Well, in Tevinter the Archon is usually a mage lol.
True but that isn't my point.
In these cases the Chantry reluctantly accepts it given they come from the Circle, are generally well behaved, experienced and accepted senior Enchanters.
Not random off the street apostates hiding out digging up corpses to preform necromancy on hedge witches.
The mages mentioned here are Apostates.
Well, technically every mage is now an apostate.
Well, technically every mage is now an apostate.
This is a debate over the court wizards of the monarchy of Nevara (pre rebellion) possibly being Apostates.
And in my opinion there is more chance of a darkspawn and a grey warden sitting down to scones and tea then that happening in an Adrastarian Nation.
This is a debate over the court wizards of the monarchy of Nevara (pre rebellion) possibly being Apostates.
And in my opinion there is more chance of a darkspawn and a grey warden sitting down to scones and tea then that happening in an Adrastarian Nation.
I know, but it poses an interesting question. With no more Circle, all court mages are now apostates. So are they rounded up and arrested or still allowed to continue on as they have been?
It's possible that the Mortalitasi's lofty political position grants them a certain amount of protection from the Mage/Templar War.
I'd imagine if the viscount declared that then other nations would need to respect that decision and allow him to use his sovereign authority as he saw fit. See tevinter. Of course, by that same extension, any nation is also free to exercise it's sovereign authority given to it through it's implied powers as a independent nation and respond to the viscounts decision in any manner they deem appropriate.
Such as an exalted march, cutting off all trade, creating a embargo zone, or even declaring war against them. All things within a nations sovereign power to do. So the viscount would need to be a complete idiot to go on to give mages freedom when it opens such a massive can of worms. Personally, if you want the law to be changed, make an argument that somehow addresses how rogue mages won't become abominations or maleficarum and how they will be answerable to any authority if they flee the circle. If a person of high interest, say a family member of a lord who declared themselves in the service of a rival nation, were to flee without the permission of the state, would the state not have the right to hunt them down? What argument would you make to this lord to convince them that it should be a crime to keep an eye on potential threats to the realm and allow yourself no right to detain anyone again?
You are describing the exercise of power, not anything to do with moral authority. It is the difference between that which you can be forced to do or not do, and that which you should do or not do.
This all goes back to a discussion of a Templar hunting and killing a mage escapee. While the law might give the Templar a privilege to kill a mage, and the Templar's oath might even give the Templar an obligation to kill a mage that cannot practically be captured and returned, none of that makes it a moral act to do so. By the same token, whatever the law and Chantry dogma have to say on the matter cannot make it an inherently immoral act for that mage to fight in self-defence to the best of his ability when that Templar tries to kill him.
Some prisoners of war have an affirmative duty to escape. Some believe that it is a moral imperative to refuse to obey or enforce an unjust law. There is no way to convincingly morally justify a Templar killing a mage in cold blood when that mage is not posing an immediate threat, by simply appealing to "the law." It might not be technically murder, and the Templar might get away with it, but that cannot provide moral probity.
I know, but it poses an interesting question. With no more Circle, all court mages are now apostates. So are they rounded up and arrested or still allowed to continue on as they have been?
It likely greatly depends upon what the local Mages are doing, how they are behaving and thus that would determine the response the local monarchy would likely give. It also greatly depends upon the local Templar/Seeker presence along with whatever stance the Chantry ( or at least their local representative aka the grand cleric) has to say on it.
A great many factors go into answering that question, so honestly?
I haven't a clue beyond speculation.
You are describing the exercise of power, not anything to do with moral authority. It is the difference between that which you can be forced to do or not do, and that which you should do or not do.
This all goes back to a discussion of a Templar hunting and killing a mage escapee. While the law might give the Templar a privilege to kill a mage, and the Templar's oath might even give the Templar an obligation to kill a mage that cannot practically be captured and returned, none of that makes it a moral act to do so. By the same token, whatever the law and Chantry dogma have to say on the matter cannot make it an inherently immoral act for that mage to fight in self-defence to the best of his ability when that Templar tries to kill him.
Some prisoners of war have an affirmative duty to escape. Some believe that it is a moral imperative to refuse to obey or enforce an unjust law. There is no way to convincingly morally justify a Templar killing a mage in cold blood when that mage is not posing an immediate threat, by simply appealing to "the law." It might not be technically murder, and the Templar might get away with it, but that cannot provide moral probity.
Most people argue that morality is Perspective based, Restricted to the individual, their values and their society.
So can you argue that for you killing a mage who poses no threat is not morally just? When another can argue doing your duty regardless of personal feelings is just.
This strand of debate just like all ethical debate comes down to perspective and personal belief.
Ultimately its up to the individual to decide their own stance and morality.
I don't fault the mage for resisting and i don't fault the templar for beheading them if they do resist.
Its what both parties must do in their respective situations given they are both bound to do what they must in those situations.
I bet its Fiona!
Death to Salad Eaters!
You get +50 points for quoting the Shub Patrol from Armed and Dangerous.
You get +50 points for quoting the Shrub Patrol from Armed and Dangerous.
Those Robot Gardner's were awesome.
