Aller au contenu

Photo

Please stop portraying templars as heroes and free mages as villians * Major spoilers*


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
1082 réponses à ce sujet

#526
LobselVith8

LobselVith8
  • Members
  • 16 993 messages

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Or the fact that the developers have already stated that some Circles prohibit relationships for mages.


Wrong.
DG said that marriage in Cirlce is in SOME Circles DISCOURAGED. I don't recall he ever said it was forbidden.


You tell me that I'm wrong, then you admit you don't remember? Here is the quote from David Gaider:

David Gaider wrote...

Mages within the Circle are permitted to marry, but it's impractical with outsiders and they also must get permission from the Chantry (so it might be considered a reward for good behavior). Even so, the culture within the typical Circle of Magi tends to make mages unwilling to marry. The policy on fraternization will depend on the individual Circle-- some forbid it, while others do not, though in either case it still occurs. Considering mages live outside normal culture, they also consider themselves free of cultural conventions (especially those who were raised in a Circle from a young age) and thus tend to be quite liberal in their views.


Emphasis mine.

#527
In Exile

In Exile
  • Members
  • 28 738 messages

LobselVith8 wrote...
You tell me that I'm wrong, then you admit you don't remember? Here is the quote from David Gaider:

David Gaider wrote...

Mages within the Circle are permitted to marry, but it's impractical with outsiders and they also must get permission from the Chantry (so it might be considered a reward for good behavior). Even so, the culture within the typical Circle of Magi tends to make mages unwilling to marry. The policy on fraternization will depend on the individual Circle-- some forbid it, while others do not, though in either case it still occurs. Considering mages live outside normal culture, they also consider themselves free of cultural conventions (especially those who were raised in a Circle from a young age) and thus tend to be quite liberal in their views.



I'm not sure you've parsed that quote right. The first statement is a categorical "[m]ages ... are permitted to marry". The qualification is that "it's impractical with outsiders" and that it requires "permission from the Chantry". The reference to permission from the Chantry seems to be connected to "impractical with outsiders" as opposed to "permitted to marry". We don't have the full context so it is hard to judge which is the correct meaning. 

The portion that you highlight, however, isn't clearly about mages. DG says "fraternization" (one meaning is "cordial or intimate association with members of a hostile or proscribed group" and the other is "friendly association).  We have a previous statement about marrying outside the Circles, and then we have "fraternization" which either is being used euphimistically (if the meaning is friendly association) since the whole subject up to that point was marriage, or it's just a reference to outsiders again. 

So, in short, there are two ways to parse that: (i) mages require permission to marry at anyone, even each other or (ii) mages require permission only to marry outsiders, which varies Circle by Circle. 

Either way it's Draconian and offensive, but it's Draconian and offensive in different ways.

#528
KainD

KainD
  • Members
  • 8 624 messages

Solmanian wrote...
Are you really entitled to japordise the lives and freedoms of 99.9% of the population (the non mages) in the name of the civil liberty of the remaining 0.1%? 


Japordise? No. Put in danger? Yes. 

Solmanian wrote...
Srsly, if your mentaly unstable neighbur had a fully armed battle tank you would have issue with it and expect the police to do something about it...


No.

Solmanian wrote...
You can't ask for mages to be treated the same as regular people, because they aren't regular people.


By the same principle you can't ask mages to treat other people as their equals, because they are not regular people. So they would be perfectly entiteled to inslave mundanes for example. 

#529
Hazegurl

Hazegurl
  • Members
  • 4 927 messages

Solmanian wrote...

I think too many people hold the notion that blood magic is not that bad, and doesn't justifies templar control. That what a mage "could" do, doesn't justify the templar "opression". That the "harrowing" is an atrocity.

Most countries have gun control. You're expected to be both proficient aswell as responsible enough to own a gun. The mages didn't choose to be born with their "guns"; yet they were born with this terrible power, and that the only thing that matter. You can't ask for mages to be treated the same as regular people, because they aren't regular people.

Look at redcliff. One "mage" child inadventarly almost destroyed the entire town. The fact that it wasn't out of malice, only makes it worse. It's one thing to say "only go after the bad mages", but the untrained ones are just as dangerous to themself aswell as others. When you have a person that has the power to destroy entire towns, maybe even nations, it's society's duty to make sure he uses that power responsibly, or to prevent him from being able to use that power.

