Aller au contenu

Photo

Uneven Presentation of the mage-templar conflict


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
8640 réponses à ce sujet

#201
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 676 messages

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Everyone was corrupt and insane in kirkwall, that was part of the requirement for living in kirkwall. Mages were crazy, the templars senior members were losing their minds, half the young recruits thought a templar culling ritual was just something that happens as a templar, the sisters wanted a full scale war against the qunari, the city guards were corrupt before aveline showed up, nobility were spitting out psychologically unstable brats and paying everyone off to pretend they weren't, and let's not forget the big old ancient sites of evil all around the place, be it a evil elf mirror, the worlds oldest darkspawn mage, and a lyrium idol that makes you murderously psychopathic.

Frankly if the Dagon rose out of the sea and ate kirkwall off the map, I'd say it would still be a fitting ending for the setting that was kirkwall.


I'm surprised you didn't bring up the Champion and Companions. There's a fair deal of blatant corruption and emotional instability amongst them, even with Aveline: she's might not take a bribe or engage in nepotism, but she's definitely acknowledged to break laws and bend rules in favor of people she cares about. And she's probably the most emotionally stable and least corrupted one of the group.

#202
leaguer of one

leaguer of one
  • Members
  • 9 995 messages

LobselVith8 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

This is contradicted by Meredith herself, who says (repeatedly) she's fulfilling the Right of Annulment because a hypothetical mob will demand blood.


That just part of the last straw. 


It's the only argument Meredith continually makes for why the Right was invoked, and it's even used when she tries to persuade Hawke to side with her. The Circle is being condemned to death for the actions of a single man.

That's the last straw to her entire arguement on annualling the mages from act 2. Theirare more reason then just that. It just part of the reasons why.

#203
KaiserShep

KaiserShep
  • Members
  • 23 815 messages

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Everyone was corrupt and insane in kirkwall, that was part of the requirement for living in kirkwall. Mages were crazy, the templars senior members were losing their minds, half the young recruits thought a templar culling ritual was just something that happens as a templar, the sisters wanted a full scale war against the qunari, the city guards were corrupt before aveline showed up, nobility were spitting out psychologically unstable brats and paying everyone off to pretend they weren't, and let's not forget the big old ancient sites of evil all around the place, be it a evil elf mirror, the worlds oldest darkspawn mage, and a lyrium idol that makes you murderously psychopathic.

Frankly if the Dagon rose out of the sea and ate kirkwall off the map, I'd say it would still be a fitting ending for the setting that was kirkwall.


The best one is the evil tome that's sitting right in the Viscount's Keep. I mean, you can suddenly get into a brutal fight with an arcane horror and shades right at the center of Kirkwall's government, with nary a soul to take note of it. Kirkwall is a yarn of crazy and it's best left to sink in the sea.

#204
leaguer of one

leaguer of one
  • Members
  • 9 995 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

1. It's a given that I'm taking about normal situations.

There are no normal situations with people in the magi situation. Being a magi is itself being outside the norm.

2. That solve easilly...Stop thinging and treating the circle as a closter. That's the main problem with the issues of the circle. How does a closter work if it's imposed. That's no different from a prison.

Actually, it's closer to a quarantine: prisons are where you send people for crimes they have comitted. Quarantines are where you keep people who, through no malice or intent of their own, can inadverdantly kill dozens.

The root of mages turning into abominations isn't the Circle system, and thus solved by its destruction and mage liberation. The root of mages turning into abominations is stress, which drives people to fear losing something or someone, or hate something else, or think their correctness is unrecognized. Life is not stress free, and keeping a cloister where an outbreak is easier to respond and containis why a single mid-tier abomination of a child desperate to save a parent wiped out most of a major settlement before anyone was aware while dozens of abominations of powerful mages were locally contained for some time in a single area.

And being with someone, even in marrage, is not a privalage it's a right.

In a western liberal society founded on principles such as all men being equal and in which people only gain disproportionate power as members of groups. Thedas is not such a society, and does not follow our values or understand our concept of rights. It is, however, a place where strong emotional relationships amongst a certain unequal parties are playing with wildfire and an excellent generator of stress.

But even we, however, have institutions in which marriage privilages are restricted. One such place is called 'the military', where enforced separation is not a question of if but a matter of how long and how far.


And why do normal fock need to have phylacteries if they are married to a mage? The enitre point is to keep track of mages. With that they also don't have to work with chantry.

To track down the mage's family, in case they seek to escape and lay the groundworks for the mage to escape and rejoin them. In analyzing and trying to track persons of interest, the immediate family is generally considered among the first degree of relations, people to whom an escapee will turn to first.

