600 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

Lotion: to the first part I think the counter argument would be that if you treat mages more like people and less like freaks you reduce the likelihood they go abomination on everyone. We need a system that minimizes those occurrences.

 

Do we need a system that minimizes the occurrences, or a system that minimizes the public cost of the occurrences?

 

The two aren't completely contradictory, but there is a significant difference of focus- especially if the occurrence rate is largely similar regardless. Given how much location can effect the final body count (Meredith's single sister compared to the entire Uldred conspiracy), there's a very real case that more abominations in a system better able to respond to them is preferable to fewer abominations with less ability to respond.

 

 

Not saying that humanizing mages isn't the right thing to do- it is (even if that doesn't mean as much as many would like in a feudal setting). Just that a systemic focus on 'fewer abominations' doesn't actually mean 'fewer abomination casualties,' which is the real cause for concern. If abominations didn't harm anyone but themselves, they'd be a minor issue.

[Helios969]

So can we just put it all on the Chantry for improper oversight? Just kidding.

[Tevinter Soldier]

Umm the imperial Chantry invented the circle system.  They have changed the chant of light to "meant that magic must serve the greater good and not used to control the minds of others"  meaning blood magic is illegal, but just about everyone including the black divine still practice it.'

 

You have to belong to a circle, though it doesn't appear you are confined to it for life. However, the imperium also practically requires you to be a mage to hold political office. You can come from a family of mages, but the Magisters still rule tevinter and non mage family citizens are basically 2nd class citizens.

 

It's unclear who invented the circles, all we know is when Tevinter turned to worship Andraste, the Magisters Surrendered themselves to the circle (own there own terms)

 

today the imperial towers operate very differently to towers throughout the rest of thedas,  You do not HAVE to be part of a circle there is no such requirement. in fact circle's in Tevinter are a privilege to attend, not an prison where mage's are kept indefinitely. Mage's can keep family leave when they like and in Templars answer are Protecters, they still have the rights of annulments and step in when things get out of hand, but it quite clear that it is Mage's themselves that set the rules for templars not the chantry.

 

the changes to the chant of light came AFTER the Orlesian chantry found out about the fact a Man who was also a MAGE was in charge of the imperial chantry, he needed to justify his rule. The changes were made to reflect the Idea that Mage rule was the devine word of andraste.

 

people enjoy pointing out the permitted use of blood magic in Tevinter, like slavery and the fact that for the most part the archron is a figure head rather then a leader,  But such arguments are Irrelevant, they are problems with the political system with Tevinter, not the circle in and of itself.

 

the fact is the circle system in Tevinter clearly has no issue with uprising's or abominations running wild Tevinter could not possibly have stood in the face of exalted marches, blights and invasions by the followers of the Qun if this was the case. People can speculate all the want about what might happen the fact is, magic is welcomed and indeed honoured throughout Tevinter. People don't needlessly fear magic and Mage's have as much freedom as all Freemen in Tevinter.

 

to suggest Tevinters circles breed blood magic is incorrect, Blood magic is still officially outlawed it is rampant in the upper classes due to the corrupt way Tevinter operates the upper classes are above the law.

 

the Rest of thedas is no different, The upper classes can murder and rape with immunity.

 

I'm not suggesting a mageocary like tevinter far from it, only that quite clearly Tevinter circles are much better run. your argument makes well not alot of sense I'm not asking to implement tevinters political system only the circle system. you can still ban mages from government and give them the freedoms of the circles in Tevinter at the same time.

 

the fact remains what the orlesian chantry declare about magic is superstitious and does not reflect the words of andraste it is quite clear magic must be used to help people, that doesn't equate to locking people up! and theres nothing in andrastes teaching that say's so. the chantry KNOW this but teach otherwise.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

The example of Uldred in the circle isn't very good, because the Warden and his companions were actually the ones to deal with it. If the permission for annulment was given, we don't even really know that the templars would have won against Uldred. We don't know what would have happened without the the Warden's party as a massive third party factor, so it's basically irrelevant to the effectiveness of the system in and of itself, at least as far as the conclusion goes.  