The harrowing? You may not like it, call it barbarian, but it's neccessary. A mage's soul is a thousand time brighter in the fade than a regular human. Encounter with demons is almost inevitable, especialy if one intends to actively use magic and manipulate the fade. The harrowing is a test to prove that you can handle that situation in a controlled enviroment. Only those that show sufficient proficiency are chosen to undergo the harrowing; they don't make you go through with it, if they think you can't handle it. You can say the tranquilisation is a horrible alternative, but what are the options? Either a mage is capable of handling the horrors of the fade, or he isn't; and if he isn't, he SHOULD be cut off from the fade, because he's a aclear and present danger to all around him.

You can say that the bad mages that has the pwoer to destroy and subjugate nations don't justify oppressing ALL the mages. How can we tell who the "bad" mags are, without observation?

long story short, for me it's about the "greater good". Are you really entitled to japordise the lives and freedoms of 99.9% of the population (the non mages) in the name of the civil liberty of the remaining 0.1%?
For me the answer is a definite NO. IRL I'm a liberal and often plays "devil advocate" in disscussions; but above all I believe in preserving life. Is the life quality of mages sucks? Maybe, the local peasants might've liked living in a gilded cage for awhile; but the lives that would be at stake if they roamed free demand it.

Srsly, if your mentaly unstable neighbur had a fully armed battle tank you would have issue with it and expect the police to do something about it...


The voice of reason. Well said. Too bad this will fly right over some heads. Endangering the lives of the many just to save the few isn't worth it in the end. I don't have any political affiliations and I'm all for anarchy but not in world where some ticked off person can send demons after me Berserk style because they're either having a bad day, need a ritual done, or can't simply control themselves. Nor will I bow to some mage overlord when I'm already poor as h*ll and just trying to get through life.

If I were to play "anarchy devil's advocate" with this. I could say that a country that has to oppress the lives of the few just to save the many isn't worth saving. Which is actually something I do believe in IRL. However, if we were to take a look at the Circles we would see that their quality of life is actually much better than the lives of Thedas' oridinary citizens. Yes there are some Templars who abuse their power, there some mages who are getting raped. But at least something could be done about that. But who can a non mage woman turn to for help when she is under constant threat of being raped and killed every single day? Who can the alienage elves turn to for aid when some noble crashes their party and decides to rape and kill them for fun?

No one in Thedas is not trying to murder mages on a mass scale, nor oppress them out of malicious intent. Does this make Thedas worth preserving? IMO, yes it does. Thedas isn't a perfect place, not for anyone. Trying to bring a place like that up to our modern standards will just leave you disappointed in the end and advocating justice for one group of people alone in a world where no one but nobles can have it at the moment is unrealistic.

#530
KainD

KainD
  • Members
  • 8 624 messages

Hazegurl wrote...
Endangering the lives of the many just to save the few isn't worth it in the end.


No it is. 

Hazegurl wrote...
If I were to play "anarchy devil's advocate" with this. I could say that a country that has to oppress the lives of the few just to save the many isn't worth saving. Which is actually something I do believe in IRL.


Now that's better. 

Hazegurl wrote...
However, if we were to take a look at the Circles we would see that their quality of life is actually much better than the lives of Thedas' oridinary citizens


Subjective. For some people freedom is more important than luxury. 

Hazegurl wrote...
Who can the alienage elves turn to for aid when some noble crashes their party and decides to rape and kill them for fun?


Just because other people have problems TOO, doesn't mean that mages suddenly don't. 

Hazegurl wrote...
advocating justice for one group of people alone in a world where no one but nobles can have it at the moment is unrealistic.


I advocate justice for all groups, just that mage/templar conflict is the "poster" one, so it gets more attention. 

#531
Hazegurl

Hazegurl
  • Members
  • 4 927 messages

In Exile wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
You tell me that I'm wrong, then you admit you don't remember? Here is the quote from David Gaider:

David Gaider wrote...