There's also the point of sharing burdens and emphasizing that they, as a family, are all together in this and to keep the mundanes also committed to the Circle. The mundanes of a family, while not mages themselves, are also persons of interest in the health and actions of a mage. Spreading the practice of phylacteries outside of the mages themselves, even if rarely used, can help share and destigmitize the burden on the mages. (For the record, I also apply this to the Templar guards themselves: even aside from some minor practical uses, the point of sharing a burden with the mages has its own merits.)

Working to support the circle would be an option available to them, not necessarily a requirement. There would probably be social pressure inside the Circle to do so, especially if the Circle is responsible for feeding and supplying the spouses and so discourages freeloaders, but the only required points would be the education of rights and restrictions and the regular marriage check-ins. Considering what's at stake if a relationship turned sour (which it very easily could with the outsider having to adjust to the Circle), marriage stability would be a potential threat factor and marriage counseling would be a very important support system.

(For reference, I'm actually basing the counseling/check in off of a variant of the US military's various support system for the spouses of and soldiers on and returning from deployment. I've never seen it brought up, but it's actually a good model to consider for various aspects of dealing with marriage stress.)

1. Ofcousre there is. Think that way only causes more problems. This issue here it that the templar are treating mages like monster need to be locked up. That'snot the case. These are just people with powers who like every person is open to both good and bad actions. It makes no sense to build a system that will always assume they are doing wrong.

2.The Irony is that making things the way they are in the circle now makes it more stress full for the mage. And we all know how that turns out. That point is a laim excuse. Look at the dalish, they don't alienate their mages to that extent and they don't have abomination problems. The dalish prove that extreme supression is not the solution. It's really just making things worse. You don't thing a dalish mage don't go through stresses?

3."To track down the mage's family, in case they seek to escape and lay the groundworks for the mage to escape and rejoin them. In analyzing and trying to track persons of interest, the immediate family is generally considered among the first degree of relations, people to whom an escapee will turn to first."

I have to call this out. Sorry but that is not a point for this. If this were true, then every family memeber for a mage would already have phylacteries being that even with the system now they still help their family memebers in the circle escape. Family is not the cause for a mage wanting to escape, it's how bad the system is. And even if the mages in this current system escapes they still can't hide from the templers phylacteries... It would be the same with townships. Reguardless to how much their family will help them the mage having  phylacteries bounded to them counters all of those issues.
My point is there is no point to doing that being that having it on mages is enough. They don't need to put it on their family. If they did the current system would already be doing it.

3. You do under stand thatsposes can make their own business with inthe town ship. The circle does have it's own economy. Heck the spouse and family can even mave a shipping biness to bring goods to the circle and ship good made by the cirle to other places. We can have extended magic shops that are in DAO and DA2 with the family members being the one running the shop instead of just the tranquil alone. And in the case of relation ship going sour...That's already an issue they have to deal with in the circle. Mage can't marry but that does not stop them from being with one another. How do you think the circle deals with mages when those relation ships go sour?

4."In a western liberal society founded on principles such as all men being equal and in which people only gain disproportionate power as members of groups. Thedas is not such a society, and does not follow our values or understand our concept of rights. It is, however, a place where strong emotional relationships amongst a certain unequal parties are playing with wildfire and an excellent generator of stress.

But even we, however, have institutions in which marriage privilages are restricted. One such place is called 'the military', where enforced separation is not a question of if but a matter of how long and how far.
"

You're not getting what I mean. No one can stop someone form being with one another outside the use of force and they need to be amass to do so. It matter not what the sociaty feels but the indavisual. The only thing that the sociaty has power over in the acceptance of the marrage.

Also, in the military marrage is not restricted. In fact if to soldiers are married the army makes sure to put them in the same squad. The only limitation is based on proximity with non-military but that's no different form a person who has to akes a trip to a city  to do his job and their mate waiting at home.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 16 février 2014 - 01:45 .


#205
dragonflight288

dragonflight288
  • Members
  • 8 852 messages

leaguer of one wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

This is contradicted by Meredith herself, who says (repeatedly) she's fulfilling the Right of Annulment because a hypothetical mob will demand blood.


That just part of the last straw. 


It's the only argument Meredith continually makes for why the Right was invoked, and it's even used when she tries to persuade Hawke to side with her. The Circle is being condemned to death for the actions of a single man.

That's the last straw to her entire arguement on annualling the mages from act 2. Theirare more reason then just that. It just part of the reasons why.


But the only justification given when trying to convince the champion that it has to happen. 

EDIT: I'm sure there are plenty of reasons. If she said she suspected Orsino was harboring more blood mages, which would be quite likely, but she never says that when making her case. All she says is 'the people will demand blood.' It's her job as a templar not only to protect the world from mages but also to protect the mages from the world, so her justification isn't really a justification.

