1799 réponses à ce sujet

[IceHawk-181]

Huyna wrote...
It justifies it, if mages of the present can do the same as mages orf the past, if left unguarded. 

The implications of this line of reasoning is horrendous at best, malevolent at worst.
  
Where does one draw the line then? What constitutes potential for danger? Who gets to decide? Whom would you trust to retain similar power over you?
 

[IceHawk-181]

Huyna wrote...

IceHawk-181 wrote...

Nice over-generalizations here Huyna.

"Mages" were not responsible, a specific group of Tevinter Magisters, a group of individuals were responsible.

These group of individuals  were able to do what the did, because they were mages.

IceHawk-181 wrote...
This is the equivalent of saying that we need to subjugate all Germans because their ancestors launched the two bloodiest wars in human history and we just cannot deal with the potential that it might happen again.

No, it's a equivalent of saying, that all present-day members of **** party everywhere should be kept under close guard, because of what **** did in the past.

I do not recall Bismark being a member of Hitler's Party...

EDIT: 
So, in other words, because the American Democratic Party endorsed and defended Slavery in the past, and being in power in government having the ability to create this problem in the future, they should be banned from influence?
 
 

Modifié par IceHawk-181, 22 juin 2013 - 05:41 .

[Plaintiff]

Huyna wrote...
How so?

The Chantry doesn't have proof because they don't have it.

Did not he mention Gold City in his speech? Was not he a mage?

Does the Chantry have his eyewitness testimony? Does the Chantry have him to parade infront of doubters?

No.

The fact that evidence exists (and it's sketchy evidence at best) is irrelevent. The Chantry doesn't actually possess that evidence, so its dogma is still based on nothing. The fact that the Chant of Light happens to possess some accuracy is sheer coincidence.

If I'm going to claim that my pants were all stolen by little green men from Pluto, I need to have evidence to back that up. If I don't have evidence, then logic demands that I rescind my claims, even if, by concidence, I am in fact correct, my assertions are still baseless and making them was a silly thing to do.

It justifies it, if mages of the present can do the same as mages orf the past, if left unguarded.

The people of the present can commit the same crimes as the people of the past.

LOCK UP ALL OF THE PEOPLE!!! 

By Chantry logic, people with certain mental condition should be supervised, if it's know that people with the same mental condtition in the past commited terrible things to other people.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Oh god.

Thank you for proving my point.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 22 juin 2013 - 05:47 .

[Huyna]

IceHawk-181 wrote...


  
Where does one draw the line then? What constitutes potential for danger? Who gets to decide? Whom would you trust to retain similar power over you?
 

I entrust power to keep me in check to my  morale code and the law, that is absolute.
If, due to some mental condition, i am no longer fully capable to be certain, that i will not hurt people around me, i entrust similiar power to medical professionals, to keep me in check.

[Huyna]

IceHawk-181 wrote...


So, in other words, because the American Democratic Party endorsed and defended Slavery in the past, and being in power in government having the ability to create this problem in the future, they should be banned from influence?
 

Are you telling me, there is no control over American Democratic Party and it can do whatever it wishes to do?

[Huyna]

Plaintiff wrote...


The Chantry doesn't have proof because they don't have it.

So, they made the story up and Corypheus words are mere happy coincidence?

Plaintiff wrote...The fact that the Chant of Light happens to possess some accuracy is sheer coincidence.

However, Chantry is yet to be proven wrong. For now, nothing of that sort happened.
Obviously, if DA:I dissproves their statement, a radical reform is required. But not yet.

The people of the present can commit the same crimes as the people of the past.
LOCK UP ALL OF THE PEOPLE!!!

An exageration, obviously.
Mages are not "just people".

Thank you for proving my point.

And that point was?

[Plaintiff]

Huyna wrote...
So, they made the story up and Corypheus words are mere happy coincidence?

In a rational world, yes. Any old schmuck could've written the Chant of Light, and whoever wrote it was most likely basing it off stories passed down via oral tradition, which would themselves have been warped through numerous retellings.

Considering that Dragon Age is a narrative, there is every possibility that the Chantry does possess important evidence. But if they do possess it, then they've clearly chosen to conceal it from public view. Most likely because it would harm their cause just as much as help it.

So either they don't have evidence, or they do have evidence and they refuse to share it. Either way, they need to pony up the dough. And if they can't, then they should shut up.

However, Chantry is yet to be proven wrong. For now, nothing of that sort happened.

