1656 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

Morocco Mole wrote...

He completely is over the mage issue and glossing over any issues of oppression provided its of a group he dislikes.

And you can call him out on it and he will see his error.

Unlike Anders

But like Anders, Fenris is unwilling to change his view, even if he ackowledges his own hypocrisy. Sure, Anders and Fenris will side with the templar or mages respectively if Hawke does if at 100% friendship or rivalry, but neither are willing to change how they respond to whom they perceive as the enemy because their individual bias is so deeply ingrained.

[Ieldra]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

He completely is over the mage issue and glossing over any issues of oppression provided its of a group he dislikes.

And you can call him out on it and he will see his error.

Unlike Anders

But like Anders, Fenris is unwilling to change his view, even if he ackowledges his own hypocrisy. Sure, Anders and Fenris will side with the templar or mages respectively if Hawke does if at 100% friendship or rivalry, but neither are willing to change how they respond to whom they perceive as the enemy because their individual bias is so deeply ingrained.

The prevailing extreme attitudes in DA2 make the sane ones stand out all the more. I admire Cullen. after his traumatic experiences in DAO here he is in Kirkwall, totally sane, not at all fanatic and reasonably open-minded. Not that I suddenly think the Circle system is acceptable because of him, but I can respect him. He'd probably be open to alternate solutions that don't include keeping mages in glorified prisons.

[LobselVith8]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: You see, herein lies the problem. Why do mages get to build a society at all? Are they inherently better than anyone else? IF they believe they are - then the problem will never solve itself.

To have a home where they can be safe, which is the same reason many people have built a society. It's why the elves made a home out of the Dales. It's why Aldenon the Wise worked toward building a kingdom out of warring teyrnirs.

[Medhia Nox]

@LobselVith8: Oh, so you want mage exclusivity - and then everyone ALSO has to include them in everything.

Or - are you willing to allow non-mages to want a place where THEY can be safe and not have mages running around?

I can't really continue this train of thought further - it's a personal pet peeve in real life. Being a minority - I despise when my minority forms special cliques and then claims to want to be "just like everyone else."

Also - do you think the common people care one wit that Anders left the Circle?  Do you think they would even know?

Anders blames the Circle for making him who he is (loathesome copout) - but I've yet to experience anything so negative from a Circle.  If Bioware wants me to demonize the Circles - they need to put me in a situation I feel is terrible.  Kirkwall is an extreme of torn Veils and psycho fascists - and, let's be honest - more blood mages than anyone can shake a stick at.   I can only base the Circle off of my experiences in Ferelden and assume any character that starts AFTER those events (a Harrowing for example) did not also experience terrifying oppression - unless I invent it.

Especially now that the mages have rebelled - who would believe them if they tried to distance themselves from him? They've already shown their only out for themselves in the largest way possible.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 26 juin 2013 - 09:03 .

[IceHawk-181]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Ahh...the great history of MURICA (f*** yeah!)
Slavery was abolished in my coutnry 500 years before America was born.
And my ****ry is young compared to some other countries.

Well, congrats to your country.
Mine managed to formally end the Slave Trade within 39 years of its sovereign existence and eliminate the institution itself within 89 years. I do not really see the point of this comment, beyond some misguided attempt at Nationalistic or Cultural chauvinism, which really is fundamentally pointless.
 

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
And children are technicly required by law to go to school.
Of course mages require education. EVeryone requiress education. And to a mage his life litteraly depends on it due to his nature.

Mandatory education laws are both a function of cultural impetus and historical context.


Although education is a decent example; "Normal" people actually have the choice of having their children attend a local Public School, in voucher systems a Public School of their Choice, a Private School of their choice, or home tutoring.
 

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Mages are not like normal poeple, ergo, any rules and definitions are
not direcly applicable to them wihotu due consideration to the
differences.

Personally, I tend to agree which is why I advocated the passage of a secular law given legalistic authority under the Landsmeet that would require mandatory Magical education.
 
