2497 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

leaguer of one wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

And in Dragon Age, the Circles exist to both maximize the positive effects with training and minimize the negative with containment. 

I'd hardly call that primitive. It's pretty intuitive risk management.

On the contrary, the Circles have no interest in the former. The Chantry deliberately restricts magical research.

And they failed at the latter.

Wrong. Heck the cure for tranquility was funded by the chantry. The only thing they resrtict is extensive demon research and blood magic research. The circle does train their mages to the point they can repeal demons and not miss use there magic.

No, you're the one incorrect, here.  Justinia was hardly continuing a longstanding practice of Chantry progressiveness with regards to magical research. The lore is clear on this point that the Chantry represses magical research out of fear.  Justinia's act was in defiance of that tradition, not in accord with it.  And you're completely forgetting that she did this in secret.  That alone should tell you something.  

The Circle doesn't train mages to repel demons.  It throws them unprepared into one test to see if they pass/fail that one instance, which unfortunately doesn't prove anything about a mage's ability.  From what I've seen it doesn't train them so much as hold as sword over their head, which will be brought to bear from suspicion of weakness, not necessarily actual evidence of a mage's interest in practing evil magic or consorting with demons, which is unquestionably excessive.  

This is not teaching the mages anything.  It is, rather, engendering a community of paranoia and fear.

[TheKomandorShepard]

My compromise will be templars with chantry are dead and mages as well mages are dead and they aren't dangerous and templars are dead and mage have freedom and well chantry will go meet with maker happy ending.

[Silfren]

leaguer of one wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: So, after you ignore Owain, the most prominent Tranquil in the games who you can have a rather robust conversation with. Do tell, how has it been applied?

I'm not asking how it has been abused. That is separate no matter how much you want to lump the two together to support your fanaticism.

Well, no one had intended to reverse the Rite on him, and I was talking about permanence.

I would allow voluntary Tranquility... for a short trial period, after which it's removed and they can make an informed decision now that they know what both states are like. And if they actually prefer it, to go for it again.

That still defers the fact that it wasstill his choice to be traquil. Which means mages do choose it. Making him become  untraquil would  ignore his rights.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe Owain's decision to undergo Tranquility was based on his wish to not undergo the Harrowing.  If that's the case, then it cannot really be said that he chose Tranquility because he wanted to be made Tranquil.  Given that he had exactly two options--either the Harrowing OR Tranquility, then it's quite possible--even likely, I'd think--that it was a decision based on fear.  That's NOT a free choice in the slightest, especially when you have no idea prior to being dragged into the Harrowing chamber what it will even entail.

[dragonflight288]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

My compromise will be templars with chantry are dead and mages as well mages are dead and they aren't dangerous and templars are dead and mage have freedom and well chantry will go meet with maker happy ending.

Your compromise will have the Qunari taking over Thedas or the darkspawn ravaging all that remain.

[dragonflight288]

Silfren wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: So, after you ignore Owain, the most prominent Tranquil in the games who you can have a rather robust conversation with. Do tell, how has it been applied?

I'm not asking how it has been abused. That is separate no matter how much you want to lump the two together to support your fanaticism.

Well, no one had intended to reverse the Rite on him, and I was talking about permanence.

I would allow voluntary Tranquility... for a short trial period, after which it's removed and they can make an informed decision now that they know what both states are like. And if they actually prefer it, to go for it again.

That still defers the fact that it wasstill his choice to be traquil. Which means mages do choose it. Making him become  untraquil would  ignore his rights.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe Owain's decision to undergo Tranquility was based on his wish to not undergo the Harrowing.  If that's the case, then it cannot really be said that he chose Tranquility because he wanted to be made Tranquil.  Given that he had exactly two options--either the Harrowing OR Tranquility, then it's quite possible--even likely, I'd think--that it was a decision based on fear.  That's NOT a free choice in the slightest, especially when you have no idea prior to being dragged into the Harrowing chamber what it will even entail.

Actuall, he had three options. The Harrowing, Tranquility, or death.

[wright1978]

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

I sincerely hope this doesn't mean we end up being railroaded into a half-hearted 'compromise' where the mages sell out their freedom for nicer accommodations and an hour's exercise outside.

I'm well aware of the issues total mage freedom would present. I still want to do it.

I'm hoping for at least 3 equally messy options.