Nobody can prove that tiny men aren't stealing my pants, but accumulated knowledge of our universe indicates that it's pretty unlikely.

Obviously, if DA:I dissproves their statement, a radical reform is required. But not yet.

God, wouldn't it be great if our justice system operated this way?

"We can't disprove that you've murdered people, so we'll lock you up on the offchance. If it turns out you're innocent, we promise to let you go."

An exageration, obviously.

No, it's the logical extension of Chantry methods. If potential to cause harm is just cause for imprisonment, then everyone should be imprisoned all of the time.

Mages are not "just people".

Irrelevent to the point. Possessing the potential to cause harm is still not the same as causing harm, and pre-emptively punishing people for things they might do is the complete opposite of anything resembling justice or logic.

And that point was?

That the practice you support for dealing with mages is clearly disgusting and vile when applied to any other group.

You seem to be genuinely ignorant of this, so let me explain:

Your analogy was stupid because we do not, in fact, lock up all "mentally ill" people, just because mentally ill individuals have been violent in the past. Assuming that mentally ill people will be violent is actually deeply offensive, not to mention stupid.

What happens in real life is our mental health professionals examine every mentally ill person individually, in order to determine the scope and severity of their illness on a case-by-case basis. And unless the case is severe to the point that the individual literally cannot take care of themselves, we usually treat the problem with methods that don't involve padded cells.

Nor do we blindly assume that even a severely ill person will inevitably harm others, we keep individuals under watch if their past actions have proven that they will harm others or themselves.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 22 juin 2013 - 06:38 .

[GamerX51]

What happens in real life is our mental health professionals examine every mentally ill person individually, in order to determine the scope and severity of their illness on a case-by-case basis.

The people we're discussing ATM are mages,  not mental patients. How could you individually  examine every mage in Thedas for signs of demonic possession or blood magic? There's simply no practical way to put that into practice without resorting to blood magic or demon summoning yourself. It's a mistake to apply modern ideas to a medieval world.

Nor do we blindly assume that even a severely ill person will inevitably harm others, we keep individuals under watch if their past actions have proven that they will harm others or themselves.

You're severely underestimating the destructive power that abominations can possess. In the DA:O codex, it is stated in numerous places that entire cities have been destroyed and thousands of people have been killed by only one abomination. There is simply no practical way to put your ideas into practice.

Modifié par GamerX51, 22 juin 2013 - 06:51 .

[Plaintiff]

GamerX51 wrote...
The people we're discussing ATM are mages,  not mental patients. How could you individually  examine every mage in Thedas for signs of demonic possession or blood magic? There's simply no practical way to put that into practice without resorting to blood magic or demon summoning yourself. It's a mistake to apply modern ideas to a medieval world. 

I will guarantee you that there are more mentally ill people in our world than there are mages in Thedas.Not to mention there is a multi-national military force with the ability to negate mage powers, whose sole job is to locate mages. The mental health industry has nothing like that.

There are obvious alternatives to the current system, if the effort were simply made. Would implementing these systems be time-consuming? Yes, but the Chantry presumes to be in charge of the mages, and it's had the better part of a millenium to get busy, so that's no excuse. Would it be resource-intensive? Again, the answer is yes. Luckily, the Chantry also has all of the money, and it's not using it for anything remotely important or helpful.

And yet the Chantry has failed to create a better system, because it is lazy and corrupt and its main interest lies not in protecting the public, but in monopolizing magic to further its own goals.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 22 juin 2013 - 06:47 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Plaintiff wrote...

IceHawk-181 wrote...
The Circles of Magi are a form of control that allows maximal force to be brought to bear against the greatest number of Mages at one time...it does not prevent abominations, it exists to facilitate the massacre of Mages in the case of abominations.

It should be noted that the presence of abominations is not in any way required to justify mage slaughter.

Chantry Law allows for a Grand Cleric to grant the right of annulment if she deems the Circle under her jurisdiction to be "irredeemable".

No context or criteria is given for how "irredeemability" is or should be quantified, so a Grand Cleric can absolutely slaughter an entire Circle of mages on a whim, for no reason at all.

Uhm... No she can't?... The RIght of Annulment, is not an order the Grand CLeric gives to the Knight-Commander. It is a right she grants him. So if the Grand Cleric granted a Knight-Commander the RIght of Annulment, then the Knight-Commander would still have to be willing to carry out the Annulment. In this way, just becasue some old bat of a Grand Cleric goes nuts, then the Circle won't be annuled, because the Kngiht-Commander won't carry out the order. And if the Knight-Commander wants the right, but the Grand Cleric doesn't want to grant it to him, then the Circle won't be annuled either. It is the safety system in place to make sure, the right doesn't get abused.

