935 réponses à ce sujet

[wolfhowwl]

cjones91 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

cjones91 wrote...
Why are you trying to make it non mages vs mages?What you are talking about is the very same logic bigots use to make the "other" people the enemy simply because they are different from them.

Mages are different, though. I don't think hating the abuse that's been perpetrated by the Circle means ignoring the fact that mages are, at the end of the day, effectively superhumans compared to the average mundane. 

It's still bigotry to make them the enemy simply because people are born with magic,bigots in real life make other people they don't like seem different because it's easier to hate and dehumanize them that way.

Mages ARE very different. The destructive power a mage can muster is so far beyond that of a normal person that the idea of treating them the same is ludicrous. In a fit of pique a mage can level a building. They still have the same human weaknesses as the rest of us, their abilities mean they can inflict greater levels of destruction and sink to lower levels of depravity.

A mage, in a moment of weakness or confusion, can become an abomination. While in-game abominations go down like chumps, in the lore they are deadly killing machines that slay dozens and smash through armed resistance.

[Hellion Rex]

I have to raise the question though: if the Veil has been torn so badly, are abominations even as common anymore? Why would a demon possess a mage if they can physically cross the broken Veil?

[pmac_tk421]

I'd be OK with a Templar companion(and I mean an active one, not a person with Templar training), but as a result of your actions. It wouldn't make much sense for a Templar to support you if you devote the inquisitions resources to protecting mages from Templar death squads. I think it might be a cool idea to have companions who will join or not based on your choices. As a pro-mage player, who will probably stick up for mages when given the opportunity, it would be strange for an active Templar to join me and serve the inquisition.

Modifié par pmac_tk421, 21 septembre 2013 - 11:33 .

[Laughing_Man]

wolfhowwl wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

cjones91 wrote...
Why are you trying to make it non mages vs mages?What you are talking about is the very same logic bigots use to make the "other" people the enemy simply because they are different from them.

Mages are different, though. I don't think hating the abuse that's been perpetrated by the Circle means ignoring the fact that mages are, at the end of the day, effectively superhumans compared to the average mundane. 

It's still bigotry to make them the enemy simply because people are born with magic,bigots in real life make other people they don't like seem different because it's easier to hate and dehumanize them that way.

Mages ARE very different. The destructive power a mage can muster is so far beyond that of a normal person that the idea of treating them the same is ludicrous. In a fit of pique a mage can level a building. They still have the same human weaknesses as the rest of us, their abilities mean they can inflict greater levels of destruction and sink to lower levels of depravity.

A mage, in a moment of weakness or confusion, can become an abomination. While in-game abominations go down like chumps, in the lore they are deadly killing machines that slay dozens and smash through armed resistance.

I'll say again what I said before:
Creating a powerfull police force armed with anti-magic "technology" and sympathetic mages to handle the inevitable magical crimes? sure.

Whole-sale oppression of anyone born with magic? It's both criminally insane and needlessly cruel.

[Silfren]

MasterScribe wrote...
2. Alistair, a failed templar who has been through lots of s***, is one of my favorite characters in DA.

Bah.  He didn't fail, he quit.  Stop listening to Morrigan!

[Hellion Rex]

MasterScribe wrote...

Silfren wrote...

MasterScribe wrote...
2. Alistair, a failed templar who has been through lots of s***, is one of my favorite characters in DA.

Bah.  He didn't fail, he quit.  Stop listening to Morrigan!

Sadly, I cannot. She is my woman. He's just my friend.

Hoes before bros. 

Haha, reverse that man

[Nashiktal]

All I know is that I am enjoying the socratic method that Allan is employing here. It might be frustrating to the one being questioned but I feel it helps focus on why people feel the way they do, and bring good discussion from it rather than just having people talk past each other talking about what they believe rather than actually discussing anything.

[Silfren]

Nashiktal wrote...

