Would you honestly be okay living in the mages' situation?
It's difficult to say. I would be less objective were I a mage, would I not? And my worldview has been influenced from having been born and raised in today's world as opposed to Thedas.
Well, I can't recall endorsing any of these mages specific ideas about new orders.
You did express the belief that Templars locking away mages is justification enough for a rebellion and/or change.
Or that we're facing extremists. I don't deny there are some valid complaints from the mages side but if you are going to turn to demons to leave a luxurious tower where your every material need is attended to and the most "abuse" you suffer is being watched, I find it very difficult to grant your cause credibility. The fact that the Templars can punish mages, with the death penalty in the worst cases, is no different from the peasants in the outside world who are often hanged for much smaller offences.
And, of course, I don't not believe any system that doesn't separate mages from the normal population will ever be efficient. Hence my earlier argument of how the systems often proposed by these mages are unnaceptable.
You just said the biggest reason why they need to leave. Their material needs but not their emotion or psychological needs. We know that the most abuse they suffer isn't just being watched. But you will deny that to the grave so...
Templars can do what ever they want to mages and get away with it. They can kill a mage for the tiniest of offense real or imagined claim blood magic and be done with it. Great system you support there.
Also what good is a mage in a tower. If someone need to be healed who isn't a noble? What about the poor who would benefit from magical healing? Are they just screwed? Yeah I guess they are. If you want to treat mages like tools to be used then used them to their fullest abilities. Allow them to help people instead of locking them up until there is a war or blight or a sick noble.
Or that we're facing extremists. I don't deny there are some valid complaints from the mages side but if you are going to turn to demons to leave a luxurious tower where your every material need is attended to and the most "abuse" you suffer is being watched, I find it very difficult to grant your cause credibility. The fact that the Templars can punish mages, with the death penalty in the worst cases, is no different from the peasants in the outside world who are often hanged for much smaller offences.
And, of course, I don't not believe any system that doesn't separate mages from the normal population will ever be efficient. Hence my earlier argument of how the systems often proposed by these mages are unnaceptable.
If, then. If that was true, then I would agree- but it isn't.
The most abuse that mages can suffer is more than being watched. Abuses have happened: they are not systemic or institutionally sanctioned, they are not the norm, but they do happen. And Kirkwall in particular was a place where precious little appears to have been done to address the most serious of them, starting with unsanctioned tranquility and moving on to Annullment.
One of the soundest, most reasonable, and most justified demands the mages could make at this time is better protections and redress to Templar issues, sanctioned or not. This isn't something that Seekers should be expected to manage: too few of them, too spread out, and too distracted with other business. There deserves to be a dedicated, purpose-built, always available oversight agency that mages can have access to regardless of all else- think American justice system and the right to an attorney. Templars absolutely should not be able to prevent Mages from accessing this channel, or vice-versa: just as the Circle system works on a premise that mages can not be trusted to be entirely self-regulating, the Templars can be held to the same suspicion. The answer to 'who watches the watchman' does not need to be 'the Templars.'
Mages will have exceptional responsibilities and expectations placed upon them for what they are, in the name of protecting others from them. In lieu of all the things they can not expect to get, they should be allowed to expect abuses by Templars to be handled by someone other than the Templars.
Dean_the_Young: Agreed but I was specifically referring to Uldred's rebellion where the justification given by his cohorts is always "The Templars were watching.". This can be witnessed in both "Promises of Pride" and that brief conversation with the blood mage who begs for mercy.
This, coupled with the distinct lack of undeniable cases of Templar abuse in Ferelden, led me to the conclusion his revolution armed with blood magic and demons had very little real justification behind it which served as a counter to Lance's argument that the simple presence of an armed revolution implies the system is flawed.
Dean_the_Young: Agreed but I was specifically referring to Uldred's rebellion where the justification given by his cohorts is always "The Templars were watching.". This can be witnessed in both "Promises of Pride" and that brief conversation with the blood mage who begs for mercy.
This, coupled with the distinct lack of undeniable cases of Templar abuse in Ferelden, led me to the conclusion his revolution armed with blood magic and demons had very little real justification behind it which served as a counter to Lance's argument that the simple presence of an armed revolution implies the system is flawed.
Agreed there- Uldred's rebellion was less about any demonstrated Templar abuse past and more about personal chaffing at restrictions to ambition. Still, I'll chide you to remember to specify in the future: different Circles are different environments, but when dealing with vague overarching collectives everything is fair game.