Mages within the Circle are permitted to marry, but it's impractical with outsiders and they also must get permission from the Chantry (so it might be considered a reward for good behavior). Even so, the culture within the typical Circle of Magi tends to make mages unwilling to marry. The policy on fraternization will depend on the individual Circle-- some forbid it, while others do not, though in either case it still occurs. Considering mages live outside normal culture, they also consider themselves free of cultural conventions (especially those who were raised in a Circle from a young age) and thus tend to be quite liberal in their views.



I'm not sure you've parsed that quote right. The first statement is a categorical "[m]ages ... are permitted to marry". The qualification is that "it's impractical with outsiders" and that it requires "permission from the Chantry". The reference to permission from the Chantry seems to be connected to "impractical with outsiders" as opposed to "permitted to marry". We don't have the full context so it is hard to judge which is the correct meaning. 

The portion that you highlight, however, isn't clearly about mages. DG says "fraternization" (one meaning is "cordial or intimate association with members of a hostile or proscribed group" and the other is "friendly association).  We have a previous statement about marrying outside the Circles, and then we have "fraternization" which either is being used euphimistically (if the meaning is friendly association) since the whole subject up to that point was marriage, or it's just a reference to outsiders again. 

So, in short, there are two ways to parse that: (i) mages require permission to marry at anyone, even each other or (ii) mages require permission only to marry outsiders, which varies Circle by Circle. 

Either way it's Draconian and offensive, but it's Draconian and offensive in different ways.



Here is the entire Quote from Gaider:

"Templars do not take vows of chastity.

Chantry priests are considered "married" to the Maker-- though it's not an actual marriage, just a spiritual one-- and thus are indeed celibate.

For templars, the situation is not quite the same. Their duties require them to be dedicated to their duties-- they're going to live in a Circle of Magi (which does not have room for spouses and families) or a chantry, or otherwise be pre-occupied. Marriage is impractical, and the Chantry thus discourages such marriages as having dependants introduces complications that templars can do without (as well as a potential means of leverage).

That said, the Chantry does occasionally give permission for templars to marry, provided the spouse has their own means of support. This is often the case when the spouse owns land or a title. Even so, considering the spouse wouldn't be able to see the templar often, it's not going to happen frequently. Before anyone asks,
the Chantry also discourages templars from marrying each other even more so-- that's considered fraternization within the ranks (the templars are run as a military order, remember, and possess the same discipline).

Mages within the Circle are permitted to marry, but it's impractical with outsiders and they also must get permission from the Chantry (so it might be considered a reward for good behavior). Even so, the culture
within the typical Circle of Magi tends to make mages unwilling to marry. The policy on fraternization will depend on the individual Circle-- some forbid it, while others do not, though in either case it still occurs. Considering mages live outside normal culture, they also consider themselves free of cultural conventions (especially those who were raised in a Circle from a young age) and thus tend to be quite liberal in their views.

Whew! Okay-- verbose answer of the day. Time for coffee. Posted Image
"

Modifié par Hazegurl, 02 juin 2013 - 05:03 .


#532
LobselVith8

LobselVith8
  • Members
  • 16 993 messages

Hazegurl wrote...

The voice of reason. Well said. Too bad this will fly right over some heads.


I'm not sure what your point is in denigrating people who disagree with you. Simply because people disagree with your views on mages and magic doesn't mean they don't understand the argument.

#533
BlueMagitek

BlueMagitek
  • Members
  • 3 583 messages

LobselVith8 wrote...

Of course I take into account their past experiences. My Surana Warden was an elven mage who was stolen from his family at a young age. He loved them, and he was happy with them. That changed when he was forced to live in the Circle of Ferelden. My protagonist agreed with the Libertarian position. He notes to Cullen how templars like to kill mages, and Cullen admits as much when he says some of his fellow templars talk about killing mages with glee. He dealt with racism at the Circle, as he tells Duncan. He openly condemned the Chantry for invading the Dales because his people didn't convert to the human religion. My Surana Warden spoke about how he found the Circle of Ferelden to be a "prison" and an "oppressive place" to Wynne, while he confided in Morrigan (his love interest) how he felt trapped within the Chantry controlled Circle. He chose to help the Mages Collective, he freed Jowan, and he used his royal boon to ask for his people to be given their independence.