[Dean_the_Young]

The example of Uldred in the circle isn't very good, because the Warden and his companions were actually the ones to deal with it. If the permission for annulment was given, we don't even really know that the templars would have won against Uldred. We don't know what would have happened without the the Warden's party as a massive third party factor, so it's basically irrelevant to the effectiveness of the system in and of itself, at least as far as the conclusion goes.  

 

That the Warden was ultimately the one to resolve it doesn't change the fact that the outbreak was contained without civilian casualties, and contained for a significant period of time (depending on your quest order) without it escaping the containment.

[Lotion Soronarr]

the fact is the circle system in Tevinter clearly has no issue with uprising's or abominations running wild Tevinter could not possibly have stood in the face of exalted marches, blights and invasions by the followers of the Qun if this was the case. People can speculate all the want about what might happen the fact is, magic is welcomed and indeed honoured throughout Tevinter. People don't needlessly fear magic and Mage's have as much freedom as all Freemen in Tevinter.

 

That is your assumption, not fact.
Why couldn't tevinter still stand? It has the greatest mages in TheDas,whose powers are even further greatly enhanced by blood magic.

 

 

the fact remains what the orlesian chantry declare about magic is superstitious and does not reflect the words of andraste it is quite clear magic must be used to help people, that doesn't equate to locking people up! and theres nothing in andrastes teaching that say's so. the chantry KNOW this but teach otherwise.

 

Fact? Sez who? You?

 

 

 

 

 

Lotion: to the first part I think the counter argument would be that if you treat mages more like people and less like freaks you reduce the likelihood they go abomination on everyone.

 

Freaks?

They are treated as dangerous people, but still very much like people.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

That the Warden was ultimately the one to resolve it doesn't change the fact that the outbreak was contained without civilian casualties, and contained for a significant period of time (depending on your quest order) without it escaping the containment.

It matters because it wasn't revolved by the system. It was revolved by the chance happening by of a couple Grey Wardens and their super powerful friends. Proof of the system's effectiveness needs to rely on only factors inherent to the system. This seems kind of obvious.

[Dean_the_Young]

It matters because it wasn't revolved by the system. It was revolved by the chance happening by of a couple Grey Wardens and their super powerful friends. Proof of the system's effectiveness needs to rely on only factors inherent to the system. This seems kind of obvious.

 

And the factors inherent in the system are what allowed the Warden to resolve it with as few casualties as there were- the system contained the problem while opening a window of opportunity for a response to be organized before the outbreak could spill over and affect the wider populace. That the Warden arrived in that window before the official response doesn't challenge the point that the opportunity and quarantine scenario only existed as a result of the system.

 

Well, unless you want to argue that an equivalent multi-abomination outbreak outside of a containment scenario would have just sat in the same square mile, twiddling their thumbs and waiting in one place for the hero to come vanquish them before threatening anyone. But that would be silly.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

And the factors inherent in the system are what allowed the Warden to resolve it with as few casualties as there were- the system contained the problem while opening a window of opportunity for a response to be organized before the outbreak could spill over and affect the wider populace. That the Warden arrived in that window before the official response doesn't challenge the point that the opportunity and quarantine scenario only existed as a result of the system.

 

Well, unless you want to argue that an equivalent multi-abomination outbreak outside of a containment scenario would have just sat in the same square mile, twiddling their thumbs and waiting in one place for the hero to come vanquish them before threatening anyone. But that would be silly.

As the warden you're able to stop a whole blight inside of a year, so I wouldn't be entirely surprised if you could contain an abomination without much issue in a variety of situations. That would depend on a huge amount of variables.

 

The point is just a bit silly regardless. The chances of another scenario actually receiving this specific brand of help is almost none, so the idea that the circle is proven effective on the basis that they can hold out a very little longer in hopes of a neigh impossible miracle is a huge stretch in comparison to resources spent. We haven't seen evidence that the circle could contain the abomination. They lost ground quickly and lost a large amount of templars before retreat. The only proof we really have is that the warden is able to contain a high level abomination, but that's not much of a surprise. If we could station a clone of the warden in every town, I'm sure we'd basically avoid every threat to man from here on out, but it's clearly not an option.

