In such cases, the issue is protection. Certainly, those who are unusually vulnerable should be protected with such means as are required for the duration of their vulnerability, but not everything the Circle does is needed to keep its charges safe from demons.
In such cases, the issue is protection. Certainly, those who are unusually vulnerable should be protected with such means as are required for the duration of their vulnerability, but not everything the Circle does is needed to keep its charges safe from demons.
We also don't ever get one Aequitarian supporting the Loyalists; both Irving and Wynne have wanted reforms to the Circle that the Loyalists have shown no signs of desiring. Orsino is also implied to be an Aequitarian who comes to support mage freedom, and Bethany does as well in the end (unless you think she was a Libertarian even before then).
The Circle also exists to keep normal people safe.
And your comment does nothing to refute that freedom is not a universal good.
I was not addressing that because it's not my argument. As for the safety of mundanes... well, one would think that it's the job of individual rulers to protect their people as they see fit, and to that end, I would advocate that they be given access to templar training techniques and lyrium.
I have always interpreted the loyalists as wanting reforms. Being loyal doesn't mean you are against reforms.
Then nothing would separate them from the Aequitarians. And the one loyalist we've ever spoken to was obsessed with her nature being a sin against the Maker.
I was not addressing that because it's not my argument. As for the safety of mundanes... well, one would think that it's the job of individual rulers to protect their people as they see fit, and to that end, I would advocate that they be given access to templar training techniques and lyrium.
And said nations/rulers have said the circles are how they want to do it.
Sadly, that's not their role. If the Circle is to be a separated society from the rest of the world, then it's the right of the Circle to manage and rule itself. If they wish to integrate mages into their populations so that they may have governmental jurisdiction over them, they may feel free.
I was not addressing that because it's not my argument. As for the safety of mundanes... well, one would think that it's the job of individual rulers to protect their people as they see fit, and to that end, I would advocate that they be given access to templar training techniques and lyrium.
Then nothing would separate them from the Aequitarians. And the one loyalist we've ever spoken to was obsessed with her nature being a sin against the Maker.
Sadly, that's not their role. If the Circle is to be a separated society from the rest of the world, then it's the right of the Circle to manage and rule itself. If they wish to integrate mages into their populations so that they may have governmental jurisdiction over them, they may feel free.
Carriers of an incurable contagion of unknown vector. What choices did they make that would meet your criteria?
People who are mentally incapable of caring for themselves, and as such are confined to strictly controlled facilities. Where is their choice?
In both cases, freedom is the worse choice.
There are plenty of other examples. Freedom is not a universal good, nor is it even universally desirable.
To your first, that is not a permanent solution, meant only to last until the contagion has run its course.
To your second, that only applies to people who have shown signs of mental incapability, been tested and found clinically unable to take care of themselves AND a danger to their families, and are locked away because it's been proven. And even then, we are making advances that are decreasing the frequency this happens.
I happen to have pretty strong feelings on your second example, because if I had been born 20 years earlier, I would've been one of those people locked away.
The point is, freedom is good except in exceptional cases, like in the contagion where thousands, maybe even millions will be harmed as a result of the disease, or in the case where individuals have been proven dangerous to themselves and others.
You may say this is why the Circle's exist, and I agree to an extent as young and untrained mages really are a danger to themselves and to others, but after they're trained and can control their powers, all the Circle's ultimately do is take away their rights and freedoms based on what might happen because of what they are and not based on who they are or what they've done.
Aquetarians have never actually explained there position other than being the swing vote between loyalists and libertarians.
Wynne explains it well enough, I think.
The nations have given control of the "mage" problem to the chantey as you already stated it is their right to chose to deal with it how they see fit.
Which they have no right to do. Either mages are treated as part of society, or they are not. If the former, the Circle might still exist for the purposes of protection from demons, but beyond that, mages will have the same rights as anyone else; if the latter, then the Circle's laws and national laws will have wholly different jurisdictions and each will govern itself. Either way, religious organizations should have no legal power of this kind; they should concern themselves with spiritual matters alone.
We also don't ever get one Aequitarian supporting the Loyalists; both Irving and Wynne have wanted reforms to the Circle that the Loyalists have shown no signs of desiring. Orsino is also implied to be an Aequitarian who comes to support mage freedom, and Bethany does as well in the end (unless you think she was a Libertarian even before then).
The Aequitarians support the Loyalist in the sense that they agree that a Circle system is necessary. There is a difference in how they envision it, but they're still pro-Circle. The Libertarians stance in most of the cases in-game dosnr seem to support a Cirlce system.