The character of Hawke (who, like my Surana Warden, was designed to look ethnically Latino/Antivan) was an apostate who was on the run from the templars with his family. He had to be wary of templars all his life, as they threatened his family - especially his baby sister, who was also a mage. His sister Bethany seemed to be in self-loathing because of the teachings of the Andrastian faith. The character was a free mage who was taught by his apostate father how to properly wield magic, and I thought Malcolm was similar to Anders because Carver notes how he heard about the plight of mages growing up, and both Leandra and Bethany can comment on how Anders is similar to Malcolm. His past experiences as an apostate shaped his actions in the present. He started a romance with Merrill, who used blood magic responsibly, and she told him how her people are nomadic because the templars hunt him down. My character fought templars who endangered the Dalish and his people, he helped the mage underground, and he chose to protect the mages in Kirkwall when Meredith condemned them to death for an act they weren't responsible for.

Their past experiences also made them different, as did their roles. People commented on my Surana Warden being an elf, from the young boy in Lothering he gave money to in order for the boy to eat, to Mother Hannah who noted that a man of elven blood was helping rescue a village of humans. My Surana Warden took the role of Grey Warden seriously, and he made pragmatic choices at times because he recognized the threat that the darkspawn posed to all of Thedas - from sparing Avernus and encouraging him to continue with his research, to keeping the Anvil of the Void, and executing the Messenger and killing the Architect.

Hawke, in contrast, was simply looking to amass a fortune to purchase the Amell mansion and return his family to prominence. He also wanted to have a seat in political office - based on the single conversation he has with Varric that was vaguely followed up on when he told Meredith he should become the new Viscount. In contrast, my Surana Warden left Ferelden - including his position as Arl of Amaranthine and Warden-Commander - to be with Morrigan and his son. Hawke didn't focus on the threat of the darkspawn, but on the tyranny of the Chantry controlled Circle. He also wanted to topple the templars from power. He was also willing to use a sentient darkspawn (Corypheus) to try to prevent another Blight, which is something my Surana Warden would never do - although he changed his mind about helping Janeka when he recognized that he was under the same influence as the corrupted carta dwarves.

Even the friendships demonstrated their differences. My Surana Warden encouraged Alistair and Leliana to hardened their personality, while Hawke simply accepted Aveline and Isabela as they were instead of trying to help Aveline depend only on herself, or encourage Isabela to become a better person. Basically, I don't play the same characters with the same past experiences, although it's not too difficult to understand why an apostate would appreciate being free from the templars and the Chantry.

When it comes to Inquisition, with the mages now having autonomy after almost a millennia of servitude, and templars hunting them down because the mages are independent of the Andrastian Chantry and the Templar Order, I don't see much reason to play as a mage who would bend knee to others. I value my freedom, and I'd imagine my new apostate would as well. The personality of my next character depends on whether I purchase Inquisition, and what type of story is presented to me; I'm considering a more militant type of personality as a contrast to my Surana Warden and apostate Hawke.

I respectfully disagree, but I doubt you and I will ever agree on this.

My Surana Warden chose King Bhelen, in part, because the casteless would get more freedoms. I abhor how the Alienage elves are treated. I find the Qun to be as monstrous as the Chant. And neither of my characters tolerated slavery. I'm not sure what my next protagonist would do, however.

The Chantry controlled Circle is terrible enough that I think it warrants discussion, although I think we are veering a bit off the main topic.


The problem is, you're going into that already decided on who your character will be.  For all you know, the Mage Origin is "orphaned and saved from the mob of peasants by Templar, you lived your life in the Circle until events led to the split between the Chantry, Templar and Circle.  As Resolutionist mages burned down the Circle, you were led out of the fire by a Chantry initiate, and later offered a position in the inquisition". 

With Hawke, I see you in topic after topic going on about how wretched it is that Hawke was Andrastian (or, Bhaalspawn forbid, 'mean' to Merrill in a time of crisis); you certainly didn't don't seem to take that into account. 

How is any of that wrong?  The Circles are self sufficient and well protected.  Senior Enchanters are allowed out (sometimes without Templar guards) for research and other activities (Zevran's tale).  They have the closest thing to a phone (messaging stones?), they have literacy, they get to study -- these are all things that the vast majority of Thedas do not get to enjoy. 