 

I'm not saying it's proof the circle isn't effective, though. It's just not proof of anything, except that the warden is effective. It's another case of trying to stretch shaky evidence to fit a personal bias. Anyone can do that when arguing in a certain light and it seems, here, most people do. 

[Tevinter Soldier]

 

 

The first part would be pure statistics. If abominations happen in the Circle, they are handeled there before they can hurt anyone.

Free mages that are spread around means a LOT more potential abominations that will happen where there isn't a templar presence or where any help will arrive too late. That also should be sufficient to tell you that there would be a large bodycount.

 

As for the study. I'd have to look for it, which I don't feel like doing now. But psychology is n interesting thing. People can react completely differently to the same situation.

IIRC, the study said that people who yearn for contact with another group tend to look at that group in a better light, due to their simple desire. They also project that same desire.

Logically speaking, it makes sense, but then again you can make anything sound great and rational if you put effort into it.
 

 

you also miss the fact the best thing to take out an abomination is not a templar but a mage. mage's cannot only take out abominations with relative ease as long as they know the right spells. and a mage has far more vested interest in getting rid of abominations then anyone else. if theres mages everywhere theres people that can put down abominations everywhere.

 

Logic without compassion has no place in this debate, your talking about peoples lives! ALL people including the mage's. If you want to go the end of LOGICAL route your left with a single choice.

brain wash mage's and treat them like **** as the qunari do or kill all mages onsite.

 

the current circle system has failed time and time again, because of its very nature. It is a reflection of pure logic with very little compassion. You by force waltz into peoples homes and steal their children at sword point, subject them to indefinite confinement with the constant threat of death. On top of all that you prevent them from having relationships and again take their children from if the end up having relations (even if their kids aren't mages) you separate again by force any who so dare as steal a kiss behind the bookcases. Even threatening to send them to worse locations or again kill them.

 

All because of what might happen. Attempting to justify it on the basis of the greater good holds no weight to the victims or the circle system. Thats the Mages and their families, its been shown time and time again that people will not accept the security of the circles in exchange for their liberty.

 

no matter how many arrest's, murders, rights of annulments and forced tranquil's there are always and will always be those that yearn to be free. This has led to civil war and a full blown rebellion.

 

the circle system has failed. when a dam bursts you don't rebuild it the same way, you find the weakness and eliminate it.

the weakness is that so long as mages understand the concept of freedom there will be mages that rebel against their inhumane treatment.

 

thinking LOGICALLY we see that if allowed maintain the status quo mages can rebel again, A mage rebellion that has torn the veil unleashing your greatest fear's about demons ten fold! it can not be allowed to happen again.

 

again LOGICALLY the only way to stop mages rebelling is either to brainwash everybody mages included into think they are not entitled to the same freedoms as a person that they are a "dangerous thing" so that they will embrace their captivity………...

 

But even then theres still a risk of some reject such a path and as long as they could reject these teachings they can rebel and indeed convince others to rebel.

 

so we're back to square one. Thinking LOGICALLY if we are going to persecute Mages based on what COULD happen then theres only one way to ensure mages don't rebel, that mages don't pose a threat.

 

Hunt every single one down mercilessly and kill them all.

 

Logic is by definition heartless and can only lead to genocide. and if thats the case its kill or be killed mages have the same right to wipe out all non mage folk after all if the only living beings are mages the concept of mages being more of a danger then anybody else seises to exist.

 

this issue is a lot more complicated then pure logic, your dealing with people not fixing a fence.

[Mistic]

It matters because it wasn't revolved by the system. It was revolved by the chance happening by of a couple Grey Wardens and their super powerful friends. Proof of the system's effectiveness needs to rely on only factors inherent to the system. This seems kind of obvious.

