1420 réponses à ce sujet

[Silfren]

cjones91 wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

It's not like they have a choice in the matter..The mages are tools for the Chantry which means what the Chantry wants is more important than what the mages want.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The only part where the mages don't have a choice is in the mandatory education and mandatory living arrangements. If you see a mage cooperating with the Chantry any further than that it's because they decided to, not because they were told to.

But how many mages would be willing to help the Chantry if they were'nt living under their thumb?It's easy to claim a prisoner would want to help the prison when they likely have no option to refuse.

We have from David Gaider that they are allowed to refuse. As to the situation, yes, it's inherently coersive, but the mages are still not forced to do anything apart from come, get educated, and (barring whatever exceptions the Templars approve) stay. Edit: In which context Uldred never teaching (so far as Wynne knows) makes a good deal more sense.

A prison is still a prison no matter how much the Chantry tried to fluff it up.

That's as may be. But prisoners and slaves aren't the same thing.

But the two can intersect,a slave can be a prisoner and a prisoner can be forced to do slave labor.

The latter sort of describes how the Chantry treats the mages under their care.They are tools that are to be used when the Chantry demands it and the mages have to go along with it or be punished.

And even in so-called liberal Circles, even when a mage is considered mostly harmless, they can still be subjected to year-long solitary confinement, which is excessively punitive under any circumstance...and practically guaranteed to turn a mage into the monster the Chantry claims them to be.

[KiwiQuiche]

Silfren wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

It's not like they have a choice in the matter..The mages are tools for the Chantry which means what the Chantry wants is more important than what the mages want.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The only part where the mages don't have a choice is in the mandatory education and mandatory living arrangements. If you see a mage cooperating with the Chantry any further than that it's because they decided to, not because they were told to.

But how many mages would be willing to help the Chantry if they were'nt living under their thumb?It's easy to claim a prisoner would want to help the prison when they likely have no option to refuse.

We have from David Gaider that they are allowed to refuse. As to the situation, yes, it's inherently coersive, but the mages are still not forced to do anything apart from come, get educated, and (barring whatever exceptions the Templars approve) stay. Edit: In which context Uldred never teaching (so far as Wynne knows) makes a good deal more sense.

A prison is still a prison no matter how much the Chantry tried to fluff it up.

That's as may be. But prisoners and slaves aren't the same thing.

But the two can intersect,a slave can be a prisoner and a prisoner can be forced to do slave labor.

The latter sort of describes how the Chantry treats the mages under their care.They are tools that are to be used when the Chantry demands it and the mages have to go along with it or be punished.

And even in so-called liberal Circles, even when a mage is considered mostly harmless, they can still be subjected to year-long solitary confinement, which is excessively punitive under any circumstance...and practically guaranteed to turn a mage into the monster the Chantry claims them to be.

Don't forget the threat of lobotomizing.

[cjones91]

Silfren wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

It's not like they have a choice in the matter..The mages are tools for the Chantry which means what the Chantry wants is more important than what the mages want.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The only part where the mages don't have a choice is in the mandatory education and mandatory living arrangements. If you see a mage cooperating with the Chantry any further than that it's because they decided to, not because they were told to.

But how many mages would be willing to help the Chantry if they were'nt living under their thumb?It's easy to claim a prisoner would want to help the prison when they likely have no option to refuse.

We have from David Gaider that they are allowed to refuse. As to the situation, yes, it's inherently coersive, but the mages are still not forced to do anything apart from come, get educated, and (barring whatever exceptions the Templars approve) stay. Edit: In which context Uldred never teaching (so far as Wynne knows) makes a good deal more sense.

A prison is still a prison no matter how much the Chantry tried to fluff it up.

That's as may be. But prisoners and slaves aren't the same thing.

But the two can intersect,a slave can be a prisoner and a prisoner can be forced to do slave labor.

The latter sort of describes how the Chantry treats the mages under their care.They are tools that are to be used when the Chantry demands it and the mages have to go along with it or be punished.

And even in so-called liberal Circles, even when a mage is considered mostly harmless, they can still be subjected to year-long solitary confinement, which is excessively punitive under any circumstance...and practically guaranteed to turn a mage into the monster the Chantry claims them to be.

