136 réponses à ce sujet

[Potato Cat]

The hatred of mages is not symptomatic of the Circles, it's symptomatic of the Chantry dogma. They are always bleating about the dangers of mages, so of course people will fear them. They reduce the mage to just the fact they have magic.

While the Qunari treatment, I repeat, treatment of mages appears much more severe than the Chantry's, they do not make people fear them, they make them pity them. The self sacrifice of the Saarebas and their selflessness to endure their treatment is regarded by the Qunari as the highest virtue. They are to be pitited, and the Qunari genuinely respect the Saarebas. They do not hate the mage, like the Andrastrians, they hate what they can become. Say what you like about the treatment, the attitude the Qunari have about their mages is far kinder than the Andrastrians.

[The Hierophant]

cjones91 wrote...

There are also dwarven records that claim the darkspawn appeared from underground one day which would contradict the Chantry's story of mages unleashing the Blight & Darkspawn upon the world.The thing is nobody knows how the darkspawn came to be, but the Chantry spreads it's story around like it's actual fact when it's more than likely BS used to keep mages under the Chantry's control.

There's no contradiction as a lot of Dwarven records were lost while no direct date was given. The only thing that's known is that the darkspawn outbreak lasted nearly a century before the actual blight started.
Even if the outbreak started on the surface the ghouls and darkspawn would still have to tunnel after the Old Gods. The only thing that's still up for debate now is the Maker's existence, it's motives, and the real nature of the GC.
Plus judging by Corypheus's statements the magisters carrying the taint from the GC is the most likely cause of Tevinter's outbreak.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 08 septembre 2013 - 07:53 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Here is what I think of the two sides. First I believe that people should not be punished for the properties they've got from birth. Mages didn't have the option of becoming a mage. They simply are mages.

DA2 does a poor job in how they handle apostates. Instead of portraying them as a group who don't want to be locked up and value their freedom, they appear evil whenever they are driven in a corner and they burp up one demon after the other. So, obviously mages lack goodwill for good reason. Templars are supposed to protect society from the evil mages, but are also portrayed as corrupt addicts. The chantry just wants to keep the status quo and even the Divine's role is questionable, depending on one's viewpoint or which Divine is being discussed - the White or the Black one.

It will be very hard to counter all that in DA:I to make any sense for me as a player.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 08 septembre 2013 - 07:53 .

[Wulfram]

Elfman wrote...

The hatred of mages is not symptomatic of the Circles, it's symptomatic of the Chantry dogma.

You've got the causation the wrong way round.  Chantry dogma is symptomatic of hatred of mages.  So are Circles.

The Chantry didn't go "hey, let's get everyone to hate mages" out of nowhere.  The people founding the Chantry hated and/or feared mages, and so they incorporated it into their doctrine.

Modifié par Wulfram, 08 septembre 2013 - 07:51 .

[TheKomandorShepard]

Calob wrote...

Mages deserved to be free and treated like everybody else but the need to warrant their powers. Templars need to be like mage police and less mage prison guards. Both have rights but go to extremes to express them.

in idealistic setting that would be true in cynical setting (which da represents) this is only dream

[Navasha]

Elfman wrote...
While the Qunari treatment, I repeat, treatment of mages appears much more severe than the Chantry's, they do not make people fear them, they make them pity them. The self sacrifice of the Saarebas and their selflessness to endure their treatment is regarded by the Qunari as the highest virtue. They are to be pitited, and the Qunari genuinely respect the Saarebas. They do not hate the mage, like the Andrastrians, they hate what they can become. Say what you like about the treatment, the attitude the Qunari have about their mages is far kinder than the Andrastrians.

I hate to say it, but you have a very odd notion about the Qunari.   They don't feel pity.  They don't respect mages.  Saarebas are nothing more than tools to them.   Sure, they don't hate the mage, but they don't tolerate their existence either without their master at the leash.   A carpenter may "respect" his hammer and his tools too, but that doesn't mean they consider them equals or even a living thing.    The Qunari are NOT kind to their mages.