That said; It's been a long time since i kissed a man! I can do better!
I know, but it poses an interesting question. With no more Circle, all court mages are now apostates. So are they rounded up and arrested or still allowed to continue on as they have been?
Trying to round them up and arrest them might be a good way to get the Templar Order banned from the capital, or perhaps the whole kingdom. After all, the Templars can't even claim authority from the Chantry any more.
Trying to round them up and arrest them might be a good way to get the Templar Order banned from the capital, or perhaps the whole kingdom. After all, the Templars can't even claim authority from the Chantry any more.
No but given the threat of the Mage Rebellion possibly spilling into nearby countries from Orlais i'd say banning the order would be a premature move at best.
I'd say many Monarchies would consider it.
One or two Mages for the Order to remain and act as a shield if the violence cross their borders?
Not a bad deal.
You are describing the exercise of power, not anything to do with moral authority. It is the difference between that which you can be forced to do or not do, and that which you should do or not do.
This all goes back to a discussion of a Templar hunting and killing a mage escapee. While the law might give the Templar a privilege to kill a mage, and the Templar's oath might even give the Templar an obligation to kill a mage that cannot practically be captured and returned, none of that makes it a moral act to do so. By the same token, whatever the law and Chantry dogma have to say on the matter cannot make it an inherently immoral act for that mage to fight in self-defence to the best of his ability when that Templar tries to kill him.
Some prisoners of war have an affirmative duty to escape. Some believe that it is a moral imperative to refuse to obey or enforce an unjust law. There is no way to convincingly morally justify a Templar killing a mage in cold blood when that mage is not posing an immediate threat, by simply appealing to "the law." It might not be technically murder, and the Templar might get away with it, but that cannot provide moral probity.
And why must we, prey tell, use your moral judgement when looking at these events only? Is that not ascribing a universal quality to an act that is bound and controlled by perspectives?
Should the mage escape, what might he do? Might he resort to blood magic, now that he is out of the circle? Might he consort with demons now that he is essentially "off the grid"? Might he commit some crime of desperation, murder or theft or possible battery, to aid in his continued escape? Might he plot to aid more mages in breaking the law, or dare even to attempt to destroy the source of law itself within the land? All are likely to occur now that he is free and on the run from the recognized authority of the land in this matter. Just as much as the mage might have nothing but noble and just intentions, to do no harm and bring nothing but good, he may also harbor ill intentions to cause harm and create discord.
You can't just say let him go, because then you must say that for all. Because law is not based on relativity or circumstance, it's based on applying to everyone equally in all manners. From the nobles to the merchants to the peasants, all are bound to giving their mage children to the circle so they may learn not to listen to demons and be properly trained in using their cursed gifts in a constructive and law abiding way. Your claim that it isn't moral to track a escaped mage has to apply to all escaped mages if you are to argue that the law is unjust, for that is how the law functions. So tell me, should the a murder be allowed to flee the templars because he is a mage? Should a rapist be allowed to flee the templars because he is a mage? Should a thief be allowed to flee the templars because he is a mage? Should a arson or other such sort be allowed to flee the templars because he is a mage? If none of them should be allowed to flee, then why should this child, who has equally disobeyed the law and known very well he was doing so, be allowed the flee the templars?
Those Robot Gardner's were awesome.
That said; It's been a long time since i kissed a man! I can do better!
You know, Rexus was an apostate... and Jonesy's mom must have been a blood mage. Armed and Dangerous is therefore relevant.
It likely greatly depends upon what the local Mages are doing, how they are behaving and thus that would determine the response the local monarchy would likely give. It also greatly depends upon the local Templar/Seeker presence along with whatever stance the Chantry ( or at least their local representative aka the grand cleric) has to say on it.
A great many factors go into answering that question, so honestly?
I haven't a clue beyond speculation.
Yeah. As Mordin says, "Too many variables." But that just means it will be interesting.
I think a lot of the local lords and ruling powers are going to want to steer clear of the mages or the templars and try not to get swept into their battle. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to find some towns adamant about allowing neither faction to cross into their land to the point of sending armed patrols to turn people away.
Fear can make people do a lot of funny things, and nothing's funnier then turning full isolationist.
...
Should the mage escape, what might he do? ...
What might anyone do with their freedom? Should we put anyone capable of violence into a concentration camp for offenses they might someday commit?
The great atrocities of magic--bringing the taint to Thedas, destroying Arlathan, etc.--were committed by organised groups of mages operating with total authority within the legal framework of their place and time. You cannot use them to provide morality to the actions of those who kill individual mages who have caused no harm and are only guilty of their liberty, which has been deemed wrong not because of any act or omission on the part of the mage, but rather because of fear and prejudice attached to what the mage might do.
Setting fire to a house or a barn, killing villagers... these are transgressions most often committed by "normal" Thedosians, but feared disproportionately from mages. The mage who is more dangerous than that is rare, and those, like Flemeth, are not subject to the whims of the Chantry or the threat of Templars.
I think a lot of the local lords and ruling powers are going to want to steer clear of the mages or the templars and try not to get swept into their battle. In fact I wouldn't be surprised to find some towns adamant about allowing neither faction to cross into their land to the point of sending armed patrols to turn people away.
