genitivi in the first place. I'm still curious as to what reasons will be provided for why a mage protagonist would want to join an organization that is named after the ancient proto-templars, and I hope we aren't forced into Petrice or Meredith scenarios where we're forced to work for the Chantry or the Templar Order for certain parts of the storyline. Hopefully, it won't be like Dragon Age II, where we're railroaded into killingl mages even if our protagonist is pro-mage.

[DKJaigen]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Good.
Then you agree BioWare should present us with more evidence of how mages are dangeours in DA:I

I think they will but not in a way  you will consider pleasant.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

IanPolaris wrote...

Sir JK wrote...

Also... remember that even if the circles cannot be objectivibly defended, there's also a burden of proof on advocating dismantling it to prove that it's removal won't have negative consequences. So really, both sides have a burden of proof on them.

If this were right after DAA or even DA2, I'd agree.  In fact if you'll recall my posts from a couple of years ago, I never advocating removing the circle system all at once.  Instead I advocated phasing it out while increasing magical regulation and security and phasing that responsibility to the various states.

However, right now the question of whether or not the circle system should be eliminated is moot and it has been since the events of Asunder.  The old Chantry circle system is dead.  Thus there is no longer any burden of proof for removing it.  It's a fait accompli.

The real question is what system should be put in place to regulate magic and mages afterwards.

-Polaris

Oh, well if we're starting with the Circles being gone and needed to be replaced, my idea for this would be sort of the same, only not run by the Chantry. A lot of the problems you cite (parents not being allowed to visit, the greatly increased risk of abominations, nobody wanting their child to go there) could be solved or mitigated by not having manophobic nutjobs run the mage asylum.

[IanPolaris]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Oh, well if we're starting with the Circles being gone and needed to be replaced, my idea for this would be sort of the same, only not run by the Chantry. A lot of the problems you cite (parents not being allowed to visit, the greatly increased risk of abominations, nobody wanting their child to go there) could be solved or mitigated by not having manophobic nutjobs run the mage asylum.

I would say, "Mandatory Education and careful regulation", absolutely yes.  Mandatory Isolation, no.  I also would consider magical crime to be automatically aggravated and deserving of more punishement and specialised imprisonment (I have zero issues with imprisoning even harshly magical criminals).

At the very least, the basic premise that a mage is a person like any other and due the consideration and rights of a person like any other should be a foundational principle with any system that eventually is found.

-Polaris

Modifié par IanPolaris, 01 juin 2013 - 06:04 .

[BlueMagitek]

You're definitely right. Mages should have the right to be legally raped by a Chevalier just like any other person.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Oh, well if we're starting with the Circles being gone and needed to be replaced, my idea for this would be sort of the same, only not run by the Chantry. A lot of the problems you cite (parents not being allowed to visit, the greatly increased risk of abominations, nobody wanting their child to go there) could be solved or mitigated by not having manophobic nutjobs run the mage asylum.

I would say, "Mandatory Education and careful regulation", absolutely yes.  Mandatory Isolation, no.  I also would consider magical crime to be automatically aggravated and deserving of more punishement and specialised imprisonment (I have zero issues with imprisoning even harshly magical criminals).

At the very least, the basic premise that a mage is a person like any other and due the consideration and rights of a person like any other should be a foundational principle with any system that eventually is found.

-Polaris

Unlike the Chantry, I don't dispute that mages are human. (Even the elven ones, since according to the scientific definition of species elves and humans are the same one.) So in accordance with their human rights, I'd be willing to allow mages to spend time away from the Circle once they've proven themselves to be minimal risks for getting posessed. (Sort of like Wynne and the other mages who faced the Blight were allowed to go. Heck, Wynne seems to spend more time out of the Circle than in it, which is fine since she doesn't go raving nuts and kill innocent people.) And the religious claptrap that made Keili want to die? The bucket-helmets that make Templars seem inhuman rather than like relatable, reasonable authority figures? Basically everything that happened in Kirkwall Circle? All that has to go. But its absolutely reasonable to want to isolate mages who have not proven themselves to be minimal risks, unless there is shown to be some other way (which there should be an option to look into next game, since we're probably going to be called on to solve this dispute. The reason I don't have stats? We're never given them. So for all we know, the countries that don't have Circles could be living in fear 24/7, or they could be fine. We should really be allowed to look into that. In the absence of that evidence, however, I'd say a Circle that is run sanely is probably the best move.)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 01 juin 2013 - 06:24 .

