2497 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Wissenschaft wrote...
And that kind of view makes Mages seeking freedom into cliche villians.

I don't see that at all.  They're freedom fighters who are defending their liberty against oppression from the ignorant masses.  Like the industrialists in Atlas Shrugged.

Not the most sympathetic protagonists ever, but still protagonists.

...

I was going to dismiss this from one angle, but I'll address it from a more succinct and accurate angle instead.

Rand had a set world view, and wrote her protagonists and antagonists to project her world view.  To her, the author, the business men (and one woman) were down-trodden heroes, underdogs, but unambigously correct.

I'm fairly certain the 'shades of gray' tone that DA writers takes is saying that both Mages and Templars are people, some good, some bad, and some breaking and becoming bad when put in seemingly no-win situations.  I don't think Rand's industrialists (to Ayn, completely morally perfect) are on the same plane of existence as the mages in Thedas (they fall anywhere on the moral compass, but always face persecution AND temptation.)

To Rand, individualism, ingenuity and privatism are undeniably positive traits.  To the DA writers, magic is a tool, and mages are either blessed or cursed, but there's no black and white about it.

I'm failing to see where the analogy holds.  A reader who shares Rand's view will agree the business people are GOOD.  To those who disagree with objectivism, they will still see that the 'world of the novel' holds said characters as goodk, even if the reader disagrees with the premise of said novel.
Whereas there is no "mages are good / bad" view put forth from the writers, and no clear-cut "all mages are good / all mages are bad" premise.  I am fairly certain the point of the world and setting is that magic, alone, doesn't make someone good or bad, and wanting to police those who can use magic (i.e. Templars) might be necessary, if not a necessary evil - ambiguity is the name of the game here.  With said ambiguity, it falls to the players / readers to decide what they think of mages overall, and that seems to be the writers' intent.

The comparison of the two - what is the crux of your analogy, StM?

First of all, I dismiss authorial intent.  I don't think it matters at all what Rand thought of her industrialists, just as I don't think it matters what BioWare thinks of the mages.

But just as Rand's industrialists can be characterised as heroes throwing off the shackles of their oppressors, so could mages who seek to destroy the chantry (or even subjugate non-mages) in order to prevent future oppression.

BioWare's writers are clearly trying to treat both sides of the conflict as being people worthy of moral concern, and I think that's a really good thing.  But not because I think all players should view the conflict in that way.  No, I approve of BioWare's balanced and nuanced approach because it accommodates a wider range of interpretations on the part of the player.  The player could see the conflict similarly, but the player could also see it as Rand sees hers (or, on the other side, as Marx saw his).

[leaguer of one]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
And used that to imply that only weaker mages are allowed to bear and raise children, when your justification for it centers around the fact that a weaker mage isn't a danger to the child while the more powerful mage is, and ignored the fact that the weaker mage is in just as much danger as the more powerful one.

Nope.

1) demons are less likely to notice him
2) he is far less powerfull, so a less powerfull abomination will result if he becomes possesed.

So no, a weak mage is not nearly as a big a danger as a powerfull one.
Or are you now arguing the Chantry should lock them up too?

That still means..
1. There still a chance for the weak mage to be an abomination.
2. Even as w eak abombination  that it will kill a lot of people when it turns inot one.

You really thing the chantry will take that risk?

[dragonflight288]

leaguer of one wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
And used that to imply that only weaker mages are allowed to bear and raise children, when your justification for it centers around the fact that a weaker mage isn't a danger to the child while the more powerful mage is, and ignored the fact that the weaker mage is in just as much danger as the more powerful one.

Nope.

1) demons are less likely to notice him
2) he is far less powerfull, so a less powerfull abomination will result if he becomes possesed.

So no, a weak mage is not nearly as a big a danger as a powerfull one.
Or are you now arguing the Chantry should lock them up too?

That still means..
1. There still a chance for the weak mage to be an abomination.
2. Even as w eak abombination  that it will kill a lot of people when it turns inot one.

You really thing the chantry will take that risk?

Anyone who knows anything about the Chantry will know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Chantry wouldn't. Some individual templars who are sympathetic might, some sympathetic priests might, but the institution as a whole would not.

[Medhia Nox]

Sylvius The Mad: So, if what I say is that what you just wrote means you're an ignorant sod who's obviously uneducated and resorts to relativism to mask his inability to understand the context of the material he's experiencing.

I would be correct - because I don't subscribe to authorial intent and what you wrote implies that to me.

And furthermore I shouldn't care - at all - about trying to understand what you were really getting at, so long as I'm comfortable just deciding what your words mean "to me"?

Note: Of course I don't actually think any of that - if it really "must" be said.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 03 octobre 2013 - 10:04 .

[leaguer of one]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Sylvius The Mad: So, if what I say is that what you just wrote means you're an ignorant sod who's obviously uneducated and resorts to relativism to mask his inability to understand the context of the material he's experiencing.