[Huyna]

Plaintiff wrote...


In a rational world, yes.

DA world is not rational. It's reality of demons, magic and Blight.

Plaintiff wrote
So either they don't have evidence, or they do have evidence and they refuse to share it. Either way, they need to pony up the dough. And if they can't, then they should shut up.

By the same logic, anyone who does not have evidence of Chantry's lies, should shut up as well. 
But they are not.

Plaintiff wrote
Nobody can prove that tiny men aren't stealing my pants, but accumulated knowledge of our universe indicates that it's pretty unlikely.

Unless existence of tiny men was already proven.
Magic, demons and blight are real.

Plaintiff wrote...

"We can't disprove that you've murdered people, so we'll lock you up on the offchance. If it turns out you're innocent, we promise to let you go."

It would be more like - "Yeah, we know that a person under this health condition should not drive and in the past it caused lot's of tragedy, but since you did not yet run over anyone, here - have a keys and enjoy the ride".

Plaintiff wrote...No, it's the logical extension of Chantry methods. If potential to cause harm is just cause for imprisonment, then everyone should be imprisoned all of the time.

Once again - a non-mage of 12 years old can not burn down a village and turn into aabomination.
A 12 old mage can.
Thus the extra measures.

Plaintiff wrote...
You seem to be genuinely ignorant of this, so let me explain:

I am all ears.

Plaintiff wrote...
Your analogy was stupid

Great start.

because we do not, in fact, lock up all "mentally ill" people, just because mentally ill individuals have been violent in the past. Assuming that mentally ill people will be violent is actually deeply offensive, not to mention stupid.

I did not say ALL "mentally ill people".
I said "certain mental condition". A mental condition, that makes that person dangerous. That makes person, though he or she has no control over it, to hurt others. Hurt others on major scale.
Mages are dangerous. It's not their falut, but it changes nothing.

Nor do we blindly assume that even a severely ill person will inevitably harm others, we keep individuals under watch if their past actions have proven that they will harm others or themselves.

I person with schizophrenia and scopathic tendences , if he/she is indeed has such dyagnosis, kept under watch regrardless of did he/she already harm someone or only maye harm some one in the future.

[Plaintiff]

Huyna wrote...
DA world is not rational. It's reality of demons, magic and Blight.

The DA world is perfectly rational. The existence of magic does not make it irrational.

By the same logic, anyone who does not have evidence of Chantry's lies, should shut up as well. 
But they are not.

That's not how logic works. The Chantry made the claim, the burden to provide evidence is on them. The lack of evidence already counts as evidence against the Chantry.

Unless existence of tiny men was already proven.
Magic, demons and blight are real.

The fact that these things exist means only that they exist. The Chantry possesses no evidence that mages are responsible for the Blight.

Just because tiny men exist does not prove that they are stealing my pants.

Do you understand how evidence works? 

It would be more like - "Yeah, we know that a person under this health condition should not drive and in the past it caused lot's of tragedy, but since you did not yet run over anyone, here - have a keys and enjoy the ride".

It would not be anything like that, because we don't treat all sufferers of a single disease as if they possess some sort of hivemind. 

Once again - a non-mage of 12 years old can not burn down a village and turn into aabomination.
A 12 old mage can.
Thus the extra measures.

A non-mage of twelve years old doesn't need to become an abomination in order to burn down a village, striking flint and tinder together will cause the exact same effect.

I said "certain mental condition". A mental condition, that makes that person dangerous. That makes person, though he or she has no control over it, to hurt others. Hurt others on major scale.
Mages are dangerous. It's not their falut, but it changes nothing.

I person with schizophrenia and scopathic tendences , if he/she is indeed has such dyagnosis, kept under watch regrardless of did he/she already harm someone or only maye harm some one in the future.

We don't do that, either. Some schizophrenics are dangerous. We do not lock up all schizophrenics. Some sociopaths are dangerous, but we do not lock up every sociopath.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 22 juin 2013 - 07:07 .

[Huyna]

Plaintiff wrote...

The DA world is perfectly rational. The existence of magic does not make it irrational.

The existence of magic makes DA world rationality works in different way than our world rationality. 

Plaintiff wrote...
That's not how logic works.

I guess, we have different logics.