How does what your Warden did have to do with the point? 

#534
Hazegurl

Hazegurl
  • Members
  • 4 927 messages

KainD wrote...
Now that's better.


Funny how you went straight for the anarchy solution. As much as I like it IRL. It's simply not practical in Thedas.

Not saying the mages don't have problems. I'm saying that everyone in Thedas has problems and mage problems aren't anymore special than everyone elses to the point where they deserve "this and that and this" in a world where no one else but nobles have it.

 It's easy to get so focused on the problems of one group to the point where all other important issues become nothing more than a back drop. I remember bringing up the fact that Hawke kills city elves in the streets of Kirkwall at the end of Act 2 with zero uproar from hardly anyone on the boards. And there were some die hard mage supporters claiming it was justified to kill them because they joined the Qun. I'm not saying it was you, I'm thinking of someone else actually.  But it does lead me to believe that only mage problems are important or should be given special consideration above that of everyone else in Thedas. I personally think there are bigger problems to deal with and perhaps the Chantry should investigate ways to cut mages off from the fade without making them tranquil. In the meantime the world itself is not a place where people with powers should just be allowed to roam free and unchecked. Thedas is a harsh place to live and being poor sucks, that and thin veils to worry about and you have the perfect breeding ground for desperate mages to lose it. and if living in luxury with no freedom is enough to make them desperate enough to call demons then just wait until they actually have to live in the slums with no freedom. 

#535
garrusfan1

garrusfan1
  • Members
  • 8 069 messages
the mages were treated like crap and in many cases just like the elves. the templars can rape and as long as they don't advertise they generally don't get in trouble. and the babies of mages are torn out of their mothers arms while the mother begs them not to the elves don't have that happen (for the most part) where as with mages it always happens. basically if you treat a group bad enough for long enough they will revolt. there are slave rebellions in tevinter all the time but they are never succesful. the mages just have the power to do it. I do think they need to be trained so they don't have a connor type situation. but the family should be allowed to come and the mage should be allowed to leave at a certain age and have a normal life but not be allowed to be in a high level of government

#536
garrusfan1

garrusfan1
  • Members
  • 8 069 messages

Hazegurl wrote...

KainD wrote...
Now that's better.


Funny how you went straight for the anarchy solution. As much as I like it IRL. It's simply not practical in Thedas.

Not saying the mages don't have problems. I'm saying that everyone in Thedas has problems and mage problems aren't anymore special than everyone elses to the point where they deserve "this and that and this" in a world where no one else but nobles have it.

 It's easy to get so focused on the problems of one group to the point where all other important issues become nothing more than a back drop. I remember bringing up the fact that Hawke kills city elves in the streets of Kirkwall at the end of Act 2 with zero uproar from hardly anyone on the boards. And there were some die hard mage supporters claiming it was justified to kill them because they joined the Qun. I'm not saying it was you, I'm thinking of someone else actually.  But it does lead me to believe that only mage problems are important or should be given special consideration above that of everyone else in Thedas. I personally think there are bigger problems to deal with and perhaps the Chantry should investigate ways to cut mages off from the fade without making them tranquil. In the meantime the world itself is not a place where people with powers should just be allowed to roam free and unchecked. Thedas is a harsh place to live and being poor sucks, that and thin veils to worry about and you have the perfect breeding ground for desperate mages to lose it. and if living in luxury with no freedom is enough to make them desperate enough to call demons then just wait until they actually have to live in the slums with no freedom. 

the elves attacked hawk was he supposed to sit down and let them kill him. and they are not mliving in luxury they are living okay but with no freedom  they can't leave most of the time the templars can do whatever they want and generally have no reprucussions as long as they don't to something in front of everyone that is horrible. they are watched constantly and have the fear thatif a rumor starts about you being a blood mage the templars make you a tranquil. that would be like someone saying you were gonna hurt someone in high school and with no real proof they be sent to prison for life with no trial. yes life in thedas is  hard but they generally don't have to be worried about being treated like that because they were born a certain way. and basically what you are saying is you would rather be in prison where you are guarentted to have food shelter and AC then live in a shack and worrying about finding a meal somehow and knowing you might not eat that day but you can go whereever you want and have a chance (no matter how small) to change your life. I would rather be poor then in prison but that is just me. also the casteless in orzammar are treated worse since they could leave and make their life better on the surface. so basically would you prefer freedom and being dirt poor or being in prison and definetly getting food and shelter

#537
IanPolaris

IanPolaris
  • Members
  • 9 650 messages

Hazegurl wrote...