The difference is I would stop short of authorizing a Templar to slit a mother's throat if she did not want her child imprisoned in some far away tower.
 

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Either you are concirned with the letter of hte law and the definiton, or the spirit. It cannot be both.
You cannot argue for and agaisnt morals.
If a system of education is a moral necesity, then how can it be condemend based on morals?

Read my comment again; I clearly stated that irrespective of your stance on the moral necessity of a system of education the Circle system does in fact compel a form of labor which places the individuals in physical and psychological harm from their studies alone, and whose only recourse to failure is Tranquility or Death.
 

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
So? I see no problem there. I don't get to choose most of that stuff in my life either.
I can't tell the state to go f*** tiself and that I refuse to be subject to it's laws (and capital punishment)

Well, if you live under one of the world's totalitarian regimes you have my sympathies.
 
Otherwise, this is a clear straw man argument.
 
There is such a thing as a compact of civilization and most of the people who live West of Moscow are more than free to move both within their nation as well as leave their nation and find a home more suitable to their cultural sensibilities.
 

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
There are words for that: regretabble collateral damage. Quarantene. Better safe than sorry.

A lovely sentiment until you are said collateral damage.
 
However the point stands, the Chantry retains absolute power of life and death over all of its charges and can dispatch a Mage who is entirely innocent of any violations so long as they deem it necessary.
 
That is the fundamental definition of enslavement.
 
Complete domination of individual agency to the point of power over life and death, without recourse.
 
 

[The Baconer]

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Xilizhra: You see, herein lies the problem. Why do mages get to build a society at all? Are they inherently better than anyone else?

Well...

[dragonflight288]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

He completely is over the mage issue and glossing over any issues of oppression provided its of a group he dislikes.

And you can call him out on it and he will see his error.

Unlike Anders

But like Anders, Fenris is unwilling to change his view, even if he ackowledges his own hypocrisy. Sure, Anders and Fenris will side with the templar or mages respectively if Hawke does if at 100% friendship or rivalry, but neither are willing to change how they respond to whom they perceive as the enemy because their individual bias is so deeply ingrained.

The prevailing extreme attitudes in DA2 make the sane ones stand out all the more. I admire Cullen. after his traumatic experiences in DAO here he is in Kirkwall, totally sane, not at all fanatic and reasonably open-minded. Not that I suddenly think the Circle system is acceptable because of him, but I can respect him. He'd probably be open to alternate solutions that don't include keeping mages in glorified prisons.

He'd probably would, but at the same time, he probably wouldn't. With his line that mages can't be treated as people, and that they are only weapons, added in to the Chantry's complete control over mages, well until recent events in Asunder where the templars rebelled against the Chantry and the mages declared independence.

I'm not sure where I stand on Cullen as a character, but I think his further development will be fascinating to watch as the story progresses. He's suffered at the hands of abominations and blood mages, and he's seen the absolute worst the templars dish out, with Meredith's clear abuse of political power and her tendency to promote only the extremists in Kirkwall (Cullens codex says he was made Knight-captain because he shared Meredith's views, Ser Metten's codex says that Meredith specifically chose him to lead a death squad because he was so extreme, Ser Alrik was flat-out ignored, and Ser Kerras was raping mages and killing mages whenever he legally could get away with it, and Thask said Kerras was one of Meredith's cronies) that I'm taking a wait and see approach when it comes down to it.

I think his story is fascinating and his development has my complete attention, but I'm not holding my breath on him turning into the ideal templar everyone should look up to. I'm waiting for Inquisition.

[LobselVith8]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@LobselVith8: Oh, so you want mage exclusivity - and then everyone ALSO has to include them in everything.

Or - are you willing to allow non-mages to want a place where THEY can be safe and not have mages running around?

I can't really continue this train of thought further - it's a personal pet peeve in real life. Being a minority - I despise when my minority forms special cliques and then claims to want to be "just like everyone else."