Plaintiff wrote...
The Chantry made the claim, the burden to provide evidence is on them.
The lack of evidence already counts as evidence against the Chantry. The fact that these things exist means only that they exist. The Chantry possesses no evidence that mages are responsible for the Blight. Just because tiny men exist does not prove that they are stealing my pants. Do you understand how evidence works?

Do you?
No one else provided any kind of evidence of darkspawn creation. For dwarves they simply "appeared".
And yet, each Blight were leaded by Old God, once worshiped by Magisters of Teviner - and Tevinter suffered most terribly during First Blight, being it first victim (along with dwarves).
Yes, the evidence are inderect, but other side lacks even that.

Plaintiff wrote...
It would not be anything like that, because we don't treat all sufferers of a single disease as if they possess some sort of hivemind.

If this disease, in al it's documented cases, may lead to casualties due actions of patient, a certain medical/lawfull measures to prevent it applied. 

Plaintiff wrote...
A non-mage of twelve years old doesn't need to become an abomination in order to burn down a village, striking flint and tinder together will cause the exact same effect..

In it will not cause exact same effect. Flint and tinder do not provide you with ability to throw bolts of plasma uncontrolably and become possed by a demon.
Also, if a person with flint and tinder has a psychological disorder that makes this person to burn down villages , this person are being put under close surveillance.

Plaintiff wrote...
We don't do that, either. Some schizophrenics are dangerous. We do not lock up all schizophrenics. Some sociopaths are dangerous, but we do not lock up every sociopath.

As i said - no, not everyone.
Only the ones who has potential to turn violent. We do not wait till they kill.

Modifié par Huyna, 22 juin 2013 - 07:25 .

[TEWR]

MisterJB wrote...

Yeah, because Grand Clerics are just so stupid they'd destroy natural resources on a whim, for no reason at all.

So long as the potential for abuse exists, someone will find a way to exploit it. Regardless of how likely it is for a GC to just cull the Mages on a whim, the terms of the RoA should be made more stringent in what would necessitate them.

Uhm... No she can't?... The RIght of Annulment, is not an order the
Grand CLeric gives to the Knight-Commander. It is a right she grants
him. So if the Grand Cleric granted a Knight-Commander the RIght of
Annulment, then the Knight-Commander would still have to be willing to
carry out the Annulment. In this way, just becasue some old bat of a
Grand Cleric goes nuts, then the Circle won't be annuled, because the
Kngiht-Commander won't carry out the order.

Except morality of the Templars is considered a secondary requirement and Templars are recruited for their zeal, their devotion to carrying out duties even if they're not pleasant.

Unless that Knight-Commander is not only a moral person but has the backing of all of his Templars not just from a leadership point but from a brotherly standpoint such that they wouldn't do their jobs if he went out of the picture, then the potential for abuse is still there and still fairly large.

If the KC refused, the GC could just ship him off to Val Royeaux or some other duty and appoint someone else to the role that was more amenable.

Modifié par The Ethereal Writer Redux, 22 juin 2013 - 07:32 .

[Silfren]

MisterJB wrote...
Anti-mage technology easily affordable by common people doesn't exist in Thedas.

For the record, we don't actually know this.  We DO know that anti-magic technology exists.  The Litany of Adralla for one, and the wards in the Circle that negated magic.  We also know that the (White) Chantry suppresses magical research, which could well be used to FIND more ways of defending against magic.

It's quite possible that anti-magic technology is or could be made available to the general population. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Uhm... No she can't?... The RIght of Annulment, is not an order the
Grand CLeric gives to the Knight-Commander. It is a right she grants
him. So if the Grand Cleric granted a Knight-Commander the RIght of
Annulment, then the Knight-Commander would still have to be willing to
carry out the Annulment. In this way, just becasue some old bat of a
Grand Cleric goes nuts, then the Circle won't be annuled, because the
Kngiht-Commander won't carry out the order.

Except morality of the Templars is considered a secondary requirement and Templars are recruited for their zeal, their devotion to carrying out duties even if they're not pleasant.

Unless that Knight-Commander is not only a moral person but has the backing of all of his Templars not just from a leadership point but from a brotherly standpoint such that they wouldn't do their jobs if he went out of the picture, then the potential for abuse is still there and still fairly large.

If the KC refused, the GC could just ship him off to Val Royeaux or some other duty and appoint someone else to the role that was more amenable.