No one in Thedas is not trying to murder mages on a mass scale, nor oppress them out of malicious intent. Does this make Thedas worth preserving? IMO, yes it does. Thedas isn't a perfect place, not for anyone. Trying to bring a place like that up to our modern standards will just leave you disappointed in the end and advocating justice for one group of people alone in a world where no one but nobles can have it at the moment is unrealistic.


Ser Alrik says hi.

-Polaris

#538
IanPolaris

IanPolaris
  • Members
  • 9 650 messages
If you sacrifice freedome for security, then you deserve neither. Benjamin Franklin said that once, and he is right. What's more, there is no evidence at all that the circle system actually does make anyone safer and a lot of suggestive evidence that implies that it actually doesn't.

If the circle system actually makes mages become abominations at a rate where you actually have more problems with abominations than you would without it, then you'd have to call the circle system a failure, and honestly in almost all the abomination cases we are familiar with, the blame can be laid at least in part on the circle system itself.

If the circle system is better, then the Chantry should be able to PROVE it. Don't assert it. PROVE IT.

In any event, whether it is good or not is a moot issue now. So are any discussions about how the circle system should evolve or change. The circle system is GONE and it's never coming back. The proper question is when the dust settles, what can satisfy (or at least dissatisfy the least all sides without violating the human rights of any one side).

I expect a lot of blood will be shed until people are willing to sit down and talk. Too much bad blood.

-Polaris

#539
LobselVith8

LobselVith8
  • Members
  • 16 993 messages

BlueMagitek wrote...

The problem is, you're going into that already decided on who your character will be.  For all you know, the Mage Origin is "orphaned and saved from the mob of peasants by Templar, you lived your life in the Circle until events led to the split between the Chantry, Templar and Circle.  As Resolutionist mages burned down the Circle, you were led out of the fire by a Chantry initiate, and later offered a position in the inquisition".  


I went into Origins blind about the story, and choose a mage because I was in the mood for a magical character after playing an assassin in Oblivion. The story shaped my view of the Chantry, the templars, and their Circle.

BlueMagitek wrote...

With Hawke, I see you in topic after topic going on about how wretched it is that Hawke was Andrastian (or, Bhaalspawn forbid, 'mean' to Merrill in a time of crisis); you certainly didn't don't seem to take that into account.  


It didn't make sense to me that my mage would follow an anti-mage religion. You don't have to share my opinion of the Andrastian faith.

BlueMagitek wrote...

How is any of that wrong?  The Circles are self sufficient and well protected.  Senior Enchanters are allowed out (sometimes without Templar guards) for research and other activities (Zevran's tale).  They have the closest thing to a phone (messaging stones?), they have literacy, they get to study -- these are all things that the vast majority of Thedas do not get to enjoy.  


We have endless threads that address why some of us find the Chantry controlled Circles to be abhorrent. You're not going to change my mind, any more than I will change yours. The toxic environment that leads some mages to run away, even if it leads to their gruesome death, or the mages who commit suicide in despair, will always speak volumes louder to me.

BlueMagitek wrote...

How does what your Warden did have to do with the point?   


You seem to think that I chose to side with the mages before creating my character, when it was the story I experienced with my character that helped shape my view on the situation.

#540
Riverdaleswhiteflash

Riverdaleswhiteflash
  • Members
  • 7 940 messages

IanPolaris wrote...

If the circle system is better, then the Chantry should be able to PROVE it. Don't assert it. PROVE IT.


We aren't the Chanty, remember? We don't have the records, even if they do. The only proof either way will be if we are shown that there's fewer abominations outside the Chantry lands than inside, which I'm going to tentatively say probably isn't the case, or if it is is because of those problems you mentioned that I already stated are a condemnation more of the Chantry than the Circle system.

#541
BlueMagitek

BlueMagitek
  • Members
  • 3 583 messages

LobselVith8 wrote...