All I know is that I am enjoying the socratic method that Allan is employing here. It might be frustrating to the one being questioned but I feel it helps focus on why people feel the way they do, and bring good discussion from it rather than just having people talk past each other talking about what they believe rather than actually discussing anything.

I rather doubt he's applying the socratic method, just asking honest questions.  =p

[Medhia Nox]

@Plaintiff: Trauma is not an excuse for bigotry - buis it an excuse for a violent rebellion?

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 22 septembre 2013 - 01:26 .

[Gwydden]

MisterJB wrote...

Gwydden wrote...
I agree that mages need to be policed, and that you cannot count on people just behaving. What I'm saying, and what you also mention in your post, is that mages and mundanes are a danger to each other. How do you determine what group gets its freedom restricted for the other's security? By simple arithmetics (there are more mundanes than mages) or simply by self preservation instinct (you are not a mage)? Neither sounds like a very legitimate way of making such a complex decission.

Yes, you're not a mage, but that is because such a thing doesn't exist in the real world. It's not a real posibility for anyone. Let's say you had been born in Thedas. In that case, you could have been a mage. If you had been, the fact that you and others like you had to be punished because you happened to have a quality others lack would seem rather arbitrary since you might question what makes the rights of mundanes more important than those of mages.

If we assume that the worth of a mage's life is the same as that of a normal person, then it would still be the mages who would have their freedoms restricted.
This because normals also have their freedoms restricted everyday. It's the whole point of the legal system; our freedoms are restricted from birth so that we may coexist and these restrictions apply not if we have given indications of being dangerous but by default.
Logically, since mages are more dangerous than normal people, their freedoms should be more restricted to account for this fact. And this is no more punishment than the restriction non-mages will have to deal with everyday.

But, ultimately, there is no such thing as an inherent right. Non-mages are in power because they fought for it. Which is why I don't begrudge mages if they fight for the benefit of their group or themselves while also opposing so that non-mages; which is the group I identify with; can continue to thrive. It's what we all must do.

I fundamentally agree with you, but you still haven't answered my hypothetical. You identify with non mages because you're one of them, but that actually means nothing since you couldn't possibly be anything else. If you were born in Thedas, you'll be a potential mage until a certain age, since magic talent doesn't manifest right away. You could or could not be a mage (also known as Schrodinger's Magic). And there it goes: you don't know what you would be in Thedas, where the mage/mundane gap actually applies. Without identifying with any of the two groups and admitting that which one gets more freedom is more of a historical matter, where would you stand?

And we actually have Tevinter as a country where mages managed to retain their power, and therefore, non mages there are in disadvantage when compared to those who do posses the skill. Do you think mages in Tevinter have as much right to keep their privileges over Tevinter mundanes as much as mundanes in other parts of Thedas have a right to keep theirs regarding their own magic-users?

[jillabender]

Silfren wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...

All I know is that I am enjoying the socratic method that Allan is employing here. It might be frustrating to the one being questioned but I feel it helps focus on why people feel the way they do, and bring good discussion from it rather than just having people talk past each other talking about what they believe rather than actually discussing anything.

I rather doubt he's applying the socratic method, just asking honest questions.  =p

Can't it be both? The Socratic mehod, after all, does come down to asking honest (sometimes pointed) questions in order to arrive at a better understanding for both the questioner and the questionee.

I've told him this before, but I really appreciate the way that Allan asks insightful questions that are designed to make a point and to get people thinking, while also showing a willingness to listen to people honestly.

Modifié par jillabender, 22 septembre 2013 - 01:53 .

[Laughing_Man]

There is no doubt that when it comes to the potential moral issues of magic, things are not very clear.

But I think that the more important question is:
One, if the chantry's way is the smart way of handling the potential problems of magic.
Two, is the current way of things really what those who wrote the chantry's manifesto meant?

[duckley]

TheRedVipress wrote...

There is no doubt that when it comes to the potential moral issues of magic, things are not very clear.