Fear can make people do a lot of funny things, and nothing's funnier then turning full isolationist.
Good luck spotting a mage who is trying to blend in.
Good luck spotting a mage who is trying to blend in.
Laws at made because of what people might do, its just a fact. We outlaw murder because people might murder. We outlaw rape because people might rape. And violating the law once shows precedence you might do so with other laws, which is one of the main reasons arrest records exist. You can pound your fbis all you want about the law being unjust or immoral. But what I keep saying is thst you need to demonstrate how it is wrong for all, which I dont see you doing.
We make laws based on crimes we may commit, it's true, but we punish people AFTER they commit the crime, not before, and not because they fall into a category that 'might.'
Mages may run because they simply want to spend time with their family, have the opportunity to be with a girl like in Act 3 in Kirkwall, or because they feel life on the run and being killed is preferable to conditions in the Circle.
Mages live in conditions in the Circle that are not designed to help them grow as people and to emotionally develop to be stable members of society. They are treated as disasters waiting to happen, many of their 'care-takers' don't even see them as people and emotionally distance themselves from the mages because of how they're born, and there is no oversight being enforced upon the templars who abuse their authority over mages.
Talking about laws is all well and good, but laws completely lose meaning if the reasons they exist are forgotten, are not followed through on one group or another group, or are too heavily enforced that you actually end up creating just as many problems as you hope to prevent. The Circle system, at least to me, seems to be a case of all these. The rules of the templars make clear that their duty is not only to protect the world from mages, but mages from the world as well. Most templars and seekers seem to have forgotten that part of their job based on game-play and the novels. The laws that exist to protect mages are not enforced by the Chantry or the templars when it comes to punishing their own people. Even in Ferelden they had to catch Lily in the act, otherwise she wouldn't have been punished while Jowan would've been. And some places, like Kirkwall, the rules are so heavily enforced that the mages are punished simply for talking to people, and it's not an emotionally safe environment.
Should a mage escape such a place, but goes on living their life in a way that doesn't hurt anyone, then there is no moral authority that justifies their death, even if the law allows it.
In the eyes of the law, you are punished for what you do, not for what you are. And it should be applied equally to all people, not just heavily on one side and not so heavily on another.
Good luck spotting a mage who is trying to blend in.
What are you talking about, according to DAO and DA2 they walk around in full mage regallia with giant wands/staff on their backs tossing fireballs willy nilly and the templars and others don't do anything 
this mage opression business is all a racquet
What are you talking about, according to DAO and DA2 they walk around in full mage regallia with giant wands/staff on their backs tossing fireballs willy nilly and the templars and others don't do anything
Yup.
We make laws based on crimes we may commit, it's true, but we punish people AFTER they commit the crime, not before, and not because they fall into a category that 'might.'
Mages may run because they simply want to spend time with their family, have the opportunity to be with a girl like in Act 3 in Kirkwall, or because they feel life on the run and being killed is preferable to conditions in the Circle.
Mages live in conditions in the Circle that are not designed to help them grow as people and to emotionally develop to be stable members of society. They are treated as disasters waiting to happen, many of their 'care-takers' don't even see them as people and emotionally distance themselves from the mages because of how they're born, and there is no oversight being enforced upon the templars who abuse their authority over mages.
Talking about laws is all well and good, but laws completely lose meaning if the reasons they exist are forgotten, are not followed through on one group or another group, or are too heavily enforced that you actually end up creating just as many problems as you hope to prevent. The Circle system, at least to me, seems to be a case of all these. The rules of the templars make clear that their duty is not only to protect the world from mages, but mages from the world as well. Most templars and seekers seem to have forgotten that part of their job based on game-play and the novels. The laws that exist to protect mages are not enforced by the Chantry or the templars when it comes to punishing their own people. Even in Ferelden they had to catch Lily in the act, otherwise she wouldn't have been punished while Jowan would've been. And some places, like Kirkwall, the rules are so heavily enforced that the mages are punished simply for talking to people, and it's not an emotionally safe environment.
Should a mage escape such a place, but goes on living their life in a way that doesn't hurt anyone, then there is no moral authority that justifies their death, even if the law allows it.
In the eyes of the law, you are punished for what you do, not for what you are. And it should be applied equally to all people, not just heavily on one side and not so heavily on another.
If a mage escapes, he breaks the law. If a templar pursues and attempts to capture him, he is resisting capture and if the choice is between killing him or letting him escape the templar is legally obligated to kill him.
BTW, the only book that truly deals with the tempars is Asunder and in it, some of the Templars hold their duty to protect the mages, many agree with Evangeline, but they know that if they do they will be ostricized as she was.
Oh and regarding court mages being apostates, not really, just because the circles rebelled, I can believe a court mage might stay loyal to the chantry to keep his/her prestigious posting. I also doubt if we seriously find that all mages left the circles, I imagine their is a small minority that stayed.
What are you talking about, according to DAO and DA2 they walk around in full mage regallia with giant wands/staff on their backs tossing fireballs willy nilly and the templars and others don't do anything
Retour en haut