I went into Origins blind about the story, and choose a mage because I was in the mood for a magical character after playing an assassin in Oblivion. The story shaped my view of the Chantry, the templars, and their Circle.

It didn't make sense to me that my mage would follow an anti-mage religion. You don't have to share my opinion of the Andrastian faith.

We have endless threads that address why some of us find the Chantry controlled Circles to be abhorrent. You're not going to change my mind, any more than I will change yours. The toxic environment that leads some mages to run away, even if it leads to their gruesome death, or the mages who commit suicide in despair, will always speak volumes louder to me.

You seem to think that I chose to side with the mages before creating my character, when it was the story I experienced with my character that helped shape my view on the situation.


I was referring to your latest comment on playing a more militant mage than your Surana/Hawke for Inquisition.

Which is, unfortunately, not really something you can express in the game.  But Hawke is Andrastian, and as such should be horrified by what Anders is and what he does. 

Apparently not, but people commit suicide in despair from real life, and while the Circle system does have its own problems, there is no evidence that there will be any sort of solution with rebellion, or that Mages will have any better lives.

That is what you have told me, yes.

#542
Riverdaleswhiteflash

Riverdaleswhiteflash
  • Members
  • 7 940 messages

IanPolaris wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

No one in Thedas is not trying to murder mages on a mass scale, nor oppress them out of malicious intent. Does this make Thedas worth preserving? IMO, yes it does. Thedas isn't a perfect place, not for anyone. Trying to bring a place like that up to our modern standards will just leave you disappointed in the end and advocating justice for one group of people alone in a world where no one but nobles can have it at the moment is unrealistic.


Ser Alrik says hi.

-Polaris


And he would like to remind you that the Kirkwall guard, most of the Orlesian ruling class, and some of the Ferelden nobles can be as dickish as he is, and would probably use Tranquility if they had it. (Though he does answer the "oppress them out of malicious intent" point rather well.)

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 02 juin 2013 - 07:01 .


#543
IanPolaris

IanPolaris
  • Members
  • 9 650 messages

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

If the circle system is better, then the Chantry should be able to PROVE it. Don't assert it. PROVE IT.


We aren't the Chanty, remember? We don't have the records, even if they do. The only proof either way will be if we are shown that there's fewer abominations outside the Chantry lands than inside, which I'm going to tentatively say probably isn't the case, or if it is is because of those problems you mentioned that I already stated are a condemnation more of the Chantry than the Circle system.


Then you have no objective grounds to defend the circle system.

-Polaris

#544
IanPolaris

IanPolaris
  • Members
  • 9 650 messages

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

No one in Thedas is not trying to murder mages on a mass scale, nor oppress them out of malicious intent. Does this make Thedas worth preserving? IMO, yes it does. Thedas isn't a perfect place, not for anyone. Trying to bring a place like that up to our modern standards will just leave you disappointed in the end and advocating justice for one group of people alone in a world where no one but nobles can have it at the moment is unrealistic.


Ser Alrik says hi.

-Polaris


And he would like to remind you that the Kirkwall guard, most of the Orlesian ruling class, and some of the Ferelden nobles can be as dickish as he is, and would probably use Tranquility if they had it. (Though he does answer the "oppress them out of malicious intent" point rather well.)


If you are saying that people in power are going to do bad things, sure, but ultimately that's what accountability is for.  The huge thing that has to change is that at some level, people with power have to be accountable for that power and the Chantry has proven it can not and will not do this.  On the other hand, most of the crowned heads, have proven to at least be reasonable about this (esp in places like the Free Marches, Nevarra, and Fereldan).

-Polaris

#545
Riverdaleswhiteflash

Riverdaleswhiteflash
  • Members
  • 7 940 messages

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

If the circle system is better, then the Chantry should be able to PROVE it. Don't assert it. PROVE IT.


We aren't the Chanty, remember? We don't have the records, even if they do. The only proof either way will be if we are shown that there's fewer abominations outside the Chantry lands than inside, which I'm going to tentatively say probably isn't the case, or if it is is because of those problems you mentioned that I already stated are a condemnation more of the Chantry than the Circle system.


Then you have no objective grounds to defend the circle system.

-Polaris


And you have roughly as much proof for your assertion that it makes things worse.