Mage freedom & its mixture of positive/negative consequences
Return of circles & its mixture of positive/negative consequences
Compromise with equal level of positive/negative consequences

[TheKomandorShepard]

dragonflight288 wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

My compromise will be templars with chantry are dead and mages as well mages are dead and they aren't dangerous and templars are dead and mage have freedom and well chantry will go meet with maker happy ending.

Your compromise will have the Qunari taking over Thedas or the darkspawn ravaging all that remain.

lies! demons will eat qunari and then

[cjones91]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: So, after you ignore Owain, the most prominent Tranquil in the games who you can have a rather robust conversation with. Do tell, how has it been applied?

I'm not asking how it has been abused. That is separate no matter how much you want to lump the two together to support your fanaticism.

Well, no one had intended to reverse the Rite on him, and I was talking about permanence.

I would allow voluntary Tranquility... for a short trial period, after which it's removed and they can make an informed decision now that they know what both states are like. And if they actually prefer it, to go for it again.

That still defers the fact that it wasstill his choice to be traquil. Which means mages do choose it. Making him become  untraquil would  ignore his rights.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe Owain's decision to undergo Tranquility was based on his wish to not undergo the Harrowing.  If that's the case, then it cannot really be said that he chose Tranquility because he wanted to be made Tranquil.  Given that he had exactly two options--either the Harrowing OR Tranquility, then it's quite possible--even likely, I'd think--that it was a decision based on fear.  That's NOT a free choice in the slightest, especially when you have no idea prior to being dragged into the Harrowing chamber what it will even entail.

Actuall, he had three options. The Harrowing, Tranquility, or death.

One of which Owain would have died if his templar watchers thought he was taking too long in the Harrowing.

[Ianamus]

It's important to remember that not all Mages even want true freedom. If I remember correctly Fiona in Assunder had to use some unscrupulous tactics to even get the majority of the mages to vote for rebellion in the first place.

I do wonder what the actual goal of the Mages is. Do they want to just live in towns like normal people and never have to deal with the fact that they are Mages, which is completely unrealistic, or do they just want a mage-led version of the circle? Do they even have a goal in mind at all?

I'll probably end up supporting whatever Vivienne proposes. I also find the idea of a non-mage pro-mage freedom inquisitor arguing against Vivienne amusing. "You should want to be free!" "But I didn't mind things the way they were!"

Modifié par EJ107, 30 septembre 2013 - 04:05 .

[dragonflight288]

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

My compromise will be templars with chantry are dead and mages as well mages are dead and they aren't dangerous and templars are dead and mage have freedom and well chantry will go meet with maker happy ending.

Your compromise will have the Qunari taking over Thedas or the darkspawn ravaging all that remain.

lies! demons will eat qunari and then

Your response to the crises is this then?

which would be followed by http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUU3Ekd-q8Q

[Fast Jimmy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

SeptimusMagistos wrote...

Options are good. I'm just saying: if the plot of the game ends up being 'help mages and templars come to a compromise' and that compromise is anything less than amazing and satisfactory to both sides (or at least to me)? I'm not buying it. I'm just not interested in playing a game about putting the mages back in Circles.

I can tell you right now, that is almost certain to happen. There's absolutely no way they can truly please both sides. Their opinions are literally opposites. You're going to be forced to accept compromise--it's going to happen.

Agreee. Save Import logic alone dictates that no matter what you choose, it will all look the same in the next game. More likely than not, you won't get a choice in the matter. Or, if you do, it will be "side with Mages and let them rule themselves in towers, while also giving them the right to travel freely" or "side with Templars so that Mages remain in Circles, but also that Mages are also able to travel freely."

thats the end game, BTW. The devs want a reason to have Mages found outside the Circle without having to do narrative tap dancing to explain it. 

[cjones91]

EJ107 wrote...

It's important to remember that not all Mages even want true freedom. If I remember correctly Fiona in Assunder had to use some unscrupulous tactics to even get the majority of the mages to vote for rebellion in the first place.

I do wonder what the actual goal of the Mages is. Do they want to just live in towns like normal people and never have to deal with the fact that they are Mages, which is completely unrealistic, or do they just want a mage-led version of the circle? Do they even have a goal in mind at all?

I'll probably end up supporting whatever Vivienne proposes. I also find the idea of a non-mage pro-mage freedom inquisitor arguing against Vivienne amusing. "You should want to be free!" "But I didn't mind things the way they were!"