I would be correct - because I don't subscribe to authorial intent and what you wrote implies that to me.

And furthermore I shouldn't care - at all - about trying to understand what you were really getting at, so long as I'm comfortable just deciding what your words mean "to me"?

Note: Of course I don't actually think any of that - if it really "must" be said.

All you just said is that you don't care what point one side has on the issue... You'll just believe what you want to beleive dispite the fact on hand.

You just said you rather stay ignorante then look at what is there.

[Medhia Nox]

@leaguer of one: That's a fair point.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 04 octobre 2013 - 12:21 .

[Bleachrude]

nerdage wrote...

I don't expect a revolution would have an "obviously good" resolution, but I'd still support it entirely.

I expect the first thing which would happen once it succeeded - soon after if not immediately - would be another war, between the mages who want to live relatively normal lives and those who want to subjugate non-mages. But a war which the former would win because of popular support, and the outcome of which would be a system in which moderate mages police and train one-other and those who abuse their power are treated as the criminals they are.

.

*LOL*

Except that this occured TWICE in the history of Thedas.

The irst time was when the magisters killed the royal family of Tevinter and secondly when the magisters broke away from the White Divine.

Each time, the normal mages did not stop them so what makes you think that the THIRD time, normal mages would stand up to them?

Especially given that to win the war in the 1st place, many of the pro-chantry mages (who would most likely be against oppression of the normal populace) would've been killed by the rebelling mages?

[DPSSOC]

Damn you work, ok gotta play catch up but first.

Xilizhra wrote...
I think an equal sharing of power works, not with someone having final authority over the other. I'd rather avoid dominance.

Then you just run into deadlocks, where nothing gets done because each side just refuses to cooperate with the other.  You need an uneven distribution of power or a final arbitrating authourity.  I see a mundane approval board with mage counsel.  Mages who want to do magic propose it to a Mage committee who way the merits of the proposal (whether it's worth doing) and submit it to the approval board in terms they can understand lining out all benefits and relevant risks.  Now obviously this would mean that the bulk of mages in free society would be required to use no magic at all as they await approval and I'm pretty sure we can all see why this system won't work for very long.

leaguer of one wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Probably in the Circle some time between showing signs of magic (age 6ish) and however long it takes to determine whether they possess "significant magical ability," which would likely be around the time they're lining up for the Harrowing (early adulthood).

But what attract demons to mages is the ability to use magic. It matter not how mych that ability it.

Which is why, weak or not, all mages receive training at the Circle.  The decision of whether a mage possesses significant magical ability is probably made before the Harrowing.

Is the mage strong enough to face the Harrowing?

Yes - Harrowing
No - Continue

Is the mage weak enough to allow into the populace
Yes - Freedom
No - Tranquility

[CELL55]

Bleachrude wrote...

nerdage wrote...

I don't expect a revolution would have an "obviously good" resolution, but I'd still support it entirely.

I expect the first thing which would happen once it succeeded - soon after if not immediately - would be another war, between the mages who want to live relatively normal lives and those who want to subjugate non-mages. But a war which the former would win because of popular support, and the outcome of which would be a system in which moderate mages police and train one-other and those who abuse their power are treated as the criminals they are.

.

*LOL*

Except that this occured TWICE in the history of Thedas.

The irst time was when the magisters killed the royal family of Tevinter and secondly when the magisters broke away from the White Divine.

Each time, the normal mages did not stop them so what makes you think that the THIRD time, normal mages would stand up to them?

Especially given that to win the war in the 1st place, many of the pro-chantry mages (who would most likely be against oppression of the normal populace) would've been killed by the rebelling mages?

I agree. While I admire the idealism of everything turning out all right, nerdage's plan has too many moving parts to be a particularly likely option. While it's not impossible, it is dependant on too many things happening 'just so' for it to be probable.

[leaguer of one]

DPSSOC wrote...

Damn you work, ok gotta play catch up but first.

Xilizhra wrote...
I think an equal sharing of power works, not with someone having final authority over the other. I'd rather avoid dominance.

Then you just run into deadlocks, where nothing gets done because each side just refuses to cooperate with the other.  You need an uneven distribution of power or a final arbitrating authourity.  I see a mundane approval board with mage counsel.  Mages who want to do magic propose it to a Mage committee who way the merits of the proposal (whether it's worth doing) and submit it to the approval board in terms they can understand lining out all benefits and relevant risks.  Now obviously this would mean that the bulk of mages in free society would be required to use no magic at all as they await approval and I'm pretty sure we can all see why this system won't work for very long.

leaguer of one wrote...

DPSSOC wrote...
Probably in the Circle some time between showing signs of magic (age 6ish) and however long it takes to determine whether they possess "significant magical ability," which would likely be around the time they're lining up for the Harrowing (early adulthood).