I'd like to establish a mecca for mages, where mages and non-mages can live together. The 'undiscovered kingdom', as it were.

Medhia Nox wrote...

Also - do you think the common people care one wit that Anders left the Circle?  Do you think they would even know?

Who knows what they know about Anders. I'm sure a pro-mage apostate Champion who protected the mages and the Hero of Ferelden who asked for the Circle of Ferelden to be given it's autonomy might also factor into the perception of mages.

Medhia Nox wrote...

Anders blames the Circle for making him who he is (loathesome copout) - but I've yet to experience anything so negative from a Circle.  If Bioware wants me to demonize the Circles - they need to put me in a situation I feel is terrible.  Kirkwall is an extreme of torn Veils and psycho fascists - and, let's be honest - more blood mages than anyone can shake a stick at.   I can only base the Circle off of my experiences in Ferelden and assume any character that starts AFTER those events (a Harrowing for example) did not also experience terrifying oppression - unless I invent it.

The mage protagonist can condemn the Circle of Ferelden as an oppressive place, and I saw enough to see the Chantry controlled Circles as abhorrent. To each his own, I suppose.

Medhia Nox wrote...

Especially now that the mages have rebelled - who would believe them if they tried to distance themselves from him? They've already shown their only out for themselves in the largest way possible. 

I'm sure Meredith's response to Anders' actions cast a shadow as well, but there were people who hated mages long before Anders' actions.

[Medhia Nox]

@IceHawke: Are you saying secular laws are less apt to be abused?

Can I have your rose colored glasses for a bit? Mine have worn out.

----

So, instead of slitting the mother's throat - would you accept exile of the entire family? Or, at least - whoever wants to go?

Or - you can live in your proposed uneducated mage town and be carved out like a Christmas goose by an abomination - but I won't thanks.

You still gloss over nearly ALL of Dragon Ages established fantastic elements and use none of them to form your opinions it would seem.

The very reason proposed for the Templars dominion over the mages - is because mages are shown, time and time and TIME again in the last two stories - to have not an ounce of self-control. 

Very nearly all of them are self-serving craven power mongers.

It's actually a very nice example of power outstripping moral quality.

Edit: When a Templar doesn't have self-control - he can be tried and punished properly.  When a mage loses control - it resorts to blood magic, becomes an abomination or simply throws abilities around like Storm of the Century. 

Why do people ignore the obvious disparities for their delusional Harry Potter Thedas fantasy?

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 26 juin 2013 - 11:37 .

[Silfren]

Youth4Ever wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...
but it would certainly make the world a lot more interesting.

Try "completely destroy it".
The beauty of this conflict is that there is no perfect answer. Making everyone a mage would just be the worst cop out possible.

I agree with this.

I could agree with this if it were done by making everyone a mage and then rolling the credits with a "And then they all lived happily ever after" ending...but actually I think this kind of plot twist could be done very well.  Especially if attention was given to all the people who viewed magic as a curse, as did Keili from the Mage Origin.

[Silfren]

IceHawk-181 wrote...
Though that does not mean Anders suffered no punishments for the runaways, I do not recall any convos or codex entries detailing that.

Well there was that tiny matter of a year-long sentence of solitary confinement.  But we all know that something as trivial as that would never, EVER cause extensive psychological damage, oh, no, not at all.

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
The very reason proposed for the Templars dominion over the mages - is because mages are shown, time and time and TIME again in the last two stories - to have not an ounce of self-control.

No. DAO actually doesn't show many mages out of control. We have one madman who summons demons, and a lot of others who become his victims. Otherwise, we have a few unscrupulous mages here and there, but their actions are not intrinsically related to them being mages, they're bandits, slavers, servants of antagonists etc.., they don't summon demons (most demons we fight aren't summoned by a mage) and they don't get out of control. In fact, most mages in DAO serve as an example that they're very much in control of their powers, but morally as diverse as other humans.