Most mages just wanted more rights however the fraternities each had their idea of what those rights should be.

[Silfren]

cjones91 wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

EJ107 wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Those who exchange freedom for security or comfort deserve neither.

We already do exchange freedom for security and comfort. It's called the law. 

Laws are created to keep people from acting like animals.Without laws then humans would return to being savages and the world will plunge into chaos.However laws are also written to respect someone's freedoms and no officer is allowed to mistreat their suspects like some templars do.

i would argue.

I'll admit that some laws have caused more problems than others but the spirit of law remains unchanged.

What precisely constitutes the intention of law--as opposed to its practical application or its actual effect--can be largely a philosophical question.  Personally, I think that law is (should be?) created in order to have a means of punishing or containing those people who behave in socially unacceptable ways that make life difficult for others.  I don't think that people as a whole would necessarily descend into chaos without the rule of law, but that we need laws to protect that group of us who generally live peaceably, from the minority of people who would happily abuse the community.

[Silfren]

dragonflight288 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: So, after you ignore Owain, the most prominent Tranquil in the games who you can have a rather robust conversation with. Do tell, how has it been applied?

I'm not asking how it has been abused. That is separate no matter how much you want to lump the two together to support your fanaticism.

Well, no one had intended to reverse the Rite on him, and I was talking about permanence.

I would allow voluntary Tranquility... for a short trial period, after which it's removed and they can make an informed decision now that they know what both states are like. And if they actually prefer it, to go for it again.

That still defers the fact that it wasstill his choice to be traquil. Which means mages do choose it. Making him become  untraquil would  ignore his rights.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe Owain's decision to undergo Tranquility was based on his wish to not undergo the Harrowing.  If that's the case, then it cannot really be said that he chose Tranquility because he wanted to be made Tranquil.  Given that he had exactly two options--either the Harrowing OR Tranquility, then it's quite possible--even likely, I'd think--that it was a decision based on fear.  That's NOT a free choice in the slightest, especially when you have no idea prior to being dragged into the Harrowing chamber what it will even entail.

Actuall, he had three options. The Harrowing, Tranquility, or death.

*eyeroll*  Officially, no, I think he had two choices:  Harrowing or Tranquility.  Yes, there was a very strong chance of his dying if the templars decided the Harrowing wasn't going well.  But I don't think you go into the Harrowing to be told that you can choose either the Harrowing or Tranquility, or voluntary euthanasia-by-sword.

[cjones91]

Silfren wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: So, after you ignore Owain, the most prominent Tranquil in the games who you can have a rather robust conversation with. Do tell, how has it been applied?

I'm not asking how it has been abused. That is separate no matter how much you want to lump the two together to support your fanaticism.

Well, no one had intended to reverse the Rite on him, and I was talking about permanence.

I would allow voluntary Tranquility... for a short trial period, after which it's removed and they can make an informed decision now that they know what both states are like. And if they actually prefer it, to go for it again.

That still defers the fact that it wasstill his choice to be traquil. Which means mages do choose it. Making him become  untraquil would  ignore his rights.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe Owain's decision to undergo Tranquility was based on his wish to not undergo the Harrowing.  If that's the case, then it cannot really be said that he chose Tranquility because he wanted to be made Tranquil.  Given that he had exactly two options--either the Harrowing OR Tranquility, then it's quite possible--even likely, I'd think--that it was a decision based on fear.  That's NOT a free choice in the slightest, especially when you have no idea prior to being dragged into the Harrowing chamber what it will even entail.

Actuall, he had three options. The Harrowing, Tranquility, or death.

*eyeroll*  Officially, no, I think he had two choices:  Harrowing or Tranquility.  Yes, there was a very strong chance of his dying if the templars decided the Harrowing wasn't going well.  But I don't think you go into the Harrowing to be told that you can choose either the Harrowing or Tranquility, or voluntary euthanasia-by-sword.

The templars can and do kill mages who refuse the Harrowing or the Rite of Tranquility if they have proven to be dangerous.

[Silfren]

cjones91 wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: So, after you ignore Owain, the most prominent Tranquil in the games who you can have a rather robust conversation with. Do tell, how has it been applied?

I'm not asking how it has been abused. That is separate no matter how much you want to lump the two together to support your fanaticism.

Well, no one had intended to reverse the Rite on him, and I was talking about permanence.