Which is why I believe the Chantry were just creating the problems they claim to be stopping in order to justify the Circles and keep their hold on the mages in check.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

We have from David Gaider that they are allowed to refuse. As to the situation, yes, it's inherently coersive, but the mages are still not forced to do anything apart from come, get educated, and (barring whatever exceptions the Templars approve) stay. Edit: In which context Uldred never teaching (so far as Wynne knows) makes a good deal more sense.

A prison is still a prison no matter how much the Chantry tried to fluff it up.

That's as may be. But prisoners and slaves aren't the same thing.

True. But as we've seen, many Circles have different rules; at least the Fereldan Circle seemed moderately reasonable. Others, not so much. So I think the slave/prisoner issue greatly depends on the location.

Quite possibly. Gaider was speaking in general terms when he made that quote, but didn't say that it was always true.

[KiwiQuiche]

cjones91 wrote...

Silfren wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Riverdaleswhiteflash wrote...

KiwiQuiche wrote...


A prison is still a prison no matter how much the Chantry tried to fluff it up.

That's as may be. But prisoners and slaves aren't the same thing.

But the two can intersect,a slave can be a prisoner and a prisoner can be forced to do slave labor.

The latter sort of describes how the Chantry treats the mages under their care.They are tools that are to be used when the Chantry demands it and the mages have to go along with it or be punished.

And even in so-called liberal Circles, even when a mage is considered mostly harmless, they can still be subjected to year-long solitary confinement, which is excessively punitive under any circumstance...and practically guaranteed to turn a mage into the monster the Chantry claims them to be.

Which is why I believe the Chantry were just creating the problems they claim to be stopping in order to justify the Circles and keep their hold on the mages in check.

I wouldn't be surprised, what with the fact the number of mages being born is apparently rising.

Modifié par KiwiQuiche, 24 octobre 2013 - 01:31 .

[Silfren]

cjones91 wrote...
Which is why I believe the Chantry were just creating the problems they claim to be stopping in order to justify the Circles and keep their hold on the mages in check.

This is exactly what I believe.  Nearly all the cases we saw in Origins and DA2 of mages abusing their powers could be attributed to the Chantry's ill-advised methods, starting with their fomenting of the "us vs them" mentality.

[cjones91]

I mean think about it.....irl the prison industrial complex justifies it's funding by locking people up for relately minor offenses for extended periods of time.The exact same thing could be said of the Chantry where they push the mages until a few break so that they could then point and say"Hey look,this mage turned into a abomination!That's why all mages should be under our control."

[cjones91]

Silfren wrote...

cjones91 wrote...
Which is why I believe the Chantry were just creating the problems they claim to be stopping in order to justify the Circles and keep their hold on the mages in check.

This is exactly what I believe.  Nearly all the cases we saw in Origins and DA2 of mages abusing their powers could be attributed to the Chantry's ill-advised methods, starting with their fomenting of the "us vs them" mentality.

Yep,the Chantry wants a monopoly of magic and would love it if Tevinter suddenly fell apart because that means less competition and more mages for them.

[Angrywolves]

The chantry has to be reformed.
The person to do that is the Inquisitor.
Of course some players believe the Inquisitors only " job " is to kill demons and close rifts and that's it.
While it's true the Inquisitor has to kill demons and seal rifts, I believe the Inquisitor also has the job of bringing some kind of peace and stability to Thedas.
Reforming the chantry has to be included in that.
shrugs.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Silfren wrote...

cjones91 wrote...
Which is why I believe the Chantry were just creating the problems they claim to be stopping in order to justify the Circles and keep their hold on the mages in check.

This is exactly what I believe.  Nearly all the cases we saw in Origins and DA2 of mages abusing their powers could be attributed to the Chantry's ill-advised methods, starting with their fomenting of the "us vs them" mentality.

There's something to this, but that's not the same as saying there wouldn't be any in the abscence of them. Unless Tarohne was driven insane by the Chantry (of which we see no evidence to the best of my knowledge), she would have been crazy and inclined to use demons anyway. Quentin had nothing to do with the Chantry, apart from his coorespondence with Orsino, and at any rate the very basic idea was his, not Orsino's. The scariest example for the Chantry though, is the quest "Have You Seen Me?" A mage turns abomination on a road. There's no telling how long that could have gone on. And this abomination can't be blamed on the Chantry: they have a hands off policy with regards to the apostate group he was a member of.

Angrywolves wrote...

While it's true the Inquisitor has to kill demons and seal rifts, I believe the Inquisitor also has the job of bringing some kind of peace and stability to Thedas.
Reforming the chantry has to be included in that.
shrugs.