Only DA2 goes all-out with the abominations, and that has been acknowledged as a flawed attempt to get more people to side with the templars, while ignoring the fact that most people didn't side with the mages because they wanted to destroy the Circle system, but because Annulment means killing a lot of innocents along with the guilty, while siding with the mages means killing people who would otherwise killing a lot of innocents. It's natural to side against the templars here. I don't count DA2 as even remotely representative. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 27 juin 2013 - 08:01 .

[Plaintiff]

^^ Let's not forget that, being the protagonist of a fantasy adventure story by necessity means one's experiences are atypical, and not in any way representative of broader trends.

In Narnia, all the significant animal characters talk, but that doesn't mean that all animals in the land of Narnia are capable of speech.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 27 juin 2013 - 08:24 .

[Plaintiff]

Filament wrote...

Silfren wrote...

I could agree with this if it were done by making everyone a mage and then rolling the credits with a "And then they all lived happily ever after" ending...but actually I think this kind of plot twist could be done very well.  Especially if attention was given to all the people who viewed magic as a curse, as did Keili from the Mage Origin.

If it ended up in mass suicides and a crapsack world overrun by demons and only a few "points of light" where humanity holds on, that would certainly be interesting. If a little like the D&D 4e transition. And all my Japanese animes.

It could be like the Golden Sun series where the return of "Alchemy" (basically magic) to the setting had positive and negative repurcussions in roughly equal measure, and the characters responsible are reviled by some and loved by others.

[Ieldra]

IceHawk-181 wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
Mages are not like normal poeple, ergo, any rules and definitions are
not direcly applicable to them wihotu due consideration to the
differences.

Personally, I tend to agree which is why I advocated the passage of a secular law given legalistic authority under the Landsmeet that would require mandatory Magical education.
 
The difference is I would stop short of authorizing a Templar to slit a mother's throat if she did not want her child imprisoned in some far away tower.

The important difference is "imprisoned". Education is clearly a necessity, since mages with uncontrolled powers are liable to cause accidents. For the same reason, that education must take place in a shielded environment. There may be exceptions, but home-schooling for mages does not appear feasible. So, that mother might have to live with her child being taken away for some time, but there is no reason why contact couldn't be maintained.

(May I use this opportunity to mention the absurdity of letting an apprentice train his fire magic in a library as in the DAO mage origin)   
 
A slightly OT comment on the side: not all countries allow homeschooling, for the explicit purpose of preventing political and religious extremists from indoctrinating their children and keeping them away from the public discourse. 

Modifié par Ieldra2, 27 juin 2013 - 09:17 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

IceHawk-181 wrote...
Mandatory education laws are both a function of cultural impetus and historical context.

Although education is a decent example; "Normal" people actually have the choice of having their children attend a local Public School, in voucher systems a Public School of their Choice, a Private School of their choice, or home tutoring.

Which is still irrelevant as they still have to get educated.

 

The difference is I would stop short of authorizing a Templar to slit a mother's throat if she did not want her child imprisoned in some far away tower.

And where praytell do you get the idea that templars go around slitting mothers throats?


 

Well, if you live under one of the world's totalitarian regimes you have my sympathies.

Otherwise, this is a clear straw man argument.
 
There is such a thing as a compact of civilization and most of the people who live West of Moscow are more than free to move both within their nation as well as leave their nation and find a home more suitable to their cultural sensibilities.

The freedom to move ir irrelevant.
For every freedom you have, there is one you don't.
Having a theoretical/technical freedom, but not real one.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
There are words for that: regretabble collateral damage. Quarantene. Better safe than sorry.

A lovely sentiment until you are said collateral damage.
 
However the point stands, the Chantry retains absolute power of life and death over all of its charges and can dispatch a Mage who is entirely innocent of any violations so long as they deem it necessary.

 
That is the fundamental definition of enslavement.