But what attract demons to mages is the ability to use magic. It matter not how mych that ability it.

Which is why, weak or not, all mages receive training at the Circle.  The decision of whether a mage possesses significant magical ability is probably made before the Harrowing.

Is the mage strong enough to face the Harrowing?

Yes - Harrowing
No - Continue

Is the mage weak enough to allow into the populace
Yes - Freedom
No - Tranquility

But that ignores the fact that low level mages can still be possesed and turned it to an abomination.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Sylvius The Mad: So, if what I say is that what you just wrote means you're an ignorant sod who's obviously uneducated and resorts to relativism to mask his inability to understand the context of the material he's experiencing.

I would be correct - because I don't subscribe to authorial intent and what you wrote implies that to me.

And furthermore I shouldn't care - at all - about trying to understand what you were really getting at, so long as I'm comfortable just deciding what your words mean "to me"?

Two problems:

1. There's no such thing as implication.  But that's really important.  The bigger issue ie:

2. You're confusing intent with meaning.  What I've said has meaning that is unrelated to what I meant that meaning to be.  You do have cause to interpret the meaning of the words I've used, but you have no cause to allow my intent to inform your interpretation of those words.

[Heimdall]

leaguer of one wrote...

 
But that ignores the fact that low level mages can still be possesed and turned it to an abomination.

Even normal people can be turned into abominations if they encounter a demon.  The risk a new apprentice or a naturally weak Mage faces is only marginally greater than that of a normal person.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Lord Aesir wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

 
But that ignores the fact that low level mages can still be possesed and turned it to an abomination.

Even normal people can be turned into abominations if they encounter a demon.  The risk a new apprentice or a naturally weak Mage faces is only marginally greater than that of a normal person.

That's not exactly true. An ordinary person can be possessed, but an ordinary person who gets possessed isn't an abomination. An abomination is a mage who gets possessed; the main difference when you're fighting one is that the ordinary person will use the demon's power while the abomination has access to the mage's magic. According to Gaider, even a minimal amount of extra power from the mage can go a long way.

[Heimdall]

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

That's not exactly true. An ordinary person can be possessed, but an ordinary person who gets possessed isn't an abomination. An abomination is a mage who gets possessed; the main difference when you're fighting one is that the ordinary person will use the demon's power while the abomination has access to the mage's magic. According to Gaider, even a minimal amount of extra power from the mage can go a long way.

I should have said possessed then.

[TEWR]

dragonflight288 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
And used that to imply that only weaker mages are allowed to bear and raise children, when your justification for it centers around the fact that a weaker mage isn't a danger to the child while the more powerful mage is, and ignored the fact that the weaker mage is in just as much danger as the more powerful one.

Nope.

1) demons are less likely to notice him
2) he is far less powerfull, so a less powerfull abomination will result if he becomes possesed.

So no, a weak mage is not nearly as a big a danger as a powerfull one.
Or are you now arguing the Chantry should lock them up too?

That still means..
1. There still a chance for the weak mage to be an abomination.
2. Even as w eak abombination  that it will kill a lot of people when it turns inot one.

You really thing the chantry will take that risk?

Anyone who knows anything about the Chantry will know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Chantry wouldn't. Some individual templars who are sympathetic might, some sympathetic priests might, but the institution as a whole would not.

Besides, since magic tends to pop up at a young age, children will be hauled off to the Circle more often then not. And they'll be schooled. And if they pass the Harrowing, they're considered strong mages.

Which means they stay there for the rest of their life.

And if they fail the Harrowing, they die. If they were considered too weak to even be considered for the Harrowing because the FE and KC knew they'd fail, they're made Tranquil.

The Chantry as an institution rarely makes exceptions to the rule, and it has nothing to do with the strength of a Mage but rather his accomplishments (Wilhelm, Hawke, maybe even Wynne).

[Shadow Fox]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
And used that to imply that only weaker mages are allowed to bear and raise children, when your justification for it centers around the fact that a weaker mage isn't a danger to the child while the more powerful mage is, and ignored the fact that the weaker mage is in just as much danger as the more powerful one.

Nope.

1) demons are less likely to notice him
2) he is far less powerfull, so a less powerfull abomination will result if he becomes possesed.

So no, a weak mage is not nearly as a big a danger as a powerfull one.
Or are you now arguing the Chantry should lock them up too?

That still means..
1. There still a chance for the weak mage to be an abomination.
2. Even as w eak abombination  that it will kill a lot of people when it turns inot one.

You really thing the chantry will take that risk?

Anyone who knows anything about the Chantry will know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Chantry wouldn't. Some individual templars who are sympathetic might, some sympathetic priests might, but the institution as a whole would not.