 

You forget that the system was suffering a very hard crisis because of reasons outside its context. There was a Blight and a civil war in Ferelden. The Templars were waiting for reinforcements, but not with much hope of getting them, so they could only contain the situation and wait. Heck, even the Lothering Templars, having heard of the situation, couldn't help. Had Ferelden been in a better shape, Templar troops would have converged to the Circle.

 

What happened in Ferelden is proof that, even in the worst situations, the danger of abominations to the general public can be contained. The danger of abominations to the mages themselves, however, is another different matter.

 

you also miss the fact the best thing to take out an abomination is not a templar but a mage. mage's cannot only take out abominations with relative ease as long as they know the right spells. and a mage has far more vested interest in getting rid of abominations then anyone else. if theres mages everywhere theres people that can put down abominations everywhere.

 

That's too much of an assumption, don't you think so? Mages can be good at destroying things in general, but the best anti-mage troop is still a templar. So who knows what is the best troop to kill an abomination (ok, snowflake video game protagonists and their merry band of misfits, but I'm sure they can't be mass-produced).

[Nocte ad Mortem]

You forget that the system was suffering a very hard crisis because of reasons outside its context. There was a Blight and a civil war in Ferelden. The Templars were waiting for reinforcements, but not with much hope of getting them, so they could only contain the situation and wait. Heck, even the Lothering Templars, having heard of the situation, couldn't help. Had Ferelden been in a better shape, Templar troops would have converged to the Circle.

 

What happened in Ferelden is proof that, even in the worst situations, the danger of abominations to the general public can be contained. The danger of abominations to the mages themselves, however, is another different matter.

Again, it doesn't really prove that unless we can see that they've actually resolved the issue on their own. It's not evidence that they aren't able to, it's just "contaminated" evidence. You can't introduce an outside factor and then attribute the outcome to the original system. 

[Mistic]

Again, it doesn't really prove that unless we can see that they've actually resolved the issue on their own. It's not evidence that they aren't able to, it's just "contaminated" evidence. You can't introduce an outside factor and then attribute the outcome to the original system. 

 

Agreed, but that's why in the post I kept using the word "contain", not "solve". Also, the same can be said of the problem at hand: you can't introduce an outside problem in the mix (Blight, war) and then say the system is bound to fail in normal situations.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

On the mages vs abomination issue, mages can learn spells similar and possibly more powerful than templar anti-magic skills without needing the lyrium addiction, so that's a pretty good argument for them as a force against other mages. The argument against is obviously that they can become abominations themselves, so taking them into places with thin veils or where you expect a lot of demons summoned is going to come with added risk of chained abominations. It's a pretty big give and take. Templars seem to get possessed or compelled fairly often, as well, though, so that might be a bit of a balancing factor.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

Agreed, but that's why in the post I kept using the word "contain", not "solve". Also, the same can be said of the problem at hand: you can't introduce an outside problem in the mix (Blight, war) and then say the system is bound to fail in normal situations.

Well, I'm just saying it's not effective evidence for or against the circle.

[Cyberbobmkii]

I don't know... Veil tears make it far easier for demons and such to actually get a foothold outside. I think blood magic might spike along with red templars, but abominations seem very unlikely.

Possession will most likely increase.  Even demons who cross through the veil seek things to possess, otherwise we wouldn't have undead, werewolfs and sylvan.

[Tevinter Soldier]

You forget that the system was suffering a very hard crisis because of reasons outside its context. There was a Blight and a civil war in Ferelden. The Templars were waiting for reinforcements, but not with much hope of getting them, so they could only contain the situation and wait. Heck, even the Lothering Templars, having heard of the situation, couldn't help. Had Ferelden been in a better shape, Templar troops would have converged to the Circle.

 

What happened in Ferelden is proof that, even in the worst situations, the danger of abominations to the general public can be contained. The danger of abominations to the mages themselves, however, is another different matter.

 

 

That's too much of an assumption, don't you think so? Mages can be good at destroying things in general, but the best anti-mage troop is still a templar. So who knows what is the best troop to kill an abomination (ok, snowflake video game protagonists and their merry band of misfits, but I'm sure they can't be mass-produced).

