There was nothing wrong with countries like Britain and France letting the rise of nazi germany continue when it was easily in their power to stop it at the start?
Omg, if you want to do something do it, if you don't, then you don't, you're not obligated to anything, just think for yourself.
There was nothing wrong with countries like Britain and France letting the rise of nazi germany continue when it was easily in their power to stop it at the start?
Okay I'm going to stop talking about this now, we're getting of topic.
Was it right for the French and English Politicians to overly greedy and not only seize territory, foreign assets from the defeated Germany in the aftermath of the first world war, but to also demand war repatriations in the immense amount required under their "victors" peace? Was it "right" for them to dictate a sovereign Nation's governance? Or to restrict the size of its military? Was it right for them to cripple that Nation into the worst state of economic debt and ruin in modern European history? How many people suffered because of those actions? Do people even acknowledge that it happened? Or is the treaty of Versailles even taught in schools anymore?
There are generally two or more sides to every story, and this one has many.
Do people even acknowledge that it happened? Or is the treaty of Versailles even taught in schools anymore?
I do. And I can tell you it is still taught in schools. That treaty was a terrible idea, even before hindsight though said hindsight is amazing when you think of it. That treaty angered Germany, Italy, and Japan. Where do we see these three countries together again?
Oh no, I agree entirely with you on this one, the treaty of versailles was a terrible which in my opinion was one of the leading causes of WW2. I just believe we should of stepped in when hitler became extreamly aggresive and started stripping the rights of jews and all the other people he discriminated against.Was it right for the French and English Politicians to overly greedy and not only seize territory, foreign assets from the defeated Germany in the aftermath of the first world war, but to also demand war repatriations in the immense amount required under their "victors" peace? Was it "right" for them to dictate a sovereign Nation's governance? Or to restrict the size of its military? Was it right for them to cripple that Nation into the worst state of economic debt and ruin in modern European history? How many people suffered because of those actions? Do people even acknowledge that it happened? Or is the treaty of Versailles even taught in schools anymore?
why are we on this?
Well, we were talking about indifference about a morally reprehensible thing can be just as bad as supporting it, but then we went real world.
but then we went real world.
Dammit I'm part of the problem as well now.
It always happens since people can relate to things that happen on Earth more than in Thedas. Don't blame yourself. 
Well, we were talking about indifference about a morally reprehensible thing can be just as bad as supporting it, but then we went real world.
Overlooking reality doesn't make it cease existing.
That might hold for Meredith, however we don't know how much the lyrium really influenced her, but what about all the soldiers who followed her orders? For me at least this is one of the things that drive me nuts about the pro-templar people. You seem very willing to justify everything a templar does by they were following orders. I mean. Would you accept that as a defense for the mages that aided Uldred? He is a senior enchanter after all and apparently supporting Logain later. Not only that but most mages have been brought up in the circle. What kind of respect would they have been taught to give to senior enchanters sense childhood?
For me following orders is not an acceptable defense and I don't see one case of corruption but several especially amongst those templars that attack Hawke. As for the sword. Until we know exactly how much it influences the mind I don't believe it's court worthy evidence. I'm reminded of another war sword from a comic. It is said to impart ruthlessness onto its holder. It's a great weapon for a warlord. However, after performing a certain act and becoming disgusted with himself the weapon's holder asks one of the mages. "How much of this was the sword and how much was me?" 95% him. As the mage said. The sword can't give anything that isn't already there all it can do is give a gentle nudge here and relax a few guidelines there.
The lyrium sword may be worse but then again it may be the same thing.
I can only speak for myself but, personally, I would accept that as a defence. I don't begrudge soldiers, I begrudge their leaders.
On the other hand, I do hold individual soldiers accountable for the brutality of their actions.
As for the sword, Bartrand went from greedy bastard to "cutting up pieces of my servant's flesh will help them hear the music" so, personally, I'd say it is rather powerful.
No, better to never have had a child than to watch it suffer. And every peasant will have to face harships mages never will. For instance. Rhy couldn't wrap his mind around the concept most of the citizens of the Orlesian Empire are illiterate because reading is something every Circle mage learns early on.
I disagree, I reason along the lines of women who kidnap babies aka child abduction. They would risk incarceration, assault or what have you simply to experience the sensation of having a child. Not to mention women who cannot have children themselves, Illiteracy is a shame but ignorance is bliss.
There are different kinds of freedom beyond freedom of movement.