If she said she wanted to contain the mages in the Circle itself to keep any of the more hardcore libertarians or resolutionists from copycatting Anders, if she said she needed the mages locked up, not necessarily in cells but in the gallows period while the templars and the city-guard kept the city from panicking, and blamed Anders and only Anders for blowing up the Chantry rather than kill every man, woman and child for his actions I think the forums would find pro-mage gamers to be a lot more sympathetic to her.

I understand you're pro-mage and are a common-sense guy, but on this particular issue we simply have to look at what Orsino and Meredith each say. We know the Right of Annulment is for when a "circle is considered irredeemable." 

Meredith: The Chantry was destroyed by a mage. The people will demand blood. I will give it to them.
Orsino: The Circle didn't even do this. You can search the Circle, I'll even help you, but don't kill everyone.
Meredith: Doesn't matter. I'm declaring a Right of Annulment. Go prepare your people and let them know I'm coming to kill them all to the last. 

Rough paraphrase but that's pretty much how the two conversations go when it comes to the Right of Annulment. 

Modifié par dragonflight288, 16 février 2014 - 02:15 .


#206
leaguer of one

leaguer of one
  • Members
  • 9 995 messages

dragonflight288 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

This is contradicted by Meredith herself, who says (repeatedly) she's fulfilling the Right of Annulment because a hypothetical mob will demand blood.


That just part of the last straw. 


It's the only argument Meredith continually makes for why the Right was invoked, and it's even used when she tries to persuade Hawke to side with her. The Circle is being condemned to death for the actions of a single man.

That's the last straw to her entire arguement on annualling the mages from act 2. Theirare more reason then just that. It just part of the reasons why.


But the only justification given when trying to convince the champion that it has to happen. 

True, but the reasons why she is leaning to that still is more than that. It what she uses to try to convince you, that and force, not her reasonig to doing it.

Ironicly, it is her just abondoining her duties as a templar being that templars as sapposed to also protect mages from people that want to do them harm as well.

#207
dragonflight288

dragonflight288
  • Members
  • 8 852 messages

leaguer of one wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

This is contradicted by Meredith herself, who says (repeatedly) she's fulfilling the Right of Annulment because a hypothetical mob will demand blood.


That just part of the last straw. 


It's the only argument Meredith continually makes for why the Right was invoked, and it's even used when she tries to persuade Hawke to side with her. The Circle is being condemned to death for the actions of a single man.

That's the last straw to her entire arguement on annualling the mages from act 2. Theirare more reason then just that. It just part of the reasons why.


But the only justification given when trying to convince the champion that it has to happen. 

True, but the reasons why she is leaning to that still is more than that. It what she uses to try to convince you, that and force, not her reasonig to doing it.

Ironicly, it is her just abondoining her duties as a templar being that templars as sapposed to also protect mages from people that want to do them harm as well.


True. I added on a bit more in an edit, so I don't know if you read that. 

#208
leaguer of one

leaguer of one
  • Members
  • 9 995 messages

dragonflight288 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

dragonflight288 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

leaguer of one wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

This is contradicted by Meredith herself, who says (repeatedly) she's fulfilling the Right of Annulment because a hypothetical mob will demand blood.


That just part of the last straw. 


It's the only argument Meredith continually makes for why the Right was invoked, and it's even used when she tries to persuade Hawke to side with her. The Circle is being condemned to death for the actions of a single man.

That's the last straw to her entire arguement on annualling the mages from act 2. Theirare more reason then just that. It just part of the reasons why.


But the only justification given when trying to convince the champion that it has to happen. 

True, but the reasons why she is leaning to that still is more than that. It what she uses to try to convince you, that and force, not her reasonig to doing it.

Ironicly, it is her just abondoining her duties as a templar being that templars as sapposed to also protect mages from people that want to do them harm as well.


True. I added on a bit more in an edit, so I don't know if you read that. 

Ok read. My awnser is still more of the same. Added, I'm pro-circle. The problem here is that the templars in kirkwall are too intertwined with the government of kirkwall. ith other templar orders that far from the norm. This is an extention to her saving kirkwall from it former tyrrant leader way before Hawk was part of the city. I have a theory she was only allowed to continue doing this because Orlais want control of the ship yards of Kirkwall and did so though the chantry allow the templars of kirkwall to continue to hold plitical power.
http://social.biowar.../index/17206289

That guard dog ended up getting rabies and biting everyone.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 16 février 2014 - 02:27 .