If the idea is to continue to use the Chantry to support the Templars (and while I'm leery about this they certainly have the means to fund them) then reforming the Chantry would be a good idea. Probably with the help of their relatively reasonable Divine.

Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 24 octobre 2013 - 01:56 .

[d-boy15]

Great... writer himself told that mage and templar situation is more like gun control yet people
still compare it to slavery.

Slave can't destroy the city all by themselves, they can't transform in to a monster and their
life conditions are worst than mage in DA lore.

Also, they can't have a meeting, fraternity and a chance to learning like mages do.

Modifié par d-boy15, 24 octobre 2013 - 02:15 .

[Joy Divison]

WillPF363 wrote...

@Joy Division- Two things:

1.Mages aren't free to go to conferences etc., they're allowed to go. Sometimes. Being allowed to ask to travel is not the same as freedom to travel.

2.Not all slavery in history and around the world looked like slavery in antebellum America. Slaves in Ancient Greece and Rome were sometimes highly educated and entrusted with educating the children of their masters. There were also laws about how slaves could be treated. It seems similar to how mages are kept in Thedas to me. Except Roman slaves were allowed to save money to buy their freedom, mages are stuck for life.

1. Right, which is why I said "free to gain permission," i.e. they are allowed to ask for travel.

2. Right, but as antebellum American slavery is the most familiar image of slavery, it serves as the most useful frame of reference.  Also, while it is true we can find more benevolent versions and examples of slavery in the historical record, I'm not sure it's appropriate to use that as a baseline standard for slavery.  When the word "slavery" is thrown around, the person using it might not mean specifically antebellum American slavery, but they are referring to something comparably *bad*.  Even if they are theoretically correct that a few forms of historically slavery is analgous to the Circle, as it is not representative of the institution of slavery as the vast majority of slaves in human history suffered far worse fates than what the Mages do. I do not find it useful to use the same term to describe the chattel form of slavery in antebellum America and the Circle of Magi.

[Spectre slayer]

The chantry is extremely corrupt and I think we will find out just what some of the higher ups are up to hell it's one of the reasons why the chantry won't respect us at first for example according to some stuff that was in the game informer stuff specifically mentions this.

Your organization technically has the authority to investigate freely, but other groups may resent that fact and refuse to pay th inquisition it is owed. For instance the disarray of the chantry and it's failure to contain the conflict between mages and Templars partially necessities the formation of the inquisition, so church officials aren't to thrilled with the prospect of an independent organization looking into their shaddy dealings.

Lets face it the system just doesn't work and has some internal problems that will pop up in the game like the scism Sister Peatreacie was apart of etc, oppressing the mages and treating them like monsters just can't work anymore and hopefully we can actually change things with diplomacy or blackmail.

[Steelcan]

I get the feeling we will actually see some sympathetic sides to the Chantry and Templars. The devs seem disappointed in the pro-mage side of the argument and want to show just how dangerous mages are.

However if they do this just by "all mages are blood mages" it will probably back fire.

[cjones91]

Steelcan wrote...

I get the feeling we will actually see some sympathetic sides to the Chantry and Templars. The devs seem disappointed in the pro-mage side of the argument and want to show just how dangerous mages are.

However if they do this just by "all mages are blood mages" it will probably back fire.

Then they better do the same to the templars just to make things fair.Forcing one side to be evil won't work.

[Steelcan]

cjones91 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I get the feeling we will actually see some sympathetic sides to the Chantry and Templars. The devs seem disappointed in the pro-mage side of the argument and want to show just how dangerous mages are.

However if they do this just by "all mages are blood mages" it will probably back fire.

Then they better do the same to the templars just to make things fair.Forcing one side to be evil won't work.

Why not?  We've already seen both sides at their worst supposedly, and I'd say right now, at least on BSN, more people are pro-mage.

This doesn't seem to be meshing with what BioWare wanted DA2 to show so they will have to rectify it.

Like in ME3, everything before the Consensus Mission showed the geth as at best repentant killers, then came that mission and all of a sudden theya re tragically misunderstood victims....  I wonder if the mission had been cut or shown quarians being slaughtered wholesale how things might turn out.

[KiwiQuiche]

Steelcan wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I get the feeling we will actually see some sympathetic sides to the Chantry and Templars. The devs seem disappointed in the pro-mage side of the argument and want to show just how dangerous mages are.

However if they do this just by "all mages are blood mages" it will probably back fire.