That's part of the irony.   The circles and the Qunari BOTH enslave their mages and use them only as tools when they need power. 

[Potato Cat]

Wulfram wrote...

Elfman wrote...

The hatred of mages is not symptomatic of the Circles, it's symptomatic of the Chantry dogma.

You've got the causation the wrong way round.  Chantry dogma is symptomatic of hatred of mages.  So are Circles.

The Chantry didn't go "hey, let's get everyone to hate mages" out of nowhere.  The people founding the Chantry hated and/or feared mages, and so they incorporated it into their doctrine.

The average person who has never seen a mage would not fear them, or hate them. It may have started that way, but the Chantry spreads the fear well into the Dragon Age.

[cjones91]

Elfman wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Elfman wrote...

The hatred of mages is not symptomatic of the Circles, it's symptomatic of the Chantry dogma.

You've got the causation the wrong way round.  Chantry dogma is symptomatic of hatred of mages.  So are Circles.

The Chantry didn't go "hey, let's get everyone to hate mages" out of nowhere.  The people founding the Chantry hated and/or feared mages, and so they incorporated it into their doctrine.

The average person who has never seen a mage would not fear them, or hate them. It may have started that way, but the Chantry spreads the fear well into the Dragon Age.

Not to mention the Chantry benefits greatly from having people fear and hate mages.

[In Exile]

Silfren wrote...
Anyway, I DO think that the mages have the moral high ground.  It is not morally acceptable to lock up a person for an accident of birth, for something they might do, ESPECIALLY when there is plenty of evidence that the Templars' default go-to answer is not the only possible means of protecting against magical abuse, we see examples of the powers that be acting in ways that contradict the Chantry's stated position on the matter and yet without diastrous results, and we also see that the lock 'em up for life solution actually creates many of the problems it purports to prevent.

Totally agree, though I'd say the Circle mages have the moral highground. I think apostates are in a different box and GW mages are in a separate box by themselves. 

[In Exile]

Navasha wrote...
I hate to say it, but you have a very odd notion about the Qunari.   They don't feel pity.  They don't respect mages.  Saarebas are nothing more than tools to them.   Sure, they don't hate the mage, but they don't tolerate their existence either without their master at the leash.   A carpenter may "respect" his hammer and his tools too, but that doesn't mean they consider them equals or even a living thing.    The Qunari are NOT kind to their mages.

That's part of the irony.   The circles and the Qunari BOTH enslave their mages and use them only as tools when they need power. 

The codex entry on the Sareebas suggest otherwise. Their system is so abusive it absolutely boggles the mind, but their dogma is one of veneration. Here is the text of the codex:

The Qun teaches that all living things have a place and a purpose, and only when they are in the correct place and in control of their self may they attain balance. When balance is lost, suffering follows. Mastery of the self is, therefore, the first and greatest duty.

Those born with magic are at a terrible disadvantage, fordemons can always rob them of their self. Because of this, the Qunari name them saarebas, meaning "dangerous thing", and treat them with the utmost caution. Saarebas must be carefully controlled by someone else, an arvaarad, "one who holds back evil", because they cannot truly control themselves. The evil is not the mage, but the loss of the mage, the loss of the mage's self, and the suffering that inevitably follows.

The Qunari pity and honor the saarebas, for striving while under constant threat from within is truly selfless, which is the highest virtue of the Qun.

Modifié par In Exile, 08 septembre 2013 - 08:11 .

[TheKomandorShepard]

cjones91 wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Palidane wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Eh, I don't reduce people to mathematical equations and frankly I find that practice abhorrent.  Slavery is slavery, regardless of how many people are affected by it, but if you want to play this game, I think that the harm of the Chantry-run Circles goes deeper than the total number of mages imprisoned.  One, the families of those mages are affected, too, but more than that, it's also about the toxic mage hatred that the practice encourages.  It doesn't just lead to people hating and fearing mages on principle, but it also creates mages like Keili who are one step away from suicide because they actually believe their very existence is an affront to their God.  There is nothing remotely okay about a system that engenders that kind of self-loathing.