#209
EmperorSahlertz

EmperorSahlertz
  • Members
  • 8 809 messages
What??! The military would NEVER put a married couple in the same squad.. To do so would be absolutely insane. Nevermind there are tons of regulations and rules against fraternization, so if such a relationship were even allowed, you could be DAMN sure that they would NOT have any professional interaction with eachother.

#210
leaguer of one

leaguer of one
  • Members
  • 9 995 messages

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

What??! The military would NEVER put a married couple in the same squad.. To do so would be absolutely insane. Nevermind there are tons of regulations and rules against fraternization, so if such a relationship were even allowed, you could be DAMN sure that they would NOT have any professional interaction with eachother.


...http://usmilitary.about.com/od/familydomestic/a/militarycouples.htm:whistle:

But your right you can't be in the same squad....But you can be in the same company.

http://answers.yahoo...18124242AAWjyLp

Modifié par leaguer of one, 16 février 2014 - 02:56 .


#211
EmperorSahlertz

EmperorSahlertz
  • Members
  • 8 809 messages
A company is over 200 men, and as you yourself even found out, they cannot be in the same squad or even platoon. Also, a junior or senior officer will be prohibited from having a romantic relationship with any soldier under his command for OBVIOUS reasons.
Also note that the development that ANY romantic relationship to be allowed within the military is a VERY recent thing. You cannot even be openly gay yet in the American military. If you were to reveal to a superior officer that you are gay, you could be discharged.
I'd also like to point out that a soldier is NOT allowed to love and marry whoever he wants. As previously pointed out gay men and women have to keep their sexuality a "secret", but for instance during WW2 Amercian soldiers were not allowed to even speak let alone marry German women.

Relationships in the military is highly regulated, ESPECIALLY the ones within the military.

#212
leaguer of one

leaguer of one
  • Members
  • 9 995 messages

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

A company is over 200 men, and as you yourself even found out, they cannot be in the same squad or even platoon. Also, a junior or senior officer will be prohibited from having a romantic relationship with any soldier under his command for OBVIOUS reasons.
Also note that the development that ANY romantic relationship to be allowed within the military is a VERY recent thing. You cannot even be openly gay yet in the American military. If you were to reveal to a superior officer that you are gay, you could be discharged.
I'd also like to point out that a soldier is NOT allowed to love and marry whoever he wants. As previously pointed out gay men and women have to keep their sexuality a "secret", but for instance during WW2 Amercian soldiers were not allowed to even speak let alone marry German women.

Relationships in the military is highly regulated, ESPECIALLY the ones within the military.

On Homosexuality in the army....
http://en.wikipedia....people_to_serve

Not only do many armies allow it but the us allowed it from 2011.

And I already pointed out they can't be in the same squad. They still can be in the same company at the least.

And the only regualations out side of the fact that both can't be in the same squad is that both can't be under the command of the other and the co has to know about it. There is no regualation on with the couples interactions.
I'm not saying it's not regulated. I'm saying it's no longer stopped to the same degree. There's over 84,000 married couples in the military now. Saying how they use to be does not have any relivence anymore.

Modifié par leaguer of one, 16 février 2014 - 03:29 .


#213
EmperorSahlertz

EmperorSahlertz
  • Members
  • 8 809 messages
I was unaware that the US had finally repealed DADT, but it is a pleasant surprise that America decided to join the rest of us in the 21st century.

And yes, they can be in the same company... Do you even know what that means? It means that all they would share would probably be base camp. The platoons they would be part of, would have individual missions, and as such they wouldn't have any extensive professional interaction with eachother.

I'd also point out that women in the American military at least, has been barred from serving in the infantry, meaning that they would not see combat deployment along with the rest of the company. They are however allowed to serve as gunmen, air crew, and other tactical operations roles.

So no.. What a couple do with their time in the off-duty hours are completely up to them, and them alone. What they do in their on-duty hours is NOT up to them, and THAT is the important part of this entire discussion.

#214
leaguer of one

leaguer of one
  • Members
  • 9 995 messages

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I was unaware that the US had finally repealed DADT, but it is a pleasant surprise that America decided to join the rest of us in the 21st century.

And yes, they can be in the same company... Do you even know what that means? It means that all they would share would probably be base camp. The platoons they would be part of, would have individual missions, and as such they wouldn't have any extensive professional interaction with eachother.

I'd also point out that women in the American military at least, has been barred from serving in the infantry, meaning that they would not see combat deployment along with the rest of the company. They are however allowed to serve as gunmen, air crew, and other tactical operations roles.

So no.. What a couple do with their time in the off-duty hours are completely up to them, and them alone. What they do in their on-duty hours is NOT up to them, and THAT is the important part of this entire discussion.