It's called a thought experiment. You need not actually be this type of person, but if you mentally leave yourself in their perspective greater understanding can be reached. It does wonders in RL, too.It's difficult to say. I would be less objective were I a mage, would I not? And my worldview has been influenced from having been born and raised in today's world as opposed to Thedas.
in the case of violence I did not express a belief that it justifies it, rather that the situation (involving much more than simply locking away) explains it. I see the greater situation and failure of the system as justification for revision of the current system.You did express the belief that Templars locking away mages is justification enough for a rebellion and/or change.
I'll second that chiding, as I am referring to the larger system and not a single tower or rebellion, despite bringing that particular circle up earlier. (Which was mainly due to the fact that I am currently on a play through of DAO and thus it was freshest in it mind.Agreed there- Uldred's rebellion was less about any demonstrated Templar abuse past and more about personal chaffing at restrictions to ambition. Still, I'll chide you to remember to specify in the future: different Circles are different environments, but when dealing with vague overarching collectives everything is fair game.
It's called a thought experiment. You need not actually be this type of person, but if you mentally leave yourself in their perspective greater understanding can be reached. It does wonders in RL, too.
Well, let's see, I want to say how I would realize that the Circle grants me a quality of life superior to those experienced by people living in general society while keeping them safe from the danger that I represent and thus, would be satisfied with my lot.
But the truth is that I would realize that the advantage magic grants me means that, were mages free, we would, inevitably, shift the power in society towards us which would mean that I would have acess to the same material conforts while also holding wordly power and thus, I would be either a libertarian or a lucrosian.
Now, you. You'd feel confortable allowing freedom to people who can kill you with a thought; replace your thougths with theirs without you even notice; can be possessed at any moment regardless of morality and, failling all that, will use the advantage of magic to place themselves at the top of the social ladder while normal people (or mundanes, as they would call you) become second class citizens?
It's called a thought experiment. You need not actually be this type of person, but if you mentally leave yourself in their perspective greater understanding can be reached. It does wonders in RL, too.
That's how I hit my moderate position. I put myself in the shoes of both the mages and the Templars. I concluded that throwing blanketed statements around about either group is in the wrong. For every mage I pictured being forced in the Circle, and what life might have been like there, I pictured the same for a Templar.
Too many on the pro-mage side in particular forget that not every Templar has had a choice in their profession. I'm sure that stories like Alistair's (and Sebastian's too,) are not that uncommon in Thedas: An unwanted son and/or bastard of a noble or monarch forced into the Chantry by their families. Some, like Alistair, probably showed promise in the martial arts and those were the ones selected to become Templars. Others, like Sebastian, were probably seen at being good at education, and were selected to become priests.
It strikes me that in many Templars have as much choice in their lives as a mage does. Not all of the Templars, but there is some for sure out there.
That's my take on it anyhow. So far, reading Asunder has only reinforced that position. You were right, Ares. 
This is why I identify IC with neither mage or Templar: I'm a rogue, watching both groups from the outside. 
I'll second that chiding, as I am referring to the larger system and not a single tower or rebellion, despite bringing that particular circle up earlier. (Which was mainly due to the fact that I am currently on a play through of DAO and thus it was freshest in it mind.
Your argument, if I understood it, was that if mages are unhappy, that's because they have reasons to be and that these reasons are provoked by the Circle system.
However, the details of Ferelden's tower plus Uldred's rebellion show how this is not an universal truth.
Too many on the pro-mage side in particular forget that not every Templar has had a choice in their profession. I'm sure that stories like Alistair's (and Sebastian's too,) are not that uncommon in Thedas: An unwanted son and/or bastard of a noble or monarch forced into the Chantry by their families. Some, like Alistair, probably showed promise in the martial arts and those were the ones selected to become Templars. Others, like Sebastian, were probably seen at being good at education, and were selected to become priests.
Forgive me, but I don't see that as relevant. For one thing, templars can leave any time they want. For another... the lot of an individual templar may be regrettable, but they are the actors and instigators in this situation; the mages, almost always, are the ones reacting. The actions of the templars are the primary driving force of this whole problem, and even those templars who don't come up with the orders are part of the problem as long as they follow said orders.
Your argument, if I understood it, was that if mages are unhappy, that's because they have reasons to be and that these reasons are provoked by the Circle system.
However, the details of Ferelden's tower plus Uldred's rebellion show how this is not an universal truth.
Cole was left to die of starvation and dehydration. Doesn't matter if it was done on purpose or not it was done and the templars just-oh well one less mage. Hell they didn't even really start looking into the murders until a templar was killed. Oh well a few less mages. Not really people dying so what.