I would allow voluntary Tranquility... for a short trial period, after which it's removed and they can make an informed decision now that they know what both states are like. And if they actually prefer it, to go for it again.

That still defers the fact that it wasstill his choice to be traquil. Which means mages do choose it. Making him become  untraquil would  ignore his rights.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe Owain's decision to undergo Tranquility was based on his wish to not undergo the Harrowing.  If that's the case, then it cannot really be said that he chose Tranquility because he wanted to be made Tranquil.  Given that he had exactly two options--either the Harrowing OR Tranquility, then it's quite possible--even likely, I'd think--that it was a decision based on fear.  That's NOT a free choice in the slightest, especially when you have no idea prior to being dragged into the Harrowing chamber what it will even entail.

Actuall, he had three options. The Harrowing, Tranquility, or death.

One of which Owain would have died if his templar watchers thought he was taking too long in the Harrowing.

I wonder how many people pay attention to the tiny little discrepancy over the Harrowing.  From the Mage Origin, we're told that we're sent into the Fade to face a demon and see if we can resist temptation, and this is what we experience.

However, when you talk to Alistair about the Harrowing he was part of, what he says to you is, "the girl they tested: she had a demon put inside her, to see if she could resist."  He doesn't say she was sent into the Fade and failed to resist being possessed, but rather that she was forcibly possessed by the people overseeing her Harrowing, to see if she could resist that state. 

All sorts of implications in that line, including the idea that possession itself is not a death sentence and the templars damn well know this.  I wonder if that was just a misstep by the writers in how to describe the Harrowing, or a leftover bit of dialogue from a previous incarnation of the Harrowing, or what.

Modifié par Silfren, 30 septembre 2013 - 04:33 .

[TheKomandorShepard]

dragonflight288 wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

TheKomandorShepard wrote...

My compromise will be templars with chantry are dead and mages as well mages are dead and they aren't dangerous and templars are dead and mage have freedom and well chantry will go meet with maker happy ending.

Your compromise will have the Qunari taking over Thedas or the darkspawn ravaging all that remain.

lies! demons will eat qunari and then

Your response to the crises is this then?

which would be followed by http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUU3Ekd-q8Q

Funny but to be honest i liked that ending not only because it is hilarious but also because gives the possibility following only our side most games puts you in front of a choice that dude or that like behlen and harrowmont choice or mages ,templars or chantry. I like game where i have option to be independent like fallout new vegas. 

[Silfren]

cjones91 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: So, after you ignore Owain, the most prominent Tranquil in the games who you can have a rather robust conversation with. Do tell, how has it been applied?

I'm not asking how it has been abused. That is separate no matter how much you want to lump the two together to support your fanaticism.

Well, no one had intended to reverse the Rite on him, and I was talking about permanence.

I would allow voluntary Tranquility... for a short trial period, after which it's removed and they can make an informed decision now that they know what both states are like. And if they actually prefer it, to go for it again.

That still defers the fact that it wasstill his choice to be traquil. Which means mages do choose it. Making him become  untraquil would  ignore his rights.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe Owain's decision to undergo Tranquility was based on his wish to not undergo the Harrowing.  If that's the case, then it cannot really be said that he chose Tranquility because he wanted to be made Tranquil.  Given that he had exactly two options--either the Harrowing OR Tranquility, then it's quite possible--even likely, I'd think--that it was a decision based on fear.  That's NOT a free choice in the slightest, especially when you have no idea prior to being dragged into the Harrowing chamber what it will even entail.

Actuall, he had three options. The Harrowing, Tranquility, or death.

*eyeroll*  Officially, no, I think he had two choices:  Harrowing or Tranquility.  Yes, there was a very strong chance of his dying if the templars decided the Harrowing wasn't going well.  But I don't think you go into the Harrowing to be told that you can choose either the Harrowing or Tranquility, or voluntary euthanasia-by-sword.

The templars can and do kill mages who refuse the Harrowing or the Rite of Tranquility if they have proven to be dangerous.

Do they?  I actually wasn't aware that a mage had the option to refuse both, that if they refused the Harrowing they were Tranquiled on the spot because that's literally the only alternative available.  Mind, I'm talking about the kids who are in the Circles, having been dragged into the Harrowing Chamber, not escapees who are actively resisting.  But maybe this is a silly point to quibble over.

[The Elder King]

@Silfren: I think that Alistair's line is misstep by the writers. Though I'd like if a Bioware writer could clarify it.