I didn't drink any Flavor-Aid thank you very much, but arrived at my opinion that mages deserve the same basic right of freedom as others quite entirely on the strength of my own reason. 

You keep saying you agree with me, but you very clearly don't, so I'm not sure why you keep saying that.  I don't think that it is necessary to lock up mages.  Some oversight is required, obviously, but what I have seen of the available lore tells me that it's quite possible to have that oversight while allowing mages to live freely, without being locked away.

Slavery is slavery, but when my options are two different kinds of slavery, I'm going to pick the one that has less potential slaves. I would also argue that the "mage-hate" the Chant of Light teaches is not terribly far off the mark (which isn't neccessarily what the Templars teach, I admit). And besides, what do you think engenders more "mage-hate", a Revered Mother teaching about how magic should serve man and never rule over him, or a Magister dropping by the kitchens and slaughtering your entire family so he can get a minor power-up before a duel?

When I made the Kool-Aid remark, I wasn't referring to you. I may have misinterpreted your posts, but I have agreed with most of your sentiments so far. I don't think the current system works, and I don't think a prison is strictly neccessary either.

Not all mages are the same.

after da 2 i would argue

Kirkwall was a completely special circumstance.I don't judge all mages&templars based on what happened there.

To be honest psycho mages existed even in first game for example denerim.

[cjones91]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Palidane wrote...

Silfren wrote...
Eh, I don't reduce people to mathematical equations and frankly I find that practice abhorrent.  Slavery is slavery, regardless of how many people are affected by it, but if you want to play this game, I think that the harm of the Chantry-run Circles goes deeper than the total number of mages imprisoned.  One, the families of those mages are affected, too, but more than that, it's also about the toxic mage hatred that the practice encourages.  It doesn't just lead to people hating and fearing mages on principle, but it also creates mages like Keili who are one step away from suicide because they actually believe their very existence is an affront to their God.  There is nothing remotely okay about a system that engenders that kind of self-loathing.

I didn't drink any Flavor-Aid thank you very much, but arrived at my opinion that mages deserve the same basic right of freedom as others quite entirely on the strength of my own reason. 

You keep saying you agree with me, but you very clearly don't, so I'm not sure why you keep saying that.  I don't think that it is necessary to lock up mages.  Some oversight is required, obviously, but what I have seen of the available lore tells me that it's quite possible to have that oversight while allowing mages to live freely, without being locked away.

Slavery is slavery, but when my options are two different kinds of slavery, I'm going to pick the one that has less potential slaves. I would also argue that the "mage-hate" the Chant of Light teaches is not terribly far off the mark (which isn't neccessarily what the Templars teach, I admit). And besides, what do you think engenders more "mage-hate", a Revered Mother teaching about how magic should serve man and never rule over him, or a Magister dropping by the kitchens and slaughtering your entire family so he can get a minor power-up before a duel?

When I made the Kool-Aid remark, I wasn't referring to you. I may have misinterpreted your posts, but I have agreed with most of your sentiments so far. I don't think the current system works, and I don't think a prison is strictly neccessary either.

Not all mages are the same.

after da 2 i would argue

Kirkwall was a completely special circumstance.I don't judge all mages&templars based on what happened there.

To be honest psycho mages existed even in first game for example denerim.

So?There are crazy non mages in both games as well, the point is you can't judge a entire people based on what a small minority did.

[DarkKnightHolmes]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...



To be honest psycho mages existed even in first game for example denerim.

Meh, denerim also had plenty of psychos that weren't mages.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Well it isn't small minority da is full of them practically we see more psychos ,lunatics and abominations than sane mages.

[PinkysPain]

Hainkpe wrote...

My first play through of DA2, I sided with the Templars. Second time, with the Mages. Both sides have strong and weak points to their respective arguments. At this point, I do not see one being preferential over the other.