On duty hours is a given. Even civilians who work with one another can't be intimante with one another during working hours.

As of infantry , it's not there yet with woman in the us but it's getting there. It's a matter of time.
http://www.nbcnews.c...ining-v21553229
http://en.wikipedia....t_opportunities

Other countries do use woman in combat roles.
http://en.wikipedia....Soviet_military

Modifié par leaguer of one, 16 février 2014 - 04:02 .


#215
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 676 messages
[quote]leaguer of one wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...

[quote]leaguer of one wrote...

1. It's a given that I'm taking about normal situations.[/quote]There are no normal situations with people in the magi situation. Being a magi is itself being outside the norm.
[quote]
2. That solve easilly...Stop thinging and treating the circle as a closter. That's the main problem with the issues of the circle. How does a closter work if it's imposed. That's no different from a prison.[/quote]Actually, it's closer to a quarantine: prisons are where you send people for crimes they have comitted. Quarantines are where you keep people who, through no malice or intent of their own, can inadverdantly kill dozens.

The root of mages turning into abominations isn't the Circle system, and thus solved by its destruction and mage liberation. The root of mages turning into abominations is stress, which drives people to fear losing something or someone, or hate something else, or think their correctness is unrecognized. Life is not stress free, and keeping a cloister where an outbreak is easier to respond and containis why a single mid-tier abomination of a child desperate to save a parent wiped out most of a major settlement before anyone was aware while dozens of abominations of powerful mages were locally contained for some time in a single area.

[quote]
And being with someone, even in marrage, is not a privalage it's a right.[/quote]In a western liberal society founded on principles such as all men being equal and in which people only gain disproportionate power as members of groups. Thedas is not such a society, and does not follow our values or understand our concept of rights. It is, however, a place where strong emotional relationships amongst a certain unequal parties are playing with wildfire and an excellent generator of stress.

But even we, however, have institutions in which marriage privilages are restricted. One such place is called 'the military', where enforced separation is not a question of if but a matter of how long and how far.


[quote]
And why do normal fock need to have phylacteries if they are married to a mage? The enitre point is to keep track of mages. With that they also don't have to work with chantry.[/quote]To track down the mage's family, in case they seek to escape and lay the groundworks for the mage to escape and rejoin them. In analyzing and trying to track persons of interest, the immediate family is generally considered among the first degree of relations, people to whom an escapee will turn to first.

There's also the point of sharing burdens and emphasizing that they, as a family, are all together in this and to keep the mundanes also committed to the Circle. The mundanes of a family, while not mages themselves, are also persons of interest in the health and actions of a mage. Spreading the practice of phylacteries outside of the mages themselves, even if rarely used, can help share and destigmitize the burden on the mages. (For the record, I also apply this to the Templar guards themselves: even aside from some minor practical uses, the point of sharing a burden with the mages has its own merits.)

Working to support the circle would be an option available to them, not necessarily a requirement. There would probably be social pressure inside the Circle to do so, especially if the Circle is responsible for feeding and supplying the spouses and so discourages freeloaders, but the only required points would be the education of rights and restrictions and the regular marriage check-ins. Considering what's at stake if a relationship turned sour (which it very easily could with the outsider having to adjust to the Circle), marriage stability would be a potential threat factor and marriage counseling would be a very important support system.

(For reference, I'm actually basing the counseling/check in off of a variant of the US military's various support system for the spouses of and soldiers on and returning from deployment. I've never seen it brought up, but it's actually a good model to consider for various aspects of dealing with marriage stress.)

[/quote]1. Ofcousre there is. Think that way only causes more problems. This issue here it that the templar are treating mages like monster need to be locked up. That'snot the case. These are just people with powers who like every person is open to both good and bad actions. It makes no sense to build a system that will always assume they are doing wrong.
[/quote]That's how most enduring systems are built, actually. You just compensate for how things could go wrong. Institutions that have survived are institutions that plan to cope for when things go wrong, not when they don't.

But no, mages are not just like every person: they have the element of magic in addition to being open to both good and bad actions, and that is what we plan around. Magic is the abnormality, and ignoring it or pretending it doesn't exist doesn't make them like everyone else.
[quote]
2.The Irony is that making things the way they are in the circle now makes it more stress full for the mage. And we all know how that turns out. That point is a laim excuse. Look at the dalish, they don't alienate their mages to that extent and they don't have abomination problems. The dalish prove that extreme supression is not the solution. It's really just making things worse. You don't thing a dalish mage don't go through stresses?[/quote]I do- I also don't think they are a model of a solution. Certainly not as you seem to pose: the Dalish haven't found a way to keep mages from turning into abominations, as Merrill concedes, and the bit about them becoming clan leaders is something of a relevant issue for a society that does not want mage superiority. The Dalish clan system only 'works' in so much Dalish mages are kept far away from major population centers and society in insular groups (like the Circles) and that the costs of containing an outbreak are borne by a group other than wider society (like the Templars). The Dalish are also communal, xenophobic, and conduct themselves to wider society in a way that can be politely be called 'bad neighbors.' 