But I think that the more important question is:
One, if the chantry's way is the smart way of handling the potential problems of magic.
Two, is the current way of things really what those who wrote the chantry's manifesto meant?

In a  perfect world the Circle of Magi and the Templar order might actualy work reasonably well with a few tweaks here and there. Problem is - it is not a prefect world. Men and women and the institutions they represent can become corrupt- religious, political, social...

So in answer to your questions
1) No - the Chantry way is no longer the smart way (and arguably never was). If the Chantry wants to stay involved with the Circle they need to come up with a new model cause the one they have is clearly broken.

2) Unlikley. In the religions I am aware of, the words of Prophet, G-d, religious icon - get awfully twisted and are sometimes (often/) used to justify war, murder, bullying, hate propeganda etc etc.

[Plaintiff]

MWImexico wrote...
So you mean that since he occupied a post of responsibility in Kirkwall's circle, he also should take his share of responsibility in what's happened during his service? If so, that seems fair to me.

That's what I'm getting at, yes.

Though I wonder, perhaps he simply was to blind to see what was going on around him? Cause, I might be wrong about him but I think he's not the type of person who could allow abuses to be commited in front of him and do nothing about it. I supose that, in his mind, he was simply doing his job?

Then he's negligent. Hawke is never able to go beyond the Gallows courtyard, but it takes all of five minutes to discover that physical and sexual abuse against mages are being committed within its walls. A tranquil store vendor mentions being beaten when her wares are stolen, another tranquil mage claims to "belong to Ser Alrik".

If Hawke can fnd this stuff out in only a few trips to The Gallows, then Cullen, who spends all day every day working there, has no excuses. The only way these problems could possibly escape his notice is if he willfully ignored them. Which makes him culpable in the wrongdoing. I'd say as their commanding officer, he bears an equal share of the blame.

Anyway, since Asunder I tend to relativise, because the climat of paranoia was not something only present in Kirkwall but also in other circles (and abuses were comited there too). So the entire system seems dysfunctional, not only one spot.

Yes, it's true that Cullen's attitude is 'normal' for Thedas. But being normal doesn't make it aceptable.

[Laughing_Man]

duckley wrote...

TheRedVipress wrote...

There is no doubt that when it comes to the potential moral issues of magic, things are not very clear.

But I think that the more important question is:
One, if the chantry's way is the smart way of handling the potential problems of magic.
Two, is the current way of things really what those who wrote the chantry's manifesto meant?

In a  perfect world the Circle of Magi and the Templar order might actualy work reasonably well with a few tweaks here and there. Problem is - it is not a prefect world. Men and women and the institutions they represent can become corrupt- religious, political, social...

So in answer to your questions
1) No - the Chantry way is no longer the smart way (and arguably never was). If the Chantry wants to stay involved with the Circle they need to come up with a new model cause the one they have is clearly broken.

2) Unlikley. In the religions I am aware of, the words of Prophet, G-d, religious icon - get awfully twisted and are sometimes (often/) used to justify war, murder, bullying, hate propeganda etc etc.

Indeed.
Me thinks that the first mistake on the chantry's part was to mix religion with law-enforcment.
That's Judge-Jury-Executioner mixed with religious zeal and fanaticizm, a recipe for disaster.

Modifié par TheRedVipress, 22 septembre 2013 - 02:52 .

[Plaintiff]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Plaintiff: Trauma is not an excuse for bigotry - buis it an excuse for a violent rebellion?

Trauma has nothing to do with the mage rebellion. What the hell are you talking about?

The mages live under a brutal, fascist police state. Violent rebellion is perfectly justified on that basis. Trauma is irrelevent, and not every rebellious mage is traumatised anyway.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 22 septembre 2013 - 02:54 .

[Walrider]

A bit OT, but it's awesome how civil everyone overall is being, especially on a hot-button topic like the templars and mages.