Then they better do the same to the templars just to make things fair.Forcing one side to be evil won't work.

Why not?  We've already seen both sides at their worst supposedly, and I'd say right now, at least on BSN, more people are pro-mage.

This doesn't seem to be meshing with what BioWare wanted DA2 to show so they will have to rectify it.

Like in ME3, everything before the Consensus Mission showed the geth as at best repentant killers, then came that mission and all of a sudden theya re tragically misunderstood victims....  I wonder if the mission had been cut or shown quarians being slaughtered wholesale how things might turn out.

To be fair, the majority of the writing in ME3 was atrocious.

[d-boy15]

Steelcan wrote...

I get the feeling we will actually see some sympathetic sides to the Chantry and Templars. The devs seem disappointed in the pro-mage side of the argument and want to show just how dangerous mages are.

However if they do this just by "all mages are blood mages" it will probably back fire.

I believe they already do that in DA2, they paint mages as crazy terrorist and bloodmage while making templar
a rapist and killer. But that's probably the point, show the worst of each side.

A more reaonable peoples like Rhys and Greagoir for both side would be enough... 

Modifié par d-boy15, 24 octobre 2013 - 02:25 .

[Steelcan]

d-boy15 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I get the feeling we will actually see some sympathetic sides to the Chantry and Templars. The devs seem disappointed in the pro-mage side of the argument and want to show just how dangerous mages are.

However if they do this just by "all mages are blood mages" it will probably back fire.

I believe they already do that in DA2, they paint mages as crazy terrorist and bloodmage while making templar
a rapist and killer. But that's probably the point, show the worst of each side.

A more reaonable peoples like Rys and Greagoir for both side would be enough... 

Yet despite all that blood magic (which I don't personally see much issue with) people still seem to sympathize with them more.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

The Geth mission never really revealed anything new, except for the fact that there were dissident Quarians as well.

[Steelcan]

KiwiQuiche wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I get the feeling we will actually see some sympathetic sides to the Chantry and Templars. The devs seem disappointed in the pro-mage side of the argument and want to show just how dangerous mages are.

However if they do this just by "all mages are blood mages" it will probably back fire.

Then they better do the same to the templars just to make things fair.Forcing one side to be evil won't work.

Why not?  We've already seen both sides at their worst supposedly, and I'd say right now, at least on BSN, more people are pro-mage.

This doesn't seem to be meshing with what BioWare wanted DA2 to show so they will have to rectify it.

Like in ME3, everything before the Consensus Mission showed the geth as at best repentant killers, then came that mission and all of a sudden theya re tragically misunderstood victims....  I wonder if the mission had been cut or shown quarians being slaughtered wholesale how things might turn out.

To be fair, the majority of the writing in ME3 was atrocious.

No argument from me:wizard:

[cjones91]

Steelcan wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

I get the feeling we will actually see some sympathetic sides to the Chantry and Templars. The devs seem disappointed in the pro-mage side of the argument and want to show just how dangerous mages are.

However if they do this just by "all mages are blood mages" it will probably back fire.

Then they better do the same to the templars just to make things fair.Forcing one side to be evil won't work.

Why not?  We've already seen both sides at their worst supposedly, and I'd say right now, at least on BSN, more people are pro-mage.

This doesn't seem to be meshing with what BioWare wanted DA2 to show so they will have to rectify it.

Like in ME3, everything before the Consensus Mission showed the geth as at best repentant killers, then came that mission and all of a sudden theya re tragically misunderstood victims....  I wonder if the mission had been cut or shown quarians being slaughtered wholesale how things might turn out.

I don't believe making one side completely evil is suddenly going to sway those on either side of the Mage-Templar debate.They are more likely to accuse Bioware of pandering to the other group if theirs is painted as evil monsters.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

True, I think that often happens now.

[Steelcan]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

The Geth mission never really revealed anything new, except for the fact that there were dissident Quarians as well.

The whole "we need the geth" the defenseless geth being killed by brutal indiscrimanate quarians, etc...  Clear geth propganda that was largely needed in order to make Rannoch's conclusion more grating.

[Br3admax]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

The Geth mission never really revealed anything new, except for the fact that there were dissident Quarians as well.

I'm not even British, but even I know that the consensus was nothing but bollocks. I'll explain it all again, but only in the ME3 forum. 

Modifié par Br3ad, 24 octobre 2013 - 02:29 .