Besides, since magic tends to pop up at a young age, children will be hauled off to the Circle more often then not. And they'll be schooled. And if they pass the Harrowing, they're considered strong mages.

Which means they stay there for the rest of their life.

And if they fail the Harrowing, they die. If they were considered too weak to even be considered for the Harrowing because the FE and KC knew they'd fail, they're made Tranquil.

The Chantry as an institution rarely makes exceptions to the rule, and it has nothing to do with the strength of a Mage but rather his accomplishments (Wilhelm, Hawke, maybe even Wynne).

Why am I not surprised the Chantry are hypocrites?

[TEWR]

Why am I not surprised the Chantry are hypocrites?

Meh, hypocrisy's everywhere. The Chantry were hypocrites LONG before this, by their use of blood magic (phylacteries).

[EmperorSahlertz]

dragonflight288 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...
And used that to imply that only weaker mages are allowed to bear and raise children, when your justification for it centers around the fact that a weaker mage isn't a danger to the child while the more powerful mage is, and ignored the fact that the weaker mage is in just as much danger as the more powerful one.

Nope.

1) demons are less likely to notice him
2) he is far less powerfull, so a less powerfull abomination will result if he becomes possesed.

So no, a weak mage is not nearly as a big a danger as a powerfull one.
Or are you now arguing the Chantry should lock them up too?

That still means..
1. There still a chance for the weak mage to be an abomination.
2. Even as w eak abombination  that it will kill a lot of people when it turns inot one.

You really thing the chantry will take that risk?

Anyone who knows anything about the Chantry will know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Chantry wouldn't. Some individual templars who are sympathetic might, some sympathetic priests might, but the institution as a whole would not.

We already know the Chantry lets the weak mages go. We have been using taht point for a huge part of this thread now. There is nothing to debate about it. The Chantry doesn't see the weakest mages as a big enough security risk to warrant their containment in Circles. They do still however watch them, since the risk is always present.

[TEWR]

We already know the Chantry lets the weak mages go. We have been using taht point for a huge part of this thread now. There is nothing to debate about it. The Chantry doesn't see the weakest mages as a big enough security risk to warrant their containment in Circles. They do still however watch them, since the risk is always present.

Except you can't know if a Mage is weak or strong until they go to the Circle, where they either fail (and prove they're weak), are made Tranquil (possibly because they're weak) or pass the Harrowing (and prove they're strong). There's absolutely no logic to it.

Especially since Mages would pretend to be weak if they can live outside the Circle as a result. More and more would probably do it.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

We already know the Chantry lets the weak mages go. We have been using taht point for a huge part of this thread now. There is nothing to debate about it. The Chantry doesn't see the weakest mages as a big enough security risk to warrant their containment in Circles. They do still however watch them, since the risk is always present.

Except you can't know if a Mage is weak or strong until they go to the Circle, where they either fail (and prove they're weak), are made Tranquil (possibly because they're weak) or pass the Harrowing (and prove they're strong). There's absolutely no logic to it.

Especially since Mages would pretend to be weak if they can live outside the Circle as a result. More and more would probably do it.

However you put it, it doesn't matter. Lore clearly states, that the weakest of mages, are allowed to go, and live outside the Circle. You can scream and kick all you want, it doesn't change the facts that we are presented.

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 04 octobre 2013 - 09:22 .

[TEWR]

I may be forced to accept it, but that doesn't mean I cannot chide it for making not a ****ing lick of sense.

I mean, be honest, do you think it makes any sense (ignoring that we MUST accept it as lore unless a dev goes "Nah, that's like the epilogues, hearsay and rumor and it's not true")?

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

I may be forced to accept it, but that doesn't mean I cannot chide it for making not a ****ing lick of sense.

I mean, be honest, do you think it makes any sense (ignoring that we MUST accept it as lore unless a dev goes "Nah, that's like the epilogues, hearsay and rumor and it's not true")?

I think it makes sense to let the weakest mages go yes. But how it actually works out, might not make much sense, but then again, we don't have full access to the inner workings of the Circle, so I really can't say.

[Bionuts]

Morrigan can sense how powerful a mage is.

I'm sure mages like Irving and Wynne can.

[Shadow Fox]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Why am I not surprised the Chantry are hypocrites?

Meh, hypocrisy's everywhere. The Chantry were hypocrites LONG before this, by their use of blood magic (phylacteries).

True It's just odd Meredith let's Magisters strut about Kirkwall.

[TEWR]

Bionuts wrote...

Morrigan can sense how powerful a mage is.

I'm sure mages like Irving and Wynne can.

Morrigan was trained by Flemeth, so it's not really fair to use her as an example for Mages everywhere.

That's always been the pro-templar peoples' viewpoint in regards to why Mages can't live outside the Circle in the past. Just because Morrigan is smart enough to not go abomination can't be applied to other Mages, because she was trained by Flemeth.