The appeal or improvement of the Dalish model to wider Andrastian society, which (a) doesn't want mages to secure a position of power over them, and (B)  wants an outbreak contained away from them rather than drafting everyone in the area to react to an abomination, isn't exactly clear. Dalish don't provide what the Andrastians want (protection from mage rulers and abomination outbreaks), nor does it provide what the Mages want (integration with settled societies).



[quote]
3."To track down the mage's family, in case they seek to escape and lay the groundworks for the mage to escape and rejoin them. In analyzing and trying to track persons of interest, the immediate family is generally considered among the first degree of relations, people to whom an escapee will turn to first."

I have to call this out. Sorry but that is not a point for this. If this were true, then every family memeber for a mage would already have phylacteries being that even with the system now they still help their family memebers in the circle escape. Family is not the cause for a mage wanting to escape, it's how bad the system is. And even if the mages in this current system escapes they still can't hide from the templers phylacteries... It would be the same with townships. Reguardless to how much their family will help them the mage having  phylacteries bounded to them counters all of those issues.
[/quote]The reason that Templars don't already have phylacteries for the blood family in the current system is because they are breaking the nuclear family in the current system. The First Degree of separation applies when a family is engaged, but breaks when it is split: in the case of the Circles, denying contact between inside and outside family members and blocking such bonds from developing. Children who literally grow up without their parents frequently don't view them as family, and the Circles have largely reflected this. Without those bonds forming, and instead supplementing them with bonds inside the community, mages and their outside relations have been severed to the point that they're family in name only. Family in name only doesn't warrant observation and tracking: family in bond (such as an in-circle Family, or free family visits) is what provides a external support network.

There's a lot of social psychology behind this and its effects, if you're curious. It's a common point in cults, and authoritarian states, and one of the reasons that the breakdown of the family unit is one of the priorities of authoritarian indoctrination.

Well, that and that the Templars (or should I point a finger at the writers?) aren't running a particularly effective surveillance state. Some of it is that because they're making compromises, some of it is because of their own sense of decency over effectiveness, and some of it is that they're just not as good at it as we are. Aside from a lack of institutions, Thedas doesn't even have a meaningful field of psychology to look at: mental disorders are extremely poorly understood, and environmental factors on group psychology even less so.

(The person who said the Circles should be purpose-built structures with open spaces and high ceilings and courtyards hit the nail on the head. Thedas doesn't even seem to have a concept of interior design psychology.)
[quote]
My point is there is no point to doing that being that having it on mages is enough. They don't need to put it on their family. If they did the current system would already be doing it.
[/quote]Not to be too blunt about it, but that's poor reasoning based on the idea that the Templars know how to do things best. The Templars just aren't running a maximal security state- there area  lot of things they could do to benefit them that they aren't.

[quote]
3. You do under stand thatsposes can make their own business with inthe town ship. The circle does have it's own economy. Heck the spouse and family can even mave a shipping biness to bring goods to the circle and ship good made by the cirle to other places. We can have extended magic shops that are in DAO and DA2 with the family members being the one running the shop instead of just the tranquil alone. [/quote]I don't believe I was addressing your townships at all in what you quoted, so this point confuses me.

But then, I will freely admit I may be confusing your idea of townships with some other people's proposals. Why don't you elaborate?

[quote]And in the case of relation ship going sour...That's already an issue they have to deal with in the circle. Mage can't marry but that does not stop them from being with one another. How do you think the circle deals with mages when those relation ships go sour?
[/quote]With mages trying to break them up gently and Templars doing so physically if things start to escalate. Mandatory transfers to other Circles is also likely to be used.

Ad hoc solutions that focus on silencing the noise rather than address the issue, in other words. Certainly not via tools such as professional counseling or family therapy.

[quote]
4."In a western liberal society founded on principles such as all men being equal and in which people only gain disproportionate power as members of groups. Thedas is not such a society, and does not follow our values or understand our concept of rights. It is, however, a place where strong emotional relationships amongst a certain unequal parties are playing with wildfire and an excellent generator of stress.