[cjones91]

Silfren wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Medhia Nox wrote...

@Xilizhra: So, after you ignore Owain, the most prominent Tranquil in the games who you can have a rather robust conversation with. Do tell, how has it been applied?

I'm not asking how it has been abused. That is separate no matter how much you want to lump the two together to support your fanaticism.

Well, no one had intended to reverse the Rite on him, and I was talking about permanence.

I would allow voluntary Tranquility... for a short trial period, after which it's removed and they can make an informed decision now that they know what both states are like. And if they actually prefer it, to go for it again.

That still defers the fact that it wasstill his choice to be traquil. Which means mages do choose it. Making him become  untraquil would  ignore his rights.

I may be wrong on this, but I believe Owain's decision to undergo Tranquility was based on his wish to not undergo the Harrowing.  If that's the case, then it cannot really be said that he chose Tranquility because he wanted to be made Tranquil.  Given that he had exactly two options--either the Harrowing OR Tranquility, then it's quite possible--even likely, I'd think--that it was a decision based on fear.  That's NOT a free choice in the slightest, especially when you have no idea prior to being dragged into the Harrowing chamber what it will even entail.

Actuall, he had three options. The Harrowing, Tranquility, or death.

*eyeroll*  Officially, no, I think he had two choices:  Harrowing or Tranquility.  Yes, there was a very strong chance of his dying if the templars decided the Harrowing wasn't going well.  But I don't think you go into the Harrowing to be told that you can choose either the Harrowing or Tranquility, or voluntary euthanasia-by-sword.

The templars can and do kill mages who refuse the Harrowing or the Rite of Tranquility if they have proven to be dangerous.

Do they?  I actually wasn't aware that a mage had the option to refuse both, that if they refused the Harrowing they were Tranquiled on the spot because that's literally the only alternative available.  Mind, I'm talking about the kids who are in the Circles, having been dragged into the Harrowing Chamber, not escapees who are actively resisting.  But maybe this is a silly point to quibble over.

I believe it was mentioned in Origins that mages can refuse the Harrowing or the Rite of Traquility until a later date.However if they have been proven to be a danger to themselves and others then the templars will be forced to kill him/her.

[Silfren]

krul2k wrote...

Whats "socially unacceptable" to me might not be to you, and this world without fail would decent into chaos without law (twisted and corrupt as it is)

LOL I chose that phrase as a shortcut.  I meant things like murder and theft.  I am well aware that socially unacceptable is an ambiguous term and I DON'T want to get into a discussion over all the horrible ways it has been used to people's injury--I really was using it as shorthand, and now I'm really sorry I did since you felt the need to nitpick it.  I DID point out that the intent of law is largely a philosophical question, quite apart from its application, etc.  And this true--there are whole tomes written on the subject, you and I have just picked the ones we personally agree with.  

[Plaintiff]

Morocco Mole wrote...

No, I haven't conceded the point. If you think being mind-controlled is worse than a bunch of other awful things that can happen to you, then that's your prerogative. I maintain that they're roughly on par with each other.

losing control of your actions and being puppeted by someone else is a pretty terrible thing my friend. Many would argue that it is worse than death.

Oh, really? "Many" people? Well if there's many, then they must be right.

Many people also say that rape is the worst thing that can happen to a person, but as I said before, that's not even in my top ten.

Being under mind-control is not the worst thing I can imagine happening to me. I can imagine those things happening to me while under mind control, but they could happen to me anyway and be exactly as bad.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 30 septembre 2013 - 04:42 .

[Silfren]

Plaintiff wrote...

Morocco Mole wrote...

No, I haven't conceded the point. If you think being mind-controlled is worse than a bunch of other awful things that can happen to you, then that's your prerogative. I maintain that they're roughly on par with each other.

losing control of your actions and being puppeted by someone else is a pretty terrible thing my friend. Many would argue that it is worse than death.

Oh, really? "Many" people? Well if there's many, then they must be right.

Many people also say that rape is the worst thing that can happen to a person, but as I said before, that's not even in my top ten.

Being under mind-control is not the worst thing I can imagine happening to me. I can imagine those things happening to me while under mind control, but they could happen to me anyway and be exactly as bad.

Might I ask what exactly is being argued here? Whatever qualifies as the worst fate ever is the ultimate mark of individual subjectivity.  It isn't like a review board can come up with an objective list in ascending order of Worst Fates.