Again, it is not an order that the GC issues to the commander, but a right that she grants him. And in the scenario posed, the GC was to issue the right on "a whim". Chances are the KC would have no interrest in exercising his right. And I would guess that all the Templars under his comman would agree with him. And recent events have shown that the Templars are not fanatically loyal to the Chantry, but are far more loyal to their brother Templars.

[Silfren]

Huyna wrote...

IceHawk-181 wrote...

Personally, I have an aversion to holding later generations responsible for the actions of their forbearers. I also have trouble with holding entire peoples responsible for the actions of individuals.
I am funny in that way.

So, the Sin did happen, right? And  Mages were responislbe? Not some religious zealot, but Free Independent Mages, who unleashed Blight upon the world.
And Chantry fears that it may happen again. What a bunch of backwards savages.

I believe it's mentioned in the World of Thedas that the Chantry started preaching its story about mages trying to usurp Heaven sometime during or after the Third Blight.  That doesn't sound suspect at all, no.

[Silfren]

Huyna wrote...
However, Chantry is yet to be proven wrong. For now, nothing of that sort happened.

This is the standard you're going with?  The Chantry has its story about why the darkspawn exist and why mages should be locked up, and because nobody has ever presented evidence to the contrary, it must therefore be true?

Wow.  There's so many things wrong with this thought process I can't even.

Is it even worth the effort to point out that simply not having any evidence against a story does not actually stand as evidence FOR it?

Modifié par Silfren, 22 juin 2013 - 08:21 .

[LobselVith8]

Huyna wrote...

IceHawk-181 wrote...

Personally, I have an aversion to holding later generations responsible for the actions of their forbearers. I also have trouble with holding entire peoples responsible for the actions of individuals.
I am funny in that way.

So, the Sin did happen, right? 

According to whom? Corypheus said that he entered the City with his bretheren, but fans have debated what he said in context to this event - some of us have concluded that he stated that the City was already Black, which indicates that the Chantry is wrong. If the Magisters didn't taint the City, and it was already Black to begin with, then it calls into question whether the Magisters were even the first darkspawn to begin with, especially since the first accounts of darkspawn by the dwarves make no reference to any darkspawn like Corypheus.

Huyna wrote...

And  Mages were responislbe? Not some religious zealot, but Free Independent Mages, who unleashed Blight upon the world.

You mean a handful of specific people, which isn't the same thing as condemning an entire race of people for the actions of a few.

Huyna wrote...

And Chantry fears that it may happen again. What a bunch of backwards savages.

That doesn't condone enslaving mages in the Chantry controlled Circles.

[Huyna]

Silfren wrote...


This is the standard you're going with? 

Yup.

Silfren wrote...
The Chantry has its story about why the darkspawn exist and why mages should be locked up

Mages should be "locked up" because they are dangerous, regarding of origins of the blight.

Silfren wrote..
and because this story has never been disproven, it must be true?

Nope.
I said that noone dissproved it yet.

Silfren wrote...


Wow.  There's so many things wrong with this thought process I can't even.

Oh, give it a try,

Silfren wrote...


Is it even worth the effort to point
out that simply not having any evidence against a story does not
actually stand as evidence FOR it?

Opposite is also true.

LobselVith8 wrote...



According to whom? Corypheus
said that he entered the City with his bretheren, but fans have debated
what he said in context to this event - some of us have concluded that
he stated that the City was already Black, which indicates that the
Chantry is wrong. If the Magisters didn't taint the City, and it was
already Black to begin with, then it calls into question whether the
Magisters were even the first darkspawn to begin with, especially since
the first accounts of darkspawn by the dwarves make no reference to any
darkspawn like Corypheus.

Once again - i am NOT stating that Chantry version is 100% true.
I am stating that it could be. Now, we have only circumstantial evidence, an words of Corypheus could be interpreted differently. I am saying that Chantry opposition also does not have any evidence regarding origins of Blight.

LobselVith8 wrote...

You mean a handful of specific people, which isn't the same thing as condemning an entire race of people for the actions of a few.

Race of people? Mages are not "special race", it's humans/elf with specific condition.
And they are "condemed" because they are a threat, though it's not their fault.

LobselVith8 wrote...

That doesn't condone enslaving mages in the Chantry controlled Circles.

No.
But constant threat of their power and possibility of demoinc possesion do.

Modifié par Huyna, 22 juin 2013 - 08:33 .

[Huyna]

*double post*

Modifié par Huyna, 22 juin 2013 - 08:31 .

[Silfren]

Huyna wrote...