More on topic, we have two cricle-sympathetic characters already; one a mage, and one a seeker. If we get a templar - whether that templar be Cullen or otherwise - it'd be interesting to seem them present a sympathetic view point to the mages.

[Hellion Rex]

ObiWanJesus wrote...

A bit OT, but it's awesome how civil everyone overall is being, especially on a hot-button topic like the templars and mages.

More on topic, we have two cricle-sympathetic characters already; one a mage, and one a seeker. If we get a templar - whether that templar be Cullen or otherwise - it'd be interesting to seem them present a sympathetic view point to the mages.

I would find Evangeline to probably be a lot more mage sympathetic than Cullen. Cullen might, and I stress the MIGHT, be a neutral ground, since he kinda got burned by the mages in DA:O and Meredith in DAII.

[In Exile]

Plaintiff wrote...
If Hawke can fnd this stuff out in only a few trips to The Gallows, then Cullen, who spends all day every day working there, has no excuses. The only way these problems could possibly escape his notice is if he willfully ignored them. Which makes him culpable in the wrongdoing. I'd say as their commanding officer, he bears an equal share of the blame.

Equal share? You're kinder than I am. As their commander, he had the power to try to put a stop to it, by getting his men in order. If Meredith overruled him, he could have gone to the Grand Cleric herself - his position was high enough to obtain an audience, at least. Especially if Hawke as a peasant could see the Grand Cleric when she was about in the Chantry. 

Yes, it's true that Cullen's attitude is 'normal' for Thedas. But being normal doesn't make it aceptable.

Is it really normal? Cullen himself suggests that his views are in the minority in Kirkwall. 

[Laughing_Man]

ObiWanJesus wrote...

A bit OT, but it's awesome how civil everyone overall is being, especially on a hot-button topic like the templars and mages.

More on topic, we have two cricle-sympathetic characters already; one a mage, and one a seeker. If we get a templar - whether that templar be Cullen or otherwise - it'd be interesting to seem them present a sympathetic view point to the mages.

About the seeker being sympathetic to mages: (minor spoiler)

DA wiki says that Cassandra hates mages because a mage killed her family or something, so I don't see why you think that she is sympathetic to mages.

[Walrider]

TheRedVipress wrote...

ObiWanJesus wrote...

A bit OT, but it's awesome how civil everyone overall is being, especially on a hot-button topic like the templars and mages.

More on topic, we have two cricle-sympathetic characters already; one a mage, and one a seeker. If we get a templar - whether that templar be Cullen or otherwise - it'd be interesting to seem them present a sympathetic view point to the mages.

About the seeker being sympathetic to mages: (minor spoiler)

DA wiki says that Cassandra hates mages because a mage killed her family or something, so I don't see why you think that she is sympathetic to mages.

I meant circle sympathetic as in circle supporting. As in, Cassandra supports the circle system. Not that she sympathizes with mages.

[Laughing_Man]

In Exile wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
If Hawke can fnd this stuff out in only a few trips to The Gallows, then Cullen, who spends all day every day working there, has no excuses. The only way these problems could possibly escape his notice is if he willfully ignored them. Which makes him culpable in the wrongdoing. I'd say as their commanding officer, he bears an equal share of the blame.

Equal share? You're kinder than I am. As their commander, he had the power to try to put a stop to it, by getting his men in order. If Meredith overruled him, he could have gone to the Grand Cleric herself - his position was high enough to obtain an audience, at least. Especially if Hawke as a peasant could see the Grand Cleric when she was about in the Chantry. 

Yes, it's true that Cullen's attitude is 'normal' for Thedas. But being normal doesn't make it aceptable.

Is it really normal? Cullen himself suggests that his views are in the minority in Kirkwall. 

It's possible that there was a larger concpiracy amongst the higher-ups in the chantry, and that and that Meredith was only one voice of this radical ultra-violent faction.

And Cullen is at the end of the day  just another loyal, brain-washed, potion addict, soldier of the chantry.