Wasn't Uldred a part of the mage faction that wanted to break away from under the Chantry? And wasn't his rebellion due to frustration of being unable to do so? I'm not stepping in too far here, but remember that it's easy to state that "The Circle system pushed Uldred over the edge. He might not even become a blood mage at all if it the Circle was there!" in counter to your argument.
Me, I think that greedy, selfish men will always look for power, and shift their reasoning as they see fit. Uldred is an example of that for me.
@Xil: Sure, they can leave...if they go through the withdrawls from lyrium first. If you've never gone through real withdrawls (I'm not talking cigarettes or caffeine either, I'm talking hard drugs) then you have no idea what that entails. For those that were selected against their will to be Templars, they've been fed lyrium for years and for them to just "get over it" dangerously underestimates the effects of major drug withdrawls.
Again, you're assuming that the Templars are any more free than the mages. They aren't, they just have a different leash.
The Circle isn't the only cost involved, you know: not just the initial start up capital, but also the maintenance costs: the Chantry workers, and especially the Templars and lyrium. The Circle's funds only go towards (and don't even necessarily cover) the mage's costs, not the Chantry or Templars..
I think that last part's not true. Could the Chantry really get by paying the Templars and purchasing lyrium on what is donated? This isn't like the historical Knights Templar, who took vows of poverty. These guys get paid for their line of work.
I'm willing to bet that the Circle is the reason the Templars get paid in the first place. It'd certainly cast a new light on why the Circle system should exist, and paint the people who want to control the Circle in another light (both good AND bad).
But I believe you missed the more significant point of TK's: that the Circle system could be far less generous and far more exploitative if the Templars and/or Chantry wanted
Didn't miss it. Just couldn't respond properly because I only had about twenty minutes before I had to head off to work and I was trying to get stuff together.
You're a mage. You get privilages if you provide value: luxuries, education, security. If you don't, you get gruel and bare essentials, and I do mean bare. If you resist, Tranquilized. You don't want to eat gruel or be tranquilized? Better start working.
The Chantry and Templars could. They aren't even trying to, nor do they want to.
I might use that for my story. Maybe. Not in such that it'd be black and white, but maybe as a sort of "It could be worse" scenario.
It's called a thought experiment. You need not actually be this type of person, but if you mentally leave yourself in their perspective greater understanding can be reached. It does wonders in RL, too.
Question: if I believe something is necessary regardless of what the subject feels about it, why would it matter what I would feel about it? The common intent behind such questions is to provoke empathy or to try and identify hypocrisy, but sometimes 'I would do the same thing' doesn't mean hypocrisy: it just means you would repeat the error or decision yourself, even if it were wrong.
To take an example: when I was going through training awhile back, we were posed with the thought experiment of 'what would you do if your family was held hostage?' Say that you are a leader of the police, but the criminal holds up in your house and has a gun at your spouse/child's head: do you do what they want? Order an assault? An investigation? Did your approach change compared to if it was someone else's family?
The answer the class came to a consensus as a 'best' answer was... remove yourself from the position of authority and let someone else take charge. The dominant argument being that a hostage crisis requires impartiality and objectivity to resolve favorably, and that having your own precious people being the hostages would be the worse thing for your state of mind. It would be best for you if you weren't the one in command... and that might mean your subordinates forcibly removing you against your will, so that it would be a relative stranger handling the negotiations.
This point, of building a system that will do the 'right' thing even if you would not if you were emotionally compromised, is both a terrifying and useful thing. It's terrifying because if it's wrong, it can be very hard to correct. It's also very useful by identifying and resolving conflicts of interests before they happen, and mitigating the human weakness of biased perspectives.
So let's say I'm a mage who is more or less like me now. Maybe I accept the rational of the system: the closer I am to myself now, the more likely I would be a Loyalist. Different context would change me, though, and who knows how much. I might be personally abused and/or affected by abuse, and so come to oppose it.
But whether I like it or not if I were in the same position is irrelevant to whether the system is appropriate or not. Good organizations don't bend to any individual's opinions, even my own, and good systems don't bend to any single group, especially the views of the group it is intended to maintain.
Guy like Uldred woulda done what he done regardless of being a mage.
Wasn't Uldred a part of the mage faction that wanted to break away from under the Chantry? And wasn't his rebellion due to frustration of being unable to do so? I'm not stepping in too far here, but remember that it's easy to state that "The Circle system pushed Uldred over the edge. He might not even become a blood mage at all if it the Circle was there!" in counter to your argument.
Me, I think that greedy, selfish men will always look for power, and shift their reasoning as they see fit. Uldred is an example of that for me.