But even we, however, have institutions in which marriage privilages are restricted. One such place is called 'the military', where enforced separation is not a question of if but a matter of how long and how far.
"

You're not getting what I mean. No one can stop someone form being with one another outside the use of force and they need to be amass to do so. It matter not what the sociaty feels but the indavisual. The only thing that the sociaty has power over in the acceptance of the marrage.
[/quote]That's nice, but naïve. Society and institutions have far more influence over relationships than accepting it or not. Love does not conquer all, and thousands of years of human history will woefully attest to that.

[quote]
Also, in the military marrage is not restricted. In fact if to soldiers are married the army makes sure to put them in the same squad. The only limitation is based on proximity with non-military but that's no different form a person who has to akes a trip to a city  to do his job and their mate waiting at home.
[/quote]Which would still be restrictions, yes? And I believe I said marriage privileges, yes?

Just in the military, the army can bring you closer together or separate you as it sees fit: it will not put you in the same squad, and while it will make efforts to keep couples in proximity it is under no obligation to send you on the same deployments, or even station you in the same region. It can and does dictate what sort of housing you can and can not enjoy together, limits available positions relative to each other in the military, and even attempting to initiate a relationship can be grounds for a discharge.  

The modern military will make concessions to couples when it can, but these are privileges, not rights. Military couples do face many different sorts of restrictions.

#216
EmperorSahlertz

EmperorSahlertz
  • Members
  • 8 809 messages
There are lots of women in the US marines, that still doesn't mean they are going to get combat deployed. I cannot say where it is going, since I am not American.

And on the subject of Russian woman being combat deployed, your article doesn't even touch the subject. It mentions women were placed in the reserves, which is very similar to how the US does. I personally havn't ever heard of a Russian woman being actively combat deployed.

And the duty hours are important, because a mage can be considered to be constantly on-duty since the threat he faces is constant. Nevertheless, several Circles allow for the mages to form relationships and even to marry.

#217
leaguer of one

leaguer of one
  • Members
  • 9 995 messages

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There are lots of women in the US marines, that still doesn't mean they are going to get combat deployed. I cannot say where it is going, since I am not American.

And on the subject of Russian woman being combat deployed, your article doesn't even touch the subject. It mentions women were placed in the reserves, which is very similar to how the US does. I personally havn't ever heard of a Russian woman being actively combat deployed.

And the duty hours are important, because a mage can be considered to be constantly on-duty since the threat he faces is constant. Nevertheless, several Circles allow for the mages to form relationships and even to marry.

But that is changing. There plans to have them be part of the us rangers. It's an eventuality they will be put as infiltry men.
And read the actical agein about russia...Snipers are reserve forces?...

"The Soviet Union also used women for sniping duties extensively, and to great effect, including Nina Alexeyevna Lobkovskaya and Ukrainian Lyudmila Pavlichenko (who killed over 300 enemy soldiers). The Soviets found that sniper duties fit women well, since good snipers are patient, careful, deliberate, can avoid hand-to-hand combat, and need higher levels of aerobic conditioning than other troops. Women also served as machine gunnerstank driversmedicscommunication personnel and political officersManshuk Mametova was a machine gunner from Kazakhstan and was the first Soviet Asian woman to receive the Hero of the Soviet Union for acts of bravery."

http://en.wikipedia....ary#Land_forces

Modifié par leaguer of one, 16 février 2014 - 04:17 .


#218
Hellion Rex

Hellion Rex
  • Members
  • 30 037 messages

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
And the duty hours are important, because a mage can be considered to be constantly on-duty since the threat he faces is constant. Nevertheless, several Circles allow for the mages to form relationships and even to marry.


Relationships, maybe. But I have never heard of Circle mages being allowed to marry, ever.

#219
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 676 messages

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There are lots of women in the US marines, that still doesn't mean they are going to get combat deployed. I cannot say where it is going, since I am not American.

And on the subject of Russian woman being combat deployed, your article doesn't even touch the subject. It mentions women were placed in the reserves, which is very similar to how the US does. I personally havn't ever heard of a Russian woman being actively combat deployed.

Can I ask what the relevance of women in combat branches in the recent age is? The fact that a military institution can change its rules on a subject, such as DADT or female combat troops, is far more important than what it actually is right now. Current policies don't make for timeless rights, and this has gone far away from the initial point that even modern society will see institutions restrict what can be done in relationships.

Which was only relevant in response to a claim that institutions have no place interfering at all in relationships, by pointing out that even socially accepted institutions of our time and society do so. If we accept it here, the issue with the Circles would be in the type of restrictions, not that restrictions exist at all.

And the duty hours are important, because a mage can be considered to be constantly on-duty since the threat he faces is constant. Nevertheless, several Circles allow for the mages to form relationships and even to marry.

The fact that there doesn't seem to be a consistent policy on a subject so important to the emotional wellbeing of mages kind of illustrates that the setting as a whole is working in the dark on this.