[BlueMagitek]

^ But River, it appears that, from DA:O, Senior Enchanters more or less fit that definition anyway. Wynne just needed permission from Irving to go, Gregoire didn't get a say at all. She didn't even need a Templar escort, nor did her herbologist rival in DA:A.

[Sir JK]

IanPolaris wrote...

If this were right after DAA or even DA2, I'd agree.  In fact if you'll recall my posts from a couple of years ago, I never advocating removing the circle system all at once.  Instead I advocated phasing it out while increasing magical regulation and security and phasing that responsibility to the various states.

However, right now the question of whether or not the circle system should be eliminated is moot and it has been since the events of Asunder.  The old Chantry circle system is dead.  Thus there is no longer any burden of proof for removing it.  It's a fait accompli.

The real question is what system should be put in place to regulate magic and mages afterwards.

-Polaris

Haha, true.
Whether the circles were better than the alternative or not is moot since there's no going back now. And I guess we're about to see whether unregulated mages during a time of crisis is a bad idea or not. If the Chantry was right, there's going to be a lot of abominations.

Personally, I kind of hoping for no compelling evidence either way.
I fully expect that the conclusion will be a fixed one and that it will, at least, be presented as the least bad alternative. But I hope some other alternatives will be suggested, even if not actualized and that these will not be proven as infeasible impossibilities.

[IanPolaris]

BlueMagitek wrote...

^ But River, it appears that, from DA:O, Senior Enchanters more or less fit that definition anyway. Wynne just needed permission from Irving to go, Gregoire didn't get a say at all. She didn't even need a Templar escort, nor did her herbologist rival in DA:A.

Gregoire allowed Irving to have that say.

-Polaris

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

BlueMagitek wrote...

^ But River, it appears that, from DA:O, Senior Enchanters more or less fit that definition anyway. Wynne just needed permission from Irving to go, Gregoire didn't get a say at all. She didn't even need a Templar escort, nor did her herbologist rival in DA:A.

And Amaranthine isn't in ruins. So they can be allowed that much liberty.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 01 juin 2013 - 06:26 .

[IanPolaris]

BlueMagitek wrote...

You're definitely right. Mages should have the right to be legally raped by a Chevalier just like any other person.

Orlesion culture is all messed up in ways that don't involve magic.  Some Orlesian laws and customs are simply immoral by any standard.  That does not diminish my overall point.

-Polaris

[BlueMagitek]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

^ But River, it appears that, from DA:O, Senior Enchanters more or less fit that definition anyway. Wynne just needed permission from Irving to go, Gregoire didn't get a say at all. She didn't even need a Templar escort, nor did her herbologist rival in DA:A.

And Amaranthine isn't in ruins. So they can be allowed that much liberty.

That is the point, Senior Enchanters already seem to have that much liberty. 

IanPolaris wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

You're definitely right. Mages should have the right to be legally raped by a Chevalier just like any other person.

Orlesion
culture is all messed up in ways that don't involve magic.  Some
Orlesian laws and customs are simply immoral by any standard.  That does
not diminish my overall point.

-Polaris

You're asking for Mages to be treated like everyone else, but no one in Thedas is treated as you describe.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

IanPolaris wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

You're definitely right. Mages should have the right to be legally raped by a Chevalier just like any other person.

Orlesion culture is all messed up in ways that don't involve magic.  Some Orlesian laws and customs are simply immoral by any standard.  That does not diminish my overall point.

-Polaris

The fact remains that it's a really good idea to keep mages away from situations like this. Especially the ones who have not proven themselves minimal risks to go abomination. (Do not mistake that as me being concerned for the chevalier.)

[IanPolaris]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

BlueMagitek wrote...

You're definitely right. Mages should have the right to be legally raped by a Chevalier just like any other person.

Orlesion culture is all messed up in ways that don't involve magic.  Some Orlesian laws and customs are simply immoral by any standard.  That does not diminish my overall point.

-Polaris

The fact remains that it's a really good idea to keep mages away from situations like this. Especially the ones who have not proven themselves minimal risks to go abomination. (Do not mistake that as me being concerned for the chevalier.)

It's a better idea to send the Chevalier to the hell that he deserves and change the laws that permit it.

-Polaris

[Dave of Canada]

BlueMagitek wrote...

You're definitely right. Mages should have the right to be legally raped by a Chevalier just like any other person.

Legally raped, abused, murdered, stolen from, taxed, left to starve and freeze in the cold just like everyone else! None of that would make them want to abuse their powers. Let's not forget how monarchies would crack down on them to make them into an asset they could abuse!

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 01 juin 2013 - 06:32 .