@Xil: Sure, they can leave...if they go through the withdrawls from lyrium first. If you've never gone through real withdrawls (I'm not talking cigarettes or caffeine either, I'm talking hard drugs) then you have no idea what that entails. For those that were selected against their will to be Templars, they've been fed lyrium for years and for them to just "get over it" dangerously underestimates the effects of major drug withdrawl.
Again, you're assuming that the Templars are any more free than the mages. They aren't, they just have a different leash.
I can find it within myself to pity them, perhaps, but that doesn't change their actions and the fact that they, being the ones who have all the power over the ages, are the primary instigators of this. Also, Alistair didn't seem to go through lyrium withdrawal of any significance, only starting it again in the comics to recharge his powers after several years without, IIRC.
Also, Alistair didn't seem to go through lyrium withdrawal of any significance, only starting it again in the comics to recharge his powers after several years without, IIRC.
Did Alistair use Lyrium before DA:O? It's been a while since I've played and I don't remember him saying anything.
Did Alistair use Lyrium before DA:O? It's been a while since I've played and I don't remember him saying anything.
It was retconned. In DAO itself, you didn't have to drink lyrium to gain templar powers, but DA2 changed that... so presumably he had lyrium at some point but wasn't noticeably addicted.
I think that last part's not true. Could the Chantry really get by paying the Templars and purchasing lyrium on what is donated? This isn't like the historical Knights Templar, who took vows of poverty. These guys get paid for their line of work.
I'm willing to bet that the Circle is the reason the Templars get paid in the first place. It'd certainly cast a new light on why the Circle system should exist, and paint the people who want to control the Circle in another light (both good AND bad).
I couldn't hope to find it in the old forum, but Gaider once made an explicit rebuttal that the Circle's earnings went to the Circle, and not to the profit of the Chantry/Templars. It was involved in the context of an argument that the mages were slaves profiting the Chantry and paying the Templars.
It's not particularly clear where the Templars are paid from exactly, but it's not the Circles directly. I suspect the Chantry's lyrium monopoly heavily covers it.
Didn't miss it. Just couldn't respond properly because I only had about twenty minutes before I had to head off to work and I was trying to get stuff together.
I know the feeling. Forgive my assumption, please. 
I might use that for my story. Maybe. Not in such that it'd be black and white, but maybe as a sort of "It could be worse" scenario.
Oh, heavens yes. The Russian security agencies would probably laugh at the Circle System as qaintly idealistic and inept, before stepping in and showing them how a real security state is run.
Removing mage rights and independent income, making all privileges dependent on good conduct and loyal behavior, systematically infiltrating mage fraternities with snitches and moles, marginalizing and outright destroying anti-state polities from ever openly organizing, sowing fear and distrust between mage groups and individual mages with mage-snitches, regular sting operations to ferret out treason, a secret police for midnight disappearances of suspected mages for enhanced interrogation, removing the First Enchanter as a major actor while hand selecting official mage leaders rather than let the mages choose their own, strictly limit and control education and reading material, specially sanctioned blood-mages for mind-controlling mages for interrogation purposes and to sow internal strife, accept significant collateral damage in putting down an outbreak.
There's more, easily.
Did Alistair use Lyrium before DA:O? It's been a while since I've played and I don't remember him saying anything.
As Xil said, that was retconned per Word of Gaider. However, Allistair also wasn't a fully-fledged Templar for years using the stuff either.
Forgive me, but I don't see that as relevant. For one thing, templars can leave any time they want. For another... the lot of an individual templar may be regrettable, but they are the actors and instigators in this situation; the mages, almost always, are the ones reacting. The actions of the templars are the primary driving force of this whole problem, and even those templars who don't come up with the orders are part of the problem as long as they follow said orders.
Yes, and suffer the lifelong withdrawl problems the lack of Lyrium causes.
Um, I think we can all say Uldred was the enactor and the Templars the reactors. Plus if you trace it back far enough, aren't the Templars just reacting to what the Tevinter Magisters of old did to the nonmage populace?
I had read the same thing as Dean, so I went to look for a source. I couldn't find anything about the Circle's profits, but I sure found a treasure trove of David Gaider's thoughts about mages in general.
He had a lot to say on the subject.
Edit: Spectre, there is all kinds of stuff in here. If you're reading the thread, you might want to add this link to your collection you have.
He said he ran into the Templars and they left him for dead, He didn't mention if there was a combat or not.
I'm of the mind there was, but that's me.
He said they ran him through and left him for dead, but not much more than that.
Retour en haut