#220
EmperorSahlertz

EmperorSahlertz
  • Members
  • 8 809 messages
Snipers are NOT combat deployments that is for damn sure. Combat deployment means that you will be under fire. If a sniper is under fire, then something has gone TERRIBLY wrong.

#221
EmperorSahlertz

EmperorSahlertz
  • Members
  • 8 809 messages

Dean_the_Young wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

There are lots of women in the US marines, that still doesn't mean they are going to get combat deployed. I cannot say where it is going, since I am not American.

And on the subject of Russian woman being combat deployed, your article doesn't even touch the subject. It mentions women were placed in the reserves, which is very similar to how the US does. I personally havn't ever heard of a Russian woman being actively combat deployed.

Can I ask what the relevance of women in combat branches in the recent age is? The fact that a military institution can change its rules on a subject, such as DADT or female combat troops, is far more important than what it actually is right now. Current policies don't make for timeless rights, and this has gone far away from the initial point that even modern society will see institutions restrict what can be done in relationships.

Which was only relevant in response to a claim that institutions have no place interfering at all in relationships, by pointing out that even socially accepted institutions of our time and society do so. If we accept it here, the issue with the Circles would be in the type of restrictions, not that restrictions exist at all.

None of this at all is relevant to the OP's topic. The discussion I was having with leaguer simply evolved. I am not going to be sorry for bringing an already off-topic discussion to another off-topic.

Dean_the_Young wrote...

And the duty hours are important, because a mage can be considered to be constantly on-duty since the threat he faces is constant. Nevertheless, several Circles allow for the mages to form relationships and even to marry.

The fact that there doesn't seem to be a consistent policy on a subject so important to the emotional wellbeing of mages kind of illustrates that the setting as a whole is working in the dark on this.

Or it illustrates that the different Circles has different ideas as to what is healthy for their mages.

#222
leaguer of one

leaguer of one
  • Members
  • 9 995 messages

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Snipers are NOT combat deployments that is for damn sure. Combat deployment means that you will be under fire. If a sniper is under fire, then something has gone TERRIBLY wrong.

Combat deployment means you are put out into the feild to fight. It matters not if you are fight on or not. Even if it's a oneway battle with you firing on the enemy and them not being able to fire back that means it's a combat deployment. It mean you are on the feild as an instrument of attack on the enemy. A sniper is that. Reserve just mean they are used on a limit basis or hold back just in case.That is not the case with female russian snipers in ww2. They were not reserve troop. They even took pat of the sacking of Germany.

#223
EmperorSahlertz

EmperorSahlertz
  • Members
  • 8 809 messages
No that is not what combat deployment means. Pilots of jets and helicopters are also put in the field to fight (depending on the kind of helicopter), but they are not combat deployed for instance, unless of course the enemy can deploy fighters and attack helicopters of their own.
A sniper or sniper team is NOT deployed in the field to fight for that matter. They are deployed to eliminate targets and AVOID a fight.
The reserves barely ever see combat, and are NOT combat deployed. However the reserves might still be attacked. The reserves for example often guard the supply train, or the base camp, which can come under attack from the enemy. In these cases the reserves would see combat, without being combat deployed.

Basically combat deployment means you are at the frontlines and in the thick of the combat.

#224
Dean_the_Young

Dean_the_Young
  • Members
  • 20 676 messages
Sahlertz, I'll just give you a heads up that that is not how the American military works. Nor is it how they perceive the Iraq and Afghan wars.

#225
leaguer of one

leaguer of one
  • Members
  • 9 995 messages

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

No that is not what combat deployment means. Pilots of jets and helicopters are also put in the field to fight (depending on the kind of helicopter), but they are not combat deployed for instance, unless of course the enemy can deploy fighters and attack helicopters of their own.
A sniper or sniper team is NOT deployed in the field to fight for that matter. They are deployed to eliminate targets and AVOID a fight.
The reserves barely ever see combat, and are NOT combat deployed. However the reserves might still be attacked. The reserves for example often guard the supply train, or the base camp, which can come under attack from the enemy. In these cases the reserves would see combat, without being combat deployed.

Basically combat deployment means you are at the frontlines and in the thick of the combat.

That is what it means. It means you used as a instrument of combat. It matter not if you on the front lines. Fighter pilots are placed under the title of combat deployment when they fly out to the feild as well  as helicopter pilots.  Avoiding direct combat has nothing to do with it. It does n't mean you are put on the front lines.

Reserve means somethng complatly different then what you are using it as. http://en.wikipedia....y_reserve_force

Modifié par leaguer of one, 16 février 2014 - 04:48 .