Hypothetical:
The US government find out a terrorist highjacked a plane and is carrying a virus he plan to release over the city. They shoot the plane down. Everoyne else on the plane was innocent.
The government just excercised absolute power over life and death. Is it slavery?

A mage will be killed ONLY IF NECESSARY - only if he breaks certain laws.
Keeping in mind that death penalty still exist, even you, a normal, free citizen, can be lawfully killed.

[Xilizhra]

And where praytell do you get the idea that templars go around slitting mothers throats?

Where do you get the idea that they wouldn't if there was any resistance?

A mage will be killed ONLY IF NECESSARY - only if he breaks certain laws.
Keeping in mind that death penalty still exist, even you, a normal, free citizen, can be lawfully killed.

And I believe that's wrong too, and certainly a slavery-like element that exists within our own society. It's just not combined with a lot of other things.

[Ieldra]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

The difference is I would stop short of authorizing a Templar to slit a mother's throat if she did not want her child imprisoned in some far away tower.

And where praytell do you get the idea that templars go around slitting mothers throats?

They did this in the Dragon Age comic by Aaron Johnston and Orson Scott Card.

The freedom to move ir irrelevant.

Is it? It's even listed in the UN human rights convention, article 13: (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state, and (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country. Among other things, this is specifically listed to underscore that governments do not have the right to keep the inhabitants of their country in, or at any place, by force. It is a very real issue in the real world, and very applicable to the mage/templar situation.

A mage will be killed ONLY IF NECESSARY - only if he breaks certain laws.

No. A mage will be killed even if innocent if the Right of Annulment is invoked, and that can be invoked for actions which didn't harm anyone, as the Annulment in Dairsmuid clearly shows.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 27 juin 2013 - 10:56 .

[Xilizhra]

No. A mage will be killed even if innocent if the Right of Annulment is invoked, and that can be invoked for actions which didn't harm anyone, as the Annulment in Dairsmuid clearly shows.

Also that; I keep forgetting about that Annulment, as I don't have World of Thedas.

[Hellion Rex]

@Xilizhra it was actually in the tail end of Asunder as well, if I recall correctly.

[Medhia Nox]

@Ieldra2: Why must it be abominations for a mage to be considered "out of control"?

-Zathrian endangers his entire clan for his own vengeance: Out of Control

-Jowan practices blood magic for self-serving reasons and cares only about himself when he asks the main character to risk his life in the destruction of Jowan's phylactery and THEN thinks poisoning an Arl couldn't possibly be bad: Out of Control

- Uldred: Nuff said

- Morrigan: Uses magic and childbirth to perform her little magical experiments. How people think having a child for magical purposes is anything but diabolic is twisted to me. She thinks hunting Templars is fun (defending yourself is one thing - thinking it's fun is another). She's not at all interested in helping her fellow mages (so forget her assistance in the mage rebellion unless it serves her purposes). She endlessly tries to manipulate the Warden for her own ends: Out of Control.

- Conner: Out of Control because his dip**** mother tries to get an independent mage to teach him. That worked out SO well.

They don't have to be insane - they just have to possess no moral compass what so ever. Mages in DA:O and 2 don't... why? Because most of them act as if their magical powers give them the right to do as they please.

I'm sorry - I simply do not agree that these people are anything but craven power hungry self-serving douchbags... and their magic gives them the ability to act upon every weak pathetic impulse they have.

-Irving: Largely useless

-Niall: Totally useless

-Senior Enchanter Torren: Mostly Useless (though he does foreshadow the war as being doomed)

-Senior Enchanter Liorra(sp?): Totally useless - talk about management being the worst possible candidate.

Senior Enchanter Sweeny: Certifiably useless.

Wynne: Rock star

So, we've got one useful mage actually moral upstanding and responsible with her power. And a slew of useless or diabolic users of magic.

That people justify their actions on here makes me damn glad that something like magic doesn't exist for real.

