1407 réponses à ce sujet

[Mister Gusty]

 

You can do this without marriage. Lots of people do this. Marriage is granted by government and is used to transfer property to the spouse and children.

 

I'm not for or against marriage, but in the context of the world the only reason I can think of for mages to get married is that, as mages aren't legally allowed to hold titles or property etc. so the only reason they would marry is for love, for the common people and nobility sure marriage has those advantages.

 

That is probably why you see so few married mages.

[Cobra's_back]

Yes, you are supposed to trust whoever you're marrying. Why is this a refutation of my point that marriage can be a cool thing, symbolic or not?

 

My point was that marriage is a government issue to transfer property and to provide for children. Both of these things are prohibited in the mage world. Therefore, I see the stated that "mage can get married" as just plain Lip Service from the Chantry.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Most people are getting married because their are benefits for their spouse and children. If you told them they were not allowed to have kids or transfer property, I don't think they would be happy.

No, but there's people for whom the marriage will provide some happiness and I can't think why not to indulge them. I can't right off the top of my head think what this might cost the Circle, apart from maybe a slightly larger food budget for a day if the FE and the KC decide to let the mages have some fun with this.

[TheKomandorShepard]

Lol.

 

It's okay to murder children as long as they're over six?

 

"The Chantry takes children away from mage parents for their own protection! Until the children turn out to be mages too, then they can get fucked for all we care."

 

If it is nuke sure why not i don't see any contraindications besides what is difference beetwen killing child and adult?  

[Cobra's_back]

 

 

 

I'm not for or against marriage, but in the context of the world the only reason I can think of for mages to get married is that, as mages aren't legally allowed to hold titles or property etc. so the only reason they would marry is for love, for the common people and nobility sure marriage has those advantages.

 

That is probably why you see so few married mages.

 

 

I agree with you and found the reason for my confusion. Thank you again for taking the time.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

My point was that marriage is a government issue to transfer property and to provide for children. Both of these things are prohibited in the mage world. Therefore, I see the stated that "mage can get married" as just plain Lip Service from the Chantry.

Yes, arguably. But why not provide it anyway, just for the sake of providing some normalcy for the mages? God knows they lack any other sense of it.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Lol.

 

It's okay to murder children as long as they're over six?

 

"The Chantry takes children away from mage parents for their own protection! Until the children turn out to be mages too, then they can get fucked for all we care."

What would you prefer, letting the kid mages run around Thedas free without being educated about the dangers and use of magic until they are adults? We've seen how well that can work out in Redcliffe.

 

The Templars don't like doing the RoA. It is a last, worst-case scenario. In the almost millennium of existence, the RoA has been done 19-20 times. That's a little more than one per Circle in the entire existence of the system. 

[Cobra's_back]

No, but there's people for whom the marriage will provide some happiness and I can't think why not to indulge them. I can't right off the top of my head think what this might cost the Circle, apart from maybe a slightly larger food budget for a day if the FE and the KC decide to let the mages have some fun with this.

 

I'm all for marriage and have two kids don't get me wrong. I just technically have a problem with what they Chantry claims is a mage marriage. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I'm all for marriage and have two kids don't get me wrong. I just technically have a problem with what they Chantry claims is a mage marriage. 

And I suppose I can see why, but there's no real point to outlawing it or refusing to perform them. And the mages might get a kick out of it, especially though not only the mages actually getting married.

[Cobra's_back]

Yes, arguably. But why not provide it anyway, just for the sake of providing some normalcy for the mages? God knows they lack any other sense of it.

 

Wouldn't work for me. Why would it work for others don't know? I get your point if this pleases a % of mages that is okay with me. I guess I would be more incline to do what Hawk's dad did.

[Cobra's_back]

And I suppose I can see why, but there's no real point to outlawing it or refusing to perform them. And the mages might get a kick out of it, especially though not only the mages actually getting married.

 

I agree with you. There is no real point to outlawing it because they changed the rules for the mages. The mages do not have the same marriage benefits as non-mages. 

[Mockingword]

What would you prefer, letting the kid mages run around Thedas free without being educated about the dangers and use of magic until they are adults? We've seen how well that can work out in Redcliffe.

 

The Templars don't like doing the RoA. It is a last, worst-case scenario. In the almost millennium of existence, the RoA has been done 19-20 times. That's a little more than one per Circle in the entire existence of the system. 

I don't really care what you do, but don't tell me the Circle is "unsafe for children" while you're shoving children in there.

 

Mage children are not less vulnerable to the dangers of the Circle than regular children. If the circle is dangerous for children, it's dangerous for all children.

[KainD]

I don't really care what you do, but don't tell me the Circle is "unsafe for children" while you're shoving children in there.

 

Mage children are not less vulnerable to the dangers of the Circle than regular children. If the circle is dangerous for children, it's dangerous for all children.

 

So the less there are in the circle the better right? 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I don't really care what you do, but don't tell me the Circle is "unsafe for children" while you're shoving children in there.