 

not an assumption, there immune to traps highly resistant to physical damage and they explode on their death.

templars fight up close and personal and with swords. killing an abomination will cause harm to the templar.

 

a mage can take out an abomination with a single spell at range, quicker then 3-4 archers attempting to fell it.

 

in fact as far as i can tell theres only two abominations that are resistant to mana clash and that's clearly a game mechanic rather then a lore issue. they are mana based but focus on combat.

 

a templar is no more effective then any other warrior, where as a mage with mana clash? = dead abomination pretty much instantly.

[Tevinter Soldier]

Possession will most likely increase.  Even demons who cross through the veil seek things to possess, otherwise we wouldn't have undead, werewolfs and sylvan.

 

its been shown its extremely hard to posses a full blown mage by force, not so other groups. the point of the harrowing is to harden the mage specifically against being taken over. people forget most abominations occur by choice OR if the mage is attacked whilst in the fade.

 

if the demon crosses through the veil its much more likely to posses things that have no clue how to resist it rather then a mage.

the mages weakness to demons is purely there interactions with in the fade ATTRACTING demons. when awake a mage is no more at risk then anyone else.

[Dean_the_Young]

As the warden you're able to stop a whole blight inside of a year, so I wouldn't be entirely surprised if you could contain an abomination without much issue in a variety of situations. That would depend on a huge amount of variables.

 

The most important of which would be 'local forces in proximity prepared to initiate initial containment in a timely fashion' and 'environment is supportive of containment.'
 

 

The point is just a bit silly regardless. The chances of another scenario actually receiving this specific brand of help is almost none, so the idea that the circle is proven effective on the basis that they can hold out a very little longer in hopes of a neigh impossible miracle is a huge stretch in comparison to resources spent. We haven't seen evidence that the circle could contain the abomination. They lost ground quickly and lost a large amount of templars before retreat. The only proof we really have is that the warden is able to contain a high level abomination, but that's not much of a surprise. If we could station a clone of the warden in every town, I'm sure we'd basically avoid every threat to man from here on out, but it's clearly not an option.

 

 

 

...wow.

 

There's really no point in discussing anything with you if you're going ignore the game itself. A period of potentially several months is not 'a very little longer.' A period of potentially several months in which numerous abominations do not escape is a demonstration of containment. Well established lore, both via codex and from parts of DA2 and a long history of the Templars of an institution, showing the Templars successfully overcoming abominations is evidence that that they can do just that.

 

This is without the fanciful additions of your own that seem to sprinkle in so frequently- the necessity or expectation of a 'nigh impossible miracle' here, or inventing catastrophic Tevinter attrition rates without data or historical parallel, or your argument that an absence of mention of abominations in Tevinter in a very short letter (that did not mention many things about Tevinter) could constitute evidence that the issue did not exist.

 

I mean, there's personal interpretation in a context of a lack of information while arguing from what is known and then there's inventing conditions and ignoring established ones to justify your conclusions. That Uldred's rebellion and abomination was contained to a tower for a significant period of time before the Warden arrived is simply a fact of the lore: if someone brings up that containment as a point in and of itself, there's nothing biased about those facts. The point is the fact itself- other facts that don't challenge or add to the point do not change it.  (IE, how Circle crisis is resolved doesn't change how the Circle system shapes the crisis upto the point of its resolution.)

 

How can anyone expect to address a rational that only selectively acknowledges the canon or the argument being made?

 

Well, whatever.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying it's proof the circle isn't effective, though. It's just not proof of anything, except that the warden is effective. It's another case of trying to stretch shaky evidence to fit a personal bias. Anyone can do that when arguing in a certain light and it seems, here, most people do. 

 

 

Pro-tip: the events of the story are the least shaky evidence of the franchise. You can argue about the interpretation, and context, but not the events themselves.

[Nocte ad Mortem]

The most important of which would be 'local forces in proximity prepared to initiate initial containment in a timely fashion' and 'environment is supportive of containment.'
 