I don't recall that Orsino ever said that he wanted mages to be free of the Chantry your the Circle prior to (possibly) the event of The Last Straw, but I haven't played the game for a while. Though I understand that many mages changed their stance in Kirkwall, considering that they were going to die for something they didn't do.
The position shift involves more Aequitarians believing that more radical reforms are necessary if the Circle is to survive. And keep in mind that Irving was quite happy about the prospect of the Circle's freedom; they believe in the need for the Circle, but not necessarily the Chantry.
Wynne explains it well enough, I think.
Which they have no right to do. Either mages are treated as part of society, or they are not. If the former, the Circle might still exist for the purposes of protection from demons, but beyond that, mages will have the same rights as anyone else; if the latter, then the Circle's laws and national laws will have wholly different jurisdictions and each will govern itself. Either way, religious organizations should have no legal power of this kind; they should concern themselves with spiritual matters alone.
In the mage Origin, Niall and Senior Enchanter Torrin are discussing how many Aequitarians are beginning to sympathize and support the Libertarians.
They also discuss how the Chantry would not want that to happen, and if the Libertarians get their way, they'll drag all other mages down with them, and the Chantry's reaction would not be pretty.
They were spot on, given Asunder.
On one hand you say it is up to the individual nations to handle mages as they deem fit, but then argue they don't have the right to turn that responsibility over to the chantry?
Thou dost contradict thyself
No, I said it was up to them to determine the security for mundanes as they saw fit, not to "handle mages." To determine what protections they would be given (which is different from restrictions being added to others).
The position shift involves more Aequitarians believing that more radical reforms are necessary if the Circle is to survive. And keep in mind that Irving was quite happy about the prospect of the Circle's freedom; they believe in the need for the Circle, but not necessarily the Chantry.
Yes and if they believed the best security was locking mages in a chantry controlled tower, that istheir right as a nation.No, I said it was up to them to determine the security for mundanes as they saw fit, not to "handle mages." To determine what protections they would be given (which is different from restrictions being added to others).
Your pal Adrian argues at the end of Asunder that Wynne would have succeeded in getting the Aquetarians to vote against independence. And even after what went down in asunder independence was still a very narrow vote.
Well, I never said Adrian was right about everything. It also was guaranteed to be narrow because only the Aequitarian vote would be meaningful; the Libertarian and Loyalist positions are set and the Lucrosians and Isolationists are too small to matter. The only way the Aequitarians wouldn't win is if everyone, including both Libertarians and Loyalists, sided against them.
Yes and if they believed the best security was locking mages in a chantry controlled tower, that istheir right as a nation.
In modern times I may not agree with it, but in a mmid evil to dark age morality setting, you bet it makes sense.
No, because that's focused on the wrong people; it's not a protection offered to mundanes but a restriction to mages.
I was not addressing that because it's not my argument.
Then I'm not sure why you responded to me, since that's all I was arguing.
I have no illusions at this point as to moving anywhere on the subject of a Circles. I think it fair to say that the usual suspects have all made our immovable positions clear.
To be frank, I think the mods should just forbid all mage/templar discussion until DAI comes out.
I'd also like to point out that the way the mages are treated, as less than human, is a driving force for most of them to use blood magic and make deals with demons. It is a highly flawed and self perpetuating system.You may say this is why the Circle's exist, and I agree to an extent as young and untrained mages really are a danger to themselves and to others, but after they're trained and can control their powers, all the Circle's ultimately do is take away their rights and freedoms based on what might happen because of what they are and not based on who they are or what they've done.
To be frank, I think the mods should just forbid all mage/templar discussion until DAI comes out.
Well, I never said Adrian was right about everything. It also was guaranteed to be narrow because only the Aequitarian vote would be meaningful; the Libertarian and Loyalist positions are set and the Lucrosians and Isolationists are too small to matter. The only way the Aequitarians wouldn't win is if everyone, including both Libertarians and Loyalists, sided against them.
No, because that's focused on the wrong people; it's not a protection offered to mundanes but a restriction to mages.
I'd also like to point out that the way the mages are treated, as less than human, is a driving force for most of them to use blood magic and make deals with demons. It is a highly flawed and self perpetuating system.
Less than humans? since when less than humans have better conditions than majority of humans?
Most mages become blood mages not because circle but because humans are flawed see tevinter.
As I said in modern society yes, but when considered through the lens of the time period I don't see a problem with a society marginalizing a potentially dangerous minority. It fits with the morality of the time.
And I see no problem with a magocracy through the same time period lens.
Less than humans? since when less than humans have better conditions than majority of humans?
Most mages become blood mages not because circle but because humans are flawed see tevinter.
That's not really a flaw.
Retour en haut