Both sides have strong arguments but the mages have morality on their side. I don't do realpolitik in games, if the world isn't moral, then the world deserves an apocalypse.

Mages all the way, even if every single one turns into a demon ... may a better world arise from the ashes of the grim derp one.

Modifié par PinkysPain, 08 septembre 2013 - 08:32 .

[Wissenschaft]

PinkysPain wrote...

Hainkpe wrote...

My first play through of DA2, I sided with the Templars. Second time, with the Mages. Both sides have strong and weak points to their respective arguments. At this point, I do not see one being preferential over the other.

Both sides have strong arguments but the mages have morality on their side. I don't do realpolitik in games, if the world isn't moral, then the world deserves an apocalypse.

Because all the mages in DA 2 were paragons of morality.........

I'm also am disturbed by the attituide that if the world isn't moral then let it burn. If the world isn't moral, wouldn't it be better to strive to make the world a better place for everyone? Isn't that a more heroic approach to take or is that too much Realpolitik? 

Modifié par Wissenschaft, 08 septembre 2013 - 08:36 .

[PinkysPain]

Wissenschaft wrote...
Because all the mages in DA 2 were paragons of morality.........

Fallacy, ad hominem.

I'm also am disturbed by the attituide that if the world isn't moral then let it burn. If the world isn't moral, wouldn't it be better to strive to make the world a better place for everyone?

Sure, let my character try to strengthen the veil and lock demons out of the material world ... if you really mean strive to make the grim derp world retain it's grim derp status quo by sacrificing the lesser good for the greater good, then no I'm not interested. Let it burn.

Modifié par PinkysPain, 08 septembre 2013 - 08:44 .

[Cigne]

Elfman wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Elfman wrote...

The hatred of mages is not symptomatic of the Circles, it's symptomatic of the Chantry dogma.

You've got the causation the wrong way round.  Chantry dogma is symptomatic of hatred of mages.  So are Circles.

The Chantry didn't go "hey, let's get everyone to hate mages" out of nowhere.  The people founding the Chantry hated and/or feared mages, and so they incorporated it into their doctrine.

The average person who has never seen a mage would not fear them, or hate them. It may have started that way, but the Chantry spreads the fear well into the Dragon Age.

The average person, though, will have grown up hearing tales of that little girl that set fire to someone's hair, of hear a village elder tell of the time, years ago, when little Billy made a couple of village girls... well, you know.

For every tale of a child ripped from thier mother's arms will be one of a child hidden away and abusing thier magic.

[Eveangaline]

In general or in specific instances? I could see killing everyone in the circle in da1, but I just couldn't see siding with the templars in da2.

[Dr. Doctor]

The Templars do have a point about uncontrolled magic being dangerous, and the Circle is the best training that a mage can receive but the issue is once a mage has passed the Harrowing you're pretty much stuck in a tower for the rest of your days.

You've got highly educated scholars, healers, and potential weapons of war just sitting there which is just asking for trouble. Offering the opportunity to work outside of the Circle tower with some oversight from the Templars instead of being confined might help.

The Order isn't quite what it was back in the early days of the Chantry. Cullen mentions in DA2 that people are more likely to slam a door in a knight's face than offer assistance or a bed. They're more like glorified prison guards than the knights from the time of the first Inquisition.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

cjones91 wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Can you actually prove the Ancient Tevinter Magisters created and unleashed the Darkspawn?And don't give me that Chantry BS because they have every reason to demonize mages.Corypheus claims the Black City was already black by the time they got there so Tevinter did'nt create the Blight.

Of course keep blaming the currrent generation of mages for something that happened a thousand years ago because that's all you Pro Templars ever do, while ignoring the abuses commited by mundanes over the years.

The darkspawn only appeared after Corypheus' and crew's Fade trip. If the darkspawn predated the magisters trip a few Old Gods should've been tainted by then.