...wow.

 

There's really no point in discussing anything with you if you're going ignore the game itself. A period of potentially several months is not 'a very little longer.' A period of potentially several months in which numerous abominations do not escape is a demonstration of containment. Well established lore, both via codex and from parts of DA2 and a long history of the Templars of an institution, showing the Templars successfully overcoming abominations is evidence that that they can do just that.

 

This is without the fanciful additions of your own that seem to sprinkle in so frequently- the necessity or expectation of a 'nigh impossible miracle' here, or inventing catastrophic Tevinter attrition rates without data or historical parallel, or your argument that an absence of mention of abominations in Tevinter in a very short letter (that did not mention many things about Tevinter) could constitute evidence that the issue did not exist.

 

I mean, there's personal interpretation in a context of a lack of information while arguing from what is known and then there's inventing conditions and ignoring established ones to justify your conclusions. That Uldred's rebellion and abomination was contained to a tower for a significant period of time before the Warden arrived is simply a fact of the lore: if someone brings up that containment as a point in and of itself, there's nothing biased about those facts. The point is the fact itself- other facts that don't challenge or add to the point do not change it.  (IE, how Circle crisis is resolved doesn't change how the Circle system shapes the crisis upto the point of its resolution.)

 

How can anyone expect to address a rational that only selectively acknowledges the canon or the argument being made?

 

Well, whatever.

 

Pro-tip: the events of the story are the least shaky evidence of the franchise. You can argue about the interpretation, and context, but not the events themselves.

I'm assuming from the fact that they hadn't had time between the collapse of the circle and the request for annulment that it's not been "several months" that they've been containing this outbreak. I'm also assuming because there have been living people locked up inside on their own that they likely would have died, at least from thirst from being pinned down, if they'd been in there for "several months". Of course, again, I'm assuming.

 

But my point remains basically the same. I don't believe it's an example of effectiveness when the resolution was out of their hands. At this point we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because the point is circular. 

[Mistic]

not an assumption, there immune to traps highly resistant to physical damage and they explode on their death.

templars fight up close and personal and with swords. killing an abomination will cause harm to the templar.

 

a mage can take out an abomination with a single spell at range, quicker then 3-4 archers attempting to fell it.

 

in fact as far as i can tell theres only two abominations that are resistant to mana clash and that's clearly a game mechanic rather then a lore issue. they are mana based but focus on combat.

 

a templar is no more effective then any other warrior, where as a mage with mana clash? = dead abomination pretty much instantly.

 

You do remember that there are Templar archers, don't you? And that not every mage learns mana clash.

[Lillian]

Possession will most likely increase.  Even demons who cross through the veil seek things to possess, otherwise we wouldn't have undead, werewolfs and sylvan.

...But I never see a Shade possess anything, and they can cross over just fine. o.O

[Nocte ad Mortem]

...But I never see a Shade possess anything, and they can cross over just fine. o.O

I think it's just a game mechanic issue. The lore is that demons seek out living things. 

[Lillian]

I think it's just a game mechanic issue. The lore is that demons seek out living things. 

...To get a foothold in the real world. And besides, shades are the only demons to be able to really wade through the Veil, I think...

[Lotion Soronarr]

not an assumption, there immune to traps highly resistant to physical damage and they explode on their death.

templars fight up close and personal and with swords. killing an abomination will cause harm to the templar.

 

a mage can take out an abomination with a single spell at range, quicker then 3-4 archers attempting to fell it.

 

in fact as far as i can tell theres only two abominations that are resistant to mana clash and that's clearly a game mechanic rather then a lore issue. they are mana based but focus on combat.

 

a templar is no more effective then any other warrior, where as a mage with mana clash? = dead abomination pretty much instantly.

 

Are really trying to bring in gameplay to a lore discussion?

Lore-wise, abominations know more about magic than any mage can ever hope to know. Abominations use magic frequently. Templars have resistance to magic.

 

Also, the only abomination type that explodes is a rage abomination. And even that is gameplay, give that there is no lore confirmation of it IIRC.