#546
Riverdaleswhiteflash

Riverdaleswhiteflash
  • Members
  • 7 940 messages

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Ser Alrik says hi.

-Polaris


And he would like to remind you that the Kirkwall guard, most of the Orlesian ruling class, and some of the Ferelden nobles can be as dickish as he is, and would probably use Tranquility if they had it. (Though he does answer the "oppress them out of malicious intent" point rather well.)


If you are saying that people in power are going to do bad things, sure, but ultimately that's what accountability is for.  The huge thing that has to change is that at some level, people with power have to be accountable for that power and the Chantry has proven it can not and will not do this.  On the other hand, most of the crowned heads, have proven to at least be reasonable about this (esp in places like the Free Marches, Nevarra, and Fereldan).

-Polaris


Who holds Isolde accountable when her poor decision not to send her son to the Circle kills most of Redcliffe? Who holds Vaughn accountable for what he does in the Alienage? Who holds the Tevinters accountable? The Orlesians? While Hazegurl was wrong about Ser Alrik's maliciousness, she was absolutely right about the setting not being big on accountability.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 02 juin 2013 - 07:20 .


#547
kinderschlager

kinderschlager
  • Members
  • 686 messages

IanPolaris wrote...

If you sacrifice freedome for security, then you deserve neither. Benjamin Franklin said that once, and he is right. What's more, there is no evidence at all that the circle system actually does make anyone safer and a lot of suggestive evidence that implies that it actually doesn't.

If the circle system actually makes mages become abominations at a rate where you actually have more problems with abominations than you would without it, then you'd have to call the circle system a failure, and honestly in almost all the abomination cases we are familiar with, the blame can be laid at least in part on the circle system itself.

If the circle system is better, then the Chantry should be able to PROVE it. Don't assert it. PROVE IT.

In any event, whether it is good or not is a moot issue now. So are any discussions about how the circle system should evolve or change. The circle system is GONE and it's never coming back. The proper question is when the dust settles, what can satisfy (or at least dissatisfy the least all sides without violating the human rights of any one side).

I expect a lot of blood will be shed until people are willing to sit down and talk. Too much bad blood.

-Polaris


i feel safe in saying i won't be the only  one fanning the flames when i get my hands on inquisition.

and yes, i agree with your statments

#548
IanPolaris

IanPolaris
  • Members
  • 9 650 messages

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

And you have roughly as much proof for your assertion that it makes things worse.


Here's the difference.  The circle system by it's very structure inherently damages human rights and is immoral on that ground.

If you are going to violate someone's rights for what they are rather than what they've done, you had better be able to meet the burden of proof.

You can't.

-Polaris

#549
Riverdaleswhiteflash

Riverdaleswhiteflash
  • Members
  • 7 940 messages

IanPolaris wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

And you have roughly as much proof for your assertion that it makes things worse.


Here's the difference.  The circle system by it's very structure inherently damages human rights and is immoral on that ground.

If you are going to violate someone's rights for what they are rather than what they've done, you had better be able to meet the burden of proof.

You can't.

-Polaris


I'll bear that in mind when the PC has to end the Mage-Templar war (which we all know there's a 75% chance of.) Though bear in mind that since you're arguing lack of evidence, the game could as easily prove you wrong as right.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 02 juin 2013 - 07:26 .


#550
IanPolaris

IanPolaris
  • Members
  • 9 650 messages

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

Who holds Isolde accountable when her poor decision not to send her son to the Circle kills most of Redcliffe? Who holds Vaughn accountable for what he does in the Alienage? Who holds the Tevinters accountable? The Orlesians? While Hazegurl was wrong about Ser Alrik's maliciousness, she was absolutely right about the
setting not being big on accountability.


In many cases Isolde either loses her life or her son.  How much more 'accountable' do you want to make her.  As for Vaughn, he's imprisoned in Howe's estate because he had to trust Howe to put down an Elven rebellion...one that he helped fan the flames of.

I also completeyy reject the idea that just because you have one set of injustice for one group, that this somehow justifies anothe injustice for another, yet this is the argument you seem to be making.  ALL of the people you refer to should be held accountable, and any future system should at least try to do so.  When I mean accountability as a goal, I mean accountability for everyone.

-Polaris