Agreed, though this does not change the desire for such freedom.
Celibacy is not the same as reproduction. Maybe the reason Emille couldn't kis a girl is because he is pathetic.
And yes, population management is one of the reason reproduction is discouraged(and for good reasons, the Circle is meant to be containable, after all) but there are other factors. For instance, what if the child turns out to be a normal person? We will have kept it in the Circle for no good reason and his/her parents will not be able to teach him/her a trade with which to survive.
Bethany always wanted children. Once she was placed in the Circle, she found joy in teaching the young ones. Why can't more mages make the Circle their family?
Interesting point of view on Emille, you may be correct. But I would reason that Emille is the poster child for what the circle system is ultimately capable of producing en masse, given enough time. Perhaps if he'd have something of a typical Thedasian experience he'd be better adjusted. I suppose it's a case of nature vs. nurture. And mages can make the circle their family, the problem is when some members of that family suffer grisly fates way before their time that shouldn't happen according to some pro-templars who claim that the circle system keeps mages 'safe'. A peasant can go his whole life without being mugged, unlikely but there you go. A mage will undergo the harrowing regardless of any extenuating circumstances, you'll be losing friends here and perhaps yourself most definitely. Finally, what's wrong with a mage seeing their kid? Why do they have to simply deal with the child kidnapping Chantry? Is it so much to ask that the mage mother get time with their child? Visits? It's really disturbing what the Chantry does with a mage's children when given thought.
Nah. In Asunder, Adrian sneaks into Rhys' room and they would have done the nasty right then and there had he been up to it; and that was in the middle of a lockdown. Wynne had a baby, Anders said everyone was kissing everyone in Ferelden. They probably just know enough not to get pregnant.
Maybe so. However, it may not even be an issue if the Chantry would let the mages see their children, let them stay near the tower, anything but performing a Houdini on said kid. Not to mention the message that it sends to the mage. "You are unfit to care for a child, you are a mage and your pregancy shouldn't have happened", at least that's what many would certainly see it as. Maybe the mages could have a traditional family that mundanes take for granted.
Thedas is not like medieval Europe in all aspects, true. I still doubt people can casually travel from Ferelden to the Free Marches.
Yeah, not that easily sure. But the option is there for people who play their cards right and they don't need to ask special permission either. And where they go they can stay. Can't say the same for the overwhelming majority of magi.
We have a two to one so far.
Hopefully in future installments we can tally up the final count.
Remember in Act 1 how Emeric said he began investigating the serial killer because one of the mages left the Gallows to go meet up with a suitor and never returned?
That doesn't sound very opressive, does it?
Ah, I know what you're referring to. It seemed to be implied that she basically went missing. Never got the impression that she was granted permission to leave, though I maybe inccorrect. Even so, that'd most definitely be a first, second, or third time that ever happend in that hellhole. Nvm. Her name was Mharen, all that Emeric says is that she went missing, she was old but hardly adventourus. So she was an old woman by the time she got permission to leave(which is likely), or she was snatched unawares by
the green river...err white lily killer. Wouldn't be hard to blend in, the man's a monster but he has decent taste in robery.
Templars are fearful of mages and they have good reason to be. However, I do agree that there must be more avenues through which mages can defend themselves from abuses. There should even be ways for mages to request transfer between Circles if need be.
Agreed on all accounts here.
A mage has about as many chances of running or screaming for aid in the Tower and normal people have outside. A mage won't be able to leave the tower, no. But if they can get to, say, near the common room, they can yell for help. Much like a normal person if s/he is attacked.
Not sure what this has to do with what I originally wrote. I however stand by my point, peasants are not nearly hunted to the extent that your average Mary Bob Billy (with the gimpy leg) mage are.
We all have a responsability to society. We all give up a portion of our freedoms the moment we are born because we are potentially dangerous. Mages give up more of their freedoms because they represent a greater danger. Maybe they could feel some responsabilty towards their fellow non-magical humans? Wynne certainly does.
And there is broad evidence in the franchise that if a mage proves himself or herself trustworthy, s/he is granted more freedoms. I mean, look at Finn. All he has to do is to ask and he is allowed to go do some research without a Templar escort.
Maybe mages should spend more time trying to prove themselves worthy of trust and less time wondering how they are going to try to escape again. And then get surprised if the Templars are less than willing to allow them outside.