Silfren wrote...


This is the standard you're going with? 

Yup.

Silfren wrote...
The Chantry has its story about why the darkspawn exist and why mages should be locked up

Mages should be "locked up" because they are dangerous, regarding origins of the blight.

Silfren wrote..
and because this story has never been disproven, it must be true?

Nope.
I said that noone dissproved it yet.

Silfren wrote...


Wow.  There's so many things wrong with this thought process I can't even.

Oh, give it a try,

Silfren wrote...


Is it even worth the effort to point
out that simply not having any evidence against a story does not
actually stand as evidence FOR it?

Opposite is also true.

This isn't how proving a theory works in the real world, sorry.  "I say this happened because of X and you can't disprove it nahnahnahnahnah!" is not a defense that would hold up in court.  The Chantry is obligated to PROVE that mages are responsible for the existence of darkspawn.  They don't get to say "well, prove me wrong!"

And as it stands, there is actually evidence that the Chantry's story is at best incomplete, if not outright wrong.  The Grey Wardens themselves don't necessarily accept the Chantry version, but beyond that it appears that the darkspawn originated underground, as opposed to falling from the sky into the ground.  And Corypheus' statement does sound suspiciously as though the City was black....his words suggest that he and his comrades went into the City expecting it to be golden but finding it black instead, rather than seeing a Golden City turn black.

[Silfren]

Huyna wrote...

Once again - i am NOT stating that Chantry version is 100% true.
I am stating that it could be. Now, we have only circumstantial evidence, an words of Corypheus could be interpreted differently. I am saying that Chantry opposition also does not have any evidence regarding origins of Blight.

You don't have to actually have conclusive evidence at your disposal to be suspicious of an organization who simply makes a claim without trying to actually prove it.  All it takes is critical thinking and an inclination not to accept a story at face value.

[Huyna]

Silfren wrote...


The Chantry is obligated to PROVE that mages are responsible for the existence of darkspawn.  They don't get to say "well, prove me wrong!"

My original point, though it maybe due poor english i failed to exress it, was  - Even if entire "How blight came to be" is a lie, and Corypheus words are mere coincidence, mages are still a threat. And they MUST be watched over. In my previous posts i explained why i belive it to be so. Obviously, they are not to blame, but it changes nothing.  At least, untill some kind of anti-demon tech will be developed, than mages can go free.

Silfren wrote...
And as it stands, there is actually evidence that the Chantry's story is at best incomplete, if not outright wrong. 

Flemeth expressed similiar thoughts, if i remember correctly.
And she can be right, why not.

Silfren wrote...

You don't have to actually have
conclusive evidence at your disposal to be suspicious of an organization
who simply makes a claim without trying to actually prove it.  All it
takes is critical thinking and an inclination not to accept a story at
face value.

The problem is, that i DO belive that in many ways (no, i am not pro-tranquil-every-mage) Chantry is right regarding mages, EVEN if origins of Blight lies elsewhere. And Chantry's claim - claim that mages bust be watched over - is a right one. At least, untill  100% "demon-repellentt" are devised.

Modifié par Huyna, 22 juin 2013 - 08:43 .

[Silfren]

Huyna wrote...

Silfren wrote...


The Chantry is obligated to PROVE that mages are responsible for the existence of darkspawn.  They don't get to say "well, prove me wrong!"

My original point, though it maybe due poor english i failed to exress it, was  - Even if entire "How blight came to be" is a lie, and Corypheus words are mere coincidence, mages are still a threat. And they MUST be watched over. In my previous posts i explained why i belive it to be so. Obviously, they are not to blame, but it changes nothing.  At least, untill some kind of anti-demon tech will be developed, than mages can go free.

Silfren wrote...
And as it stands, there is actually evidence that the Chantry's story is at best incomplete, if not outright wrong. 

Flemeth expressed similiar thoughts, if i remember correctly.
And she can be right, why not.

And I am convinced that Tevinter has "anti-demon tech," of some kind.  Tevinter is a place where magic is used openly and often, yet the Imperium is clearly a functioning society, so there must be some kind of controls in place to keep demons and abominations from wreaking havoc.  It's existence is proof, to me, that the Chantry's practice of disallowing magical research is at best an extremely shortsighted attempt at preventing abuse, and at worst an attempt to prevent anyone from ever discovering that there are other means of controlling magic that don't require the Chantry's heavy-handed monopolistic approach.

Modifié par Silfren, 22 juin 2013 - 08:46 .