[Ieldra]

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Ieldra2: Why must it be abominations for a mage to be considered "out of control"?

All sorts of people are criminals and self-serving jerks. It doesn't take a mage to be one, and if you are, you're aren't that way because of magic. Well, in some instances you might be, but non-mages are every bit as bad. Thus, using your magic to serve yourself, leaving a trail of corpses behind doesn't make you different from a mass murderer and  doesn't justify the Circle. It justifies after-the-fact punishment just as in the mass murderer's case. These people aren't "out of control", they're simply doing bad stuff.

The possessed *are* out of control. They know no restraint where the simply evil would still be constrained by cost/benefit considerations. It is a different quality. If this happened often even in a benevolent environment where mages are educated to the best of their ability and not treated as prisoners, *then* it would justify isolating mages.

I also don't agree with your assessment of some characters, but I don't want to go into that here.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 27 juin 2013 - 01:24 .

[MisterJB]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Ieldra2: Why must it be abominations for a mage to be considered "out of control"?

All sorts of people are criminals and self-serving jerks. It doesn't take a mage to be one, and if you are, you're aren't that way because of magic. Well, in some instances you might be, but non-mages are every bit as bad. Thus, using your magic to serve yourself, leaving a trail of corpses behind doesn't make you different from a serial killer and  doesn't justify the Circle. It justifies after-the-fact punishment just as in the serial killer's case. These people aren't "out of control", they're simply doing bad stuff.

What exactly is the difference between being "out of control" and "doing bad stuff"? Take Zathrian for instance. The people who slaugthered his children deserved to be punished, certainly. But once his curse started affecting the innocent, he just couldn't care less and since he would not end it despite his own people being on the verge of becoming werewolfs, it is obvious he was also not being "constrained by cost/benefit considerations".
How is Zathrian any less "out of control" than an Abomination?

As for the Circles, yes they're justified. Certainly, a sword can kill just like a fireball can kill. The difference being in the number of corpses magic will leave behind when compared to a sword.
It would have taken a small army of trained soldiers to take over Redcliff. Connor, a small child with naught but good intentions, destroys it without even meaning to.
The problem with after the fact punishment is that when a mage abuses his powers, the results are catastrofic.

[Ieldra]

MisterJB wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...
@Ieldra2: Why must it be abominations for a mage to be considered "out of control"?

All sorts of people are criminals and self-serving jerks. It doesn't take a mage to be one, and if you are, you're aren't that way because of magic. Well, in some instances you might be, but non-mages are every bit as bad. Thus, using your magic to serve yourself, leaving a trail of corpses behind doesn't make you different from a serial killer and  doesn't justify the Circle. It justifies after-the-fact punishment just as in the serial killer's case. These people aren't "out of control", they're simply doing bad stuff.

What exactly is the difference between being "out of control" and "doing bad stuff"? Take Zathrian for instance. The people who slaugthered his children deserved to be punished, certainly. But once his curse started affecting the innocent, he just couldn't care less and since he would not end it despite his own people being on the verge of becoming werewolfs, it is obvious he was also not being "constrained by cost/benefit considerations".
How is Zathrian any less "out of control" than an Abomination?

As for the Circles, yes they're justified. Certainly, a sword can kill just like a fireball can kill. The difference being in the number of corpses magic will leave behind when compared to a sword.
It would have taken a small army of trained soldiers to take over Redcliff. Connor, a small child with naught but good intentions, destroys it without even meaning to.
The problem with after the fact punishment is that when a mage abuses his powers, the results are catastrofic.

Connor doesn't justify the Circles. He justifies mandatory education at a shielded facility, yes, but not isolation from his family, not even during his apprenticeship. 

As for the scope of the damage, may I remind you of the quest "Blackpowder Courtesy"? A whole city block got poisoned, completely without the involvement of any magic. Even apart from that, almost all "abuses of magic" are well within the scope achievable by non-magical means.