Agreed that mages have a responsiblity and that they should be held accountable and work to improve relations. However, it seems to go beyond that. The chantry hates mages. Playing both games, seeing how the priest at Ostagar reacted to Uldred merely suggesting a viable method to light the signal fire, how the Priest in Redcliffe reacts to a human mage. Seeing how the divine was considering an exalted march on Kirkwall when the Templars were largely at fault. They hate them. The mages are not stupid, they are accutely aware of how mundanes feel about them. You cited an example in Asunder where Wynne and Cole aren't in a town for thirty minutes before a lynch mob forms? Mages are often treated as the guilty party right off the bat. If anything, both sides can show a ton of improvement in terms of how they treat one another. So I see no reason why the mages should not do everything in their power as it stands now to seperate from people who want to utterly control them or outright annul them.
To her home and her children. She proved herself trusthworthy and thus was allowed to attend an high society party without an escort. Afterwards, she returned. What is so wrong about that?
Nothing if you don't mind being reminded at the end of every day that while they may loosen your leash, you're still a caged beast. A child with an allowance. Also, Bethany essentially admits that she was wrong in the pro-mage ending of DA II, claiming that she to live circle life to understand why her parents sacrificed everything to keep her out of it.
Meredith's sister - 72 dead. The Baroness - an entire city trapped in the Fade doomed to repeat their deaths for all eternity. Kaiten - an entire city corrupted and nearly destroyed.
All true, and how many elves died in the Denerim purge? How many people died during the exalted marches? How many hundreds of innocent demon free mages died during annulments? Both sides have blood on their hands, but at least the mage doesn't pretend to have a divine right to.
Do tell when have Templars indiscriminatly killed for killed or Tranquilised mages for crimes they did not commit, based on faulty evidence.
The Templars slaughter everything that moves during an Annulment and 'mercy kill' (tranquility) those that survive. I was also referring to the Jowan's situation but I misspoke, I meant based on rumors. Though they were correct it still doesn't change how fundamentally flawed such an arbitrary 'system' is, kind of like a cop nailing a marijuana user through unlawful or improper means. Not to mention that harrowed Tranquil mages pop up in the gallows of Kirkwall. Oh and the annulment of Darismund, just to emphasize my point about the Templar/Chantry hatred of mages.
Why is it that these topics always become political?
Any progress?
**hopeful**
I don't know. I ducked out of the fray several pages ago.
Mages, both Circle and apostate, are victims of a system.
Non-mages, including templars, are only POTENTIAL victims of individual ambitions (the minority of mages that act violently).
Forgive the interjection here, but I wanted to let you guys know that I have Asunder and WoT ordered via Amazon. I need to fix my update status, but it'll be here on Wednesday. Thank you everyone for recommending those books. Believe it or not, time on the forums hasn't spoiled me very much. It's more piqued my curiosity to see what yet another division among the fans is all about.
I'm reserving my judgement of any plot or characters until I'm done. I can tell you guys that once I am done, I'll probably be able to join the discussion. Thanks again! 
No, it's just as bad.
And what is wrong with not caring it is up to individual how s/he reacts to world if individual want socialize his call same if s/he doesn't and same how individual respond on actions of others.Oh someone is being self-righteous
And what is wrong with not caring it is up to individual how s/he reacts to world if individual want socialize his call same if s/he doesn't and same how individual respond on actions of others.Oh someone is being self-righteous
I'm not here to debate, but can someone please translate this for me? Usually I'm good at understanding TKS' posts, but I have no clue what he's going on about here.
I'm not here to debate, but can someone please translate this for me? Usually I'm good at understanding TKS' posts, but I have no clue what he's going on about here.
I think that's the point 
I think that's the point
He's not like another poster that used to...curve around his posts, so I know there is a point there.
Somewhere...
I'm not here to debate, but can someone please translate this for me? Usually I'm good at understanding TKS' posts, but I have no clue what he's going on about here.
Alright, I will try.
"And what is wrong with not caring? It is up to the individual how she/he reacts to the world. If the individual want to socialize, his call. Same if she/he doesn't. And same on how the individual responds to actions of others."
I'm not here to debate, but can someone please translate this for me? Usually I'm good at understanding TKS' posts, but I have no clue what he's going on about here.
Point was if individual don't want socialize it is his/her own business and same is with person that don't want interfere someone else business see don't want help someone attacked by thugs.It isn't sure healthy attitude for society but very healty attitude for individual. I don't see why i should risk for someone my life and there is no need to be self-righteous that it is bad.
Retour en haut