There are also dwarven records that claim the darkspawn appeared from underground one day which would contradict the Chantry's story of mages unleashing the Blight &Darkspawn upon the world.The thing is nobody knows how the darkspawn came to be,but the Chantry spreads it's story around like it's actual fact when it's more than likely BS used to keep mages under the Chantry's control.

The dwarves have no idea where the darkspawn came from. There is nothing in their account that actually contradicts anything the Chantry believes. Corypheus doesn't say the Black City was already black whehn he got there but even if it was that still means he and his peers started the Blights.

Orlais' "history" of conquering nations weakened by the Blight happened only once so far, and I should point out on an occasion where Tevinter did the same exact thing with them. Tevinter has conquered more nations, destroyed more culture, enslaved more people, abused more downtrodden than Orlais ever has.

And no I'm not saying Orlais never did anything morally reprehensible, but every bad thing Orlais has ever done, Tevinter has done worse. Even the gap between the mostly corrupt higher classes and downtrodden lower classes sounds much greater in Tevinter than Orlais.

In response to the OP though, personally I think whether the templars or mages are right I think is something that depends on the specific circumstances, which to me means it's probably a good example of a grey conflict. I think most people have a clearer opnion though.  In the most general sense I think templars are necessarily, but the scenario that was constructed at the end of DA 2 with Meredith and Orsino clearly put the mages in the right, imo. In fact it was far too easy of a decision. Hopefully, it wouldn't be as easy in DAI.

Bioware usually tries to create morally grey choices, but if BSN is anything to go by, the fans REALLY don't like that. In both the Mass Effect and Dragon Age forums, most of the arguments are so determined to paint any issue from the games (most of which are clearly designed to be morally ambiguous) as ABSOLUTELY black and white and anyone who is on the opposte side of the  "correct" perspective is simply pro-evil.

Modifié par Jedi Master of Orion, 08 septembre 2013 - 10:26 .

[Palidane]

Dr. Doctor wrote...

The Templars do have a point about uncontrolled magic being dangerous, and the Circle is the best training that a mage can receive but the issue is once a mage has passed the Harrowing you're pretty much stuck in a tower for the rest of your days.

You've got highly educated scholars, healers, and potential weapons of war just sitting there which is just asking for trouble. Offering the opportunity to work outside of the Circle tower with some oversight from the Templars instead of being confined might help.

The Order isn't quite what it was back in the early days of the Chantry. Cullen mentions in DA2 that people are more likely to slam a door in a knight's face than offer assistance or a bed. They're more like glorified prison guards than the knights from the time of the first Inquisition.

Agreed on all points, but I think Cullen was referring to the Kirkwall Order in particular. In most of the rest of Thedas, Templars are heroes. True, the common people only see the bright side of the Templars, but that side is still there. When abominations go on a rampage, it's the Templars that save the day. When a cabal of Maleficars start sacrificing people, it's the Templars that kick the door in and start smiting. When a demon turns an orphanage into hell, the Templars show up to kill it. I wish Bioware would show us that side of the Templars more.

[Mykel54]

The situation with Kirkwall´s templars is a bad example, because it is the worst city a circle of magi could ever be placed. The city is on a cursed place (thin veil due to massive sacrifices) where demons have an easier time entering, and the Templars rule the whole city. That´s right, this means that the templars are in charge (the viscount is a figurehead), so they can get away with a lot of things.

That isn´t how the templars, the rulership of the city, or the circle of magi is supposed to work, so it is a bad example put on purpose as the place where tensions are most likely to break and some disaster happen. If you want a good example of a circle of magi then use the fereldan one which was much better depicted. If you still don´t like the circle, fine, but don´t use DA2 as the rule of your average circle when it is the worst case possible.

Modifié par Mykel54, 08 septembre 2013 - 10:27 .

[Gruffe]

I believe there have to be rules and Circles for the Mages. Letting them just wander the world will eventually lead to people such as the Baroness, power hungry, or perhaps forming another Tevinter Imperium and that would be bad.

They can't be too soft either. The Tevinter Circle was just like all the others, however their templars were too lenient and soft, it led to mages taking back power.