 

Mage children are not less vulnerable to the dangers of the Circle than regular children. If the circle is dangerous for children, it's dangerous for all children.

Infants and toddlers cannot care for themselves though. Meanwhile children the age of 8 and above while still needing supervision are much more self-sufficient. So in the event of say, an abomination, a child of 8 can run and hide while an infant or toddler is surely doomed. 

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

I don't really care what you do, but don't tell me the Circle is "unsafe for children" while you're shoving children in there.

 

Mage children are not less vulnerable to the dangers of the Circle than regular children. If the circle is dangerous for children, it's dangerous for all children.

And where else are we going to put the children who have magic?

[KainD]

And where else are we going to put the children who have magic?

 

In a basket and in the river.

[Cobra's_back]

WOW. So many replies in such a short time.

 

I am not familiar with specific details about how the Chantry regulates mages in DA. I guess the real question here is: Whether the Constitution (obviously there is no Constitution in Thedas, so I'll just say "commonsense justice" then) permits the government (the Chantry) to detain thedosians (those who are capable of performing arcane talents) indefinitely in Circle of Magi on the grounds that national security is at stake?

 

I just wanted to say this mage-templar conflict is one of the most classic debates over liberty v. security theme and I am just intrigued by the fact that BioWare successfully implemented this module into the worlds of Thedas. That's all.

 

Everyone has their own opinion and no one is absolutely right or wrong. Right?

 

 

Sorry If I offended just exploring ideas. Good point about the fifth race concept.

[Hellion Rex]

In a basket and in the river.

Was that a Moses reference?

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

In a basket and in the river.

And then they don't grow up to become Wardens, perform the Joining, blast Qunari clear to hell, or heal important nobles. Seriously everybody, if this was a good idea Thedas would already be doing it.

[Cobra's_back]

And where else are we going to put the children who have magic?

 

Give them to their parents and change the Circle to a segregated community. Templars still watch over them.

[Riverdaleswhiteflash]

Was that a Moses reference?

No, I'm pretty sure it was a snarky reference to infanticide.

[TheKomandorShepard]

And then they don't grow up to become Wardens, perform the Joining, blast Qunari clear to hell, or heal important nobles. Seriously everybody, if this was a good idea Thedas would already be doing it.

And then they don't create another blights-like disasters ,won't destroy communities or weaken them badly which will be better for thedas not mention technology progress not mention that death is natural process and humans survived without magic. So basically you creating more disasters for help in disaster they created so instead 1 you are dealing with hundreds disasters, trade progress and stability of Thedas for few walking bombs that can't even win battle and risk end of the world.Also you sacrifice thousands (at best) that are killed by disasters casued by mages for few peoples healed by mages.

 

Gain<<<<loss

 

[Inprea]

The Chantry raises all the children produced by mages, so they still have access to anything they would if in the Circle minus their parents.

 

And Thedas doesn't know much about anatomy due to the study being illegal since people think it will be used by blood mages, so I doubt they know the benefits that we do now. 

 

Not every chantry is right next door to a circle tower. Given how isolated some circle towers are and how spread out the chantry's can be do you believe they'd summon a healer each time the child became ill? If the child was in the circle tower a healer could be literally within ear shot or already holding the child if the mother or father is a healer. It could take days for the message that the child is sick to reach the tower and by then he or she could already be dead.

 

Would they even call for a healer? We're talking about a culture that fears magic and the chantry encourages that fear. Why summon the mother or father to heal the child when there is someone in town claiming that they just need to drain the "bad" blood out with leeches. There is also the cost to consider after all. The parents or a friend of the parents would likely be willing to heal the child for free. A mage being summoned to leave the tower to go heal a child of unknown origins. What's the going rate for that?

 

If they know the benefits are not isn't the point. The point was that by separating the child from its mother they're depriving the child of the benefits and increases it's likelihood of death or developing improperly. That they don't know about such benefits only makes it even more likely that they'll harm the child.

[Inprea]

Most societies back then were terrible to orphans. Many orphans were abused.

Indeed. Of course I'm sure some are going to claim that abominations present a danger to the children in the circle ignoring how rare they are. What's far more common apparently is bandits and slavers. Plus if you're really unlucky darkspawn. An abomination is a huge very rare threat though. The others are far more common and just as capable of killing a child.

[Xetykins]

I have no problems with children going to the circle as soon as magic manifests. I think it is the right thing to do for the safety of those kids and those around them. Until ofcourse they passed their harrowing ( but I think there has to be a better way than harrowing)

What I have problems with is taking them to the circle and parents not given any access to them. There is just no happy medium and that is why I can understand parents would rather hide their kids and screw up in the process.

For those old enough to remember a happy family life it would be even harder. Now I just wonder what kind of sick things the chantry tell those kids why they dont see their family anymore.

And for marriage it is sometimes a business deal. Like my boyfriend telling me "honey now that we got kids , why dont we get married for tax reduction" :-o Needless to say im still single.